Members of the English Defence League (EDL) have demanded a demonstration because Muslims have reacted against the possibility of student flats being built near a planned mosque in Cambridge. The EDL has previously demonstrated against the said Cambridge mosque.
What has happened here is that Muslims have been given the go-ahead to build a mosque in Cambridge and now these very same Muslims are against student flats being built near the mosque.
So why don't these Muslims want the student flats to be built? Well, what usually – or always - happens is that all the areas which surround the mosques of the UK swiftly become Muslim ghettos (or Dar al-Islam). Clearly, this is what some of the Muslims of Cambridge want in this case too.
The Muslims who've rejected these flats have rather disingenuously said that they would prefer “homes for families” to be built there instead. Sure. As I've just said about Muslim ghettos: what they actually mean is homes for Muslim families.
Yet despite all that, Dr Dave Baigent, a Labour Party candidate in Cambridge, said:
How can you trust a person who supports the front group (Unite Against Fascism) of the “revolutionary socialist” (in its own words) SWP? Trotskyists, after all, have three largely unspoken catechisms or diktats which explain just about everything they do (including defending Islamic terrorists, halal slaughter, Islamic schools, mosques and even madrases and female genital mutilation):
*) “We must lie for justice.”
*) “By any means necessary.”
*) “Never with the state. Always with Muslims.”
In any case, Baigent says that “people hardly ever mention the mosque”. That's suitably vague. What does “hardly ever” mean, exactly? At least he admits that some Cambridge residents have mentioned it. In addition to that: both Labour and Tory party candidates or MPs tend to keep away from voters they know won't or don't support them.
Dr David Baigent also makes the vacuous statement that the “majority opinion is that we like living in Romsey because of the diversity of our community”. Yes? (I'm surprised Baigent didn't use the soundbite: “Don't let the racists divide us.”) As far as I know, the EDL isn't against Diversity-in-the-Abstract: it's against this mosque in Cambridge. And, in addition to that, it's also against the incorporation of sharia law into UK law (as seen in the news just the other day), the Muslim sexual grooming of young non-Muslim girls (which was ignored by regional newspapers, such as Cambridge News, for over twenty years), the increased threat of Islamic terrorism in the UK, enforced halal meals in many non-Muslim schools and female genital mutilation (which is on the rise).
The thing is, you never hear about what the EDL is against. Instead you constantly hear about the rare bits of violence at EDL demos (often, but not always, brought about Unite Against Fascism and other “anti-fash” hooligans); the arrests of EDL supporters (less EDL have been arrested since 2009 than members of UAF and other “anti-fash”); and the fact that Tommy Robinson attended a single BNP meeting some five or more years before forming the EDL.
Now since regional newspapers, the Labour Party, etc. aren't discussing any of the issues mentioned above, is it any wonder that so many people have supported the EDL?
Besides which, Baigent and UAF are just against Diversity as anyone else. They are against these examples of Diversity: the EDL, UKIP, the Conservative Party, all forms of patriotism, many indigenous traditions and cultures (even Christianity itself) and all the positions which contradict their left-wing sacred cows.
David Baigent also gets into soundbite mode when he inform us about a “view that is exemplified by the success of the mix of shops and eating places on Mill Road”. Pardon? This news piece (in the Cambridge News) is about a mosque, students flats and the EDL's planned protest – why this stuff about a “mix of shops”? The EDL isn't planning a demo against eating places or shops.
As a typical (potential) politician, Dr Dave Baigent simply couldn't resist using this opportunity (being interviewed, yet again, by Cambridge News) to sell himself as well as his Labour Party. He tells the voters of Cambridge:
“What people are concerned about is the lack of affordable housing, car parking, the state of the streets and pavements, protecting essential services...”
It's just a pity that none of the above is at all relevant to the issues at hand: the mosque, the planned EDL demo and the student flats.
In the end, and as always, all this is not about race, or Diversity, or Community Cohesion. Of course Cambridge UAF pretends - for political/ideological and strategic reasons - that it's about these things. But in fact it's mainly about the Islamisation of Cambridge and the UK as a whole; as well as the fact that Trotskyist groups (such as UAF-SWP) think they can “tap into the revolutionary potential of Muslims” (as ex-SWP John Molyneux once put it). It's also about how Labour Party candidates think they can gain some extra votes via mass immigration and the various Muslim block votes.
Finally, if anyone doubts UAF's strong commitment to violence (before, during and after the revolution), they should read between the lines of what Cambridge UAF said in regards to the planned EDL demo.
According to Cambridge News, a UAF spokesman said (about the last Cambridge EDL demo):
“Still half of them [the EDL] didn’t dare emerge from the pub where they were cowering.”
Oh yes? Why were the EDL “cowering”, exactly? Because of the threats of violence from UAF? I doubt, however, that the EDL were actually cowering. But it's interesting that UAF is so explicit about its violence.
This UAF spokesman also said that at the last demo EDL demonstrators were “penned” in a “cage”: apparently “for their own protection”. And why did the EDL need “protection”? Was it protection from UAF thugs and revolutionary hard men? Again, I doubt that the EDL needed protection from UAF as such. However, I hope that Cambridge police is aware of these UAF “hate crimes”.
Note: The quotes from Dr Dave Baigent above can be found in the “Comments” section which follows the Cambridge News article.
I also noted that there were many examples of “Comment has been removed by the moderators”; whereas after the last Cambridge News item which featured the EDL, no comments were removed. What could be happening here, at least on some occasions, is that UAF and other Leftists will be pretending to be EDL and then making racist remarks or saying things about violence. Remember the two Trotskyist mottos I mentioned earlier: “By any means necessary” (as also used by Malcolm X) and “We must lie for justice”.