The Cause: In the second attempt at an invitation to the House of Lords, Geert Wilders was finally allowed to show his film “Fitna” and explain his viewpoint. He was unable to appear at the first invitation because of an illegal arrest and deportation by the British government. That time, Geert Wilders again had to defend his right as a citizen of the European Union to travel in Europe and Great Britain.

(Text und Photos: Nockerl – also known as “Fritz” / Munich PI Action Group for German PI. Translation: Anders Denken)

Now, British society saw itself put in the place of, or much more, being forced also into discussing with the European politician that has the most offensive and clearest view of Islam about the film and Islam’s violence-practicing totalitarianism as shown by it. The most visible sign of this discussion was a demonstration supporting Geert Wilders and an counter-protest initiative aimed precisely at this demonstration in front of the House of Lords on March 5th. (Note: Those interested exclusively in the demonstration’s course of events can read beginning with “The Counter-Demonstration”)

This counterinitiative apparently views a connection between the EDL and BNP. The latter was required only a short while ago under the guise of equal rights in Great Britain to accept non-white members. The first member to be accepted by this forced opening is a Sikh and a long-time supporter of the BNP. The EDL, in contrast, has ever been open to anyone and has members of every imaginable origin. It is naturally the endeavor of the Left and also the MSM to demonstrate or prove this connection. For some reason, this is practically their only way of having a discussion with the EDL. Behind this, possibly, is having to deal with Islam criticism where there is no desire of devoting time to presenting a clear opinion. Otherwise, one or another surprise might be just too much for the pure heart of the multi-culti followers.

The EDL

For starters, the appearance of the EDL makes it easy for their opponents to assert this connection as as granted. In the way thye came across, the demonstrators had a battling sound about them, whereby several members, masks notwithstanding, wore short hair (in some cases were bald). The critics intentionally overlooked the fact that the masks of some seemed to be a reasonable idea, especially when one pits themselves against an ideology bent on killing its critics.

The not so few colorful members present their opponents a problem that the opponents themselves trying to fight because they describe them as “Uncle Tom,” as was the case of the EDL speaker, who himself is a Sikh. A classification of individuals that attests to breathtaking racism. Using such classifications of individuals as a weapon against the alleged racism of the EDL can be explained by the fact that the Left has declared itself fundamentally free of racism; ultimately only “the others” are ever considered racist by these means.

The EDL has its roots in the football (soccer) fan scene. In the British — as in nearly any other — European football scene, there reigns a strong fundamental attitude that is patriotically shaped. Passion and enthusiasm have almost a battle-like effect here. English media studies — up until the recent past — show that whoever is upfield in a German-English football match clearly knows what patriotic groundswell the football on the mound belongs to. One can gather the impression that, up to the game or at the latest when England once again loses against the “Krauts,” the pilots of the bomber Harris are headed for Hamburg, while in the other direction, the Luftwaffe is preparing to lay Covent Garden again in scraps and ashes. But ultimately all of this is just coarse entertainment arising of the pride of having overcome “the bloody Germans” in the war against fascism.

This fundamental patriotic attitude was especially called out in Luton football fans when, in March 2009, the soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiments returned home to Luton out of Iraq and were given a “reception” by Muslim demonstrators. On occasion of the parade, Luton Muslims showed their hostility (PI reported).

As a result, Luton football fans made connections with fans of other football clubs. They wanted to work together against this unpatriotic conduct and hostility against their country. These untoward actions had been undertaken by a greater number of Muslims whose parents, or they themselves, had fled the conditions (understandably!!) in Muslim countries. Hadn’t the Muslims shown how much they rejected their society, and therewith themselves? That was the cause for the emergence of the EDL, which in nature is essentially indistinguishable of that in the football stands. Whoever stands against this has to explain whether he considers the battle of opinion as permissible only in the framework of aesthetic debate. Let it be mentioned only in the margin that among the Left — at least in Germany — are those who lay whole blocks in Berlin and Hamburg in scraps and ashes all year long, and this conduct doesn’t get nearly so much critical attention. The connection isn’t even made between the oppressive system of Communism and the mass murders committed by this movement.

Much room in the debate with the EDL is taken up by the conduct of certain members. So, there is also much arguing about whether some use the Hitler salute. There is also an overzealous quest to link some members with the BNP. The impression remains that this is pursued above all else in order to press for a truly substantial debate about Islam’s totalitarian ideology of violence that the EDL criticizes. Ultimately there is no need of devoting energy to arguments about alleged Nazis, since the arguments, besides functioning as a muzzle, also sensibly and practically serve as Nazi billyclubs. “Nazi scum off the street” is always easier to master intellectually than grappling with the issues and obvious consequences of Islam.

