You could, and should have in my view, mentioned Rayner and Lammy calling Tories "scum" and "actual Nazis". The febrile atmosphere in politics as been brewing for some time and Reform is not the only party that need to reflect.
I believe Reform politicians are genuinely scared and with some justification. Perhaps they are trying to send a signal to discourage others encouraging, directly or indirectly, violence against politicians.
I disagree with you over Connolly. She was not expressing positive views at all. Do you not understand the significance of "for all I care"? If an exasperated mother says to her recalcitrant son "don't study for your exams then, for all I care" you think she is advocating he should not study? It's an emotional expression of exasperation, of giving up on the matter. Connolly's use of 'for all I care" negates your imputed interpretation.
Connolly was badly advised to plead guilty and came before a judge keen to make an inappropriate example of her. The pragmatics of the English language was wilfully disregarded
I enjoyed reading your comment and have to say; your use of the word 'febrile' is absolutely the most perfect adjective for the times we find ourselves in.
I have sympathy for your argument, although I would be okay with a free speech regime that consistently criminalised incitement to violence on the level of the guillotine t-shirt. But the problem here is that it feels like you are advocating one-sided unilateral disarmament. A large faction of the left is enthusiastically willing to call the police and authorities to censor and silence ‘hate speech’, meaning anything they disagree with. We all know these ideologues won’t stop. (Though, ironically, they’re the same sort of people who would smile at London Pride marchers carrying signs calling for the gruesome murder of ‘terfs’.)
I would be happy with a mutual disarmament agreement in which everyone got free speech, including an end to censorship laundered through Big Tech and other private companies. A new Free Speech Act would be great. But until we get there, it’s straight up unfair to call on the right wing to refrain from using the law that actually exists to defend themselves on what is already a tilted playing field.
I really can’t blame Farage for doing unto Polanski what so very many woke Green types have done to him and his supporters.
It is perhaps fair to accuse Farage of double standards, in reporting Polanski while defending Connolly. But one should also accuse the media and police of rampant double standards. Connolly was jailed for 31 months (despite the “for all I care”, which makes the remark little more than sounding off, especially when followed by suggesting the same for politicians) whereas I am willing to bet that the person who wore that t-shirt will not be jailed.
Nastiness and threats of violence are excused as sounding off if done by those with opinions acceptable within the “BBC Bubble”, but treated as utterly unacceptable and even criminal if done by those with opinions that the “BBC Bubble” dislike.
We should have clear guidelines as to what is legal and acceptable, and they should then be applied even-handedly.
Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. Maybe she was badly advised, but she cannot complain about being punished for a crime for which she accepted responsibility. Whether or not t-shirt man is found guilty of a similar crime and jailed really won’t say anything about double standards or “two tier” justice.
(FWIW, I find the t shirt odious. I find it unacceptable for a political party activist to wear such a slogan, and would not vote for a party where the wearing of such a slogan at a party event was apparently unremarkable.)
She can complain about the severity. An unconditional discharge and a warning from the judge (perhaps a £200 fine) would have sufficed and been an appropriate response to the guilty plea. Especially so since the law was being used completely at odds with the original intent of Parliament in passing it.
You obviously have not read the litany of abuses of normal procedure she was subjected to. The intent was to make an example of her, as a scapegoat. It can in no way be argued she was offered a fair trial.
She was told if she pleaded guilty the worst case was that she would be out by Christmas. She could still be in remand awaiting trial otherwise. And remand is supposed to be for those who are dangerous or flight risks. That is off the scale two-tier justice.
As I say, it seems she was either poorly advised or perhaps her decision making based on the information given to her was flawed. She could still be on remand, it’s true, but as you say, this is for those deemed dangerous or a flight risk, so it’s unlikely. Bearing in mind that the courts tend to prioritise cases associated with rioting, if she had pleaded guilty, her case may well have been heard reasonably promptly. (You will recall that in 2011, the cases associated with rioting and looting were prioritised in the courts, when a certain Keir Starmer was leading the DPP.)
Anyway, I don’t come on Substack to argue with strangers - that is what Xitter is for. Have a nice life. 😊
The advice that people do not get sentenced to multiple years in prison for an ill-judged tweet was not in my view bad advice, but a reasonable expectation based on precedent. However, her barrister's alleged agreement that she had intended to incite serious violence I would have to say was a serious failing. The sentence she received was entirely disproportionate and it is that and the unfair way she was treated by the justice system that has mainly been criticised. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yl7p4l11po
The crime only existed as such because we have two tier laws. If you were in a one tier system, there would be no crime of inciting racial hatred that invariably only gets used on white people alone.
There might be a crime of inciting violence, but it wouldn't matter what the motive. All motives would be treated equally. There would be one tier for everyone. If you incite violence, for whatever reason, then you face the same punishment, independent of who you are and they are, and what you each find particularly offensive..
To add to the fact the law itself is "two tier" - We really have regressed to ducking school justice with thought and speech crimes. There is no reasoned or evidence based debate on who incited the crimes against the asylum-seeker hotels. Think about it in reality. Who really incited this violence? i.e. if they'd not done what they did, the violence would not have happened.
You could better argue that it was Axel Rudakubana himself. Without his act of seemingly racially motivated savagery, which disgusted and angered so many, the riots would likely not have happened.
You could argue it was whoever allowed thousands of illegal immigrants, against voter's wishes, into disadvantaged working class areas and put them into expensive hotels, during a cost of living crisis. This act echoes of the kind of ways Jews were humiliated by Nazis in the 1930s. The act said: "you are not as important as these people. We care for these people and not you."
You could just argue the person who incited the riots was whoever let so many people into the country who hated its people so baited and disrespected them?
If LC hadn't tweeted, I personally think that the violence would have still happened, but if any of the other things I mentioned above hadn't happened, there is a greater chance it would not. Ergo sum, LC was not the person inciting violence.
The law belongs in the C10th. Along with the other two tier laws found in Anglo-Saxon history, or hunter-settler communities.
See your point, Helen but the police, judiciary and Labour politicians have clearly been very one sided in their pronouncements and prosecutions. Trans supporters in particular and Antifa have frequently threatened violence on line and in person upon people publicly disagreeing with gender ideology- with nothing done by the powers that be - including, now, a new 'charity' called Bash Back.
I don't think a guillotine with 'We're making plans for Nigel' is very funny, in view of the murder of Ann Widdecombe and of Charlie Kirk in USA; and I think there are good grounds to suggest that it constitutes incitement to harm.
We in UK need a USA type Brandeis test whereby free speech is sacrosanct except when it is clear excitement or threats of bodily harm. I do not, myself, believe in 'hate speech' or blasphemy by the back door. Threats of and incitement to inflict bodily harm should be taken seriously and policed, subject to trial and prosecution.
I'm not sure whether Farage is right or wrong here; but he has a very good case, which the police need to take seriously.
Just to be clear (as an American): what Farage is claiming would not be considered a "good case" under American First Amendment law: it would be laughed out of court. Retweeting a picture of someone wearing a t-shirt with a guillotine and a politician's name (or even wearing the t-shirt oneself, absent other evidence of intent to commit violence) would not rise to the standard of a true threat or incitement under American law (much as the current President might wish it would). See https://www.fire.org/research-learn/how-and-why-true-threats-are-unprotected-speech for a succinct summary of the law.
The current case of former FBI director James Comey, who is alleged to have made a similar "threat" against President Trump, will be instructive here (https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/27/politics/james-comey-trump-threat): my assumption is that it will be thrown out, either by a grand jury or by the judge, before it comes to trial. He certainly will not be convicted.
In recent years I have come to understand the importance of FAFO. That's "fuck around; find out", for those who didn't know. The thing is, these days there are a big chunk of politically active people who only seem to learn about the nuances of dilemmas when it directly *detrimentally* affects them personally. Until that happens, these activists live and operate in their own echo-chambers where the consequences of what they're saying and doing simply don't affect them. They seem incapable of learning from history or from extrapolation or from deduction. The far-left and far-right both are like this.
We see countless examples of movements that changed their view of something only when it started hurting then. E.g. radical feminism only discovered the importance of free speech once they started getting censored and arrested. And the political moderate Left in general only discovered that Identity Politics is bad once it started hurting their causes.
In all honesty I think that people like Zach Polanski are only going to learn about the consequences of free speech limits they've been pushing once PC Plod starts knocking on their door regularly. FAFO. Perhaps it's becoming a parent that's done this to me. Sometimes you've just got to let the kid fall over for them to learn. Yes it's painful in the short term, and there'll be lots of crying, but for people who will only learn one way, it's the only working option.
I don't think these activists know half of how their demands are going to affect them in future.
Let's start with Net Zero - I would suggest the ideological purist policy is a preserve of younger people, and until every atom of carbon is gone, they'll be (metaphorically) sticking themselves to some exhibition piece in the Tate Modern, while clutching their Greta therapy dolls. Older people also care about the planet, but would be more rational given i) yes, the climate is changing, ii) yes, pollution is bad, but iii) we are on the crest of a repeating cycle, not necessarily an unprecedented rise, iv) the economy is still needed, v) we seem to be spending trillions but CO2 is still going up because of China, Indonesia et al, and vi) our self-immolation over it all is helping China to become ever more powerful in Africa and elsewhere, which seems a bit worrying.
The Institute of Economic Studies wrote a well reasoned report on why the costs of it are not £1.5tr, as often cited, but more likely to be £7.6tr. Add to this, that industry is shifting east, and the condition of our economy is therefore going to amplify tribal tensions over ever sparser resources and opportunities. The EDI postures of these activists won't - I suggest - win them favours when radical far left/tribal identity politicians take them up on their offer of "righting past wrongs."
