Censorship won't address the riots
In the face of extreme violence, we must stand strong in defence of freedom of speech
The UK feels like it’s falling apart. For over a week, riots seemed to spring up all over the place - some organised, some seemingly spontaneous. Then there was Wednesday night, when supposedly planned riots numbering in the hundreds failed to materialise. Instead, groups of anti-racist protesters filled Walthamstow market, while masked-up groups of counter protesters marched around Bristol and Croydon and other areas looking for the non-existent far right. While celebrations of the ‘defeat’ of the rioters might be premature, many are celebrating the numbers of people turning out in solidarity against racism. And yet, the atmosphere remains tense - something significant has shifted in the public feeling.
After a slow start, there has been swift, specific police action to target criminal behaviour. However, beyond repression and clampdowns, the official narrative about the roots of this ugly civil unrest seems unconvincing, shallow, short-term and hesitant. However, the one policy politicians seem sure of is plans to ban, ban, ban.
As with all difficult political situations, the knee-jerk response is to censor and silence all discussion of recent events online. Politicians and commentators have been calling for blanket bans on social media. Indeed, the director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, has warned that individuals could be arrested if found to ‘repost, repeat or amplify a message which is false, threatening, or stirs up racial/religious hatred’. That’s potentially a police visit for simply reposting footage from the riots - this is bordering on the hysterical. And forget Tommy Robinson, according to some it’s Elon Musk who is behind the riots, having spread ‘disinformation’. Even a secretive government agency used to ‘spy on’ anti-lockdown campaigners during the pandemic has been deployed again to monitor social media amid the riots.
Unfortunately, such approaches look like two tier illiberalism. On the one hand, the disinformation surrounding the Southport attacker was widely criticised as dangerous (in fact, one woman has been arrested for a post on X suggesting the Southport attacker was an asylum seeker called “Ali Al-Shakati”, although qualifying the post with “if this is true”). On the other hand, the fake news ‘hoax’ list about Wednesday’s planned ‘far right’ protests, which terrorised so many and led to town centres effectively locking down, was heralded by some as almost a good thing because the equivalent of The Good Lie inspired anti-racist messages to prevail in the morning headlines. Likewise, while there was widespread condemnation of the riots in Southport, Rotherham and Tamworth, where ugly white identity politics was often on display, there has been less willingness to condemn the violence in Birmingham, where young Muslim men in masks attacked a pub.
Untangling the dynamics of what is going on is not easy; we need as wide and deep a public discussion as possible. That is why the government’s anti-free-speech drive, supported by its cheerleaders in the commentariat, is a worryingly dangerous direction of travel. Of course, throwing bricks, torching buildings and shouting racist slurs is not engaging in political debate. But there are lots of people NOT out on the streets causing trouble who want to talk about what is going on and why so many feel so frustrated and alienated. Many feel their views on everything from immigration and Islamism to soft policing of Gaza protests and Just Stop Oil activism are being ignored. The weaponisation of the Online Safety Bill, or calls to create new terror offences, will stifle this desire to have conversations about difficult things further.
Indeed, even one of the ‘heroes’ of Southport, John Hayes, who was stabbed in the leg while trying to intervene, has criticised Keir Starmer for refusing to engage in these deeper issues. Either these riots are simply a belch of violence from mindless thugs overheated with summer sun, or there is something more complicated going on. If it’s the former, a bit of no-nonsense and equal-handed policing is required. If it’s the latter, we need to be able to talk about things without fear of Yvette Cooper telling us we’ll be locked up for our Twitter conversations.
No-one is saying it is easy to understand what is behind these recent weeks of unrest; simplistic sloganeering on any side doesn’t cut it. And things have moved on rapidly: this is no longer just a response to the horrific murder of three little girls in Southport. But what is clear is that the violence on display has deep roots - with questions to untangle about policies relating to immigration and multiculturalism, policing and so-called ‘left-behind’ communities.
