Are ‘Brexity’ books against the law?
Our reading matter is now being taken as evidence of wrongthink.
Many of us will recall that bizarre period during the lockdown when we mostly communicated over computer screens, like a reification of E. M. Forster’s dystopian novella ‘The Machine Stops’. It became a running joke that figures in the media were often seen broadcasting from home in front of shelves groaning with weighty tomes in an effort to convey just how learned they were. I myself was guilty of this, although I can assure you that it wasn’t an attempt to imply erudition, but rather that the alternative backdrops – piles of dirty laundry, a lounge scattered with the debris of an indolent lifestyle – were not so televisual.
During this time, a new game emerged whereby viewers would screenshot the bookshelves on display and zoom in to assess the titles. Michael Gove was subject to this curtain-twitching style of analysis, and there was some controversy over the fact that he appeared to own a book by the Holocaust revisionist David Irving and biographies of Mussolini, Stalin and – shock horror – Margaret Thatcher.
The UK police certainly seem to believe in that old aphorism that that ‘You can tell everything you need to know about a person from their bookshelf’. There has been much press coverage this week of the case of Julian Foulkes, a former policeman who was arrested at his home in Gillingham for tweetcrime. It took six officers to handcuff the pensioner and take him to a cell, and bodycam footage from the arrest shows them assessing the contents of his bookshelves. One was seen singling out The War on the West by Douglas Murray and another remarked that there were ‘very Brexity things’.
I have a fair few ‘Brexity’ books on my shelf too. I have just as many ‘anti-Brexity’ books, as it happens. It seems to have escaped the attention of these officers that it is possible to read multiple points of view without necessarily subscribing to any of them. They have also apparently forgotten that ‘Brexity’ views are fairly commonplace, enough so to win the largest democratic mandate the country has ever seen. If it’s a majority view, is it really all that controversial?
I recall during the lockdown I was scheduled for a television interview and, having set up the webcam, I suddenly realised that the two volumes of Ian Kershaw’s excellent biography of Hitler were not only visible, but prominent. The design of the books’ spines is such that the word ‘HITLER’ is displayed in huge letters. Very dramatic and marketable, but not so helpful if you’re about to appear on live television. I must confess that I repositioned my chair to ensure that the books were obscured.
But why? It isn’t as though any sensible person could possibly believe that my interest in the history of tyranny implies an endorsement of it. I could just as easily have a copy of Mein Kampf on the shelf and still retain my wholehearted opposition to its author and everything he stood for. If I owned a copy of the Koran, would that make me a Muslim? If I owned a copy of Jilly Cooper’s Riders, would that make me prone to passionate romps in stables? As a chronic hay fever sufferer, this hardly seems likely.
The assumption that the books we choose to read are a mirror-image of our private thoughts, or that we are so malleable that any opinion we encounter will automatically be assimilated, is very much a core tenet of faith in today’s woke mindset, one that has quite palpably infected the justice system. Those who are currently serving prison time for offensive tweets will be aware that the unevidenced belief that the public act on cue to the language they read has some very authoritarian consequences.
This is why the police consider reading a book by Douglas Murray to be potential evidence in a case for wrongthink. Too often we have seen our law enforcement agencies insisting that it is their job to monitor our opinions. The ‘very Brexity’ Mr Foulkes was arrested because he had tweeted about the rise in antisemitism since the pogrom by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023. And that’s all it took for half a dozen officers to storm his property and cart him off to a cell.
This is the chilling reality of living in Britain in 2025. Much as sceptics will insist that there is no free speech crisis, we continually hear of such cases of police and judicial overreach. We know that police are arresting at least 12,000 citizens per year under ‘hate speech’ laws. We know that they have recorded hundreds of thousands of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ against citizens, in spite of demands from successive Home Secretaries that they discontinue this practice. We know that mean tweets are likely to be investigated, whereas many actual crimes are overlooked.
The problems we face with two-tier policing will only get worse while our police forces remain in thrall to an ideology that believes that words are violence and that censorship is necessary for the preservation of a cohesive society. Under Labour, this kind of authoritarianism will doubtless continue. But if we ever end up with a government that actually understands the value of free speech, we might see the systemic changes that are needed to stop the policing from snooping around in our heads.
While I wholeheartedly disagree with Andrew and Douglas Murray on Brexit, they are amongst my favourite writers and I'm always happy to see an email announcing a fresh article from Andrew on whatever topic. This article reminded me of visiting Poland during a time when people hid any "subversive" literature in case the security policy paid a visit. That literally was in 1984. Incredible that we've come to this pass in the UK.
I've just searched for an update about Lucy Connolly. Reuters (Reuters!) have a "fact check" article, assuring us: "UK woman jailed for inciting racial hatred, NOT posting hurtful words". Reuters failed to report the doublespeak in the judge's sentencing remarks. Decide for yourselves:
"In relation to the offence I have regard to the fact that although it was widely read, you did not repeat any such statement and in due course deleted it and you sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer.
19. You have had tragedy in your own life with the loss of your very young child some years ago. I have read the psychiatric report from some twelve years ago as to the psychiatric difficulties you then suffered.
20. I accept that you still very keenly feel that loss.
21. There is no recent psychiatric evidence and whilst you may well have
understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred. There is no evidence of any mental disorder having any material affect on you committing this offence.
22. Similarly whilst I accept you regret your actions and I have been referred to messages in which you say that you disagree with racism and violence, it is clear from the evidence of your own words in the days following your actions, what you said to the police and what you said to the probation officer that you have little insight into, or acceptance of, your actions.
I own up to owning a copy of Mein Kampf, as well as plenty of classics by Marx, Nietzsche and by various anarchists. I have a collection of writings by Keynes that sits next to books by Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper. Freud and Jung share the same shelf with Foucault, Marcuse and Fromm. Paul Embery rubs spines with Nick Cohen and Douglas Murray. I challenge anyone to make assumptions about my political outlook from a rummage through my bookshelves. One thing I will advertise very loudly - in case any cops are snooping on my posts - is that I do NOT possess anything railway related by Michael Portillo.