Who is guilty of the greatest intolerance? Perhaps those who insinuate that the Brexit campaign was inherently racist should look at themselves in the mirror and examine their own contemptuous attitude to those with whom they disagree...
DOMINIC LAWSON: The horrific murder of Jo Cox and a contemptible campaign to smear Brexit supporters
By Dominic Lawson for the Daily Mail
28 November 2016
Pictured: Labour MP Jo Cox, who was murdered by white supremacist Thomas Mair
Were it not for the death of the retired Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, the BBC would have been leading its news bulletins yesterday morning with the story that came second on its revised agenda.
This was about a letter addressed to the party leaders at Westminster by the Equality and Human Rights Commission urging them to ‘tone down’ campaigning that, it argued, has ‘legitimised hate’.
It is clear who the Commission has in mind: the politicians who campaigned (successfully) for the Leave side in the EU referendum campaign.
And the timing of the letter’s release to the BBC, just days after the conviction of Thomas Mair for the murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox, is far from coincidental.
It is entirely in line with newspaper columns last week by some of those still unreconciled to the Brexit vote, one of which — on the day after Mair’s sentencing — was headlined ‘Dog-whistle politics can be a deadly game’.
The argument, such as it is, seems to be that the emphasis on the need to control immigration put by many of those campaigning for Brexit triggered Mair’s unspeakably violent attack on one of the country’s most admirable politicians, who was on the Remain side.
But the wider point of such pieces is to insinuate collective responsibility for the crime on the part of those who argued that Britain should exit the EU and become a fully independent nation once again.
Disturbing
Such writers are almost akin to the fictional Dr Heinz Kiosk (an invention of the late satirist Michael Wharton), who, whenever some disturbing crime took place, would declare: ‘We are all guilty.’
The imaginary Dr Kiosk’s motives were not political, however, while those who attribute moral responsibility to Brexit campaigners for Jo Cox’s murder are engaged in pure politics.
Indeed, the notion of collective responsibility is always highly ideological, whether on the part of those who attribute Islamic terrorism to Muslims in general or who blame all Jews for any action by the Israeli Defence Force.
It is true that when carrying out his horrifying attack, Mair was heard to shout: ‘This is for Britain.’ And the murder did take place during the final week of the Referendum campaign.
But when you look into the details of Mair’s (highly disturbed) thought processes, it becomes clear that Britain’s membership of the EU was not his principal, or even secondary, concern. As the trial judge said, he was ‘no patriot’ but an out-and-out white supremacist, who for decades had been obsessed with the notion that the ‘white race’ (a biological nonsense in itself) was facing extinction.
He began his indoctrination 30 years earlier by subscribing to a South African publication devoted to attacking those who opposed the policy of apartheid.
He would sign his letters to the producers of those pamphlets ‘Yours racially’. And his British role model was not Ukip’s Nigel Farage, still less Boris Johnson or Michael Gove, leading lights of the Leave campaign.
No, his inspiration, according to material gathered by the police, was David Copeland: the man who in 1999 planted three nail bombs in London targeting, in turn, black people, Asians and gay people.
The police also uncovered internet searches by Mair which revealed his horror that his mother’s second marriage was to a man of West Indian origins.
What police photographs of his bookshelves also showed was that Mair’s personal library consisted entirely of tomes about the Nazis (he appeared to worship Hitler’s regime) and in his bedroom were Nazi memorabilia. Does this remind you of any Brexiteer you know? Me neither.
Nazi-obsessed killer Mair (left) stabbed Jo Cox (right) 15 times and shot her three times during a brutal attack in her hometown of Batley, West Yorkshire. He's been sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison with no possibility of parole
It is undeniable that nationalism played a part in the success of the Leave campaign. But to the extent that it did, this emerged from a sense of deep affiliation to traditional British institutions, the most important of which is a sovereign Parliament.
It was, in part, to defend these institutions that Britain fought Nazi Germany — the very dictatorship to which Mair built a shrine in his bedroom.
The Times last week followed up the Mair trial with a detailed investigation into the modern political groups that embrace that murderer’s world view.
Crucial
The main one is called Knights Templar International, which says it seeks to recruit members ‘who share an understanding of the threats we face today from radical Islam . . . and anti-Christian bigotry’.
The point is, just as Islamic terrorists are not interested in the nation state, but in establishing a sort of global caliphate, so people of Mair’s mindset see themselves as promoting an equally trans-national white supremacist movement. The crucial distinction is this: racism is not the same as nationalism, even though many on the Left talk as if the two are synonymous.
Actually, the falsity of this equivalence should be obvious to people in this country. The most spectacular growth in support for any of our political parties in recent years has been that enjoyed by the SNP.
Those three letters stand for Scottish National Party. It is an avowedly nationalistic party, forged in the passionate belief that the Scottish people should have independence from Westminster.
