Nobody is saying that Tommy Robinson shouldn't be protected if there is a credible threat against him. In a democratic society, everyone is entitled to protection from violence, regardless of their politics. If police warned him of a serious threat, that threat should be taken seriously. However, that doesn't mean he should be immune from criticism. You complain that people mention his criminal record whenever he's discussed. The reason is simple: Robinson has built much of his public image around law, order, crime and accountability. When someone makes those issues central to their political identity, their own record is relevant. Nor is it true that criticism of Robinson is based on ancient history. In recent years he has been jailed or sanctioned over contempt of court matters and breaches of court orders, including cases where courts found that his actions risked interfering with legal proceedings or violated injunctions. Those are matters of public record, not smears. The comparison with Salman Rushdie doesn't really work. Being threatened by extremists does not automatically make someone's political views correct. Rushdie was right to be defended against violence, and Robinson should be defended against violence too. But neither person's security situation exempts them from public scrutiny or criticism. As for housing, taxation, immigration or Reform UK policies, people can debate those issues on their merits. But support for a policy proposal does not require support for Tommy Robinson, and criticism of Tommy Robinson does not require opposition to every policy that his supporters favour. The real issue is whether we judge political figures by evidence, facts and behaviour, or whether we excuse conduct because we happen to agree with their politics. I prefer the former.
Create an account or sign in to comment