Racist rioting in the UK

[Octavious]

After a bit of reading online it's pretty clear that Farage shared online mistruths that suited his preferred narrative without fact checking them. Charitably, that was very careless of him. I think it would also be easy to argue that it was malicious (e.g., would he have looked into the details more carefully if the suspect had been white?).

I don't doubt that this is an honest assessment, but I am curious about what led you to forming it. What mistruths did he share?

I'm also a tad confused by the last sentence. The primary reason that rumours about the suspect spread was that no one had been told anything about him. The colour of the suspect was unknown, and arguably the authorities implied he was white by their first release of information that was limited to saying he was born in Cardiff

[Octavious]

And immigration is a generally a policy preference of the wealthy because it, first and foremost, lines the pockets of those who own property and run businesses that pay low wages. Clearly a segment of the upper class in the West has been active in burying legitimate concerns about immigration in order to keep the inflows coming.

Those people have been in power in the UK for the past 14 years; that's one of the things I'm saying. The UK has been dominated by a wealthy, selfish elite, some of whom benefit from immigrant labour, whilst constantly encouraging a narrative which seeks to blame immigrants for all manner of economic and social problems.

For the past quarter of a century, in fact

[Jamiet99uk]

And immigration is a generally a policy preference of the wealthy because it, first and foremost, lines the pockets of those who own property and run businesses that pay low wages. Clearly a segment of the upper class in the West has been active in burying legitimate concerns about immigration in order to keep the inflows coming.

Those people have been in power in the UK for the past 14 years; that's one of the things I'm saying. The UK has been dominated by a wealthy, selfish elite, some of whom benefit from immigrant labour, whilst constantly encouraging a narrative which seeks to blame immigrants for all manner of economic and social problems.

For the past quarter of a century, in fact

I think that is broadly accurate, yes, actually, if not somewhat longer.

[Jamiet99uk]

Coming back to right-wing agitators and groups (including Nigel Farage and "Tommy" Yaxley-Fuck) deliberately spreading and fuelling lies on social media and other channels of communication, and the significant role this played in inciting the riots, some analysis from the BBC supports what I'm saying about this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cl4y0453nv5o

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Those people have been in power in the UK for the past 14 years; that's one of the things I'm saying. The UK has been dominated by a wealthy, selfish elite, some of whom benefit from immigrant labour, whilst constantly encouraging a narrative which seeks to blame immigrants for all manner of economic and social problems.

My point is that mass immigration in places like the UK, Canada, etc., has caused some real economic and social problems, especially for the working class. Yes, some elites/populists try to focus on or exaggerate these issues when it suits them, but there are real issues nonetheless.

"Any opposition to immigration is far-right biggotry" is yet another elite-serving narrative that squelches what should be a genuine conversation about national values and the disparate consequences of immigration.

I don't doubt that this is an honest assessment, but I am curious about what led you to forming it. What mistruths did he share?

I'm also a tad confused by the last sentence. The primary reason that rumours about the suspect spread was that no one had been told anything about him. The colour of the suspect was unknown, and arguably the authorities implied he was white by their first release of information that was limited to saying he was born in Cardiff

I took a cursory look at articles that quoted Farage as saying "Here were stories online from some very prominent folks with big followings - Andrew Tate etc - suggesting the man had crossed the English Channel in a boat in October 2023. Other suggestions that he was an active Muslim, and much of this led to the riots that we saw." on a TV news show.

Farage says retrospectively that he was merely inquiring about the factual basis of these claims. That really might be true. But are Andrew Tate's suppositions really something to comment on? Why would Farage have mentioned these theories and not others? It doesn't feel like too much of a stretch to say it was at least irresponsible for a politician to publicly air these ideas in the absence of evidence.

[Jamiet99uk]

And now we also have whatever the fuck Elon Musk thinks he's doing.

Ignorant spoiled Space Karen can keep out of it, thanks very much. He's one of the worst people ever.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

And now we also have whatever the fuck Elon Musk thinks he's doing.

Ignorant spoiled Space Karen can keep out of it, thanks very much. He's one of the worst people ever.

Musk is speaking directly to a US audience that perceives double standards in how government treats the speech and protest rights of various groups based on their race and political allegiance. I would say there is at least some truth to this in the US/Canadian context. I have no idea whether the "Two-Tier Kier" claim holds any water in the UK.

[Jamiet99uk]

It is reasonable for authorities to treat different types of speech and protest differently.

"Stop oppressing black people"

is a different category of speech to:

"All Muslims are child molesters, let's burn down the Mosques".

It is correct to treat these types of things in their proper context.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Jamie that boils down to saying "the protests I support are good, the ones I oppose are bad".

Probably no one should be allowed to loot, riot, or use violence to advance a political goal, but occasionally some get a pass.

Most people sympathetic to the anti-immigration movement have positive and pro-social motivations, even if they're misguided.

Every movement has unacceptable fringes, but sometime violent and extreme opinions receive excuses rather than condemnation.

I really don't know whether the claim that there is a double standard in the UK for how some issues/protests are treated is valid. But I sense there is one in Canada and, even when I support the ultimate effect of the double standard, I'm concerned that it's a troubling precedent to set in a liberal society.

[Jamiet99uk]

Jamie that boils down to saying "the protests I support are good, the ones I oppose are bad".

Probably no one should be allowed to loot, riot, or use violence to advance a political goal, but occasionally some get a pass.

Most people sympathetic to the anti-immigration movement have positive and pro-social motivations, even if they're misguided.