Having stood behind every "oppressed" group irrespective of what they actually say and do, and against the "oppressive white capitalist patriarchy" then their new friends will be both large in number and emboldened. These people genuinely believe that they are entitled to Britain's wealth. They will make a claim on it. (See Iran and the socialists, 1979, for an ever worse case)
This is, I suggest, the unspoken mood over why many wealth creators are leaving. The narrative towards them is hostile. They are being targeted as a scapegoat and cash cow.
I'm no Elon Musk, but I shifted over half of my own assets out of the UK last year. It's toxic, tribal and irrational here. I wouldn't trust them to be intact when I retire in 15 years time or so, if I'm lucky enough to still be here.
And the young activists will be the ones living with the results of what they asked for in 10-20 years time, as they struggle to make an income, pay the eyewatering bills and taxes for the causes they demanded, likely never owning a home outright other than if inheriting, and facing second class treatment from public services. And guess what, the ones who are inheriting are going to do with their money?!. They won't be buying UK bonds!
I don’t think it’s useful to describe this as a left-right matter. Left and right could once be assumed to be operating according to at least a handful of shared first principles (same punishment for the same offense, etc.). That age is over. We must recognize that the fundamental differences are now defined by those who do and do not subscribe to the post colonialism (shameless suck-up alert) that Helen describes so well in Cynical Theories.
Farage’s frustration, to me, is about the fact that we have lost so many shared assumptions about our social and political realities.
Agreed. I see the war as "Western Traditionalists" vs "Globalist Woke-Islamists".
Its hard to say whether the latter are more communist *far left" or fascist "far right.
Communists, fascists and them alike subscribe to engineering a utopian vision for civilisation by force, are happy with a single global state to administer their vision, happy with centralisation of power with the state, alignment of enterprise with the state agenda, agree with censorship and punishment for "harmful" opinions that criticise the state and "cause divisions".
They are more akin to communists in saying that you will "own nothing and be happy", and being international rather than national in focus. They are more akin to fascism in having a social hierarchy - elites at the top, and then people assorted into a hierarchy of virtue by their political values, which determines the jobs they are allowed. That's actually more of a twist on a fascist idea.
History never repeats, it echoes, so it doesn't really matter. Ultimately, what matters is that you either believe moral and economic choices should rest with individuals, or the state, and if you go against the state, you should be punished or cancelled.
Either way they are authoratarians, and sometimes totalitarians.
Thank you for, yet another excellent article, Helen. Fundamentally I completely agree with you and feel that Reform's actions are regrettable.
However, I wonder how you reckon with (is it called?) the Paradox of Liberalism? So, in this case the reality is that the Left is more likely to call foul or at least to be taken seriously in doing so.
So if the Right is always taking the high morale ground and ignoring silly insults, but the Left is always the Police or for deplatforming, then pretty soon everyone on the Right are banned from platforms or, at the extreme, imprisoned, whereas everyone on the Left end up as winners.
I don’t think the left is more likely to do this. It depends on who has the power to do this. It used to be the right who was more censorious and worse for being offended by everything and we see currents of this again. It’s not 2020 now. Both sides could just keep trying to get each other arrested and probably will and one side will be in the ascendant for a while and then the other. But I’ll keep opposing authoritarianism consistently and trying to get more liberals on the left and the right to join me.
I don’t think the paradox of tolerance fits here. I’m saying we should not tolerate intolerance. Consistently.
I am sure you are correct that the scenario does not really fit here, but, I would say, that is primarily because Reform are not now the liberal party that I, for one, had hoped they would be.
You have thought about these things more clearly than me, but it is simply my observation that liberal political parties never seem so achieve the levels of success that they should, and this is one big reason why
I would say the strongest counter-argument to your general point is that it part of a cocktail of reasons that lock liberals out from being able to achieve anything.
Take climate change, for example, one of the biggest challenges of our age. I can't think of a single country whose response is based on liberal principles - everyone who is doing anything is simply choosing between different forms of government imposition.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the magnified power of threats made over the internet, which can be seen by thousands of people, in inciting mass reaction.
Also the injunction, not heard sufficiently often, NOT to repost anything without first reading / looking at it properly--as mistakes are so easily made.
If Polanski's defence is true, that he didn't notice the guillotine-on-teeshirt image on one of 20 photos he forwarded en masse to Green party followers, the implicit suggestion is that otherwise he would not have sent the photo(s).
This would be in line with explicit, longstanding Green policy of non-violent direct action (NVDA): Greens are very much opposed to violence in any form. So Green recipients of this image might have been very surprised to notice it, and inclined to discount it as a mistake.
I speak as a longterm Green party member myself who does not like Polanski.
It reminds me of the accusation against Corbyn that he knowingly endorsed anti-Semitism when he referred approvingly to some street art depicting a group of bankers with hooked noses. It is obvious to anyone who does look at it, that this is an anti-Semitic visual trope associated with the conspiracy theory that world banking is controlled by the Rothschilds and other Jews.
But Corbyn's defence was that he had never seen this specific wall painting, he just approved of street art generally--but that he had made a mistake, he should have gone to look at it first. He spoke as a lifelong campaigner against racism.
Farage speaks as a man who recently endorsed "pure, cold rage" as a reaction in everyone who witnessed, via the media, a bad police mistake in treating the dying stabbed victim, a young white man, of a Sikh as being the Sikh's attacker, as falsely claimed by his murderer.
This police mistake also fitted the Reform narrative of "two tier policing" that disfavoured white people, but with the opposite meaning to the truth: of racism in British policing which discriminates heavily against dark skinned people.
It also appeared that Farage was trying to emulate the even more racist and violent Rupert Lowe of Restore GB, favoured by Elon Musk and currently drawing away the more extreme members of Reform UK. So Farage, as Reform leader and a lifelong racist himself, had every incentive to incite race riots by endorsing "pure, cold rage"--and race riots duly followed.
Lucy Connolly was jailed for incitement of violence because her online posts, seen by thousands of people, encouraged rioters to burn asylum seekers alive in hotels--where gangs of race rioters then attempted to set fires.
There was apparently a direct connection between Connolly's posts and the events that followed, to justify her prosecution and imprisonment for incitement of violence.
It seems to me important that posting deeply nasty stuff, which appears to go beyond stupidity and carelessness, should be treated seriously in a febrile atmosphere, but with due regard to the context and history of the poster's stated policies and previous behaviour.
Farage as instigator of Brexit and leader of Reform UK is widely loathed (or adored) for his racist and far right views. With the recent murder of the very unpopular Ann Widdecombe as a Reform UK spokesperson, no doubt Farage does fear violence against himself--something worse than a thrown milkshake. Death by guillotine is pretty suggestive.
I loathe Farage myself, so do not willingly defend him. But I also know about Green policy on NVDA: Farage's fears of violence are ungrounded from the point of view of the motive of Polanski as originator of an out of character re-post, and the intended audience of Greens.
But it very usefully plays into Farage's victim narrative, as a further distraction from his troubles with huge gifts from a cryptobillionaire and a farcical byelection in Clacton.
There is an online image currently doing the rounds of a person dressed as a guillotine, addressed to TERFS and SWERFS--alongside DECAPITATE TERFS, KILL TERFS and many other such violent messages threatening rape etc, from Trans Pride in London last weekend. All from men, addressed to women who believe that sex is real.
This level of public threat, with violent images attached, makes the job of an understaffed police force virtually impossible in cautioning offenders.
One argument might be simply that political satire in violent cartoon form has moved online and onto the streets. But for some women in particular it makes being online or on the streets frightening places to be. JKRowling has said she could paper her walls with death threats. It doesn't mean some deranged trans-identified male isn't out to kill her.
Hmm.. it's irrelevant if you loathe or love Nigel Farage imho - just as it's irrelevant what you and I think of Ann Widdecombe. Her murder was a horrific criminal end to someone who upheld free speech, rather than political violence, whatever her other views.
'Cold rage' in respect of Henry Nowak's terrible death is not incitement. It is what many, if not all, people felt, watching the police's behaviour in that terrible video.
As for what the truth is re 2-tier policing, there are many instances which indicate that it's true - whether it's the way Lucy Connolly was treated, how protests supporting Hamas are allowed, since they are proscribed organisation in UK - as against British people flying their country's flags, 'visibly Jewish' people or Israel supporters who are frequently kettled behind wire, if they're allowed to protest at all.
Ditto Pride events versus gender critical ones who don't agree that LGB should team up with the TQ+ - threats and drowning-out women's and gay men's voices is not free speech; but yet, the police frequently let it go on and on.
First, what is your evidence that: “British policing … discriminates heavily against dark skinned people”?
Second, what is your evidence that even one person saw Lucy Connolly’s Tweet (it was only up for a short time and she had few followers’) and then did or attempted to do anything at all untoward?
Third, which views of Farage can be sensibly called “far right”?
It was reported in The Guardian following the Southampton riots that the arrest rate by Hampshire Police of black people was historically at a higher rate than arrests of white people, in proportion to the population of each. I don't remember the exact figures but the difference was disturbing.
It was in the effort to remedy this discriminatory pattern of policing that officers were issued with instructions to alter their approach, to take account of situational factors.
This remediation attempt was deliberately misconstrued by Farage & co to support their own narrative of "two tier policing" as discriminating against white people--the exact opposite of recorded facts and figures.
I believe screenshots of the number of views of Lucy Connolly's post--which was also reposted by others numerous times before she took it down--formed part of the evidence against her in court.
Farage's views on immigration and repatriation can be termed "far right" in line with populist politics in a number of European countries: eg Marie le Pen's Rassemblement Nationale in France.
First on arrest rates. Your analysis fails to take into account crime rate. The arrest rate should not, ideally, be in line with the population fraction, but in line with the amount of crime from that demographic. Should the arrest rate for knife crime of 60-yr-old Chinese-origin women be in line with that of 19-yr-old black males, or do we factor in that some demographics commit more crime?
