Richard Bartholomew reviews my post on Charlie Flowers EDL connection and concludes that I’ve made an “unsustainable imaginative leap.”
However, I believe Bartholomew has gone too far in the other direction of being too restrained in appraising the photo I posted from Flowers’ Facebook page showing him and several activists from different groups gathered around a St. George’s Cross flag. Bartholomew writes:
The obvious problem here is that just because the EDL uses the St George’s Flag, it hardly follows that anyone who makes use of a St George’s Flag must be an EDL sympathizer.
Who else in the UK is marching in public with the flag except members of the EDL and their supporters?
But Bartholomew’s objection raises a new possibility: It may be that there is now developing a loosely connected alliance of small political groups for whom the flag is a signifier, all of whom declare themselves to be in opposition to Muslim extremism and Shariah law.
For Muslims and Asians though, this is the flag of the mobs that have been engaged in a number of acts of violence and intimidation against their communities, and it would be hard for anyone in the UK who pays attention to this issue not to know that. The people who fly this flag must know that they are tapping into that history of intimidation when they display it in public.
I doubt you will find a UK organization that is sincerely trying to confront extremism among Muslims without impugning the larger Muslim community that is flying the St. George’s Cross at their demonstrations.
So are Flowers and the ‘Cheerleaders’ supporters or members of the EDL, or just in solidarity with its history of intimidation against Muslims? I don’t know, but it may be a distinction without a difference.
Tom Griffin 11:00 am on February 3, 2010 Permalink |
I have to say I agree that demonstrating with the Cross of St George doesn’t necessarily make you a supporter of the EDL.
There are independent reasons for the rise of English nationalism. It is partly a reaction to devolution that predates the War on Terror. Groups like the EDL are trying to ride on the back of that for their own purposes. Any suggestion that the English national flag is intrinsically an Islamophobic symbol can only play into their hands.
Having said that its true that much of the more right-wing sections of the wider English nationalist movement, like the English Democrats, seem to be coming under the influence of ‘counterjihad’ ideology, and the picture you’ve found is quite intriguing in that respect, as is the fact that Flowers is Facebook friends with Alan Lake.
johnpi 11:30 am on February 3, 2010 Permalink |
I agree, it is disturbing that these groups are turning the English national flag into a symbol of their intimidation, and a reason why every well-intentioned person in England should revile the tactics of these groups and publicly repudiate them.
The campaign of alienation should be against those who use violence and intimidation, not against peaceful, law-abiding Muslim Englishmen and women.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 11:55 am on February 3, 2010 Permalink |
Are there those from immigrant backgrounds who claim Englishness? More commonly there is a claim laid to “Britishness” but I haven’t seen the Englishness aspect.
My “Irishness” causes me to have a little antagonism toward both identities, to be honest. (Even though I may have english ancestors, I know that I have some welsh ancestry as well)
johnpi 9:16 pm on February 3, 2010 Permalink |
The affinity/identity politics of England are all new to me, having never set foot in the country, and I’m only familiarizing myself now to better understand the linkage of a group dedicated to intimidation to larger contemporary movements in the UK.
But clearly who claims what is subjective. There is no reason of definition or fact that people of immigrant stock born in England proper couldn’t claim ‘Englishness’ (not that I care one way or another).
For an example of subjectivity, look no further than one of the political parties that came up in my earlier post, the “avowedly racist” England First Party. Surely there is no more ‘English’ an identity movement than the England First Party; however, it was actually founded in 2004 by Mark Cotterill. Mr. Cotterill was born a Protestant in Northern Ireland in 1961, and his first known political behavior was distributing illegal literature for the paramilitary Ulster Defence Association.
(Between the time Cotterill distributed pamphlets for the UDA and formed ‘England First,’ he became a major neo-Nazi figure. He went to America and joined the National Alliance run by William Pierce, who is infamous for having written ‘The Turner Diaries,’ the book that was reported to be the inspiration and blueprint for the Oklahoma city bombing.)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the loyalists of Northern Ireland are by definition and self-identification British – and yet this guy starts the England First Party, which has as one of its political goals rejecting ‘British nationalism’ in favor or ‘English nationalism.’
cbarwa 9:28 am on February 4, 2010 Permalink |
Broadly true, many non-white British people are wary of the English flag for this reason; this was changing over the last 10 years or so, as you would see for the first time British Asians sporting it on their cars etc. everytime England was in a major football tourny. Trust these EDL idiots to set things back and reconfirm people’s fears.
