Tommy Robinson, Islamic Extremism and the BBC

Last night, on the BBC's flagship news commentary programme Newsnight, experienced presenter Kirsty Wark came up against Tommy Robinson, far right activist (co-founder of the English Defence League, the European Defence League, Pegida UK and a writer for Rebel Media). The segment was concerning the Finsbury Park mosque murder whereby a far-right anti-Islamist, Darren Osborne, mowed down Muslims outside a mosque and has just been found guilty.

In the name of balance, the BBC invited various people on to be interviewed, one of whom was firebrand Robinson. Credit to the BBC, they showed what must have been most of the pre-recorded interview, even though, in my opinion, it was tough for the BBC to come out well.

Twitter went into its usual overdrive. It polarised, with hard leftists supporting Kirsty Wark's position and tenacity against the "fascist bigot", and many others supporting Robinson, with an awful lot attacking the BBC's "ridiculous liberal bias".

For what its worth, I think Robinson came off "better" - they were always going to - and here's for why.

In the name of full disclosure, I am a liberal leftist philosopher who is also highly critical of Islam. I criticise Islam in exactly the same way I criticise Christianity (from a theological, philosophical perspective), except many fellow liberals (and friends, even) have taken offence at my attack on Islam (but not my attacks of Christianity). Ironically,  none of my big critics, when I have done this in the past,  have actually read the Qu'ran (as I have). I am, however, careful to differentiate Islam as a theological doctrine from Muslims, and True™ Islam (as pro from the many flavours that exist.

I don't want to be accused of an overt liberal bias but at the same time I don't want to be accused of having an anti-Islamic stance in my judgement. Of course, I will naturally have some biases at work here, but I'm trying to mitigate those by being as open as possible.

At the beginning of the interview, I think Tommy Robinson was fast and loose with the truth in denying he was alt-right, which he clearly is and more. Where things got messy is talking about causality, and Robinson's responsibility in the adicalisation of Osborne.

When it gets to the meat of the interview, Wark appears to have a simplistic notion of causality and this underlies the problems of this head to head, and why the right are vociferously attacking the BBC for a liberal bias.

The argument comes down to this:

Osborne actively sought out Robinson (following on Twitter, etc.), and wrote a letter found at the scene that included "don't look back in anger" - a phrase used by Robinson in a then-recent Tweet that Robinson himself was quoting from elsewhere (it's from an Oasis song - a Manchester band - that was used in the aftermath of the Manchester bombing). Although Wark was careful with her words at times ("all I'm saying", "I am asking that there are contributory factors" and so on), there will be many who won't see this or hear this. Robinson sent Osborne a group email (misconstrued by the media as a personal email) saying: "There is a nation within a nation forming beneath the surface of the UK. It is a nation built on hatred, on violence and on Islam." For Wark, here, one could argue that it becomes the case that X caused Y, or Robinson caused Osborne.

This is such a common problem. We, as humans, always want a single cause, and we like it when it's a single person.  I last talked about this with regard to the Hillsborough disaster ("You’re wrong about Hillsborough; thinking critically about causality"), where a particular policeman was singled out seemingly over and above all the other causal factors.

We love to blame.

Wark was always going to lose this in seeming unprepared for the assault from Robinson and not seeing causality and Osborne more explicitly in terms of the issues many people on the right have with Islam, the terrorist attacks in the UK (and around the world), the media content available, the powerful work of media outlets such as the Daily Mail and Express, hardline Islamist rhetoric, and so on. Pinning this on Robinson, which is what the interview appeared to do (when seen by the layperson), is a really dangerous thing to have happen because such a simplistic narrative will be seized upon by those on the right, and the BBC will lose even more credibility with them.

Robinson can, and often has, resorted back to the Qu'ran, too. He has read the Qu'ran and has recently written a book on it. And this is a debate a presenter simply can't effectively deal with in a short interview, not least because the Qu'ran does advocate violence for most every moral transgression, especially taken together with the Hadith. To combat this takes some sophisticated theology and a teasing apart of definitions of (True™) Islam against definitions of Muslims, being careful not to conflate the two.

With this in mind, the BBC were never going to "win" this interview, and so I am surprised they took it on. Well done to them for showing that balance and not closing down or censoring opposing opinions, but it will undoubtedly only serve to polarise viewers more than they already are, and this helps no one.

Here is the Tommy Robinson interview. It took me a second and third listen to have more sympathy for Wark and what she was saying (or, more accurately, the words she was using and the way she was saying things), because Robinson was so combative. He actually projected his own agenda onto Wark and misconstrued some of her approach, but this gets lost in translation):