Comment permalink

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage gestures after being hit with a milkshake while arriving for a Brexit Party campaign event in Newcastle last week. PHOTO: REUTERS

First it was Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) who was struck. Next in line was Carl Benjamin, the UKIP candidate who gained notoriety for tweeting vile comments about rape to a Labour MP, Jess Phillips. Most recently, Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party, and figurehead of far Right British politics, has faced being doused in milky humiliation.

The coverage of Britain's participation in European parliamentary elections has been dominated by an unlikely political tactic: drenching your opponents in milkshake. The police even requested an Edinburgh branch of McDonald's stop selling milkshakes while Nigel Farage's political rally took place nearby. Burger King, to cries of support from the political Left, reminded Scottish customers it wouldn't be pausing its sales.

Throwing a milkshake over a political opponent is a curious form of protest. It certainly seems appropriate that in today's age of political memes and viral videos, milkshakes dominated last week's British media. It echoes the popularity of "egg-boy", the Australian teenager who cracked an egg on the head of Senator Fraser Anning following his victim-blaming comments after the Christchurch mosque shootings.

Yet, there is an interesting discussion to be had here. Put simply, is it helpful to publicly shame far Right opponents with eggs or milkshakes?

On the one hand, the picture of these individuals being humiliated so publicly, sends an important message of solidarity to those who are victims of racism.

Yaxley-Lennon has been recorded making deeply Islamophobic comments that have incited violence. Carl Benjamin makes "jokes" about rape. Farage has painted migrant communities as a violent threat. That individuals have rejected their hate so publicly is fantastic, and should be applauded.

Further, because it is recorded, that rejection of hate can be spread far and wide. The sharing of the egging video of Fraser Anning, for example, was a way for the wider New Zealand community to say that we won't accept his victim-blaming messages of hate.

Importantly, of course, throwing a milkshake is a fantastic example of nonviolent protest. Using nonviolent methods of political protest has long been a vital, and effective tactic of progressive movements. Finding ways of countering racist voices without resorting to violence should be celebrated.

But will throwing a milkshake change far Right politics? The honest answer is no.

Those attracted to the political Right, whether in Britain, New Zealand or elsewhere, are feeling sidelined. They feel that their interests are not being heard, that their jobs are insecure or non-existent, that their communities are changing and they are losing control.

Importantly, the message that they received as youngsters, when they were told that they could be anybody that they wanted to be, is not matching the reality of life in an insecure world with stagnating social mobility.

Political leaders on the Right feed off this insecurity, and offer up minority communities to blame. They preach a message that says, "the mainstream media, and the liberal political elite aren't interested in looking after you. We've got your back". And it's unsurprising that these ideas are so popular.

The unfortunate reality is that a shower of milkshake is only going to strengthen this resolve. It appears as the perfect proof that the mainstream cannot handle a challenge to liberal politics. It fuels the fire of victimhood narratives. To those who hold on to far Right views, the milkshake proves to them that they were right.

What's more, this approach to the far Right extends beyond the milkshake-throwers. New Zealand journalist Patrick Gower has been for the past week sharing news stories on Newshub which aim to expose New Zealand to the levels of white supremacy and racism that exist in this country.

And it's vital work. It is quite evident New Zealand authorities have repeatedly ignored warnings from Islamic organisations about the rise in violence, threats and vandalism that preceded the Christchurch shootings. The New Zealand public needs to hear this.

But Gower's conclusions have also so far been lacklustre. He has proposed coercive measures like extending surveillance by police and intelligence services. His overall message has been to simply "expose" these individuals, and present the far Right up to us as figures that we, too, can despise.

The dominant approach, whether through milkshakes or sensationalised exposes, is to "out" and ridicule those on the Right. Instead, we must understand that it is in fact this marginalisation that poses a threat.

Through being excluded, they drive underground, and online, and those narratives of victimhood intensify.

Rather than focusing on excluding those on the Right, we must find ways of including these individuals. After all, we all share New Zealand together.

 - Kieran Ford is a PhD student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago.