United Kingdom

Why Are American Conservatives Defending Violent, Xenophobic British Thugs?

|

Credit: Lionheart Photography/flickr

Fox News presenter Brian Kilmeade recently interviewed Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Lennon) of the English Defence League (EDL), saying that Robinson is doing "great work," adding, "Tommy, we got your back and we'll definitely look to keep in touch, it's great what you're doing."

Robinson and the EDL have been getting increased coverage recently after their demonstrations following the murder of a British soldier last month. 

The EDL is a group that describes itself as "…an inclusive movement dedicated to peacefully protesting against Islamic extremism."

While peacefully combating Islamic extremism is a laudable goal, the EDL and its leadership have a history of violence as well as the predictable ignorant xenophobia that you might expect from an organization started by soccer hooligans. The EDL has very little public support and its contributions to debate over Islamic extremism in the U.K. can be boiled down to inciting paranoid nativists to protest.

In an eerie echo of anti-semitic claims about Jews controlling the media, the banks, and various countries' governments, Robinson believes that radical Muslims and their allies have "infiltrated" and control the U.K.'s most powerful institutions. 

Speaking to Kilmeade, Robinson said that those who support a "silent jihad" in the U.K. have "infiltrated major positions across the whole entire government." During an appearance The O'Reilly Factor, meanwhile, Robinson claimed that Muslims control 48 percent of the British stock market, that Saudi Arabia owns every British port, and that Muslims have "bought" the British government.

No respectable cable news channel in the U.S.–conservative or liberal–would tolerate claims like that about any other religious group. But because two radical Muslims in the U.K. murdered a British soldier, two FOX hosts–and The Daily Caller's Jim Treacher–find it acceptable to allege a Muslim version of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If only O'Reilly, Kilmeade, and Treacher had the good sense to feel ashamed of themselves. 

Robinson has a history of violence and fraud, having been convicted of assault (against a fellow EDL member and a police officer) and trying to enter the U.S. on a fake passport while on his way to the "Stop Islamisation of Nations" conference, for which he was sentenced to 10 months in prison. Robinson's criminal past is not the only reason he shouldn't be touted as a respectable spokesperson for those concerned about Islamic extremism.

Robinson's grasp on reality was also put on display when he implied in a tweet (shown below) that novelist Salman Rushdie, who is alive and well, was dead.

If you are worried about Islamic extremism in the U.K. or elsewhere, as I am, there are many more intelligent and respectable ambassadors for your concerns. Douglas Murray of the London-based Henry Jackson Society who, while perhaps not right about everything, is an eloquent and intelligent man who is able to rationally speak about the dangers of Islamic extremism.

Advertisement

NEXT: Democratic Legislator Says It's Not Fair That Hill Staffers Might Have to Buy Insurance Through Obamacare's Exchanges

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Every action causes a reaction. The fact is that Islamic extremists are violent. And the people who are victimized by them either better embrace violence, Islam or death. Those are the choices.

    Maybe if the UK government would defend its citizens or at least stop jailing them for defending themselves, assholes like the EDL wouldn’t fill the void. People like this are some of the wages of appeasement. I know all right thinking people believe that it is everyone’s duty to die at the hands of some Islamic nut, but most people don’t see it that way. And if the government won’t protect them, they will turn to someone who will.

    1. “Every action causes a reaction.”

      The irony

      1. Not every action, CD. The actions of the US military have been proven to cause no unintended consequences whatsoever.

        1. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

      2. Calidissident,

        I don’t think that word means what you think it does. You definitely one of the lower IQ posters on here. But even still, I am a bit surprised you are this stupid. But that is what I get for having faith in people. It must suck never being able to understand or follow the conversation. Or maybe it doesn’t since you likely have no idea what you don’t know.

        1. Irony has multiple definitions. One of them is:

          “an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.”

          One would not expect John to post the line “every action causes a reaction” in one of his posts on this website, given his history of completely failing to comprehend when others make that same argument.

