| ||According to the Daily Star, the leader of the extremist English Defence League is not ‘ruling out’ the EDL becoming a political party.|
Stephen Lennon is quoted as saying:
“We are a single issue group and at the moment we would rather have a dialogue with the other political parties – but that could change.”
On the main aim of the EDL, Lennon tellingly replied:
“...the organisation’s main aim was to outlaw the Koran then adapt it to fit in with British society.
“He said: ‘They have got a responsibility to sort out their religion. They have to reform their religion so it fits in.’”
So much for only being against ‘militant Islam.’
The EDL were bolstered by the remarks made by PM David Cameron in his speech at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday. That Cameron’s speech gave the EDL stance a degree of respectability in their eyes was reflected by the comments from the crowd at their latest anti-Muslim demonstration – held on the same day that Cameron made his speech. Some of the crowd were reportedly ‘jubilant’, saying that Cameron "had come round to our way of thinking."
The EDL’s Islamophobic policies and pronunciations are also given credence by the reporting of such newspapers as the Daily Star, which regularly reports Muslims as an ‘enemy within’; as ‘troublemakers’; and as violent.
Perhaps that is why 98% of DS readers reportedly “agreed with the EDL’s policies” via a DS phone poll yesterday.
A DS headline yesterday on the EDL furthermore seems to give the extremist group a sense of respectability and support. The headline read: “English Defence League: Will Fight for Hero’s.”
This was in relation to a pledge made by Stephen Lennon to march in Birmingham on 19th March in reply to a recent report that two Muslim councillors in Birmingham refused to join in what they described as the “phoney patriotism” of politicians who “cry crocodile tears over the plight of our troops, and do nothing to bring this war [in Afghanistan] to an end.”
Previous DS headlines rightly described the EDL as extremists. Are we to assume that the DS no longer wishes to portray the group as such?
|< Prev||Next >|