However it is also correct that the behavior of some individuals can be an indication for the spirit of a whole group. Why this should apply only to such movements as the EDL and not for Islam may well remain the eternal secret of the Islam apologists, considering that since September 11, 2001, 14,944 fatal attacks (as of March 7, 2010) and countless attempts can be traced back to their fundamental teachings. Even oppression of women, stonings, cutting off of hands, kidnapping an drape of non-Muslim women, as well as forced conversion, murder of so-called apostates, and much more, apparently allow no conclusions to be drawn about the issues of Islam, or the spirit that rules this religion.

The Counterprotest and Its Backgrounds

A few hundred Islam apologists had assembled and marched under the sign “unite against fascism” in order to shout “Nazi scum off the street” against the EDL — of course, this is a much more elegant way than the cultured style of discourse by the EDL. The campaign material for this group is also sponsored by the teachers’ union among others. This organization also works together with the Muslim Council of Britain. In addition, many representatives in Parliament belong to the supporters of the UAF.

The right of demonstration is generally understood to serve as a means for citizens to exercise criticism on the various state institutions. Apparently these representatives don’t sense it as a contradiction to support an organization that pits itself against such protest. The desire having the support of the representatives of shutting down the protest of citizens practicing their legal right to criticize Parliament and its respective representatives regarding their actions related to Islam attests to a remarkable understanding of democracy.

It isn’t surprising that the campaign material in the battle against an undesired opinion looks considerably more professionally produced than the material of the representatives of this very opinion, when one considers their large and financially strong circle of supporters. If the sponsors perhaps want to spring for another warm meal or one or another keg of beer, let them find more than the roughly 200 ingrates who are ready to carry other nicely crafted “protest” signs through London’s streets. Here is a possible opening to a marketing branch that could be signed under the Internet website rent-yourself-a-demonstration.uk. It could be subsidized with the right reintegration programs supported by the British Labor Ministry when legislators, executives or judiciaries would like to have an undesired opinion thundered down. There should be enough to do in the coming years among the policies of the various European governments and in the EU itself. Mr. Putin will most certainly stand alongside in word and deed; he finally had the so-called Kremlin-Youth Nashi set up as a Russian acclamation organization. Labour especially should stand by the older persuasion that they can learn much of Moscow.

The Counter-Demonstration

However, on occasion of the Fitna film showing, the democratic walk-ons supported by parts of the Parliament had to demonstrate their sincere anger, without the aid of food and drink, before the cameras of the BBC. The power fighters, with permission by and upon the wish of various parliamentarians, indicated that Fitna was anti-Muslim and racist. Unfortunately, in the framework of these statements, it couldn’t be pointed out as to which race the Islam ideology actually belonged. Otherwise, given such opportunities, there is the push at least to the assertion that any agitation against a group of people (also on the basis of their religion – or here: ideology) is racism. But this begs the following question: whether agitation against infidels, Dhimmis and Harbis don’t also fall under this completely arbitrary “definition”, and if so, then it is being answered by surprising aggression and not, for the most part, with proper silence. However, the answer to this complex issue was possibly not spelled out in the sponsor’s contract or in inserted into the exceptions for authorization by the legislators. Perhaps the question had been covered while the union’s scheduled furlough was at hand.

As an official reason, a sponsoree declared that she did not recognize the agenda (!) of the questioner. Unfortunately, the answer that a “good” argument should be able to persuade others without the use of the opponent’s “agenda” couldn’t move her to give any further answer. Fortunately, the MSM had a lot better luck with their conversational partners. But alas, these conversations – as far as they could be followed – resulted in no answer for the above-mentioned question as well.

The counter-demonstration then moved to the marching route according to contract plan. This had been planned for the same stretch as that of the EDL’s demonstration, only it was earlier and headed in the opposite direction (perhaps more than just a metaphor). Their march halted on this route, though, and those who were tired out by the lack of State-provided food supply sat down on the road. The malicious-minded police however took over for the weak, so as to block the EDL protest parade. The mob, supported by third parties and representatives, that was wishing to limit others civil rights on the basis of an assumed motive for whatever reason, was helped by the police away the place. In doing this, the offer of a free automobile ride was was taken advantage of by many who were fatigued. Finally the police were able to help the tired demonstrators to the feet so that the road could be freed up for a self-financed demonstration march by the EDL.

The EDL Demonstration

The Demonstration was to begin at one o’clock in front of Tate Britain. Just a short while before, this place had been crowded exclusively by police and media with whom some of the demonstrators were chatting. Most of them came in a large group. Only after they had chanted diverse slogans (“Muslim bombers off the street!!”) for a while, and held banners, flags and signs in front of the camera, this group then entered a nearby pub for a (self-financed) drink.

About two o’clock the demonstrators returned invigorated and ready to chant again, whereby mostly “E-E-EDL” was repeated. The invitation went out of the speeches to everyone, including Muslims, to join in the battle for the defense of Western values. A moment of silence was then invoked. It was for the British victims of the last two weeks in the Afghanistan campaign and two Sikhs who were beheaded in Pakistan the week before for their refusal to convert to Islam.

