Opinion Analysis by Francesco Pitzalis, Staff Writer

July 29th, 2020

“Well Mr. Speaker, of course black lives matter”.

 The UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson’s nonchalant response to opposition leaders in the house of commons epitomised a palpable sense of emotional disconnect towards Britain’s Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. However, this has not occurred in isolation and has been preceded by a history of racist and Islamophobic remarks. 

Boris Johnson’s rise to the top of British politics demonstrates how such unscrupulous prejudices are given a free pass. In comparison, Johnson’s former socialist adversary, Jeremy Corbyn, was stained by accusations of antisemitism in the run-up to last year’s general election. The question is not whether one form of discrimination is more shameful than the other but rather if all forms of discrimination should be penalised equally. 

Following the toppling of slave-trader, Edward Colston’s statue, Boris proclaimed that the protests were “subverted by thuggery” and urged the protestors to focus “less on the symbols” and more on the “successes.” The Prime Minister then proceeded to broadcast arguable random factoids on black enrolment to university and failed to comprehensively elucidate the economic deprivation, excessive policing and mass incarceration of Britain’s black minority. In doing so, Johnson minimised the structural prejudices faced by black people in Britain and thwarted cross-party solidary towards a progressive anti-racism policy. What is more concerning, is the ease at which he conflates blackness with criminality, an age-old anti-black trope underpinning the mass incarceration of black people, particularly black males.

This was furthered by the PM’s fellow brexiteer, Nigel Farage, who asserted that the ousting of Colston’s statue was an exercise of “mob rule” and equivalent to the actions of the Taliban. Such comparisons relegate BLM supporters to an unsavoury cohort of violent, fundamentalist, extremists. Worryingly, these attacks by the British right have been far more vigorous than any criticism of British policing or structural prejudices. Therefore, we should ponder whether these individuals value the likeness of a 17th century slave-trader more than the lives of their black citizens. 

Real change is needed. Instead, the British Prime Minister decided to commission another review into racial inequality. Such irritating displays of tokenism have been a staple feature on the British political scene since the heinous, racially-motivated murder of Steven Lawrence in 1993. Lawrence’s killers roamed free for two decades, and the then review, did nothing to address the prejudices of the criminal justice system underpinning this gross travesty of justice. The latest episode of plastic empathy for the black cause is another naïve and insensitive attempt to placate those disenfranchised by racial privileges. Nevertheless, your average Harry from Barnsley could be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Johnson’s shallow understanding of structural racism is not indicative of underlying racial prejudices. He would be entirely mistaken.

Throughout his tenures as a journalist and politician, Boris Johnson has espoused a wide array of racist and Islamophobic remarks. In 2002, he referred to the black people of the commonwealth as “flag-waving piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles”. In 2005, following the July London bombings, he claimed “Islam is the problem.” Most famously, in 2018 he compared Muslim women to “bank-robbers” and “letter boxes”. In Johnson’s defence, this sort of sick humour is nothing a person wouldn’t hear during a chardonnay-fuelled conservative pub night. However, I would insist that Boris’s racism is fundamental. The UK PM was quoted saying that Britain’s colonial endeavours in Africa were “not a blot on our conscience…The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge anymore.” Perhaps Mr. Johnson should examine the massacres, famine, slavery and exploitation of natural resources before glorifying the actions of the British in Africa. His nostalgic veneration of a system predicated on white racial superiority white-washes British crimes with a verve rarely seen since the colonialists of yesteryear. 

Unbelievably, Mr. Johnson’s racism has continued unchecked throughout his rather sensational rise to the position of Mayor of London and subsequently Prime Minister. In response to his most recent Islamophobic outburst, a conservative party investigation concluded that his comments were “respectful.”

No, you have not been inhaling the fumes of the Beqaa’s favourite herb; comparing Muslim women to “bank-robbers” is apparently a hallmark of respect, apparently. Yet whilst one might expect the conservatives to shield their blonde bombshell from criticism, it is intolerable that the PM swerves punishment in public and parliamentary spheres. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened. A recent inquiry into Conservative party islamophobia was dropped in May of this year by the Equality and Human Rights commission. Likewise, since his derogatory comments, Boris has risen to the position of conservative party leader and stormed to a majority in the house of commons. The slippery conservative veteran has navigated accusations of Islamophobia with his customary satirical facade and by consistently honking about his Muslim heritage in the form of a Turkish Great-Grandfather. Boris thus shrewdly creates a sense of faux neutrality under the guise that he is “one of their own.” 

Across the aisle, accusations of antisemitism dogged the labour party since the socialist and pro-Palestinian activist, Jeremy Corbyn assumed party leadership in 2016. Such accusations were not without foundation, with 673 antisemitism complaints between April 2018 and January 2019. Moreover, the Corbyn leadership’s efforts to enforce a zero-tolerance policy towards antisemitism were simply unsatisfactory. Despite this, the “Chakrabarti” report into Labour’s antisemitism concluded that there was no significant antisemitism in Labour relative to other parties. This inquiry was not without controversy; thus, I will postpone critical analysis of this report for a later date. Certainly, a dissection of every bi-partisan antisemitic, Islamophobic and anti-black comment in British politics is beyond the realm of this article. What does provide scope for concise, robust discussion is a closer look into the covert racism expressed by Corbyn and his former adversary, Johnson. 