        2. John,

          You have Calidissident pegged!

          1. Says the guy who compared an entire race of people to violent terrorists and seafaring criminals

            1. When have I ever compared an entire race of people to violent terrorists and seafaring criminals?

              You might need to learn what certain words mean before you can even begin to argue with me.

              1. From one of today’s threads

                “Lyle| 6.13.13 @ 2:22PM |#

                Violent Islamists are being treated like pirates and native Americans. There’s no real easy or nice way to deal with them.”

                https://reason.com/reasontv/201…..s#comments

                If it was not your intention to sound like a racist prick, you failed

                1. Where’s the racism? What comparison am I making again?

                  Come on, I’m going to help you out here if you want some help.

        3. You definitely one of the lower IQ posters on here

          I’m shaky on what is and is not irony, myself. Is it irony if you type a sentence that looks like a quote from a retarded 4-year-old while calling someone else stupid?

    2. Every action causes a reaction.

      How dare you suggest that blowback exists, John!

      1. Sure it does. It just doesn’t exist when the people supposedly doing the blowing back already hate you.

        Beyond that, yes it is true that if you just lick your enemies boots enough and apologize enough, he might only step on it a little bit. But he will never respect you.

        1. “Sure it does. It just doesn’t exist when the people supposedly doing the blowing back already hate you.”

          Do you think there’s some preset percentage of Muslim babies that are born with inherent terroristic hatred of Americans/infidels/whoever and that nothing in life affects this percentage?

          “Beyond that, yes it is true that if you just lick your enemies boots enough and apologize enough, he might only step on it a little bit. But he will never respect you.”

          Because acknowledging why some (and to be clear, I’m not saying every Islamic terrorist is solely motivated by blowback) people are your enemies means you’re licking their boots.

          1. Do you think there’s some preset percentage of Muslim babies that are born …

            But that’s the point. There is no such thing as a “Muslim baby”. Islam, like Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are ideologies, each with their own tenants and values.

            1. *tenets

              I blame the Old Fashioned.

            2. That’s true, but I think the point still stands. They aren’t born hating America. Something made that so, and it is absurd to say that things that the US does or has done has nothing to do with that.

              1. Absolutely. I’m not saying it doesn’t.

            3. HM, I was making a hyperbolic absurdity to illustrate the point that Zeb put into plain English. I obviously don’t think religion affects genetic traits. Hope that clears that up

          2. Do you think there’s some preset percentage of Muslim babies that are born with inherent terroristic hatred of Americans/infidels/whoever and that nothing in life affects this percentage?

            No. Why would I think that. You really are stupid aren’t you? How in the world could you think that was an intelligent response to what I said? What goes through your mind? You need to start showing your work.

            Think again about what I just said. Nowhere does the word “enemies” include all or even a decent percentage of Muslims. Tony and Shreek are trolls. You are just dumb.

            1. Because you seem to think that there’s nothing the US government could possibly do that would in anyway affect the proportion of Muslims that hate America or the percentage that is willing to commit violence against Americans. As Zeb said, just because someone hates you doesn’t mean they care enough to try to kill you

          3. Dude, it’s Islamism not Islam. It’s not a Muslim thing it is an Islamism thing.

            You need to educate yourself on the differences between Islam and Islamism.

            Go read some Daniel Pipes.

            1. That’s completely irrelevant to my point. In fact, you could rephrase my point as “Do you think the actions of the US government could possibly have some effect on the percentage of Muslims who are America-hating Islamists?”

              Islamists don’t just randomly spawn out of the ground. I’m not saying US government foreign policy is the only reason for their existence, or any thing like that, but to pretend that it can’t have an effect on the number of people who will find anti-American Islamism appealing is naive.

              1. So smarty pants, how do you think Muslims feel when they’re killed by Islamists?

                How do you think the same people feel when the U.S. kills the Islamists killing them?

