There is some good news following the riots on British streets. Most Britons are united against the minority of racist thugs in the country. Rioters are going to jail. There is also bad news. For too long the UK has tolerated those in positions of influence who try to divide its citizens. A few prominent political activists dress up in smart suits and preach sermons of division. They deflect criticism by claiming “free speech” and a “fair commentary” on the “woke agenda”, whatever that is.
The former UK prime minister Boris Johnson takes a slightly different tack. He’s enormously privileged, educated at Eton and Oxford and when criticised for offensive remarks he suggests it’s just a bit of humour. The insinuation is that you and I must be humourless not to understand the fun. But the former prime minister’s comments are no laughing matter.
In 2002, the respected Spectator magazine published Mr Johnson’s thoughts on Africa: "The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we (the British) were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more… The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.”
Guilty? Of what? The slave trade, perhaps? The brutal exploitation of a continent’s resources and labour? Mr Johnson does not say, but his mindset is that of those who spoke of “the white man’s burden”. What’s astonishing is that a well-regarded British magazine published in 2002 a commentary delivered in the mindset of 1902.
Mr Johnson also wrote of then prime minister Tony Blair’s visit to Africa: “No doubt the AK47s will fall silent... and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird.”
There have been other examples of Mr Johnson’s comments in a similar supposedly “humorous” style criticised as deeply offensive, but he wasn’t shunned. After all, he became foreign secretary and then prime minister. Nowadays, he has a column in a popular tabloid newspaper. But unfortunately Mr Johnson and some others in politics and the media give a pseudo-intellectual gloss to resentment, division and discord. They influence some less educated and less well-off citizens to mourn the loss of a mis-remembered British empire.
At its heart, there is a sense of superiority towards people of colour and other minorities. Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform Party and now an MP, is frequently on television and radio. Like Mr Johnson, he also had a highly privileged upbringing. But his comments during the past few weeks have led some newspaper columnists and others to describe our street disturbances as “Farage riots.” He dislikes the term, but even back in the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign, Mr Farage played up the idea that long queues of non-European migrants were waiting to enter a failing Britain under the slogan “Breaking Point.”
More recently Mr Farage and his colleagues parrot a phrase from the far right that Britain has “two tier policing”. It suggests one tier of soft policing on people of colour; the other, a harsh policing on “ordinary” English folk. What Britain certainly does have is two-tier politics.
One tier is that of the vast majority of British politicians, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish Nationalist, and others. They are mostly tolerant, decent leaders who want to promote harmony in communities. But the second tier is made up of those politicians who see an opportunity to exploit divisions in society. At their worst they are verbal incendiarists who express surprise when their sparks cause a fire.
Elon Musk on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, goes so far as to claim Britain and western Europe are on the edge of “civil war.” Mr Musk’s crystal ball may be faulty. But concerns that hate speech is tolerated on X have led to demands for new regulation. This is a difficult area.
It’s true that one spark behind the British riots was the promotion on social media of claims that the alleged killer of three young girls at a dance class in Southport was a Muslim. The fact is that the person charged with these horrible crimes is not Muslim. But social media proved a powerful way of spreading such inflammatory lies and disinformation – even though had the suspect been a Muslim, that should not be an excuse for riots.
There are also investigations as to whether malicious foreign actors are trying to de-stabilise British and other societies by creating or spreading damaging rumours. While these difficult areas are investigated, perhaps citizens need to take some responsibility too.
People can start by rejecting well-educated voices who see opportunities in division, and being suspicious of some of the siren voices on social media. Regulation may be possible in the long term, but that is dealing with the spark. A much more significant problem is those prominent public figures who add fuel the fire.
