On Southport: why censorship is the enemy

The tinderbox atmosphere of the UK won't be eased by further repression of open debate, writes Claire Fox

Like the nation, I felt physically sick and repulsed as news emerged of the butchery of children in Southport on Monday - and outraged at the riot the following day.

The sheer contrast of the innocence of little girls enjoying a Taylor Swift-themed dance club at the start of a sunny summer holiday with the malevolence of a young adult brutally robbing three girls of their lives and injuring more was deeply upsetting. For many people, the shock of it gave way to both despondency and pure rage. How could this happen in the UK in 2024? And yet, it somehow seemed less of a shock in the context where many feel that lawlessness is becoming the norm - that the police, politicians and mainstream commentators seem either indifferent to society spiralling out of control or are powerless to prevent it.

Worse, attempts at a frank discussion about what is going wrong are regularly muted by labelling people’s raw responses of fury and frustration as some variant of extremist bigotry or by accusing them of stoking up those infamous culture wars. So, the particularly harrowing aspect of children being the target of such extreme violence has acted as a lightning rod for all sorts of pent-up fears and fury; an understandable refusal to calm down, be dignified, not to worry our pretty little heads while those in charge sort it out with their platitudes and new repressive laws.

The subsequent malevolent and destructive riot in Southport has muddied the situation further. Most of us looked for some consoling sense of hope in the aftermath of the tragedy, such as the awe-inspiring bravery of ordinary passers-by and those heroic dance teachers defending their pupils (so well captured by Fraser Myers here), or the community coming together in an act of poignant solidarity at a thousands-strong vigil on Tuesday evening.

But then, I started to notice some bad faith actors circulating ugly rumours about the 17-year-old perpetrator being a Muslim asylum seeker (with no evidence whatsoever) alongside calls for vengeance at what was called a ‘protest’ at a local mosque. We then all witnessed the chaotic scenes of brick throwing, car-burning, police-under-siege chaos. Those same seaside town streets lived in by a community still trying to process an act of savagery were trashed by yobs who seemed to be revelling in the occasion, rather than expressing the nation’s anger. 

But yes, I know, it’s more complicated than that. So here are a few examples of the double standards that make this issue tricky.

On policing: When the recent Harehills riot occurred in Leeds, there was justifiable public outrage that the police seemed to retreat from the scene. Too often, when disorder is taking place - from Just Stop Oil’s anti-social destruction of property to the rampant anti-Semitism on many pro-Gaza demos, from mass shoplifting to the grooming gangs’ scandal, from normalised machete fights to increased sexual assaults - the police appear to look away. But for once, in Southport, the police heroically charged at danger to apprehend the knifeman and rightly aimed to control a volatile riot. Despite this, the response from too many has been to cheer on as officers were injured and the target of violence. How can that help restore order?

On controlling our streets: The queues of politicians lining up to condemn the Southport riot compares poorly with more mealy-mouthed reactions to the equally nihilistic and violent Harehills riot in Leeds. The full force of the law needs to be equally applied but rarely is. What’s more, in my contribution in the Lords to the King’s Speech on criminal justice - labelled by Keir Starmer as Labour’s ‘Take Back Control of our Streets’ policy - I was the sole voice to speak on events in Leeds. I was also one of a small few to raise the frightening levels of violent, abusive, misogynistic, anti-Semitic intimidation faced by some candidates in the general election from organised gangs of Gaza activists and Islamists.

Government ministers didn’t even bother to reply. So, when Angela Rayner proclaims that ‘thuggish behaviour’ has ‘absolutely no place in our democracy’ after violent scenes in the Merseyside town, we might ask why some thuggish behaviour matters more than others. 

On identity politics: There is seething public resentment about the fact that identitarians regularly deploy skin colour and ethnicity to demonise the majority of UK citizens for their ‘white privilege’, divisively pitted against minority ‘victims’ who need special protection. But for a few white nationalists to exploit the horrors of Southport for their own opportunistic power grab is just as sordid and grubby, and benefits no one.

