SWP Goes Islamist?
SWP With Plymouth Islamic Society.
A PROTEST against a speaker specialising in Islamism and counter-extremism has taken place at Plymouth University tonight.
Around 30 people gathered to show their anger at Sheikh Dr Usama Husan giving a lecture at the uni.
It comes after he failed to condemn an image from the online cartoon ‘Jesus and Mo’ showing Jesus and Mohammed saying ‘hey’ and ‘how ya doin’ to each other.
Dr Hasan is a senior researcher in Islamic Studies at Quilliam was speaking at the Jill Craigie cinema tonight on the topic of Islam and democracy in the wake of the Arab Spring.
The University cites Dr Hasan as a trained imam and a scientist with a PhD, MA and MSc from the Universities of Cambridge and London, and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Around 30 people from the university’s Plymouth Islamic Society protested at the event as he had not condemned the actions of Quilliam co-founder Maajid Nawaz, a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn who retweeted the controversial image.
They gathered peacefully in the lobby area of the Roland Levinsky building ahead of Dr Hasan’s arrival. A few ‘boos’ were heard as he entered the lectured theatre. Plymouth Herald.
Hat-Tip Howie’s Corner.
Bob Pitt then entered the fray after reports of the SWP participation in the Muslim protest became public knowledge,
It is true that the Plymouth University demonstration “came after” Usama Hasan failed to condemn Maajid Nawaz’s tweet of a “Jesus and Mo” cartoon. But it is misleading to suggest that this was the sole reason for the protest.
First of all, the objection is not simply to the one cartoon but to the entire “Jesus and Mo” series which, as the online petition against Nawaz points out, “contains many highly offensive images of Jesus and Muhammad including homo-erotic scenes of them in bed together, being at bars together drinking alcohol using foul language, and reading pornographic magazines”. The petition further objects to the swearing and abuse with which Nawaz responded to his critics.
As the Quilliam Foundation NOT welcome in Plymouth Facebook page makes clear, the objection to Usama Hasan’s appearance in Plymouth was also wider than a complaint about a single cartoon. The organisers of the demonstration opposed Quilliam for having promoted the far-right extremists “Tommy Robinson” and Kevin Carroll, and for having “provided lists to the govt of alleged extremist sympathisers which included the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Safety Forum and even the Islam Channel”.
Plymouth University ISoc also condemned a cartoon tweeted by Usama Hasan himself, which trivialised domestic violence. They were joined by Fawcett Plymouth, who wrote to Plymouth University calling for the cancellation of the event at which Hasan was to speak.
The organisers’ appeal for support for the demonstration concluded: “We do not want the QF in Plymouth, they are a danger to community cohesion and peaceful relationships that exist here between the mainstream Muslim as well as diverse communities.”
The Islamists explained that,
“Join us in protesting and leafleting against the Quilliam Foundation appearing at Plymouth University. The Quilliam Foundation have been invited to speak and we strongly object. The QF founder tweeted on 12th January offensive caricatures of the Prophets Mohammed and Isa (Jesus), peace be upon them.
They claim to be a moderate Muslim group but have welcomed right wing extremist Tommy Robinson and Steve Carroll from the racist English Defence League. QF is a think tank that has received over £1million from the government. In return they have provided lists to the govt of alleged extremist sympathisers which included the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Safety Forum and even the Islam Channel.
We do not want the QF in Plymouth, they are a danger to community cohesion and peaceful relationships that exist here between the mainstream Muslim as well as diverse communities. We urge you to turn up and help us protest and leaflet to let people know what QF really stand for which is fuelling Islamaphobia and harming community relationships, and that they are not welcome here in Plymouth. This event has been organised by both local Muslims and non Muslims.
They posted a video clip of an elderly Swuppie selling Socialist Worker – here.
We certainly do not endorse the activities of the Quilliam Foundation.
But the nub of the matter is that the protest was sparked off by the Jesus and Mo cartoons.
I would like to see the Jesus and Mo Cartoons but Suffolk Library blocks the site – in effect bowing to the Islamist demands for censorship.
This is what came up when I tried to go on the Jesus and Mo blog.
Access to the page:… has been prevented for the following reason:Blocked site: jesusandmo.netYou are seeing this error because what you attempted to access appears to contain, or is
labeled as containing, material that is contrary to the Library’s Acceptable Use Policy.
