14 VIGILANTISM IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Britain First and ‘Operation Fightback’ Elizabeth Ralph-Morrow Introduction Britain First was a fringe political party best known for its ‘mosque invasions’, ‘Christian patrols’ and – more recently – being at the centre of a 2017 international dispute between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Theresa May. This chapter charts the brief history to date of Britain First, beginning with its post- British National Party origins and ending with the imprisonment of its leaders and suspension of their social media accounts. Drawing on original qualitative data and online materials, this chapter provides an overview of Britain First’s ideology, vigilante activities, and supporter base. Britain First is not the first UK far-right organization to fuse direct action with formal politics. However, its vigilante activities, religious allusions and savvy social media use set it apart from the parties and movements that came before it. In filming and uploading videos of its uniform-clad supporters storming mosques, distributing British army bibles and departing in a camouflaged Jeep, Britain First has managed to simultaneously threaten violence to British Muslims – and reach an audience of millions. However, it remains to be seen whether the organization can sustain its vigilantism and vast social media reach in the face of increasing censure from technology companies and the UK’s legal system. The ideology, origins and supporters of Britain First Britain First was founded in 2011 by James Dowson, a former member of the far- right British National Party (BNP) who split from the party in 2010 following allegations that he had made unwanted sexual advances towards a female colleague (Allen, 2014). Dowson was joined by Paul Golding, a former BNP councillor, in launching Britain First in 2011, and the two used contacts they had from the BNP Vigilantism in the United Kingdom 229 to recruit supporters (Allen, 2014). In 2014 Dowson resigned after objecting to the ‘mosque invasions’ organized by Golding (Sommerlad, 2014). Jayda Fransen, a former member of the English Defence League, was elevated to the deputy lea- dership the same year (Wright, 2016c). In its mission statement, Britain First (Britain First) describes itself as ‘a patriotic political party and street movement that opposes and fights the many injustices that are routinely inflicted on the British people’. Apparently hinting at vigilante activ- ities and revealing that its involvement in politics is nominal, the mission statement claims that Britain First ‘is not just a normal political group, we are a patriotic resistance and “frontline” for our long suffering people’ and asserts that it has a ‘proven track record of opposing Islamic militants and hate preachers and this fightback will continue’. Britain First claims it will ‘defend our nation, our heritage and culture’. What constitutes British heritage and culture and how it will be defended is unclear, although the mission statement suggests that Christianity is ‘the bedrock and foundation of our national life’ and makes the nostalgic appeal that Britain First ‘will make Britain a beautiful country once again where you can leave your door unlocked and your children can play in the streets’. The organization reveals its desire to prevent ‘our people’ being made second class citizens and to respect, promote and teach young people about British traditions and history. Like other far-right organizations, Britain First singles out immigrants and Mus- lims as threatening the UK’s economy and women. The organization claims that immigration has damaged healthcare, housing and the environment and calls for its end. The group also asserts that ‘[t]he rapid growth of militant Islam is leading the suppression of women, freedom of speech and racist attacks’. Britain First is also ‘overtly proud’ of its stance in putting ‘our people’ first, before ‘foreigners, asylum seekers or migrants’, thereby suggesting that the latter category do not constitute true British citizens. Britain First was nominally a political party and contested elections before deregistering in 2017 (Booth, 2017). It stood two candidates in the 2014 European Parliamentary elections in Wales and Scotland who attracted 0.9 per cent and 1.02 per cent of the vote respectively (BBC, 2017c, 2017d). Golding also stood as a candidate during London’s mayoral election in 2016 where he attracted 1.2 per cent of the vote (BBC, 2017b; Blair, 2016). Although the majority of UK citizens tend not to trust the government, Britain First’s electoral results suggest that most voters do not see it as a credible alternative to the political mainstream (European Commission n.d.).1 Although Britain First has fared badly at the polls, many voters share the orga- nization’s concerns about immigration and Islam. UK voters have consistently ranked immigration as being among the most important issues facing the country (and in 2016 it was ranked as the most important issue), although the public remains divided on the topic. There are particularly stark divisions between