This autobiography by Tommy Robinson, Enemy of the State, is a seriously flawed book in many respects, not least in its handling of the topic of Islam, writes Daniel Falkiner. Nevertheless, the book constitutes a valuable primary resource on one influential strand of working-class street politics and raises curious, if disconcerting, questions about how the ethnicity known as ‘White British’ may be fracturing into more unstable elements. Whatever one thinks of its author, this book should be on the reading list of anyone who is concerned about social cohesion in Britain.
If you are interested in the topics explored in this review, it may be read as a companion piece with James Beresford‘s review of Angry White People: Coming Face-to-Face with the British Far Right, in which the investigative journalist Hsiao-Hung Pai documents conversations and encounters with members of the English Defence League (EDL) as well as Luton residents, anti-racist activists and Muslim communities affected by the EDL’s rise.
Enemy of the State. Tommy Robinson. The Press News Ltd. 2016.
In his newly released autobiography, Enemy of the State, Tommy Robinson openly admits that he and the organisation he once led are ‘not everyone’s cup of tea’. But he also argues that, despite having publicly renounced the English Defence League (EDL), he is yet to receive a fair public hearing. Anybody with a connection to the EDL, he writes, is still portrayed by mainstream politicians and the media ‘as though they eat, breathe and live some kind of all-consuming hatred’. Robinson protests that this is not at all what he or the vast majority of his supporters stand for.
Many will have their doubts about this. As it is, however, one need not agree with Robinson to find reason to read his book. In fact, anybody concerned about the cohesion of British society should read Enemy of the State very carefully. This is not because it offers a particularly incisive analysis of Islam in Britain — it doesn’t. The book’s value lies instead in the insight it provides into how one small demonstration against Islamic extremism in Luton could morph into a nationwide anti-Islam movement. Perhaps more significantly, it also provides an intimate (if sometimes myopic) portrait of the social backdrop against which this movement and the beliefs that guide it must be understood.
That portrait is bleak indeed. Economic vulnerability, social breakdown and political neglect are themes that surface time and again. Importantly, the drug abuse, crime and serious violence that frequently accompany these broader problems are never abstract for Robinson; they are lived realities for him and for his broader community. And he is not shy of describing them in disturbing detail, because ‘these things are bound to have shaped me in some way, growing up. Hearing the stories and experiencing the reality of life on [the] streets … [you] couldn’t help but have it touch your life in some way or another.’
Most notable in this regard is the growth of gangs in Luton over the past few decades and the violence they have brought with them. The brutal murder of Mark Sharp in 1995 seemed to make a particularly deep impression on the community, and on Robinson himself. ‘The truth is’, he writes, ‘that by the time the conflict became focused on religion and nationalism, there had been trouble brewing in Luton for many years. That was more about gang territory and activity than any disputes over faith.’
Image Credit: Tommy Robinson, 5th May 2012 (Youtube)
Researchers have corroborated this assertion, and few among them would dispute Robinson’s claim that gangs in Luton had consolidated along ethnic and religious divides in the community well before the EDL emerged. Where scholars will take serious issue with Robinson’s narrative, however, is in the significance he attaches to Muslim identity as a contributing factor to the various social ills to which he bears witness. For example, contrary to Robinson’s claims, Islam does not necessarily have any bearing on a Muslim gang member’s behaviour, even if all the other members of the gang also identify as Muslim. To suggest otherwise would require us to believe that the Christian faith of the Catholics who make up the Sicilian Mafia inherently influences their behaviour, which is clearly not the case.
Concerning the different standards often applied by authorities to different communities on the basis of their identities, however, Robinson’s arguments stand on more solid ground. Most convincing in this respect are his complaints about the failures that led to the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, in which it was revealed that gangs of mainly Pakistani-heritage men had sexually abused some 1,400 young girls under the noses of local authorities for more than 15 years. The question of whether cultural factors were involved in these crimes is contested, but what now seems beyond doubt is that senior police and government officials prioritised good relations with the Pakistani-heritage community over the safety and well-being of very vulnerable, predominantly White British children, whose pleas for help were often ignored or dismissed with barely veiled contempt.
Robinson also notes that police kettled protestors for three hours at one of the very first demonstrations he organised. During this time, a number of women (including his aunt) were humiliated by having to crouch and urinate in the street. This occurred in spite of the women having pleaded with police to be let out to use the toilet. The rhetorical question Robinson poses regarding this event is a potent one: ‘Could you imagine the police doing that to Muslim women?’ And it is indeed very difficult to imagine British police forcing traditional Muslim women to choose between wetting themselves or exposing themselves in front of strangers. But differential treatment rarely sits well with those given the short end of the stick as criticism of the perceived unfairness of the UK government’s Prevent program also demonstrates. In fact, Robinson states that his perceived experience of policing double standards was effectively what led him and his friends to create the EDL.
