GARY Lineker’s criticism of the xenophobic measures proposed by Suella Braverman to halt “illegal” asylum seekers arriving in the UK by boat prompted a response from the Home Secretary that is extremely concerning. Not only did she display her habitual cynical cruelty, but she also demonstrated a profound ignorance of history and a startling philosophical vacuity.
Her rejection of the comparison Lineker made between her language and that of the Nazi regime in the 1930s appears to be based on the fact that what she was proposing would be legal because parliament would pass a law to criminalise those asylum seekers. The implication was that what the Nazis did was not legal.
READ MORE: David Pratt: Tory ‘Stop the Boats’ campaign is both inhumane and diversionary
This is seriously and dangerously wrong. The oppression, dispossession and stripping of all civic rights from Germany’s Jews was carried out in accordance with laws enacted by the National Socialist government. There were dozens of these laws, the most significant wereof them being the Civil Service Law (1933) banning Jews from working in any local or national government capacity; the Citizenship and Denaturalisation Law (1933) allowing the government to remove citizenship at their discretion; the Nuremberg Laws (1935) banning marriage between Jews and non-Jews and depriving all Jews of citizenship; the Reich Citizenship Decrees of 1938 banning Jews from being teachers, doctors, lawyers, vets, midwives, auctioneers, etc, while expelling all Jewish children from public schools.
All these measures were legal and accompanied by propaganda which said that Jews were a danger to the stability of society and were leeching upon indigenous Germans. The Roman philosopher Seneca said: “What narrow innocence it is for one to be good only according to the law”, by which he meant that morality, justice and decency are of a higher order than mere legality. This thoroughly basic principle of jurisprudence appears to have eluded Suella Braverman despite her having qualified as a lawyer.
READ MORE: Ex-BBC editorial boss says Lineker must consider leaving after 'third Reich' tweet
The implication that what is legal is good flies in the face of historical examples to the contrary, including not just Nazi Germany but apartheid South Africa, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Putin’s Russia, and the segregationist Jim Crow laws of the southern US states.
I would suggest that Gary Lineker was right to say what he did, because in 1933 many people thought that those criticising the Nazis’ rhetoric were exaggerating the danger they posed. Bad law and scaremongering propaganda are a potent and ominous brew.
David White
Galashiels
LAWS are not always good and just and if they are not, they should be opposed, vigorously. Morality and law do not always go hand in hand and the UK has increasingly shown this very clearly. I am not a supporter of the unelected House of Lords, but have been glad when they have not endorsed some the Draconian laws from the Tory government.
The UK Government are very similar to the Third Reich in the way that they foment fear and thereby hatred of “the other” by lying. Straight out of the Nazi playbook. This is what they used to demonised not only Jews, but the mentally and physically impaired, Roma people, Catholics. How anyone from any of these groups can endorse what the Tories are trying to do, and criticise Gary Lineker, is beyond belief.
Margaret Brogan
via thenational.scot
I DON’T remember anyone in Westmonster calling for the sack for all those BBC personalities who tried to influence the referendum back in 2014, or anyone asking for Paxman to be sacked when he compared Salmond to Mugabe. Still, I don’t really expect anything different.
Kenny Moffat
via thenational.scot
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel