open polity

Tag: racism

  • “Do You Understand What’s Happening?”: Unpacking the Strategic Intent Behind Reform UK’s Language

    “Do You Understand What’s Happening?”: Unpacking the Strategic Intent Behind Reform UK’s Language

    On September 1st, former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced he was standing down as an MP to focus on an international affairs role. This triggered a by-election in the London seat of Holborn and St Pancras, which he has represented since 2015. The seat has long been a Labour stronghold, but with Zack Polanski announcing that he will run in this by-election, Labour may well lose it. 

    The Labour candidate has a massive responsibility to maintain the seat. Labour has selected Sagal Abdi-Wali for the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. The Camden council leader was tipped as an early favourite to contest the London seat for Labour.  

    News about her potential candidacy sparked a national debate about racism and British identity. This is largely because of comments from Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson, Zia Yusuf. Last week on X, he posted: “The frontrunner being foisted on the people of Holborn by Labour to replace the former prime minister Keir Starmer in our parliament was born in Somalia. Do you understand what’s happening?” The post has over 8 million views on X.

    He offered no criticism of Abdi-Wali’s record, her work in Camden or any political position she holds. The only objection contained in the post was her country of birth. He was questioning her right to participate in British democracy simply because she was not born here; something that she cannot help.

    Sagal Abdi-Wali arrived in the UK as a child refugee from Somalia over 30 years ago and has since built a career in local government. She leads Camden Council and previously chaired the local constituency Labour Party. Her long-standing dedication to public service clearly demonstrates her commitment to Britain and its values. 

    ​She has previously discussed her experience fleeing Somalia, telling the Labour List website in 2019: “Camden has been my home since I moved here with my family as a child refugee, fleeing war-torn Somalia. “This new home is where I was raised and educated; it’s where I now work for the council and volunteer for local community groups and charities”.

    Questioning her patriotism and Britishness is unnecessary. She is just as British as anyone who was born here. When Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, no one questioned his loyalty to the UK, even though he was born in America. Under a standard where foreign birth disqualifies someone from British governance, which is what Yusuf is alluding to, prominent figures like former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Reform defector Nadhim Zahawi would have been ineligible for office.

    Arguably, a race is involved here. Zia Yusuf is pandering to an audience that sees Britishness through the lens of race and ethnicity. He is playing into a very narrow, exclusionary definition of “Britishness”. This definition alienates British citizens from ethnic minority backgrounds by implying that being born abroad makes them less legitimately British. National belonging and skin colour are often conflated. If you were not born here and if you are not white, then you are not British. His comments serve as a powerful case study in the politics of belonging. 

    The politics of belonging refers to the maintenance of boundaries that separate a particular group into those who belong and those who do not. Yuval-Davis argues that belonging is never fixed; it is a fluid, politically charged process of “bordering” that relies on power dynamics to define who is included and who is excluded. By framing belonging this way, Yuval-Davis highlights how nations, communities, and institutions constantly manage their borders to maintain authority and control over minority or marginalised groups.

    In this case, the racialisation of Britishness as white is marginalising and excluding Sagal Abdi-Wali, because it constructs a symbolic border where authentic national belonging is tied to a specific racial identity. She is being systematically cast as the “other.”  Widespread conflation of “immigrants” and “ethnic minorities”, and questions over the integration and patriotism of people who were not born here, reinforce the idea that some British people are more British than others.

    Zia Yusuf is effectively insinuating that she is not British enough to stand in this by-election. Ultimately, this framing shows that belonging is not merely about legal status, but is an active power dynamic used to control who is permitted to feel fully at home within a nation.

    ​Zia Yusuf is capitalising on public anxiety about immigration, a strategy central to Reform UK’s communications. By posting highly provocative content on social media, the party often shifts mainstream media’s focus and rival politicians’ focus onto territory where Reform feels most comfortable: immigration, border control, and national identity. 

    Through one tweet, he set the national conversation. By framing the selection of a local candidate as a wider symbol of national decline, the tweet turned a localised political appointment into a nationwide referendum on British values.

