|
|
|
My Brush With The Evil Face Of Extremism
I have seen the true face of right-wing groups such as the BNP and the English Defence League (EDL), and it isn’t pretty.
Both parties share similar policies to eradicate “foreign” cultures within Britain and both have members who share a less than endearing character trait – a love for violence.
After scrolling through the EDL’s website I was met with the slogan: “English Defence League, peacefully protesting against militant Islam”. Travelling undercover with the members on a coach to their recent march in Manchester I could see nothing peaceful about them.
What is peaceful about holding up a transsexual porn magazine to a bus full of Asians and calling them “dirty Muslim bastards”, followed by threats to “storm the f**kers”?
How peaceful can a group be when one of their main organisers was arrested for racial discrimination and possession of cocaine and stun guns just a day before their protest?
It also begs the question how dangerous the EDL are when the self-declared pacifists threatened to stab me after uncovering my true identity.
Even the slightly more widely supported BNP purport that they are a non-violent party, yet as I secretly recorded BNP member Bob Bailey in a phone interview the conversation was cut short as he found himself in a fight with an angry protestor.
Both groups want to masquerade as peaceful champions of the interest of the British nation but their façade couldn’t be further from the truth. They are made up of football hooligans and fascists and should be kept well away from the fringe of mainstream politics.
As the famous pacifist and cultural icon John Lennon put it, give ‘peace’ a chance – not the EDL and BNP.
Comments
Kingston University has its own connection to extremist groups. The University hired a man named Zafar Ali, who is the Chair of the Board of Governors at a Hizb ut-Tahrir-sponsored school, to head up an investigation of a Jewish Kingston lecturer. They (HT) are just about as extreme as one can get in terms of their expressed hatred of Jews.
To learn more about this, check out the following link:-
http://westminsterjournal.com/content/view/241/1/
I think most right thinking people will agree with sentiments of the last sentence, but you have to be accurate in your reporting.
Who do you think started the altercation, Bob Bailey on the phone or the protestor?
Is being attacked by someone really a clear indication of your violent nature?
Callum's report of the EDL march does expose their members as mindless, racist yobs but does it help the debate to vilify them as 'evil'.
The media is quite capable of exposing the idiocy of the BNP and EDL through non-sensational reporting.
Distortion is what the racist specialise in.
In relation to your comments, I believe you have fair ground in some respect. It's easy to simply dub right-wing parties with such extreme description, but Kingston is a very racially diverse university. I'm speaking for the voice of the students of Kingston, the African American members whose ancestors endured years of slavery and torture at the hands of facist ideologies - many of which the BNP are not declined to denegate. On Question Time, Nick Griffin did not deny that he himself had personally denied the holocaust, stating: "I have never been charged with denying the holocaust."
Wouldn't the millions of Jewish people who died in concentration camps instantly relish his comments "evil"? I myself, do not personally dub these people as evil because I am a white, northern, working class man. I know nothing about persecution (except maybe class difference). Yet I describe these people as evil just as many ethnic Kingston students would. It's all determined on who you are. Hitler was an evil dictator to some and a liberator to others. I personally am simply highlighting a view that Kingston students are likely to share.
Papers have an agenda. Maybe Mr Bailey was confronted by the man who had his own agenda and incited the confrontation, and yes, perhaps I represented him unfairly. But to report this in a more objective way would be near impossible in a simple short comment piece. A bad example, indeed. In this respect you are correct.
In regards to the EDL. I do not agree with you. I simply reported the facts. I was there. The report was sensational because the events were sensational. If you were on a coach with your children and a bus-load of right-wing skin heads were threatening to - as I quote- "storm the fuckers", would you not consider their actions as evil? I know I did.
From an objective outsider, completely relieved of any agenda, it can be argued the BNP and EDL are not evil. Rather, simply ill-informed, frustrated working class men, fighting for a cause they truly believe in. Yet, papers are not objective. And when you are speaking for the voice of thousands of students who fear a party is spreading hate towards their ethnicity, I think it's in all of their interests to describe such people as "evil".
The word "evil" detracts from the human aspect of the behaviour.
I don't use it (and dislike articles that do) because it implies through indirect connotation that the individuals are somehow not as responsible for their actions, ie that it's their "evil" nature making them the way they are, as opposed to it being an active cognitive decision to act in such a despicable manner.
Extremism can't be evil. It is only a concept. It can be percieved as negative when used by those who contort it to be so, but even so is literally not evil, and it is sensationalist to describe it as so.
Polarising your percieved enemy into "good" or "evil" is lazy journalism, even in an Opinion post. At the very least, one would imagine the writer to clarify the words with something like "in my view" or "I believe" instead of simply throwing around vague concepts in such black and white terms.
There is always a backstory. The good journalist doesn't use kneejerk buzzwords like evil, they research as to WHY such a negative event happened. It simply shows a lack of creative discipline and diplomatic discussive thought, not to mention a lack of understanding as to how abstract concepts should be addressed in terms of real situations.
Well I have no autonomy. It was Dan Townend who told me to write it. Maybe you have a point. I'll copy him your argument. I'm sure he'll be interested in the debate :-)
"The good journalist doesn't use kneejerk buzzwords like evil, they research as to WHY such a negative event happened. It simply shows a lack of creative discipline and diplomatic discussive thought, not to mention a lack of understanding as to how abstract concepts should be addressed in terms of real situations"
Would you not call going into the frontline of EDL members research as to why these people are in that situation? I discovered why. They are all working class with a struggling socio-economic status and little autonomy. What you're bordering on is a media studies essay looking at the ideologies these people share and how they are developed through social reproduction. THIS IS JOURNALISM and I believe you're nit-picking. The River is a tabloid newspaper. If you're so indignated by it all then why don't you call The Sun and tell the editor she has got it all wrong. Enough.
It's very obvious it's a tabloid. Even so, there are standards.
You may have done research, but it was your phrasing (reflective of your attitude) that was the issue here. I notice you've decided not to comment on those.
I'm not talking about anything other than journalistic integrity. The fact that you reference The Sun says much more about where your influences lie.
You could try addressing the points that were made instead of picking the one that offended you and moaning about it. Also, this has nothing to do with Media Studies.
you're completely correct. you've turned me. I see the error of my ways and I will strive to be a better journalist in the future. You're like a mixture of Paul Dacre and Ghandi. If only they could have had an illegitimate love child modelled on you. The world would be a better place. I guess comment pieces are to be commented on, and my word have you do so. Thankyou. I'm being frivolous. I actually appreciate what you said and will seriously take it on board in the future. It's just hard to deal with every single intrinsic issue with something so broad as race hate in 200 words. I have to simplify my argument. My actual feature on the EDL was 3000 words. That goes into a little more depth. If you're really interested I'll send you a copy and you can tell me what you think. I understand I do take a slightly sardonic tone when I reply but I welcome all criticism. Cheers.
Oh my god, you can totally tell this was written by an amateur student writer! Take the criticism like a grown up or take the advice on board - whinging like a child doesn't exactly make you look good!
Haha the river sucks so much.