Under Theresa May’s government, she was shown evidence that the “stop and search” powers were disproportionately used regarding young black males (and not elderly Chinese ladies), so she told them to stop. This cost the lives of young black males because, while they are disproportionately the perpetrators of knife crime, they are also disproportionately its victims.
Second point: yes, we can point to counts of views of Connolly’s Tweet, but you’ve not pointed to any evidence that even one person then did anything at all as a result.
Third. If we define “centre ground” as roughly in the middle of the UK population, which of Farage’s policies on immigration are so far out of kilter with commonly-held views that they are sensibly called “far right”? If you mean things like “immigrants who commit serious crimes should be deported”, then I think you’ll find that the majority in Britain hold that view. Do you think that it’s sensible to call the majority of British people “far right”?
Yes, you are right to include crime rate--and no doubt The Guardian did, and it's my memory at fault. But having used its Search function before, it's too clumsy and time consuming to try to find the articles I read, to check exactly what they said.
I didn't know about the counterproductive result of May's instruction to reduce "Stop and Search": evidence that policing is complex and hard to get right.
But it also indicates that it's necessary to try to remedy perceived injustices, to learn enough in the process both to adjust policing, and attempt to better inform the public about what the police are doing and why.
The most recent poll on support for UK political parties shows Reform UK has dropped slightly to 24%. As there are five distinct supporter groups within Reform (established by a survey carried out by Hope Not Hate and Focaldata) and immigration is not a priority for every group, not even all supporters of Reform could be called "far right". What unites them is frustration and anger at feeling let down by all parties and politicians.
And attitudes to immigration vary even more among supporters of other parties: with a significant proportion of people (including even some Reform supporters) acknowledging the importance of immigrants to staffing the NHS and Britain's social care services in particular.
I do not believe the majority of British people could be called "far right". I was referring to the more extreme groups of Reform supporters.
“No doubt The Guardian did”? I bet you they didn’t. And I bet you that, once you’ve factored in crime rates, there is no good evidence for police mistreatment of black people.
And you’ve still not pointed to any actual, specific policy stated by Farage that is “far right”. Polls say that the majority of people in the UK think that immigration has been way too high.
Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, is considered far-right due to its advocacy for cutting taxes on the wealthy, limiting social safety nets, and favoring deregulation that benefits large corporations. Additionally, the party's stance on immigration and its general bias against working people further align it with far-right ideologies.
Overview of Reform UK's Policies
Reform UK, under the leadership of Nigel Farage, is characterized by several policies that align with far-right ideologies. These policies reflect a focus on economic interests that favor the wealthy and corporations, as well as a general bias against working-class individuals.
Key Far-Right Policies
Economic Policies
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Reform UK advocates for reducing taxes on high earners, which is a common trait of far-right parties that prioritize wealth accumulation for the affluent.
Deregulation: The party supports deregulating industries, which benefits large corporations by reducing their operational constraints. This approach often leads to increased profits at the expense of public welfare and environmental protections.
Social Policies
Limiting Social Safety Nets: Reform UK promotes policies that would reduce or eliminate social safety nets, impacting those who rely on government support. This reflects a bias against working-class individuals and a preference for policies that favor wealthier citizens.
Immigration Stance
Strict Immigration Control: The party's hardline stance on immigration is another indicator of its far-right positioning, as it often aligns with nationalist and anti-immigrant sentiments.
These policies collectively illustrate why Reform UK is classified as a far-right political party in the UK.
Digwa had stabbed the 18-year-old repeatedly, but officers arriving at the scene treated the student slumped on the ground as a suspect. He was handcuffed and arrested, despite telling officers he had been stabbed and could not breathe.
For the last year data was available, Hampshire’s officers were 5.1 times more likely to stop and search someone black than a white person. The average disproportionality rate in England and Wales was 3.8 times.
In 2025-26, officers in the southern England force carried out 15,000 stops, with 60% leading to no further action or advice. The force claimed 6,000 of its stops led to a “positive outcome”, but did not define what that meant.
The racial disparity has increased in recent years in Hampshire, with black people 4.8 times more likely to be stopped than a white person in 2024-5, up from 4.1 times in 2023-4. The force has also increased its use of stop and search, up from 12,000 two years earlier.
In 2021-22, black people in Hampshire were almost eight times more likely to be stopped than white people.
When asked about two-tier policing on Thursday, the director of the Crown Prosecution Service, Stephen Parkinson, said: “There is disproportionality in the criminal justice system. There’s an evidential basis for that. We have published research by Leeds University examining prosecution decisions. We updated that the end of last year.
“It does demonstrate conclusively that there is disproportionality, by which I mean that there’s a greater likelihood of being prosecuted if you come from an ethnic group that is not white British.
“Your starting point was two-tier justice, and I think recent publicity has been along the lines of: are people from ethnic minorities favoured in some way? The evidence that I’m aware of around disproportionality goes the other way.”
The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, has compared police failings in the Nowak case to those in the 1993 stabbing of Stephen Lawrence by a racist gang who remained free because of police errors and institutional racism.
Duwayne Brooks, a friend of Lawrence who was with him when he was attacked, has said the treatment of Nowak was the result of lazy policing, not anti-white racism. Brooks, 52, told the Guardian the wider public was now becoming aware of the deficient policing that black people, women and people with disabilities had suffered for decades, and now was being experienced by white people.
He said: “We’ve always received lazy policing. Now it is more widespread and more people are experiencing it and a boy lost his life. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/police have a blase attitude. I have not seen or heard any evidence of anti-white bia
As I say above - and am interested in others' views too... I see the battle as "Western Traditionalists" vs "Globalist Woke-Islamists".
Putting aside the expedient way that the term "far right" is used, its hard to say whether today's Woke movement are more communist (*far left") or fascist ("far right"). Its therefore hard to see if "Western Traditionalists" are left or right. I am the latter and scored right in the middle of the global political compass scale. I'd be far right by today's Woke orthodoxy. Quelle surprise, woudn't we all!?
Communists, fascists and Woke Islamists alike subscribe to similar properties:: a desire to engineer a utopian civilisation by using force if needed, they centralise power into the state, align business interests with the state's agenda, use censorship and punishment enthusiastically for "harmful" opinions about the state that "cause divisions", and have a healthy appetite for propaganda too, starting in education with young children who are taught about the moral goodness of the state and its ideas..
They are more akin to communists in terms of saying that you will "own nothing and be happy", and being international rather than national in focus. They are more akin to fascism in having a social hierarchy - elites at the top, and then people assorted into a hierarchy of virtue by their political values, which determines the jobs they are allowed. That's actually more of a twist on a fascist idea for me.
I guess communists don't allow business ownership, fascists do allow business ownership, but insist businesses do some of the state's work.
History never repeats, it echoes, so it doesn't really matter, there was never going to be a perfect fit between old and modern versions of left or right. Ultimately, what matters is that you either believe moral and economic choices should rest with individuals, or a quasi-totalitarian state.
So far as I am concerned, “rightwing” and “leftwing” are relative--and fairly objective--terms to denote a characteristic set of attitudes and policies defining a political party.
So if it is accepted that the Conservatives can be called “rightwing” at all, then it follows that a party like Reform UK can be called “far rightwing”, with Restore GB possibly “extreme rightwing”: given Rupert Lowe calls eg for return of the death penalty, and for “remigration” of millions of immigrants, including those with settled status.
As the British National Party is (so far as I know) legally banned, it cannot occupy the extreme right niche it used to. So current rightwing parties are seen as spreading across the available spectrum.
But this might not reflect the way rightwing parties like to be seen, and I am not a political scientist.
I don’t accept that whichever non-banned party is furthest right is then necessarily “far right”. A better reference is the range of opinions and parties in Europe over, say, the last 100 years. It is thus entirely possible for a country not to have a “far right” or indeed a “far left” party. I also don’t accept that opposition to mass immigration is “right wing”, it is a common sentiment among otherwise left-wing people. Leaving immigration aside, in many ways Reform are further left than the Tories.
Overall, the label “far right” seems to be an attempt to discredit and demonise a party, not an attempt to assess their actual views or how they align with the population in general. Name-calling and labelling, in place of engagement and argument, is a common tactic on the left these days.
The chances of someone coming to a favourable opinion of Nigel Farage from reading the Guardian are akin to those of a Koran reader converting to Judaism.
"This would be in line with explicit, longstanding Green policy of non-violent direct action (NVDA): Greens are very much opposed to violence in any form."
The Green party allow 1 in 4 of their members to support Hamas - despite their history of turning down peace deals in favour of war and death over the years, including to the cost of their own people, and enshrining a pretty explicit call to eradicate Israel in their charter. No other party, to the best of my knowledge, allows 1 in 4 to support deranged terrorists.
You do know that they are basically an arm ofthe Muslim Brotherhood?
Matt Goodwin has also found from polls that more Greens than the national average believe political violence is acceptable.
There is a difference between trashing a politician's reputation by the imputation of pejorative labels and critiquing their policy agenda. When the latter happens with Reform UK, perhaps we will start to see theit vote share decline.
I don't think it's irrelevant to state one's personal like or dislike of politicians when discussing their actions or views, given this is often a factor in one's judgement of them. Eg I defended Polanski--as being more likely to have been careless in what he reposted, than trying to incite violence--despite disliking him.
And despite my detestation of Farage, I similarly defended him as having cause to fear violence, given the recent and wholly unjustified violent murder of Ann Widdecombe, all of whose views I disagreed with.
I did not feel "pure cold rage" at the police treatment of poor Henry Nowak, due to their mistaken belief in the lies of his attacker. And I regard it as hugely irresponsible of Farage to publicly broadcast any public instruction to feel "pure, cold rage"--given the strong likelihood of riots, and also disrespecting the plea of Nowak's bereaved parents NOT to use their son's death to stir up hatred and violence.