Tendance Coatesy 
“We certainly do not endorse the activities of the Quilliam Foundation.”
Have you looked closely at what the Quilliam Foundation actually does, or is this another case of taking Islamists at face value?
Matt Flaherty
February 2, 2014 at 12:42 pm
Saying I don’t ‘endorse’ means I have not had time enough to research them properly Matt.
Andrew Coates
February 2, 2014 at 1:00 pm
The EDL and other far right groups are all over this also. They share your outrage at those pesky Muslims (why do we let them in when they are destroying our way of life?), and with similar arguments.
Anyway, give them a call.
“specialising in Islamism and counter-extremism”
That is a very modern job description isn’t it!
Socialism In One Bedroom
February 2, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Well Bedroom Boy here’s a job for your good self,
“Respect has announced that it will take the Hampstead and Kilburn fight right to rancid Maajid Nawaz and the New Labour apologist for Awami League.. Applications are invited to be Respect candidate at the General Election in the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency.”
If you are interested, please email contact@respectparty.org
Andrew Coates
February 2, 2014 at 2:06 pm
@Socialism in one bedroom. I see people (e.g. on Twitter) who think apostasy should be punished by death condemning violence against women who wear hijab. I don’t think that these theocrats’ appalling views should distract us from condemning the conventional far right who attack Muslims’ women. Similarly I have no intention of not supporting Usama Hasan just because that puts me on the same side as some EDL types.
Sarah AB
February 2, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Sorry – excuse inept editing – I mean ‘Muslim women’ not ‘Muslims’ women’.
Sarah AB
February 2, 2014 at 2:13 pm
“Saying I don’t ‘endorse’ means I have not had time enough to research them properly Matt.”
Then why not write that? “We certainly do not endorse the activities of the Quilliam Foundation” sounds like a firm repudiation.
Shame, because it’s a good piece otherwise.
(PS: Presume it’s a formatting error but the Bob Pitt quote and the FB page quote run into one another, making it look like Pitt used the term ‘Islamists’ to describe the campaign)
Unrepentant Jacobin (@jacobinism)
February 2, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Thanks Jacobin – I had not noticed that.
My reservations about the Quiliam Foundation centre around the way they use “extremism” as the principal political marker in fighting Islamism, which as I say, I have yet to go fully into.
But as preliminary thoughts:
You can still be religiously intolerant without being ‘extreme’ about it.
The Ramadhan Foundation for example claims to be “moderate”.
Apart from that political Islam, in its different forms, has a range of policies, extreme or not, on social issues, economics, and liberty, which as left-wing democratic socialist would oppose.
And Sarah, all this stuff about the EDL is used by the opponents of Nawaz to gather support – just as the SWP habitually uses the threat of the BNP etc to get recruits.
Andrew Coates
February 2, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Dr Usain Husan is also hated by Islamists for defending the theory of evolution on the grounds that a Muslim thought of it first so it’s not unIslamic. Very sad about the SWP, do their local groups know what they are doing? What about their Centre? If some people find certain cartoons or books or whatever offensive, that’s well and good, but they can help themselves by not looking at them or thinking about them. I really do not see why the rest of us should be bound by their regious prescriptions that non-Muslims are not allowed to know or discuss Islam and nobody under any circumstance should make fun of it. To dress it up as ‘community cohesion’ is poppycock.
Sue R
February 2, 2014 at 7:25 pm
“Saying I don’t ‘endorse’ means I have not had time enough to research them properly Matt.”
Saying I don’t ‘endorse’ can mean that. Saying “we CERTAINLY don’t endorse” [emphasis mine] has a different meaning altogether.
Matt Flaherty
February 2, 2014 at 9:39 pm
It might help if people bought and read ” The Islamist” by Ed Hussein also one of the founders of Quilliam. This is a personal account of how a young man was radicalised and came out the other side. It was no surprise to see the SWP opposed to the meeting and lining up with the opposition. They had their fingers burned with Respect and still haven’t learnt their lesson, I suppose they never will.
If the photo is any indication of the SWP in Plymouth then in terms of numbers they are in a very bad way. I will check to see if anything about this pops up on the Socialist Worker site or that of their almost defunct front organisation Unite Against Fascism. If this wasn’t authorised by the centre then it shows a real lack of authority on the part of what is left of the leadership.
themadmullahofbricklane
February 2, 2014 at 11:25 pm
I have read this book and heartily recommend it to everybody.
“A real bone of contention was Respect’s description of itself as ‘the party of Muslims’. In their dash for electoral gain the party had compromised with the Islamicist bullies described by Ed Husain in The Islamicist (2007). De facto alliances, now admitted by the SWP, had been forged with right-wing Islamicists, such as supporters of the reactionary Jamaat-i-Islami party present in the East London Mosque. Secular Bangladeshis were not slow to point to the bloody role the Jamaat played in opposing independence and suppressing the left in their country. Communalist appeals led to a growing electoral rival amongst Afro-Caribbean voters in the East End, the Christian People’s Alliance. Salma Yacoob associated with Birmingham mosques that played host to ultra-conservative preachers. Any attempt to oppose this approach was met with cries of ‘Islamophobia’. In municipal politics Respect increasingly relied on ‘community leaders’ (including wealthy businessmen) of a Muslim background (Bangladeshi in East London, Pakistani in Birmingham) rather than socialists or trade unionists. Nor was this the only difficulty. Their councillors often operated as councillors frequently do: vying for position, and standing up for ‘their people’ first, squabbling, switching sides, and puffing themselves up, regardless of their party’s instructions.”
http://www.chartist.org.uk/articles/britpol/mar08_coates.htm
As Bricky points out, there was not exactly a mass turnout by the SWP.
On Sarah AB’s point.
I checked when writing this post, and at least yesterday there was nothing in Socialist Worker about it.
Andrew Coates
February 3, 2014 at 11:14 am
I used to debate with someone called Sarah AB on Aaronovitch Watch, a most bigotted and ignorant individual. Another prime example of the drone supporting left!
I presonally never supported RESPECT but I have no qualms about being associated with them.
There is a pattern on this site and a pretty relentless message, those pesky Muslims are here and should be feared!
Incidentally Channel 4 turned down a TV programme about Parasite street, it was a story of parasitic bankers. Another example of censorship, though not one this site would talk about. Doesn’t fit the right demographic!
Anyway, who is worried about bankers when we have these hoardes of Islamists to combat!
Socialism In One Bedroom
February 3, 2014 at 12:21 pm
What do you expect? – the SWP has a long and unprincipled history of leaping on whatever bandwagon they think might sell them a few more papers and win a recruit or two to the cult.
For any other organisation the Respect debacle might have caused something of a rethink but no – in Kipling’s inimitable words ‘the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire’…..
R F McCarthy (@RF_McCarthy)
February 3, 2014 at 4:09 pm
‘If the photo is any indication of the SWP in Plymouth then in terms of numbers they are in a very bad way.’
We are talking Plymouth here – not Hackney or Brixton.
You actually have 30-40 guys (and am I the only one here to notice how barring maybe 2 or 3 they are almost all guys?) in that photo from an area which has a Muslim population of only 0.8% according to the 2011 Census and is not AFAIK a hotbed of Islamist militancy.
So it’s quite possible that the SWP have a dozen or more members in that crowd.
Which for an organisation which really can’t have many more than a thousand members nationally these days would presumably count as a flourishing branch.
R F McCarthy (@RF_McCarthy)
February 3, 2014 at 4:28 pm
The whole history of the left has been in the general area of debacle. We exist in debacle land, and live on debacle avenue. When I was younger it was vogue to say that championing Gay, Lesbian and transgender rights was a mistake/a debacle because it alienated working class people and now they say the defence of Muslims does the same. We ignored people on gay rights and we should ignore people on defending Muslims.
Re RESPECT – Galloway is probably the biggest hero on the UK left among Muslims, whereas the decents are generally hated with a passion (including among Muslim women). The Muslim people, who are ones who have to face daily racism and oppression, well know who is on their side and who isn’t. And they have correctly concluded that the drone supporting left have nothing to offer them.
Socialism In One Bedroom
February 3, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Reply to complaint about Jesus and Mo site being blocked from Suffolk Library (I cut and pasted this, so it is real).
Dear Mr Coates, thanks for raising this with us and we apologise that you could not access the site yesterday.
We’ve seen all the related tweets etc over the weekend and appreciate you raising this as it’s not something we were previous aware of. Suffolk Libraries certainly haven’t made a conscious decision to block the site so you can be assured it’s not an issue of censorship.
