logo
Before telling scare stories about migrants, the UK far right should look in the mirror

Before telling scare stories about migrants, the UK far right should look in the mirror

The National18 hours ago
Rupert Lowe was elected last year to be a Member of Parliament for Nigel Farage's Reform UK party representing Great Yarmouth. He has been suspended from Reform after a row but remains an independent MP.
Mr Lowe recently posted on X a picture of a small boat with the claim: 'Dinghies coming into Great Yarmouth, RIGHT NOW.' It suggested that illegal migrants – one of Mr Lowe's hot-button issues – were landing on the Norfolk coast. Very unlikely. Norfolk is a long way from France. Small boats of migrants almost always end up in Kent, which is more than 150 kilometres away.
The 'dinghies' turned out to be one boat containing four British rowers raising money for charity. Mr Lowe apologised for his error. Beyond an excitable MP imagining illegal migrants the way children imagine ghosts, scare stories about migrants are part of British politics right now.
Accommodation for migrants awaiting official processing is dotted around England. Anti-migrant protesters, some from far-right and neo-fascist groups and stirred up by social media posts, often turn up at migrant hotels. They can be intimidating, pretending to 'protect' British values while aggressively undermining the core British value of a peaceful and tolerant society. Unfortunately, these far-right delusional folk waste police time and smother a legitimate migration debate under their threats of violence.
The real issue is clear. Undocumented migrants pay criminal gangs based in France to take them to Kent beaches on small boats. It's a dangerous trade that must be stopped as a political priority. A country not in control of its borders cannot be a happy place.
Riots last summer were a reminder that the far right in the UK has a long history but one endless narrative – that British people are somehow 'victims' of foreign migrants. In the 1930s, it was Oswald Mosley 's violently anti-Semitic Blackshirts. In the 1960s, the Conservative MP Enoch Powell prophesied 'rivers of blood' caused by migration, especially from the Caribbean and South Asia.
In the 2020s, far-right activists are often Islamophobic and insist that they 'want their country back'. Presumably it's code for an imaginary past without migrants, but when was that? It must be before the Romans, Saxons, Normans, Huguenots and all the others who over centuries arrived and made Britain … well, Britain.
Our immigration debate now is important and necessary. In seeking clues about the type of people who use migration as an excuse for stirring up violence, one part of the UK – Northern Ireland – offers a clue.
Anti-immigrant race riots took place in Belfast in August last year. The Belfast Telegraph newspaper reported that researchers found 'almost half of those arrested for race hate disorder in Belfast last August had previously been reported to the PSNI [short for Police Service Northern Ireland] for domestic abuse'.
Anti-migrant demonstrations are often stirred up by claims that immigrant men are molesting British women. Yet the Northern Ireland research suggests that almost half the anti-migrant demonstrators arrested in Belfast were themselves men reported to police for abuse in their own homes, presumably towards their wives or partners.
Of course, we cannot directly extrapolate from that research to the rest of the UK. Those who turn up at English migrant hotels to cause trouble could be church-going choirboys, although I doubt it.
Britain has a celebrity anti-migrant demonstrator. He is a convicted criminal called Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and he hides behind the false name of Tommy Robinson. Yaxley-Lennon has been convicted of assault, using a fake passport, mortgage fraud and contempt of court. Currently he is on police bail after being arrested over an alleged assault at a London railway station. Filmed footage appears to show a man lying on the ground with Yaxley-Lennon shouting in the background, although the circumstances are unclear.
It is clear that a legitimate migration debate needs reason and wisdom. In Britain, that debate is clouded by threats of disorder and by some politicians and others jumping on public fears.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his government have three areas on which to act: first, stop the small boats. The latest agreement with France means anyone arriving in the UK on an illegal sea crossing will be deported. The UK in return will accept the same number of legal migrants from France, a policy called 'One In, One Out'.
Second, police have to respond forcibly to far-right thugs. The thugs and their leaders light the powder keg of violence and then step back to watch the explosion.
Third, MPs should do that most difficult of political jobs – think clearly. Mr Lowe presumably will be more thoughtful in future about his social media posts, but people on the right of British politics who boast endlessly about their supposed patriotism might prove more patriotic if they ended their constant slurs that Britain is a failed country. Britain is flawed but not failed.
Moreover, some far-right supposed 'patriots' are merely echoes of the 1930s and 1960s. They see immigration not as a problem to be solved but as a political opportunity to be exploited to gain power through fear. Their aim is the most unpatriotic of all – to divide and dis-unite the United Kingdom. They failed before. They need to fail again.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘I felt useless and needed to do something': UK MP on letter that triggered Palestine recognition move
‘I felt useless and needed to do something': UK MP on letter that triggered Palestine recognition move