In my view the Labour government has misused the oppressive, police-state legislation of the preceding Tory government's Crime and Policing Act, designed to criminalise public protest, to do just that--in its absurd and unjust proscription of Palestine Action as a "terrorist" group.
And many police forces have been captured by the gender cult: eg in absurdly arresting a disabled woman for putting up a poster to "Keep prisons single sex", and recording this as a "non-crime hate incident".
Such police forces are complicit in a TQ assault on women's sex-based rights. But more of them are now cancelling their payments to Stonewall for training as "Diversity Champions".
Re Nowak murder - I assumed the father was trying to stop any hatred and violence towards Sikhs, not that the police shouldn’t be held accountable. Sikhs are generally hard working and not murderous - even Tommy Robinson has said this. And it was a Sikh temple that warned the police before, that the family had been stealing knives but nothing was done.
It is the police ‘woke’ rules which do not treat people without fear or favour that we are SO angry about - favouring of a claim of racism over checking the situation and attending to Henry Nowak’s injuries as urgent, that the public feel ‘cold rage’ about - cold rage is not being hot-headed.
It is knowing that the police guidance must now change and those accountable brought to justice. Saving a life comes first - even if he had been racist … which it turns out he hadn’t.
As for Polanski, he was a conman who claimed he could hypnotise women and make their breasts grow larger (!) ..and imho remains a conman. How can he dance on stage for gay rights with a man wearing chaps and little else, whilst his deputy puts Islam first and his wife wears a burka? This doesn’t add up.
But he will take votes where he can get them. He also says he believes in ‘trans’ but homosexuality is same sex attraction, not same gender. I’m sure he knows all that - and also that men and women with gender critical views have been chucked out of the party.
As for Farage, whether he has acted stupidly or intentionally against parliamentary rules in his financial dealings or not, I would not advocate his murder and I don’t think anyone else should either.
Stand back, deep breath: these arguments about incitement have the logic of the ducking school justice from the Middle Ages.
If we are charging someone with incitement, how about actually making a case that they did incite someone? You know, evidence and logic?
Think about it in reality. Who really incited the violence against hotels? i.e. tell me who did something that meant the difference between the violence happening or not happening.
You could argue that it was Axel Rudakubana himself. Without his act of savagery, which disgusted and angered so many, the riots would likely not have happened. That seems plausible. History provides evidence that atrocities invoke violence.
You could argue that the whole of the rioting was really brewing up since the state and its constituents decided to cover up a racist, child rape atrocity at the behest of its voter base - with working class people as the general victims of the crimes. A state that is complicit with this sort of atrocity against a specific group might well incite violence, history suggests.
You could argue it was whoever allowed thousands of illegal immigrants, against voter's wishes, into disadvantaged working class areas and put them into expensive hotels, during a cost of living crisis. This act echoes the kind of ways Jews were humiliated by Nazis in the 1930s. The act said: "you are not as important as these people. We care for these people and not you." This act would seem capable of incitement.
You could just argue the person who incited the riots was whoever let so many people into the country who hated its people so baited and disrespected them?
By contrast, if Lucy C hadn't tweeted, I personally think that the violence would have still happened. However, if any of the other three things I mentioned above hadn't happened, there is a better chance it would not.
Ergo sum, LC was not likely to have been the person inciting violence.
This law and interpretation used on her was one for drowning witches.
I agree, it's all become very childish and this is, I believe, a result of the victimhood culture that arose out of the SJW\"Woke" activism. Political commentators also compound this, due to their reach and influence. James O'Brien, for example, is prone to being quite disingenuous and frequently references Lucy Conolly, incrementally cranking the emotional hyperbole through initially referring to her calling for hotels full of migrants to be set on fire, then progressing to her calling for a pogrom (the left love a 1930's nazi analogy) and then finally landing at "calling for people to be burned in their beds".
JO'B .... can't stand him - so rude to callers! I think that's objective not a value-judgement, if anyone cared to compile stats on that .... 'cranking the emotional hyperbole' is def what he does ... like when he said the sky was bluer on the day the Pope visited !!!... hence have to switch off any time I hear that man's voice.
I’m not sure. I wish what you describe was the reality (and I know you’re accepting that it isn’t), but if one side is prepared to use cancellation, the law and other levers to restrict free speech while the other isn’t, you end up with exactly what we have now. Shouting “From the river to the sea” or a Labour politician talking about slitting throats is deemed permissible, yet Lucy goes to jail.
I actually think the right has to use these laws just as aggressively not because that’s the end goal, but to demonstrate why they are so dangerous. People need to see that hate speech laws and similar powers can be used by the left or the right. Once those powers exist, they won’t always be exercised by people you agree with.
That’s why I’d rather get rid of as much of this legislation as possible and move much closer to the American model of free speech. I’d rather tolerate more offensive speech than give any government the power to decide what opinions are acceptable.
Yep, I am not describing. I am advocating. Very much what your last paragraph says. I did it for over a decade to the left, of course.
I don’t think people do learn by getting a taste of their own medicine. I think this just makes them vengeful. The identitarian left felt anti-white racism was OK because anti-black racism had a long history. Did this make the identitarian right decide racism was a bad idea? No, there was a resurge of anti-black racism.
We humans tend to keep believing we can remedy injustice by creating an imposing form of injustice and that this will somehow restore balance but it never does. It just increases polarisation. We are a reciprocal species. If one tribe attacks another, that tribe attacks back. It doesn’t think “Hmmm, I wonder if the way I am feeling right now was how they felt when I did this to them? Maybe I shouldn’t do that again.” It thinks, “ Really? I’ll show you.” and launches another attack. This is why we’ve had feuds that go on for centuries and people don’t even remember how they started, only the wrongs done to them.
"Until our political leaders recover the concepts of dignity culture"
Dignity culture needs to be recovered on a society-wide basis. But until there is society-wide agreement on who/what is deserving of dignity, and that dignity harms are real, political leaders will continue to ignore the concept.
I love this article. One reason I am emigrating is that, while "Wokeism"* is (to me) the cult of celebrating and rewarding degeneracy, the response I often see to it is either juevenile or a verbal version of the "honour culture". I've therefore lost hope of a return to reason.
In fact, the Woke* left have told us that facts are "racist" to the left, they are viewed as a means of perpetuating power structures, basically by pointing out that not every ill of civilisation is necessarily down to middle class white men. (So how we can ever hope to reach a point of agreement, when grievance conspiracies are elevated above data?).
It is so much more important to combat it and develop substantial counter-strategies than descending into "he says-she says" spat as Farage has done. There is no intellectual substance, or moral framework, behind the man at all it seems. (Needless to say, Polanski is to me a degenerate, but that's not the point here).
We must do this while appreciating in this country - and across the West - that we now have a spectrum of people where the poles are i) Woke-Islamists (deconstruction, post modern, CRT, ideological conformity etc) and ii) Traditional Nationalists or even ethno nationalists. The two ends are just not, in any way, compatible. (It was so much easier when left vs right was about tax and welfare levels).
As Helen likely knows, even the centre ground - a position that advocates for national borders, free expression, controlled spending, and a meaningful rule of law - is considered fascist by the left.
I honestly believe that we need a political solution akin to federalism, separatism, or cultural apartheid to faciliate a world where most people live in a way that doesn't feel like oppression, while enabling vital industries to continue. I'm afraid I cannot reason myself to a less extreme conclusion, without wilfully ignoring the evidence.
*I have my own little definition of Wokeism as the "cult of projecting blame for the outcomes of different minority groups on to western history, culture, people, institutions and norms so as to justify the extraction and redistribution of wealth, power, opportunity and rights." (It differs radically from "an elevated awareness of struggles and hardships".)
On one hand, I've heard calls that since the opposition uses these tactics, everyone should, even those who have born their brunt or who objected to their use. Yet that just perpetuates and normalizes the behavior.
As far as this being in the UK, which makes a habit of investigating people for "causing offence" (a conveniently vague term), this may already be normalized and this particular incident a symptom of such. That the police are charged with undertaking such investigations creates too much of a permission structure already.
Great article Helen. Your final paragraph really nails it. The "but" for me though is the issue of "proportionality". What if the loss of this proportionality has already gone too far? Are there still enough people left in the body politic and wider society who still possess this? What if our national culture has, in fact, already lost this (for a whole variety of reasons)?
Then we’re screwed. But I see little point in spending much time dwelling on ‘What if we’re all doomed and can’t fix this.” That just encourages giving up. We’ve been in worse situations before. A century ago, both communist and fascist parties were building in support in Britain. We just have to keep going.
I’m very tired of the violent rhetoric and childishness.
So if the politicians start it too, with utterly banal posts about cutting the heads off people as a joke, it’s really fucking pathetic.
And these people want to lead a country. ? And this is how they show by example.? What a docile twat.
I suppose, technically, they are "grown adults"... Technically.
You could, and should have in my view, mentioned Rayner and Lammy calling Tories "scum" and "actual Nazis". The febrile atmosphere in politics as been brewing for some time and Reform is not the only party that need to reflect.
I believe Reform politicians are genuinely scared and with some justification. Perhaps they are trying to send a signal to discourage others encouraging, directly or indirectly, violence against politicians.
I disagree with you over Connolly. She was not expressing positive views at all. Do you not understand the significance of "for all I care"? If an exasperated mother says to her recalcitrant son "don't study for your exams then, for all I care" you think she is advocating he should not study? It's an emotional expression of exasperation, of giving up on the matter. Connolly's use of 'for all I care" negates your imputed interpretation.
Connolly was badly advised to plead guilty and came before a judge keen to make an inappropriate example of her. The pragmatics of the English language was wilfully disregarded
I enjoyed reading your comment and have to say; your use of the word 'febrile' is absolutely the most perfect adjective for the times we find ourselves in.
