by Andrew Brons
by Andrew Brons
If National Action has indeed endorsed the despicable murder of Jo Cox MP, it deserves to be proscribed. A slogan: “Death to traitors; freedom for Britain,” we are told, appears on National Action’s website and the same words are said to have been used by Mrs. Cox’s murderer, Thomas Mair, during his trial. If National Action used the words in quotation from Mair, then that would appear to be a ringing endorsement of Mair’s despicable crime. However, if Mair used the words in imitation of National Action, it would be Mair endorsing National Action.
Nevertheless, people who use the words: “Death to…(whoever)”, cannot complain if they are accused of inciting murder.
I regard National Action with the deepest suspicion. They have not simply succeeded in getting themselves banned, they have succeeded in emboldening the Government to make the first banning order of an ostensibly nationalist organisation, which might so easily be followed by a second and a third of quite innocent organisations.
The comments of Amber Rudd, described as Home Secretary, serve only to muddy the waters. When she is exercising delegated legislative power, creating a serious new criminal offence, she should be very circumspect in the words that she uses. She spoke of National Action’s ‘homophobia’ (fear of sameness – whatever that might mean) and its ‘vile ideology’ in the same sentence as its alleged glorification of violence.
Having a vile ideology – always a subjective judgment – is not a ground for proscription in law. She should have restricted herself to detailing activities of the group that, she says, are supportive of terrorism. Making comments about the group’s ideology will open her to the charge that she is motivated by political animosity rather than by its alleged terrorist activities.
If Ms. Rudd is unaware of these distinctions, she is not fit to be Home Secretary.