Pictured: A Nazi golden eagle and a unit full of books on Nazi Germany were found in Thomas Mair's house by police
But is it a racist party? Well, there are elements on the fringe of the Scottish independence movement who might be described as Celtic supremacists and who do have a hatred for the English.
But if you asked most Scots if they saw the SNP as inherently racist, they would rightly dismiss the idea as insulting.
So why should those who support the idea of British independence from the institutions of the EU not be similarly affronted by the implication they are motivated by racism?
While the issue of immigration was highly significant in the Brexiteers’ winning campaign slogan ‘Bring Back Control’, this was not remotely a racist phrase — and it is a disgraceful slur on those who agreed with that to stain them all as incipient white supremacists or connected in any way to the weirdo killer of poor Jo Cox.
The Brexit campaign would never have succeeded without winning the votes of very many British Asians. I know a number of such voters and the idea that they were driven by overt or even hidden racism is as offensive as it is preposterous.
The Scottish National Party is an avowedly nationalistic party, forged in the passionate belief that the Scottish people should have independence from Westminster. But is it a racist party?
No matter what your ethnic origins, if you believe in the idea of the nation state at all, then you are likely also to believe that such a state must have some degree of control over the number of those who have the right to enter from outside and make it their home.
Betrayed
A territory without such control has forfeited one of the principal attributes of statehood and, as a signatory to EU treaties guaranteeing absolute freedom of movement to the citizens of all 28 member states, Britain was unable to exercise that control.
The problem for the leader of the Remain campaign, one David Cameron, was not that he failed to recognise this. It was that he recognised it, but couldn’t deliver it.
He declared on live television in 2014: ‘Britain, I know you want this sorted. I will go to Brussels, I will not take “No” for an answer and when it comes to freedom of movement I will get what Britain needs.’
Former Prime Minister David Cameron failed to get Britain control over freedom of movement
But he broke this most explicit of promises. This was made brutally clear to him by a British Asian, Harry Boparai, in an ITV referendum debate in which the then PM faced audience questions.
Boparai told Cameron that he had voted Conservative in 2015 because of that promise, but having been betrayed on this, he would vote for Brexit in the referendum.
Is Harry Boparai a racist for casting his ballot in this way and for that reason? The suggestion is an insult, not only to Mr Boparai, but all those who thought similarly.
To be fair to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, its letter to party leaders does concede that: ‘The vast majority of people who voted to leave the European Union did so because they believe it is best for Britain and not because they are intolerant of others.’
But who is guilty of the greatest intolerance? Perhaps those who insinuate that the Brexit campaign was inherently racist should look at themselves in the mirror and examine their own contemptuous attitude to those with whom they disagree.
DOMINIC LAWSON: The horrific murder of Jo Cox and a contemptible campaign to smear Brexit supporters
By Dominic Lawson for the Daily Mail
28 November 2016
Pictured: Labour MP Jo Cox, who was murdered by white supremacist Thomas Mair
Were it not for the death of the retired Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, the BBC would have been leading its news bulletins yesterday morning with the story that came second on its revised agenda.
This was about a letter addressed to the party leaders at Westminster by the Equality and Human Rights Commission urging them to ‘tone down’ campaigning that, it argued, has ‘legitimised hate’.
It is clear who the Commission has in mind: the politicians who campaigned (successfully) for the Leave side in the EU referendum campaign.
And the timing of the letter’s release to the BBC, just days after the conviction of Thomas Mair for the murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox, is far from coincidental.
It is entirely in line with newspaper columns last week by some of those still unreconciled to the Brexit vote, one of which — on the day after Mair’s sentencing — was headlined ‘Dog-whistle politics can be a deadly game’.
The argument, such as it is, seems to be that the emphasis on the need to control immigration put by many of those campaigning for Brexit triggered Mair’s unspeakably violent attack on one of the country’s most admirable politicians, who was on the Remain side.
But the wider point of such pieces is to insinuate collective responsibility for the crime on the part of those who argued that Britain should exit the EU and become a fully independent nation once again.
Disturbing
Such writers are almost akin to the fictional Dr Heinz Kiosk (an invention of the late satirist Michael Wharton), who, whenever some disturbing crime took place, would declare: ‘We are all guilty.’
The imaginary Dr Kiosk’s motives were not political, however, while those who attribute moral responsibility to Brexit campaigners for Jo Cox’s murder are engaged in pure politics.
Indeed, the notion of collective responsibility is always highly ideological, whether on the part of those who attribute Islamic terrorism to Muslims in general or who blame all Jews for any action by the Israeli Defence Force.
It is true that when carrying out his horrifying attack, Mair was heard to shout: ‘This is for Britain.’ And the murder did take place during the final week of the Referendum campaign.
But when you look into the details of Mair’s (highly disturbed) thought processes, it becomes clear that Britain’s membership of the EU was not his principal, or even secondary, concern. As the trial judge said, he was ‘no patriot’ but an out-and-out white supremacist, who for decades had been obsessed with the notion that the ‘white race’ (a biological nonsense in itself) was facing extinction.