        2. It just doesn’t exist when the people supposedly doing the blowing back already hate you.

          Why not? Not everyone that hates something resorts to violence. Something gives that little extra push. It is absurd to deny that the actions of the US government have nothing to do with it. And pointing that out does not blame the victim. Perfectly justified and necessary actions can cause blowback.
          You always seem to jump to the conclusion that saying that attacks might be in some sense blowback from US policy is equivalent to saying that the US is the bad guy. Which definitely need not be the case.

    3. Yep, the EDL, although thuggish and xenophobic isn’t entirely wrong in some of their views or their anger when it comes to violent Islamism.

      If the government isn’t going to stand up to Islamism, some of the people in England are going to.

  2. And isn’t this an example of the kind of mutual self defense the anarcho capitalists on here are always talking about?

    1. John, you can reasonably make arguments about the dangers of Islamic Fundamentalism, which many people on this board or willing to do. Or, as Tommy Robinson does, you can make up bizarre conspiracies about the vile Muslim threat that must be torn out, root and stem.

      There is a difference between the two.

      Plus, even if all of your points are accurate, that doesn’t mean American media outlets should be holding up Tommy Robinson and saying the EDL does ‘great work.’

      1. You miss my point Irish. It is not that Tommy Robinson is good. He is a nut. It is that when the entire governing class refuses to defend its citizens and in fact actively prevents them from defending themselves, people will turn to people like Robinson. Robinson is a thug and a nut. The only reason anyone knows his name is because the government of the UK is full of pathetic cowards who are willing to leave their citizens defenseless in the face of evil.

        1. I understand what you’re saying. I don’t even necessarily disagree with you. I think the same could be said for the Golden Dawn in Greece. They’re horrible, but it makes sense that they’d evolve at a time when the Greek government’s weakness and corruption leaves a lot of people feeling helpless.

          I just don’t know what your argument has to do with the fact that American media outlets are giving a forum to this guy. I have no idea what Treacher and Fox News are thinking, unless their goal is to prove every liberal criticism of the right to be correct.

          1. Again, is there anyone else in Britain willing to speak out about Islamism? The guy is only getting a platform because people who should know better have ceded the field to him.

            1. UKIP.

              Keeping EDL types like Robinson out is all the more reason to root for Farage.

            2. Again, is there anyone else in Britain willing to speak out about Islamism?

              You mean other than the much more rational people that Feeney links to at the end of his article?

              1. It’s like I keep saying (to myself), reading comprehension is a lost art.

                1. And John has the nerve to accuse me of having a low IQ

          2. I get what you are saying, Irish but two things; 1) ratings! if it bleeds (or could) it leads, and 2) I kinda like knowing who the crazies are. Though it’d be nice if the assholes in the mainstream media kept us as equally informed about left-wing whackjobs.

            1. All valid points, but Fox didn’t seem to be holding him out there to drive ratings or to show that he’s crazy. If they were, then Kilmeade wouldn’t have said that Robinson is doing ‘great work’ and that ‘we got your back.’

              It seems that they were holding him up as a positive individual, when he certainly is not.

              1. Kilmeade is a fucking moron. Of course, so is O’Reilly.

                Actually, that whole morning crew is spazztastic – the dumb of Gretchen Old Barbie, Dopey McBlondAndMySonWorksHereDerp, and The Prince of Dumbass, UR Killlinmeade.

                It’s no “Morning Joe” – it’s its own special kind of suck.

                1. Dopey McBlondAndMySonWorksHereDerp

                  I think we’ve found the name for sloopy’s next child.

                  1. So he and Banjos aren’t going with “Magazine”?

                    I am disappoint.

        2. Could be about things like governments lying through their teeth about enforcing immigration laws when in fact they lay out a red carpet for any foreigner who wants to squat in the country

          “””Labour ‘sent out search parties for immigrants’, Lord Mandelson admits””

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..dmits.html

          1. Or how about this, force multiculturalism on people who don’t want it. And if you rub their noses in it, maybe they will rub back with a fist.