We thought it might have been automatically blocked by the internet filtering system but after testing it this morning we could access the site from public pcs. It may have been a particular issue with the pc you were using so we will look into this.
Naturally there are certain sites which are illegal or inappropriate to view in a public place because of their adult content, but please be assured that Suffolk Libraries respects people’s right to free speech and freedom to view whatever content they wish on our public computers.
Suffolk Libraries.
Andrew Coates
February 3, 2014 at 5:08 pm
Jesus and Mo website and filtering internet websites and pages
Suffolk Libraries.
Recently a customer complained they couldn’t access the Jesus and Mo website from one of our public PCs. Several people also contacted us on Twitter.
We never made a conscious decision to block the website. Originally, we thought our internet filtering system may have been blocking the site automatically, but after testing we found we could access the site from public PCs.
It transpires the site has been blocked from 4 PCs in Ipswich County Library, where we are testing a new filtering system. We need to test this system with real users, so we can’t guarantee that certain sites won’t be blocked if you happen to use one of these PCs. We will leave a note on these 4 PCs so users understand why they can’t access certain sites.
Naturally, there are certain sites which are illegal or inappropriate to view in a public place because of their adult content, but we respect people’s right to free speech, and their freedom to view whatever content they wish on our public computers.
http://www.suffolklibraries.co.uk/news/jesus-and-mo-website-and-filtering-internet-websites-and-pages/
Andrew Coates
February 5, 2014 at 1:50 pm
“SWP Goes Islamist” ?
They have been, to all intents and purpose, Islamists without religious faith since 2001, when the WFC attacks and the militant Islamist reaction, convinced Harman, Rees, German & Co that here was a new form of “anti-imperialism” to be (not very) “critically” supported.
Recently, if anything, they’re showing signs of becoming less enthusiastic about some manifestations of Islamism (eg the ISIL/ISIS in Syria), whilst not reassessing their ‘de facto’ support for the Taliban. The SWP’s current confusion/dishonesty on this question is described an analysed here:
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2014/01/25/socialist-worker-looks-two-ways-islamists
Jim Denham
February 3, 2014 at 6:59 pm
“WFC” should, of course, be “WTC”.
Jim Denham
February 3, 2014 at 7:00 pm
“When I was younger it was vogue to say that championing Gay, Lesbian and transgender rights was a mistake/a debacle because it alienated working class people and now they say the defence of Muslims does the same. We ignored people on gay rights and we should ignore people on defending Muslims.”
How many people on the Left oppose ‘defending Muslim rights’ because it ‘alienates working class people’???? Virtually everyone on the Left supports the rights of Muslims as individuals and defends them against racist attacks. Not everyone supports the political ideology of Islam that seeks to destroy Gay Rights, Women’s Rights and so on, which the Left has spent many years backing. It doesn’t seem like a difficult thing to understand.
Igor Belanov
February 3, 2014 at 8:37 pm
FWIW (actually next to nothing) I actually take the view that going out of the way to offend Muslims or for that matter Christians is effectively a form of epater le proletarian these days (just look at the census data on religion and class).
And when you are in such desperate straits as the left has been since the 1980s you will clutch at any straw however illusory,
So the SWP’s and even Galloway’s behaviour is however unprincipled not entirely irrational.
R F McCarthy (@RF_McCarthy)
February 3, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Why would ‘the left’ want to shock the proletariate? Doesn’t make sense. Anyway, most of the indiginous working class people I know are indifferent to religion, especially the CofE kind. I actually went to a Church social on Saturday and the class nature of the people in the room was I would say minor petty-bourgois, local authority clerks and foremen. Do you consider them working class? They may have been members of unions when they were working (most were retired). I think the reason they may or may not vote Labour or describe themselves are ‘left’ is more to do with inflation and wages etc.
Sue R
February 3, 2014 at 9:33 pm
Andrew,
they don’t seem very competent. When explaining their filtering scheme, they say
a) it’s not our fault
but b) we can de-filter sites (oh, i mean, ‘we can ask for it to be de-filtered but it might not happen anyway’)
but c) well not always, so we’ve put a friendly not to say ‘bad luck’
and d) and not ever, when it’s a wireless connection ‘because (in this case only) we can’t tell who would be using the connection’.