  • The Arsenal Identity: Diversity, Community, and Culture

    The Arsenal Identity: Diversity, Community, and Culture

    On May 19th 2026, Arsenal Football Club’s agonising wait for a Premier League title officially came to an end. After their closest challengers, Manchester City, failed to beat AFC Bournemouth, Arsenal were crowned champions of England. The last time those words were associated with Arsenal was in 2004 – 22 years prior – when they became the first and, to this day, only team to end the Premier League campaign as champions without a single defeat. Dubbed “The Invincibles”, that team remains one of the most iconic teams in English football history. 

    After such a historic campaign, few could have imagined that the Gunners’ next Premier League title would come more than two decades later. But after 22 years of heartbreak, rebuilding, and near misses, Arsenal have finally returned to the summit of English football. Beyond a simple sporting achievement, this title win has served as an important reminder that football has a unique ability to transcend differences, strengthen communities, and unite people through a shared sense of hope and belonging. This is especially important given the political climate we find ourselves in, where division and uncertainty often overshadow a sense of shared identity and togetherness.

    As soon as the full-time whistle blew at Bournemouth, confirming Arsenal as champions, it is estimated that around 100,000 Arsenal supporters spontaneously descended upon the Emirates and the streets of North London to celebrate. Young and old, from every race, background, and walk of life, fans gathered in scenes of pure jubilation. Strangers hugged strangers. Fireworks and flares lit the sky and voices harmonised into chants that echoed in the streets. 

    This massive and diverse gathering showcased London at its best: a multicultural and cosmopolitan city where cultures coexist and differences are celebrated rather than feared. It served as a significant contrast to the “Unite the Kingdom” rally held days prior, which had been widely condemned by politicians and rights groups for encompassing inflammatory rhetoric and division. 

    Organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson, a highly controversial figure accused of promoting anti-Muslim sentiment, the rally was symbolic of the political polarisation that is at the forefront of public discourse. Whilst organisers claimed that millions had attended his “unite the kingdom” rally, police estimated the number of demonstrators to be at about 60,000. Not only was this significantly below the organisers’ claims, but it was also lower than the estimated 100,000 Arsenal supporters who gathered around the Emirates Stadium and across North London to celebrate their club’s Premier League triumph.

    The scenes across North London were not surprising considering Arsenal’s status as the ‘culture club’ in England. Arsenal have created a strong identity as one of English football’s most multicultural and globally supported clubs. The celebrations were not confined to North London. Across the world, in places like Kenya, New York and Ethiopia, streets were painted red with Arsenal Supporters. In an era of rising racial and social fragmentation, Arsenal’s victory can be viewed as an anchor for multiculturalism. It can be seen as a reminder that despite our differences, cohesion and community is possible.

    For decades, Arsenal have embodied the diversity that defines modern London. They have been pioneers of the women’s game, giving their women’s team significant visibility by celebrating their women’s team and adopting a one-club mentality. They have also been a pioneering force for diversity. Before the English game became diversified with foreign talent, it was Arsenal that led the charge in changing what football looked like. 

    In the 1970s and 1980s, racism in English football was overt and deeply embedded. Black players were victims of abuse from the stands and the media, and monkey chants, bananas and racist chants were the norm. Institutions within football offered little to no protection for these players. Black supporters were alienated from attending football matches as it was not a safe atmosphere for them. 

    Arsenal soon became the antithesis of this. This is because, under Arsène Wenger, Arsenal disrupted the traditional makeup of English football. The former Arsenal manager brought in French, black, and African players, creating one of the most diverse squads in English football at the time. In 2002, Arsenal became the first club to field nine Black players in a Premier League starting XI. Many people across the globe became Arsenal fans because they could see themselves represented in the team. Through the shared love of Arsenal, therefore, different cultures and backgrounds were able to unite under one single identity. 

    Black players have been key protagonists in Arsenal’s history. Thierry Henry holds the club’s all-time scoring record with 228 goals. His lethal finishing spearheaded the “Invincibles” unbeaten season, one of the greatest feats in English football history. Alongside him were Sol Campbell and Patrick Vieira, who also played vital roles in this historic campaign. In 1989, when Arsenal needed to score 2 goals at Anfield to win the league, it was Michael Thomas who scored the second goal in the final seconds of the match, ending Arsenal’s 18-year wait to be crowned champions. Alongside Michael Thomas, David Rocastle became an instrumental component of George Graham’s title-winning side, playing in every single league match of the legendary 1988–89 campaign.