I have sympathy for your argument, although I would be okay with a free speech regime that consistently criminalised incitement to violence on the level of the guillotine t-shirt. But the problem here is that it feels like you are advocating one-sided unilateral disarmament. A large faction of the left is enthusiastically willing to call the police and authorities to censor and silence ‘hate speech’, meaning anything they disagree with. We all know these ideologues won’t stop. (Though, ironically, they’re the same sort of people who would smile at London Pride marchers carrying signs calling for the gruesome murder of ‘terfs’.)
I would be happy with a mutual disarmament agreement in which everyone got free speech, including an end to censorship laundered through Big Tech and other private companies. A new Free Speech Act would be great. But until we get there, it’s straight up unfair to call on the right wing to refrain from using the law that actually exists to defend themselves on what is already a tilted playing field.
I really can’t blame Farage for doing unto Polanski what so very many woke Green types have done to him and his supporters.
It is perhaps fair to accuse Farage of double standards, in reporting Polanski while defending Connolly. But one should also accuse the media and police of rampant double standards. Connolly was jailed for 31 months (despite the “for all I care”, which makes the remark little more than sounding off, especially when followed by suggesting the same for politicians) whereas I am willing to bet that the person who wore that t-shirt will not be jailed.
Nastiness and threats of violence are excused as sounding off if done by those with opinions acceptable within the “BBC Bubble”, but treated as utterly unacceptable and even criminal if done by those with opinions that the “BBC Bubble” dislike.
We should have clear guidelines as to what is legal and acceptable, and they should then be applied even-handedly.
Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. Maybe she was badly advised, but she cannot complain about being punished for a crime for which she accepted responsibility. Whether or not t-shirt man is found guilty of a similar crime and jailed really won’t say anything about double standards or “two tier” justice.
(FWIW, I find the t shirt odious. I find it unacceptable for a political party activist to wear such a slogan, and would not vote for a party where the wearing of such a slogan at a party event was apparently unremarkable.)
She can complain about the severity. An unconditional discharge and a warning from the judge (perhaps a £200 fine) would have sufficed and been an appropriate response to the guilty plea. Especially so since the law was being used completely at odds with the original intent of Parliament in passing it.
You obviously have not read the litany of abuses of normal procedure she was subjected to. The intent was to make an example of her, as a scapegoat. It can in no way be argued she was offered a fair trial.
She was told if she pleaded guilty the worst case was that she would be out by Christmas. She could still be in remand awaiting trial otherwise. And remand is supposed to be for those who are dangerous or flight risks. That is off the scale two-tier justice.
As I say, it seems she was either poorly advised or perhaps her decision making based on the information given to her was flawed. She could still be on remand, it’s true, but as you say, this is for those deemed dangerous or a flight risk, so it’s unlikely. Bearing in mind that the courts tend to prioritise cases associated with rioting, if she had pleaded guilty, her case may well have been heard reasonably promptly. (You will recall that in 2011, the cases associated with rioting and looting were prioritised in the courts, when a certain Keir Starmer was leading the DPP.)
Anyway, I don’t come on Substack to argue with strangers - that is what Xitter is for. Have a nice life. 😊
The advice that people do not get sentenced to multiple years in prison for an ill-judged tweet was not in my view bad advice, but a reasonable expectation based on precedent. However, her barrister's alleged agreement that she had intended to incite serious violence I would have to say was a serious failing. The sentence she received was entirely disproportionate and it is that and the unfair way she was treated by the justice system that has mainly been criticised. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yl7p4l11po
The crime only existed as such because we have two tier laws. If you were in a one tier system, there would be no crime of inciting racial hatred that invariably only gets used on white people alone.
There might be a crime of inciting violence, but it wouldn't matter what the motive. All motives would be treated equally. There would be one tier for everyone. If you incite violence, for whatever reason, then you face the same punishment, independent of who you are and they are, and what you each find particularly offensive..
To add to the fact the law itself is "two tier" - We really have regressed to ducking school justice with thought and speech crimes. There is no reasoned or evidence based debate on who incited the crimes against the asylum-seeker hotels. Think about it in reality. Who really incited this violence? i.e. if they'd not done what they did, the violence would not have happened.
You could better argue that it was Axel Rudakubana himself. Without his act of seemingly racially motivated savagery, which disgusted and angered so many, the riots would likely not have happened.
You could argue it was whoever allowed thousands of illegal immigrants, against voter's wishes, into disadvantaged working class areas and put them into expensive hotels, during a cost of living crisis. This act echoes of the kind of ways Jews were humiliated by Nazis in the 1930s. The act said: "you are not as important as these people. We care for these people and not you."
You could just argue the person who incited the riots was whoever let so many people into the country who hated its people so baited and disrespected them?
If LC hadn't tweeted, I personally think that the violence would have still happened, but if any of the other things I mentioned above hadn't happened, there is a greater chance it would not. Ergo sum, LC was not the person inciting violence.
The law belongs in the C10th. Along with the other two tier laws found in Anglo-Saxon history, or hunter-settler communities.
See your point, Helen but the police, judiciary and Labour politicians have clearly been very one sided in their pronouncements and prosecutions. Trans supporters in particular and Antifa have frequently threatened violence on line and in person upon people publicly disagreeing with gender ideology- with nothing done by the powers that be - including, now, a new 'charity' called Bash Back.
I don't think a guillotine with 'We're making plans for Nigel' is very funny, in view of the murder of Ann Widdecombe and of Charlie Kirk in USA; and I think there are good grounds to suggest that it constitutes incitement to harm.
We in UK need a USA type Brandeis test whereby free speech is sacrosanct except when it is clear excitement or threats of bodily harm. I do not, myself, believe in 'hate speech' or blasphemy by the back door. Threats of and incitement to inflict bodily harm should be taken seriously and policed, subject to trial and prosecution.
I'm not sure whether Farage is right or wrong here; but he has a very good case, which the police need to take seriously.
Just to be clear (as an American): what Farage is claiming would not be considered a "good case" under American First Amendment law: it would be laughed out of court. Retweeting a picture of someone wearing a t-shirt with a guillotine and a politician's name (or even wearing the t-shirt oneself, absent other evidence of intent to commit violence) would not rise to the standard of a true threat or incitement under American law (much as the current President might wish it would). See https://www.fire.org/research-learn/how-and-why-true-threats-are-unprotected-speech for a succinct summary of the law.
The current case of former FBI director James Comey, who is alleged to have made a similar "threat" against President Trump, will be instructive here (https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/27/politics/james-comey-trump-threat): my assumption is that it will be thrown out, either by a grand jury or by the judge, before it comes to trial. He certainly will not be convicted.
Thanks for your response, David - as some of us still say in UK, I will 'think on't'
You are of course correct Helen. But...
In recent years I have come to understand the importance of FAFO. That's "fuck around; find out", for those who didn't know. The thing is, these days there are a big chunk of politically active people who only seem to learn about the nuances of dilemmas when it directly *detrimentally* affects them personally. Until that happens, these activists live and operate in their own echo-chambers where the consequences of what they're saying and doing simply don't affect them. They seem incapable of learning from history or from extrapolation or from deduction. The far-left and far-right both are like this.
We see countless examples of movements that changed their view of something only when it started hurting then. E.g. radical feminism only discovered the importance of free speech once they started getting censored and arrested. And the political moderate Left in general only discovered that Identity Politics is bad once it started hurting their causes.
In all honesty I think that people like Zach Polanski are only going to learn about the consequences of free speech limits they've been pushing once PC Plod starts knocking on their door regularly. FAFO. Perhaps it's becoming a parent that's done this to me. Sometimes you've just got to let the kid fall over for them to learn. Yes it's painful in the short term, and there'll be lots of crying, but for people who will only learn one way, it's the only working option.
I don't think these activists know half of how their demands are going to affect them in future.
Let's start with Net Zero - I would suggest the ideological purist policy is a preserve of younger people, and until every atom of carbon is gone, they'll be (metaphorically) sticking themselves to some exhibition piece in the Tate Modern, while clutching their Greta therapy dolls. Older people also care about the planet, but would be more rational given i) yes, the climate is changing, ii) yes, pollution is bad, but iii) we are on the crest of a repeating cycle, not necessarily an unprecedented rise, iv) the economy is still needed, v) we seem to be spending trillions but CO2 is still going up because of China, Indonesia et al, and vi) our self-immolation over it all is helping China to become ever more powerful in Africa and elsewhere, which seems a bit worrying.
The Institute of Economic Studies wrote a well reasoned report on why the costs of it are not £1.5tr, as often cited, but more likely to be £7.6tr. Add to this, that industry is shifting east, and the condition of our economy is therefore going to amplify tribal tensions over ever sparser resources and opportunities. The EDI postures of these activists won't - I suggest - win them favours when radical far left/tribal identity politicians take them up on their offer of "righting past wrongs."
Having stood behind every "oppressed" group irrespective of what they actually say and do, and against the "oppressive white capitalist patriarchy" then their new friends will be both large in number and emboldened. These people genuinely believe that they are entitled to Britain's wealth. They will make a claim on it. (See Iran and the socialists, 1979, for an ever worse case)
This is, I suggest, the unspoken mood over why many wealth creators are leaving. The narrative towards them is hostile. They are being targeted as a scapegoat and cash cow.
I'm no Elon Musk, but I shifted over half of my own assets out of the UK last year. It's toxic, tribal and irrational here. I wouldn't trust them to be intact when I retire in 15 years time or so, if I'm lucky enough to still be here.
And the young activists will be the ones living with the results of what they asked for in 10-20 years time, as they struggle to make an income, pay the eyewatering bills and taxes for the causes they demanded, likely never owning a home outright other than if inheriting, and facing second class treatment from public services. And guess what, the ones who are inheriting are going to do with their money?!. They won't be buying UK bonds!
I don’t think it’s useful to describe this as a left-right matter. Left and right could once be assumed to be operating according to at least a handful of shared first principles (same punishment for the same offense, etc.). That age is over. We must recognize that the fundamental differences are now defined by those who do and do not subscribe to the post colonialism (shameless suck-up alert) that Helen describes so well in Cynical Theories.
