Far-right rioters expose a much deeper schism in British society

For now, peace and order have been restored to the streets of the UK after one of the ugliest episodes of far-right, ultranationalist mobs attacking mosques and hotels that host asylum seekers, assaulting police officers, and looting shops and other businesses.
The rapid spread of the riots, which took place simultaneously in a number of locations, suggests the violent eruptions were not spontaneous and that these white supremacists were just waiting for an opportunity to unleash their cancerous, racist, and xenophobic hatred.
The quick and effective response by the government, police, and courts, as well as by anti-racist civil society groups in the form of counter-demonstrations, should not conceal the fact that there is an underlying problem of racism in the UK, in this case manifested by Islamophobia and anti-migrant sentiment, that should not be swept under the carpet. Instead, its root causes must be thoroughly investigated and addressed.
The scale of this phenomenon should not be exaggerated nor must the unrest be belittled or dismissed as belonging to a small fringe segment of society. One of the most obvious signs that the organizers of these riots had been lying in wait for an opportunity to attack people whom they perceive as not belonging to British society was the tragic event that triggered the eruption of this mindless violence.
It happened following the horrific fatal stabbing of three girls at a dance class in the seaside town of Southport, in the north of England. The person arrested and charged with the unforgivable killing of young girls enjoying summer holiday activities was a British-born 17-year-old from a nearby village.
Police did not consider it a terror-related incident but almost immediately after it happened, posts began to appear on social media falsely suggesting the killer was Muslim. It cannot be stressed enough that even if he had been, attacking mosques and the Muslim community cannot be justified in any way, shape or form. In this case, the attacks included the torching of buildings housing hundreds of people, which could have caused massive losses of life.
The riots presented Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government with its first severe test since coming to power in July, and it passed with impressive results. It might be the case that those behind the riots were deliberately testing a government they consider to be too liberal and too progressive, especially when it comes to issues related to immigration and multiculturalism.
The swift police response — which resulted in hundreds of arrests, with many people immediately charged and more than 20 already sentenced to up to three years in jail — was a clear declaration of zero tolerance for the racist rioters. Considering the huge backlog of cases in UK courts, many of which wait years to be heard, the aim of this unusually swift application of justice was not only to punish the perpetrators of extreme violence but to deter the racists from returning to the streets.

It might be the case that the racist thugs underestimated the new prime minister, a barrister who before entering politics was chief prosecutor and head of the Crown Prosecution Service, and so has intimate knowledge of the legal system. He would also have been aware that any failure to quickly and firmly deal with these clearly organized outbursts of violence so early in his premiership could have derailed his party’s time in office when it had barely begun.

Racism and xenophobia in British society should not be ignored or dismissed as a fringe phenomenon. 

Yossi Mekelberg

Certain commentators have tried to diminish, almost trivialize, the riots as merely the actions of a small bunch of thugs who every now and again look for an excuse to take to the streets. By claiming that they are politically motivated or attributing to them an ideology, the argument goes, we undeservedly elevate their importance.
Admittedly, exaggerating the numbers of those involved and the extent of their influence might serve to falsely glorify them as defenders of the country, its society, and its culture, and tap into some innate, nativist fear of “the other.”
However, as much as the vast majority of British people might be appalled by the bigotry of the rioters, and even more by their violent behavior, and despite the UK being one of the most tolerant societies in the world, there are nevertheless strong and dangerous undercurrents in British society, especially in England, that reject immigration of any kind — Brexit was a clear manifestation of this — along with modern-day multiculturalism.
Racism and xenophobia in British society, as in other Western societies, should not be ignored or dismissed as a fringe phenomenon, particularly as it is encouraged and unscrupulously exploited by mainstream right-wing politicians.
In a society in which describing Muslim women wearing burqas as “looking like letter boxes” did not prevent a politician from becoming a Conservative prime minister, and in which a home secretary from the same party deemed it acceptable to stand up in Parliament and describe asylum seekers as invaders, as if they were enemies from a hostile country, the issue clearly runs much deeper.
And these are just a tiny example of the kinds of vitriolic language used not only to vilify immigrants but also leveled at born-and-bred Brits who happen to be of “different” ethnicities or religions.
Driving a wedge between communities and exploiting such divisions by blaming the hardships experienced by certain segments of society on immigrants is one of the oldest and dirtiest tricks at the disposal of right-wing, populist leaders, and it made a major contribution to the racist violence we recently witnessed in the UK.
The reality is that it is the failures of previous governments, and present social structures, that have caused so many people to feel they have been left behind in British society, and minorities are used as scapegoats to divert attention from these failures.
The recent UK general election resulted in an impressive victory for Labour but also opened the door for the Reform Party, which won four seats in Parliament, and its main defining characteristic is a creed of national-chauvinism that blames immigrants and immigration for all the country’s ills.
There are those who promote nativism and cannot accept that the nature of British society, like that of many other European societies, has changed, and who refuse to acknowledge the contribution of migrants and migration to their society and economy.
The events of recent weeks, and the worrying relative success at the ballot box of parties that promote ultranationalism, demand a nationwide conversation, perhaps even a royal commission, to help define modern Britain and embrace the best of its values and traditions, while equally recognizing and welcoming the increasingly multicultural nature of its society and the contribution this has made to all walks of life.
Instead of rejecting multiculturalism we need to learn to do it better, and to improve the integration of all communities into what must become a more just and tolerant modern Britain.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg