Far-right groups target press

Here is a recent article from the National Union of Journalists which can be viewed here.

Death threats for journalists covering far right demos

Tough and urgent action is needed in response to violence, intimidation and death threats targeting journalists covering far right demonstrations. The call by NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear comes in the wake of specific email threats against photojournalist and investigative reporter Marc Vallée, and video journalist Jason N. Parkinson. The emails follow verbal threats and intimidation aimed at photographers covering a march by the English Defence League in Leeds at the weekend and other EDL protests this year. Professional journalists covering the events have filed reports with the NUJ detailing physical violence, including one being punched in the head, verbal threats, and attempts to seize cameras and smash equipment. The union is to file complaints to the police. Jeremy Dear said: “In a week when yet more photographers have been targeted by right-wing hate website Redwatch, when out on the streets professional photographers are subjected to violence and intimidation by right-wing thugs, there must be tough and urgent action in response to these latest death threats. “These are not idle threats made by kids – these are direct, named threats made by individuals who can be traced – in one case an individual already convicted of stabbing someone. They are designed to silence the media and stop photographers showing the true nature of the protests and protestors. The police must act now before a journalist is killed or seriously injured”. Jason N. Parkinson said: “It is ironic the English Defence League claim they are protesting ‘peacefully’ against Muslim extremism. Then late Saturday night, after returning from covering the Leeds protest, I receive a threatening email from one of their Welsh and English division organisers entitled ‘Fatwa’. “This is exactly the behaviour and tactics of extremism the EDL claim they are against. Someone should remind the EDL that the fundamental root of all democratic society, including in the UK, is press freedom. Intimidation, violence, Fatwas and death threats are not.” Marc Vallée said: “I find it intriguing that only four weeks after attending a BNP press conference – at London’s City Hall – I’m targeted by Redwatch in this way. We should be free to go about our lawful and necessary work without such intimidation. I’m determined that when journalists are targeted in this way the only effective response is a collective one as well as journalistic one.”

I have to admit i walked past some obvious members of the EDL the other day and whilst i did so i covered my badges on my bag in case they worked out my political allegiances. It was later pointed out to me that they probably can not read what my badges say anyway!

A racist Spitfire?

After Military generals apparently had a go at the BNP’s use of military symbolism in their racist propaganda (i say apparently because they did not mention the BNP by name, although we all know who they meant), Griffin came out saying that “the Spitfire represents the British fighting spirit against Continental totalitarianism” and as such they would not stop using it.

Well, i was wondering whether the BNP would acknowledge pilots from these countries who fought for Britain during the Battle of  Britain; Australia – 32, Barbados – 1, Belgium – 28, Canada – 112, Czechoslovakia – 88, France – 13, Ireland – 10, Jamaica – 1, Newfoundland – 1, New Zealand – 127, Poland – 145, Rhodesia – 3, South Africa – 25, United States – 9.

Do they also acknowledge the effort of the Jamacian pilot who i blogged about a few months back? Or Pilot Officer Mahinder Singh Pujji who came from India to fight in the Battle of Britain who said:

there were other Sikh pilots who readily took off their turbans and put on helmets. But I told them that I didn’t want to because of my religion. So they allowed me to have a special headset with the oxygen mask and microphone that came over the turban.

All of these fought for Britain against a regime going on a racist crusade across Europe. But then it does not look like the BNP would denounce the Nazis as quickly as history and the majority of British people during 1939-1945 [and long afterwards] have:

Nick Griffin:

“Yes, Adolf went a bit too far. His legacy is the biggest problem that the British nationalist movement has to deal with. It just creates a bad image.”

“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lamp shades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat … I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie and latter witch-hysteria.”

Mark Collett (BNP Director of Publicity)

“Churchill was a fucking cunt who led us into a pointless war with other whites standing up for their race”.

[Reference for above quotes]

What’s interesting is that it appears that Collett believes it was Churchill who led us into war… You’d have thought the ‘defenders’ of the ‘indigenous’ British race would know British history.

…or

Howabout this picture of John Tyndall, the founder of the BNP: link.

The importance of history in developing national identity

Interest in your own country’s history amongst those other than historians develops largely out of a longing to find your nation’s place in the world and where your national identity derives from (national identity is best pitched by comparing your culture and history to another culture and history). The times when interest in history grows is often when people feel a lack of pride in their nationality, so they look back at past ‘achievements’. However, when it comes to these achievements as events to be proud of, they are often distorted. For example, the Armada- although was a fantastical victory, it was a victory in a war that England essentially lost. The Blitz was indeed a time when Brits had the mentality to stand up to the greatest might the world has seen, but was also a time when Britain lost its imperialistic history. In fact, the coupling of the First and Second World Wars helped destroy what Britain had become- it helped bring down the Empire, it helped break the class system and drive equality (everything that Britain at the time was historically not) and it also levelled Britain’s footing in world politics in comparison to other countries.

However, this should not hide away the benefits this history can bring to developing what has always been an evolving national identity. (I must stress that patriotism and nationalism does not always induce national and racial tension- it is only when these forces are moulded into that direction that it does). For example, the Empire was imperialist, colonialist, based on false racial claims and was exploitative. But when people look back on it patriotically, they do not do so thinking we ruled over inferior races, they do so thinking back at Britain’s influence in the world, or ability to have influence in the world- its power. The myths form stories based in the Blitz evoke feelings of doggedness, standing up for what is right, doing your bit. The Second World War belonged much more to the forces of anti-imperialism, to equality, to the fight against fascism and hence racism and to social justice than to powers that bought about racial cleansing and who had(ve) the power to enslave humanity, to destroy cities, to kill innocent lives- all of which Britain could shame to but which Britain had to switch from as it grew up into a world developing it’s own national consciousness’. Britain may not have a history it could be ‘proud’ of in its most traditionalist interpretation, but there is much history during Britain’s darkest moments to enlighten a national identity, a national culture and a national consciousness that helps shape the direction of what being British (or English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish) really should become.

Looking back at Britain’s history develops a notion of wanting Britain to be a world power again, but in a world where social, economic and political equality and justice flourishes. Being a world power should not mean you rule over other peoples, to tell them what to do- instead it should be about setting an example. Making other people and countries look at Britain and aspire to be like it. But in this day and age we as a nation are well off of this example, and that is why I look back at our history and wonder….

The Battle of Britain (1940)

The Battle of Britain was ‘won’ by Britain due to a few interdependable factors.

The first was Britain’s eye in the sky, RDF (Radio Direction Finding), or what the Americanised English language describes as Radar. RDF was a fantastic defensive weapon during the war as it allowed Britain to keep an eye on what Luftwaffe squadrons were doing over the sea and what direction they were taking (once German planes made it mainland RDF was less effective and instead the British eye in the sky relied people on the ground to report enemy movements) this help Britain plan for enemy attack and mobilise a more effective defence.

The second was the coupling of the Spitfire and the Hurricane planes. The Spitfire was used primarily as a nimble fighter plane against the Luftwaffe’s other fighter planes. The Hurricane was used effectively against the German bombers as it wasn’t as effective as the Spitfire at fighting German fighters.

These two factors were at the route of Goering’s two biggest mistakes when tactically planning the German attack.

One; Goering was encouraged to attack the RDF stations- it should be noted that although the German’s had a vague idea of the existence of RDF and it’s use, there existence was still not wholly accepted as plausible by German leaders. For a short period in 1940 the Luftwaffe attacked these stations however, destroying some such as the one on Ventnor (Isle of Wight) and putting them out of commission for days, weeks at a time. To counter this in some cases, such as at Angmering  Park, where a RDF was completely wiped out a MB1 transmitter was set up that sent the same signal as the RDF into the air leading the Germans to think that hadn’t knocked the RDF out.

As Goering felt that it was pointless attacking what he saw as small defensive units and with the apparent ineffectiveness of knocking many of these of the map, it was decided to ignore these RDF stations (not fully understanding their importance to Britain) and again fully focus on the destruction of the RAF.

