No Pasaran
Yesterday’s attempt by the so-called English Defence League (a group of violent Neo-Nazi thugs) to stir up trouble in the East End of London was the cue for thousands of anti-fascists to stage a counter-demonstration. Many were worried that this would lead to a repeat of the Battle of Cable Street, but thankfully that didn’t happen. While it’s reassuring that the number of of EDL supporters amounted to just a few hundred – many fewer than those who protested against them – it still fills me with sadness that there are even that many people who are prepared to follow such an organization. The lessons of history make it clear that the journey they want to take will lead to an England that isn’t worth defending, so they must be stopped at the outset with every peaceful means possible.
I wasn’t able to get to London for the demonstration, but if I had it would no doubt filled me with nostalgia because the anti-EDL protestors were chanting “¡No pasarán!” (“They Shall Not Pass“), a slogan redolent with nostalgia for me, from my time as a student leftie, and which dates from the heroic defence of Madrid against Franco’s fascists during the Spanish Civil War. In those days (when I was student, I mean, not during the Spanish Civil War!) I was a member of the Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign and remember hearing the band, Zinica, singing a song with that title (which I’ve put below). I even bought their album, Bluefields Express, which I still have.
The members of Zinica hailed from the caribbean cost of Nicaragua which was extensively settled by English people, so a number of the towns in that area have English names, such as Bluefields. Many of their songs were based on traditional English folk songs, especially sea shanties, but with a definite flavour of calypso and reggae.
Anyway, now in my complacent middle age, I thank the EDL for one thing only – reminding me of the sad fact that fascism remains a threat to which we all must be alert. Next time the EDL try to incite violence again, I’ll definitely be among those protesting against them.
No pasarán.
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
September 4, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I missed it at first, but there’s also an echo of this phrase in Gandalf’s epic confrontation with the fearsome Balrog in The Lord of the Rings.
September 4, 2011 at 4:19 pm
The EDL are defined by a negative: no [pasaran] to Sharia Law in England. When I look at what Sharia entails (for women and gays, for instance) I agree with them. The EDL exist because the authorities are politically correct and are blind to (or even encourage) the rise of the pro-Sharia movement.
It seems to me that the EDL and the non-Muslim anti-EDL movement both contain a large amount of hatred. I would not join either.
September 4, 2011 at 6:56 pm
I’m also opposed to Sharia Law in England. Fortunately, we don’t have it, except for the resolution of some civil disputes in which both parties agree to be bound by it in a similar way to the way the Beth Din operates for Jewish people. I’m also opposed to Muslim extremism, but the right way to counter that is to engage with the majority of moderate muslims not stir up racial hatred. I think the EDL are bog standard racists, actually, using anti-Muslim sentiment as a pretext.
For centuries the East End has embraced different cultures, not only tolerating but actively celebrating diversity. Long may it stay that way.
September 4, 2011 at 7:48 pm
I’m not convinced that the EDL are against secular black people (for instance), so I think the racist label is a bit over-simplistic. Where I believe they are disingenuous is in denying that they want a street fight. And therein is why I would not join them.
Diversity works well only if all cultures in that diversity go along with it. If one seeks to impose itself on the others then the system is unstable.
September 4, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I didn’t go to the demonstration against the English Defence [sic.] League either. In my case it was primarily due to a lack of information, including knowledge of whether it was intended to be a peaceful protest rather than a deliberate confrontation.
I did, however, change my activities in response to the planned EDL demonstration. I normally keep clear of supermarkets on Saturday afternoons, if possible, because they are usually overly busy. Yesterday afternoon I instead went to Sainsbury’s supermarket in Whitechapel as a direct refusal to be intimidated by the presence of groups of neo-fascists descending on a peaceful locality with the intention of stirring up inter-racial tensions. I chose to take a slightly roundabout route that went along a section of Whitechapel Road.
As it happened, the anti-fascist demonstration took place some way down Whitechapel Road, nearer to Aldgate East, and I did not see or join it. The EDL louts were confined by the police to an area even further away near Aldgate, closer to the City of London.
