In today’s polarized world, the intersection of fashion, politics, and extremism has become an increasingly thorny issue for global brands. A recent event in London underscored this dilemma when members of far-right movements were spotted wearing clothes from luxury Italian brand Stone Island during a high-profile rally. The rally, which took place in September 2025, drew over 110,000 protesters who opposed immigration and engaged in violent clashes with the police. Among the symbols carried by the demonstrators was not only the Union Jack and St George’s Cross but also the recognizable Stone Island logo.
This unexpected association raises difficult questions for brands: What happens when extremist groups choose to wear your products? Can a company do anything to prevent their merchandise from being co-opted by movements that run counter to their brand values? More importantly, what happens when violence is associated with the clothes you sell?
The Rise of Extremist Symbols in Fashion
Stone Island, a brand renowned for its high-quality outerwear, has been synonymous with a specific subculture of fashion—one that originally emerged from the football hooligan culture in the UK. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson, the notorious far-right activist and former leader of the English Defence League (EDL), has been photographed multiple times wearing Stone Island apparel, even appearing in court wearing the label after being charged with harassment and inciting violence. Robinson, a convicted criminal with a history of assault and immigration fraud, has made a name for himself as one of the leading figures in far-right circles in the UK.
Robinson, along with his supporters, has frequently worn Stone Island during protests and public events, and this was once again the case during the September rally. While neither Robinson nor his supporters explicitly use Stone Island as a symbol of their ideology, the brand’s association with them has been noticed by many. The connection has sparked concerns that the clothing label, known for its luxury status and clean-cut image, might be unintentionally aligning itself with extreme right-wing views, or worse, violence.
The Influence of Fashion in Political Movements
Fashion has long been a vehicle for cultural and political expression, often used to communicate ideologies or status. For many, clothing is not just about aesthetics but also about signaling belonging to a certain group. Stone Island, like other brands with distinct logos, has become an identifier for certain subcultures, including the football hooligan scene, which has been historically linked to violent confrontations and extremist views. These subcultures may not necessarily reflect the core values of the brand, but the reality is that symbols like the Stone Island compass logo have found their way into movements that promote divisiveness and hatred.
Joe Mulhall, the director of research at Hope Not Hate, a UK-based organization combating racism and neo-fascism, explained that for someone like Tommy Robinson, “Stone Island is not just a fashion choice; it’s part of his identity.” Robinson, who rose to prominence through the EDL and his vocal anti-Islam stance, comes from a background where brands like Stone Island and CP Company (a sister brand) have been staples of the subculture. This subculture, defined by an obsession with logos and status symbols, has now been infiltrated by far-right ideologies.
However, as Mulhall points out, this is not an issue exclusive to Stone Island. “I can’t think of a time when Robinson hasn’t worn those brands at public events,” he says, reflecting the fact that these logos have now become intertwined with political movements, despite the brand’s initial lack of political intent.
Brands and Their Limited Control Over Consumer Behavior
Brands typically have little control over who buys their products. Once a product is sold, it’s in the hands of the consumer, who may wear it in ways that diverge completely from the brand’s ethos. A consumer might buy a T-shirt or jacket because it aligns with their personal style, or they might adopt it as part of a more insidious agenda. Regardless of how the product is worn, the brand has no say once it leaves the store.
This is the dilemma that many brands face today, particularly as political movements grow more polarized and contentious. The challenge is not just about what your brand stands for but also about how others choose to interpret or co-opt your brand’s identity.
For Stone Island and similar brands, this could mean being inadvertently associated with groups or individuals that the company would prefer to distance itself from. This has been the case for several brands in the past, including Fred Perry, whose polo shirts were worn by members of the far-right extremist group Proud Boys during rallies in the U.S. Fred Perry, which is rooted in British heritage and traditionally associated with the working class, faced significant backlash when its logo became linked to far-right extremism. The company was forced to issue statements clarifying its commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion, but the damage to its reputation had already been done.
The Brand’s Responsibility: Preventing Violent Associations
With the rise of violence associated with political movements globally, brands are now facing questions about their role in preventing their products from being tied to hate and violence. Dr. Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a sociologist and professor at The American University in Washington, DC, has emphasized that brands “should be wary of being associated with groups or movements that promote, celebrate, or have been engaged in violence.”
For brands like Stone Island, this means taking a proactive approach in monitoring how their products are used and worn, especially in politically charged contexts. While brands cannot control who buys their products, they can control how they respond when their merchandise is associated with hate movements. This may involve working with advocacy groups, issuing public statements, or taking legal action to distance themselves from violent organizations.
Additionally, brands may want to reconsider their relationship with retailers or platforms that might inadvertently promote extremist behavior. In an age of global digital commerce, where social media can amplify the visibility of products in unexpected contexts, companies must think carefully about how their clothing and logo are displayed and marketed.
The Growing Importance of Brand Ethics
For modern consumers, brand ethics have become increasingly important. Younger generations, in particular, expect brands to take a stand on issues such as human rights, environmental sustainability, and social justice. Brands that fail to live up to these expectations may face consumer backlash, as well as the risk of being associated with harmful ideologies.
The recent protests in London, with their clear connection to far-right movements, are a wake-up call for companies like Stone Island. In the world of fashion, it is no longer enough to simply provide high-quality products; companies must also be prepared to defend their image against any potential associations with harmful or violent ideologies.
Conclusion: Navigating the Thin Line Between Fashion and Politics
The situation in London serves as a stark reminder of how fashion and politics can collide in unexpected ways. Brands like Stone Island find themselves in the unenviable position of balancing consumer demand with the risk of being misappropriated by extremist groups. While they cannot dictate who buys their products, they must be prepared to address the consequences when their clothing becomes a symbol of hate and division.
As political movements become more polarized and violence becomes more prevalent, the pressure on brands to define their values and make ethical choices will only intensify. In this environment, it is not just about selling clothes—it’s about protecting your brand’s reputation and ensuring that your products are not complicit in furthering ideologies that run counter to the values of equality, justice, and peace.
Leave a Reply