The Position Of The International Civil Liberties Alliance With Regard To The Recent Counterjihad Controversy

By • on July 1, 2011

The publication of an apparent attack on the EDL that did not go into the nuanced arguments that were put forward subsequently made many people understandably angry and disappointed.  People were concerned that one of the most successful Counterjihad organisations in the world, the English Defence League, was being publically and unjustifiably attacked.  An open letter was put together that has been posted on various sites, including this one, expressing people’s anger about this treatment of an organisation that had gone out of its way to encourage participation from all sections of British society irrespective of social status, gender, sexuality, or ethnic origin.  To publically make allegations implying that such an organisation has serious problems with Nazi infiltration could be seen, and was seen by many, as extremely unfriendly, and even a provocative act.  This is the context surrounding the publication of the open letter that has excited a great deal of discussion in certain quarters.  We thought that perhaps a private approach to the Leadership of the EDL would have been more appropriate before such serious charges were levelled so publically.

Henrik Clausen, of EuropeNews, has written an article about the recent controversy and he talks about his own disappointment with regard to the charges that had been publically levelled against the EDL.  The article reflects our own view and sets the context that led us to publish the open letter.  The article is well worth reading and can be found HERE.

Jihad Watch has implied that sites such as this one who expressed their concern and distress were said to “carry water for anti-Semitism”.  How such concerns could be twisted and portrayed in this way remains a mystery.  The International Civil Liberties Alliance has for many years been a stalwart supporter of the state of Israel and strong opponent of anti-Semitism.  To be portrayed in a way that implies support for the very people we have been opposing in recent years is very hurtful and it is unwarranted.

However, we do not want to engage in further arguments about this matter or about the mischievous charges that have been levelled against us.   A perceived injustice had been done and a response has been made.  It serves no purpose to continue with pointless arguments that with further damage the Counterjihad movement and give comfort to those who wish to promote sharia.  We therefore appeal for calm with regard to this issue and hope that allegations of the kind just discussed can, in the future, follow more appropriate channels before people bring them into the public arena which leads to misunderstandings and damages the important work of us all.

Comments

By 1389AD on July 1st, 2011 at 21:43

As the primary admin for http://1389blog.com, I have added my name and the blog as signers to the Open Letter to Pamela Geller, which was posted on Gates of Vienna. I stand with the Baron and Dymphna.

Zenster, another member of 1389 Blog, was already a signer when I joined.

Many names have been added.

Report this comment

By DP111 on July 3rd, 2011 at 20:40

Quote: We thought that perhaps a private approach to the Leadership of the EDL would have been more appropriate before such serious charges were levelled so publically.

I agree wholeheartedly.

The EDL is the only grassroots movement in the West that is against the destruction of Western civilisation. It is the only one that has the courage to go out on the streets, even into Muslim areas, and face the hostility and violence of Muslims, Left wing extremists, the police and the media. There is nothing like it in the West.

Spencer and Geller, though excellent in what they do, and they are good, do not compare to the boots on the ground that the EDL can furnish. The EDL is not afraid to confront forces allied against it, regardless of the danger.

The EDL is way above and beyond the likes of single bloggers such as Geller and Spencer, good though in what they do, or for that matter any blogs. The EDL does not need to apologise or explain itself – its very being and what it does, is more then enough. The rest is immaterial. It does not need to have an apology from Spencer or Geller, as it is far bigger, stronger, and motivated enough to step on to the real battlefield, rather then merely bemoan the Islamisation of the West – they are real soldiers, who get bloodied and injured, rather then armchair commentators on the passing scene.

The EDL, first and foremost stands in defence of the UK, and the West as a whole. If the EDL supports Israel, then all to the good, but that is a secondary matter.

Report this comment

By Hesperado on July 6th, 2011 at 20:35

I disagree with this part of the statement of the article:

“However, we do not want to engage in further arguments about this matter or about the mischievous charges that have been levelled against us. A perceived injustice had been done and a response has been made. It serves no purpose to continue with pointless arguments that with further damage the Counterjihad movement and give comfort to those who wish to promote sharia.”

This is to cave to the tactics of Spencer & Geller — which, after the initial error, compounded it and exacerbated it with further errors in a spirit of mean-spirited denial. Spencer & Geller are now therefore not only guilty of the initial wrong (Geller’s smear of the EDL), they are now also guilty of smearing others and using inflammatory language recklessly, including this blog here.

This should precisely be continued — Spencer & Geller’s feet need to be held to the fire. It’s not aiding the enemy to continue this important issue: in fact, rather the opposite: to continue to permit people with as much influence as Spencer & Geller to get away with outrages like this that have the capacity for significant damage to the CJ movement serves to weaken that movement more than any robust, mature — and forceful — disputes adjudicated in the open air and sunshine.

That, after all, is one of the strengths of the West — that more often than not, unlike non-Western cultures (most especially Islam), we can disagree without exploding and rioting and assassinating. Muslims in fact will likely be encouraged if we recoil timidly like shrinking violets from internal disputes that need to be settled forcefully — showing them that we don’t have the mettle for far more serious conflicts.

Report this comment

Leave a Comment

We welcome your comments on this story's topic. Off-topic comments, personal attacks, and inappropriate language may be flagged and removed, and comment privileges blocked. Thanks for keeping the comments space respectful.