Every movement has unacceptable fringes, but sometime violent and extreme opinions receive excuses rather than condemnation.

I really don't know whether the claim that there is a double standard in the UK for how some issues/protests are treated is valid. But I sense there is one in Canada and, even when I support the ultimate effect of the double standard, I'm concerned that it's a troubling precedent to set in a liberal society.

No.

Peaceful protest is not the same as incitement to violence, and is definitely not the same as actually carrying out widespread violence.

With respect, you're not in the UK at the moment and you're not witness to what is occurring.

In the UK over the past week there has been a distinct absence of peaceful protest by the far right, and an abundance of actual violence, rioting, looting, smashing up Mosques, attempts to set buildings on fire where non-white people were believed to be inside (which is attempted murder), businesses owned by non-white people being set on fire.

This isn't a free speech issue.

[Jamiet99uk]

A "liberal society" can't tolerate the existence of Fascists and Neo-Nazis.

[Jamiet99uk]

(Or old-fashioned Retro Nazis either)

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

In the UK over the past week there has been a distinct absence of peaceful protest by the far right, and an abundance of actual violence, rioting, looting, smashing up Mosques, attempts to set buildings on fire where non-white people were believed to be inside (which is attempted murder), businesses owned by non-white people being set on fire.

This isn't a free speech issue.

I don't doubt this is true, but this description could also characterize some of BLM protests in the US over the past couple years, which many people did explain away as a legitimate airing of racial grievance (e.g., NPR infamously defending looting as a tool to achieve racial equality).

Whether there is a double standard in the UK case would depend on if there are similar instance of extremist rhetoric and violence from other groups that received less attention or relatively lighter law enforcement. I wonder what someone from the UK who were sympathetic to this view might point to, if anything?

My preference is that no group be given a pass to use violence and property destruction to advance their cause.

A "liberal society" can't tolerate the existence of Fascists and Neo-Nazis.

I actually think it has to, otherwise the ever-expanding definition of "Fascist" becomes a tool to police the boundaries of speech, thought, and action.

A liberal society really should tolerate abhorrent, mean, and wrong ideas, because the whole liberal project is predicated on the idea that no one can say for sure which ideas are 100% wrong. But the only way this works is if there is a credible and ideologically-neutral firewall between ideas and violence, which has obviously broken down in this case.

[Jamiet99uk]

You think a liberal society should tolerate someone standing in a public square using a megaphone to shout "we should round up the Jews and gas them all".

You think that, yes? Just checking.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You think a liberal society should tolerate someone standing in a public square using a megaphone to shout "we should round up the Jews and gas them all".

You think that, yes? Just checking.

If they're outside a synagogue or some prominent Jewish person's house, then no, that's just a straight-up incitement to violence.

If they're outside a parliament building holding a disgusting sign, then yes, that's a terrible idea that should be allowed to be aired.

We can't treat people like morons who just believe whatever they read on a sign. It's not actually effective to declare certain ideas verboten anyhow. It's useful for us to be reminded of these bad ideas so we can debate them and reaffirm the many reasons why genocide is a bad idea. When these sorts of Nazi protests happen in Canada the counter protests are 10x as large - it's healthy to remind these dummies that their views aren't popular and don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Jamiet99uk]

You think a liberal society should tolerate someone standing in a public square using a megaphone to shout "we should round up the Jews and gas them all".

You think that, yes? Just checking.

If they're outside a synagogue or some prominent Jewish person's house, then no, that's just a straight-up incitement to violence.

If they're outside a parliament building holding a disgusting sign, then yes, that's a terrible idea that should be allowed to be aired.

What if there is a synagogue, right next door to the parliament building?

What if some of the Members of Parliament entering and leaving the building are Jewish?

How many metres away from a synagogue do I have to stand, for it to be okay in a liberal society for me to advocate that Jews should be killed?

[CaptainFritz28]

A "liberal society" can't tolerate the existence of Fascists and Neo-Nazis.

Y'know I find it really interesting how this is the exact excuse Putin used to "justify" invading Ukraine.

[Jamiet99uk]

A "liberal society" can't tolerate the existence of Fascists and Neo-Nazis.

Y'know I find it really interesting how this is the exact excuse Putin used to "justify" invading Ukraine.

Russia is not a liberal society.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

What if there is a synagogue, right next door to the parliament building?

What if some of the Members of Parliament entering and leaving the building are Jewish?

How many metres away from a synagogue do I have to stand, for it to be okay in a liberal society for me to advocate that Jews should be killed?

In Canada this type of speech would probably be illegal no matter where it happened. In the States, it would fall to a court to determine whether the speech could reasonably be thought to incite violence. I prefer the US approach, since it doesn't make the state the arbiter of what speech is legitimate.

There was a recent debate in Canada about whether to punish Holocaust denial. I'm glad we didn't - people are going to deny the holocaust anyhow, much better that we air their views in the open and provide a robust public response to their false claims.

[CaptainFritz28]

A "liberal society" can't tolerate the existence of Fascists and Neo-Nazis.

Y'know I find it really interesting how this is the exact excuse Putin used to "justify" invading Ukraine.

Russia is not a liberal society.

I don't see how that changes anything. They believe that to preserve their form of government, they must rid the world of Nazis and Fascists. So if their neighbors won't do it in their countries, then Russia must do it for them.

No, Jamie. Extermination (which is what "not tolerating the existence of" means) is not the proper way to go about political discussion. In fact, if I recall correctly, this was the very same approach Hitler used, and is a tool not of the free but of dictators.