Maybe there’s a
scholar of English nuance somewhere who can explain the enormous difference between
claiming that Sadiq Khan and, in consequence, London are under the control of
Islamists (© Lee Anderson) and claiming
that the whole of the UK is under the control of Islamists and Keir Starmer is
in hock to them (© Suella Braverman). The first is apparently so serious as to
justify removing the whip, whilst the second can be ignored. Number 10 have
been struggling for days to explain what exactly it was about Anderson’s
statement which led to his suspension (and today’s ‘clarification’
has added little to the sum total of human knowledge), suggesting that Sunak
really doesn’t understand what was wrong with both wild claims, and has merely
responded to bad press.
Some, such as the
Trade and Industry Secretary, have decided to try and avoid the question by
getting into a semantic
argument about what is or is not Islamophobia. If it weren’t for the fact
that this is a blatant attempt by the hair-splitting tendency to divert
attention away from the substance, she might even have half a point. ‘Phobia’
isn’t the best suffix to use, given its suggestion of fear, and ‘anti-Islamic’
might indeed be more accurate use of language. It is possible to hate something
without fearing it, and to fear something without hating it, but arguing about
that nuance doesn’t actually deal with the essence of the comments, which seem
to display a mixture of both hate and fear.
Essentially, what
both Braverman and Anderson are complaining about is that people have been ‘allowed’
to demonstrate against Israeli actions in Gaza rather than having their
protests banned and the ringleaders rounded up and jailed. And whilst the
subject matter in this case might be the appalling violence being deployed in
Gaza, both of them are using what they assume (maybe correctly, although I’m
not entirely convinced that they are really in tune with even that group) to be
an unpopular cause amongst their target voters as a hook to express their
dislike of any dissent from their own view of the world. And it’s not at all
unreasonable to wonder whether Sunak’s half-hearted disciplinary action against
one of them (make an unapologetic apology with your fingers crossed behind your
back and we’ll let you back in, seems to be the message) and his reluctance to
even consider action against the second is a result of him basically agreeing
with them and not really understanding what the fuss is about.
If any of them
understood what the traditional ‘British values’ which they all claim to
espouse mean, they would also understand that the right to protest is one of
those values. What their words and actions demonstrate most clearly – and not
just in relation to Gaza – is that they are actually clueless about those
values. It increasingly appears as though the only ‘right’ that they think anyone
other than themselves and the financial interests they represent should have is
the right to do as we are told. And that isn’t really a ‘right’ at all.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment