Charles Moore’s article in the Telegraph has prompted some interesting debate. The views I’ve seen expressed can roughly be split into two camps, those who think it’s bad, full stop, and those who think it’s pretty bad, but perhaps raises issues which need to be addressed.
Moore opens with a suggestion that the murder of Lee Rigby has been overshadowed by concerns about an anti-Muslim backlash. He complains that a false equivalence has been drawn between the horrific killing and a subsequent increase in anti-Muslim bigotry. If the media has over egged the problem, then Moore seems guilty of some under egging, making no mention of the attack on a Muslim school for example, or arson attacks on mosques.
Moore does offer some meaningful criticism of the EDL.
While not, in its stated ideology, a racist organisation like the BNP, the EDL has an air of menace. It must feel particularly unpleasant for Muslims when its supporters hit the streets.
I’m not so sure about this.
But the EDL is merely reactive. It does not – officially at least – support violence. It is the instinctive reaction of elements of an indigenous working class which rightly perceives itself marginalised by authority, whereas Muslim groups are subsidised and excused by it.
OK – let’s accept that the EDL does ‘not – officially at least – support violence’. But if the indigenous working class feels marginalised, I don’t think it’s helpful to suggest this is all the fault of Muslims being pandered to, or that (if the WWC do see it that way) that this is a rational response. And Muslims (whether working class or not) may, if they look at certain tabloids for example, feel marginalised too, on occasion.
All journalists experience this disparity. If we attack the EDL for being racist, fascist and pro-violence, we can do so with impunity, although we are not being strictly accurate. If we make similar remarks about Islamist organisations, we will be accused of being racist ourselves.
There’s something in this! But perhaps just a little less than there used to be. See for example this piece by Sunny Hundal or this piece on the mainstream blog Left Foot Forward, as well as some coverage of the issues by Hope not Hate.
As someone with concerns about extreme/illiberal Muslim organisations I welcome alternative Muslim voices. Punishment for apostasy is a troubling issue – so it seemed very positive to note that Tell MAMA was offering some support to ex-Muslims. But here Charles Moore sandwiches Fiyaz Mughal between ‘Muslim charities with … Islamist links’ and the EDL. And yet he complains about false, misleading equivalences.
I think there are some reasonable grounds for criticism of Lady Warsi, FOSIS, and Malcolm Grant, topics Charles Moore turns to at the end of his article. (And I’d encourage readers to search the archives for coverage of FOSIS’s activities.) But overall Moore shows no interest in or engagement with those liberal/left voices (Muslim and non-Muslim) who are trying to tackle the problems of extremism.