Like many of you, we at the Academy of Ideas are still working through what we think. Simply comparing these riots to the events in 2011 is no good, neither is calling on social-media companies to ban any discussion of what is going on. But many of the questions raised by current events relate to long-standing issues and debates, ones we will be returning to at the Battle of Ideas festival on the 19 & 20 October this year. In the meantime, here is a list of some media some of us have done talking about the riots, and some articles and resources we’ve found useful in trying to pick apart what is really going on.
Get in touch with us via our chat if you’ve got a thought or a question about recent events, and we’ll continue the discussion, or share this Substack with your friends. Free speech is defended by doing - we need to keep talking about what is going on, with varied opinions and views if we’re going to reach any useful conclusions.
Claire Fox, UK Riots: Role of social media in spotlight after online misinformation sparks attacks on mosques, Times Radio, 6 August 2024
Ella Whelan, ‘Disinformation about riots “terrifies communities and creates illusion protesters control streets”’, LBC, 7 August 2024
Claire Fox on The Daily Sceptic, 8 August 2024
Aris Roussinos, ‘How Britain ignored its ethnic conflict This week’s riots won’t be the last’, Unherd, 3 August 2024
Inaya Folarin Iman, ‘Britain is coming apart at the seams’, spiked, 2 August 2024
Silkie Carlo, ‘The Government’s sinister disinformation unit is threatening free speech again’, Telegraph, 7 August 2024 - and on Unherd
Nadhim Zahawi, ‘Nadhim Zahawi: How the British dream of integration can survive’, The Times, 5 August 2024
'Like many of you, we at the Academy of Ideas are still working through what we think.'
Well put, too many people know everything already and shape events into their existing narrative. Racism is bad, rioting is bad, do I have to say that? Yes I think I do. Having said that I have been opining about the problem(s) of anti-racism for about 40 years. Today I'm not alone, there is something resembling a movement of black people many of them young, who are tired of being pigeon-holed and defined by 'blackness', and who are tired of being regarded by 'progressives' as in need of rescuing and protecting. Yesterday's channel 4 news was was a difficult watch; there was an undercurrent of glee, 'see we told you so' (as if they ever doubted themselves) real racists attacking ethnic minorities. Who will save us (ethnic minorities), channel 4 news will, the Far Right will be crushed by smugness and self-righteousness. Journalists have given up any pretense of journalism, simply parroting 'Far Right' at every opportunity. In recent times the progressive establishment has labelled as Far Right everyone from Nigel Farage to anyone who believes that a country is entitled (or is expected) to protect its own borders, this seamlessly leads us to an equivalence with Hitler, Nazism and Fascism.
Those of us who oppose racism in all its forms now have to distance ourselves from the ideology of 'anti-racism'. Today the Far Right in the UK does not have the potency of the Far right of the 1970's and 80's. Back them we feared that the Far Right on the streets had allies within the establishment; in government and the police force for example. Thankfully there were courageous anti-racists who stood up to this threat. Today's anti-racism provides the establishment with a moral purpose. Today the state is uncertain of its role, the state has taken on the role of protector, the exaggeration of threats serves the authority of the state. I know young Muslims who are now frightened to go out due to what they saw on the news, despite the absence of Far Right activity (and considerable anti-racists protests) in their areas. Of course we should be alert to threats, but there are those who have vested interest in exaggeration. The incessant noise of unconscious bias, DEI, white privilege, anti-colonialism, and critical race theory annoys me and I'm black, with the closing down of discussion, something will give, if people cannot express themselves in a legitimate way they will rebel. The Far Right can and will fight their own battles, they may even have walked in to a trap, as the clampdown comes. What shouldn't happen is a clampdown on free speech and on those who haven't rioted and who continue to believe in argument and debate to express their disaffections and bring about change.
You are absolutely right. It is a very complex problem.
I was wondering what can be learned from integration or non-integration of workers who came in large numbers in the 70’s (from Turkey and Morocco especially) to Germany and the Netherlands.
Some integrated very well, others not. There are still some issues even with 3rd generations.
Has the ‘othering’ of people through EDI caused this problem to worsen?