They also can’t spell “homophobic” – but maybe this is a bid to stop the page with the filtering info from getting around the filtering system? – and the e-mail address given to use, should you want to contact them re. filtering, is anything but “(help@suffolklibraries”) and therefore won’t work, and is also not-clickable and will most likely stump most internet users (in my experience, unfortunately).
http://www.suffolklibraries.co.uk/how-to-join-and-use-the-library/what-we-filter-on-public-pcs-and-our-wifi-service/
Hooray for The Big Society!
dagmar
February 5, 2014 at 2:54 pm
They did first of all deny that there was a block at all!
Andrew Coates
February 6, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Socialism in one bedroom. Can you explain how you have never supported Respect but have no qualms about being associated with them. As they have collapsed because of the fact that the Muslim membership abandoned them leading to the bloodletting within the SWP and between the SWP and Galloway perhaps you would like to give us some explanation of your position. At the moment you don’t make any sense to m, I don’t know about others.
themadmullahofbricklane
February 5, 2014 at 3:09 pm
“Can you explain how you have never supported Respect but have no qualms about being associated with them.”
Coates was doing that thing typical of the drone supporting left, comparing RESPECT with the EDL (and the decents claim they are anti fascists – you could not make it up folks!). I was pointing out that I see no shame in being associated with RESPECT. But I would if I was constantly aligning myself with the EDL!
RESPECT never really collapsed, as they never really reached any considerable heights. If you compare them to other left groups it can appear that way! The entropy affect of our first past the post system tends to eventually lead to all marginal voters moving back to the main protagonists. I know that in recent years things have got more interesting but major political reform would be needed to fundamentally change anything. I do support PR I think.
Socialism In One Bedroom
February 5, 2014 at 7:20 pm
You still haven’t answered the question. There seems to be a contradiction in what you are saying, at least in so far as I understand the English language. You have never supported Respect but you have no qualms about being associated with them.
It simply makes no sense. I don’t remember Mr Coates comparing them wit the EDL even though both were essentially opportunistic flash mobs which came and went although the EDL is still with us in one form or another.
In Tower Hamlets two independent councillors still use the Respect brand name but they are members of the IFE/ business group that back the Mayor Lutfur Rahman. They take their £10 000 a year expenses and do no work. Respect doesn’t exist, has no address and no activities.
I am not sure of the situation in Bradford but it would seem that all of the Kashmiri councillors are now independents having broken from Galloway and his rump of SWP Central Committee members who decided to stay with his salaries, that was certainly the case wit Kevin Ovenden.
What do you think happened to Respect especially the Bradford Spring? Philosophy Football must have a lot of those unsold Tee shirts left.
themadmullahofbricklane
February 5, 2014 at 7:49 pm
Incidentally, this illustrates my point, the hopelessly bigoted see this site as a valuable resource, and a source of information:
http://www.fahrenheit211.net/2013/06/03/2133/
themadmullahofbricklane will probably be wondering what is wrong with this site!
Socialism In One Bedroom
February 5, 2014 at 8:39 pm
“You have never supported Respect but you have no qualms about being associated with them.”
Well it does make sense if you stretch your thinking a little. If person A says that I could be a candidate for RESPECT then so what but if person A said I was a candidate for the EDL I would take offence.
Why this simple point eludes your intellect is anyone’s guess?
Coates is a bit of a conspiracy theorist, usually a cardinal sin among the drone supporting left! I mean he imagines that Islamists are about to take over British institutions! This was the headline used by the far rightists I linked to above:
“British blogger visited by police for exposing Jihadist penetration of local authority”
No wonder the far right love you!
If anyone even raises the possibility of a Zionist lobby in the USA they are immediately labelled anti Semite racist scum.
The double standards are quite eye opening!
Socialism In One Bedroom
February 6, 2014 at 7:58 pm
Let’s try English one bedroom. and transpose Respect for the BNP. You therefore have never supported the BNP but would have no qualms about being associated with them. I am concerned with your use of the English language, such as it is.
themadmullahofbricklane
February 6, 2014 at 8:12 pm
“If person A says that I could be a candidate for RESPECT then so what but if person A said I was a candidate for the EDL I would take offence.”
Jeez, pass me a piece of chalk!
When I say I never supported RESPECT, it means I never joined them, voted for them, never generally agreed with their strategy. I tend to not support all and every left sect. But I have problems engaging with any of them either (even the home of the drone supporting left, AWL!)