During the second speech, an incident arose in which the speaker (photo left) let himself get carried away by somebody shouting to call the counter-demonstrators jerk-offs. That led to immediate intervention by the police who pulled the microphone away of the speaker, which in turn led to cries of protest and unrest. The first speaker grabbed the microphone, took up speaking, and calmed the situation down rather quickly. The second speaker was visually embarrassed and constantly excused himself before all present. He begged pardon for allowing this mistake to happen and letting himself get caught up in the incident.

After that, the EDL broke out in the march. This was accompanied only here and there by a few small skirmishes and engaged calls of counter-demonstrators (“Nazi scum off the street!). The counter-demonstrators had positioned themselves in small groups or as individuals along the marching route. The greater part of the unarrested counter-demonstrators stood before the Parliament building, which also happened to be the tentative ending point for the EDL demonstration march.

When they arrived, the EDL demonstrators were “greeted” with loud “nazi” and “fascists” calls. One of the EDL members called out: “Yeah, I’m a fascist!” A “journalist” who eagerly scribbled something down in her notebook turned around to the author of these lines and expressed: “Did you hear that, he said he was a fascist!”

Her question was answered that the impression could have been given that he was speaking sarcastically. Of course, she didn’t want to accept that and expressed in a very condescending tone: “Sarcastic? They’re all nuts.”

One of the EDL demonstrators put his arm around the shoulders of a dark-skinned co-demonstrator and called out that one can see just how fascist they are. That led to furious protest calls to some extent, and at the end any semblance of reason was loudly canceled.

Now here’s the place where the the counter-demonstrator’s (left) state of mind should be dealt with. He is so eagerly and openly enthusiastic about waving a red flag with hammer and sickle. For lack of questioning, the assumption truly has to persist that he is celebrating the murder of 60 million people by the communist regime in Europe. However, it might also be that he was a late-comer to the Maoist campaign against the sparrows, in which the birds were scared off by the waving of cloths for so long that they were forced to fly until they finally fell out of the sky dead. In opposition to the socialist plan’s expectations, the insects that were now not being consumed by the sparrows in increasing destroyed the already bad crop situation caused by the managed economy. Whatever it might have been, our young friend pointed out in any case that one may feel morally superior when invoking the cause of mass murderers — at least if they had the fundamental convictions of the Left or, as a substitute, could base the mass murder on God’s command. In this view, the freedom of opinion is also unaffected (which is also correct!).

The female portion among the Islam apologists was astonishingly large, which however could also have had to do with the auto transfers that previously took place. The EDL called out to the female apologists who were present that they might want to prepare themselves for wearing the burka. In one instance, an EDL demonstrator told one of them that the burka would certainly not be a bad idea in her case.

Such conversations kept things busy for a while while press representatives were still conducting interviews with one or another. A few individual journalists were fair and appeared to be truly interested in listening to the opinions of the EDL people. For others, it appeared that they would rather spread their own opinions with their own premises interspersed throughout the questioning, and verbalize their own viewpoint among the interviewees. There was also an “interview” style that seemed to be more like an accusation or, as the case may be, a trial.

Apart of two little incidents, there were no more special events to report. Both times, one of the EDL members got over the barrier and attempted to go to the opposing side. This was prevented each time, and the second one led to an arrest. Soon after that, the EDL demonstration was accompanied to the next subway station (Westminster) and to the trains there, and with that the demonstration came to an end.

Conclusion

The EDL demonstration has a functions differently than other demonstrations. Especially in comparison to the one of the followers of Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (for example, on the occasion of the trial’s beginning in Amsterdam), it has a rougher0 effect and is also a touch aggressive. But the freedom of expression is not limited by any certain institutional rules. And if one takes into fair consideration that there are football fans expressing their political opinion here, and doing so by use of the normal conduct befitting the game, then one wouldn’t make a bad conclusion about their unusual way of protesting. The author of these lines gathered in the demonstrators he observed, spoke with and listened to, that they are doing this for their land, nation, home, and for their and others’ freedom. Admittedly, previous demonstrations of the EDL may have been a little more undisciplined. If the EDL would like to be taken more seriously about the content of their opinions, a little discipline wouldn’t hurt. But how the heck could I possibly know, how to walk through London’s streets like anyone else? I’m just a damned Kraut!

» Videos and further photos of the counter-demonstration in London

The Cause: In the second attempt at an invitation to the House of Lords, Geert Wilders was finally allowed to show his film \"Fitna\" and explain his viewpoint. He was unable to appear at the first invitation because of an illegal arrest and deportation by the British government. That time, Geert Wilders again had ...

Guest, 11. Mar 2010 |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | post a comment    
Kategorie: Courage, Events, Fight against the Right™, Freedom of speech, Islamisation of Europe, Left-wing, UK;

 Loading ...

look up...