Brownstone Institute
Unrest in Britain: The Other Half of the Story
From the Brownstone Institute
The official story circulating on BBC and echoed by government and police spokespersons is that the riots and unrest seen in the UK in recent weeks are the product of a tiny minority of “far-right” hooligans and criminals, egged on by “disinformation” about the circumstances of the awful murder of innocent children in Southport, in particular the identity of the 17-year-old assailant, who was initially alleged to be a Muslim refugee, and later turned out to be a Welsh-born citizen born to Rwandan parents. This official story is not, strictly speaking, false. But it is only half the story.
The race riots, street violence, and public unrest we have seen in recent weeks have complex underlying causes and are not susceptible to any simple, one-dimensional explanation. Yet in their eagerness to condemn “far-right” rioters and looters, many public commentators omit to mention that the visceral anger of the rioters is really just an extreme and unlawful expression of the anger and frustration of many ordinary, law-abiding citizens, whose concerns about immigration and its impact on their communities are usually either ignored or blithely dismissed as “disinformation” or “far-right” propaganda.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not suggesting for a second that it is in any way justified to hurl rocks at a mosque, injure police officers, set refugee accommodation centres on fire, engage in disorderly conduct, or intimidate people of other religions or ethnicities. I’m not suggesting for a second that anti-immigrant violence should be tolerated or encouraged.
But I would suggest that the condemnation of “far-right” agitation and violence should not lead us to overlook the broader societal discontent and fragmentation that such violence emerges from. Our condemnation of far-right violence should not be allowed to blind us to the fact that a very large proportion of citizens who express disquiet over immigration policy, or attend public rallies to raise awareness of their concerns, are not violent thugs, or “far-right” agitators; just regular, law-abiding citizens who are worried about how poorly controlled immigration will impact their access to housing and public services, or the safety of their streets, or the cohesion and prosperity of their neighbourhoods.
If deep discontent with the UK’s immigration policy was restricted to “far-right” hooligans, we could not explain the remarkable success of the Brexit movement, one of whose primary selling points was its opposition to “mass immigration,” which saw through a successful Brexit referendum in 2016. Nor could we explain the fact that in the 2024 elections, Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, with its call for stricter controls on immigration, managed to win 15% of the popular vote, in a first-past-the-post system in which many of the Reform voters knew they were likely handing the election to Labour.
Of course, it is psychologically comforting to blame a social problem on a single scapegoat. It makes you feel more comfortable because the problem is contained and limited to whomever you have chosen to scapegoat – be it those pesky refugees, or the Muslims, or the Jews, or the conservative hillbillies, or the “Far Right.” But it may also be myopic, if the problem happens to be a complex one, with multiple underlying causes.
Those who, in the face of growing unrest surrounding immigration and race, limit themselves to condemning far=right violence, are missing out on a golden opportunity to open a sophisticated public conversation about fragmented communities across the UK, about the real and perceived failures of immigration policy, and about the reasons why immigration remains such a “hot button issue” in towns and cities across Britain.
Public disquiet in the UK over immigration policy is real and goes far beyond “far-right” agitation. Even when that disquiet is not on the front pages of British newspapers, it continues to bubble under the surface, as some communities feel that their access to public services and housing, as well as the future of their way of life, are threatened by disproportionate levels of immigration, including illegal immigration.
According to a 2023 analysis of professional opinion polls undertaken by the Migration Observatory, 37% of Britons believe immigration should be reduced “a lot,” and 15% believe it should be reduced “a little,” compared with 6% who believe it should be increased “a lot” and 8% who think it should be increased “a little.” In short, over half of the population believe there is too much immigration, while more than one in three believe there is far too much immigration.
The superficiality of the “official” British response to the unfolding unrest may come down to a sort of wishful thinking: if we just keep the focus on the “far right,” then we can just round up the culprits, pack our bags, and go home. After all, what politician or head of police wants to grasp the nettle of a racially charged issue like immigration, in a way that seriously engages with the demands of disgruntled citizens and communities?
