English Defence League: Mission Statement
| 1. | Human Rights: Protecting And Promoting Human Rights The English Defence League (EDL) is a human rights organisation that exists to protect the inalienable rights of all people to protest against radical Islam’s encroachment into the lives of non-Muslims. It also recognises that Muslims themselves are frequently the main victims of some Islamic traditions and practices. The Government should ensure the individual human rights of members of the Muslim community to openly criticise Islamic orthodoxy, to challenge Islamic community leaders without fear of retribution, to receive full equality before the law (including equal rights for Muslim women), and to leave Islam if they see fit and to do so without fear or censure. Muslims have the right to demand reform of their religion to make it more relevant to the needs of the modern world, including the need to fully respect other groups in society without fear of retribution. The EDL calls upon the Government to repeal legislation that prevents effective freedom of speech, which is essential if the human rights abuses that sometimes manifest themselves around Islam are to be stopped. The EDL believes that radical Islam has a stranglehold on British Muslims. It keeps them fearful and isolated, especially the women that it encases in the burqa. It misrepresents their views, stifles freedom of expression, and radicalises their children, whilst continually doing a discredit to those who do wish to peacefully co-exist with their fellow Britons. | |
| 2. | Democracy and the Rule of Law: Promoting Democracy And The Rule Of Law By Opposing Sharia The European Court of Human Rights has declared that “sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy”. We have seen in recent years a great deal of accommodation with sharia norms based on the premise that sharia rules can be simply attached to our existing traditions and customs. In reality sharia is an alternative to our legal, political, and social systems. Encouragement of halal food, Islamic courts, and the demand to respect Islam are all aspects of sharia designed to undermine our established way of life on the road to the crystalisation of the full sharia alternative. Sharia law makes a fundamental distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the EDL will never allow this sort of iniquitous apartheid system to take root in our country. The EDL will therefore oppose sharia appeasement in all its forms. | |
| 3. | Public Education: Ensuring That The Public Get A Balanced Picture Of Islam A central part of the EDL’s mission is public education. For a long time the British political and media establishment have been presenting a very sanitised and therefore inaccurate view of Islam shaped by the needs of policy-makers rather than the needs of the public. This has acted as a barrier to informed policy-making and made the solution of real problems impossible. In pursuing this self-defeating and destructive policy, the Government has effectively been acting as the propaganda arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. |
| The EDL is committed to a campaign of public education to ensure that all aspects of Islam that impact on our society are brought into the open so that they can be debated in a forthright and honest manner. It believes that only by looking at all the facts can society be effectively and humanely governed. If there are aspects of Muslim tradition that encourage the activities of Islamic radicals and criminals, then these need to be properly addressed without fear of accusations of racism or xenophobia. The public must have a more balanced and less sanitised view of Islam that allows it to ensure that decision-makers are held to account for their policy-making choices, choices that affect the harmony and security of the nation. The EDL promotes the understanding of Islam and the implications for non-Muslims forced to live alongside it. Islam is not just a religious system, but a political and social ideology that seeks to dominate all non-believers and impose a harsh legal system that rejects the democratic process. It runs counter to all that we hold dear within our British liberal democracy. | ||
| 4. | Respecting Tradition: Promoting The Traditions And Culture Of England While At The Same Time Being Open To Embrace The Best That Other Cultures Can Offer The EDL believes that English Culture has the right to exist and prosper in England. It recognises that culture is not static, and that over time natural change takes place, and that other cultures can make contributions which make our culture stronger and more vibrant. However, this does not give license to policy-makers to deliberately undermine our culture and impose non-English cultures on the English people in their own land. If people migrate to this country then they should be expected to respect our culture, its laws and traditions, and not expect their own cultures to be promoted by agencies of the state. The best of their cultures will be absorbed naturally and we will all be united by the enhanced culture that results. The EDL is therefore keen to draw its support from all races, all faiths, all political persuasions, and all lifestyle choices. Under its umbrella all people in England, whatever their background or origin, can stand united in a desire to stop the imposition of the rules of Islam on non-believers. In order to ensure the continuity of our culture and its institutions, the EDL stands opposed to the creeping Islamisation of our country, because that presents itself as an undemocratic alternative to our cherished way of life. Our armed forces stand up and risk their lives every day in order to protect our culture and democratic way of life. They, also, are inclusive of all England’s diversity, and are a shining example of what a people can achieve in unity. The EDL is therefore committed to opposing any and all abuse that our men and women in uniform are subjected to, and will campaign for legal remedies to ensure that those working within these important institutions are not exposed to abuse or aggression from within our country. | |
| 5. | International Outlook: Working In Solidarity With Others Around The World The EDL is keen to join with others who share its values, wherever they are in the world, and from whatever cultural background they derive. It believes that the demand for sharia is global and therefore needs to tackled at a global as well a as national level, so that this demand will never be realised. The EDL will therefore have an international outlook to enhance and strengthen its domestic efforts. |
19 comments:
Very good, the person who wrote this has been studying other documents about freedom. It is going to be hard for the left to tear this document apart.