Two; Goering wanted the German fighter planes (such as the Messerschmitt 109 and Messerschmitt 110) to protect the bombers (Heinkel 111’s and Junkers 88 for example). To do this the aim was to reduce the fighter’s speeds to that of the bombers to keep them as one tight unit. Bombers were susceptible to British attacks because of the Hurricane’s greater speed and manoeuvrability over them. This limited the effectiveness of the German fighters who were themselves more susceptible to attacks from Spitfires because they were told to fly at reduced speeds and which gave the Spitfire the edge in ambushing them.

There are of course other factors leading to the British ‘victory’. For example, the aim of the German attack was to wipe out Fighter Command and the RAF. If this was done then invasion would be made possible as the Germans would have had a clear path (baring the Royal Navy) across the Channel. However, instead of putting hundreds of RAF planes into the air at a time, it was decided by Hugh Dowding, commander of RAF Fighter Command, to only send small batches of planes in the air. Thus situations occurred where there were 4-20 British planes against 200+ German planes.  This allowed a continuous flow of British planes to be able to take off into the air at any one time- aiding defense. It also helped lower the number of downed British planes and allowed a more robust yet jagged machine line flow of new planes to come out of manufacture to easily replace the downed planes.

Regardless, towards the end of the Battle of Britain the RAF was in dire straits. The Luftwaffe attack on the airfields made many redundant and the inexperience of new fighter pilots was taking its toll. If the Germans continued the war in the air then they would had wiped out the RAF. However- and there are several stories as to why this occurred ranging from Churchill becoming more ruthless and sacrificing huge chunks of the population in major British cities, to a lone Junker 88 dropping a few desperate bombs on London – the Battle of Britain ended the moment the RAF bombed Berlin. This led Hitler to counter attack by moving the focus of Luftwaffe attack from the airfields and to the major population centres- like London. What followed had such a huge cost and effect upon the civilian population and city infrastructure, but in reality it saved Britain from what seemed inevitable invasion.

Historical readings from today… and the death penalty

Today I started my preliminary reading for my Master’s dissertation, my chosen topic; to what extent did the Second World War help develop a notion of Britishness (throw into that the question of race during early 1940’s Britain). So the first book I pick up to read is: Forgotten Voices, stories of the Blitz and Battle of Britain. The Forgotten Voice’s series is a fantastic couple of books that take oral testimonies of those who fought or lived in the war and put’s them into chronological order without historical analysis (well, this point can be debated as only extracts of oral testimonies are selected and it could be argued that the author only selected those testimonies that can be moulded around his own view point).

The point of my reading (not just out of interest) was to try to piece together some ideas of what British people during the war thought of their country and some common characteristics of national culture during the war. I have already done some reading into this- Paul Ward and Britishness since 1860 where he claims many West Indians who fought in the British army called their post-war children Winston out of patriotic support. Also Tom Harrisson’s Mass Observation archive has bought up such classics as ‘I don’t consider myself British, [I consider the Scots and Welsh as a different race] but I would die to defend Britain [and my Scottish, Welsh neighbours]‘.

From my brief reading I have discovered that the whole British identity could be summarised by two things: tea (that old Chinese import) and common decency. One story talks about how during the blitz a father lost his child through decapitation, he held his child’s body stroking it and saying ‘So this is how you went, Jimmy’, he then got up and thanked a stranger on the street for handing him a mug of tea. More obscure forms of common decency came during the vacation of Dunkirk. One example is that many French and British soldiers were shot by their own side, without hesitation, because they tried to barge into the queues for the boats (that’s right, during the evacuation of Dunkirk when the German’s were bombarding the troops you were expected to form an orderly queue while waiting to get onto a boat and in some cases wear full clean uniform and have a shave).

Digressing from my reading, some thoughts on the death penalty came into my mind today. I would like to point out first that I do lose a lot of respect for people when they make the uneducated statement that we should bring back the death penalty, even if it were for only the most serious of crimes. These thoughts centred around the obvious- if the death penalty were a deterrent then why are crimes still committed in places that still have the death penalty. Then onto the notion that if the death penalty were the most righteous form of justice, then why do some killers kill themselves before they are caught? As a matter of fact- why did Hitler kill himself before he was caught, even though the Allies would had killed him in the end anyway? Are the majority of these people acting through the will of remorse, regret and justice? I think not.