Farage’s frustration, to me, is about the fact that we have lost so many shared assumptions about our social and political realities.
Agreed. I see the war as "Western Traditionalists" vs "Globalist Woke-Islamists".
Its hard to say whether the latter are more communist *far left" or fascist "far right.
Communists, fascists and them alike subscribe to engineering a utopian vision for civilisation by force, are happy with a single global state to administer their vision, happy with centralisation of power with the state, alignment of enterprise with the state agenda, agree with censorship and punishment for "harmful" opinions that criticise the state and "cause divisions".
They are more akin to communists in saying that you will "own nothing and be happy", and being international rather than national in focus. They are more akin to fascism in having a social hierarchy - elites at the top, and then people assorted into a hierarchy of virtue by their political values, which determines the jobs they are allowed. That's actually more of a twist on a fascist idea.
History never repeats, it echoes, so it doesn't really matter. Ultimately, what matters is that you either believe moral and economic choices should rest with individuals, or the state, and if you go against the state, you should be punished or cancelled.
Either way they are authoratarians, and sometimes totalitarians.
Thank you for, yet another excellent article, Helen. Fundamentally I completely agree with you and feel that Reform's actions are regrettable.
However, I wonder how you reckon with (is it called?) the Paradox of Liberalism? So, in this case the reality is that the Left is more likely to call foul or at least to be taken seriously in doing so.
So if the Right is always taking the high morale ground and ignoring silly insults, but the Left is always the Police or for deplatforming, then pretty soon everyone on the Right are banned from platforms or, at the extreme, imprisoned, whereas everyone on the Left end up as winners.
I don’t think the left is more likely to do this. It depends on who has the power to do this. It used to be the right who was more censorious and worse for being offended by everything and we see currents of this again. It’s not 2020 now. Both sides could just keep trying to get each other arrested and probably will and one side will be in the ascendant for a while and then the other. But I’ll keep opposing authoritarianism consistently and trying to get more liberals on the left and the right to join me.
I don’t think the paradox of tolerance fits here. I’m saying we should not tolerate intolerance. Consistently.
Thank you for replying, that is good of you.
I am sure you are correct that the scenario does not really fit here, but, I would say, that is primarily because Reform are not now the liberal party that I, for one, had hoped they would be.
You have thought about these things more clearly than me, but it is simply my observation that liberal political parties never seem so achieve the levels of success that they should, and this is one big reason why
I would say the strongest counter-argument to your general point is that it part of a cocktail of reasons that lock liberals out from being able to achieve anything.
But I could be wrong - I often am!
I think liberal parties do achieve things! What has ever done better than liberalism and by what measure?
Take climate change, for example, one of the biggest challenges of our age. I can't think of a single country whose response is based on liberal principles - everyone who is doing anything is simply choosing between different forms of government imposition.
I think I misunderstood. I thought you were saying liberal policies can’t achieve anything but you were saying there’s a lack of liberal policies?
Everyone seems to be forgetting the magnified power of threats made over the internet, which can be seen by thousands of people, in inciting mass reaction.
Also the injunction, not heard sufficiently often, NOT to repost anything without first reading / looking at it properly--as mistakes are so easily made.
If Polanski's defence is true, that he didn't notice the guillotine-on-teeshirt image on one of 20 photos he forwarded en masse to Green party followers, the implicit suggestion is that otherwise he would not have sent the photo(s).
This would be in line with explicit, longstanding Green policy of non-violent direct action (NVDA): Greens are very much opposed to violence in any form. So Green recipients of this image might have been very surprised to notice it, and inclined to discount it as a mistake.
I speak as a longterm Green party member myself who does not like Polanski.
It reminds me of the accusation against Corbyn that he knowingly endorsed anti-Semitism when he referred approvingly to some street art depicting a group of bankers with hooked noses. It is obvious to anyone who does look at it, that this is an anti-Semitic visual trope associated with the conspiracy theory that world banking is controlled by the Rothschilds and other Jews.
But Corbyn's defence was that he had never seen this specific wall painting, he just approved of street art generally--but that he had made a mistake, he should have gone to look at it first. He spoke as a lifelong campaigner against racism.
Farage speaks as a man who recently endorsed "pure, cold rage" as a reaction in everyone who witnessed, via the media, a bad police mistake in treating the dying stabbed victim, a young white man, of a Sikh as being the Sikh's attacker, as falsely claimed by his murderer.
This police mistake also fitted the Reform narrative of "two tier policing" that disfavoured white people, but with the opposite meaning to the truth: of racism in British policing which discriminates heavily against dark skinned people.
It also appeared that Farage was trying to emulate the even more racist and violent Rupert Lowe of Restore GB, favoured by Elon Musk and currently drawing away the more extreme members of Reform UK. So Farage, as Reform leader and a lifelong racist himself, had every incentive to incite race riots by endorsing "pure, cold rage"--and race riots duly followed.
Lucy Connolly was jailed for incitement of violence because her online posts, seen by thousands of people, encouraged rioters to burn asylum seekers alive in hotels--where gangs of race rioters then attempted to set fires.
There was apparently a direct connection between Connolly's posts and the events that followed, to justify her prosecution and imprisonment for incitement of violence.
It seems to me important that posting deeply nasty stuff, which appears to go beyond stupidity and carelessness, should be treated seriously in a febrile atmosphere, but with due regard to the context and history of the poster's stated policies and previous behaviour.
Farage as instigator of Brexit and leader of Reform UK is widely loathed (or adored) for his racist and far right views. With the recent murder of the very unpopular Ann Widdecombe as a Reform UK spokesperson, no doubt Farage does fear violence against himself--something worse than a thrown milkshake. Death by guillotine is pretty suggestive.
I loathe Farage myself, so do not willingly defend him. But I also know about Green policy on NVDA: Farage's fears of violence are ungrounded from the point of view of the motive of Polanski as originator of an out of character re-post, and the intended audience of Greens.
But it very usefully plays into Farage's victim narrative, as a further distraction from his troubles with huge gifts from a cryptobillionaire and a farcical byelection in Clacton.
There is an online image currently doing the rounds of a person dressed as a guillotine, addressed to TERFS and SWERFS--alongside DECAPITATE TERFS, KILL TERFS and many other such violent messages threatening rape etc, from Trans Pride in London last weekend. All from men, addressed to women who believe that sex is real.
This level of public threat, with violent images attached, makes the job of an understaffed police force virtually impossible in cautioning offenders.
One argument might be simply that political satire in violent cartoon form has moved online and onto the streets. But for some women in particular it makes being online or on the streets frightening places to be. JKRowling has said she could paper her walls with death threats. It doesn't mean some deranged trans-identified male isn't out to kill her.
Hmm.. it's irrelevant if you loathe or love Nigel Farage imho - just as it's irrelevant what you and I think of Ann Widdecombe. Her murder was a horrific criminal end to someone who upheld free speech, rather than political violence, whatever her other views.
'Cold rage' in respect of Henry Nowak's terrible death is not incitement. It is what many, if not all, people felt, watching the police's behaviour in that terrible video.
As for what the truth is re 2-tier policing, there are many instances which indicate that it's true - whether it's the way Lucy Connolly was treated, how protests supporting Hamas are allowed, since they are proscribed organisation in UK - as against British people flying their country's flags, 'visibly Jewish' people or Israel supporters who are frequently kettled behind wire, if they're allowed to protest at all.
Ditto Pride events versus gender critical ones who don't agree that LGB should team up with the TQ+ - threats and drowning-out women's and gay men's voices is not free speech; but yet, the police frequently let it go on and on.
First, what is your evidence that: “British policing … discriminates heavily against dark skinned people”?
Second, what is your evidence that even one person saw Lucy Connolly’s Tweet (it was only up for a short time and she had few followers’) and then did or attempted to do anything at all untoward?
Third, which views of Farage can be sensibly called “far right”?
It was reported in The Guardian following the Southampton riots that the arrest rate by Hampshire Police of black people was historically at a higher rate than arrests of white people, in proportion to the population of each. I don't remember the exact figures but the difference was disturbing.
It was in the effort to remedy this discriminatory pattern of policing that officers were issued with instructions to alter their approach, to take account of situational factors.
This remediation attempt was deliberately misconstrued by Farage & co to support their own narrative of "two tier policing" as discriminating against white people--the exact opposite of recorded facts and figures.
I believe screenshots of the number of views of Lucy Connolly's post--which was also reposted by others numerous times before she took it down--formed part of the evidence against her in court.
Farage's views on immigration and repatriation can be termed "far right" in line with populist politics in a number of European countries: eg Marie le Pen's Rassemblement Nationale in France.
First on arrest rates. Your analysis fails to take into account crime rate. The arrest rate should not, ideally, be in line with the population fraction, but in line with the amount of crime from that demographic. Should the arrest rate for knife crime of 60-yr-old Chinese-origin women be in line with that of 19-yr-old black males, or do we factor in that some demographics commit more crime?
Under Theresa May’s government, she was shown evidence that the “stop and search” powers were disproportionately used regarding young black males (and not elderly Chinese ladies), so she told them to stop. This cost the lives of young black males because, while they are disproportionately the perpetrators of knife crime, they are also disproportionately its victims.
Second point: yes, we can point to counts of views of Connolly’s Tweet, but you’ve not pointed to any evidence that even one person then did anything at all as a result.
Third. If we define “centre ground” as roughly in the middle of the UK population, which of Farage’s policies on immigration are so far out of kilter with commonly-held views that they are sensibly called “far right”? If you mean things like “immigrants who commit serious crimes should be deported”, then I think you’ll find that the majority in Britain hold that view. Do you think that it’s sensible to call the majority of British people “far right”?
