Readers, as distressing as it may be, I invite you all to cast your minds back to two years ago yesterday. On the 29th July 2024, Axel Rudakubana walked into a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport armed with a knife. He stabbed eleven children and murdered three of them. Afterwards, he turned his attention to the teacher, and another adult who attempted to stop him.
Within hours the country was furious, and within days, parts of it were burning at the hands of those who had taken to the streets in rage and protest.
Lucy Connolly was one of the individuals who was furious too. On the day of the murders, she posted on X that there should be “mass deportation now” and that people should “set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care”, adding that if this made her racist, so be it. A questionable thing to post amidst such violence and anger.
She deleted the post a few hours later, but by then it had been seen more than 300,000 times. But she was arrested and later pleaded guilty to publishing material ‘intended to stir up racial hatred.’ For such a crime, she was sentenced to 31 months in jail. She then lost her appeal, and served roughly twelve and a half months before her release last August.
Reform UK latched onto her case, and saw her as a victim of a system which was actively seeking to stifle free speech. Nigel Farage said publicly that he wanted to be “absolutely clear: Lucy Connolly should not be in prison”.
He then told the United States Congress that her sentence was a “clear example” of Britain abandoning its commitment to free expression, and he used his show on GBNews to defend her at length – going so far as to bring her on air for an exclusive interview. Everyone recognised that what she said was disgusting, and was something that should never have been said in the first place. What people disagreed on, however, was whether she should go to prison as a result of such a comment.
Plenty of those on the right of British politics think that the answer to such a question is no. That it was merely her view and that one should not be punished by the state for possessing an opinion. Indeed, there is a liberal argument to be made here, wherein the government has no business whatsoever in jailing its people for what they post on social media.
But Reform’s attitudes towards Connolly’s case comes to blows with their attitude towards Zack Polanski in recent days – and many on the right have avoided touching on this issue.
Just the other day, an image appeared on Zack Polanski’s Instagram account which showed a man wearing a T-shirt, with the caption “We’re only making plans for Nigel” under an image of a guillotine.
It was, to put it bluntly, not a particularly good look. Who knows, perhaps Polanski sees him as the modern equivalent of Robespierre.
Reform reported the image to the police, making the claim that it amounted to incitement, and Farage argued on social media that – had he shared an image of similar levels of incitement – then he would “be in handcuffs.” The party’s Home Affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf went further, alleging that the leader of the Greens was “inciting murder.” A bold claim indeed.
Now, I agree that Reform are right to be concerned about this image. Ann Widdecombe’s murder a few weeks ago has highlighted the danger that some politicians in the UK face, and Farage has been insistent that he is the most attacked political figure in modern times. It is no wonder, then, that he responded in such a way.
Whilst Polanski has pointed out that the post was not directly his but rather a “collaboration” with a content creator, the very fact that he shared it is still an issue, and speaks volumes about the judgement of a man who is so desperate to lead our country come the next General Election.
But you see, no one is arguing that what Polanski shared was somehow admirable. Everyone is in agreement that the image was vile and bad taste given Widdecombe’s recent murder. No, the issue at hand is one of hypocrisy – something which Reform fall victim to rather often.
Farage and Reform championed Lucy Connolly as a victim of an overbearing state. They made out that the British government was seeking to clamp down on free speech and silence those who dared speak out against Keir Starmer’s centrist regime. That Connolly should not be subject to police investigation nor prison time for something she shared on social media.
But when it comes to Polanski, such standards do not apply. Suddenly, Polanski should face an investigation by the Metropolitan Police and it is clear for all to see that what he did was a crime. Indeed, just last night, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that they would take no action against the former breast-whisperer, something which Zia Yusuf was somewhat enraged about, claiming that this was “PROOF of two tier policing in Britain.”
But no matter how many slogans one throws about, a simple fact remains – you cannot have it both ways. The two attitudes cannot be true at the same time. If Reform’s objection is grounded in the opinion that criminal law should not be used to police online speech, then they ought to apply such an opinion consistently – even if the target is the parliamentary candidate for Clacton. If, on the other hand, they believe that police intervention is appropriate for Polanski’s case, then their criticism of Connolly’s case becomes much harder to sustain.
Indeed, if the prosecution of Connolly really was the outrage that Reform says it was, then the answer is to campaign for the law’s repeal, not to invoke it against a political rival the moment that it provides some type of electoral benefit.
At the moment, however, Reform possesses contradictory beliefs on the matter. They push back against state overreach in the case of Connolly, but very much welcome it in the case of Polanski. They must make their minds up. They are either staunch defenders of free speech, or they draw the line at incitement.
Their response has proven they are somewhere in the middle and, dare I say, it looks to be nothing more than opportunistic hypocrisy designed to distract and deflect.