TORY MP Nick Timothy made a good point in Parliament on Tuesday. He argued that the law was being twisted to make a protester responsible for the violent reaction of those who will not tolerate the opinions of others. A person, he said, may be found guilty because of the violent reaction of those offended by their actions.
Yet, with the continuing Ballymena violence, where rioters have been reacting to alleged sexual assaults by immigrants embedded in their community, that logic never seems to apply the other way around.
When locals react violently to what, to them, is intolerable provocation, it is they who are branded ‘racist thugs’ and the like, while the authorities – who basically caused the problem in the first place – rush in to protect the targeted groups.
It is ironic, in this case, that no sooner was the site identified which had been used to give temporary refuge to the immigrants displaced by the rioting, the ‘racist thugs’ moved in to set the premises on fire, this one being the Larne Leisure Centre, some 20 miles from Ballymena.
Earlier, we are told, ‘community leaders’ described how they had pleaded with rioters not to target the homes of what they described as the ‘many hard-working foreign nationals’ in the area. One of the rioters responded: ‘There is no such thing as a good foreigner.’
One can see this from both points of view. On the one hand, there are any number of blameless immigrants who work hard and make a positive contribution to society.
On the other, mass immigration is a numbers game and if incomers are so numerous as to exceed the absorptive capacity of their host community – especially as some will be violent criminals – an explosive reaction is inevitable.
In the one-sided dialogue that we get from officialdom, we have DUP communities minister Gordon Lyons declaring: ‘The violence and disorder witnessed on our streets over recent nights serves no purpose,’ adding: ‘Wanton destruction such as the attack on Larne Leisure Centre is an attack on all residents who use the facility.’
Lyons is wrong. The ‘violence and disorder’ does serve a purpose. It is the traditional way voiceless communities make their views known to mindless officials who have long since stopped listening.
We are all aware that it is a blunt instrument, but the dynamics and triggers are well understood – and therefore predictable. If you push people too far, that is how they react, some more violently than others. Those such as Gordon Lyons, who allow pressure-cooker conditions to build up, should take some of the blame.
Rather than take responsibility for their own actions, though, it is much easier to resort to the tired clichés of the outraged and trot out the same overheated rhetoric that we’re getting from UUP East Antrim MLA John Stewart. He called the events at the leisure centre ‘despicable and disgraceful’ and, in full flow, declared that ‘the violence, vandalism, and intimidation seen this evening have absolutely no place in our society’.
Not unreasonably, he states ‘the leisure centre is a vital community asset at the very heart of Larne’, and one can sympathise with his view that ‘to see it targeted in such a senseless and deliberate manner is both truly shocking and deeply saddening’.
Reverting to tone-deaf mode, however, he then spews out the stock phrases: ‘I wholeheartedly condemn these actions. There is absolutely no excuse for what has taken place in Larne, and it must be condemned in the strongest possible terms,’ adding: ‘Violence and intimidation are not the answer and must not be allowed to gain any foothold in our communities.’
Compare and contrast this with the conciliatory tones one gets after ethnic riots, recalling the breast-beating after the Brixton riots in 1981 when the talk was of under-privileged blacks, urban decay and insensitive policing. And, of course, with the despatch in the United States of career criminal George Floyd in 2020, we had British politicians and Metropolitan Police officers ‘taking the knee’ in response.
As the armoured Land Rovers line up in Ballymena, the riot police tool up and the water cannon are readied, there is no consideration for the finer feelings of the Irish men affronted by the attacks on their women. Their response is ‘pure racism’ and must be put down with maximum force.
At a different level, there is this same distorted logic in a piece by Iranian immigrant, Somayeh Tohidi, who tells us in the Telegraph that she was brainwashed into wearing a hijab – until she stopped. She nevertheless concludes that ‘Britain mustn’t introduce a burqa ban’.
The core of her argument is that, for some, wearing headgear (whether hijab, niqab or burqa) is an expression of faith, so ‘the decision to wear a burqa must be decided by the women themselves’. It is very paternalistic, she says, for a government to decide how a person might practise their religion.
Condescendingly, she tells us she understands ‘why some find it very offensive or dangerous’, and ‘obviously, wearing a burqa highlights that the person is an immigrant, and we know many in the UK do not like immigration’.
Should it be banned, though, she warns that ‘the Muslim community would be enraged’. This, we are told, is what happened in Iran in 1936 (before the Islamic Republic took over in 1978). The Shah Reza Khan Pahlavi banned head coverings in a bid to modernise the country. That ‘violation’, she says, has remained in people’s memories for generations. Despite the current hatred towards the Islamic Republic and mandatory hijab, people still rage for having their choice taken away.
We are then told that we must remember a ban does not just affect the one person wearing the burqa. A large circle around that person will feel violated, regardless of whether they are Muslim or not.
Also, even discussing such a ban, she tells us, can cause a rise in Islamophobia. ‘If you have a hidden tendency towards Islamophobia, and something public like this happens,’ she avers, ‘it may only embolden you’.
Essentially, therefore, her stance is ethno-centric. Because her people might be ‘enraged’ or ‘violated’ by a ban, we the host community must tolerate this form of dress, no matter how outraged or offended we might be.
The piece to which she gives her name is either extraordinarily naive or disingenuous. She fails to point out that Islam is characterised by being both a religion and a political movement, with no distinction made between the two.
Therefore, it cannot be denied that the wearing of Islamic dress is as much a political statement as it is a profession of faith – more so, in fact, as the religious texts are not specific about the type of dress that should be worn.
As such, the niqab/burqa worn in the UK – and especially by second and third generation immigrants – has become a political statement embodying a rejection of host nation values and a mark of exceptionalism. It ignores (or, rather, encourages) the offence given to host nation residents, elevating the immigrant mores above those of the host nation.
Yet, to many quite reasonable people, the wearing of such garb in public is not acceptable in the UK. It is a step too far, changing the nature of the streetscape, giving towns and cities an alien feel. The indigenous population, in their own home country, should not be made to feel as if they have been transported to a third-world theocracy.
Thus, for good reason, this offensive garb should be discouraged, by law if necessary. And those of the Islamic faith who are concerned about the concocted Islamophobia need to reflect that there is no better way of provoking antipathy to their faith than extreme exceptionalism in their choice of dress. They make a rod for their own back and then wonder why it is used on them.
It all goes to the same point. Politicians and officialdom both seem to believe that not only must we tolerate unwanted mass migration, we must also accommodate all the demands of the migrants or risk being called ‘racists’ or worse.
This should not be. As long as we see the ‘establishment’ putting the needs and demands of migrants first, there will be a lot more Ballymena-style riots to come while a burning leisure centre will stand as a testament to the unresponsive dogmatism of those who believe they have a God-given right to foist mass migration on us and expect us to like it.
This article appeared in Turbulent Times on June 12, 2025, and is republished by kind permission.
