9/8/2024–|Last update: 9/8/202401:56 PM (Makkah Time)
The Economist has launched a scathing attack on what it calls “thugs” from the far right who sparked racist riots in protest at the killing of three young girls in the town of Southport, near Liverpool, by a minor immigrant from Rwanda who was falsely said to be Muslim.
The magazine said in its editorial that “disgusting” is a strong word, but it is not enough to describe the behavior of “thugs” on the streets of Britain since the incident that occurred on July 29.
She added that the anti-immigration protests that have spread across England and Northern Ireland cannot be justified, as mosques and police forces have been attacked.
Worst in decades
The Economist reported that the racial riots witnessed in various towns and cities were among the worst since World War IIand does not fit in with the image of stable Britain that the government seeks. Labour Party New to its establishment.
The magazine criticized the American billionaire. Elon Musk Because of his statement on the platform X which he owns, warning that “civil war is inevitable” in Britain, and described the warning as “a blatant lie.”
She explained that one of the reasons behind the transformation of the far right – from an organised political force to something amorphous – is that Britain has become a more liberal country.
Related Post
Despite the outbreak of counter-demonstrations in support of immigrants, the Economist believes that the clashes may not end, even if Britain is not on the brink of civil war, considering the riots to be nothing more than a passing bout of summer violence.
The magazine considered the recent legislative elections to be a crushing defeat for the government. Conservative Party which launched a campaign to suppress irregular migration.
A wound that never heals
The Economist said immigration had become “the unhealing wound of British politics, due to a combination of real problems and political opportunism.”
She considered that the immigration system is in a state of chaos, and that the far right in British politics is the curtain behind which the manifestations of hostility to immigrants are hidden.
The magazine warned that it is not wise to believe that the riots will be forgotten once they subside because the violence may lead to an acceleration of extremism and counter-extremism on the Internet, which may exacerbate the problems of the far right in the country.
This means, according to the Economist, that the government must combine firm justice with careful policy, that is, punishing lawbreakers while distancing people who are open to democratic life from groups that adopt extremist ideas, to ensure that they do not become immersed in bias against immigrants, and to address the sense of injustice that populists feed on.
Fast-track trials
The magazine believes that speedy trials and sentencing are the best means of preventing the continuation of violence, and points out that given the role played by the Internet in organizing protests and inciting hatred, pursuing those who call for violence through their keyboards is of utmost importance.
The Economist advised police to be more flexible and quick in their response to misinformation, as it took them several hours to refute statements published online claiming that the Southport attacker was a Muslim asylum seeker, “lies” used by influential people to incite the unrest in its early stages.
However, the magazine believes that a crushing response to “bullying” is not enough, adding that this requires three parallel approaches: the first is to seize every opportunity to refute anti-immigration myths, and the second is the need to limit the most harmful and obvious political failures such as processing asylum applications as quickly as possible to prevent large numbers of migrants from crowding into hotels that are often located in deprived areas.
The third approach is to work on addressing the shortcomings in the services and public facilities provided by local authorities so that citizens in those areas do not vent their anger on immigrants, which would lead to a decline in confidence in prevailing policies and force people to take matters into their own hands.
