The Guardian today carries an article by assistant editor of the New Statesman, Daniel Trilling, drawing on his new book ‘Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of the Far Right’. Addressing popular myths that animate the far right’s ideas and politics, Trilling denotes the exploitation of poor economic conditions and huge wealth disparities by far right organizations to single out groups for blame. He argues, “The Nazis used antisemitism because it already existed in German society. Their successors today use Islamophobia and the hatred of migrants because it already exists in our societies. We do not need to wait for a successor to the BNP to emerge before addressing these much deeper problems.”

Trilling’s ‘ten myths of the UK’s far right’:

Myth 1 - The threat has passed.

Trilling states that “Nick Griffin's project has failed – but support for the BNP remains.

He argues that “although the BNP was severely damaged as an organisation, and its morale was smashed at the 2010 general election, its support actually went up, with the party receiving 564,331 votes. This indicates a small but apparently solid base of support.”

He highlights how some activists have found other ‘vehicles’ for their ideas such as involvement with the English Defence League, British Freedom Party or the English Democrats.

Myth 2 - The BNP's rise was a consequence of "too much" immigration.

Trilling states that despite immigration being the main reason behind support for the BNP, this is based “on the hugely distorted public perception of immigrants, created largely by inaccurate press coverage”. He also highlights the far-right’s ‘confusion’ when it comes to immigration with a lack of clarity on whether they are referring to new immigrants or all people of ethnic minorities.

Myth 3 - Racism only played a minor role in driving BNP support.

Trilling states that whilst it is wrong to describe all BNP supporters as racist, “the best available information on the attitudes of BNP voters speaks for itself. According to a study by the academics Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford, a significant proportion (between 31% and 45% of those surveyed) shared the BNP's biological racism – that black people, for instance, were intellectually inferior to white people. A greater number still (81%) held strongly hostile attitudes to Islam….The BNP gained support by exploiting racism in combination with economic resentment”.

Myth 4 - White people in Britain are discriminated against because of their skin colour.

Tackling the BNP’s canard about anti-white discrimination in the UK, Trilling argues, “In 21st-century England and Wales, you are 30 times more likely to be stopped and searched by police if you are black than if you are white. Black and Asian people in Britain remain at a statistical disadvantage in employment opportunities and access to housing. Anti-racism laws are intended to level the playing field. Complaining about "anti-white" discrimination, as the BNP has done, is in fact an attempt to preserve privilege rather than remove it. There are indeed ways in which some white people in Britain are unfairly held back, but these have nothing to do with their skin colour.”

Myth 5 - 'Tough talk' keeps the far right at bay.

Trilling gives a number of examples where ‘tough talk’ by politicians did not help to quell the far-right. He argues that, “Blaming immigrants for the failings of the welfare state only fuels the misperceptions that drive support for the far right. If people complain they can't get council houses, for instance, then the only honest question a politician can ask is: "Why aren't there more council houses?"

Myth 6 - Anti-racism has been imposed on the white working class by a politically correct elite.

Trilling gives the example of the struggle against racism in the 1980’s in the context of an active far-right movement- ordinary people taking a stand against racism against their co-workers in the workplace. “This is what anti-racism looks like. Equal opportunities are not handed down from on high by Westminster bureaucrats; they have been fought for by ordinary men and women. Even at its peak, the BNP never spoke for anywhere near the majority of working-class white people – in Dagenham, or anywhere else.”

Myth 7 - The growth of the BNP and the emergence of the EDL indicate the failure of multiculturalism.

Trilling states that although it is tempting to think of ethnic minorities as living in cultural ghettoes, “the trend is in the opposite direction: ethnic minorities are spreading more evenly across Britain.” Yet the idea that Britain is a nation divided by race and culture, rather than wealth, persists across a wide range of rightwing and liberal opinion, with multiculturalism named as the culprit.

Myth 8 - The BNP's rise was Labour's problem alone.

Trilling highlights that whilst the BNP have seen their greatest successes in traditional Labour constituencies, “analysis of the BNP vote suggests supporters were only marginally more likely to have come from Labour-voting backgrounds. What the BNP benefited from was a much larger fall in Labour support.” He questions why the mainstream parties, such as the Tories and the Liberal Democrats were not there to fill the gap.

Myth 9 - The BNP wasn't a fascist organisation.

Trilling argues that “throughout its existence, the BNP has remained profoundly fascist, dedicated to a "revolution" that would make Britain an ethnically "pure" society. The BNP had its roots in the most extreme sections of Britain's far right.” He notes that though the BNP have tried to distance themselves from violence, “it still attracted supporters who harboured fantasies about armed conflict,” noting numerous examples.

Myth 10 - It couldn't happen here.

Here, Trilling emphasises how economic woes are central to the popularity of the far right; “Across Europe, the financial crisis has inflamed tensions between a global market, a multinational EU and nation states that still count on patriotism as a social glue. Rightwing populism of various hues is on the rise”.

“Societies that promise equality, freedom and democracy, yet preside over massive inequalities of wealth, are breeding grounds for racism and other vicious resentments. …The Nazis used antisemitism because it already existed in German society. Their successors today use Islamophobia and the hatred of migrants because it already exists in our societies. We do not need to wait for a successor to the BNP to emerge before addressing these much deeper problems.”

Although the far right has not succeeded in the UK relative to the far right’s presence in mainland Europe, as Trevor Phillips explored in a documentary for BBC Radio 4, Britain has by no means been immune to the challenge posed by far right populist politics. Moreover, Trilling’s claims that the far right attracts violent tendencies has been corroborated by a number of reports, including one by Mathew Goodwin of Nottingham University which found that many supporters of far right parties in the UK such as UKIP and the BNP expect and “endorse violence”, and a report published by the Institute for Race Relations illustrating the ways in which the far-right have supported and acted through violence to achieve their aims.

The European Network Against Racism yesterday published its shadow reports on ‘Racism and related discriminatory practices’ in Europe with a special focus on Muslim communities.

The UK Shadow Report highlights concerns relating to regress in equalities catered for in the 2010 Equalities Act with particular concerns raised over the “number of indicators of significant disadvantage for Muslims in the UK”, the effects on counter-terrorism measures under which Muslims are “disproportionately targeted” and the “persistently negative and prejudiced coverage of Muslims in the media”.

The UK Shadow Report explores racism and discrimination in relation to: employment, education, housing, health, access to goods and services, political participation, media, criminal justice, racist violence and crime, hate speech and counter-terrorism.

The report can be found here, and a press release on the situation of Muslims across the EU can be consulted here.

The news site Salon excerpts material from a new book by Nathan Lean and John Esposito on the ‘Islamophobia Industry’ in the US and Europe, uncovering the means and methods used by the conservative right to manufacture fear and loathing of Muslims.

From Salon:

“As is the case with any industry, advertising is paramount to the success of a product. One need look no further than the Super Bowl to understand the advertising industry’s sheer obsession with reaching a massive number of people; each year, the highest bidders are offered short slots to disseminate catchy clips of their goods, be they Coca-Cola, Nike shoes, or other high-rolling, multi-million-dollar enterprises.

“The Islamophobia industry also goes to great lengths to sell its message to the public. The difference, though, is that in many cases the very networks that spread their product are themselves participants in the ruse to whip up public fear of Muslims. This is not a relationship of buyer and seller, where various characters that peddle panic purchase slots on major television networks to plug their merchandise. Rather, it is a relationship of mutual benefit, where ideologies and political proclivities converge to advance the same agenda.

“Fox News, the American television station that brands itself as “fair and balanced,” is the epitome of this relationship. It has been, for the better part of the last decade, at the heart of the public scare-mongering about Islam, and has become the home for a slew of right-wing activists who regularly inhabit its airwaves to distort the truth to push stereotypes about Muslims. It was little surprise, then, that a Brookings Institution poll on American values conducted in September 2011 found that approximately two-thirds of Republicans, Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement, and Americans who most trusted Fox agreed that the values of Islam are at odds with the values of the United States. Additionally, nearly six in 10 Republicans who say they trust Fox also say that they believe that American Muslims are trying to establish Islamic law in America. In contrast, the attitudes of Republicans who view other news networks fall in line with the general population.

“In February 2011, the Think Progress website released a study that detailed the specific ways that Fox News manipulates language to insinuate, or in many cases, state explicitly, that Muslims and Islam should be feared. Using three months’ worth of material gathered from various television programs from November 2010 to January 2011, a graph was compiled to show that the network disproportionately deployed terms that reflected a negative view of Muslims, more so than Fox News’ competitors. For example, Fox used the term “Shariah” 58 times over a three-month period, whereas CNN used the term 21 times, and MSNBC 19 times.

“Similarly, Fox hosts brought up the phrases “radical Islam” or “extremist Islam” 107 times in three months, while CNN used the term 78 times and MSNBC only 24 times. Still, Fox used the word “jihad” 65 times, while CNN used it 57 and MSNBC used it 13 times.

“The man behind much of the station’s conspiratorial fear-mongering, 71-year-old Ailes allows his own personal phobias to steer the agenda of Fox’s telecasts....According to one insider, Ailes meets with Fox anchors prior to their broadcasts and feeds them talking points and message strategies...During the 2008 president election, Dickinson notes, “References to Obama’s middle name [Hussein] were soon being bandied about on ‘Fox & Friends,’ the morning happy-talk show that Ailes uses as one of his primary vehicles to inject his venom into the media bloodstream.” It was on that very program that suspicions about Barack Obama being a Muslim and trained in a madrassa were first raised.””

Lean and Esposito’s book is described on the cover as “explor[ing] the dark world of monster making, examining in detail an interconnected, and highly organized cottage industry of fear merchants. Uncovering their scare tactics, revealing their motives, and exposing the interests that drive them, Nathan Lean casts a bright and damning light on this dangerous and influential network.”

Much like reports produced by the Center for American Progress, Fear Inc., and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, ‘Smearcasting’ – this new book adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the actors and motives responsible for the media hype about Muslims, ‘Islamification’ and perceptions of terrorism.

The Independent reports on Channel 4’s forthcoming programming schedule which may include the broadcast of morning prayers during Ramadan this year.

The paper reports that Channel 4 “is “in discussion” about airing morning prayers every day.

“A spokesperson said details were still being worked on, and it could be that prayers are “marked” rather than broadcast to viewers.

“Planned programmes include hearing from a range of British Muslims on how they cope with daily life during Ramadan, and the physical and spiritual effects of fasting.

“The shows will look at “whether [fasting Muslims] are feeling calm, frustrated, or energised without food and drink, and whether their day involves breaking up street brawls, carrying out brain surgery or caring for their children.””