I now know that the anti-fascist demonstration was entirely peaceful. In contrast, the English Defence League hooligans clashed with the police. I have to express my gratitude, as a resident of Tower Hamlets, to the Metropolitan Police for keeping a group of thugs away from our communities.
September 4, 2011 at 9:39 pm
The EDL are pretty straightfoward Fascists, as far as I can tell; what one may or may not think of “Sharia law” (a moveable feast in itself) is pretty irrelevant. Don’t get sucked in Anton.
Thanks for the nice link Peter ! I enjoyed that. Maybe the most famous musical “No Pasaran” is in the Irish/Spanish Civil War Song “Viva La Quinta Brigada”. Lots of people have done this but my favourite version is on an album by Carlos Nunez, including a fascinating mixture of fantastic Galician and Irish musicians.
Here it is
September 4, 2011 at 10:40 pm
That street polls reveal 40% of Muslims want to impose Sharia Law in Britain (for all) does concern me, in view of demographic trends. (In contrast, Jews have no wish to extend Beth Din courts outside their own community.) However I have no intention of responding by getting sucked into the EDL.
September 4, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Lets have the Sharia discussion a different day.
September 5, 2011 at 12:19 am
Andy
I should mention that Zinica were much loved by the late John Peel, whose Radio show was where I first heard them, but I was lucky enough to hear them live sometime in the 80s. They were a bit rough around the edges, musically speaking, but a terrific band to hear in the flesh.
I must transfer their album to digital some time – there’s some gorgeous stuff on it.
Peter
September 4, 2011 at 11:03 pm
The issue of combatting neo-fascism in modern Britain does raise an important point. Some groups believe the best response is to campaign actively but to avoid direct, heated confrontation on the streets with neo-fascist marchers. This approach is advocated, for example, by Hope Not Hate. Other groups, such as Unite Against Fascism advocate confronting neo-fascist demonstrations, noisily on the streets if necessary, and this can lead to clashes. I am an advocate of the former approach, and it was uncertainty about which of the two philosophies would be adopted yesterday that probably led to me not seeking out details of yesterday’s demonstration.
The Battle of Cable Street in 1936 was very much a case of anti-fascist demonstrators confronting their extreme right-wing opponents, and doing so with violence. The violence, in the standard interpretation, is held as being what discredited the British Union of Fascists among the general British population. I am somewhat sceptical that a confrontational approach would work in discrediting effectively extreme right-wing groups today. It is more likely to discredit both the fascists and the anti-fascists today, lessening the effect on the racist extreme right.
Incidentally, the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street falls in a month’s time.
September 5, 2011 at 12:06 am
I think the Battle of Cable Street led only indirectly to the demise of the BUF. After it, the government of the time passed the Public Order Act of 1936, which amongst other things banned public marches that involved the wearing of uniforms, which deprived them of much of the symbolism they seemed to thrive on.
It’s interesting that in 1936 the main confrontation was between the anti-fascists and the police (who tried to clear a way for the march). As far as I’m aware the BUF didn’t ever confront their adversaries; the march was called off when the scale of the protest made it clear that even 10,000 police couldn’t protect them. The BUF never got as far as Cable Street.
Was it the violence or simply the scale of the demonstration that changed things for the BUF? I don’t know. But I do think the right way to deal with the likes of the EDL is to ensure that they don’t get what they want (which is violence). In the long run, the way to beat such people is to behave in a better way than they do. However, you have to remember that in 1936 people in the East End, especially the sizeable Jewish population, were all too well aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. Peaceful opposition hadn’t succeeded with Hitler so I can’t really blame them for taking the law into their own hands when it came to Moseley and his ilk.
September 5, 2011 at 9:42 am
Yes, there is a widespread perception that the clashes in Cable Street took place between local residents and Moseley’s blackshirts, rather than between anti-fascists and the police. The police force was trying to maintain order while allowing a legal (but highly dangerous) political group to march. The police, ironically, ended up as the main recipients of the anger of the anti-fascists, while the blackshirts did not even get to the area. The truth is therefore somewhat more complex than the popular image of people who would be directly threatened by the mad policies of the British Union of Fascists directly confronting their would-be oppressors.
