Just as with the 2016 election, the Left simply cannot accept the outcome of the Brexit vote. Particularly stunned is the New York Times, which is still grasping at ways to vilify UK voters’ choice to leave the European Union.
Persistent among NYT references to the United Kingdom’s preservation of national sovereignty is the paper's ridiculous attempts to link violence with the vote. Any violent crime against a Muslim in particular or immigrant in general is tied to the June 2016 referendum.
On the front page of Saturday’s issue, David Kirkpatrick draws lines between Brexit and “Islamophobia,” defending a mosque with the online headline “They’re Loathed as Outcasts, But This is Home.” Kirkpatrick’s love letter to the religious center in London’s Barking suburb is sub-headed “Losing London — a Backlash Against Muslims.” The headline features this gem: “In Brexit-Era London, a Mosque Sits Between Two Types of Hate.”
The Times explains to its readers: “Articles in [the ‘Losing London’] series examine whether Brexit will sink a great global city.”
Ridiculous. Kirkpatrick asserts:
Few, if any, major Western cities have been more open to Muslims than London. More than 12 percent of Londoners are Muslim. Eighteen months ago, this became the first Western capital to elect a Muslim mayor, a milestone for residents proud of their multicultural ethos...Now, though, religious hate crimes are up nearly 30 percent, primarily against Muslims. At his mosque, Mr. Siddique is hiring extra security guards to protect his congregants. Muslim women have complained about being spit on, or cursed.
What has brought these tensions to the surface? Brexit and terrorism.
Incredibly, Kirkpatrick seems to view Brexit and terrorism as partners in the perceived increase in crimes against Muslims, which could of course be a result of increased reporting, as they can now be reported anonymously online. Furthermore, recent changes to the law allow virtually any physical -- or even verbal -- attack to be subject to the label of "hate crime" if the victim perceives it as such, including online bullying. Nevertheless, castigating the voters, Kirkpatrick writes:
Britain’s unexpected vote in June 2016 to exit the European Union -- only a month after London elected Sadiq Khan as mayor -- was fueled by a nationwide campaign infused with anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant venom. Then, after a decade without Islamist terrorist attacks, this year Britain has suffered four, including an assault by Islamist terrorists in June that killed eight people at London Bridge and Borough Market.
Even as crowds of Londoners came out to mourn -- and to show their commitment to the city’s inclusive spirit -- the dynamics of daily life shifted for many mainstream Muslims. Brexit and the terrorist attacks have given bigots license to express hostility, many Muslims say, or to label them all as terrorists, or to tell them to go home -- as if London were not their home.
"Brexit and the terrorist attacks” — from reading the Times, one would think that “Brexit” was itself a terrorist attack against Muslims, and that it -- not jihad -- is the cause of those four terrorist attacks in London.
Kirkpatrick isn't the only Times writer slamming Brexit. Stephen Castle — London correspondent for the Times — wrote a November 8th piece titled, “Crises Keep Piling Up in Brexit-Torn Britain.” Reporter Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura’s article, “U.K. Reports Big Rise in Hate Crime, Citing Brexit and Terrorist Attacks,” includes:
The referendum on British membership in the European Union and several terrorist attacks…have helped drive hate crimes in Britain to record levels, official figures showed on Tuesday…The “Brexit” campaign last year to leave the European Union was supported by some right-wing and nationalist groups, and the vote gave rise to concerns that minorities and immigrants would be more vulnerable to hate crimes.
The New York Times just can’t help itself. Its obsession with racism, “hate crimes,” and the vilification of white voters knows no bounds. It can’t accept the will of the people when a national directive flies in the face of its leftist politics. It wants big government and absolute power in a borderless world, and Brexit stands in the way of that. To the Left's utter horror, in 2016, the UK chose national sovereignty, giving power to the segment of society for which the Left cares the least: the people.