THIS summer in Paris offered a much-needed escape from a tumultuous political climate. The city was alive with an infectious joie de vivre as the Olympics unfolded, bringing a rare moment of unity and celebration.

On the metro, strangers shared team results, cheered victories, and comforted each other through defeats.

People draped in flags posed for photos with newfound friends, embracing a collective pride that transcended individual differences.

READ MORE: Caitlin Logan: It should not be hard to call out racist mobs

President Emmanuel Macron’s (below) careless decision to call snap parliamentary elections had cast a shadow over the summer, with many, sick with anxiety, fearing a far-right victory.

Conversations with friends and family often circled back to the same question: where have we gone wrong? How do we rebuild from this?

Amid the athletic triumphs and national pride, it was easy to momentarily forget our fears and revel in the unity that the Olympics seemed to offer. But the far right, as ever, refuses to fade away.

The opening ceremony was a stunning, inclusive display of contemporary France, yet this celebration was met with venomous responses from the far right.

Their hatred, though out of touch with the overwhelming majority of people who embraced the ceremony, was a stark reminder that they cannot tolerate unity or diversity.

Now, witnessing the far right’s vile behaviour in the UK – marked by their heinous chants and hate-filled outbursts – makes it clear that the challenge is as pressing here as it was in France.

READ MORE:  The fundamental change our politics needs won't come from Starmer

The recent violence in England, especially the attacks on hotels housing asylum seekers, and more recently in Belfast, represents a new low.

The troubling part is how some politicians and commentators have framed this far-right violence as a legitimate expression of frustration. There is a critical difference between expressing concerns about immigration and engaging in violent acts driven by Islamophobia.

The connection between the violent acts we’re seeing and legitimate concerns about immigration is non-existent. Attempting to burn people alive in hotels is not a response to immigration; it is pure hatred, plain and simple.

The murder of three girls in Southport has been cynically exploited as a pretext for these attacks, which are less about seeking justice and truth and more about perpetuating hate.

By blurring the lines between genuine concerns and violent extremism, some politicians and commentators are abdicating their responsibility and setting a dangerous precedent.

Immediately following the Southport attack, misinformation spread rapidly online.

False claims that the attacker was a Muslim and an undocumented migrant who arrived by boat were circulated widely.

This misinformation fuelled a week of unrest: an angry mob attacked a mosque in Southport, and racist violence erupted in Hartlepool, followed by more riots, attacks, and looting in Sunderland, Liverpool, Hull, Manchester, and Stoke-on-Trent.

Last Sunday, I could not believe my eyes as I watched live on TV; a mob of far-right extremists viciously attacked a hotel housing asylum seekers in Rotherham, with clear intent to cause serious harm. Later that day, similar violence erupted at a hotel in Tamworth.

The escalation of these attacks underscores the urgent need to confront and address the toxic rhetoric and hatred that have been allowed to fester.

These heinous acts didn’t appear out of thin air. The violence we’re witnessing this week is a direct consequence of a climate of prejudice that has been carefully nurtured over years by certain media and politicians.

The hypocrisy is staggering: those now smugly proclaiming “I told you so” are often the very ones who stoked these flames in the first place. Their crocodile tears are as insincere as they are predictable, and frankly, I have no time nor interest in them.

Relentless headlines have demonised Muslims and asylum seekers, and former home secretary Suella Braverman (above) disgracefully labelled the arrival of people in desperate need of safety by boat as an “invasion”. Such toxic rhetoric has fuelled the hatred now erupting in our streets.

Even Nigel Farage, now a Reform MP, has shamelessly released a video questioning whether “the truth is being withheld from us”.

Of course, this is hardly surprising – extremists like Farage have one job and one job only: create the favourable conditions for the spreading of chaos, as it is the only environment where they can thrive and their divisive messages gain traction.

When discussing the recent riots and attacks, we’ll hear plenty of commentators, journalists, and politicians offering explanations. They’ll point to issues like immigration, economic decline, or a general sense of disillusionment.

While examining these factors is important, we must be crystal clear: understanding the reasons behind these riots does not mean we condone the racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia driving them.

There is a significant difference between explaining and excusing. This distinction is crucial because it separates a genuine analysis of root causes from an acceptance of the hateful ideologies at play.

I’m fed up with the false equivalence drawn between these riots and other forms of unrest, such as the Black Lives Matter protests.

Equating them is not only misguided but dangerous. Black Lives Matter protests arose from a struggle against systemic racism and police brutality, whereas the current riots are fuelled by pure hatred and bigotry. To compare the two is to ignore the fundamental differences in their motivations and impacts. This kind of false equivalence isn’t just frustrating – it’s an insult to our intelligence.

Journalists, too, must reflect deeply on their role in this crisis. The media wields profound influence over public perception and discourse, and this influence has not always been wielded responsibly.

A few weeks ago, I came across an insightful article in AOC, a thoughtful French online daily publication. AOC publishes just one analysis, one opinion piece, and one critique each day, aiming to structure public debate without the relentless pressure of 24/7 news. The article, titled “The Unconscious Irresponsibility of Political Journalism” and written by Sylvain Bourmeau, struck a chord with me.

In recent years, it’s become increasingly apparent that certain journalistic practices have inadvertently bolstered the rise of extremist parties. This isn’t about overt endorsement by journalists, but rather the unintended consequences of their methods and biases.

At the core of the issue is what can be termed as a “professional ideology” within journalism. This ideology often prioritises novelty and sensationalism, pushing dramatic stories to the forefront and relegating more nuanced, less attention-grabbing topics to the background. The focus on sensationalism often overshadows moderate viewpoints, inadvertently giving more visibility to extremist positions.

The notion of “objectivity” in journalism also plays a role in this dynamic. The practice of presenting opposing viewpoints as a way to maintain neutrality often results in oversimplification, which can exacerbate polarisation.

Furthermore, the blurring of lines between facts and opinions in reporting can distort reality. When subjective viewpoints are presented as facts, it not only misinforms the public but also reinforces extremist narratives by turning subjective biases into perceived truths.

Framing and narrative construction are also crucial factors. How stories are framed can significantly influence public perception, often inadvertently benefitting extremist parties.

By shaping narratives in a way that favours extreme-right parties, journalism can contribute to their rise while disadvantaging more nuanced or moderate perspectives.

In response to this unacceptable behaviour, a firm, zero-tolerance security response is crucial. Those who engage in far-right violence must face unequivocal consequences.

This is not merely about restoring order; it’s about sending a clear message that such actions will not be tolerated. Swift and decisive justice is essential to uphold the rule of law and safeguard all citizens, and I am glad the UK Government is taking that position.

READ MORE: Protests planned across Scotland in response to far-right rioting

Yet, security measures alone are insufficient. Addressing the rise of far-right violence requires more than just immediate security responses; it demands a fundamental reevaluation of how political discourse and the media shape our societal norms.

Bourmeau, in his article on political journalism, underscores a crucial truth: “Doing political journalism is always, whether one is aware of it or not, doing politics by other means.” He argues that attempting to mask this reality behind a professional ideology of neutrality only serves to benefit the extreme right.

Until we confront these failings and their impact on society, the far right’s influence will continue to expand, pushing the boundaries of what is considered acceptable and perpetuating a cycle of violence and division.