Nevertheless, until public authorities and opinion leaders start to respectfully engage with citizens who believe illegal immigration is out of control, as well as communities that worry over the impact of immigration on social cohesion, housing, public services, and public finances, the disquiet and resentment will continue to brew. Sadly, we can expect more unrest and disorder if public authorities do not engage in a respectful way with citizens’ legitimate fears and concerns.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
The UN committee approved the text of the Convention on Combating Cybercrime. Human rights organizations and information technology experts have called it a threat to democracy and the free world.
“One of the world’s most dangerous surveillance treaties was approved with a standing ovation,” wrote Austrian digital rights group Epicenter Works.
The UN General Assembly is now due to vote on the adoption of the Convention in September.
“It can be assumed that the treaty will be accepted without difficulty at the UN General Assembly in September, and will thus be officially considered a UN convention. After that, it will be available for signature and subsequently it can be ratified,” said political advisor Tanja Fachathalerová. “It can be assumed that it will not be a big problem to achieve the necessary forty ratifications, which are necessary for the treaty to enter into force.”
Legitimization of Repression against Journalists and Opponents
The proposed international treaty aims to combat cybercrime and improve international cooperation between law enforcement agencies. However, more than a hundred human and civil rights organizations around the world have warned of a serious threat to human rights and criticized the fact that the text of the treaty lacks adequate safeguards. According to them, the planned agreement would oblige UN member states to introduce comprehensive measures for the supervision of a wide range of crimes.
“The contract is really a surveillance agreement with too few provisions on data protection and human rights. In practice, it legitimizes the more repressive measures against political opponents or journalists that we now see in authoritarian states,” writes the netzpolitik.org server.
China and Russia Stood at the Beginning of the Convention
It all started with a UN resolution initiated in 2019 by Russia, China, and other countries (such as Iran, Egypt, Sudan, and Uzbekistan) with 88 votes in favor, 58 against, and 34 abstentions.
European states have proposed changes, but according to experts, the resulting compromise does not even meet the conditions necessary to preserve privacy and protect human rights.
Stay Informed with Brownstone Institute
“Unfortunately, a data access treaty has been drawn up that will allow governments around the world to exchange citizens’ personal information in perpetual secrecy in the event of any crime the two governments agree is ‘serious.’ This would include eavesdropping on location and real-time communications around the world, and force IT workers to divulge passwords or other access keys that would compromise the security of global systems that billions of people rely on every day. And it’s not just private sector systems – government systems are also at risk,” said Nick Ashton-Hart, Digital Economy Policy Director at APCO, who is also leading the Cybersecurity Tech Accord delegation to the Convention negotiations.
The Threat of Criminal Prosecution of Journalists and White Hackers
The Ashton-Hart treaty also puts journalists and whistleblowers at risk of prosecution. The International Press Institute was so concerned about this risk that it placed a full-page ad in the Washington Post. Independent security experts around the world also warned in February that they could face criminal prosecution for their work protecting IT systems from cybercriminals under the draft Convention.
Governments Could Prosecute Children for Sexting
“Incredibly, the text expressly allows governments to prosecute children for “sexting” in the same article (14) that is supposed to protect them from sexual predators. The article also puts people working in charities who help bring predators to justice at risk of prosecution because they need access to material created by predators as part of their work. Civil society advocates have repeatedly pointed out this obvious deficiency, but to no avail,” Ashton-Hart said.
Concerns about Freedom of Expression
According to experts, companies that operate internationally will also be exposed to increased legal and reputational risk after the arrest of employees. The private data of individuals and vulnerable communities can be accessed by law enforcement agencies around the world, even in cases where the perpetrators’ actions are not criminal in their place of residence or in cases that raise significant concerns about freedom of expression.
Cooperation between authorities and states can be kept secret without transparency about how governments use the treaty, or without provisions that allow companies to challenge law enforcement requests, even if they are illegal.
Criticizing Leaders as a Crime?
“Facilitating collusion in any ‘serious’ crime opens the door to ‘crimes’ such as criticizing leaders or persecuting minorities,” writes Ashton-Hart in his analysis.
On August 13, the International Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest and most representative representative of the private sector, openly called on the UN not to adopt the convention at the General Assembly in September.