            “””‘Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a “truly multicultural” country, a former Government adviser has revealed.””‘

            “””and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather””

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..viser.html

            1. This is worth noting.

              But one party is bullshit. They did not go shopping for immigrants to create a truly multicultural society.

              They want shopping for immigrants that would sit on the dole and vote Labour, to secure for themselves power.

              Don’t think it can’t happen in the US.

            2. None of this means Tommy Robinson isn’t a fucking lunatic

    2. Of course, but what’s talked about here has nothing to do with self defense.

      You only go after specific perpetrators and not preemptively so like EDL seems to want.

      1. You mean these organizations might get out of control or be run by less than savory people? Well knock me over with a feather.

        1. So? What are you going to do? Setup a minority report system to determine who the guilty are ahead of time?

          1. Maybe have a government that properly enforces the law so people don’t turn to thugs like this guy?

            1. They are enforcing the law. All the laws about hate speech, libel, guns, etc. What they need is a change in law.

              1. I mean a just law. Yes, they need to have just laws and enforce them.

  3. “”””claims like that about any other ethnic group.””

    Muslims are a religion, not a ethnic group.

    1. The actual quote was: No respectable cable news channel in the U.S.–conservative or liberal–would tolerate claims like that about any other religious group.

      1. They changed it, I copied and pasted it directly from the story.

        1. Hey, if it works for NYT…

          1. The newspaper of record.

  4. Violent, Xenophobic British Thugs

    And here I thought hooliganism was relegated to football in the UK.

  5. Why Are American Conservatives Defending Violent, Xenophobic British Thugs?

    Could it be because many American conservatives are themselves violent, xenophobic thugs?

    1. That or maybe they just like to troll the entire “brown people are never evil” crowd?

      1. Yeah, there must be like 13 of them.

        1. On hit and run? That seems a bit low.

          1. Really? Who has ever taken that position?

    2. C’mon sarc, even I don’t believe Obama is a conservative despite all his violent, xenophobic actions.

    3. No, they are not really violent at all.

      If they were, you would know about it. It would be front page everywhere.

      US conservatives are not remotely violent.

      The only street protest stuff you’ll get from them is the Tea Party, and that’s half libertarian, and despite media attempts to portray it as angry and violent it’s pretty reserved. Looks like Leave It To Beaver compared to OWS.

      1. They’re violent. They just like the government to do it for them. And I’m not saying the left is any different.

    4. What violence? What thuggery?

      1. Read Zeb’s comment. Both the left and right in this country are violent and thuggish. They just prefer to carry it out through the government

        1. You’re going to give me examples of violence and thuggery.

          This also so easy for libertarians to say because they won’t ever be in power. Government is government and the human beings running it will abuse their powers. This goes without saying.

          Libertarians aren’t some other kind of species that is actually above it all.

    5. [i]”Could it be because many American conservatives are themselves violent, xenophobic thugs?”[/i]
      Oh, come on. I’ve been as disappointed with American conservatives as anybody on Hit & Run, and even I think that is unfair.

  6. The enemy of my enemy is usually someone into whose background I don’t want to delve too deeply.

    1. Well said. I’m going to quote you on that.

      Or more accurately, I’m probably not going to mention you specifically at all, to be honest.

      1. Actually, they should quote you in the next print edition. Unless (as I suspect) you’ve already been there before, in which case I hate you.

        1. Viola!

          No one hates me. You don’t want to be seen being different on a libertarian blog, do you?

  7. Red Tony is going to shine on these comments! Shine!

    1. Whatever shreek. Tell us more about the Christfags.

    2. So when are you two going to cut this sexual tension and just start making out?

      You’re like H&R’s Ross and Rachel, and I feel like this flirting has been going on for a few seasons too long.