The National

time13 hours ago

  • The National

‘I felt useless and needed to do something': UK MP on letter that triggered Palestine recognition move

A call from a friend in Gaza to an influential Labour MP was instrumental in Britain's historic move towards recognising the Palestinian state, she has told The National. Just days before the UK government announced its first steps in recognising the state, Sarah Champion received a phone call from a friend who told the politician that after months of struggling to find food in Gaza 'my family are just waiting to die', and everyone they knew felt the same. 'To lose hope is a horrific thing, I felt useless and knew I needed to do something to try and restore it,' Ms Champion told The National. The next steps she took were to have a decisive impact on Britain recognising Palestine as a sovereign nation and influencing President Donald Trump's view that starvation was genuine in Gaza. Had to act quickly The call taken by Ms Champion, chairwoman of Parliament's international development committee, was on Wednesday, July 23. The situation in Gaza was visibly deteriorating, with pictures of starving children shared on social media. There was a growing consensus to rein in Israel's actions, she felt, including its plans to further annex occupied West Bank territories. With parliament heading into summer recess Ms Champion had to act quickly if she was to maximise pressure on the government. She knew that very senior cabinet members − including the Foreign Secretary David Lammy − were dismayed by Israel's dismissal of their concerns and had been quietly lobbying Prime Minister Keir Starmer for Palestine recognition. If she could garner enough cross-bench parliamentary support then that could provide the impetus for a major political step. Message blitz Ms Champion and her team went to work sending WhatsApp messages and emails to fellow MPs to sign a letter that called on Mr Starmer to recognise Palestine. 'I was amazed how many we got, and in such a short space of time – just 30 hours – but I think it is a clear representation of the strength of feeling in Parliament in support of the Palestinian plight,' she said. The following night, France suddenly announced it would recognise Palestine, and by 5pm on the Friday she had amassed a record number of 221 signatures from MPs representing nine different parties. 'UK recognition would have a significant impact due to our historic connections and our membership on the UN Security Council, so we urge you to take this step,' the MPs said. Key to the gathering of signatures was the respect held by fellow MPs from all parties for Ms Champion, who has been consistently outspoken on the plight of Palestinians. With this in mind, Mr Starmer knew he had to respond quickly and while he did not immediately agree, he did use new language condemning Israel's 'disproportionate military escalation in Gaza' that was 'indefensible'. 'Set the agenda' However, with US President Donald Trump landing in Scotland just a few hours later, now was not the time to initiate a political earthquake. But having the American leader in Britain was useful as he would be meeting Mr Starmer on the Monday, by which time after continued weekend reports of the grim situation in Gaza, 255 MPs had now signed the letter. The letter, according to Ms Champion, had 'set the agenda for journalists when Trump came to the UK', and this made the President more aware of the dire situation. In the press conference with Mr Starmer, Mr Trump stated 'that's real starvation stuff, I see it, and you can't fake that,' adding 'we have to get the kids fed'. The letter had been 'a significant factor in his comments around believing starvation was occurring in Gaza', claims Ms Champion. Indication of urgency More important was the letter's impact on the British government's decision on July 29, just after Mr Trump left Scotland, to set out its steps towards recognition. 'The letter gave them an indication of the urgency, and I am glad they listened,' Ms Champion said. While Britain's move was met with fury from Israel, she argued that it sent a 'clear signal' that the UK believed 'Palestine is a viable state and needs to be treated as such; with all the protections and rights afforded to other nations'. 'To have a two-state solution, you have to have two states,' she added. 'And the Israeli cabinet needs to understand the status quo is neither acceptable nor going to continue.' Israel also needed to secure a ceasefire and work for a lasting peace that 'enables both countries to feel safe and respected', added the MP for Rotherham, in northern England. Britain, unless Israel meets certain conditions will now be joined by France, Canada, Australia and Malta at the UN General Assembly next month in recognising Palestine, taking the total of countries that do so to 152.