Alex Cachinero-Gorman 12:48 am on February 4, 2010 Permalink |
All really interesting stuff, guys–and just to note before I make my comment, I’m a newcomer to this site and over the past few weeks I have been consistently amazed, surprised, and heartened by the level of discussion here–the thoughtfulness of comments, the sense of reciprocal exploration of issues, and general, all-around intensity of critical reflection is really exciting and an absolutely invaluable find for me.
Now:
I just wanted to say that I have a minor–but it might even turn out to be major–quibble with your use of the word ‘activists’ in the beginning of your post, johnpi. I say this with the recent blog post on Decisive Words (http://midwinterspring.talkislam.info/2010/01/30/defending-resistance-from-the-attacks-of-al-qaeda/) about Al-Qaeda especially in mind. Basically, I think there is a need to separate and distinguish the activities, behavior, words, etc. of groups like EDL and whoever their supporters may be and, say, members of the Palestinian solidarity movement–not out of some sectarian hubris that simply wants to cling to one’s ‘pet cause,’ but out of a real fundamental and qualitative difference between actually fighting and struggling against the status quo to bring about justice (or let’s say, ‘just moments’–let’s not pretend that, utopically/teleologically we can somehow ‘achieve’ that messianic final moment where everything is just and we no longer need to fight any longer) and agitating, provoking, and reinforcing said status quo with all the leverage of (white) privilege, bourgeois chauvinism, and juridical bureacracy behind you. This is not activism. These are not activists. These are ignorant, lazy, and bored racists who think they are fighting for something when they’re fighting for nothing less than their own alienation, in the long run. There is nothing fundamentally *CHALLENGING* about what they are doing, and this is important, I think, for as Hannah Arendt said, evil is never challenging. Evil is never complex–only good is complex, challenging, frustrating, and–dare we say–worthwhile. There is no real ethical confrontation being brought to the forefront in the EDL’s or Richard Bartholomew’s activities; for true political activity, truly just, truly “UNCONDITIONALLY HOSPITABLE” (to use Derrida’s words) struggle for the other, for AN other, would affect one’s entire way of being, of constituting oneself, of behaving, of being-in-the-world, such that it would be impossible to espouse such white supremacist, intellectually bankrupt dribble and still go home to sleep at night. I am convinced these people are terribly confused in their personal/social lives as to why so many things go wrong for them, for they have never given the slightest thought to “BEING ETHICAL” at all–I will bet you a whole pile of imaginary money that they are very bad at negotiating complex ethical questions in their lives, something that I think is less true of those who are truly, deeply, unequivocally, and lovingly, political.
Phew! Thanks for tuning in. Love you guys.
Wyrdtimes 3:50 am on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
The English Defence League “EDL” formerly the English & Welsh Defence League are not an English nationalist organisation. But their own admission they are a British nationalist organisation. This is born out by their use of the Union flag (Union jack) and their singing/chanting of British nationalist songs and slogans.
No English nationalist would wave the butchers apron (Union flag). The flag of England is the Cross of St George.
“Who else in the UK is marching in public with the flag except members of the EDL and their supporters? ”
You are likely to see more Crosses of St George flying this year in England than you have ever done before – this will not signify a massive shift towards the EDL it will be to do with England playing in the World Cup in South Africa.
The Cross of St George is the main symbol of England.
Politically England is waking up to the raw deal that the British Government has inflicted on the people of England. By people of England I mean all those entitled to live in England regardless of race, regardless of religion.
English people get the least per person funding from central government, equating to £1500 less than a Scottish person. Also the English have no recognition or representation. And our England is being split into “regions” without the consent of the people.
The main reason for the rise in English nationalism is the raw deal the English are getting.
Of course immigration is a big issue as it affects England disproportionally with over 2million incomers into England under Labour.
Yes Sharia law is also an issue for many English nationalists – and for me. We don’t sharia courts in England nor do we want Jewish courts, voodoo courts or tooth fairy courts. We don’t want UK law or EU law. In England we want the primacy of English law – one code of laws for all English people. Only that can create a just society.
