Getting away with threatening murder
The suspended Labour councillor who last year was seen on camera using a microphone to call for the throats of “disgusting Nazi fascists” to be cut was last month found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder at Snaresbrook Crown Court.
Ricky Jones (Dartford, Labour) was seen drawing his finger across his throat and was quite clearly heard to say to a large gathering of people in support of his cause shouting: “They are disgusting Nazi fascists, we need to cut their throats and get rid of them all.”
The “they” he says he was referring to were an alleged group of National Front, who he claimed had been putting stickers on trains that had razor blades hidden behind them. Jones, however, did not produce any evidence of this at his trial.
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder in Utah this week, the very real potential for harm in such incitements became tagically clear.
A febrile backdrop
The comments by Councillor Jones were made at an anti-racism rally in Walthamstow following a few days of civil unrest after three little girls were stabbed to death by Axel Rudikubana in Southport at a Taylor Swift dance school last summer.
Most of the Labour cabinet had publicly denounced the protests as “far right” agitators who they claimed were trying to divide Britain, with Keir Starmer promising they would feel the full force of the law.
The situation was stirred up further when the far left wing Nick Lowels of Hope Not Hate stated on an X thread that acid had been thrown at a Muslim woman in Middlesbrough.
Cleveland police clarified that they had no record of this and although later Lowels apologised, his words had already had the effect of bringing gangs of Muslim youths aggressively on to the streets to oppose the (in this case fictional) “right wing” threat. No charges were brought to Lowels despite his inflammatory, ill-founded words.
The reality of a two-tier justice system
There were some clashes with the police and arrests were made, but the vast majority of the people who came out to protest, did so because they were felt alienated and despondent about the political class about the Rudikubana horror, who ostensibly kept information hidden from the public interest to for reasons only really known to themselves.
‘Two-tier Keir’
It was at this time that the Prime Minister was dubbed “two-tier Keir” – a nomenclature that has aged considerably well looking back on who has been charged and sentenced, to those who have been treated far more leniently than they deserve.
It is easy at this point to make the comparison between the judicial treatments of Lucy Connolly, who posted a revolting message on X, which she deleted a few hours later, earning her 31 months in prison. And yet last month we saw Jones, a public servant with a large platform, walking away from any ramifications after openly calling for violent murder. Is this fair?
Political view looks in one direction
The most charitable conclusion one could make about these contrasting cases is that the British justice system is a complete farce, and judges have got no clear sentencing guidelines to utilise.
I am afraid that this is not a conclusion that most would subscribe to, however. More likely is that the parliamentary and judicial systems’ Overton window has moved so far left that anybody who criticises the government, or is sick to the back teeth of policing unfairness, perceived or otherwise, or abuse of young girls by grooming gangs, or uncontrolled small boat illegal immigration, or terror attacks like that in Southport last summer, are now to be seen as, in the words of innocent Ricky Jones, “disgusting Nazi fascists” (Note: comparing anyone to Hitler or the Nazis is never wise, largely due to an inevitable lack of accuracy.)
So to tragic Charlie Kirk. He was a moderate conservative family man who made a name for himself engaging in debate with those he disagreed with mainly on college campuses. His opponents, mainly on the political left, framed him in similarly extreme terms to those used by Councillor Jones.
Debate – let’s have more of it
Debate is the essence of functional Western democracy. More debate is needed, not less. It’s how we hone our ideas, agreeing the good ones and weeding out the bad ones. But in those debates we must, as a collective, regain the ability to agree to disagree – and refrain from the modern trend of seeking to demonise and cancel anyone who holds a different view.
Who’s with me?