Yes, you are right to include crime rate--and no doubt The Guardian did, and it's my memory at fault. But having used its Search function before, it's too clumsy and time consuming to try to find the articles I read, to check exactly what they said.
I didn't know about the counterproductive result of May's instruction to reduce "Stop and Search": evidence that policing is complex and hard to get right.
But it also indicates that it's necessary to try to remedy perceived injustices, to learn enough in the process both to adjust policing, and attempt to better inform the public about what the police are doing and why.
The most recent poll on support for UK political parties shows Reform UK has dropped slightly to 24%. As there are five distinct supporter groups within Reform (established by a survey carried out by Hope Not Hate and Focaldata) and immigration is not a priority for every group, not even all supporters of Reform could be called "far right". What unites them is frustration and anger at feeling let down by all parties and politicians.
And attitudes to immigration vary even more among supporters of other parties: with a significant proportion of people (including even some Reform supporters) acknowledging the importance of immigrants to staffing the NHS and Britain's social care services in particular.
I do not believe the majority of British people could be called "far right". I was referring to the more extreme groups of Reform supporters.
“No doubt The Guardian did”? I bet you they didn’t. And I bet you that, once you’ve factored in crime rates, there is no good evidence for police mistreatment of black people.
And you’ve still not pointed to any actual, specific policy stated by Farage that is “far right”. Polls say that the majority of people in the UK think that immigration has been way too high.
Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, is considered far-right due to its advocacy for cutting taxes on the wealthy, limiting social safety nets, and favoring deregulation that benefits large corporations. Additionally, the party's stance on immigration and its general bias against working people further align it with far-right ideologies.
Overview of Reform UK's Policies
Reform UK, under the leadership of Nigel Farage, is characterized by several policies that align with far-right ideologies. These policies reflect a focus on economic interests that favor the wealthy and corporations, as well as a general bias against working-class individuals.
Key Far-Right Policies
Economic Policies
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Reform UK advocates for reducing taxes on high earners, which is a common trait of far-right parties that prioritize wealth accumulation for the affluent.
Deregulation: The party supports deregulating industries, which benefits large corporations by reducing their operational constraints. This approach often leads to increased profits at the expense of public welfare and environmental protections.
Social Policies
Limiting Social Safety Nets: Reform UK promotes policies that would reduce or eliminate social safety nets, impacting those who rely on government support. This reflects a bias against working-class individuals and a preference for policies that favor wealthier citizens.
Immigration Stance
Strict Immigration Control: The party's hardline stance on immigration is another indicator of its far-right positioning, as it often aligns with nationalist and anti-immigrant sentiments.
These policies collectively illustrate why Reform UK is classified as a far-right political party in the UK.
Nowak murder: police accused of ‘anti-white bias’ five times more likely to stop black people
This article is more than 1 month old
Hampshire force whose officers responded to the murder of 18-year-old has a higher than average racial disparity
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/vikramdodd Police and crime correspondent
Thu 4 Jun 2026 18.01 BST
Listen to this article
The police force accused of anti-white racism after officers’ response to the murder of Henry Nowak is over five times more likely to subject black people to a stop and search than white people, according to the latest https://www.hampshire.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/hampshire/campaigns/stop-and-search/narratives/force-graphic/stop-and-search-infographic-2026.jpg.
The racial disparity in the https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/hampshireforce is higher than the average for England and Wales, and has worsened in recent years.
Hampshire police have been subjected to https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/03/police-chief-warns-anti-white-bias-claims-could-drive-uk-policing-back-to-60s after the murder of Nowak last December in Southampton https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/01/southampton-man-jailed-life-murder-student-religious-knife-vickrum-digwa-henry-nowak, who falsely told officers he had been racially abused.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/03/police-anti-racism-policies-henry-nowak-explainer
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/03/police-anti-racism-policies-henry-nowak-explainer
Digwa had stabbed the 18-year-old repeatedly, but officers arriving at the scene treated the student slumped on the ground as a suspect. He was handcuffed and arrested, despite telling officers he had been stabbed and could not breathe.
For the last year data was available, Hampshire’s officers were 5.1 times more likely to stop and search someone black than a white person. The average disproportionality rate in England and Wales was 3.8 times.
Stop and search is a controversial power, with most resulting in no detection of criminality. The fact officers are more likely to use the power against a black person has https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/06/met-officers-investigated-after-black-boy-16-stopped-six-times-in-five-months.
In 2025-26, officers in the southern England force carried out 15,000 stops, with 60% leading to no further action or advice. The force claimed 6,000 of its stops led to a “positive outcome”, but did not define what that meant.
The racial disparity has increased in recent years in Hampshire, with black people 4.8 times more likely to be stopped than a white person in 2024-5, up from 4.1 times in 2023-4. The force has also increased its use of stop and search, up from 12,000 two years earlier.
In 2021-22, black people in Hampshire were almost eight times more likely to be stopped than white people.
Police nationally insist stop and search is a vital crimefighting tool, but have pledged to reduce the racial disparity. Hampshire police declined to comment. The force is also https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/workforce-and-business/workforce-diversity/police-workforce/latest/, compared with 90.6% of the population of the area it serves.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/mar/10/black-people-up-to-48-times-more-likely-stop-and-search-london-richest-areas
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/mar/10/black-people-up-to-48-times-more-likely-stop-and-search-london-richest-areas
When asked about two-tier policing on Thursday, the director of the Crown Prosecution Service, Stephen Parkinson, said: “There is disproportionality in the criminal justice system. There’s an evidential basis for that. We have published research by Leeds University examining prosecution decisions. We updated that the end of last year.
“It does demonstrate conclusively that there is disproportionality, by which I mean that there’s a greater likelihood of being prosecuted if you come from an ethnic group that is not white British.
“Your starting point was two-tier justice, and I think recent publicity has been along the lines of: are people from ethnic minorities favoured in some way? The evidence that I’m aware of around disproportionality goes the other way.”
The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, has compared police failings in the Nowak case to those in the 1993 stabbing of Stephen Lawrence by a racist gang who remained free because of police errors and institutional racism.
Duwayne Brooks, a friend of Lawrence who was with him when he was attacked, has said the treatment of Nowak was the result of lazy policing, not anti-white racism. Brooks, 52, told the Guardian the wider public was now becoming aware of the deficient policing that black people, women and people with disabilities had suffered for decades, and now was being experienced by white people.
He said: “We’ve always received lazy policing. Now it is more widespread and more people are experiencing it and a boy lost his life. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/police have a blase attitude. I have not seen or heard any evidence of anti-white bia
I think you will find Le Pen and her party are not considered far right other than by their detractors.
As I say above - and am interested in others' views too... I see the battle as "Western Traditionalists" vs "Globalist Woke-Islamists".
Putting aside the expedient way that the term "far right" is used, its hard to say whether today's Woke movement are more communist (*far left") or fascist ("far right"). Its therefore hard to see if "Western Traditionalists" are left or right. I am the latter and scored right in the middle of the global political compass scale. I'd be far right by today's Woke orthodoxy. Quelle surprise, woudn't we all!?
Communists, fascists and Woke Islamists alike subscribe to similar properties:: a desire to engineer a utopian civilisation by using force if needed, they centralise power into the state, align business interests with the state's agenda, use censorship and punishment enthusiastically for "harmful" opinions about the state that "cause divisions", and have a healthy appetite for propaganda too, starting in education with young children who are taught about the moral goodness of the state and its ideas..
They are more akin to communists in terms of saying that you will "own nothing and be happy", and being international rather than national in focus. They are more akin to fascism in having a social hierarchy - elites at the top, and then people assorted into a hierarchy of virtue by their political values, which determines the jobs they are allowed. That's actually more of a twist on a fascist idea for me.
I guess communists don't allow business ownership, fascists do allow business ownership, but insist businesses do some of the state's work.
History never repeats, it echoes, so it doesn't really matter, there was never going to be a perfect fit between old and modern versions of left or right. Ultimately, what matters is that you either believe moral and economic choices should rest with individuals, or a quasi-totalitarian state.
So far as I am concerned, “rightwing” and “leftwing” are relative--and fairly objective--terms to denote a characteristic set of attitudes and policies defining a political party.
So if it is accepted that the Conservatives can be called “rightwing” at all, then it follows that a party like Reform UK can be called “far rightwing”, with Restore GB possibly “extreme rightwing”: given Rupert Lowe calls eg for return of the death penalty, and for “remigration” of millions of immigrants, including those with settled status.
As the British National Party is (so far as I know) legally banned, it cannot occupy the extreme right niche it used to. So current rightwing parties are seen as spreading across the available spectrum.
But this might not reflect the way rightwing parties like to be seen, and I am not a political scientist.
I don’t accept that whichever non-banned party is furthest right is then necessarily “far right”. A better reference is the range of opinions and parties in Europe over, say, the last 100 years. It is thus entirely possible for a country not to have a “far right” or indeed a “far left” party. I also don’t accept that opposition to mass immigration is “right wing”, it is a common sentiment among otherwise left-wing people. Leaving immigration aside, in many ways Reform are further left than the Tories.
Overall, the label “far right” seems to be an attempt to discredit and demonise a party, not an attempt to assess their actual views or how they align with the population in general. Name-calling and labelling, in place of engagement and argument, is a common tactic on the left these days.
The chances of someone coming to a favourable opinion of Nigel Farage from reading the Guardian are akin to those of a Koran reader converting to Judaism.
"This would be in line with explicit, longstanding Green policy of non-violent direct action (NVDA): Greens are very much opposed to violence in any form."
The Green party allow 1 in 4 of their members to support Hamas - despite their history of turning down peace deals in favour of war and death over the years, including to the cost of their own people, and enshrining a pretty explicit call to eradicate Israel in their charter. No other party, to the best of my knowledge, allows 1 in 4 to support deranged terrorists.
You do know that they are basically an arm ofthe Muslim Brotherhood?
