Brexit does not mean working class is racist

The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. I don’t think this was the right decision and when I first heard of the outcome it took me a moment to overcome my initial impulse to dismiss the vote as a result of racism and xenophobia. However, many others who are unhappy about the Brexit make exactly this argument on TV and social media. While this is an understandable reaction, and while parts of the campaign certainly catered towards such attitudes, for a large part of voters racist views were not what convinced them to vote ‘leave’. I also do not believe that the frightening amount of misconceptions that voters had about the workings of the EU was the main reason either – rather was it a symptom as I will explain later.

What really decided this referendum was that the working class and people over 50, those who voted ‘leave’ in an overwhelming majority, did not feel the European Union actually had a positive impact on their lives. Indeed, many people from these groups have not benefited from the economic improvements since the financial crises at all. They understandably do not see the benefits of the EU in an environment of unemployment, low wages, and low pensions, with a lack of public housing and the near absence of future prospects.

On top of that, their living standards have been declining for the last decades under the rule of both, Tory and Labour governments. At the same time, those exact parties keep saying again and again that the economic growth and the measures the governments take lead to higher incomes, better prospects, and higher living standards. Now, while many of these claims are true more often than not they only apply to the upper and middle class.

This led to two major attitudes that many people in the working class hold and that were described by LSE sociologist Lisa Mckenzie: the belief that both big parties are equally bad at leading the government, and the feeling that one cannot trust facts and data coming from the establishment. So this meant on the one hand, that the EU referendum, unlike a general election, was seen by the working class as a chance to initiate some actual change. On the other hand, the mistrust towards official facts meant that the leave campaign, who was not perceived to be part of the establishment, was successful with its approach of spreading bogus data.

This becomes even clearer if we look at the people who benefit from the EU. Young people, people from the middle class, and academics all profit from the UK’s EU-membership in many forms, such as education programmes, the freedom of movement, and consumer friendly EU directives. At the same time, they overwhelmingly backed the remain camp.

The vote of the working class gives a clear directive to the government and whoever will be the next PM would be wise to listen. The government needs to do what the EU did not: provide prospects, security, and hope to those who are currently forgotten by the system. The government needs to build social housing, create decently paid jobs, and provide better opportunities for education. Moreover, parties have to try harder to get back in touch with the people rather than pretending you do not need to consider the people when making decisions about their lives.

While I still believe the Brexit was the wrong decision it was an understandable one. I hope it at least serves as an impetus for the politicians to pay more respect to the people’s needs and problems.

Terrorist or Loner?

On June 12, 2016 Omar Mateen attacked the gay nightclub “Pulse” in Orlando, Florida and killed 49 innocents. Only four days later, on June 16, lone attacker Thomas Mair brutally killed MP Jo Cox on her way to a surgery in her Yorkshire constituency. The first incident was labelled by media everywhere as yet another terror attack on the West, the latter incident has, so far, mostly been presented as the deed of a confused and troubled loner. Why is that? Why do we say one of the perpetrators is a terrorist, while the other is not?

One might say that the difference is that many people were murdered in Orlando, while the attack in Yorkshire was specifically directed at one public figure. But if the number of victims is such an important factor, why was the knife attack on MP Stephen Timms by a Muslim widely reported as a terror attack, while the 2014 Charleston church shooting, where nine people died at the hands of a racist, was not?

Even though it is hard to pin down exactly what is and what isn’t terrorism, a widely accepted definition is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation […] in the pursuit of political aims”.

Both, Omar Mateen and Thomas Mair, made references to a political cause they serve. Mateen admitted in a police call that he supported the IS, while Mair, instead of stating his name at court, proclaimed “death to traitors, freedom to Britain” to the judge. This fits in with evidence the Washington Post presented that Mair has had links to a white supremacy group. In fact, while Mair’s link to this group is proven, there is no evidence that Mateen actually had a link to IS. Moreover, Mateen ostensibly supported several Islamist groups that are at war with each other, suggesting that he did not know a lot about the ideologies of either group and that he really only used political convictions as an excuse. Based on these facts it would actually be more adequate to say that Thomas Mair is a terrorist and Omar Mateen the lone attacker – but then he is not Muslim…

However, this is not the whole story. The important fact that we should focus on is that both individuals have a documented past of mental problems. Mateen had sexual identity issues, previously showed behavioural problems, and had a predisposition for domestic violence. Mair also had a history of mental illness. That does not mean that mental health problems always lead to violence against others. Indeed, most of the time the contrary is true.

There are two reasons why the troubled past of Matten and Mair matters. The first one is that putting down every murder committed by a Muslim as an act of terrorism, regardless of background and circumstance, stokes fears and poisons our relationship with those peaceful and innocent Muslims who are part of our society and who condemn such attacks just as everyone else does. The other reason is that acknowledging the fact that causes other than religious extremism can lead to such horrendous indicants enables us to better prevent them in the future and to save the lives of innocent people.

I admit that the line between terrorist and lone attacker is blurry. But Mair’s mental illness background and Mateen’s lack of real political conviction, paired with his troubled past, shows that neither of the two recent attacks should be labelled terrorism.

Though their background stories are by no means an excuse for their barbaric actions it does show that they acted as loners. I hope this leads us to shift our focus on religious beliefs as the main cause for such ‘terror attacks’ to an understanding that there are many causes for such incidents.