Accusations of antisemitism against Corbyn were based largely on his support for pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist political organisations, in addition to his opposition to the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism. Corbyn once labelled representatives of Hamas as “friends”, despite the fact that the party is undeniably antisemitic. However, rendering Corbyn an anti-Semite for a statement he later expressed regret for would be highly problematic and presumptuous. At what point does a mere token of solidarity for a cause assume that the supporter (ardent or not) represents the entirety of that causes views. You would hope that Boris Johnson does not represent the Islamophobic and Arabophobic views of Benjamin Netanyahu as he expands trade with israel. Similarly, that a Briton’s support for Brexit is not predicated on support for the xenophobic rhetoric of Nigel Farage. Personally, I may be a supporter of Chelsea FC, but refuse to support the club’s hikes in ticket prices or design of their new kit (I think we get the idea).

Consequently, if support for the Palestinian struggle in the face of occupation, segregation, discrimination, and mass bombardment is tantamount to antisemitism then the use of the term has now assumed novel meaning in modern discourse. Indeed, this is my issue and (most likely) Mr. Corbyn’s issue with the specifications of the IHRA’s antisemitism definition. The IHRA defines that claiming that (1) “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” and (2) “applying double standards [to Israel] not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” are both antisemitic. In essence, this definition is furthering the fallacy that anti-Zionism is synonymous with anti-Semitism. Conflating the two fails to distinguish between Judaism, a religion and Zionism, a political, settler-colonial ideology. It also fails to acknowledge the antisemitic tendencies of prominent Zionists such as Arthur Balfour (author of the Balfour declaration) and the conscientious Palestinian/anti-Zionism activism by the likes of israeli historian, Ilan Pappe. Furthermore, one only has to scrutinise israel’s ongoing annexation and fragmentation of the West Bank into apartheid-style Bantustans, or the 2018 israeli nation state law to recognize that israel is not a “democracy” beyond reproach.

As such, this opinionated analysis argues that Corbyn’s Palestinian activism and opposition to the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism should not be misconstrued for antisemitism itself. That notwithstanding, any accusation of anti-Semitism against Jeremy Corbyn pales in comparison to the covert, derisory and unapologetic comments of Boris Johnson against black people and Muslims. It seems the current Prime Minister once acknowledged this fact himself. In a 2000 Guardian article, Boris claimed that racial prejudices were not only permissible, but inherent. The article begins by saying “racism is as natural as sewage” and then details Johnson’s discomfort following g sight of a “bunch of black kids.” The conservative vanguard then concludes, "If that is racial prejudice, then I am guilty. And so are you, baby.” 

The crux of my argument requires rewinding back to the general election of December 2019. Whilst it is fair to conclude that Corbyn’s crushing defeat was due to multiple political miscalculations, the accusations of antisemitism were a black mark on his campaign. In contrast, Johnson’s aforementioned racist remarks did not receive nearly the same traction or publicity compared to the condemnations levelled against Corbyn. Irrespective of this, Boris’s racism did nothing to obstruct his barnstorming victory on the 12th December 2019. That aside, the actions of the UK’s principle anti-discrimination body, the Equality and Human Rights commission are highly disconcerting. The commission simultaneously approved an investigation into Labour antisemitism and dropped an investigation into Conservative Islamophobia. If you have been dozing off at this point, take note of this; the distinction could not be more clear. 

I am not arguing for a softer approach against antisemitism, I urge the reader not to misinterpret my commentary. Rather, I am advocating for an aggressive, coherent, multilateral anti-racism protocol against all forms of discrimination. Additionally, a clear distinction should be made between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Not only is this conflation a slap in the face to proud Jews who vehemently oppose the occupational state of israel but one with no historical, religious or moral basis. Likewise, enabling rhetoric that ties Jews and Judaism inseparably with the israel paradoxically facilitates presuppositions of “dual-loyalty”, a classic anti-Semitic trope.

The Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism fallacy also allows Anti-Semitism to be crudely weaponised. You only have to watch Fox news clips (I suggest you don’t if you are prone to migraines) to witness how inferences of Anti-Semitism are being aimed at those who oppose israel’s annexation of the West Bank. Thus, antisemitism charges are now being used to silence opposition to a procedure that is wholly unjustifiable and illegal under public international law. Concerning racism towards black people, Boris Johnson’s rise to the top of the British pecking order represents a failure to confront anti-black racism in British politics and society as a whole. It is abundantly clear that Britain’s antiracism efforts need stepping up in order to empower wider structural changes and improve the lives of Black Brits.

Passivity no longer suffices, even when confronting implicit biases. Indeed, “Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.” That was eloquently written by Dr Martin Luther King Jr. from his Alabama jail cell. To those who stress that we shouldn’t “focus on the symbols”, I urge them to focus on wider structural issues, rather than aiming to delegitimize attempts of justified activism; whether that be in the US, the UK or israel/Palestine.