Further Stifling of the Immigration Debate – by Carl Duffy

The philosophy of animalism in George Orwell’s Animal Farm was reduced to a
simplistic slogan of ‘four legs good, two legs bad.’ This was done with the intention that
all the adherents of animalism could unthinkingly show support for the governing
ideology. Similar, simplistic thinking has also dominated the immigration debate.
Supporters of the current levels of immigration are often portrayed as tolerant and anti-
racist, whereas opponents of immigration on this scale are far too easily tarred as racist
or fascist.

Thinking about a complex subject such as immigration in these terms is helpful for the
likes of Keir Starmer as he moves the UK in an authoritarian direction. Fulfilling his
promise of making those who participate in 'violence' online face the full extent of the
law, some UK citizens have now been imprisoned for what they have posted on social
media.

Closer to home, a young man in Belfast, Cameron Armstrong, has been charged with
rioting in a case where District Judge Francis Rafferty said: He doesn’t have to throw a
petrol bomb or brick to be involved in disorder, if he’s present at disorder.

To quote Swiss psychologist Carl Jung: ‘If you cannot understand why someone did
something, look at the consequences and infer the motivation.’ If we look at the
consequences of such draconian measures, we can perhaps infer the UK government’s
motivation.

In the immigration debate, among other contentious subjects, people routinely self-
censor. This behaviour by the British Government will undoubtedly make others more
reluctant to voice their views openly, post online, or even be present at protests.
Perhaps, this is precisely the intention of the UK Government.

While attacks on ethnic minorities and businesses such as the Bash Cafe in South
Belfast have zero justification, we cannot allow the responses to undermine pillars of
democracy such as freedom of speech and the right to peacefully protest.

One of the American founding fathers, Thomas Paine, remarked, "He who would make
his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppressions, for if he violates
this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” Even if we assume
those on the receiving end of these excessively harsh measures are irredeemable
racists, we must nonetheless defend them against oppression. Aryeh Neier, a Jewish
refugee from Nazi Germany and National Director of the ACLU between 1970 and
1978, mirrored Paine’s wisdom when he defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march
through Skokie, Illinois, in 1977.

Well-functioning democracies, such as Denmark, have been able to address
contentious issues such as immigration via democratic means. Mature, nuanced
conversations about this topic recognise that not everyone who has legitimate concerns
about immigration on its current scale are racist. Many people support a sensible policy
of controlled immigration.

The UK has instead chosen undemocratic means of addressing concerns about
immigration. With many in our society refusing to see the nuance in this delicate
subject, the incessant repetition of simplistic framing merely enables the UK
government to further curb our freedoms while simultaneously preventing sensible
discussions to be had around immigration. The UK has now set a precedent that people
can be imprisoned for what they post online and charged for even being present at a
protest. This is one more reason for ending the injustice of partition.

In a United Ireland, we too will have to deal with attacks on democracy, and some of the
contents of the ‘Hate Speech Bill’ make for chilling reading, but for now, the UK lies
further down the road towards a dystopian hell. Ending partition and challenging all
those who attack our freedoms—either on the left or the right—remains our best hope of
preserving any semblance of a democracy.