I posted this YouTube video this morning. In it I argue that the government is cracking down on those they call extremists, who seem to me and, I suspect, most people, to be those holding exceedingly normal opinions. Woe beside nature lovers, democrats and those concerned about poverty, let alone anyone not a neoliberal. So, is Rishi Sunak the extremist in reality, because I certainly don't feel that I am?
The transcript is:
Rishi Sunak is trying to redefine extremism in the UK, and that's extremely dangerous.
It's particularly dangerous in the context of a new report that has been produced by someone called Lord Walney, who used to be the Labour MP John Woodcock, but frankly he was one of those who pioneered the move of Labour towards the right wing, and he's now well and truly on the right of the Conservative Party as far as I can work out.
And what it seems that Rishi Sunak plus Lord Walney are trying to do together is to redefine those who are considered enemies of the state. They are the people who, according to Lord Walney, might lose the right to protest because they're trying to undermine democracy.
But let's just look at the list that Rishi Sunak used of those who he thinks are extremists.
They're leftists. In other words, anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Environmentalists. That's vast numbers of people in the UK, who are members of things like the National Trust.
Pacifists. I'm a Quaker, so unsurprisingly, I fall into that category.
Migrants.
Peaceful protesters. Peaceful protesters, I stress.
Democrats.
People who believe in the rule of law. That's very threatening.
The supporters of human rights, even though, of course, we, the UK, were one of the founding signatories to the UN Declaration of Human Rights and created the European Court of Human Rights.
And, let's be clear about this - nationalists, whether they be Scottish, Welsh, or Irish,
All are extremists.
So, look, this is pretty significant for some people. I notice that I happen to tick all those boxes to some degree or other. But am I an extremist? Well, of course I'm not. Not in any shape or form.
I believe all people are born equal.
Discrimination is abhorrent in all its forms.
We all have equal rights to partake in society and ask as a result that society should have a bias towards the poor, the disadvantaged and the oppressed. I
believe we should all have a say in the societies of which we are a part. That, after all, is what being a democrat means.
And I think that no state has the right to demand the subjugation of another to its will, which is why I support many nationalist causes.
So, am I an extremist for subscribing to all those beliefs, or am I simply someone who holding beliefs that are pretty close to the teaching of, well, the Christian church and pretty much every other faith, as well as all the major western and other wisdom traditions, let alone virtually all moral philosophy?
So, the question is, is Sunak right? Or is he peddling a corrupt form of politics designed to
- favour the rich,
- deny opportunity to those who are disadvantaged,
- encourage inequality,
- promote intolerance and discrimination,
- undermine democracy, and
- oppress Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, let alone any other country in the world that he cares to take offence about.
My answer is he's promoting toxicity to deny people like me our freedom to express our opinions as we wish.
Now, that's an action that, to me, that is quite clearly contrary to the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
And in an era of growing political tension, he must know that this could lead to abuse. And I mean, both obvious online and verbal abuse, but even physical abuse as tensions rise.
So, what is he up to? Is this fascism? Because that's what it feels like by denying the right of everyone who opposes him to believe anything and be labelled as anything but an extremist.
\And there's another question that follows on from that, which is why isn't Labour roundly condemning this?
I genuinely don't know the answers to these questions, but what I do know is that they need to be asked, and I do know that human rights have to be stood up for, because they've been hard won. And they could be easily lost. And the cost to us all as a consequence of that will be enormous.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“First they came for the socialists”, so goes Martin Niemöller’s poem.
And socialism is on the government’s extremism list.
Famous socialists include: Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1945–1951): he was the one that founded the welfare state and the NHS. Not surprising that he is often ranked as one of the greatest British prime ministers.
Sources
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists
The Guardian: Socialism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion on Prevent extremism list
https://www.preventwatch.org/socialism-anti-fascism-anti-abortion-on-prevent-extremism-list/
Rishi Sunak isn’t a British Nationalist? The only substantive evidence for that is his other home in California. So, maybe not a British Nationalist; maybe just a Mercenary Nationalist.
Are you asking the right question by focusing on Sunak?
Plenty of your other blogs (and the BTLs with them) suggest that Sunak is a cipher/placeman, like Starmer he is “owned”. Which leaves the open question – by whom?
Who sets the agenda, he spouts nonesense, but I am sure he believes in none of it (thus who puts the words into his mouth?). At whom are his words on extremism aimed?
The Just Stop OIl people obviously make the oil & gas mob deeply unhappy – so no surprise there (crusty terrorists all of ’em!!)
The environmentalists & clean up the riviers & seas will also upset the money men – who own the water and sewage system (one turd or two with your tea madam?)
Scotland & independence – where do our nuke subs go? (& what happens to our low flying places?) one can see how the defense people would be unhappy
Schools? – privatisation is well underway – can’t stop that now can we?
& so on & so forth.
Over the past 40 years an increasingly private infrastructure has developed aimed at extracting the max amount of money from UK serfs.
It is the people behind this that put words into whoever is their man or woman of the moment.
Extremists? Well that would be Clem Attlee, most tory govs 1950 through to early 60s, certainly the Labour mob 60s – 79.
How to attack the neo-liberal narrative?
“serfs”. I visit England maybe a couple of times a week, staying in a campsite and walking or cycling. It struck me, seeing all the absurd signs about “permissive paths” “no Cycling” “the moor is closed for 3 months for grouse shooting” “No dogs allowed on…” and of course an infestation of “No public access” “Private land”. Scotland is different and England is certainly very different regards Access rights.
It’s still feudal trending towards outright fascism in its politics. The feudal overlords are still some of the old aristocracy who own thousands of acres, but joined by “new” money, much of it possibly foreign, and its latter group, whoever they are, who seem to be controlling the discourse.
But I’m not sure Sunak, Starmer & co are actually taking orders, it’s more likely that (as Chomsky pointed out to Marr some years ago) they wouldn’t be sitting where they are if they didn’t know what was expected of them.
Sadly, despite the 2003 Land Reform Act, the power of large landowners in Scotland is undimmed.
The SNP has done very little of substance on land reform, and the Greens lost their expert Andy Wightman, in the gender politics cul de sac.
Even an erstwhile UKIP economics prof and leading light has large subsidies from forestry on his estate.
Absentee landownership even seems to be increasing
I suspect most people who read your blog would also be on that list, Richard. I certainly am and would have been since about the age of 18, so more than likely would have ended up on the wrong side of the law had this definition of extremism been accepted at that time. So would an awful lot of my friends, particularly in the Thatcher years. But then, even Thatcher – that great ‘god’ of modern day Tories like Sunak – wouldn’t have been fascist enough to adopt this kind of anti democratic tripe. And that’s saying something.
and today Ireland recognised Palestine.
So are Norway and Spain, NATO allies of the US.
They are doing the right thing. It is moral leadership.
Funny old business isnt it
We have very little political violence in the UK, and terrorism in mainland UK is signiticantly less than during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
Yet the one thing that Prevent doesnt go anywhere near is the so called ‘School to Prison Pipeline’
Oh and I am about 2.5 times more likley to die on the roads that be murdered, or 5 times more likley to be killed as a pedestrian on the pavement by a vehicle than die in a terrorist attack but at the moment we are getting (insert profanity meaning nothing) on road safety
“(insert profanity meaning nothing)”
Jack Schitt! LOL!
The Accidental Death of ‘anyone who disagree’s with the regime’ has long been a tactic of authoritarians like Putin, and any number of tyrants.
Sad that is the slope upon which we are sliding.
Prevent ? ….. any form of debate or dissent.
[…] By Richard Murphy, part-time Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School, director of the Corporate Accountability Network, member of Finance for the Future LLP, and director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Fund the Future. […]