Right on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh9tU8O1LfY
Excellent work.
Spot on.
Canny, cogent and convincing.
Major kudos!
Yet the BEEB and MSM insist on calling the EDL "far right". I see nothing "far right" here. Just common sense.
All are welcome to subsume the British. Bring your Cultures and we will change ours to fit your.
EDL - SELLING OUT EARLY.
BRITAIN FOR THE BRITISH BY THE BRITISH.
The INDIGENOUS BRITISH, it's CULTURE, PEOPLE, LAWS, CUSTOMS etc, should be the only things allowed in Britain.
If Immigrants want their Culture and Practices in Britain then they have come to the wrong place.
Sure, allow them their Religions but don't allow them to build mosques any higher than a bungalow. Most of the new MEGA MOSQUES are going to dwarf our CATHEDRALS.
Come on EDL, you don't know what you want or what the INDIGENOUS BRITISH WANT EITHER.
Well said Kuffar! :)
Silly Kuffar, Agent Chameleon, think tactics! EDL is playing this just right.
@bewick "Yet the BEEB and MSM insist on calling the EDL "far right".
This would be the same BEEB and MSM that claims that A. Hitler was not the leader of the German Labour Party (NSAPD) and not a socialist?
Sulber Nick,
There is nothing tactically advantageous about treating English identity as something universal and open to Third World immigrants. The fact that the EDL is surrendering English identity is already a major victory for the globalist agenda as well as the Islamic radicals. If the EDL were truly an English Defense League, they would be defending then rights of the English as well as the Scots, Irish, and Welsh to exist as a people, with their respective cultures belonging to them and them alone.
Just because that position is politically incorrect does not mean we need to embrace the feel-good civic nationalist mainstream. We need to keep pushing for what is right, even if it makes us unpopular (for now).
Agent Chameleon, "There is nothing tactically advantageous about treating English identity as something universal and open to third world immigrants."
I beg to differ. Cultures have always been willing to accept individual outsiders provided the outsider is of benefit to the culture. The emphasis of course is on the individual - it excludes the vast majority of third world immigrants who have neither the inclination nor the ability to assimilate.
Tactically therefore this is perfect - no one is excluded provided they are willing to leave their old culture and ways behind and to adopt the new culture unconditionally, which of course excludes almost everyone.
Sulber Nick,
I agree with you that there are always exceptions, but the EDL does not make that point. Rather than acknowledge the existence of an English people who are product of both genes and culture that have remained mostly intact since the end of Ice Age, it treats English identity as an idea, and nothing more. By doing this, they are participating in the charade promoted by the mainstream parties and the media establishment that the English are mongrels and/or do not exist as a people. And no, saying all you care about is culture is not going to automatically exclude most immigrants, because judging cultural assimilation is subjective, and a lot of people will cite accents or other superficial things as proof of "assimilation".
The English are dying as a people, and the EDL needs to help in the battle to help rekindle true English nationalism. This is something greater than resisting Islam. For Islam is not the real problem. Even if there was no Islam, the English people would slowly be dying off (and perhaps replaced by another Third World group). The EDL needs to address the core issues of English identity, English birthrates, and the corruption within Western Civilization that is enabling Islam and other Third World forces to become so powerful within the West.
Agent Chameleon - The EDL doesn't make the point about exceptions because it's not in its interest to do so - especially given the fact that the EDL has to operate within parameters defined by the state/establishment.
