Henry Nowak’s murder, news of which quickly crossed the pond, has now morphed into a diplomatic row. The US State Department posted on X that:
Ideological conditioning and two-tiered policing are glaring symptoms of civilizational decline. They must be rejected across the West.
Cue hysterical accusations about US interference in our politics. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, who never misses an opportunity to engage in some Maga bashing, screeched:
Vance is not trying to coax the UK into civil war
The Trump administration is attacking our democracy…We can’t turn a blind eye to this blatant interference any longer.
No. 10 and the Foreign Office reportedly sought clarification from the White House on the comments. In response, Vice President J.D. Vance took to X himself to defend ‘righteous anger’ over Henry’s murder, stating:
Henry Nowak died the same way a civilization dies: abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit… he would be [still alive] if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.
This prompted Downing Street to respond to the Vice President’s intervention late last night: ‘In recent days we have seen people trying to interfere in our democracy and seeking to stir up division on our streets.’ They also stated that Henry’s family ‘have said they do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension.’
One can have a debate about whether the comments of J.D. Vance are helpful. Nowak’s murderer, Vickrum Digwa, was seemingly born here and so this tragedy is arguably less about immigration than about DEI overreach.
But Vance was surely right in calling out the ‘politics of self-hatred’ that lie at the root of so much of the guilt-ridden ‘anti-racism’ dogma that has infiltrated the police, criminal justice system and so many of our national institutions. His comments also come from a place of love, for the UK and European civilisation – a deep sense that the Enlightenment values, identity and culture that made Europe great are under threat.
And whatever one feels about the helpfulness of the US intervention, the pearl-clutching over Vance’s remarks is frankly pathetic. Starmer said on 3 June 2020 in the House:
May I start by expressing shock and anger at the death of George Floyd? This has shone a light on racism and hatred experienced by many in the US and beyond. I am surprised the Prime Minister has not said anything about this yet, but I hope that the next time he speaks to President Trump he will convey to him the UK’s abhorrence about his response to the events.
Also that month, Starmer and Angela Rayner stated in a message that they were ‘shocked and angered by George Floyd’s death in police custody’ and that:
As socialists and anti-racists we stand in complete solidarity with those standing up against police brutality towards Black people…We are appalled by the response of President Trump and the failure of our own government to condemn his actions in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.
Not to be outdone, Emily Thornberry at the time called for UK riot gear sales to US police to be halted, lest they be used to repress protesters. For Starmer and the Labour party to now accuse J.D. Vance of interfering illegitimately in our domestic affairs is rank hypocrisy.
This is also not just Vance sounding off. The US National Security Strategy, published in November, talks of the importance of Europe regaining its ‘civilisational self-confidence’. And why should it not? Domestic policy and our demographic make-up, after all, have a direct bearing on the internal stability of our country – and, therefore, the reliability of one of the US’s closest allies. Further, these things increasingly impact our foreign policy. One example is the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is influencing our foreign policy through the strength of feeling over Gaza on the part of sectarian voting blocs here in the UK.
Those trying to claim that Vance has crossed a red line of diplomatic protocol are also talking nonsense. Barack Obama made a significant intervention ahead of the Brexit vote in 2016 – a far more diplomatically contentious move than anything playing out here, given the intention to influence a key national vote. Countries, including the UK, routinely express concern about human rights and domestic policies in other countries. European politicians comment on US gun laws and abortion policy. We might also recall Starmer’s Labour party sending 100 activists to campaign for Kamala Harris in battleground states during the 2024 US election.
It is perfectly legitimate for the US to take an interest in, and comment publicly on, what is happening in the UK. Rather than engage in shameless pearl-clutching, Starmer’s government should listen to what our closest ally is telling us. Vance is not trying to coax the UK into civil war. He is trying to tell us to wake up to what is at stake here – not least the ancient right of equality before the law – and to sort ourselves out.
Comments