EXCLUSIVE: BNP and others take part in the Islamification of Britain debate, MDI praised for providing platform

The debating panel (umaronline.com)

The Muslim Debate Initiative was the host of a lively and respectful debate about the Islamification of Britain in Central London on Thursday night. The Muslim public discussion group invited members from the BNP (British National Party), English Democrats and the Christian People's Alliance in a frank and open discussion at the Conway Hall in Holborn. Unfortunately, representatives from the EDL (English Defence League) and SIOE (Stop Islamification of Europe) dropped out from the debate at the last minute. The proceedings were chaired by Paul Williams and the six panellists were Jeffrey Marshall (Senior official, and London organiser for the BNP), Abdullah al Andalusi (Co-founder of Muslim Debate Initiative), Alan Craig (Head of the Christian People’s Alliance Party), Andrew Copson (Director of Education and spokesmen for the British Humanist Association), Reverend Frank Gelli (Church of England, Spiritual Advisor to Princess Diana) and Robin Tilbrook (Chairman of English Democrats).

The debate, lasting around 3 hours was divided into different segments. Firstly, each of the six panellists spoke for 10 minutes about the topic of discussion. This was followed by an intense 50 minute debate with views being exchanged across the table in quite a civilised manner. After this, a short break was followed by a 50 minute Q&A session where members of the audience questioned the panellists as to their views. In the end, each of the speakers issued concluding remarks and the proceedings were called to a halt.

So now you know what happened, let me explain how it all unfolded. There is no doubt that the Islamification of Britain/Europe is quite a controversial issue and a range of views exist on this topic. As stated earlier, I'm a big fan of resolving differences through debate and dialogue and in that department, the work of Muslim Debate Initiative in bringing together people from different parts of the community on to one public forum is quite an achievement. The next task is to see the event through on the night itself and avoid any major hiccups. Once again, the debate as a whole was well managed with the speakers getting reasonable time to speak and a fair opportunity to air their views. However, as you may or may not be aware, wherever the BNP go, UAF (United Against Fascism) follow. So, when I arrived outside Conway Hall and was greeted by a man from UAF, there was a slight fear that things could get out of control. Thankfully, that wasn't the case and there was only one occasion during the debate that security was called into action (some guy, presumably from UAF came in and started shouting 'BNP YOU SCUM.....' before he was escorted out). In general, however, the debate took place in good faith and there was plenty of cooperation between the panel and audience.

I will now elaborate on the debate itself. I think it was a very carefully selected and well balanced panel of guests. A few people were complaining about there being only one Muslim speaker (Abdullah) on the panel and perhaps there should have been more but I'm not too keen on that view. In terms of the overall performance of each of the speakers, here is a short summary, followed by a rating out of 10. This rating is not based on their views but on their abilities to put forward a well constructed and coherent argument.

Jeffrey Marshall

The BNP man came in with high hopes but came across as jaded and nervous when putting across his views in the 10-minute speech. His argument, primarily, was that we need to halt mass immigration and that in itself is leading to Islamification. A very typical BNP argument from Marshall who was towing the familiar party line. Aside from the main speech, Marshall wasn't really involved in the actual debate which sort of made me wonder whether he was being marginalised on purpose. Then again, when it came to the Q&A session, he addressed a question about British culture by referring to the niqab (veil) and saying 'they (Muslims) don't understand how much it annoys us (British)'. Not a view that I, nor many of the gasping crowd wanted to hear. A quiet night and a meagre 5/10.

Abdullah al Andalusi

The co-founder of MDI was the only Muslim speaker on the panel. He handled himself well at times often coming across as calm and composed in delivering well structured arguments. Coming from an Islamist stance, Abdullah clearly defined his views about Shariah law and existence of an Islamic state. He did, crucially, and perhaps rather controversially say that Muslims in the UK do not want the Shariah (a point picked up on by Craig) and that Shariah law was firstly a need in the Muslim states before anywhere else. There were times, however, when he looked shaken and was perhaps caught unaware when answering questions from the panel and audience. It seemed as though he was shocked by some of the positions taken by the fellow panellists. In particular, he was involved in some long exchanges with Alan Craig regarding Craig's simultaneous beliefs in liberal freedom and support for banning the veil. Despite this, Abdullah was certainly one of the better speakers on the night and gets a 7/10.