This leads to an important point. Much of Robinson’s ire seems to ultimately derive from his feeling of have been denied a voice, of having been treated like ‘a second class citizen in his own town and his own country’. That this anger is shared by so many people (as the explosive growth of the EDL demonstrates) is deeply troubling, and it cannot be simply dismissed. Indeed, it seems to be at least in part a reaction to what Colin Webster has called the racialisation of the white working class. As Robinson puts it: ‘Lads like me march and we’re thugs. Middle-class tweedies march and the nation is speaking.’
Enemy of the State is a seriously flawed book in many respects, not least in its handling of the topic of Islam. Nevertheless, it is genuinely important: it constitutes a valuable primary resource on the development of one influential strand of working-class street politics, and provides some answers as to how this kind of politics might develop in the future. Consciously or not, it also raises curious if rather disconcerting questions about how the ethnicity known as ‘White British’ may be fracturing into more unstable elements. Whatever one thinks of its author, this book should be on the reading list of anyone who is concerned about social cohesion in Britain, or simply committed to rerum cognoscere causas.
Daniel Falkiner holds a PhD in International Relations from the LSE.
Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics.
It seems strange that you think Tommy Robinson’s understanding of Islam is wrong. Yet you don’t tell us why you think it is wrong. Nor do you tell us what your qualifications are in order to be able judge his interpretation. It doesn’t appear that you are a Sheikh, nor that your PhD is in Islamic Studies.
I don’t think that Tommy Robinson has set himself up as a Professor of Islam. But he’s entitled to his opinion. I’d wager he knows as much about Islam as the average Muslim. And if his views on Islam were so wrong, why was it that in debate after debate on TV there was no Islamic scholar who disputed what he said?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjGdr7cHe3Y
he disputed it, watch the whole video
Well it doesn’t make him right…. but we’ll done for finding the one in two billion.
Enemy of the State by Tommy Robinson isn’t a seriously flawed book. The ‘topic of islam’ doesn’t require ‘handling’ on his part’. The ”ethnicity known as ‘White British’ ” is distinct from all ethnicities as representing the culture of England, so it is misleading to describe white British as an ethnicity. Who is ‘affected’ by the rise of the EDL ? The book offers incisive analysis of Islam in Britain. The ‘gangs’ referred to in Luton are muslim associations so the problem is about islam. Islam has an overwhelming influence on the members of these muslim associations. It has nothing to do with the Sicilian mafia. The ‘Pakistani-heritage men’ regard themselves as muslims. Daniel Falkiner doesn’t understand islam and misrepresents facts.
Very good reading as far as you can go in context of your own career.
For a person not living in Britain, the treatment of Mr. Robinson by the press, police and political elites has the appearance of the application of a strict class code of conduct.
If he had a degree from Oxford and spoke with a different accent, would he not be running an elite, political think tank? I have read his words and listened his words on videos. Never has he expressed hate and he has always listened and engaged with people. He has always tried to bring the conversation back to the actual social problems of Britain. These are facts that anyone can see for themselves by looking at the same evidence that I have.
Mr. Robinson’s “crime” in my opinion: Being lower class and aspiring to be a political leader. His incarceration on trumped up white collar crime charges should be an embarrassment for any citizen who believes in UK Democracy and equality before the law and free speech. The idea that being against the application of a foreign, religious legal code is “far right” is ridiculous. If that foreign court were run by the Catholic Church, what would the elite political leaders say then?
Mr. Cid, all very good and accurate. What we in the states don’t understand is that the Europeans don’t have a second amendment like we do. It stops them from expressing themselves in all honesty. Our conservative opinions are also being curtailed in the states, but it is nowhere near as bad as in Europe. Good comments on your part.
Mr Cid, you are so right. I was shocked to hear what the English state did to Robinson to get rid of him and try to silence him. It is not worthy of a true democracy and rule of law. The most shocking i found that he told his story to Oxford students and they didn’t care one bit. Do they have any sence of rule of law at all> They don’t mind their state to behave like a bunch of intimidating manipulators?
The reviewer says this book is flawed in at least thrice in this short review, but he never says what he finds problematic.
How, specifically, is Tommy incorrect in his assessment of Islam?
I agree with much of the review’s analysis of the book. However, there is one recurrent key issue that reviews – both positive and negative – tend to overlook, viz., what exactly is happening to our society and why? Who are those responsible? How can real solutions be found?
The fact is that traditional western society is falling apart and it is becoming increasingly doubtful that what is replacing it can be construed as unqualified “progress”. Extremism, be it “Islamic” or “British nationalist” cannot be but symptoms and they, as well as books about them, typically fail to touch on the causes that remain strangely unexamined and ignored. The result is that we seem to be moving round and round in circles without ever finding a way out as new and increasingly serious problems constantly arise.