Matt Goodwin has also found from polls that more Greens than the national average believe political violence is acceptable.
https://www.thejc.com/news/politics/progessive-activist-green-voters-hamas-support-dt5jzsdi
There is a difference between trashing a politician's reputation by the imputation of pejorative labels and critiquing their policy agenda. When the latter happens with Reform UK, perhaps we will start to see theit vote share decline.
I don't think it's irrelevant to state one's personal like or dislike of politicians when discussing their actions or views, given this is often a factor in one's judgement of them. Eg I defended Polanski--as being more likely to have been careless in what he reposted, than trying to incite violence--despite disliking him.
And despite my detestation of Farage, I similarly defended him as having cause to fear violence, given the recent and wholly unjustified violent murder of Ann Widdecombe, all of whose views I disagreed with.
I did not feel "pure cold rage" at the police treatment of poor Henry Nowak, due to their mistaken belief in the lies of his attacker. And I regard it as hugely irresponsible of Farage to publicly broadcast any public instruction to feel "pure, cold rage"--given the strong likelihood of riots, and also disrespecting the plea of Nowak's bereaved parents NOT to use their son's death to stir up hatred and violence.
In my view the Labour government has misused the oppressive, police-state legislation of the preceding Tory government's Crime and Policing Act, designed to criminalise public protest, to do just that--in its absurd and unjust proscription of Palestine Action as a "terrorist" group.
And many police forces have been captured by the gender cult: eg in absurdly arresting a disabled woman for putting up a poster to "Keep prisons single sex", and recording this as a "non-crime hate incident".
Such police forces are complicit in a TQ assault on women's sex-based rights. But more of them are now cancelling their payments to Stonewall for training as "Diversity Champions".
Were you equally against Keir Starmer's incitement to rage after George Floyd's murder? No risk of riots and violence against police then?
Re Nowak murder - I assumed the father was trying to stop any hatred and violence towards Sikhs, not that the police shouldn’t be held accountable. Sikhs are generally hard working and not murderous - even Tommy Robinson has said this. And it was a Sikh temple that warned the police before, that the family had been stealing knives but nothing was done.
It is the police ‘woke’ rules which do not treat people without fear or favour that we are SO angry about - favouring of a claim of racism over checking the situation and attending to Henry Nowak’s injuries as urgent, that the public feel ‘cold rage’ about - cold rage is not being hot-headed.
It is knowing that the police guidance must now change and those accountable brought to justice. Saving a life comes first - even if he had been racist … which it turns out he hadn’t.
As for Polanski, he was a conman who claimed he could hypnotise women and make their breasts grow larger (!) ..and imho remains a conman. How can he dance on stage for gay rights with a man wearing chaps and little else, whilst his deputy puts Islam first and his wife wears a burka? This doesn’t add up.
But he will take votes where he can get them. He also says he believes in ‘trans’ but homosexuality is same sex attraction, not same gender. I’m sure he knows all that - and also that men and women with gender critical views have been chucked out of the party.
As for Farage, whether he has acted stupidly or intentionally against parliamentary rules in his financial dealings or not, I would not advocate his murder and I don’t think anyone else should either.
Stand back, deep breath: these arguments about incitement have the logic of the ducking school justice from the Middle Ages.
If we are charging someone with incitement, how about actually making a case that they did incite someone? You know, evidence and logic?
Think about it in reality. Who really incited the violence against hotels? i.e. tell me who did something that meant the difference between the violence happening or not happening.
You could argue that it was Axel Rudakubana himself. Without his act of savagery, which disgusted and angered so many, the riots would likely not have happened. That seems plausible. History provides evidence that atrocities invoke violence.
You could argue that the whole of the rioting was really brewing up since the state and its constituents decided to cover up a racist, child rape atrocity at the behest of its voter base - with working class people as the general victims of the crimes. A state that is complicit with this sort of atrocity against a specific group might well incite violence, history suggests.
You could argue it was whoever allowed thousands of illegal immigrants, against voter's wishes, into disadvantaged working class areas and put them into expensive hotels, during a cost of living crisis. This act echoes the kind of ways Jews were humiliated by Nazis in the 1930s. The act said: "you are not as important as these people. We care for these people and not you." This act would seem capable of incitement.
You could just argue the person who incited the riots was whoever let so many people into the country who hated its people so baited and disrespected them?
By contrast, if Lucy C hadn't tweeted, I personally think that the violence would have still happened. However, if any of the other three things I mentioned above hadn't happened, there is a better chance it would not.
Ergo sum, LC was not likely to have been the person inciting violence.
This law and interpretation used on her was one for drowning witches.
I agree, it's all become very childish and this is, I believe, a result of the victimhood culture that arose out of the SJW\"Woke" activism. Political commentators also compound this, due to their reach and influence. James O'Brien, for example, is prone to being quite disingenuous and frequently references Lucy Conolly, incrementally cranking the emotional hyperbole through initially referring to her calling for hotels full of migrants to be set on fire, then progressing to her calling for a pogrom (the left love a 1930's nazi analogy) and then finally landing at "calling for people to be burned in their beds".
JO'B .... can't stand him - so rude to callers! I think that's objective not a value-judgement, if anyone cared to compile stats on that .... 'cranking the emotional hyperbole' is def what he does ... like when he said the sky was bluer on the day the Pope visited !!!... hence have to switch off any time I hear that man's voice.
I’m not sure. I wish what you describe was the reality (and I know you’re accepting that it isn’t), but if one side is prepared to use cancellation, the law and other levers to restrict free speech while the other isn’t, you end up with exactly what we have now. Shouting “From the river to the sea” or a Labour politician talking about slitting throats is deemed permissible, yet Lucy goes to jail.
I actually think the right has to use these laws just as aggressively not because that’s the end goal, but to demonstrate why they are so dangerous. People need to see that hate speech laws and similar powers can be used by the left or the right. Once those powers exist, they won’t always be exercised by people you agree with.
That’s why I’d rather get rid of as much of this legislation as possible and move much closer to the American model of free speech. I’d rather tolerate more offensive speech than give any government the power to decide what opinions are acceptable.
Yep, I am not describing. I am advocating. Very much what your last paragraph says. I did it for over a decade to the left, of course.
I don’t think people do learn by getting a taste of their own medicine. I think this just makes them vengeful. The identitarian left felt anti-white racism was OK because anti-black racism had a long history. Did this make the identitarian right decide racism was a bad idea? No, there was a resurge of anti-black racism.
We humans tend to keep believing we can remedy injustice by creating an imposing form of injustice and that this will somehow restore balance but it never does. It just increases polarisation. We are a reciprocal species. If one tribe attacks another, that tribe attacks back. It doesn’t think “Hmmm, I wonder if the way I am feeling right now was how they felt when I did this to them? Maybe I shouldn’t do that again.” It thinks, “ Really? I’ll show you.” and launches another attack. This is why we’ve had feuds that go on for centuries and people don’t even remember how they started, only the wrongs done to them.
"Until our political leaders recover the concepts of dignity culture"
Dignity culture needs to be recovered on a society-wide basis. But until there is society-wide agreement on who/what is deserving of dignity, and that dignity harms are real, political leaders will continue to ignore the concept.
I love this article. One reason I am emigrating is that, while "Wokeism"* is (to me) the cult of celebrating and rewarding degeneracy, the response I often see to it is either juevenile or a verbal version of the "honour culture". I've therefore lost hope of a return to reason.
In fact, the Woke* left have told us that facts are "racist" to the left, they are viewed as a means of perpetuating power structures, basically by pointing out that not every ill of civilisation is necessarily down to middle class white men. (So how we can ever hope to reach a point of agreement, when grievance conspiracies are elevated above data?).
It is so much more important to combat it and develop substantial counter-strategies than descending into "he says-she says" spat as Farage has done. There is no intellectual substance, or moral framework, behind the man at all it seems. (Needless to say, Polanski is to me a degenerate, but that's not the point here).
We must do this while appreciating in this country - and across the West - that we now have a spectrum of people where the poles are i) Woke-Islamists (deconstruction, post modern, CRT, ideological conformity etc) and ii) Traditional Nationalists or even ethno nationalists. The two ends are just not, in any way, compatible. (It was so much easier when left vs right was about tax and welfare levels).
As Helen likely knows, even the centre ground - a position that advocates for national borders, free expression, controlled spending, and a meaningful rule of law - is considered fascist by the left.
I honestly believe that we need a political solution akin to federalism, separatism, or cultural apartheid to faciliate a world where most people live in a way that doesn't feel like oppression, while enabling vital industries to continue. I'm afraid I cannot reason myself to a less extreme conclusion, without wilfully ignoring the evidence.
*I have my own little definition of Wokeism as the "cult of projecting blame for the outcomes of different minority groups on to western history, culture, people, institutions and norms so as to justify the extraction and redistribution of wealth, power, opportunity and rights." (It differs radically from "an elevated awareness of struggles and hardships".)
On one hand, I've heard calls that since the opposition uses these tactics, everyone should, even those who have born their brunt or who objected to their use. Yet that just perpetuates and normalizes the behavior.
As far as this being in the UK, which makes a habit of investigating people for "causing offence" (a conveniently vague term), this may already be normalized and this particular incident a symptom of such. That the police are charged with undertaking such investigations creates too much of a permission structure already.
Great article Helen. Your final paragraph really nails it. The "but" for me though is the issue of "proportionality". What if the loss of this proportionality has already gone too far? Are there still enough people left in the body politic and wider society who still possess this? What if our national culture has, in fact, already lost this (for a whole variety of reasons)?
Then we’re screwed. But I see little point in spending much time dwelling on ‘What if we’re all doomed and can’t fix this.” That just encourages giving up. We’ve been in worse situations before. A century ago, both communist and fascist parties were building in support in Britain. We just have to keep going.
Or we need some politicians who understand and can facilitate the cultural change needed