What EDL supporters want is understandable?
What EDL supporters want is understandable?Their message is simple, and it is in that simplicity that it is logical. The logical and understandable message promoted is that they don't want to be murdered by extremists on their streets; they don't want Islam to be allowed to force itself on traditional UK culture; they don't want their welfare system to be abused by new immigrants; they don't want to have high unemployment because the jobs (they believe) are being taken by foreigners. These are fair demands. The problem is that this is where the logic ends: When asked how they want their aims to be achieved, the simplicity continues, where it becomes ignorant and unhelpful with an often racist sentiment, and occasional calls for violence. For examples, read through some comments on the EDL's Facebook page.
UK Government already combating the problems
The problems are clear for all of us to see, including the UK Government and UK Muslims: Extremism needs to be better tackled; tighter controls need to be applied against illegal immigration; the welfare system needs to be better secured against abuse. The UK Government is clearly frustrated with being unable to deport the hate preacher, Abu Qatada [3]. A task force has been launched with the aim to improve the curbing of extremism [4]. Many improvements can also be made through David Cameron's current attempt at renegotiating the UK's relationship with the European Union.
The problem with UK governance is not that it is failing to curb extremism; the problem is that the government has refrained from enacting anti-extremist policies that may appear to encroach on the countries freedoms. It has struggled to find the correct balance between security and liberty.
The simple word 'extremism' is used with reason above: The extremist problem does not only belong to Islam. The EDL is not officially described as an extremist organisation, but it does contain extremist, ultra-patriotic members who attack innocent civilians [5]. Members/supporters of the EDL are in effect supporting extremism; they are supporting the same tactic of violence that is also adopted by radical Islamists.
The simple word 'extremism' is used with reason above: The extremist problem does not only belong to Islam. The EDL is not officially described as an extremist organisation, but it does contain extremist, ultra-patriotic members who attack innocent civilians [5]. Members/supporters of the EDL are in effect supporting extremism; they are supporting the same tactic of violence that is also adopted by radical Islamists.The government is not able to curb the support for extremism. This governance gap acts to invite oppositions to extremists at the societal level. An example is the campaign group, Unite Against Fascism, which is actively opposing the EDL [6]. As is the hacktivist group, Anonymous [7]. Both of the aforementioned groups though have operated outside of the law [8][9]. An example of a legal civil response to Islamic extremism, is how Islam continually unites to condemn extremism [10].
It is from the level of moderate and legal opinion and actions that tolerant dialogue can be promoted, and where solutions can be found for our shared problems.
The far-right global security devastation
After an attack such as the one against Lee Rigby, it is hard not to feel motivated to play a role in defence. Joining the EDL may seem logical from the perspective of wanting to defend the English people and culture here and now. By joining the EDL though, you are adding to a major security problem.
Short-term damages to domestic security
The first and surprisingly most trivial security concern is that far-right activity increases the likelihood of Islamist terror attacks. This opinion is agreed with by 61% of the UK public [11]. The basic reasoning is that the far-right strengthens UK cultural divides through attacks on Islam, and so Muslims feel more threatened. The threat to Muslim safety is clear: Faith Matters, which monitors anti-Muslim hatred, has said there had been 193 incidents of anti-Muslim violence in the 6 days following the murder of Lee Rigby, 10 of those incidents being assaults on mosques, some endangering life [12]. Inadvertently, this acts to increase terrorism by radical Islamists who want to defend their religion (EDL attacks to defend - Radical Islam attacks to defend).
Long-term damages to global security
The long term effects are where we find the major global security concerns. The far-right approach to security will segregate the UK from the rest of the world in such a way that the UK will fail devastatingly in its future progression (in relation to the progression of the rest of the world).
Under far-right governance, the UK's cooperation with other countries will be plagued by overly defencive, inward thinking policies, and likely hostilities. There is also a political theory that suggests right-wing cultural conservatism would advocate the banning of technological advancements in order to stabilise their massive equality imbalance [13]. This would further hinder, or completely disable UK defence against future technological threats. These threats would be amplified by the far-right UK's foreign policy being based on the noninterference of international affairs. The UK focus would purely be on protecting its borders against immediate threats.
