Talk:English Defence League

	This British politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Violence

While I'm not excusing the noted violence of EDL members, the recent Coppers (was it that one? the other half is watching so many fucking cop shows it's hard to keep track) special on riots and protests showed an English Defance League protest and a counter protest by Unite Against Fascism, Turns out it was UAF that was the more violent and got about twice as many of their members arrested. Basically, the EDL just turned up and acted like normal football hooligans - not so much of a threat really, annoying more than anything. But UAF, being the usual left-wing stereotype hippies that they are (dreadlocks and piercings being the order of the day, then claiming to be all peace and love while throwing bricks at police officers and shouting "FASCIST CUNT!!" at them), turned up early so that the EDL weren't actually there and decided to protest and bottle the police direct, then started on the EDL when they turned up, then decided to get into an argy-bargy "I know my rights!" contest with the police (subsequently proving that they certainly didn't know their rights) and basically kicked off like a bunch of cry-baby cunts. Meanwhile the EDL just seemed too damned stupid to cause any real damage. But I suppose that's fine, because they're Unite Against Fascism and are the good guys, while the EDL are the bad guys, right? ADK^{...I'll murder your telephone!} 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Unite Against Fascism article has a section on this. Don't know if it's worth covering in the EDL article as well, though... Balaam (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

June 2013, protests at Westminster. 58 UAF members arrested, out of about 300 UAF protestors so about 1 in 5. Yes, they are violent.

We have an admirer in the EDL...

[1] Wonder if he knows that our article on his group is hardly any more kind. Balaam (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

David Cameron

Cameron was one of many MPs who signed UAF's founding statement, which is presumably what this person is talking about. Calling him a "founding member" is misleading, however, as I doubt the leader of the conservative party has ever been active within this far-left group. Balaam (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The BoN who posted that went on to add a whole bunch of crap to the article, so eff 'im. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk of violence on EDL sites

I just watched two eight minute videos on the EDL forum. One was many clips of various muslims talking about killing all infidels, about burning churches, about taking over the West, and more on killing infidels. The second was of a 2 year old girl in Pakistan. Her family had refused to convert from christianity to islam. While the father was on his farm and the others out, muslims returned and repeated raped the 2 year old girl there on her own. The damage to her was so bad that a few tries at corrective surgery failed to repair the damage. Fearing for their lives, the family have now been taken to Canada. You should know what we know and see what we see about muslims who are now on a Rape Jihad in the West (100% rapes in Norway are by muslims) and you would talk about violence to muslims too.(178.236.117.122 (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC))

A little unfair no?

Clearly lots of EDL people are racist idiots. While Tommy Robinson eventually felt he had lost the run of things to these idiot, I don't think it's fair to describe the EDL itself as racist etc... I think this article, in what seems effective snarkiness, is guilty of nutpicking and suggesting views of adherents are the official organisations views. I came across this recently and it made a bit of sense to me. I can't help but feel the RW article on the EDL might be guilty of a intellectual snobbery?--Barryjon (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As I see it as a native of a Balkan country, any organization proclaiming itself to be an "Ethnically-Specific Defense League" automatically pigeonholes itself. :)

Modern Western societies are wary of racism and xenophobia, so it makes sense for ethno-nationalist organizations to avoid any outright statements in that direction. (Parallels with certain political parties at home come to mind...) See also the concept of "dog whistles" in US politics. In all cases, you need to find out whether their actions are contradicting their words.

What does it mean to you for a certain organization to be considered racist/xenophobic/full of bigots? Nutpicking is obviously fallacious if talking about broad and diverse movements, but as the size of the "target" becomes smaller, things become murkier, as fewer examples are necessary before establishing a representative sample...--ZooGuard (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(EC) It's fair to say that at least some of the scorn and mockery directed at EDL (Muslamic ray guns etc.) does tend to play off snobbery about class background & education levels, and this can feed the kind of class divisions which encourage this sort of reactionary movement in the first place (see here for a fuller discussion of this, albeit from a rather leftist POV). Nevertheless, there's no escaping the fact that the EDL is at heart a racist organisation, with racist aims, racist leaders and racist supporters, & this is absolutely what the RW article should focus on. I don't see much wrong with it currently, except maybe too many Facebook screenshots. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair points; I guess with such a small organisation it is difficult to maintain that the group is not its membership. I don't think an "Ethnically-Specific Defense League" should automatically pidgeonhole such groups. I do think there is something to be said for defending a nations culture on the basis that "for when in Rome, do as the Romans do"--Barryjon (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW - what does (EC) mean before a post?--Barryjon (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Edit conflict" - someone else has modified the page after you have started editing, and you get an "edit conflict" screen when you try to save your changes. This is what happened to me because of your post when I tried to add the text below. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You missed the "Balkan" part. I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why it was significant, I have the feeling you won't get it anyway.