Before telling scare stories about migrants, the UK far right should look in the mirror
Before telling scare stories about migrants, the UK far right should look in the mirror

The National

time18 hours ago

  • The National

Before telling scare stories about migrants, the UK far right should look in the mirror

Rupert Lowe was elected last year to be a Member of Parliament for Nigel Farage's Reform UK party representing Great Yarmouth. He has been suspended from Reform after a row but remains an independent MP. Mr Lowe recently posted on X a picture of a small boat with the claim: 'Dinghies coming into Great Yarmouth, RIGHT NOW.' It suggested that illegal migrants – one of Mr Lowe's hot-button issues – were landing on the Norfolk coast. Very unlikely. Norfolk is a long way from France. Small boats of migrants almost always end up in Kent, which is more than 150 kilometres away. The 'dinghies' turned out to be one boat containing four British rowers raising money for charity. Mr Lowe apologised for his error. Beyond an excitable MP imagining illegal migrants the way children imagine ghosts, scare stories about migrants are part of British politics right now. Accommodation for migrants awaiting official processing is dotted around England. Anti-migrant protesters, some from far-right and neo-fascist groups and stirred up by social media posts, often turn up at migrant hotels. They can be intimidating, pretending to 'protect' British values while aggressively undermining the core British value of a peaceful and tolerant society. Unfortunately, these far-right delusional folk waste police time and smother a legitimate migration debate under their threats of violence. The real issue is clear. Undocumented migrants pay criminal gangs based in France to take them to Kent beaches on small boats. It's a dangerous trade that must be stopped as a political priority. A country not in control of its borders cannot be a happy place. Riots last summer were a reminder that the far right in the UK has a long history but one endless narrative – that British people are somehow 'victims' of foreign migrants. In the 1930s, it was Oswald Mosley 's violently anti-Semitic Blackshirts. In the 1960s, the Conservative MP Enoch Powell prophesied 'rivers of blood' caused by migration, especially from the Caribbean and South Asia. In the 2020s, far-right activists are often Islamophobic and insist that they 'want their country back'. Presumably it's code for an imaginary past without migrants, but when was that? It must be before the Romans, Saxons, Normans, Huguenots and all the others who over centuries arrived and made Britain … well, Britain. Our immigration debate now is important and necessary. In seeking clues about the type of people who use migration as an excuse for stirring up violence, one part of the UK – Northern Ireland – offers a clue. Anti-immigrant race riots took place in Belfast in August last year. The Belfast Telegraph newspaper reported that researchers found 'almost half of those arrested for race hate disorder in Belfast last August had previously been reported to the PSNI [short for Police Service Northern Ireland] for domestic abuse'. Anti-migrant demonstrations are often stirred up by claims that immigrant men are molesting British women. Yet the Northern Ireland research suggests that almost half the anti-migrant demonstrators arrested in Belfast were themselves men reported to police for abuse in their own homes, presumably towards their wives or partners. Of course, we cannot directly extrapolate from that research to the rest of the UK. Those who turn up at English migrant hotels to cause trouble could be church-going choirboys, although I doubt it. Britain has a celebrity anti-migrant demonstrator. He is a convicted criminal called Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and he hides behind the false name of Tommy Robinson. Yaxley-Lennon has been convicted of assault, using a fake passport, mortgage fraud and contempt of court. Currently he is on police bail after being arrested over an alleged assault at a London railway station. Filmed footage appears to show a man lying on the ground with Yaxley-Lennon shouting in the background, although the circumstances are unclear. It is clear that a legitimate migration debate needs reason and wisdom. In Britain, that debate is clouded by threats of disorder and by some politicians and others jumping on public fears. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his government have three areas on which to act: first, stop the small boats. The latest agreement with France means anyone arriving in the UK on an illegal sea crossing will be deported. The UK in return will accept the same number of legal migrants from France, a policy called 'One In, One Out'. Second, police have to respond forcibly to far-right thugs. The thugs and their leaders light the powder keg of violence and then step back to watch the explosion. Third, MPs should do that most difficult of political jobs – think clearly. Mr Lowe presumably will be more thoughtful in future about his social media posts, but people on the right of British politics who boast endlessly about their supposed patriotism might prove more patriotic if they ended their constant slurs that Britain is a failed country. Britain is flawed but not failed. Moreover, some far-right supposed 'patriots' are merely echoes of the 1930s and 1960s. They see immigration not as a problem to be solved but as a political opportunity to be exploited to gain power through fear. Their aim is the most unpatriotic of all – to divide and dis-unite the United Kingdom. They failed before. They need to fail again.

Why Muslim charities face disproportionate scrutiny in the UK
Why Muslim charities face disproportionate scrutiny in the UK

Middle East Eye

time19 hours ago

  • Middle East Eye

Why Muslim charities face disproportionate scrutiny in the UK

Two UK-based charities, the Kasner Charitable Trust and UK Toremet, collectively donated around £5.7 million ($7.7m) between 2017 and 2021 to a religious school in Susya, an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank, the Guardian recently revealed. The settlement is considered illegal under international law and the UK's own foreign policy stance. The funding significantly contributed to the expansion of the Bnei Akiva yeshiva high school, increasing student enrolment and establishing it as a core institution in the Susya settlement. This case has drawn considerable criticism from political figures and human rights campaigners, who argue that charitable status should not extend to organisations funnelling money into settlements that might undermine international law. Even more shocking is that this entire controversial process was overseen by the UK charity regulator. The Charity Commission authorised these donations on the grounds that a donation to a school located in the occupied territories would, in principle, qualify as a grant for the advancement of education and therefore be considered a 'legitimate' charitable activity. The regulator clarified that a charity operating within the occupied Palestinian territories does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offence or a breach of charity law. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters These settlements are illegal under international law, and the UK government officially recognises them as such. Yet the charity regulator approved the donations, justifying them on educational grounds - something a legal review could appropriately address. In the meantime, this episode reifies concerns and accusations frequently levelled at the regulator's impartiality, particularly in relation to Muslim charities. Stricter oversight The charity regulator's treatment of the two aforementioned charities stands in stark contrast to its handling of the Islamic Centre of England (Icel), a Shia Muslim centre in West London. The centre is religiously and culturally aligned with the Iranian diaspora living in the Maida Vale district, and attended by Shia from various national backgrounds. The Charity Commission issued a warning to Icel in 2020, after a group of protesters held a vigil for Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who had been killed in a US drone strike. Soleimani was on the UK's designated sanctions list. In November 2022, the charity regulator launched a formal statutory inquiry into the centre, citing major governance concerns over issues such as the vigil, the charity's online content and trustees' alleged conflicts of interest. The inquiry was formally concluded in May 2025, with the regulator requiring Icel trustees to implement stricter oversight of speakers, religious services, events and online content. There is a general impression among those who followed Icel's activities that it was targeted because of its critical stance on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. While the charity regulator did not explicitly acknowledge this, the right-wing media frequently portrays Icel as the Iranian government's 'nerve centre', largely due to its connection with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This disparity reveals a deeper issue: the Charity Commission's apparent double standards, particularly in its treatment of Muslim organisations A forthcoming academic report titled 'The Islamic Centre of England: Understanding its Role within Muslim Communities across Britain' finds that Icel is financially independent, with no ties to Iranian funding, and plays a positive role in supporting local Muslim communities. The report acknowledges the connection between the resident imam of Icel and Khamenei, but not as a political agent - instead, as a spiritual guide for local Shia communities. The report, by professors Oliver Scharbrodt (Lund University) and Alison Scott-Baumann (Soas), highlights how strict restrictions from the UK charity regulator 'may inadvertently limit the rights of Muslims to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly'. Even if one accepts the Charity Commission's rationale for warning Icel over its commemoration of Soleimani, a key question remains: why is it deemed legitimate to fund projects in illegal settlements - condemned by both the UN and the UK - that ultimately expand and entrench those settlements, an act which the UK government itself opposes and condemns? This