Not all abuse of MPs is violent. More are likely to be threatened on social media than assaulted in person. Not all violence against MPs is Islamist. Jo Cox was murdered by a neo-nazi extremist.
And most victims of violence, threats and abuse aren’t MPs. One record of terrorist incidents in Britain lists 25 since 2000, of which three targeted MPs: Cox, David Amess, also murdered, and Stephen Timms, stabbed. Another of attempted attacks counts 20 since 2000, one of which earmarked Theresa May. It doesn’t contain the targeting of Mike Freer by Ali Harbi Ali, who went on to murder Amess, in the wake of Freers suddenly changing his diary plans.
And now Freer is to stand down as MP for Finchley, citing death threats, abusive notes left on his car and fake petrol bombs placed on the doorstep of his constituency office. Two men have been charged with an arson attack on it last year.
Freer “is not Jewish but believes his outspoken views on Israel and strong support for the Jewish community have led to him being targeted by anti-Semite”, according to the Daily Mail, which has interviewed him. As long ago as 2011, a group called Muslims Against Crusades told him to “let Stephen Timms be a warning to you” and urged supporters to target him. A dozen supporters of the group then gatecrashed an event he was holding at North Finchley mosque, with one calling him a “Jewish homosexual pig” who was “defiling the house of Allah”.
Some will say that MPs of all parties over many years are responsible for the violence and intimidation to which Freer has fallen victim – by letting legal and illegal immigration get out of control.
But more, while agreeing that legal numbers are too high and illegal entry shouldn’t happen at all, will believe that we elect MPs to represent us, that attacks on them are assaults on democracy itself, that these are increasing – and that Freer’s announcement somehow marks a significant milestone for all of us (though it should also be noted that the seat, once held by Margaret Thatcher, will almost certainly go Labour this year).
Nonetheless, the media response has been muted even in the centre-right press. The Spectator was early out of the traps with a piece by Stephen Daisley. The Daily Telegraph has one by Rakib Ehsan.
But, as I write, I can see nothing comment-wise in the Daily Express, the Times, or the Sun (nor, elsewhere, in the Guardian, i or the Independent). The BBC has a report on its politics page, as does Sky, and GB News a view from Nigel Farage. But even those outlets that carry comment aren’t clearing lots of space for it. And no wonder: for, in one sense, there isn’t all that much to say, and certainly nothing all that new.
For of those 25 attacks since 2000, eleven have been carried out by Islamist extremists, and for the 20 attempted assaults the equivalent figure is 15. As the Government’s review of its Prevent programme puts it, “Islamist terrorism remains the primary terrorist threat to the UK”.
Muslim voices are frequently raised against terrorism. These don’t always get the media projection that they deserve. But the stark fact remains that since 7/7 no mass grassroots campaign has sprung up, least of all in Britain’s mosques, that seeks, first, to condemn terror; second, to insist that policy abroad, let alone foreign affairs, doesn’t justify violence here and, finally, to insist that free speech about religion trumps Islamic blasphemy codes.
Early attempts by government to support a mass movement, like the Sufi Muslim Council under Tony Blair’s Government, came to nothing. And until or unless one emerges either spontaneously, or else supported by moderate Muslim states, or both, nothing much will change.
So no wonder the response to Freer’s announcement has been so understated. However, it doesn’t follow that because government can’t do everything, it can do nothing at all. For after all, it has at its disposal the bully pulpit of Downing Street, control of public spending, powers of patronage, the right to propose laws, and so on. It chooses who to share platforms and is responsible for public appointments. It has a say in the honours system.
The Conservatives have, since at least the time of David Cameron’s Munich speech in 2011, sought to ensure that only those Islamic organisations who are unambiguously committed to liberal democracy as above have access to government patronage and taxpayers’ cash.
True, this effort has been fitful, inconsistent, and rocked by four changes of premiership in 14 years. Downing Street’s Eye of Sauron, as Michael Gove has been known to refer to it, can’t see everything at once, and under Britain’s centralised system of government what isn’t driven from the centre doesn’t tend to happen on the ground. But the Tories are unlikely to hold office for much longer. How would Labour in government deal with Islamist extremism?
Dan Jarvis, the Party’s Security Spokesman, has supported the Conservatives’ proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Yvette Cooper backs banning Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – a tougher position than the Government’s.
Both will undoubtedly have an eye on what plays well in marginal Midlands and Northern constituencies. But it is at this point that matters get complicated. Most British Muslims live in Labour-held seats – at least, according to a Conservative Muslim Forum assessment which, though ten years old, will still be accurate in this respect. Obviously, most British Muslims aren’t Islamist extremists, but all Islamist extremists are Muslims by definition, and tend to live within these wider communities.
Some Labour MPs pride themselves in giving extremism short shrift. Khalid Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, is a classic example. Others don’t.
For example, Apsana Begum, Labour MP for Poplar and Limehouse, recently described the coalition’s actions against the Houthis as “horrifying”, “shameful”, “deplorable” and “beyond unacceptable”. The Government, she complained, was acting “in the interests of international trade” (as though this is a bad thing). Zarah Sultana, Labour MP for Coventry South, has taken much the same line.
More to the point, most MPs simply want to keep their constituents happy. What MP doesn’t? But electoral demographics have implications for a Labour Government.
For example, the Conservatives’ policy is not to engage with the Muslim Council of Britain. (Penny Mordaunt got into hot water for doing so in 2022.) What do most Labour MPs think? What’s Cooper and Jarvis’ view? What’s their take on the Prevent Strategy? On the Extremism Commissioner and other appointments? Cooper’s line has largely been to attack the Governmment for what it’s failed to do while saying very little about what Labour would do. My suspicion is that she’s preoccupied with Rwanda and crime, and accords the issues low priority.
Or consider a much more prominent, public matter: Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7 and Israel’s actions since in Gaza. Sir Keir Starmer and Labour’s front bench are holding a bipartisan position.
How would they deal in office not only with opposition to Israel’s campaign, which is perfectly legitimate, but with Muslim and other opinion that wants to eliminate Israel altogether – “from the river to the sea”? What would be their response in government to constituency pressure from the Greens or a revived Respect? Current opinion polls are one thing. What they signify is another, and it may be almost upon us. Mike Freer is leaving the room, and Labour is knocking at the door. We have little sense of how it would rearrange the furniture.