First posted: 17th June, 2010
In this piece, Hugh Muir manages to patronise the EDL, Sikhs, the Sikh members of the EDL, Rajinder Singh, Guramit Singh and finally, but to a lesser extent, Bhupinder Singh, whom Muir interviews in this article.
Basically, The Guardian patronises everyone who does not have its own worldview. It always assumes that the people who don’t agree with it do so because they have "two sausages short of a fry-up", as Muir so humourlessly puts it. It especially patronises the working class. Actually, it profoundly dislikes the white working class. That is why it has always wanted to change them. This goes back to the Fabians.
What it must be like to be as clever as Hugh Muir and other Guardian journalists. If only we in the EDL, and elsewhere, had 1/50 of their intelligence – what a great Stalinist-cum-Fabian world it would be.
Muir himself stops short of calling the Sikh member of the EDL an ‘Uncle Tom’; or, that latest Leftist cliché, a ‘poster boy’. You know, if a black person is not a rapper and doesn’t ‘think and talk street’, then he must be an Uncle Tom. The same goes for the black members of the Conservative Party – all Uncle Toms because they don’t read The Guardian. And the Sikh members of the EDL – Uncle Toms or Poster Boys, every last one of them! How fucking racist! I won’t even dignify this with the prefix ‘inverted’.
According to Hugh Muir, Guramit Singh is a ‘numbskull’. There are non-Guardian readers like him ‘born every minute’, according to the sage, Hugh Muir. Oh yes. He also calls him a ‘useful idiot’ – another Leftist piece of journalese. (Any phrase or word to stop Leftists thinking.) He's a useful idiot because he wants non-whites to join the EDL. In fact he does a ‘mucky job’ for the EDL. How naive and thick Muir must think Guramit Singh is. He’s surely a victim of ‘false consciousness’. Muir, of course, is the victim of True and Pure Consciousness, as perfectly epitomised by The Guardian itself.
Hugh Muir attempts to prove his general point by getting another Sikh to slag Guramit Singh off. And to a person bereft of logic, this must simply prove that Guramit is a foolish dupe of the EDL. You see? How can the EDL really support Sikhs if one Sikh says it doesn’t? Muir’s logic is faultless. You see. Bhupinder Singh "knows about the EDL". Knows what? That it is identical to the BNP? Or that it "supplies boot boys to the BNP"? Or that it is "run by Zionists"? Or run by "a wealthy businessman from London'? This is UAF’s very own Martin Smith’s best take on the EDL. The EDL is "really a bourgeois group, despite appearances"! In fact, someone once even made the outrageous claim that the EDL was really against Islamism, militant Islam and sharia law. God! If only they knew the truth.
Despite finding a Sikh to be critical of Guramit Singh and the EDL, the former was not completely Guardianesque in his views. He tells Muir that "there is an impression many have that Muslims benefit from favouritism". He goes on to tell us about London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park. Bhupinder Singh asks: 'Who else has a place of worship in a royal park?" Muir says that it is "uncomfortable to hear this". Why? Why is it uncomfortable to hear the truth, Muir? Is it because The Guardian is more concerned with Leftist ideology and theory than truth? Thus Bhupinder Singh's comments make this Guardian journalist uncomfortable.
Then Singh has another complaint. He says:
"Look at all those places serving up halal. Sikhs can’t eat halal. Every time a KFC or a Subway goes halal, that’s one more place that we can’t eat."
But what Muir really dislikes about Bhupinder Singh is that he is a British patriot and "a small “c” conservative". Singh says that no "community should be allowed to change Britain… it’s fine as it is". To this, Muir sarcastically writes: "Whoever says that these days?" Yes. Whoever? It’s far too un-Guardian. Far too patriotic for Muir and all the other Guardianistas. Not hip at all, is it?
*) The Guardian article:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/15/what-makes-sikh-join-far-right