The Brexit Party stands for more than Brexit
(Photo by Anthony Devlin/Getty Images)
Just once I cheered on Communists. They were fictional. In his book The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera describes an archetypal scene where a group of banner-waving Western actors, singers, and intellectuals marches on the borders of communist Cambodia to demand access for Western doctors.
“All up and down the long parade, photographers and cameramen were snapping and whirring their equipment, dashing up to the front, pausing, inching back, dropping to their knees, then straightening up and running even farther ahead. Now and then they would call out the name of some celebrity, who would unwittingly turn in their direction just long enough to let them trigger their shutters.”
The parade of celebrities and intellectuals reaches the Cambodian border and makes their demands through a loud-speaker. To which “The response from the other side was a stunning silence. A silence so absolute that everyone’s spirits sank. Only the cameras clicked on, sounding in the silence like the song of an exotic insect…” One of the intellectuals “lifted his fist and threatened the silence on the other side…” Eventually they all gave up and slunk back to their buses.
What reminded me of this utter indifference to Virtue Signallers and Banner Wavers?
It was when the first candidates for the Brexit Party were announced and the mainstream press began their offence archaeology. Claire Fox hardly has a hidden past as a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Anne Widdecombe is not quiet about her views on abortion. Would the Brexit Party realise that it had made some horrible mistakes? I wasn’t optimistic. We had just witnessed the Conservative Party throwing Roger Scruton under a bus. Before that, Toby Young. So the Brexit Party’s stunning silence was glorious.
If the Brexit Party can retain this stance, its role in British public life has the chance of being much bigger than Brexit. Because offence archaeology – and the way mainstream broadcasters and political parties are responding to it – risks profoundly damaging how we live. It is damaging the lives of individuals. Not just those who have been “caught out”. But the rest of us who have started to “watch what we say”. It is putting unacceptable power into the hands of those individuals who carry it out. It is impacting our national conversation: we seem to spend more time digging into people’s pasts than listening to what they have to say. And it is impacting our ability to govern ourselves in a way that is democratically fair: why should offence archaeologists have so great an influence over who holds public positions? (I thought Roger Scruton was doing a good job…)
Compare the actions of the Brexit Party with those of Change UK. One of their candidates, Ali Sadjady tweeted in 2017 “When I hear that 70% of pick pockets caught on the London Underground are Romanian it kind of makes me want Brexit.” A spokesperson for Change UK said: “Following discussions, Ali Sadjady has reflected on his inappropriate tweet from 2017 and agreed to stand down from the list of potential candidates.” Offence archaeology has actually revealed more “inappropriate” tweets by Mr Sadjady. But in their statement, Change UK said their candidate was standing down, because of one inappropriate tweet.
Is that really how we want to live together as a society? What about some robustness and humour? What about reflecting upon the fact that we all live in glass houses? What about forgiveness – and giving people second chances? What I don’t understand is this: if we are unwilling to give someone a second chance after an inappropriate tweet, how does that interact with our approach to giving prisoners second chances in life? It is as plain as day that there is a disconnect. And yet we blunder on.
Back to the Brexit Party and that unexpected silence.
Am I suggesting that offence archaeology should end? Of course not – people can do what they like with their time. Supporters of freedom of speech understand that. It would be good though, if it became a waste of time. For that to happen, what needs to change is how political parties, corporations, broadcasters respond to it. Wouldn’t it be nice if sometimes “The response from the other side was a stunning silence.”
Am I suggesting that anything goes? When I started to write this article I thought up a simple rule. “If you have said or done something offensive and stupid – and you openly agree that it was offensive and stupid – the slate is wiped clean.” I thought that was rather good. Apologise and move on. I think it does work for uncharacteristic slips or drunken foolishness.
But then I listened to a podcast that Claire Fox made with James Millar, which can be found here. In it she said “I am not going to renounce my former life”. There is something profoundly important in that.
Recently a journalist tweeted some things that Roger Scruton did not say. Within five hours the Conservative Government had sacked him without any regard to due process. When it learned that he did not say these things, it did not re-instate him. The Conservative Party’s actions were indefensible. I can’t vote for a political party that behaves in that way. Let alone continue to be a member.
If the Brexit Party is the only party in Britain that is, not just brave enough, but moral enough, to stand up to offence archaeology, its got my vote and my time. And not just for the Euro Elections.