With respect I think you put the cart before the horse. The notion of English nationalism is too esoteric for most people, the struggle against Islam is more easily understood and is more likely to garner support. And if anything English nationalism is likely to benefit from an organised opposition to Islam. Whether the English are mongrels or not is neither here nor there - racial purity is a 'luxury' issue and can be dealt with only when more pressing matters have been resolved.
That said, the nationalism concept belongs to the past - as does the nation state, whether we like it or not.
Islam is the brown peoples'
'religion' and it is one of their major weapons in the fight against white peoples. Race war renders the idea of nationality irrelevant - our enemies don't distinguish us as English, Scottish, French, German, to them we are white, or Western - and it is race war that we face.
Sulber Nick,
I do not deny the racial component to this conflict, and agree that all white ethnicities are on the same boat. That being said, I favor maintaining the diversity within the European peoples as much as possible.
You are also correct that English/British ethnonationalism is currently not within the bounds of acceptable discourse, and that's something that needs to change. If we continue to allow the Left (and the civic nationalist Right) to set the terms for acceptable discourse, then we will continue to handicap ourselves. Whatever one may think of Saul Alinsky, his Rules for Radicals has some useful pearls of wisdom, such as continuing to push radical ideas (in our case, ethnonationalism), until they gradually seep into the mainstream consciousness, and then lo and behold, the parameters of acceptable discourse have been moved. The Left has been playing this tactic for decades, and that is precisely why rightwing movements always seem to become more liberal over the decades. We can fight back using this method, by promoting the idea of an organic England, Ireland, Germany, Russia, etc.
And it's inevitable that we will be compared to Nazis, fascists, the KKK, etc, but we can overcome those slurs and illogical comparisons by simply promoting positive identity. Positive identity, where you take pride in your own culture and heritage, without engaging in negative criticism of others.
And here's the problem with the "Counter-Jihad" movement: it's all built on the basis of being opposed to something, rather than being for something. We can criticize Islam all we want, but when our own civilization is declining, we have very little to defend, and end up coming across as nothing but negative malcontents. As time goes on, Western Civilization has become more decadent, more corrupt, and people will ask us "what are we fighting for?". Geert Wilders bases his opposition to Islam around abstract ideas like freedom, but really, what does that mean? Does that mean we oppose Islam so we can have our gay marriages, pot smoking, and abortion-on-demand? Is that worth fighting for?
No effective resistance to the Islamic conquest of the West will arise from that approach. Sure we could get people worked up initially, but honestly, there has been plenty of examples of Islamic terrorism, and if those cases are not enough to mobilize people, then nothing else that the Muslims do will galvanize white people. A good example of this is the election in Oldham; the BNP made Muslim paedophilia and exploitation of native English girls a central issue, yet that didn't help their vote at all, in fact, they lost votes in contrast to their previous vote count in that town. And why is that?
Because there is something fundamentally wrong with the West; people will hear stories about their own kin being sexually exploited, and rather than mobilizing as a community in the same manner as Third World societies, they simply shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, it's not my girls, so its not my problem". In America it's the same thing, a white person is murdered with obvious racial motivations, and we white Americans shrug and move on.
This is the disease of extreme individualism; this is the plague that is destroying the white race. Now don't get me wrong, individualism can be a good thing; I am a fan of creative endeavors, and such things are a product of Western individualism (and it's no coincidence that the West is the source for a lot of entertainment). However, we in the West have taken individualism too far, where we stop looking at our people as kin, where we don't stick together and support each other. We even go as far as to open our identities to outsiders, as if our nations are nothing more than clubs or philosophies.
This is the root problem, and groups like the EDL will fail to effectively oppose Islam if they are built on a collection of autonomous individuals rather than a concrete ethnic movement.
We need to halt and change our tactics. Change the rhetoric from bashing Islam (because fear-mongering can only get you so far before you come across as being hyberbolic) and instead promote English identity and pride. Host an English cultural festival. Teach English kids about English history. Establish ties with your English neighbors; ie community building.
One nationalist on a BNP forum said it best: "Nationalism starts with a simple handshake."
Sorry, there is a middle portion that didn't make it:
And here's the problem with the "Counter-Jihad" movement: it's all built on the basis of being opposed to something, rather than being for something. We can criticize Islam all we want, but when our own civilization is declining, we have very little to defend, and end up coming across as nothing but negative malcontents. As time goes on, Western Civilization has become more decadent, more corrupt, and people will ask us "what are we fighting for?". Geert Wilders bases his opposition to Islam around abstract ideas like freedom, but really, what does that mean? Does that mean we oppose Islam so we can have our gay marriages, pot smoking, and abortion-on-demand? Is that worth fighting for?
No effective resistance to the Islamic conquest of the West will arise from that approach. Sure we could get people worked up initially, but honestly, there has been plenty of examples of Islamic terrorism, and if those cases are not enough to mobilize people, then nothing else that the Muslims do will galvanize white people. A good example of this is the election in Oldham; the BNP made Muslim paedophilia and exploitation of native English girls a central issue, yet that didn't help their vote at all, in fact, they lost votes in contrast to their previous vote count in that town. And why is that?
Because there is something fundamentally wrong with the West; people will hear stories about their own kin being sexually exploited, and rather than mobilizing as a community in the same manner as Third World societies, they simply shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, it's not my girls, so its not my problem". In America it's the same thing, a white person is murdered with obvious racial motivations, and we white Americans shrug and move on.
A C, You make some pertinent points. My argument is that 'purity' will follow change, and that in the meantime any action that brings whites together in common cause against the establishment is good - even if it is 'tainted'. Acting in common cause galvanises people (the Muslims don't seem to be aware that they assist in this process) -the ideal antidote to suicidal individuality.
Islam nor militant Islam, nor Islamism is a threat.
Let us be absolutely clear.
The absolute foundation of the culture and civilization of the West is founded upon Islamic principles. Science, philosophy, mathematics, algebra, chemistry, physics, geography, navigation, medicine, scientific research and discovery, pharmacy, even maps... all brought to the West by Muslims.
There is even research which now suggests that our English legal system, the Inns of courts at Temple in London are all based on Islamic systems.
Whilst we in England were living in mud huts and urinating on the streets in towns, in the Muslim world they established the first hospitals, universities and were doing corrective eye surgery whilst we were drowning witches in rivers.
The coffee houses (kehua in arabic) brought education and learning leading to the rennaissance across Europe. Before Muslims came to Spain it was a desert - Muslims brought running water and irrigation - the first water fountains. Spain is now the fruit basket of Europe.
Castles, domes, reasoning and rationalization... all conditions brought about by Muslims. It is often said that the great works of antiquity such as Plato and Aristotle were lost in Europe as the learning of Latin and ancient Greek died out before the Muslims re-introduced it.
So what is there to be scared of?
People are unhappy and angry. We have record teenage pregnancies, social disorder, families falling apart, record unemployment, decay and ruin, financial bankruptcy, massive inequalities, foreign wars of aggression, we perpetrate and allow cruel dictatorships and we oversee genocides. We make nothing and our only trades are war and finance - and we know about both of them don't we?
World Wars 1, 2.. Stalin, Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, genocides in Rwanda, of Australian aboriginals, Native Americans and many others besides... hundreds of millions dead.... were these done by Muslims?
In fact it is a little known fact that Muslims were navigating, trading and intermarrying (mingling and integrating) peacefully with native American tribes 500 years before Columbus ever set foot in the Americas on his great crusade.
What is there to fear?
According to the Muslims, Islam is a completion God's chosen religion. This is why in the Holy Lands, those Jews became Christian and those Christians became Muslim.
During the Crusades, Pope Urban II called for the reconquering of Jerusalem where it was said Muslims were massacring Jews and Christians. After raping, murdering and pillaging their way across Europe, the Mediterranean and North Africa, when Richard Lionheart arrived at the hills of Jerusalem, it is said that he wept. Why?
Because he saw Muslims living peacefully, side by side with Jews and Christians, all obeying their own religions alongside each other. He wept because it was a lie and he had condemned himself to hell for following the lies of others.
And Muslims believe that when mischief makers are thrown into the hellfire, they will each turn and beg that they are not responsible... that the next person should be punished double as they followed their wayward lies and beliefs.
What is to fear but fear itself.
Post a Comment