Between The EDL And The Religious Fundies: East End Gay Pride

In my most recent post I made clear my dislike, abhorrence even, of the English Defense League. As any long term reader will know one of my little "ticks" is my deep, near irrational, hatred for nationalism. Even just having the word "English" in the title is likely to put me off. There's little in their views or beliefs that I can find even remotely of interest.

And as most of you will know, I'm no fan of the religious especially those of a fundamentalist bent. If you base your beliefs on the irrational mutterings of just the one book then I'm afraid we're unlikely to get on. Especially if your beliefs include homophobia and other prejudices. It's just not my thing.

So you can imagine my moral confusion over the latest controversy: East End Gay Pride. It seemed simple enough. In February some stickers appeared declaring East London a "gay free zone". Some thought they were put there by Muslims, others by the EDL to show Muslims in a bad light. In any case it soon emerged a group was gathering to organise a pride event, supposedly to show that the LGBT community were here, queer and everyone better get used to it.

This group was, from the off, seen by many local LGBT groups as an EDL front, based mainly on Facebook postings. Many LGBT groups in the area, especially the more left wing ones, were aghast (mainly quite rightly really) that the EDL should be involved and were upset that a pride event might upset "community relations" (a concept that, to be honest, fills me with such a rage that I can barely begin to to express it in writing).

And eventually, in the last few days, things have descended to the point where the pro and anti camps have been arguing incessantly.

Today brought revelations from gay group Imaan that the principal organiser Raymond Berry had links to the EDL. Damning stuff, and he's quickly been removed from the official site for the April the 2nd event.

But this all leads me to the wonder: even if this event is totally organised by the EDL, something I don't believe and suspect some of the organisation is being done properly, it is clearly labelled as pride event, it's clearly labelled as being "non-political" (whether that's possible at an LGBT pride event is up for debate) and political signs are explicitly banned. So what is the issue?

The EDL obviously think, quite rightly too, that a gay pride event in the East End is one way to show up the homophobia of a great number (if not all) of Muslims in the area and no obvious political protest need be added to it. And instead of Muslims in the area, and their LGBT supporters, showing clearly this isn't the case by EMBRACING the event they are desperately trying to ensure it gets cancelled so as to avoid highlighting any controversy. They claim pride is meant to be about community cohesion and building links between groups. Where is this in the history books?

Pride is meant to be confrontational, in your face and argument worthy. It's meant to be about highlighting and combating homophobia. What possible reason could the local community have for not wanting this event, if handled correctly and not demonstrating Islamophobic tendencies in either discriminating against those involved or racist/insulting signs, other than homophobia? Absolutely, with the EDL involved, extreme caution must be used and concerns raised. But if the answers are "this is an LGBT pride event to show solidarity against the recent anti-gay stickers", then what's the problem??

So I have to say, with a little regret as I completely see where the local community and LGBT groups are coming from, "No to an EDL rally, YES to East End Gay Pride". I hope the LGBT community shows itself in force and makes sure this is a demonstration of hope over hate rather than just hate against another minority.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Disturbing Images From The Western World

Whilst the world's attention is focussed on the horrific but also exhilarating revolutions occurring in the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa, other equally disturbing images have been coming from within our own midst.

Hate Comes To Orange County



I find this video almost too upsetting to watch. Muslims families being tormented and insulted by protesters waving American flags whilst elected US officials spread hate among the crowd. I can almost hear the echoes of the fascists in the 1930s and their anti-Jewish rhetoric. Awful stuff, and we are just not condemning this enough.

EDL Thugs

The English Defense League. It's everything I've worried about when I've spoken about English nationalism on here before. Now they bring in violent unionist imagery (no, I do not understand that either, we're English but we support the British cause? Hmm...). They are just a bunch of thuggish little boys terrified of the Other. We must oppose them thoroughly and consistently wherever they go.

The German Question

German interior minister reopens bitter row over Muslim integration. Certainly, Islam is not part of traditional German culture. Nothing controversial there, that's just a historical statement. But I don't think that's what is being said here, and we all know that. The wink, wink, nod, nod of the anti-Islam crowd is almost as disgusting as what they actually say.

"To say that Islam belongs in Germany is not a fact supported by history."

Well some interpretations of German history might suggest Jews don't belong in Germany (they've spent more time as pariahs than they have as equal German citizens throughout Germany's complex history). But you wouldn't say that because that would sound pretty damn disturbing. Are we to get rid of everyone in our countries whose presence isn't backed up by history? And what history are we talking about? Modern or ancient? Perhaps the German people don't belong there either as my memory of Germany 65 million years ago certainly doesn't back up their claim on residence either. History is useful, interesting and complicated. But it's not a Bible. We make our own destinies whilst learning from our history. But Germany seems to be just repeating the same old mistakes.

It's time we stood up and said no more. I'm no fan of Islam. To me it's just another silly religion. But that doesn't mean I do not support Muslims rights to their beliefs nor that I think they are some holier than thou angels without any issues themselves. But we must have a frank and honest debate not a "Them and us" one. The West needs to wake up to the hate it is brewing before it's too late.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Secular Defence League

The English Defence League describes itself thus:

"We, the English Defence League, are a grass roots social movement who represent every walk of life, every race, every creed and every colour; from the working class to middle England. Our unity and diversity is our strength.

We have members that represent our culturally rich, “patriotic” and nation-loving populace. People who can see the threat of “Islamism” for what it is: a vile and virulent ideology based on 7th century barbarity, intolerance, hatred, subjugation and war."About page

Protest The Pope says this on it's front page:

"If you believe, as we do, that the Pope should not come to the UK without hearing from the millions of people who reject his harsh, intolerant views and the practices and policies of the Vatican State please get involved."

So the question must be: what's the difference? The English Defence League dislikes Islam. Protest the Pope dislikes the Pope and the Catholicism he represents. Yet, and I speak very generally here, whilst the EDL are (probably quite rightly) seen as a nationalistic, racist, prejudiced right wing grouping, the Protest the Pope movement is seen, by many liberals and lefties, as a valid movement of legitimate protest against a backward ideology.

You might think that displays my own prejudices. But it doesn't. Unlike many lefties and liberals, I'm not very keen on either Islam or Catholicism (or most any sort of organised religion). I like to be consistent. I'm even consistent on the fact that I see all three sides in the EDL argument (the Muslims, the EDL and the anti-fascists) as pretty much in the wrong and wish they'd all shut up. I'm an individualist. If someone wants to build a mosque and it's approved by the planning department let it be, or argue against it. But don't intimidate people just because of their religion. On the other hand those who wish to defend against such protests should do so without violence and in a legal manner.

So was my post on the Pope's visit really consistent? How can I oppose the protests of the EDL against Islamic institutions, yet support protests against the central institution of Catholicism (the Pope himself!)?

Perhaps I was wrong. Either I was wrong on the grounds that such a protest movement would be more ethical than the EDL's. Or, more likely, I was wrong that the cost wasn't a factor. Perhaps it is one. A mosque might not get public money. It's a private venture. Really private ventures should be private matters. The Pope's visit, however, is not a private matter, but he will be conducting private Catholic business whilst we pay for him to do so. That is, probably what irks me.

And that's consistent with my dislike of the Government banning those with "controversial" views. There's no problem to me with them visiting this country. We're not paying for their visit. But for the Pope we are.

So I take back my last post. It is about the money. The money is the most important factor. And thus I bring balance back to my beliefs. *phew*

What do you think? Is there a discernible difference between protesting the Pope because of his beliefs and the EDL marches protesting against Islam? Are the EDL actually on to something? Am I completely wrong? Feel free to discuss.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist