Sky News, Jayda Fransen and a spate of hate crime in Rotherham

A few days ago we launched The EBFington Post. It’s part of a wider plan to step up our campaign against Britain First and the far-right in general. Britain First is on its way out but tin-pot neo-nazis will remain. We’ll have to wait and see which ludicrous banner they flock to next. For now the job of EBF is to deliver Britain First’s final death blow. It’s a war of ideas and Britain First is losing ground fast but it’s not quite dead yet.

The EBFington Post’s newly appointed editorial team aims to make The Post a resource for Antifascists to stay informed for many years to come – long after the Biffers have been forgotten. Our library of free information guides begins with this inaugural special edition, EBFington post Britain First exposed.

Please download it, use it for reference and pass it around to all your contacts. And remember to bookmark this blog to make sure you don’t miss future editions as they’re published too.

BF EBFington Post Britian First Exposed PDF image

EBFington post Britain First exposed

In the light of the recent spate of hate crime in Rotherham and Jayda Fransen’s ignorant rant about Muslims and paedophilia (aired today by SKY News) we couldn’t have been more timely. Here’s an extract from EBFington post Britain First exposed to whet your appetites…

BF Jayda Dudley speeches 3Paedophilia

Another favourite of Fascist propaganda is the claim that all Muslims are paedophiles. The argument is that since Mohammed married a child, Aisha and since several Muslim paedophile rings have come to light then the inescapable and obvious reality must be that all Muslim men are child sex abusers. Or are they….?

Unfortunately for ‘the fash’, the argument falls flat in some crucial ways…

Mohammed’s child bride

Aisha was Mohammed’s second (and favourite) wife. Estimates of her age at the time of her marriage vary. The best we can say with confidence is that she was somewhere between the ages of 9 and 21 on the day of her betrothal. That’s a pretty big margin of error. Some far-right Islamophobes claim that she was actually only 6 years old when she married but that seems extremely unlikely. Marriage at such a young age would have been against the rules of the Ummah (Islamic community).
We can say with confidence that there is absolutely no evidence that the marriage was consumated during Aisha’s childhood. That’s very important. It means that there’s nothing to suggest that Aisha had sex before she came of age, despite her marriage to Mohammed, which may not have been until her early twenties anyway.

But let’s consider the lowest plausible age. Let’s assume that she was only 9 years old.

It’s important to remember that we are talking about the customs and practices of a nomadic tribal community in the early part of the 7th century. The betrothal of children was common throughout both the East and the West at the time. European history records many Western monarchs who not only married long before puberty but who also produced children as soon as they were biologically able to. There’s nothing unusual about child brides in the context of the time. There is something unusual about Aisha and Mohammed though. They appear not to have had sex until long after Aisha hit puberty.

Aisha is said to have joined Muhammad on the raid that culminated in the Battle of Badr, in 624 CE. Since only those aged 15 or over could have been present at the raid, Aisha must have been at least 15 by then which means she must have been 13 at the very least on her wedding day in 622.

According to Tabari, Aisha was first offered in marriage to a different man in 615. The minimum age for Muslim betrothal at the time was 9 years old which would have made her at least 16 years of age by 622.

Aisha was one of Abu Bakr’s four children, all of whom were born prior to 610 and the beginning of the Islamic era. This would put her at no younger than 12 years at the time of her betrothal (an absolute minimum). Significantly older than many contemporary Christian brides.

None of this suggests that sex with children is acceptable in modern UK. It simply demonstrates the double standard of Britain First and the rest of the far-right Islamophobic groups who delight in chanting “Mohammed was a paedo” on the streets of Britain. The evidence against Muslims in this regard is far less damaging then is the evidence against Christians. And in both cases the ‘evidence’ has been taken so far out of its historical context that it is both meaningless and stupid.

Aisha calligraphy


Muslim grooming gangs

There have been some very high profile cases involving Muslim men, especially of Pakistani origins who committed a range of crimes against children. The scandal against young people in Rotherham is a particularly well-known and prominent example, although it’s not the only one.

BF demo muslim grooming paedo sex rotherham

However this doesn’t mean that all Muslim men, or even all Pakistani Muslim men are paedophiles any more than all Catholic priests can be accused of paedophilia on the strength of the Roman church’s unfortunate relationship with (and protection of) paedophile clerics. Recent child sex scandals within the Anglican and Methodist churches don’t reflect upon all protestants either.

There are paedophiles in every community.

1400 years ago every community accepted child marriage, sex and childbirth at a very young age. If these things are enough to convict all Muslims then they also must convict all Christians by the very same logic.
This stuff doesn’t convict all Christians, of course. And it doesn’t convict all Muslims either. It does reveal an awful lot about the bigotry and selective attention of modern neo-nazis who will grab on to even the flimsiest fantasy to demonise their Muslim neighbours.

18 thoughts on “Sky News, Jayda Fransen and a spate of hate crime in Rotherham

    • We’re not going anywhere. If you download the PDF you’ll see that we don’t expect the fash to disappear just because BF stops making money for Dowson and co.

      We’ve been talking about a possible name change in the not too distant future (once BF collapses completely) but not about packing in.

      The fight against the fash will need to continue, unfortunately.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes. The BNP didn’t really disappear; it just changed to Britain First. And before the BNP was the BNP, it was the National Front. I wonder why the fascists keep changing their names?


        • They’re paranoid by nature. So they keep falling out with each other and morphing into new factions. Then the new factions fall out and members move between them until eventually more factions form and the cycle repeats.

          Paranoid groups finds it hard to maintain unity. They’re too busy back-stabbing each other.

          Liked by 1 person

            • Love:hate. Many of BF are former (and current) EDL anyway. There’s a rivalry but they keep on inviting each other to demos too (in between denouncing each other).

              Neither side is blessed with much confidence. That makes them insecure and fickle.

              Liked by 1 person

                • That’s one version of events.

                  My own belief is that Dowson had to leave after yet another sexual miscondiuct allegation and Golding left with him because Dowson has always been the source of the money. By that time Griffin was all but finished and the BNP was already in decline.

                  I think it was just a treacherous, money-led move. Dowson offered Golding funding and so he dropped Griffin and the BNP without a second thought.

                  Mind you – the BNP may well not have been right wing enough for Nazi boy Golding. They also oppose Jews and Dowson has some dodgy links with extreme zionists that also seem to bring in a fair bit of dosh. So, all in all, Golding had to leave the BNP or go down with the sinking ship.

                  That’s why I think it’s so ironic that Fransen and Dowson are in the middle of stitching Golding up in just the same way that Dowson and Golding stitched Griffin up.

                  Paranoid, treacherous Nazis should know better than to even think about trusting each other!

                  Liked by 1 person

                    • The BNP is anti-semitic. Dowson has links with zionists. That’s one of the reasons that BF sometimes takes Israeli flags on marches whereas the BNP would never dream of doing that.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • That’s probably how they’d spin it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

                      I think it’s to do with funding streams. The English Defence League used to make a big thing about supporting Israel for the same reason.

                      Our researchers have put together most of the background to that but until we’ve made the final few links it’s unwise to be too specific.

                      It’s hard to think of any other reason why ex NF and BNP Golding would suddenly come out in support of Jews when most of his life has been spent banging on about a Jewish conspiracy (like the proper little Nazi he really is).

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • They hate everyone who isn’t white, British and Nazi. But they’re prepared to pretend otherwise for money or tactical advantage. If they managed to get rid of Muslims (no chance) then they’d move on to someone else (Jews, communists, Roma, Trade unionists, LGBT or someone) and so on and so on until there’s nobody left but them. And then they’d turn on each other – again. Remember Neimholler…

                      “First they came for the Communists
                      And I did not speak out
                      Because I was not a Communist
                      Then they came for the Socialists
                      And I did not speak out
                      Because I was not a Socialist
                      Then they came for the trade unionists
                      And I did not speak out
                      Because I was not a trade unionist
                      Then they came for the Jews
                      And I did not speak out
                      Because I was not a Jew
                      Then they came for me
                      And there was no one left
                      To speak out for me”

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • But racists can never stop immigration or multiculturalism. We’ve always had immigrants of one kind or another throughout history, something which the Biffers probably don’t (want to) know.


                    • That’s why it’s so ludicrous. There’s no such thing as pure English, pure European or even pure caucasian. Humans are all mongrels – and that’s our greatest genetic strength.

                      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s