    Before Thierry Henry, Ian Wright obtained the club’s all-time goalscoring record. Nicknamed “Wrighty”, he became a cultural and sporting icon whose charisma and authenticity made him a beloved figurehead for Arsenal’s multicultural fanbase. For many supporters, particularly young Black fans growing up in London, Wright represented visibility, pride, and possibility. The success of players such as Wright and Henry did not emerge in isolation. Their rise was built upon the foundations laid by trailblazers who challenged barriers and expanded representation within English football.  Brendon Batson became the club’s first Black player when he made his debut in 1971, paving the way for decades of representation.

    Viv Anderson was signed by George Graham in 1984, and he was the first Black man to play for the England senior national football team. Paul Davis was a vital midfielder who made over 400 appearances and won two league titles during the 1980s. Together, these figures helped shape not only Arsenal’s identity on the pitch but also its image off the pitch as a club that celebrates people from different backgrounds. Arsenal have created a global fanbase that has brought millions of people together under a shared identity, and this was more than evident in the title celebrations. In times of political polarisation and division, it is refreshing to see moments that still bring people together.

  • The BAFTAs and The Limits Of Identity Politics

    The BAFTAs and The Limits Of Identity Politics

    The 2026 BAFTAs incident– in which Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson shouted a racial slur, which was not edited out of the BBC’s delayed broadcast, while actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were on stage presenting an award– sparked intense global conversation about intersectionality and identity politics. This is because the incident brought two historically marginalised groups and identities into direct conflict, leading to public debate over how discrimination is defined and contextualised. The two competing lived experiences of racism and ableism demanded the same recognition at the same time, and so the controversy did not fit neatly into a single moral narrative.

    The N-word is an abhorrent word with a violent, colonial history attached to it. Rooted in racism, slavery and white supremacy, it has long functioned as a tool of dehumanisation and oppression. For a lot of black people, hearing this word can be deeply traumatising and triggering. It is therefore understandable why so many people reacted with frustration and anger when it was broadcast in such a public setting. What is less understandable, however, is the refusal by some to apply nuance and extend the same level of understanding to the realities of a neurological disability.

    Davidson’s condition includes coprolalia, the involuntary utterance of taboo or offensive language. Coprolalia is not an expression of belief or intent. It is not a window into someone’s values or beliefs. It is a neurological tic, often involving precisely the kinds of words a person would never consciously choose to say. He reportedly left the auditorium shortly after the incident, describing himself as “deeply mortified”. Despite this, many American commentators and social media users argued that the cause of the slur was irrelevant compared to the harm caused to the victims. Jamie Foxx commented below a post about the incident on social media, saying, “Unacceptable” and “Nah he meant that shit”, reflecting a broader sentiment that the disability was being used as an excuse to mask racism.

    Much of the backlash against Davidson was driven by the perception that he had not apologised. However, Davidson’s team later clarified that he had reached out through professional channels to apologise personally to Jordan, Lindo, and production designer Hannah Beachler. In the digital age that we live in, private accountability is often overshadowed by the expectation of immediate public remorse. Many people immediately assumed the worst of John Davidson.

    This frustration surrounding the incident was, in some instances, coupled with ableist rhetoric. Many dismissed and denied the nature of Tourette’s syndrome, with some suggesting that John should not have even attended the event at all, despite his presence being connected to his film I Swear, which aims to educate audiences about the lived experience of the condition. There was a notable cultural and geographical divide online in the reactions to the incident. In the UK, the discussion centred on Tourette’s syndrome and the responsibility of the BBC. Greater emphasis was placed on the medical context and intent. However, in the US, less grace was extended to John as the dominant lens through which this incident was seen was racial trauma. In the US, there appears to be a broader lack of public understanding about the full extent and complexity of Tourette’s, particularly the involuntary nature of certain vocal tics.