But if I was talking about the BNP I wouldn’t really put it so mildly as I never supported them, I would say I detested everything they stood for.
See how the use of the English language can be utilised to give shades of meaning?
Socialism In One Bedroom
February 6, 2014 at 8:33 pm
That should read:
“But I **don’t** have problems engaging with any of them either (even the home of the drone supporting left, AWL!)”
Hope this doesn’t confuse you too much!
Socialism In One Bedroom
February 6, 2014 at 8:35 pm
Yes, it does confuse me. What does ‘But I have problems engaging with any of them either (even the home of the drone supporting left AWL!)’ Do you mean ‘But I have no problems engaing with any of them either (not even the home…)’Who are you comparing ‘them’ to? Either is a comparative, it is a case of ‘either/or’, you can’t just drop it into a sentence. I noticed you also we using the if…then comparator on the other thread. That too seemed to be being used in an idiosyncratic way. Are you a first year Philosophy student?
Sue R
February 6, 2014 at 11:45 pm
See you’ve clarified your English.
Sue R
February 6, 2014 at 11:46 pm
I rather think you have confused the poor lad Sue R. There is no sign of any acknowledgement of the above meeting on either the SWP site or that of UAF so we must conclude that it was an unauthorised and poorly attended event. Who or what are AWL?
Do we now take it that Socialism in One Bedroom has no problem engaging with anyone and leave it at that? (That’s enough engagements. Ed).
themadmullahofbricklane
February 7, 2014 at 7:47 am
Anybody who imagines that the AWL are “drone supporting” has long passed over to comedy.
Andrew Coates
February 7, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Maybe they have, but who or what are the AWL?
themadmullahofbricklane
February 7, 2014 at 1:20 pm
The madmullah doesn’t know how to google, and reads a far-left website which often references the said AWL without ever having clicked on any of the links to its website?
There is only one possible reason: the madmullah is a SWP member who is still scared of the internet, and brief visits to this blog is the most forbidden thing he or she will read.
dagmar
February 7, 2014 at 1:55 pm
The AWL paper, Solidarity, is read by many activists, including the Tendance:
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2014/02/05/solidarity-312
Andrew Coates
February 7, 2014 at 5:36 pm
Dagmar. If I were to google all of the nutty groups both left and right referenced here and elsewhere that is all I would do. I most certainly am not a member of the SWP which, if you have read my detailed postings you would know. I live in Tower Hamlets and am aware only too well of the damage they have done to relations between the various communities in that borough.
I also don’t consider this to be a far left website as it is sensible and allows discussion unlike the ones run by the SWP which has no discussion at all or the total misnamed Socialist Unity which censors anything it doesn’t agree with. Probably the reason why it has so few posts.
I ask the question again. Apart from publishing a newspaper on line that I will look at who are the AWL?
themadmullahofbricklane
February 8, 2014 at 2:22 am
Mullah, I suspect you might find the AWL less “nutty” than most of the other groups referenced here, which is probably one of the reasons it is linked to here quite a lot. In a nutshell (ahem), the AWL (Alliance for Workers’ Liberty) is a small Trotskyist group which has many positions on “big” politics that are certainly not typical for the “Trot mainstream” in the UK, positions that may well seem very “reasonable” and “common sense”, even without the far-left baggage that they use to justify them.
dagmar
February 9, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Exactly.
Plus they have a long-term activist core that other long-term activists relate to.
Andrew Coates
February 9, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Join forces with extremist Islamic groups to protest right wing extremist groups, it’s like becoming a Nazi to fight Communism. You don’t support Islamic extremism to fight racism, but then again the SWP did hold their own version of sharia law with that rape case. Can’t we just put the SWP, UAF, EDL and BNP in one field and make Britain a better place for all (including undertakers)
Also anybody spot the looks given to the SWP member on the right, racist hatred or what?
Chris W
February 9, 2014 at 8:59 pm
What most baffled me about this picture was that I think the SWP member more towards the middle bears more than a passing resemblance to a Labour PPC for a Swindon-area-constituency. But it isn’t him.
dagmar
February 10, 2014 at 1:06 am
Reblogged this on oogenhand.
oogenhand
May 14, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Reblogged this on ElderofZyklon's Blog!.
Cj aka Elderofzyklons Blog
May 14, 2014 at 12:42 pm