Britain must be honest – political violence is normal here too
Within minutes of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the political analysis was already under way. What did this mean for the presidential election? What was the political motivation of the shooter? Is the problem America’s permissive gun rights, or its toxic political culture? And who is to blame for that culture?
In Britain, we watch the US with a mixture of familiarity and detachment. The dominance of American culture, our shared language, and the saturation coverage of US politics mean we are well versed in the cut and thrust of the presidential campaign. But America’s differences – in particular its polarisation, its obsession over policy issues with little resonance here, and its history of political violence – mean we see it as a strange environment compared with our own.
In many senses we are right to do so. While American power matters to the collective security of the West and the viability of international trade, some need reminding that Britain is not the United States. We have different problems and challenges, different histories, and different political divides. The import of US-manufactured critical race theory and radical gender ideology has been utterly toxic for British public life.
And yet political hatred is a growing problem in Britain too. It may derive from different sources and focus on different issues – gun laws and abortion rights, for example, are matters of consensus here – but political hatred, and the violence that sometimes follows, is undeniably present. Jo Cox was murdered by a far-Right extremist in 2016. Sir David Amess was murdered by an Islamist in 2021. Other MPs have been stabbed in surgery meetings. In private, most politicians have stories about stalkers, intimidation and abuse, and threats of violence made against them.
Beneath the headlines of the general election, there were many alarming examples of this kind of behaviour. In Cornwall, a Reform candidate was punched and kicked as he was assaulted. In London, Rushanara Ali, the Labour MP for Bethnal Green and Stepney, needed police protection during the campaign after she received death threats over her failure to vote for a ceasefire in Gaza.
In Birmingham, Labour MPs Shabana Mahmood, Jess Phillips and Khalid Mahmood – who lost his seat – have described how they were intimidated and threatened by activists campaigning for anti-Israel candidates. In Leicester, Jonathan Ashworth lost his seat to the anti-Israel independent MP, Shockat Adam. During the campaign, Ashworth was filmed as he was harassed on the streets by activists including Majid Freeman, a notorious Islamist now charged by the police for encouraging terrorism and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Adam is a former local chairman of the activist organisation MEND, or Muslim Engagement and Development, one of the organisations behind the campaign for an official definition of “Islamophobia”. Concerns have been aired that this campaign – once supported by Labour – is an attempt to help Islamists to define normative Islam in line with their own ideology, and shut down any criticism of Islam or Islamism as hate speech.
MEND has long been a source of worry for the policy and security services. Mak Chishty, a former Met commander, says we must confront it, or “risk having our safety and security threatened”. According to Sir Mark Rowley, now Met Commissioner, MEND seeks “to undermine the state’s considerable efforts to tackle all hate crime”. Privately, even Yvette Cooper insists Labour has a policy of non-engagement with the organisation.
And yet what is our response to these threats? When Nigel Farage had a milkshake thrown over him by a protester, high-minded Left-wing writers for The Guardian chose to laugh. When Islamists threatened MPs earlier this year ahead of a debate about Gaza, Parliament tore up the rule book to allow a Labour amendment. The rule change got Keir Starmer off the political hook – but at least part of the reason was concern about the safety of MPs deemed by the mob to have voted the wrong way.
In other words, it was an act of surrender, and it is hardly the only example. Several schools in different British cities have been subjected to threats and intimidation – often leading to police officers being called to attend or even station themselves on-site – by activists angry about curriculum content deemed un-Islamic or prohibitions on political symbols and public prayer. In each case, local politicians have been conspicuous by their silence. The fate of the Batley teacher – in hiding after showing students a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad during a lesson about blasphemy – seems to have been forgotten.
It is understandable that many politicians are afraid.
MPs now need panic alarms, designated police officers responsible for their safety, and expert advice on securing their own homes, offices, and venues for surgery meetings. Many will think twice – especially with this new wave of political intimidation and sectarian special-interest voting – before taking on the so-called community leaders and activist groups that claim to speak for thousands of constituents. But if we are to avoid a descent into further political violence in Britain, it must be done.
Too often, we have retreated into the safety of other topics to debate, or taken solace in the platitudes of generalities, rather than confront the reality of the danger. When David Amess was murdered, Parliament preferred to discuss the civility of debates online rather than the Islamist ideology that spurred on his killer.
Following the shooting at the Trump rally this weekend, the Prime Minister rightly declared that “political violence in any form has no places in our societies”. Yet even as he spoke, his own MPs and candidates were describing their experience of political violence and intimidation from our own general election. What does Starmer have to say about this threat, and what does he plan to do about the motives and actions of those behaving in this way?
Too often, the response has been to avoid facing reality, to appease those we should confront, and sometimes even to co-opt and play up to those who want to bully others until they get their way. We need to be more honest about the society and democracy we have become.