All the same, I may try to take a walk down to Cable Street on the 75th anniversary next month.
September 5, 2011 at 10:34 am
Bryn
As you can no doubt imagine, the area has changed a lot since 1936. However, if you look around you will see a commemorative plaque bearing the words “They Shall Not Pass”. I think it’s actually in Dock Street, but at any rate it’s nearer the Tower Hill (i.e. west) end of Cable Street.
Peter
September 5, 2011 at 10:52 am
I’m not familiar with the plaque, although I had read that there is one in a side street off Cable Street. The main commemoration on Cable Street is the large mural on the side wall of St. George’s Town Hall that depicts scenes from the Battle of Cable Street. I’d post a picture here if the WordPress software allowed it.
September 5, 2011 at 2:45 pm
I realise that it is the Examiners’ meeting for the MSc Astrophysics at Queen Mary on 5th October, just a day after the anniversary….
September 5, 2011 at 9:46 pm
I suspect Cable Street will not look much different 75 years and 1 day after the Battle than it will 75 years on.
September 5, 2011 at 8:38 am
The right way to deal with the EDL is for politicians to cease being in denial about the issue the EDL coalesced around. I believe that there are many people who have concerns about that issue but who do not wish to be associated with street fighters. Had their concerns been taken seriously and handled constitutionally, instead of being ridiculed, the EDL would never even have come into existence.
September 5, 2011 at 9:45 am
We do have a government that is firmly committed to reducing immigration and to integrating immigrants into British society. Not only is the constitutional route being taken to lessen concern about these issues, it is government policy.
September 5, 2011 at 10:55 am
This is only indirectly about immigration (although the government is not practising what you say it preaches); it’s about the rise of a radical pro-Sharia faction. Integration might be helped if governments (national and local) cease to give money to immigrant communities under projects to help them maintain their own identity. Provided they respect the laws, those communities are welcome to do that at THEIR expense, not mine. And if we are going to have laws against ‘hate speech’ then they must be applied impartially; at present the pro-Sharia faction is getting away with verbal murder.
September 7, 2011 at 12:31 pm
What a thoroughly unpleasant attitude you have Anton (“THEIR expense, not mine”). A sense of cultural identity is deeply rooted, and it is only natural that immigrant populations will want to celebrate their heritage. As members of our community, who pay taxes like you, such groups have every right to seek funding to express their culture and identity, as do members of other minority groups in society. Harmonious integration doesn’t have to mean complete assimilation. It may not always go smoothly, and of course there are tensions, but while working out these problems we should celebrate the great richness that comes from cultural diversity.
September 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm
When I say “THEIR expense not mine” I am doing two things and, please note, neither less nor more:
1. Acknowledging that there is a difference, not condemning it.
2. Stating that the rules which allow people to get taxpayers’ money to celebrate their own cultural identity are ridiculous. That is not what tax revenue is for.
Even Trevor Phillips has said that the way multiculturalism is enacted in Britain is deeply flawed.
September 7, 2011 at 6:08 pm
One point behind Omar’s comment is that you appear to assume that muslims don’t pay tax, so that whatever they get in terms of services is paid for by you rather than by them.
For the record, I think cultural events and amenities are a perfectly justifiable destination for public spending, including art, literature and music. I do have a problem with state funding of overtly religious groups, but there is a grey area between religious and other forms of cultural identity for some communities.
September 7, 2011 at 6:55 pm
I said: “Integration might be helped if governments (national and local) cease to give money to immigrant communities under projects to help them maintain their own identity. Provided they respect the laws, those communities are welcome to do that at THEIR expense, not mine.”
Please note that, first, I am in favour of integration. Also that in these particular words I was making a point about all immigrant communities, not just the Sharia-promoting one. I don’t see why, for instance, Muslim taxpayers should subsidise ‘the Hindu community’ or vice-versa. (No, I’m not supposing that immigrants don’t pay taxes.)