On speech: Identity politics is one effective way that those in charge fence off open debate on everything from immigration to the growing hold of radical, politicised Islamism. And as it’s become fashionable to promiscuously demonise opponents as far-right hate mongers - from gender-critical feminists to free-speech supporting academics - any meaningful discussion of real bigotry becomes muted and muddled. And as a minority opportunistically leap on the Southport tragedy to push a racialised agenda that targets people for no other reason than their ethnicity, we need to be free to call this out publicly with no apology. However, it is equally true that when the public are told you can’t say that, or ask that, because it may offend a particular identity group, it results in millions feeling frustrated that issues are brushed under the carpet.

It should be acceptable to ask if undocumented young men arriving on small boats present a threat; to raise worries about immigrant communities that seem unwilling to integrate into British society; to query if there is a relationship between Islamists pledging support for Hamas and Islam as a religion. All these are legitimate questions, and should be the subject of open debate. For the authorities to try and close down discussion is a disaster.

On gaslighting: Indeed, the public are constantly ‘gaslit’ by authorities, told to ignore the evidence of our own eyes. There’s ‘nothing to see here’. Those who wanted to be righteously angry about the Manchester Arena bombing or the murder of Sir David Amess MP are told to repress public outrage and mourn quietly. Those who asked about the brutal slaying of a Hartlepool pensioner or the contradictory accounts of recent events at Manchester Airport are told to shush and calm down. And if you dare worry about terrorism when a soldier is knifed in broad daylight, you are treated as some sort of threat to civil order for raising your concerns. Yet, in reality, there has been a collapse of civility and order in society and official attempts at controlling information about such incidents creates suspicion and a further breakdown of trust.

On repression: Forcing difficult issues out of the public square to bubble under the surface only allows them to fester. People end up retreating down conspiratorial ‘rabbit holes’, until eventually they erupt in an unruly and unholy manner, as we are witnessing this week. And yet, silencing, gaslighting and repression are the only political weapons the political elite feels at home with. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is said to ‘be looking at’ whether the English Defence League (EDL) should be proscribed under terrorism laws following the riot, while cabinet ministers and their Antifa cheerleaders are falling over themselves to call for the strengthening of the Online Safety Act, with greater clampdowns on disinformation online following false reports about the perpetrator’s identity.

That the only solutions to the horrifying events in Southport are more bans and censorship is more likely to fuel new depths of anger and resentment - far more than any hard-right memes. It will also give far more glamour and credit to the decrepit EDL by pretending it is they – and only they – who are responsible for the febrile mood of betrayal felt by millions, let down by the Westminster bubble, regardless of which party is in power. As I write this on Wednesday evening, crowds are gathering at Downing Street and Hartlepool as copycat skirmishes break out.

These are serious times, and it can be challenging to discuss difficult issues with so much at stake. Nuance and context can easily get lost in the noise. But we must persevere. Discussing events in Southport with Mike Graham and Tim Montgomerie on Talk TV on Wednesday, I felt I was walking on eggshells, wary of misspeaking. Sure enough, I was labelled from all sides as ‘centrist mum’ and ‘controlled opposition’ by the ‘deport them all’ side; ‘far-right, racist enabler’ by the ‘multiculturalism is sacrosanct’ brigade. But we need to have these conversations, and thrash them out frankly, to pursue thinking out loud, to try and avoid simplistic sloganeering and screaming at each other. We need to dig deeper than headlines or tweets. We will aim to do so at the Battle of Ideas festival, which we are programming now. Below are just a few articles that are insightful at unravelling a fast-moving mood, with decades of deep, tangled roots. 

• Fraser Myers, In praise of Southport’s heroes, spiked, 30 July 2024

• Brendan O’Neill, Condemning the Southport riot is not enough, Spectator, 31 July 2024

• Ben Sixsmith, Southport and the inescapability of politics, Critic, 31 July, 2024

• Tom Slater, Southport and the deadly cowardice of the elites, spiked, 31 July 2024

• Rakib Ehsan, Southport attack has been exploited by conspiracists, UnHerd, 31 July 2024