All the far-right want is England to be England, and free from being dictated to by other religions/cultures/countries. They want the rest of the world to let the UK live independently and free of interference, and for the rest of the world to as well 'do their own thing'.
If the far-right get their own way, yes England will be 'good old traditional England'. But UK values will be based upon intolerance and ignorance for others because extreme racist views would have been allowed to thrive, and it would therefore (without equally radical opposition) have became embedded into English culture. England will be alone, weak and defenceless due to our exit from Europe and its unwillingness to collaborate with global security efforts.
It is undoubtable that a country which owns far-right governance will be incredibly uncooperative with other nation states.
The implications of security devastation
But what is so bad about all countries being uncooperative with each others and just 'doing their own thing'? Initially this may seem logical: let's just all live separately, in our own countries/cultures with our own religions/ideologies, and stop interfering with each others affairs.
The primary security problem with this is that not all people want this. Hitler certainly didn't. Neither did many historic empires. And likely in the future, for example, neither will radical Islam. The endgame of many radical Islamists is to create an global Islamic caliphate; they want a fully Islamic world under the rule of Sharia Law [14].
Threats to democracy will always exist. Simple border defence will never be sufficient.
Technological advance; the unseen threat
Technological advance; the unseen threatAlliances have long been needed to defend democracy: World War 2 for example. For future threats though, a strong global alliance, based on shared values will be imperative. The cause will be our advancing technologies. The reasons, I will now explain.
Technologies are advancing at an exponential rate; at accelerating speeds of which most are unaware [15]. Technological advance will act to enhance individual empowerment. The positive side of individual empowerment is that it will allow for a massively increased manpower to enhance the tackling of the many problems faced by humanity [16]. The negative side though could lead to mass destruction.
Individuals and small groups will have greater access to lethal and disruptive technologies (particularly 3D-printed weapons, cyber instruments, precision-strike capabilities, nanotech weaponry, and biotech weaponry) [17]. All of these technologies will create new weapons of mass destruction, some of which will dwarf the nuclear threat. It will enable civilians to perpetrate large-scale violence - a capability formerly the monopoly of states.
An option for defence against these technological threats is to ban technological advances. The problem here though is that it will drive advance underground, it would become unregulated and open society up to unpredictable threats. And, in the current global climate, it is likely that not all states will ban advances.
Due to the current global climate, instead of technological bans, it is likely that global races will be initiated to acquire certain breakthrough technologies. The main race will be to create Artificial General Intelligence [18], which is predicted to lead to a singularity. The singularity is best described as an intelligence explosion, the controllers of which will lead the way into an incomprehensible future [19].
How the race will play out is unpredictable but during approach to the finish line, the losing side would presumably need to resort to violent means of self-defence. A high likelihood of World War 3 is foreseen. The alternative? Global cooperation.
During this race, it will become obvious that global cooperation is imperative, primarily due to a threat from anti-technology/radical Islamist terrorists who will be acquiring new weapons of mass destruction. The focus on the race must retreat, and new focus must be applied on mutual security. The world, for the first time, will be joint as one against a mutual threat; it will be united because it will have no other option - humanities survival will depend on it.
Collaborative global security for human evolution
Collaborative global security for human evolutionHopefully you see that the right-wing stance must be rejected by all. It has no place in a secure future.
For democratic countries to safeguard their future freedoms against any possible future foreign threat/dictator, they must unite, cooperate, and guide their foreign policies in ways which will enable them to maintain a global balance of power with potential enemies. Globalisation is important for this cooperation as it allows differing cultures to together evolve into a new collaborative culture with secular governance, from where they can better tackle mutual threat with mutually agreed response.
All cultures evolve, if they didn't we would still be in the stone ages. This evolution must continue. Why not find the best of all cultures and merge them together? A basis for which differing cultures can together merge can be found in the discussion of the problems surrounding our greatest ever threat - emerging technologies.
References