Jo Cox aftermath: How about 'honest' instead of 'kinder' politics?

 

One thing all Thailand guidebooks draw attention to is the idea of the “little good lie”, the simple idea that sometimes feelings will be spared by an untruth. I have received many 'good lies' in my time overseas, but the only one that sticks in mind is early in my career when I covered a very popular senior teacher in a grade five math class. After two weeks, my boss came to me and told me he was so grateful for my help that they would "reward me" by freeing up some time on my schedule and removing me from my cover classes. It transpired that some parents had requested the previous teacher return to class.

In the west however, where lies and especially lying politicians are treated with contempt, the old adage  “The bigger the lie, the more it's believed” rings true. Political lies tend to fit one of three types: either they are rushed through in the hope that nobody bothers or knows how to verify them (think: numerous claims made in the Brexit debate), they are promised to be proven or justified by some future report or other event that is continuously and deliberately postponed (Iraq War report, for example) or they bypass logic and verification altogether via emotional blackmail and appeal to our populist, more defensive instincts. The tragic death of MP Jo Cox and the despicable pile of lies and emotional blackmail heaped on it by some of her so-called friends and allies is an example of that latter type and represents possibly the lowest our own politicians have sunk in quite some time.

Jo Cox, rest in peace

Fact: Jo Cox was killed by a violent man who believed himself mentally ill and linked to a US-based Nazi group. It's a hard truth that extreme people like this have always existed in society. History books have rare but endless tales of senior figures assaulted by violent citizens. However the likelihood of it happening to any one of us is rare, which is why we quite rightly feel such a sense of shock, revulsion and sympathy when we see someone fall victim to such a senseless act. Such sentiments were probably exasperated in Jo's case as – despite being a politician – she lacked the aura of aloofness and occasional arrogance displayed by many of her colleagues. She was a likable, regular person.

All of which makes what happened next all the more despicable. Before Cox's body was even cold, some of the media and her political allies moved to fashion a huge lie from the public grief. Apparently sidestepping the natural stage of grief felt by rational people, the Daily Star was first to hit the press with the headline “Jo Cox killed by Brexit Gunman”. The single claim for the headline was based around a rumour the Cox's killer had yelled “Britain First” after shooting. The headline was wrong for two reasons. Firstly, “Britain First” is not a Brexit group but a fringe political, right-wing group. To suggest that supporting them makes someone a Brexit supporter is akin to saying being a KKK member makes someone a Republican. The second problem is that it never, ever happened. A witness to the event confirmed he never heard the gunman shout “Britain First” or anything remotely similar.

But by the truth had its boots on, the lie was halfway around the world.  Sure enough, Guardian writer Polly Toynbee - formerly a BBC employee – produced an article on Cox's death warning of a sentiment  of“hate and isolation" built up from Brexit support. Still less than 48 hours after the death and with the Labour MP's family no doubt still in shock, Toynbee reveled in her moral pedantry. I personally found it difficult to decipher the psyche behind her column: was she really so confused as to believe her drivel? Was she simply so arrogant and callous that she didn't care? Or did she believe the end game was so important that all lies and exploitation were justified?

From then on the myth snowballed. Remain leaflets warned “Jo Cox's murder may be the start” , with similar hyperbole spreading uncontrollably from some sections of the Remain camp. Others didn't even pretend: Remain campaign director Will Straw was exposed in a phone conversation and email ordering his team to exploit the death. Meanwhile, in a serious of mostly heartfelt and sincere tributes to Jo by politicians of all sides, Labour's Neil Kinnock couldn't resist linking the death to UKIP and Nigel Farage in a two-sentence "tribute" tweet.

Even apparently justified and reasonable acts became loaded. The recalling of parliament to allow tributes to Cox was probably a kind thing to do. The question, however is: would the same course have been followed if, say, Douglas Carswell had been murdered? Would David Cameron have been so keen to display grief and tributes if the undertone of anti-Brexit sentiment hadn't been established? If not, why not? The whole purpose of parliament is to display, encourage and follow the process of democracy. Democracy means accepting different views. If you bend or twist procedure according to the views of the person at the end, you're being the exact apposite of “kind” or democratic.


A charity was set up in the wake of Jo's passing. Three charities were named as beneficiaries. Two of them I know little of, but their cause sounds courageous and noble. The third, however, is “Hope Not Hate” , a group set-up with – despite any claims to the contrary– a single goal to stifle, disrupt and intimidate any groups that express enough disagreement with socialist politics. HNH have repeatedly disrupted various events such as UKIP meetings and Brexit events. Their modus operandi is not to engage, discuss, debate or engage in “kind” politics but to simply shut down the opposition.

But in this mountain of lies, “kind” may be the most abused word. “Kind” is being presented as the idea that we shouldn't disagree, that we shouldn't find fault or acknowledge that people, culture and societies can, do and always will differ in some way.

“Kindness” can have many meanings and examples but surely in the murky world of politics we can narrow the field to two useful examples: the first being tolerance if not approval or assistance to those with very different views. We don't need to be told that killing isn't the answer, no sane person believes otherwise. The second is that even in a field where deceit and dishonesty is the norm, we should still draw the line somewhere. When the still-warm body of a good person, a mother and a friend is being exploited and lied about without the slightest element of shame, I'd say that “kindness” isn't the only quality lacking, we could all benefit from a big dose of the human qualities of honesty and common respect for those in grief, too.