I TRUST all those good right-wingers who subscribe to Thatcher’s “no such thing as society” were watching the events that followed the Manchester bombing. Britain is still a free society, but freedom, like everything else in human society, must not be regarded as an absolute. In a free, democratic society we believe in freedom of speech and often quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s famous dictum, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. But as with all human behaviour this must be subject to qualification.

The right in Britain, under the guise of free speech and led by the Daily Mail, has systematically utilised their freedom to demonise and castigate whole sections of our population to the point that they are now suffering open persecution, discrimination and physical violence. The Government’s own figures tell us there was a rise of 41 per cent in racially motivated crimes in this country of following the EU referendum. Much of that was fuelled by the language of the right-wing press and hate-mongers such as Nigel Farage, Kelvin McKenzie, Katie Hopkins, and the Tories’ Brexiteers.

In the wake of the Manchester bombing, Hopkins tweeted that the time had come for a “final solution” to the perceived problems of the UK’s Muslim population. The Daily Telegraph’s political commentator Allison Pearson also tweeted that the UK must institute a state of emergency like that in France, claiming that we need the internment of thousands of terror suspects now to protect our children.

Hopkins is the same individual who was investigated by the police for writing that the refugees were cockroaches and should be met with gunboats as opposed to lifeboats. Last month, The Sun finally sacked Kelvin McKenzie for likening a mixed-race Everton football player to a gorilla. This is the man who said on television that “I think the fake news headline that would give this country the most joy would be: Jeremy Corbyn knifed to death by an asylum seeker.”

This is from the man who must bear some responsibility for the fact that it took 27 years before the truth about the Hillsborough disater was finally established. What is important here is that this is corporate abuse of freedom and it is being encouraged by a government who refuses to condemn it or seek to regulate it.

These are individuals, yes, tweeting in their own time, yes, but they are utilising their corporate positions in society to spread their poison throughout the nation and beyond in order to mould public opinion and unleash consequences on people they hate. Hopkins is here openly advocating an ethnic cleansing policy for Muslims in the UK, Pearson is calling for concentration camps, and McKenzie is attempting to provoke a physical attack on the leader of the Labour Party barely a year after a Labour MP was shot to death, and this is all being underwritten by national corporations who approve of what these people are writing, because they are both printing what these creatures write and paying them handsome salaries.

I mean this is Britain, it is unthinkable, but is not only being thought but publicised. It matters not that these people are tweeting this filth, they get away with it because they know they will be protected by a governmental system that we must conclude agrees with them.

This is the language of the Third Reich, of people who called for another final solution and who frequently referred to Jews as cockroaches. Such language is not an accident. It is quite deliberate, designed to influence public opinion, and written and published by the supporters of the Tory Government. Enough is enough. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Peter Kerr
Address supplied

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tory split is down to the new way our parties campaign

YOUR correspondent, Catriona Clark (Letters, The National, May 25), asks if the glaring policy differences between Conservative politicians in Scotland and at Westminster is a sign of internal disagreements within the Tory Party.

It seems to me more likely that it reflects the new approach of political campaigning based on short, meaningless soundbites and slogans, the truth of which is irrelevant because the voters fail to read the small print. This worked for Trump in America, which is doubtless where the Tories got the idea.

Of course, what this Tory approach tacitly accepts is that there are actually two quite different political systems at work within the UK and that these need to be addressed with different messages. Ironically, this dichotomy is precisely what Unionists have long denied existed! This despite the fact that we have in Scotland a separate legislature, a different voting system, a very different political outcome and different objectives.

All of which suggests that there is a new political axis in UK politics. No longer the cosy Tory-Labour axis, taking regular turns at government, but now the ever clearer choice of either British nationalism or Scottish nationalism.

On another related note, as this unnecessary and rather surreal election bumbles on to what seems to be its inevitable conclusion, one fact has emerged clearly.

As Mrs May’s performances show, on the rare occasions when she has been exposed to media and public scrutiny, the Prime Minister is simply inadequate. With every policy twist and turn she has been exposed as an over-promoted mediocrity with only a few rehearsed but essentially meaningless soundbites to conceal the intellectual void that lies beneath.

Sadly, we have a Prime Minister who seems to be little more than a puppet. The interesting question is who is pulling the strings?
Peter Craigie
Edinburgh

AS General Election campaigning resumes following the horrific bomb explosion in Manchester, it is important that our democratic processes, limited as they are by an unrepresentative first-past-the-post electoral system and an anachronistic parliamentary structure, reflect heartfelt compassion but are not allowed to be disproportionately disrupted or perhaps even diverted.

That said, following the earlier Scottish leaders’ debate, Sarah Smith and her colleague Jackie Bird distracted attention from Westminster matters and concerns over the Tory Party’s governance of the UK. To claim that this was what the audience wanted was not only disingenuous but an abrogation of responsibility by our public broadcaster to objectively and professionally frame and moderate political debate.

The subsequent demonisation of Joanna Cherry, who appears to be a highly competent and principled MP, by much of the mainstream media should serve as a serious alert to all supporters of self-determination for Scotland, that in spite of the great progress made in recent years the forces of the establishment allied against independence are not only huge and pervasive but devious.

To achieve the goal of joining the growing number of independent states around the globe understandable frustrations must be controlled and efforts re-doubled to engage in respectful, meaningful and hopefully inspirational debate with others yet to be convinced of the mounting arguments in favour of finally ending an outdated and unequal Union.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian

I AM assuming Mr McBride (Letters, The National, May 25) is completely oblivious to the hypocrisy he displays when asking how long it will take before politicians use the unfortunate events in Manchester to serve their interests.

Mr McBride then goes on to suggest that the Tories will push through “new draconian laws”, implying that our safety in the wake of a horrible attack will be used as justification. Does he not see that he himself is point scoring, using the aftermath to criticise what the Tories might do should they be re-elected with a stronger majority.

Can we at least let the dust settle?
Susie Watt
Glasgow