Alan Craig

The head of the Christian People's Alliance was a headliner with many expecting his controversial views regarding the Olympic mega-mosque to take centre stage. However, his subtle approach and careful choice of words really helped his cause. Regular references to Christian values such as 'love thy neighbour' and the importance of social relationships allowed him to have a massive influence on the crowd. Most of his arguments also stemmed from these principles. In particular, whilst emphasising his good faith relationship with Muslims and his positive views regarding Islam, Craig was able to identify some of the issues and concerns he has about the faith. Top of the list was the inequality imposed by Shariah law with emphasis on the discrimination against women. Closely linked to this was his opposition to the veil which he saw as a social barrier. The third argument was regarding his opposition to the mega-mosque based on it affecting social cohesion in the East end of London. All arguments were well structured and well defended by Craig throughout the evening. After the debate, many of the people told me they were quite impressed with the way he put his points across (a little like Abdullah) even though they disagreed with many of the points he made. In conclusion, one of the best speakers on the panel, getting an 8/10.

Andrew Copson

Not much to mention for the man representing the British Humanist Association. Copson came in flying the flag for liberal democracy and the centre ground. An easy position to take, usually, but not when you are surrounded by people firmly to the left or right. He argued for sharing a civic sense and civic identify which was essential to tackling the 'myth' of Islamification. He outlined his position as disagreeing with everyone on the panel which got him the sympathy vote in a way. Ultimately, fell short of taking a position and seemed out of place at times. His fear of holding a position meant he also struggled to back up views of some of the panellists one would expect him to stand up for. Copson took a very neutral view on issues like banning the veil whereas I would have thought he would be against any such ban. Gets an average 5/10.

Reverend Frank Gelli

A representative from the Church of England and supposedly the voice of Christianity on the panel. He was easily swayed and went off topic on many occasions but when on topic, challenged the others with solidly constructed arguments throughout the evening. He defended the veil by taking a liberal stance of free will (like Abdullah). Not involved in many exchanges but a good speaker when called upon. A reasonable 6/10.

Robin Tilbrook

The Chairman of the English Democrats appealed to the values of the crowd in a very clever way. So much so that his views made sense to many whom, like me, were surprised at the firmness of these nationalists. Tilbrook emphasised English-ness based on a cultural tradition. He argued for a revival of the national sense of belonging to a community or society. He praised multiculturalism but feared those who wanted to change England into something else. This fear was clear in his opposition to the slow and incremental Islamification of Britain. Another well-versed speaker and perhaps the dark horse on the panel. Tilbrook was hardly pushed by the audience and enjoyed a quite friendly evening on the stage where he was able to claim some much needed publicity for his party. A very average 5/10.

Just a final point before I leave you with the exclusive video's of this debate. The general view amongst the audience members was that far too often, the panel were drifting off the subject of Islamification. This was certainly true at times, particularly when Abdullah and Craig turned it into an Islam v Christianity comparative religion debate. There were also times when views on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were being shared by the panel and cases of the audience members going on a rant about random issues that had nothing to do with the central topic. To put it firmly, the Chair could have been stricter in his policy of allowing people to drift off topic. Sadly, Williams, a convert (or revert) to Islam wasn't just flexible but at one point decided to step out of his role as chair to answer a question about Islam, much to the dislike of the audience. This level of flexibility can be criticised but it went hand in hand with the good faith on show on and off the stage.

Here is another exclusive. Umaronline.com brings you the full debate (video) on the Islamification of Britain held in Central London yesterday. There are also the best bits from the Q&A and the conclusion, exclusively on umaronline.com. Unfortunately, most of the filming was done hand-held so I'd like to apologise in advance for any shaky camerawork (I am entirely responsible). The discussion must not stop, feel free to air your views on this report. If you were at the debate, how did you find it? If you have seen it and have some points to make, fire away. As always, lets discuss, debate and carry out dialogue in a friendly and civilised manner.

For more independent journalism and commentary on news, sports and entertainment, keep visiting umaronline.com.

ISLAMIFICATION OF BRITAIN - REALITY OF MYTH? MDI DEBATE

PHOTOS :

VIDEOS

INTRO



DEBATE









Q&A







CONCLUSION





umaronline.com