      1. He is the new MNG.

        1. I’m with Irish on this – and post clips so we can watch like the pervs we are.

          OK, the perv I am…

          1. Don’t worry. I will make sure to create a Youtube channel.

            1. *both thumbs up*

      2. I just think it’s cute when he gets all defensive about all things conservative, no matter what they are.

        1. Needs more Christfag.

          1. Is he the MNG or Shrike?

            1. *new

            2. That’s not fair. Not saying I agree with sarcasmic all (or even most of the) time, I just don’t think s/he deserves to be compared to shrike.

  8. Jews controlling the media, the banks, and various countries’ governments

    Yeah, but this is true, so….

    Right? RIGHT?

  9. You know who else used violence to promote national “purity”….

    1. The makers of Ivory Soap?

    2. John Galt? How else did he keep the moochers out of Galt’s Gulch?

    3. General Ripper?

    4. Charles Martel?

  10. Even neo-Blackshirts* like the EDL can’t always be wrong.

    When they stumble on something right, “defend” them against charges of being wrong about that one thing. Because they managed to get something right.

    It’s never wrong to defend a correct proposition, even if a complete jackhat is proposing it.

    (It’s like back in 2004, some Progressive asshole would say “Bush is a giant mass-murderer!”, I’d say “No, not really, he hasn’t mass-murdered anyone, you just don’t like his policies”, and they’d say “Why are you defending Bush?!!”

    Because you were wrong about him, jackass.)

    (* Might be going a bit far, but in any case, they’re ooky and far too authoritarian.)

  11. We’re supposed to hate a guy who assaulted a cop and entered the US with a fake passport?

    1. No. Just think that he’s a violent, paranoid nutjob.

  12. I’m sure the EDL is full of shady, unsavory characters. I just can’t bring myself to give a shit.

  13. Yeah, Feeney, tell us more about that “loony” Robinson. It’s not like BAE Systems wait on the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia hand and foot with a slush fund of multi-millions and that the bribery charges mysteriously disappeared when the British government decided to drop them for some reason. It’s also not like the BBC consistently demonizes all things Jewish, while at the same time lionizing all things Muslim, like when they decided to drop the term “anti-Semitism” claiming it was too long, but still continues to use the term Islamophobia, which is one letter longer. http://www.theglobaldispatch.c…..bia-56550/

    1. Or perhaps when the BBC gives airtime to spokespersons of radical Islamist groups in the wake of a politico-religiously motivated murder http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..Ww9Iy-kHgc

      Or that the Prime Minister backed an organization that had said murder as a guest speaker http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/351268

      Yeah, that’s all just all “crazy conspiracy talk” as deemed by all right-thinking people.

      1. *murderer

      2. But anti-semitism is okay when the right people do it.

        1. That’s pretty much European history (post-Justinian I) in a nutshell.

    2. I have a new book out you might like, HM. It’s called “The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca”. You should totally give it a look.

  14. “Why Are American Conservatives Defending Violent, Xenophobic British Thugs?”

    Ummmm…because a substantial part of the American “conservative” movement is itself racist?

    Honestly that was not a hard question.

    1. Still less racist than American progressivism

    2. Opposing Islamism is racist?

  15. Conservatives really should get with the program, Western society causes all the problems in the world. Nobody would dislike us if we just would only behave as decently as every other culture on the planet. As Mark Steyn put it, Liberals (and I guess libertarians as well) believe that we have no enemies; only friends whose grievances we have yet to accommodate.

    1. Because an article explicitly stating that Islamism is a problem, and recommending the writings of a critic of Islamism, means that the writer secretly believes that Islamism isn’t a problem and that we should let Islamists rule the world because he also dared to criticize a conspiratorial, xenophobic bigot.

  16. Why Are American Conservatives Defending Violent, Xenophobic British Thugs?

    Because they’re not against all British just because some British are bad.

  17. Honestly, if you want criticism of Islam, Irshad Manji is a much better choice. Perceptive, well regarded, and herself a Muslim.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.