disparity reveals a deeper issue: the Charity Commission's apparent double standards, particularly in its treatment of Muslim organisations. Muslim organisations have long alleged that the charity regulator holds a structural bias against them. While pro-Israel charities' funding activities in illegal settlements are approved, Muslim charities are routinely subjected to exceptional levels of scrutiny, often based on vague or politicised concerns. Silencing solidarity Human Aid UK, a British Muslim charity, was the subject of a two-year investigation by the Charity Commission after police detained its staff in 2019 and seized funds. Although the funds were returned months later and no wrongdoing was found, the regulator continued its inquiry, prompting Human Aid UK to accuse it of bias against Muslim charities and of acting as an 'extension of police and security services' harassment policy'. Between April 2012 and November 2014, more than a quarter of the Charity Commission's statutory inquiries - 20 out of 76 - focused on Muslim charities, according to the Guardian, whose analysis included all investigations that remained open at the end of the given timeframe. Many of these probes involved organisations operating mosques, providing humanitarian aid, or working in Syria. A 2017 academic article in the ReOrient journal asserted that the Charity Commission's evolving structure and practices disproportionately affect Muslim charities. The article noted that while Muslim organisations make up only 1.21 percent of the sector, they accounted for 38 percent of all disclosed statutory investigations between January 2013 and April 2014, raising serious concerns about institutionalised bias. Amid pressure from the Charity Commission, Icel administrators often asked organisers to avoid discussing Israel's war on Gaza or openly showing solidarity with Palestinians, fearing that such acts could jeopardise the charity's legal status. The normalising of Islamophobia in UK public life is fuelling hate and violence Read More » Similar concerns have been raised by the Muslim Council of Britain, the country's largest Muslim umbrella body, which alleges that the charity regulator takes a harsh line on Muslim charities that support Palestine. This has fuelled accusations that the Charity Commission is increasingly becoming a tool to silence Muslim charities and prevent them from expressing solidarity with the victims of Israel's war crimes. The charity regulator is meant to be independent and 'free from the influence of others'. But its actions, based on the aforementioned examples, appear to be influenced by government foreign policy. The differential treatment of charities linked to Iran or other Muslim countries, and those connected to Israel, reflects the UK government's geopolitical stance - hostile to one, favourable to the other. This apparent political influence undermines public trust and risks complicity. The Charity Commission cannot claim to uphold charitable integrity while selectively applying its principles, particularly where Muslim charities are involved. In response to questions from Middle East Eye, the Charity Commission stated: 'The Commission rejects any allegation of bias. All concerns are assessed fairly and consistently against the legal framework,' and reiterated that 'we are independent of Government'. The Charity Commission did not address why Muslim charities were disproportionately subjected to its statutory investigations, as highlighted in the ReOrient study. The commission added that it does not 'fetter the freedom of may express views publicly about matters of conscience or religion, including in relation to the conflict in the Middle East, so long as these views advance the charity's purposes and are demonstrably in the charity's best interests.' It noted that speeches, sermons or other communications should not be inflammatory or divisive. With regards to the two charities linked to Israeli settlements, the commission said: 'There is a possibility that, in remitting funds to such organisations, UK Toremet is at risk of committing a criminal offence in England and Wales by breaching the Geneva Convention Act 1957. We issued the charity's trustees with statutory guidance and an action plan, which included specific reference to the importance of compliance with the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.' But if the Charity Commission is to rebuild trust with British Muslim communities and demonstrate that it upholds fairness for all, it must urgently commission an independent review of its practices to ensure genuine equality and impartiality across all faith-based charities. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store