Muslims wishing to live under Sharia law are welcome to live somewhere else.
“For Muslims and Asians though, this is the flag of the mobs that have been engaged in a number of acts of violence and intimidation against their communities, and it would be hard for anyone in the UK who pays attention to this issue not to know that. The people who fly this flag must know that they are tapping into that history of intimidation when they display it in public.”
This is the flag of everyone who lives in England – whether they like it or not. This flag is non negotiable. It is part of our history and our future.
In theory Muslims of England are as entitled as anyone to fly the Cross of St George.
aziz 9:55 am on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
I value this perspective because it isnt one I have access to via the media or even my British friends, most of whom are not English nationalists but rather tend towards skepticsm of nationalism in general.
But I am not really following your argument here. Exactly what “raw deal” do you refer to? the spending per capita is one figure, but thats something that is structural and exists even here in the US (with red states, either ironically or hypocrtically, taking more largesse from federal coffers and subsidized by the blue ones). You woudl expect regions with less infrastructure or resources to be subsidized from the richer areas, and London metro alone probably skews every analysis you make.
In what other way are English getting a raw deal?
Wyrdtimes 12:25 pm on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
The Barnett Formula is the mechanism for dividing up money between the home nations of the “UK”. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formulahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula
Per person, per year from central government:
* England £7,121
* Scotland £8,623
* Wales £8,139
* Northern Ireland £9,385
England comes bottom of the pile. And yet England makes up approximately 85% of the UK population and is the generator of the UKs wealth.
So English people get the least funding per person – this equates to getting lower services in a wide variety of areas. English students have to pay tuition fees Scots get theirs paid for by the state (Barnett hand-out) this leads to English students (regardless of origin or religion) leaving uni £10,000 more in debt than Scottish students. In England elderly people have to sell their houses in order to pay for care – in Scotland care for the elderly is free paid for by the state (Barnett).
In England prescriptions are £7.20 a go Scotland and NI £3.20 , Wales FREE. There are no road or bridge tolls on Scotland in England there are etc etc these are some of the worst examples but there’s not an area of provision where the Scots get a worse deal than the English.
Then there’s the English “regions” which is the balkanisation into EU shaped regions. No-one has voted for that. It’s been enforced by the UK govt at the will of the EU – no-one here has voted for the EU either – we’ve not been consulted.
England has no parliament. Scotland does. Wales and NI have assemblies – England is broken into regions and denied our voice in the world. You may think that Westminster is the English Parliament – wrong. That’s the UK parliament it contains English MPs but also Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs but due to devolution of 90% of law those MPs can only vote on English issues – often to the detriment of the English people. Besides they swear an oath to the queen and the UK – not to England. All this results in the English being oppressed in their own country.
Hope that helps.
English nationalism is a last ditch to save England from annihilation – it is not an imperial or expansionist ideal -far from it. We just want our own country back.
aziz 12:37 pm on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
Yes, Rx are definitely cheaper in Wales. Unfortunately, you have to live in Wales to benefit.
I guess it’s m American experience but frankly none of what you listed above seems particularly outrageous, given that the residents of England (and London in particular) benefit from increased roads, transit, services, infrastructure, etc. And that tey are also richer and more affluent – this is indeed a “wealth redistribution” but dude, you live in Europe!
Now, the issue of Parliament is a different matter. The Scottish Parliament is able to make laws which apply to Scotland, but cant the UK parliament overrule? It seems like you are describing a state legislature vs Congress kind of power arrangement, which if so, again isnt something I’d be up in arms about.
Now you might argue that England itself is lacking a “state” parliament and thats a bad thing. But the way that your system is structured, you already have one! The only thing you seem to really be complaining about is that Scots and Welsh MPs canvote on matters “purely” relating to England, whereas the reverse is not true due. But since the English MPs have such a gigantic majority in the House of Commons, can you name a single issue of importance to England which Scots and/or MPs managed to hijack a Parliamentary vote against eth interest of the English?
thabet 1:50 pm on February 8, 2010 Permalink |
Erm, England and Wales are ruled by English law. There is definitely a case for an English-based parliament and politics, but a number of “English nationalist” groups tread close to just outright racism.
There are not sharia or Jewish “courts” in England. You should actually read the very laws you want to uphold.