An example of the madness about which I am complaining is that, some time ago in Australia, a government program to teach English to immigrants was closed down yet it was still possible for immigrant communities to get grants to celebrate their own cultures. If ever political correctness got its priorities 180 degrees wrong this is it, for learning the language is the single most empowering thing that an immigrant can do to better him- or herself in the new country to which he or she has chosen to migrate. A further issue is that taxes fall hardest on the poor (a fact that cannot be changed however much you make taxes ‘progressive’). I do not think that putting anybody below the poverty line can be justified by grants to help people celebrate their culture. It is privately financed transactions that best promote intercultural understanding, not publicly financed ones: as when I go to one of the many ethnic shop or restaurants which have richened our high streets.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 am
In view of events on yesterday’s anniversary of 9/11 I would like to clarify why I contributed to this thread. There are *three* sets of people in this ring, not two: the militant organisation Muslims Against Crusades (MAC), the EDL, and the UAF (Unite Against Fascism). Most of the discussion above is predicated on the assumption that there are only the latter two (an assumption fostered by the BBC’s selective reporting), but yesterday the EDL laid a wreath in memory of those who died on 9/11 outside the American Embassy while MAC were gloating about it in a noisy demo there. Worse was to come, if this is confirmed:
I would personally steer well clear of all three groupings; but there are three, not two.
September 12, 2011 at 9:33 am
I’m certainly no supporter of the MAC or the tone of their demonstration. If they want to live under Sharia law then there are plenty of places where they can do so, but not here. However much I disagree with their argument, they still have a right to protest. As the video shows, they were kept behind barriers, though I can’t tell how far away from the Embassy they were.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr8GeascVRI
Burning a flag is not illegal in the UK, by the way.
The more press coverage given to muslim (and other) extremists the better, in my opinion. It’s important that people see the reality; it might stop ordinary people being so complacent. However, the Daily Telegraph reports there was also a small counter demonstration by moderate muslims protesting about the MAC, one of whom was holding a placard saying “If You Want Sharia, Move To Saudi”. My thoughts exactly.
However, the accounts of the subsequent violence are sketchy to say the least. That blog piece reports an account from an EDL facebook page, which has since been removed. Could it be that the EDL members were in a pub getting pissed and then decided to attack the demonstration? Until I see an independent account of it I’m not inclined to accept its accuracy.
September 12, 2011 at 10:23 am
What happened is certainly unconfirmed at this point; time will tell.
I support the freedom of people to demonstrate and indeed to burn flags. Not everything that is wrong should be illegal, a notion illustrated exemplarily by the people celebrating 9/11 as close to the US Embassy as they could get.
September 12, 2011 at 10:44 am
Most of the placards seem to be about Afghanistan, the invasion of which followed 9/11.
September 12, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Have a look at the placards as shown at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWQk3R8ACzA
September 12, 2011 at 1:01 pm
It’s a 5-10 minute walk between the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square and the nearest (most southerly) part of the Edgware Road. Probably those barriers were to segregate MAC from others en route, not to keep them from the Embassy. Although the EDL are basically street fighters (which is why I am against them while sharing their view of encroaching Sharia), I doubt that the number of EDL who could fill a pub would take on an entire MAC demo.
I agree with the placard about Saudi; some of the more nominal Muslims came here to get away from Sharia. I also agree with you that “The more press coverage given to muslim (and other) extremists the better”. Tell the BBC!
September 20, 2011 at 9:38 pm
“the [Jewish] community is remarkably similar to many immigrant Moslem communities in European cities: they keep to themselves, the women can’t have contact with the mainstream population, the children are isolated from other children, it is difficult for those who want to to leave the community or distance themselves from it, they distinguish themselves from the rest of the population via traditional dress…”
In all these ways they are indeed similar. Here is a difference which you don’t mention, though: the Hebrew scriptures tell the Jews to be belligerent in regard to one specific piece of land, whereas the Islamic scriptures tell followers to be belligerent in regard to the whole world.