Resist the liberal authoritarians
The riots must not be used as justification for the further erosion of our freedoms and liberties
It is at times like this, in the aftermath of tumultuous events which threaten the authority of the state, that we must be on our guard. For those are the occasions when, using the cover of public fearfulness and demands for greater order and security, governments will often try to push through restrictive and authoritarian measures which have the ability to seriously impinge on our personal freedoms and liberties.
This seems to be where we are right now in the wake of the recent riots. In fact, the liberal political class and commentariat appear to be focusing on nothing beyond the narrow question of how certain actors on social media and elsewhere, whom they consider responsible for stirring up the violence, might be prevented from causing trouble in the future. To that end, we hear constant references to Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson, disinformation propagated by hostile foreign states, and so on.
There appears to be no desire at all on their part to discuss the wider grievances that have, for many years, been brewing in our communities and which persuaded a few knuckleheads that they would be justified in going on to the streets and wreaking havoc.
It’s as though, so far as the liberal elites are concerned, it all came out of a clear blue sky – that all was sweetness and light in Britain until a few nefarious characters decided, for no good reason, to exploit the murders of three young girls in Southport.
This has driven some of them to make ever more extreme demands in their desire to see dissenting voices muzzled. We have seen, for example, Alastair Campbell inviting the police to investigate Douglas Murray for the apparent crime of pointing out – quite soberly – in an interview that he predicted the riots in a book he wrote a few years ago; the prominent liberal lawyer Jessica Simor beseeching the prime minister to shut down X/Twitter in Britain; the celebrity ‘Secret Barrister’ calling on parliament to expel MPs who had ‘incite[d] racialised violence’; Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland arguing that Musk should be put in the dock; and left-wing activist and author Paul Mason demanding that Ofcom revoke the broadcasting licence of GB News.
Some, such as radio presenter James O’Brien and Carol Vorderman, have branded the violence the ‘Farage riots’, while one former Whitehall civil servant – some sort of expert in data and analytics – even went as far as to suggest that the violence was fuelled by Musk’s decision to change X/Twitter’s settings so that ‘likes’ were now private!
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that some of these people have lost their minds completely. Or maybe they are just being wilfully disingenuous in their diagnosis of the problem, because to confront the truth would make them too uncomfortable. For the reality is that the rioters, as well as the many decent folk who may have shared the wrongdoers’ sense of grievance but commendably did not resort to violence, did not need Musk or Robinson or the Kremlin or Farage to fuel their anger. They are not unwitting dupes devoid of agency. They are angry for the most part not because of something they happened to read on social media, but because of what they see happening around them every day in their own communities: unregulated immigration, a lack of integration leading to an erosion of cultural cohesion and social solidarity, economic insecurity, and persistent and unchecked crime and anti-social behaviour.
All these tensions would not magically melt away if the liberal authoritarians were successful in achieving their fanatical wish to silence opposition voices. On the contrary, they would simply intensify. Neither would the tensions dissipate if, as seems likely from media reports, the government seeks to introduce amendments to the Online Safety Act with a view to placing further restrictions on the use of social media. It is already, as we have seen from the flurry of convictions post-Southport, illegal to incite violence or law-breaking or ‘hatred’ against particular groups, whether online or by other means. So it is difficult to see what possible scope there is to tighten the law in this area. The fact that the government seems intent on doing so will inevitably raise fears that the real objective is to clamp down on free speech more widely and to censor communications that fall a long way short of incitement or ‘hatred’ and amount to little more than dissenting or unfashionable opinions on contentious topics.
The government is also apparently considering the introduction of an ‘Islamophobia’ law. This really would cross a line, and all those who value freedom of expression would have a duty to resist such a proposal with everything they have. The last thing Britain needs is a de facto (or perhaps even de jure) blasphemy law. It’s one thing outlawing discrimination against Muslims for being Muslims; it’s another thing entirely giving special protection to a whole religion.
At the end of the day, Islam is a belief system – one that happens to make very bold claims for itself and is confident about handing down edicts dictating how human beings should live their lives. Its adherents, just like the followers of any other religious or political ideology, cannot demand that it be ringfenced from scrutiny or criticism (or indeed ridicule). A free society must allow its citizens to attack the beliefs of others, no matter how cherished those beliefs might be.
Indeed, at a time when we ought to be having some brutally honest conversations about the impact of radical Islam on our society – particularly in light of such events as the Manchester and Reading terrorist attacks, the murder of David Amess, and the persecution of the Batley schoolteacher – any attempt to fetter our ability to criticise the religion or its precepts would be indefensible.
As the pungent aroma of the smoke clears from our streets, it has been replaced by the distinct whiff of authoritarianism. We already live in a society in which a web of existing laws is used to stifle the expression of unfashionable and unorthodox opinions, and cancel culture regularly sees livelihoods and reputations destroyed. We must not allow the violence and disorder, appalling though they were, to be used as cover for further restrictions on our freedoms and liberties. For not only would such restrictions be wrong in themselves, but they would do absolutely nothing to ameliorate the resentment that continues to simmer in so many of our communities.
Last week, I appeared as a panellist alongside Conservative peer Shaun Bailey on GB News’s Dewbs & Co. We discussed the riots, the proposal to introduce an ‘Islamophobia’ law, and the lifting of the cap on bankers’ bonuses. The episode can be viewed here.
A reminder that you can follow me on X/Twitter: @PaulEmbery
Thank you Paul for your excellent article. I would like to add also the comments by Neil Basu (an opportunist if ever I have seen one!) about (ab) using the Terrorism Act agaibst those ‘inciting’ the violence. The laws exist already to criminalise and deal with incitement, and this is stretching the definition of terrorism in my view. Terrorism of course carries stronger investigatory powers and periods of detention before charge, as well as carrying much more severe penalties.
No amount of censorship changes reality on the ground, the ‘revered’ lived experience of the voters. To achieve what Labour and the progressive state are wanting will require an Orwellian style police state. What really concerns me is that far from that being viewed as beyond the pale, Labour seem to regard it as their blueprint for government.