“If governments fail again to protect the international human rights legal framework they so often vociferously support, then new, dangerous norms created in international law will haunt us for decades to come,” Ashton-Hart said.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
The condescension, overt political motivations, and outright derision directed at those who were rationally skeptical of a brand-new vaccine, masks, and the extreme and harmful lockdown policies by medical practitioners and hospital systems have finally led to an inevitable consequence: the public simply does not trust them anymore.
A new paper in JAMA analyzes survey respondents in the US over the period of time right after the Covid pandemic started in April 2020 and through early 2024. It reveals a significant decline in trust in physicians and hospitals, dropping from 71.5% in April 2020, to 40.1% in January 2024. Lower trust levels were strongly associated with reduced likelihood of receiving Covid-19 vaccinations and boosters. Total shocker, right?
One incredibly interesting part of this study was the revealing of the open-text responses that survey respondents gave for their lack of trust. From the supplement, here are the top 4 themes why patients have lost trust.
1. Financial Motives Over Patient Care: This theme includes perceptions of healthcare as primarily profit-driven, where financial incentives outweigh patient welfare. Respondents believe that decisions are made based on profitability rather than the best interests of patients.
2. Poor Quality of Care and Negligence: Responses that mention experiences of neglect, inadequate care, misdiagnosis, or dismissive attitudes from healthcare providers fall under this category. This also includes perceptions of healthcare professionals not listening or taking patient concerns seriously.
3. Influence of External Entities and Agendas: Here, the focus is on the belief that decisions in healthcare are unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies, government entities, or other external powers. This includes suspicions of dishonesty or withholding information for nonmedical reasons.
4. Discrimination and Bias: Responses indicating experiences or beliefs that healthcare providers exhibit bias, discrimination, or lack of cultural competency. This can include racial discrimination, gender bias, or insensitivity to patient backgrounds.
Another interesting analysis in the supplement was the inclusion of political affiliation. The tendency for Republicans and Independents to have lower trust overall than Democrats should not surprise anyone, as the polarization of vaccines, masks, and lockdowns made it clear that the left was in favor of doing anything at all in the name of combating Covid, no matter the cost.
As we witnessed firsthand in 2020 and 2021, and even today, the condescension, overt political motivations, and outright derision directed at those who were rationally skeptical of a brand-new vaccine, masks, and the extreme and harmful lockdown policies by medical practitioners and hospital systems have finally led to an inevitable consequence: the public simply does not trust them anymore. And not by a small margin—there has been a massive swing from majority trust to majority distrust. For anyone who was paying attention, this is not shocking.
For my part, I hope that the practitioners we truly need to rely on when we require medical care see this as a wake-up call and understand just how much damage they have done to their long-term doctor-patient relationships. Now, instead of starting from a place of trust, they are starting from a deficit. This is not just bad for their careers; it’s bad for the patients.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
BC should revisit nuclear energy to address BC Hydro shortages
From Deal With It: A Cruel, Senseless Fate Ends A Brilliant Career
RF Kennedy Jr and Political Realignment
Harm reduction projects in Nelson are fraying the city’s social fabric, residents say
-
Alberta2 days agoTrudeau-appointed judge sentences Freedom Convoy-inspired protesters to 6 years in prison
-
National2 days agoLiberals Welcome Mark Carney Into Their Elite Circle, Because Another Globalist Is Just What Canada Needs
-
Agriculture2 days agoCanadian pandemic bill wants to regulate meat production, develop contract tracing
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
Trust in Doctors and Hospitals Plummets
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta announces second waste-to-energy facility near Edmonton to join Central Alberta plant at Innisfail
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta Conservatives looking to pass resolution protecting ‘female spaces’ from male intrusion
-
Daily Caller2 days ago‘Spoiled Brats’: Greenpeace Co-Founder Supports Pipeline Tycoon’s Campaign To Punish His Old Group
-
Automotive19 hours agoEnergy Notes From the Edge: EV Industry on Limp-Home Mode; Greenpeace’s Firehose Used Against Them and They’re Not Happy