The elephant in the room is literally stepping on British journalists’ toes after the tragic death of Conservative MP David Amess, yet they are still refusing to acknowledge its presence in order to avoid their duty to reflect on the root causes that led to the latest in a long line of terrorist incidents in their country. Muted comment sections in online news portals, highly censored reader comments, headlines about democratic values and right-wing radicalism, all point in one direction: another tragedy that directly contradicts the multiculturalist mantra peddled by politicians and their loyal media wingmen.
The murder of the popular MP has been widely discussed in a variety of British media outlets, but the country’s undoubtedly smart and well-informed media analysts seem to be deliberately channeling the discussion away from an honest confrontation with the causes and context that led to the murder of the English politician. There are no voices questioning the concept of multiculturalism that by now has reached a dogma-like status, and there are no doubts being raised about Britain’s broken society, its open borders, its absurdly lenient asylum system, or the society’s collective inability to confront Islam as a political and social phenomenon.
Instead, journalists are repeating absurdities from their incompetent politicians who are purposefully diverting the discussion from the glaringly obvious topics listed above in order to avoid the responsibility to make difficult, or God forbid, unpopular political decisions.
A perfect example of this attitude was the recent statement by British Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab, who complained about the abuse that politicians receive online. He claimed that the nature of the criticism directed towards MPs is “out of control.” That this is a complete obfuscation must be clear to anyone familiar with the motifs and goals of political Islam. The attack has clearly nothing whatsoever to do with the online vitriol directed towards politicians — the two phenomena are completely unrelated. However unappealing some commenters’ views may sometimes be regarding online debates, it still constitutes a part of the contemporary democratic dialogue among those who take part in the political process. Islamist extremists, on the other hand, seek to prevent this dialogue from happening, and want to achieve this with instilling fear and terror in the wider public. Even Dominic Raab must be aware that online trolling and strong language has very little to do with terrorism.
Even the Home Secretary Priti Patel, who is generally the most outspoken member of the British government on issues of immigration, has completely sidetracked the discussion by complaining about the amount of online abuse that MPs receive.
“We cannot carry on like this,” she protested. Unfortunately the prospects are such that not only MPs but the rest of British society will have to carry on like this unless the entire discussion starts focusing on the issue of importing terror and parallel societies into the heart of Britain. At the same time, politicians must start targeting those cultures that want to stifle free speech in the name of barbaric religious beliefs instead of the current UK model of putting more stringent restrictions on free speech.
The British press has not stopped at disassociating the endemic spread of radical Islam in British society from the heinous crime of the British-Somali terrorist. According to media reports, the father of the perpetrator also spoke to the press, expressing his shock over his son’s actions. Instead of questioning the terrorist’s religious and cultural upbringing, the conservative Daily Telegraph went on publishing a heart-wrenching story about the father of the killer, who was allegedly also a victim of Islamist threats in the past. The former Somali government official was previously, according to the report, also threatened by the extremists of al-Shabaab. Although legal responsibility for the criminal act can only be ascribed to the perpetrator alone, if asking the killer’s father as to why he thinks his son was so susceptible to extremist views, then the British press should at least spare itself the effort of turning the man — who was responsible for brining up an Islamist murderer — into a martyr.
To add insult to injury, the London office of the French news agency AFP released a wholly inappropriate report in which Sir David Amess is described as “right wing.” The article written by Jitendra Joshi uses the politically polarized label if, perhaps not to justify, but at least to explain the possible motivations behind the attacks on the English politician.
The term “right-wing” is, in the common political discourse, dominating Western media as an “off-center” position that naturally attracts opposition, criticism, and perhaps even justifiable violence — although that is almost never explicitly said out loud. Yes, Sir David Amess was a pro-Israel campaigner, fought anti-Semitism, was an Euroskeptic, and raised his voice against LGBTQ propaganda. However, many such views are perfectly in line with democratic sentiments. Should they earn him the dubious moniker of “right wing?”
There is a clear motive to pigeonhole the murdered politician with the right-wing label to create a quiet acceptance of the attack, allowing the seeds of “one led to the other” causality to be sown in the minds of the readers who will be spared of the outrage regarding how absurd, evil and unjustifiable an ideology is spreading like wildfire in their societies. It is imperative that these readers do not question why politicians are not promising us an uncompromising crack down on mosques where views that lead Muslims to kill are spread on a daily basis, and should not ask why social media tech giants, which are known to delete the most mundane patriotic or nationalistic posts, are not compelled to stop publishing radical Islamist posts that appear on their pages in their thousands.