The speed and scale at which disinformation spreads is one of the central challenges of our age. But if facts alone were sufficient to dispel rumours, conspiracy theories and lies then the far right in Britain would be out of business. Instead, it is flourishing, and moving into the political mainstream.
The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has welcomed new police guidelines encouraging forces to release the ethnicity and migration status of those charged in high-profile cases. She had already indicated that she believed the guidance needed to change and urged the Law Commission to accelerate its review around what information can be released ahead of trials. The idea is that the shift will help to prevent a repeat of the riots that swept parts of England a year ago after lies spread that the murderer of three schoolgirls in Southport was a Muslim asylum seeker. Police rebutted the claims relatively quickly, albeit not as fast as some hoped. The truth did not stop the unrest.
No one doubts that there is a problem; the question is whether this is the right solution. As Southport and other cases show, the police already had the power to release information to dispel lies. Police will increasingly be badgered for the information if they do not share it, and Diana Johnson, the policing minister, has said that the government will want the details released in “most cases”: the hope is that the guidance turns an exceptional decision into a routine one.
The need for transparency, especially important in an era when faith in authority is battered for reasons good and bad, must be weighed against investigative needs and the demands of a fair trial. The bare-bones information initially revealed of a suspect’s identity is supplemented over the criminal process. The police, never the most transparent institution, have often tilted too far towards caution on sharing information after the Leveson inquiry into the press. But – even putting aside the question of whether the police are ideally placed to handle sensitive matters of ethnicity given their own record – one would have to be remarkably naive to see those now demanding more information on the origins of suspects as champions of the truth. They are not seeking enlightenment: they want confirmation of their prejudices and assistance in spreading them.
Singling out one particular aspect of a suspect’s identity does not merely give credence to but cements the belief that race or migration status are central to criminality – when, as the grandfather of one Southport victim, Bebe King, observed: “Mental health issues, and the propensity to commit crime, happens in any ethnicity, nationality or race.” Poor educational attainment is correlated with criminal convictions. But no one is demanding the release of suspects’ school records.
The Leveson report also pointed to the evidence of “discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers”. Rightwing media, and far-right agitators, will emblazon offences ascribed to asylum seekers or members of the South Asian diaspora across websites and social media platforms, while ignoring the ethnicity of the perpetrator when white Britons are responsible.
The government either wants to close down a line of political attack, or more generously, douse the fires set by those promoting division and hatred. But disclosing ethnicity is more likely to fuel them by legitimising and further embedding the far right’s poisonous worldview.