And "defending a nation's culture" is a really vague cause in a number of ways. What does it mean to "defend" a "nation's culture"? What is a "nation's culture" and is it the same as national culture? Who gets to decide what is and what isn't part of a nation's culture? Does it change over time? Can the United Kingdom, the core remnant of the British Empire, lay a claim to a single, uniform "nation's culture"? What happens when everyone decides to "defend" their "nation's culture", including those pesky Muslims?--ZooGuard (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little offended you think I am too stupid or uncaring to get why the Balkan part makes a difference. Though I can appreciate why you may feel it's a waste of time in the context of the current discussion. I am Irish, I am an immigrant to the UK. The culture the EDL tried to defend was British law and tolerance which are amongst the few things most Britons and many immigrants agree form a part of modern British culture. I tend not to be a nationalist of any kind really. Nationality is a accident of one's birth. But that doesn't mean elements of culture are not worth defending. Defence is not offence, so as long as people don't start fights (offence) in defence we should be ok I hope. I believe in live and let live.--Barryjon (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I get very nervous when a single group claims to speak or defend something as nebulous as British culture. The tolerance aspect of British culture, such as it is, is not something EDL appear to have any interest in defending. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say many of their supporters were mindless thugs. But officially their website was against homophobia and anti-semitism. Even some of the videos showing some very poorly articulated views were consistent with that view. Though it's obviously good to be wary of such groups and it seems the fruits of their efforts were pretty unpleasant.--Barryjon (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

this just made its way into my inbox.--Barryjon (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Rationalwiki? The liewiki would be more accurate and here is the proof

I have never read a more biased and lie filled article than the main article from people who claim to be rational but are in fact highly irrational.

The EDL has no members, but just people with a common cause with them so to say an EDL member did this or that is a deliberate lie.

The EDL is against any criminality and has nothing in it's ideals to inspire criminality so again to hint that the EDL inspired criminality in a very snide way is a very snide lie.

I have asked muslims and their appeasers before for evidence that EDL "members" or supporters are football hooligans and have yet to receive any evidence of this deliberate lie. The article forgot to add the other lie, that we are all drunkards (I do not drink alcohol).

Islam is an evil death cult, masquerading as a religion so to call people against it racist is to lie.

I tried the link against Jeff Marsh and nothing there in the filthy Labour rag, the Guardian, so no surprise.

An unsupported quote at what is claimed was said at a march by a Labour rag which cannot even spell it's own name right some times is worthless hearsay so should not be repeated.

In a September 2013 EDL rally at Tower Hamlets, there were 300 arrests. 286 of them were UAF thugs, gone there to fight the EDL, by their own admission on their Facebook page.

The Queen and her uncle have been accused of giving the Nazi salute, as has communist Arthur Scargill of the NUM, etc. Every time an EDL "member" raises his arm, left wing newspapers accuse him of being a Nazi.

The BNP and others are nothing to do with the EDL and they have criticized the EDL so to claim they are is a lie.

To claim that what one bad person does is done by all the EDL is a deliberate lie and a smear.

Anders Behring Breivik under oath in court said he had nothing to do with the EDL and they wanted nothing to do with him, so yet another lie from the liewiki.

David Cameron aka Camoron was a founding signatory to the violent muslim thug group, the UAF so would naturally condemn the EDL as he is a known muslim appeaser and sympathizer.

The so called think tank Demos was founded by a Marxist and is a lefty Labour supporting group so naturally they want to ban free speech and ban the EDL. Who cares what these lying crazies say.

So the main article on the EDL is a disgrace, and to allow it to continue is a disgrace, but maybe what one must expect of the highly irrational liewiki.(80.30.191.121 (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC))

You're so confused by reality, it's almost adorable. "communist Arthur Scargill", "The BNP and others are nothing to do with the EDL", "violent muslim thug group, the UAF" are some of your 'greatest' hits. If the EDL is so against criminality, why is it that so goddamn many of them have convictions for violent offences, and why have a disproportionate number of them had their collars felt for being nonces? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Awwwww. Sit down and have a cup of tea love. You will feel better later. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)