gordondaviesmoustache said:
jma said:
I will use the term 'they are both as bad as each other about Islamic fundamentalist and EDL supporters' and here's why.
You (actually, I don't think you are actually saying this), or others making the point, seem to think that the isolated actions of each of them are the only impact that they have. But if that were the case there wouldn't be terrorism and there would be far right 'hate' groups (not just now, but throughout history).
The real issue is what they stand for, who they influence and the issues they create through their actions.
You are right, there is no real comparison regarding the physical acts that they get up to. One 'side' is murder and 'one' is (mostly) 'just' hate at present.
However, I would imagine that Islamic extremists, given that their atrocities are committed by a handful of people, find genuine support amongst a very small percentage of the population (both the general population and the Islamic population). Their acts are so extreme and vicious that it is obviously to all but the extremely disturbed that they are full of hate, misguided and wrong. Their will also be some sympathisers to such causes and they only have to influence one genuine nutter every five years for such acts to continue but there will be relatively few people who don't see them as complete morons and disgusting.
The EDL on the other hand, whilst not committing such terrible acts, have a far more perverse and sickening impact on the general population. For proof of that, see the amount of people on here who are always desperate to pop their head up and talk of them as 'prepared to stand up' or give out crap like 'I don't support them but..............' (then going on to basically say that they think they will be proven to be correct or that they will become a major power).
The EDL is just as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalism in my view because of the influence that it has on, and this sounds arrogant, the thicker members of society. Before you jump all over the arrogance though, you don't have to go far back in history at all to find dozens of examples where gullible idiots have been agitated by disgraceful regimes to 'rise up' against the 'people who are the cause of all their problems' in their society. It's even easier when that taps in to the casual (and not so casual) racism and prejudice that many people hold anyway.
The idiots and those with long standing prejudices are the easiest to influence. But then such language and beliefs become gradually more mainstream and others pop up reflecting the same thing - either through pure exposure to such influence or because they are more emboldened to express dirty little beliefs they would have kept quiet in a normal society. That's how the spread, in the more extreme cases, of a far right culture works. Until, if they get their way, parts of society never previous having any interaction with that point of view see it as gaining prominence and as a 'norm'.
What is more dangerous? The threat of a horrific terrorist act every five years, slaughtering inrecnocents? Or the growth of a national culture where hate and fear and persecution of a section of society is, if not seen as the norm, certainly not seen as anything to be ashamed of by those involved in such.
In terms of body count (at this stage of the development of a far right political culture, anyway), then - no contest - the terrorism wins hands down (although tell that to people in countries where a similar far right 'scapegoatism' has developed a few years further than the seeds of some nobs on a march). In terms of the threat to the every day fabric and tolerance of society and in terms of influencing a country to become like regimes we fought against not so long ago. It's a much tighter call.
Both are huge dangers to what we hold dear in this country and anyone supporting either - even verbally or, in the EDL's case, by proclaiming them to be some sort of 'natural reaction or 'having a point' on the internet - is a fucking disgrace.
I will avoid the temptation to take issue with your recidivistic habit of categorising those with whom you disagree as "thick" (I strongly suspect, for example, you wouldn't say the same of union members manipulated into striking) as on this occasion you have had the decency to admit that it can appear to be arrogant, but rather your apparent assertion that the influence and reach of Islamic extremism is limited to the acts committed in its name.
Sadly, this is wholly incorrect, because I believe you are looking at it from the wrong angle. It has been used by those that govern us as a vehicle to influence foreign policy, wage illegal wars and erode our civil liberties. We may disagree about a great deal, but I imagine these are matters upon which we concur greatly as to their importance.
I agree with your views on the EDL in the main, they are a deeply unpleasant group of people, but the influence of Islamic fundamentalism upon us as citizens can be seen every day: from opening a bank account, to going through customs; from the willful blindness of torture of British nationals to the extra powers that the state has to monitor its citizens.
You are correct that atrocities in the name of Islam are committed on a relatively infrequent basis. Five people die everyday on the roads and yet any attempt to limit the use of cars as a consequence of that statistic would be rounded on by the right wing press as an assault on our liberty. The infrequency of these "terrorist" events makes their impact on our freedoms all the more insidious. We have allowed these isolated acts to alter the way we live our lives and who knows where it will end. Why should it be that something which impacts statistically on far fewer people that deaths on the road be allowed to impose so readily on the liberties that we have sacrificed so much as a nation, and as people, to acquire and retain?
In that sense Islamic fundamentalism has had a far more pernicious effect on us as a society. Not because of the way it has made us think, but rather because of the criminal way we have allowed it let us to drop our guard against those who seek to govern and rule us. That's far more dangerous because it is something that right thinking people have far less control over than being in thrall of the faintly absurd EDL.
Well, yeah, of course I agree with what you say about the impact of the fear of Islamic extremism and the impact that it has on politics, foreign policy and civil liberties. More specifically, the effect it has on gaining support (or maybe quietening opposition) to decisions made in the name of protecting 'us' from the threat.
