Tommy Robinson and the double standards of political violence, by Brendan O’Neill.
So it’s acceptable now to assault electoral candidates? That’s the pretty scary take-home message from the Tommy Robinson ‘milkshaking’ incidents. Journalists and even politicians have been going wild for the bloke in Warrington who threw his milkshake in Robinson’s face yesterday as he was out campaigning as an independent for the upcoming Euro elections. It’s the second time this week Robinson was milkshaked. It will no doubt become a trend. ‘Milkshake a fascist.’
The celebration of these milkshakings is weird and worrying. It is surely a basic principle of democracy that individuals can campaign for office without fearing assault, whether it’s by Mugabe’s heavies in Zimbabwe, who frequently attacked electoral candidates, or by members of the public in England who have essentially been told by the media and even by Tory MPs that it is acceptable to attack a certain independent candidate. …
People now know they will go viral and win praise if they attack Robinson when he’s out campaigning. The media class has basically sanctioned the use of force against an electoral candidate. …
I am struggling to remember the last time the chattering classes effectively said it is good and honourable to use force against an individual seeking public office.
The double standards here are gobsmacking. The man who threw an egg at Jeremy Corbyn was roundly condemned as a violent threat to democracy and was jailed for 28 days. Yet the man who threw a milkshake at Robinson is turned into a national hero. …
This is the real danger here: people are strongly implying that physical violence against politicians is acceptable.
This is outrageous.
Meanwhile in Australia it is Fraser Anning and Scott Morrison who are egged, to the delight of the left and the media. Spotting any trends?
hat-tip Stephen Neil