Category: EDL News Published on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 23:53 Written by Pyrus Hits: 612Manchester councillors have allegedly got it into their heads that they’re going to send us a bill for the cost of facilitating our Hyde demonstration.
This is the demonstration at which “the vast majority of EDL supporters were well-behaved and compliant with police”, according to Superintendent Neil Evans. And, besides, anyone who’s been following EDL demonstrations in any detail will know by now that if there is any trouble it most likely caused by Muslim youths, or the clueless UAF (this lot).
So it’ll be interesting to see how the council divide up their bill between the three groups.
We could of course claim that it was the inaction of councils like theirs that made demonstrations like the one in Hyde necessary. But rather than accept that people have a right to be angry and to demonstrate, they’d rather no doubt have a convenient scapegoat, like the EDL, to blame for the problems in Manchester (which seems ironic given that this is exactly what we’re accused of doing to Muslims).
Of course, it’s not all about the money. If it were, then perhaps we could have expected the student unions that smashed their way through London to have given a little cash back to compensate for their actions. Perhaps in the wake of the riots that also shamed Britain, we could also have expected long lines of guilty-looking teenagers signing up to pay their dues for the trainers they went and pinched the night before.
If no one was made to ‘pay’ for these illegal actions, it seems quite ridiculous for this band of councillors to suggest that we should have to pay to exercise our democratic right to peacefully protest.
They know where they can stick their bill.
The EDL demonstration in Hyde was provoked by the attack on 17 year-old Daniel Stringer-Prince, who was subjected to an unprovoked attack by what the press described as a group of ‘Asian’ men. As we said at the time, for us, “It’s not about race; it’s about targeting the real causes of intolerance and hatred.”
Race isn’t relevant until the government and the media make it relevant by treating people differently.
We believe that rather than seeing this case as a racial crime, the police should consider whether religion had a role to play. Islamic extremism is barely out of the news, and neither is the self-imposed segregation of the Muslim community, or the intolerance and religious supremacism that, unfortunately, so often goes with it.
In this context, isn’t it reasonable to ask whether Daniel was likely to have been attacked not because of his skin colour, but because he was non-Muslim? Why is it that so many people seem terrified to ask this perfectly reasonable question?
Until this discussion can be had – until the media and the government listen to people’s concerns – then we have no choice but to continue to demonstrate.
That was why it was particularly disappointing to hear that Daniel’s family had asked that we cancel the demonstration. We should once again make clear that the family had no involvement in our decision to demonstrate in Hyde, and we hope the family can understand our decision to continue.
There were rumours that their request was motivated by their having received threats from people hostile to the EDL. We have not been able to ascertain whether or not this was true but, either way, we cannot be held hostage by cowardly tactics like these. We would not only be letting down Daniel, but we’d be letting down anyone who believes that further appeasement will only lead to greater divisions and the greater risk of more senseless attacks.
In his speech at the demonstration, EDL Leader Tommy Robinson talks about the attack on Daniel and the extremism that can lead to these kinds of crimes.
Of course, it’s not only Muslims who are responsible for hateful crimes – no one’s claiming that (well, we're not) – but there’s a conspiracy of silence about Islam-inspired crimes. That’s why it’s important to speak out, before frustrations overspill and we get scenes like there were in Rochdale.
Frustrations also lead to decent people voting for parties like the BNP, and Tommy makes clear that although we understand some of these frustrations, we don’t support racial politics.
Tony Curtis challenges the media to stop referring to problems with ‘Asian gangs’ and start telling the truth: it’s not Asian gangs, it’s Muslim gangs. When was the last time you heard of a Sikh or a Chinese gang terrorising a neighbourhood?
Kevin Carroll also talks about the attack on Daniel Stringer-Prince, and contrasts the EDL’s peaceful demonstration with the typical reaction from the Muslim community to any criticism or attack. He also questions why the government deal with crimes committed by and against different communities so differently. Why the double-standard?
We are tolerant – we accept all races and religions – but where there are problems we cannot just stick our heads in the sand and prevent they don’t exist. That’s not tolerance, that’s surrender. But the government continues to pander to the Muslim community – it fails to clamp down on hate preachers and other extremists, whilst at the same time lecturing us on tolerance.
Tony Curtis then talks about the extent of the problem with Muslim gangs, and introduces local lad Jamie.
The attack on Daniel Stringer-Price has attracted headlines, but there are countless similar cases that the media so often ignore. Jamie compares the cases of Stephen Lawrence and Charlene Downes, and asks why the police appear to have done so little for Charlene.
‘Community cohesion’ should mean protecting all of our communities from extremism, violence and racism – not allowing the perpetrators to go unchallenged.
Lastly, Linzi Massey talks about more problems in Hyde and questions why many Muslim youths believe they can get away with being hostile to anyone they view as an outsider. She asks, could it be that a continued culture of political appeasement has given them this confidence?
In a free and democratic country, the law should apply equally to all – irrespective of belief, background, or skin colour. Is this the case? Linzi mentions the case of Rhea Page, and contrasts how the police treated the (attempted) burning of an Argentinian flag and the (successful) burning of a poppy.
We need to be confident that there is no two tier system. Over to you politicians.