There are one or two excellent studies though, like Ioan Ratiu’s “The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy” that look into some of the underlying causes, such as why unthought-through “progressive” (more accurately, naïve-idealist or utopian) ideologies ultimately do more harm than good. I think critical social and historical studies of this type show the way forwards and it wouldn’t be a bad idea to form research groups dealing with this and related themes. Institutions like LSE would be the right place to start. Any thoughts on that?
I would also like to ask what exactly is wrong with his conception of Islam? Do you actually know anything about Islam? Have you lived with it? Tommy has done his homework – I suspect you haven’t.
What increases my suspicion is the you recommend Hsiao-Hung Pai’s book. If anyone wants to see just how ignorant she is on the subject, and how she thought Anjem Choudary was basically a nice man, then treat yourself to this secret video Tommy Robinson recorded of her!
https://youtu.be/lOuXy75NV6c
I don’t know exactly how *true* all of the events narrated here are and would be interested in some useful criticism on that point. But I agree it is a very interesting social document.
I suspect Robinson knows one hell of a lot more about Islam than the author of this patronising review.
The author of the review compares Muslim gangs to the Mafia.
Why is that a good analogy? I don’t get it. The Mafia are ruthless criminals.
Another intellectual slating a decent working class hero to appease this corrupt, treacherous government. BRILLIANT book, a must read.
Note: This comment has been modified to comply with our comments policy.
The reviewer’s point about Sicilian mafia being Catholics is wrong for the following reason. Jesus Christ told his follows that violence was always wrong, and to love thy neighbour. He preached complete set of values that were Peace, love, charity, even to your enemy. So Sicilian Mafia gangs operate contrary to the teachings of the Christian New Testament. Islamic teaching preaches submission to the power of the Sword of Truth wielded by the powerful. To win by violence is permitted in Islam. It is not in Christianity. Do not confuse this as me saying that all Muslims are violent. They are not. They are ordinary people just like you and me. But philosophically do not ever think that Islam and Christianity preach the same thing. They don’t. The reviewer is obviously intellectually stating what I have here, or for reasons of political correctness, he’s scared to state the facts which anyone can find in the Qu’ran or in the Bible. Both books are freely available for all to read, and simple to compare?
i agree with whats been said already. the author completely under-emphasises the problem of Islam in todays society. I urge everyone, especially my fellow lefties to look into the rise of Salafism and the extremely worrying effect it has had on the mosques and Muslims of the UK. Its frightening to say the least.Also please read the Koran, read ABOUT the Koran and the Hadith before entering into any discourse on this subject. This piece is severely flawed in how it doesnt explain why TRs book is flawed.
The reviewer knows nothing of England’s or Lutons muslim community it seems. Now you mention the book ‘Angry White People by Hsiao-Hung Pai – there is a seriously flawed book. She describes Tommy Robinson and UKIP as “White Supremacists” – a joke right? So Sikh EDL members and Muslim and black UKIP members were left out of her book. The fact that you draw people to a review of this book is telling. Imagine what review “Angry Black People or Angry Muslims would get!! Banned from publication is my view.
The review is ignorant or has been written by someone unable to see beyond their own bias. Tommy is a lot of things but is honest and I would never think twice about leaving him in charge of my kids. Can’t say that about the religious, islamic or christian. I doubt the late Christopher Hitchens would think much of the writing style of Tommy but would certainly not write such a slanted review. The comments seem to reflect the fact that the reviewer is biased or trying to placate a main stream media narrative.
I haven’t yet read Tommy’s book but I have seen his interview with Hsiao-Hung Pai on Youtube. If you want to see journalistic ignorance at its best then you really need to watch this all the way through!
https://youtu.be/C4T0sXvqXWM
Somewhat patronising. People who view Tommy negatively tend not to have suffered the ‘benefits’ of mass Muslim influx into their own communities and have little understanding of the way non-muslims are often sidelined in these working class areas.
What did I just read? You say he is wrong, then don’t explain why you think he is wrong. Seems like Tommy’s right and it makes you uncomfortable, if not mad.
The thing about the Sicilian mafia though is that not only they were “Catholic” – but pretty much everyone else in their part of Italy was… and I’m not sure they were in the business of converting anyone, as opposed to the Muslim grooming gangs Tommy Robinson writes about, in Luton and elsewhere. If you recall, in the book he described several cases where victims of grooming gangs converted to Islam – which no doubt did not occur without some degree of pressure or persuasion. Tommy also describes being given a Koran in prison by some Muslim prisoners trying to convert him – so how is any of this at all comparable to the Sicilian Mafia?!
Having just read Enemy of the State I have nothing but unstinting admiration for Tommy Robinson not least for refusing to have his spirit broken by our establishment. Having studied Islam more closely in the last few years than I had to do as an RE teacher from 1968 to 2003, I can’t see any serious flaws in Robinson’s understanding of Islam. He is a hero.
Let’s hope Tommy survives his latest prison term, given that he was almost murdered last time. The reviewer of the book totally fails to mention the attempts by the state to enlist him as a spy by offering to erase his trumped up legal problems in return.
Remarkable!