    Much of the anger, therefore, was misdirected. Rather than vilifying a man for his involuntary tics, people should have focused mainly on the institutions that failed in their duty of care. Despite the ceremony being aired on a two-hour tape delay, the BBC failed to edit out the slur before it reached millions of viewers. What made this even more shocking to many was that the BBC edited out a “Free Palestine” remark from director Akinola Davies Jr.’s acceptance speech for “time restrictions”, yet allowed a racial slur to air. The unedited footage remained on BBC iPlayer for over 12 hours before being pulled for re-editing, which many viewed as a failure of basic oversight. 

    The BAFTAs also faced criticism for failing in their duty of care. While the audience in the hall was verbally warned about possible outbursts, arguably, BAFTA failed to provide adequate written information or context to all nominees and presenters in advance. Following the incident their response was delayed: Delroy Lindo noted that no one from BAFTA spoke to them immediately after the incident to offer support or an apology. Meanwhile, Davidson questioned why a live microphone was placed so close to his seat. This institutional failure is much harder to excuse than Davidson’s tics. The abuse that Davidson was subject to because of this institutional failure was completely unacceptable.

    Ultimately, the rhetoric and discourse that followed this incident exposed the flaws in identity politics. Identity politics will not lead to real progress if people refuse to accept and understand intersectionality. Intersectionality reminds us that people experience overlapping social realities; in this case, both racism and disability rights entered into the same controversy and views on both sides were very polarised. This polarisation is exactly what critics of identity politics often point to: they claim discussions about race, disability, and representation can divide audiences rather than unify them. This division is exactly what played out in the aftermath of the BAFTAs. Some individuals who strongly identify with anti-racism movements responded in ways that perpetuated marginalisation against another vulnerable group. The ideas they suggested (segregation) echoed the very forms of structural oppression that they typically oppose. 

    When movements prioritise single identities without intersectional awareness, they can reproduce exclusionary logic, which weakens the broader project of social justice. In this case, many people’s rightful anger about injustice towards their race blinded them from the reality of another marginalised group. Even more concerning, for people who fall under both umbrellas, the response risked moving from advocating for social justice to competing for a higher spot on the hierarchy. This approach is somewhat dangerous because it shows that some people who claim they are fighting for social justice and equality are actually seeking to join the ranks of the dominant or oppressive class. 

    Critics have argued that identity politics encourages people to see themselves primarily as members of competing groups rather than as citizens with common interests. The reaction and discourse that followed the BAFTAs incident clearly demonstrated this. For social justice and equality to be achieved, there needs to be a better understanding of all forms of marginalisation and discrimination. Two things can be true at once. The incident was both an involuntary, non-racist act and a deeply harmful, racist experience.

  • Opinion: Vinícius Júnior And The Fight Against Racism In Football

    Opinion: Vinícius Júnior And The Fight Against Racism In Football

    There is and never will be any justification for racist abuse towards black people in society. Often dubbed the beautiful game, football brings millions of people together in celebration of a shared love. Yet its beauty has always existed alongside something deeply uncomfortable. Like most things, football is a microcosm of society; even the beautiful game is plagued by political, social, and cultural tensions that create division and conflict. Despite football being a global and diverse sport, racism and discrimination remain embedded in the sport. This reality was made extremely clear during yesterday’s Champions League clash between Real Madrid and Benfica, where there was a 10-minute stoppage after Vinícius Júnior alleged racist abuse. 

    After scoring a sensational goal that put his team one-nil up, Real Madrid forward Vinicius Junior danced in the corner of the Estádio da Luz. In celebration and in the confrontations that followed, Benfica’s Gianluca Prestianni said something to him while covering his mouth. Vinícius immediately ran to the referee, François Letexier, who stopped the match and crossed his arms to signal that he was activating the anti-racism protocol. A Real Madrid statement said Vinicius told the referee he had been racially abused by the Argentina winger.

    In an interview after the match, Kylian Mbappé, who witnessed the ordeal, stated: “I’m going to explain what happened, Vinícius scores a goal, a goal of the host, he’s going to dance and then people whistle is something normal, and then number 25 has said 5 times monkey to Vinícius, you have to explain it calmly.” All throughout his career, Vinicius Junior has faced racist abuse. It is something that has come to define his football career. In 2021, when he was only 20 years old, fans at Camp Nou were recorded shouting “Macaco” (Monkey) at him near the touchline. 