However, I was more referring to the impact on the general population and garnering the support/affecting the mindset of individuals in a dangerous way. I would contend that people who genuinely support these acts of terrorism are few and far between. Genuine support, as opposed to some degree of sympathy with the grievances that are alleged to motivate some of the perpetrators, for such acts would be difficult to find in any community. It will exist, just as it existed in Irish communities and other somewhat comparable situations, but the brutal nature of the acts involved are unpalatable to the vast majority of people. Meaning that those in this country who will accept the actions of Islamic extremism as a 'norm' pale into insignificance compared to those that might accept the EDL as the same.
I agree that such events have already been used to affect society in certain respects, through the acts of governments, but most of these matters, as important as they are (and they are important - using fear to garner support for wars with dubious aims is about as low as it gets) are still matters that have not really impacted the day to day lives of individuals here and have not yet drastically changed the very fabric of society.
A significant rise in the likes of the EDL and them being accepted by large parts of the mainstream population would create those changes though. No longer would the effects of Islamic extremism be a handful of horrendous events - and I don't seek to lessen the impact on those directly affected or downplay their horror in any way - and some political decisions that seem to most people (almost certainly incorrectly) to be very far away and not affecting them (which, of course, is how all restrictions of freedoms are painted and presented in order to gain the necessary support for them).
The impact of a normalisation and an acceptance of the likes of the EDL would be a shift, possibly an very difficult one to steer away from, in the fabric of society and set the country on a path that has been trodden elsewhere in history and has outcomes that are against everything that this country is supposed to stand for. The rise of the far right and it's desire for scapegoats and feeding on base instincts and fears is, to my mind at least, what this country, in the last 70 years, has defined itself as being the antithesis of. For very good reason.
So the reason that I rate any gain in credence for the message of the EDL as just as dangerous as the physical danger posed by Islamic extremism, is because history shows that populations in general are actually fairly easy to manipulate through their fears and their prejudices. (Which, of course, Islamic extremism also relies upon but that message, in this country at least, is much more difficult to dress up in the lie of "common sense" and therefore can't garner anywhere near the level of 'normal' support). You'd like to think that this would be less so, given the lessons of history and what you would think is a more educated and savvy population in 2013. But I'm not so sure. In fact, this board is a microscopic depiction of that, with the large numbers lining up to express a mixture of their fears and prejudices in, for the fabric of society, the most dangerous, base and reactionary way possible.
I've been thinking about the 'thick' and 'gullible idiots' comments and whilst I don't think they are without foundation (if you believe that education is the key to a) removing the fears that feed many prejudices and b) knowing why history says such reactions to events are just about the worst paths that can be taken then it is difficult to say that not realising that is not a function of not being educated, although not in the classical sense, enough) I also acknowledge that there are some bright people who are raving racists or drawn to such nonsense like Islamic extremism.
So, maybe, being 'thick' is not the key characteristic of those gullible enough to lend their support to any attempted rise of a far right culture. But certainly a lack of an ability to recognise how such causes gather support, how we, as individuals and populations, can be manipulated and where lending any sort of support whatsoever to them can lead a society are very present.
But, if we return to this board as a small study and you have a quick look at those loudest in their EDL esque rhetoric or calls for what they paint as "common sense" then would it be right to say that they are presenting composed, intelligent, thought through and coherent arguments? Would it be right to paint the vast bulk of them, or at least their arguments, as 'bright'? I don't know.
I do know that any attempt to consider that is definitely unhelpful and would almost certainly be depicted as the sort of cartoonish "liberal elitism" that is another rallying cry and bogeyman. But it also must be recognised that there is an established and proven method with which to engender support for the extreme by playing on the fears of a gullible population and that education plays a huge part in both eradicating those fears and allowing people to recognise when their fears might be driving them in a dangerous direction. The irony that this is as true for support/sympathy for the EDL as it is for Islamic extremism isn't really a funny one.
When you boil it down, Islamic extremism and the likes of the EDL are two sides of the same coin. Mirror images of each other, feeding on the disaffected (and the disenfranchised and the disaffected) from their own target communities. Giving a voice to the worst parts of human nature, feeding off the fear of persecution, the fear of the 'different', the fear of things changing and not being identical to the 'safe' and idylic memories of the part (even if those memories are false) and the part of human nature that is extremely receptive to the construction of a persecution complex. If all of that can be thrown together with some genuine grievances and/or horrific events, then it makes it all the easier.
Does disenfranchised, etc, equate with thick? Maybe not necessarily, but the education of people (worldwide) to be better equipped to recognise when they are being exploited by the above (EDL, Islamic extremism or other) should be pretty much a top priority, imo, and when people can't recognise that it is failure of education.
(And, again, I am, by no means suggesting that everything is rosy, that the issues both associated with or underlying Islamic extremism are being handled correctly or that the political responses in the UK to such issues are correct or proportionate. Just in case the above is taken as "wishy washy")
