Britain’s Ethnic Conundrum

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Saint John, N.B.] Telegraph-Journal

The British riots that began in late July and lasted a week included arson, looting, and other violence. Over 1,000 arrests were made in relation to the unrest, and over 40 rioters have been imprisoned.

The disturbances reflected decades of pent-up public frustration with the country’s governing elite, particularly over mass immigration. They were a signal that their whole strategy of governing is beginning to break down. And that carries significant implications.

The hundreds of arrests and charges linked to the riots have shown the legal consequences of taking part, which is likely to make some people think again before joining a riot in future.

However, its supporters also view the state’s response as evidence of one of their central theses: that far-right activists are disproportionally targeted compared to people with different backgrounds and ideologies. This narrative is taking hold in many places, including on X – formerly Twitter – where billionaire owner Elon Musk has promoted it himself. “The U.K. is turning into a police state,” Musk posted Aug. 19.

Britain has been ruled for decades by a managerial elite who has attempted to manage immigration and the ethnic tensions it has brought with it via careful control of media and online information.

The country’s “Neighbourhood Policing” model makes state-managed avoidance of ethnic conflict the top priority of the police forces. This has gone together with so-called two-tier policing -- the authorities’ tendency to tread more lightly on crime and disorder when doing so might help to ease what are euphemistically called “community tensions.”

The recent trouble began after three young girls were stabbed to death July 29 as they took part in a Taylor Swift-themed dance party in Southport. In the immediate aftermath, locals were shocked, angry and looking for someone to blame.

The rioters, fuelled by false claims that the killer was a Muslim refugee, cheered when they injured police officers during the violence that followed. Clearly, the police have lost some public support. It soon spread to many other cities in England. Many of those involved described themselves as patriots who maintain that record levels of illegal and legal immigration are undermining British society. Hundreds have been appearing in court for their role.

Keir Starmer’s new Labour government reacted against those who continued to speak out on the issue. They were labelled as “racist,” “xenophobic,” or “far-right” and accused of spreading “misinformation” on “unregulated social media.”

Of course misinformation exists. But the country is sliding into state-led censorship. The new Online Safety Act contains a so-called “false communication offence” and it could serve as a censor’s charter because of its inclusion of the phrase “legal but harmful” to characterise certain content. Platforms will be required to scan even encrypted messages and use algorithms to see to it that no one sees disapproved political speech anymore.

A 55-year-old woman was arrested in Cheshire on suspicion of committing this offence and another one for spreading the rumour about the Southport killer being a Muslim. “Think before you post” is the government’s new mantra.

Cases like this will open a Pandora’s Box where censorship is concerned. Governments should not prohibit ideas, words or images that might offend.

British liberals, for whom mass migration is a moral cause, have also blamed Nigel Farage, leader of the populist Reform UK Party, as well as the media, the Conservative Party, and even Vladimir Putin, for the rioting. But this will hardly solve the deeper problems that are driving the nation further into chaos.

There is an actual term for the ongoing disorder: ethnic conflict, a term avoided by the British state for fear of its political implications. Hence, politicians refuse to talk about the issue at all, and place social sanctions on those who do.

Instead, ethnic groups are euphemistically termed “communities,” and the state-managed avoidance of ethnic conflict is termed “community relations.” But when the rioting is carried out by ethnic “whites” -- let’s call them British -- as in this case, the perception of an ethnic identity is actively guarded against as state policy. So political advocates of a British ethnic identity such as Farage are isolated from mainstream discourse.

The gaping hole in multicultural logic, that every group must think of itself and be treated in ethnic, racial or religious terms, except for the white majority, is being exploited by the right. Agitators have presented two-tier policing not as an affront to law and order and blind justice, but as an expression of “white male British victimhood.”

Reform UK’s entry to Parliament in the recent general election is understood by Farage’s voters and opponents alike as the success of a tacitly ethnic British party. He has promised to “change politics forever” after the party won more than four million votes, propelling them into Parliament for the first time. Reform UK won five seats in the House of Commons, with a 14.3 per cent share of the popular vote.

So occasional outbursts of ethnic violence, whether by the “British” (that is, indigenous whites) or by others, acting in their perceived communal interests, will become commonplace, as in other multi-ethnic plural states. To manage such conflicts, the state will become more coercive, as Starmer has already indicated. This is now Britain’s ethnic conundrum, and the future doesn’t look bright.