    It is important to note that this comes just a couple of weeks after Donald Trump, the President of the country holding the 2026 FIFA World Cup, reposted a video depicting the Obamas as Gorillas. Black people have long been compared to animals and primates. This dehumanising trope was used to justify the violent processes of colonialism and slavery. In the nineteenth century, scientific racism promoted the false notion that Black people were biologically inferior and animalistic. 

    The suffering and subjugation of black and brown people seemed less ethically important because, in the eyes of white supremacists, they were animals, not humans. When figures in very powerful positions circulate or amplify that imagery, even indirectly, it normalises and signals to some people that such depictions are acceptable in public discourse. Whilst these two incidents are not directly related, they exist within the same wider cultural context where racism is increasingly becoming once again normalised.

    Vinícius Júnior has consistently been vocal about his experiences of racist abuse. However, whenever he has, a troubling narrative has persisted- that he provokes the racism he receives. This illogical idea that his celebrations and personality invite such horrific treatment completely shifts responsibility away from the perpetrators and onto the victim. This rhetoric resurfaced again yesterday in the commentary by Mark Clattenburg, who said Vinicius Junior hasn’t “made it difficult”, and by Benfica manager José Mourinho, who gave his response to the chaos that had unfolded during the match.  In an interview after the game, Mourinho said, “Vini Jr’s goal should be the main thing about the game. But when you score a goal like that… you should celebrate in a respectful way. But I will be independent; I will not say I believe Prestianni or Vini, I was not there. Prestianni denies it, but I will not pick a side. The biggest legend in this club is Eusebio. This club is not racist.”

    For Mourinho to suggest that, by celebrating in the way that he did, Vinicius Junior provoked a racist reaction is completely unacceptable. Celebrating in front of opposition fans is not something that was invented yesterday; it is a part of the game, and players should not have to suffer racist abuse for it. Given that Mourinho himself is well known for his antagonising celebrations on the touchline, he is the last person who should be dictating to a player how to celebrate. Dancing by the corner-flag should not be seen as controversial. Some of the most iconic goal celebrations have come in this way. By perpetuating this lazy narrative, it diverts attention away from the real issue of racism, which isn’t just a football problem but a wider societal problem. 

    Also, what’s even more outrageous is Mourinho saying the club cannot be racist because their biggest legend is a black player. It’s the sporting equivalent of saying, “I can’t be racist, I have Black friends.” Just because an iconic black figure has been celebrated and elevated does not mean that discriminatory behavior, biased structures, or the lived experiences of other players and fans have been completely erased. Benfica players and fans are not immune to racism simply because they have a statue of a black player outside of their stadium. Ultimately,  representation at the top does not automatically equal equality throughout the institution. Admiration for an exceptional individual does not dismantle bias. In fact, in some instances, it perpetuates bias. 

    This is because if that player fits the mold of what is “acceptable”-being humble, hardworking, and quiet- they are celebrated, and the underlying structures that allow discrimination to persist go unchallenged. Meanwhile, Black players like Vinícius Júnior, who are outspoken and expressive, are judged more harshly and subjected to abuse. Former Manchester United midfielder Paul Pogba was treated in a similar way, particularly from sections of the British media, for being different and outspoken. 

    He was often compared to N’Golo Kanté for his actions off the pitch as well as on the pitch. The difference between the two players fundamentally lies in how closely they conformed to socially comfortable and acceptable stereotypes. Kanté was often portrayed as humble and uncontroversial. His reserved personality and lack of public political statements contributed to a media image that was “acceptable” and non-threatening to mainstream audiences. The difference in the reception of these players highlighted that black athletes are more readily celebrated when they fit a narrow mold of quiet excellence rather than being outspoken and different. This could not be clearer today when we look at how Vini is treated.

    In recent years, there have been several anti racism campaigns by football’s governing bodies, but it is evident that more needs to be done. Punishments for racist abuse need to be stricter, and more education is needed. It is not enough to signal awareness. The deeper cultural attitudes and unconscious biases need to be confronted, and people need to face serious consequences for their actions. Kylian Mbappe has called for Prestianni to be banned from playing in the Champions League. While some may see this as extreme, perhaps this is precisely the kind of punishment that is needed to send a clear message that there is no room for racism in football.