He began his indoctrination 30 years earlier by subscribing to a South African publication devoted to attacking those who opposed the policy of apartheid.
He would sign his letters to the producers of those pamphlets ‘Yours racially’. And his British role model was not Ukip’s Nigel Farage, still less Boris Johnson or Michael Gove, leading lights of the Leave campaign.
No, his inspiration, according to material gathered by the police, was David Copeland: the man who in 1999 planted three nail bombs in London targeting, in turn, black people, Asians and gay people.
The police also uncovered internet searches by Mair which revealed his horror that his mother’s second marriage was to a man of West Indian origins.
What police photographs of his bookshelves also showed was that Mair’s personal library consisted entirely of tomes about the Nazis (he appeared to worship Hitler’s regime) and in his bedroom were Nazi memorabilia. Does this remind you of any Brexiteer you know? Me neither.
Nazi-obsessed killer Mair (left) stabbed Jo Cox (right) 15 times and shot her three times during a brutal attack in her hometown of Batley, West Yorkshire. He's been sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison with no possibility of parole
It is undeniable that nationalism played a part in the success of the Leave campaign. But to the extent that it did, this emerged from a sense of deep affiliation to traditional British institutions, the most important of which is a sovereign Parliament.
It was, in part, to defend these institutions that Britain fought Nazi Germany — the very dictatorship to which Mair built a shrine in his bedroom.
The Times last week followed up the Mair trial with a detailed investigation into the modern political groups that embrace that murderer’s world view.
Crucial
The main one is called Knights Templar International, which says it seeks to recruit members ‘who share an understanding of the threats we face today from radical Islam . . . and anti-Christian bigotry’.
The point is, just as Islamic terrorists are not interested in the nation state, but in establishing a sort of global caliphate, so people of Mair’s mindset see themselves as promoting an equally trans-national white supremacist movement. The crucial distinction is this: racism is not the same as nationalism, even though many on the Left talk as if the two are synonymous.
Actually, the falsity of this equivalence should be obvious to people in this country. The most spectacular growth in support for any of our political parties in recent years has been that enjoyed by the SNP.
Those three letters stand for Scottish National Party. It is an avowedly nationalistic party, forged in the passionate belief that the Scottish people should have independence from Westminster.
Pictured: A Nazi golden eagle and a unit full of books on Nazi Germany were found in Thomas Mair's house by police
But is it a racist party? Well, there are elements on the fringe of the Scottish independence movement who might be described as Celtic supremacists and who do have a hatred for the English.
But if you asked most Scots if they saw the SNP as inherently racist, they would rightly dismiss the idea as insulting.
So why should those who support the idea of British independence from the institutions of the EU not be similarly affronted by the implication they are motivated by racism?
While the issue of immigration was highly significant in the Brexiteers’ winning campaign slogan ‘Bring Back Control’, this was not remotely a racist phrase — and it is a disgraceful slur on those who agreed with that to stain them all as incipient white supremacists or connected in any way to the weirdo killer of poor Jo Cox.
The Brexit campaign would never have succeeded without winning the votes of very many British Asians. I know a number of such voters and the idea that they were driven by overt or even hidden racism is as offensive as it is preposterous.
The Scottish National Party is an avowedly nationalistic party, forged in the passionate belief that the Scottish people should have independence from Westminster. But is it a racist party?
No matter what your ethnic origins, if you believe in the idea of the nation state at all, then you are likely also to believe that such a state must have some degree of control over the number of those who have the right to enter from outside and make it their home.
Betrayed
A territory without such control has forfeited one of the principal attributes of statehood and, as a signatory to EU treaties guaranteeing absolute freedom of movement to the citizens of all 28 member states, Britain was unable to exercise that control.
The problem for the leader of the Remain campaign, one David Cameron, was not that he failed to recognise this. It was that he recognised it, but couldn’t deliver it.
He declared on live television in 2014: ‘Britain, I know you want this sorted. I will go to Brussels, I will not take “No” for an answer and when it comes to freedom of movement I will get what Britain needs.’
Former Prime Minister David Cameron failed to get Britain control over freedom of movement
But he broke this most explicit of promises. This was made brutally clear to him by a British Asian, Harry Boparai, in an ITV referendum debate in which the then PM faced audience questions.
Boparai told Cameron that he had voted Conservative in 2015 because of that promise, but having been betrayed on this, he would vote for Brexit in the referendum.
Is Harry Boparai a racist for casting his ballot in this way and for that reason? The suggestion is an insult, not only to Mr Boparai, but all those who thought similarly.
To be fair to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, its letter to party leaders does concede that: ‘The vast majority of people who voted to leave the European Union did so because they believe it is best for Britain and not because they are intolerant of others.’
But who is guilty of the greatest intolerance? Perhaps those who insinuate that the Brexit campaign was inherently racist should look at themselves in the mirror and examine their own contemptuous attitude to those with whom they disagree.