pro- fessional and managerial workers and unskilled workers: a majority of the former believe that migration enriches British culture and benefits the economy, whereas 230 Elizabeth Ralph-Morrow less than a third of unskilled workers believe that there are economic or cultural benefits (Blinder & Allen, 2016; Ford & Lymperopoulou, 2017). The UK is also characterized by high levels of Islamophobia. In 2015, 40 per cent of YouGov respondents had a negative impression of Muslims, and in 2016 nearly half of the YouGov respondents agreed that ‘[t]here is a fundamental clash between Islam and the values of British society’ (Dahlgreen, 2015; YouGov, 2016). Because Britain First does not release membership lists, the demographics of its supporter base is unknown. However, fieldwork and observation at three Britain First demonstrations suggests that, similar to other far-right movements, the orga- nization’s supporters are mostly white men.2 Numerous supporters at Britain First demonstrations admitted to having previously engaged in right-wing activism (for example, in the English Defence League or its splinter groups, the South East Infidels or North East Infidels, and PEGIDA UK) and two participants had family members who had engaged in National Front activism. Some supporters – such as a former Conservative party councillor, UK Independence Party (UKIP) candidate and UKIP member – have also engaged in formal politics. Britain First supporters recognize that participating in the organization can attract stigma that may jeopardize employment. A male factory worker who attended the 2017 Telford demonstration said that his wife supports the ideas of Britain First but is ‘an NHS school nurse and attending the demonstration wouldn’t be a good look’. Other participants admitted that their attendance could lead to ‘profession- ally damaging consequences’ and asserted that their friends and neighbours support the organization but will not attend demonstrations due to a fear of losing their job. The unemployment rate in the UK is currently 4.5 per cent and wages dropped by nearly 10 per cent after the financial crisis (Financial Times, 2017; Office for National Statistics, 2017).3 Britain First and the UK far right Britain First’s fusion of direct action and formal politics is not a new phenomenon in the UK and was similarly employed by the British Union of Fascists. Formed in 1932, its leader, Sir Oswald Mosley, advocated the creation of a British economy that could survive without external trade (Cullen, 1993). Like Britain First, the British Union of Fascists displayed paramilitaristic traits and utilized a paramilitary structure, with members wearing a black shirt that symbolized, in the words of Mosley, ‘young men dedicated to the salvation of great nations from decadence and degradation’ (Pugh, 2013). Mosley also established a uniformed and disciplined Fascist Defence Force (Thurlow, 1998a). The recruits to the Fascist Defence Force lived a semi-military life, residing in barracks and participating in drills in order to have the physical capability of preventing groups on the left from driving it by force from the streets (Pugh, 2013). Prior to being banned in 1940 for its pro- German propaganda, the BUF marched through areas of London with a high concentration of Jews in a bid to intimidate and anger the community (Thurlow, 1998b). Vigilantism in the United Kingdom 231 The National Front, formed in 1967, marked the next wave of British right- wing extremism (Copsey, 2004). Ideologically, the party promoted nationalist- racism, with National Front policies advocating the compulsory repatriation of non-white immigrants and their offspring, and the promotion of a eugenic con- sciousness among the nation’s white inhabitants (Taylor, 1982). The National Front staged demonstrations characterized by an undercurrent of violence, chaos and fear (Taylor, 1982). However, the party’s relentless focus on white nationalism did not resonate with the electorate and it polled only 1.3 per cent of the vote in the general election (Copsey, 2004). Ideologically, Britain First has much in common with the BNP, a far-right party founded in 1982 by John Tyndall, a former member of the National Front. (Goodwin, 2011). The BNP experienced its greatest degree of electoral success under the leadership of Nick Griffin, who homed in on the threat that multi- culturalism posed to the ‘native British’, and argued that white cultural expression was being curtailed on the grounds that it was considered offensive to minority groups (Rhodes, 2011). Following the September 11 attacks, the BNP distributed leaflets that warned that Britain was being turned into an Islamic republic (Good- win, 2011). The BNP’s mobilization of Islamophobia and anti-immigration senti- ment, was temporarily successful. By the end of 2006, it had 46 elected local councillors (Wood & Finlay, 2008). However, despite this initial success and per- sistent voter concerns about immigration and Islam, the 2010 general election dashed the BNP’s hopes of widespread electoral breakthrough when the party failed to capture a parliamentary seat (Copsey, 2012).