When tensions are high, politicians cannot afford to stoke the flames
The posturing, the fantasies, the claim and counterclaim serve only to muddle when what is needed is clarity
Camilla Cavendish
© Jonathan McHughWould you risk your life to stand for parliament?
That is now as serious a question as it was when the IRA bombed Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet.
The fact that Britain has its first prime minister of Indian heritage is a welcome sign of the country’s success at integration.
But when Rishi Sunak addressed the nation last night, it was to try and calm forces of extremism which, he warned, “are trying to tear us apart”.
It is eight years since Labour’s Jo Cox was murdered by the white supremacist Thomas Mair; two and a half since the Conservative MP David Amess was killed by the Islamist Ali Harbi Ali.
Mike Freer, who was also on Harbi’s hit list and who represents a large Jewish community, has announced he is quitting politics after his constituency office was set on fire.
Tobias Ellwood, the former soldier, has been forced to keep his family away from their home after pro-Palestinian demonstrators massed outside.
We British are a phlegmatic bunch.
We have overcome extremism before.
But to do so requires being precise about the threats.
White supremacy, English nationalism, Islamist extremism are all political ideologies which resist strict definition.
Party leaders need to be clearer in calling out behaviour that crosses the line to protect both their colleagues and calm what threatens to become an ever more inflammatory national debate.
Those who stoke division for political advantage don’t help.
The claim by the Conservative MP Lee Anderson that Islamists have “got control” of the mayor of London was repugnant and bizarre.
Similarly weird and equally disgraceful was the statement by Azhar Ali, Labour’s candidate in Rochdale, that Israel permitted the Hamas atrocities on October 7 as a pretext to invade Gaza.
Keir Starmer rightly withdrew support for Ali, and Labour duly lost the seat.
Sunak rightly suspended Anderson, despite pressure from rightwingers who seem to think crazed paranoia is popular.
Politicians who pander to the basest instincts end up narrowing the space for mature discussion.
The posturing, claim and counterclaim only muddle when what is needed is clarity.
There is a world of difference between well-meaning youngsters horrified by the deaths in Gaza and elements stirring up hatred for more sinister purposes, including against MPs.
I was a vocal opponent of attempts by Priti Patel and Suella Braverman to curb the right to protest.
But I have had to acknowledge that some of what started out as legitimate protest has turned into intimidation.
The Speaker made a mistake in suspending normal procedure during the Gaza debate — politicians should never be shown to be cowed by threats — but it was understandable, given that he feared for the safety of individual members of the House.
This week it emerged that three female MPs have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards following concerns about their safety.
Extremists thrive on ambiguity.
If caught out, they claim that they are misunderstood.
The fascist Oswald Mosley said he had never been antisemitic but accused “certain Jews” of having provoked the second world war.
In November, the far-right leader Tommy Robinson turned up at London’s march against antisemitism, claiming he was there as a “journalist”.
Many of those who chant, “From the river to the sea” are not advocating ethnic cleansing but it is increasingly hard to plead ignorance of how that slogan terrorises Jews in this country.
Many decent people fear that Israel’s government is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza; the bloodshed there is appalling.
But that does not justify making British Jews feel afraid.
Deconstructing what constitutes extremism is hard, but it can be done.
In 2016, an imam called Shakeel Begg sued the BBC for libel after it had described him as an extremist who promoted violence.
The court deconstructed nine of Begg’s speeches and the judge concluded, with forensic clarity, that Begg had espoused extremist Islamic positions.
A new definition of “hateful extremism”, as proposed by the Commission for Countering Extremism, would stop both far-right and Islamist groups from glorifying violence and circulating false claims.
Meanwhile, a row is brewing over the term islamophobia, which some Conservatives are reluctant to use because it conflates anti-Muslim hatred with criticism of the religion and could usher in a blasphemy law by accident.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have adopted the definition of islamophobia proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims.
But this definition implies it could be racist to criticise a dress code, for example, or gender segregation.
Every society can fall prey to fear of “the other”.
One way to tackle this is to boost contact between communities.
In England, the National Citizen Service brings together teenagers from different backgrounds and ethnicities.
In Northern Ireland after the Troubles, the Royal Ulster Constabulary aspired to half its officers being Catholic.
Ending anonymity on social media would leave the sinister forces with fewer places to hide, and protect public figures.
If we fail, who benefits? George Galloway, savouring his landslide victory in Rochdale, having warned last week that Labour MPs were “dripping in blood” after the party’s ceasefire amendment fell short of what pro-Palestinian sympathisers wanted.
Nigel Farage, deliberating another tilt at parliament, hoping to force the Conservative party rightward.
Both Sunak and Starmer have a reason to hold firm against such politicisation of divisive issues and not to use it to score points.
The vast majority of MPs that I meet have gone into politics to improve the world.
If too many of them were to give up, amid the trolling, the abuse, the relentless questioning of their motives, we will be left with something ugly.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario