Nigel Farage says the murder of Charlie Kirk was incited by the ‘hurty’ words of his Left wing opponents. Fleet Street Fox argues speech isn’t free if it applies only to some
When three little girls were murdered by a knife-wielding lunatic in Southport, Nigel Farage waited barely a day before demanding “whether the truth is being withheld from us” about the man responsible. It was taken up and repeated by other Reform MPs, and by the further Right.
The subtext was plain: they’re not telling you his name because he’s a migrant. Cue the Southport riots, condemnation of Nigel’s stupidity, and a court lifting the standard anonymity given to all alleged offenders under 18 to announce that the killer was British, Christian, and legally a child.
Police and politicians lined up to condemn Nigel’s divisive words and their impact on public safety. Former Scotland Yard counter terror chief Neil Basu went so far as to say Farage was “giving succour” to the Far Right and providing “a false basis” to justify attacks on the police. Nigel, of course, was having none of it – “desperate stuff”, he said, “legitimate questions”.
Well, they weren’t. They were intentionally provocative and wilfully ignorant questions, to which a seasoned politician should have already known the answer. But they were no crime, unlike – to pick an example from nowhere – calling on people to burn down all the asylum hotels..
Now Right wing influencer Charlie Kirk has been murdered in the US at a public speaking event, and Nigel has once again taken to his pulpit to blame it on the “slanders” and “slurs” of his Left wing opponents. Kirk had been called a Nazi and a fascist, although it’s remarkable he was called that by millions of people and only one appears to have shot him. Kirk in his turn provoked anger by saying guns were fine, women needed university only as a place to find a husband, and black people were better off under segregation, to name just three of the things Adolf Hitler was also bang alongside. Calling him a Nazi was insightful, perhaps, but clearly not that incite-y.
The US is not a place where anyone minces words. It’s also not a place immune to political violence, with assassinations commonplace over the past two centuries and shootings, by and of Democrats and Republicans, increasingly frequent under the divisive rule of Trumpelstiltskin 2.0. While admirably determined to debate people in public, Kirk ignored the safety advice that told him he was “100%” going to be shot at such an event.
His murder may have been predictable, but that doesn’t make it reasonable. And Nigel’s insistence that the loose speech of the Left set the scene for the killing is, likewise, both totally on time and complete tripe. For if the Right’s hurty words are a fair expression of free speech and any ensuing violence is someone else’s responsibliity, than the same must be true for the Left; and if the Left’s hurty words are capable of provoking murder, then so are those of the Right.
Calling someone a Nazi is so common that the creator of Godwin’s Law declared it defunct. Using ‘liberal’ as an insult to imply a closed mind is also standard, even though the word means ‘open to new ideas’. It’s a sad indictment of how low the readership of dictionaries has sunk. If Dr Johnson’s ghost wasn’t so utterly depressed, he might point out that speech isn’t free, if only one side can say what they please.
People of all sides seem not to have noticed that having freedom of speech does not automatically protect you from being ignored, shouted down, called names, challenged, or having the size and appearance of your sexual organs called into question. There are even circumstances – pavements outside nightclubs at 2am, Christmas dinner, weddings – where most of us accept being too free with your speech is likely to get you a smack in the face. Or, perhaps, a milkshake.
Nigel has argued today that calling Charlie a racist was incitement to violence. That when “inflammatory abuse” becomes “part of mainstream political discourse, you could be stirring up anger and hatred that could lead to dire consequences”. And if you can’t smell the burning martyr from wherever you are, let me tell you, this stench has legs.
This is the same man who talked about a migrant “invasion”. Who felt “uncomfortable” hearing other languages on the train. who said Muslims want to “take us over”. Who spoke about the “Jewish lobby”, a ban on migrants with HIV, who called Vladimir Putin his “political idol”, praised Trump for dominating Hillary Clinton “like a silverback gorilla”, and said breastfeeding women should “sit in the corner”.
Nigel’s problem with freedom of speech is that when it is directed at him he hates it, and when he directs it at others they’re supposed to accept it. It’s one freedom for him and his chums, and a gag for everyone who disagrees; cancellation, de-platforming, public shaming for harming the snowflake tenderness of bigots. He is smug evidence that if you don’t have any principles, all you’re left with is guidelines, and then you can pick and choose when and to whom they apply.
It is thoughtcrime and doublethink at the same time, and that’s exactly what the Nazis did, too. Charlie Kirk died while speaking, but if Nigel has his way we’ll all be dead long before he shuts his yap and engages brain.