'Diversity barriers' were meant to deter Islamist terrorists, but they're just proof politicians have failed us – Paul Embery

Thank you for subscribing!

They serve as a stark and grotesque reminder of Britain’s 'new normal', trade unionist Paul Embery writes

One of my favourite memories from my years as a trade union activist is the time I stood alongside thousands of my fellow Fire Brigades Union members at a rally, called ahead of a national strike ballot, inside London’s Trafalgar Square.

The atmosphere was electric as, under the watchful eye of Lord Nelson, heavyweight speakers made one tubthumping speech after another.

The square has, of course, long been known for this sort of thing.

For almost two centuries, it has served as a crucible of our democratic and civic traditions, playing host to political demonstrations and cultural festivals, and symbolising our historical commitment as a nation to freedom, liberty, open debate and pluralism.

So, how depressing it was to view a video which recently went viral on social media and showed the square to be surrounded by an assortment of ugly concrete and steel security barriers.

This wonderful venue, abounding with iconic statues and surrounded by handsome old buildings, is now defaced and desecrated by these modern-day eyesores.

It is to deter so-called “vehicle as a weapon” attacks by would-be Islamist terrorists.

Doubtless mindful of how this method of attack is on the rise, councils across Britain have taken to installing these monstrosities.

It could be argued that, in the interests of public safety, the barriers are necessary.

But wider and more profound political questions are thrown up by their emergence. For they serve as a stark and grotesque reminder of Britain’s “new normal”.

These security barriers – or “diversity barriers”, as some have termed them – are the embodiment of our slide towards being a low-trust society, one that is increasingly divided along religious, ethnic, ideological and cultural lines, and where a deepening communal sectarianism is taking hold, fuelled by irreconcilable antagonisms.

And it isn’t only our high-profile landmarks that are being defiled by these contraptions.

Shortly after the Trafalgar Square video dropped, someone posted an image of similar security barriers that had been installed along the main esplanade at Ayr.

That’s Ayr – a traditional old coastal town on Scotland’s west coast. It is surely a mark of the extent of the sickness afflicting our society that the threat of Islamic fundamentalist violence is now felt in such places.

Whenever there is an Islamist terror attack, political leaders will immediately trot out all the old platitudes: “Don’t let them divide us”, “We won’t let them change our way of life”, and so on.

But the truth is that they are dividing us, and they are changing our way of life – often in the most fundamental way.

Whether we’re catching a plane, or attending a sporting event, or visiting a tourist attraction, or walking across a London bridge, or shopping at a Christmas market, we cannot fail to see the heightened safety measures that have been put in place – not only a greater number of security barriers and more rigorous personal checks, but often armed police officers, too.

There’s no point beating about the bush here: most of it is a direct result of the fact that some followers of Islam want to kill us because they see us as “infidels” and therefore legitimate targets in their “holy war”.

But how did we arrive at this dark place? Quite simply, through a combination of stupidity and cowardice.

Stupidity because our politicians, instead of supporting strict regulation of immigration, embraced an open-borders utopianism that pulled in eye-wateringly large numbers of people, while also peddling an “all cultures are equal” philosophy – an approach that ultimately had devastating consequences for our national identity and security, as well as for social cohesion.

And cowardice because whenever the fundamentalists flexed their muscles – remember the Salman Rushdie affair? The Batley schoolteacher? Charlie Hebdo? The Danish cartoons?

Our politicians always seem more concerned with assuaging the hurt feelings of Muslims here and globally than with defending freedom of expression and free inquiry.

It is that warped mindset that led the current government to introduce an official definition of “anti-Muslim hatred” – a measure that is already intensifying the chilling effect on free speech and will doubtless further embolden the militants. Blasphemy laws were abolished by parliament many years ago. It’s just that our politicians act as though they are still on the statute book – and apply only to one religion.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want our political class to continue pussyfooting in the face of volatile religious ideologues while our country changes beyond recognition.

And neither do I want to be told, the next time a jihadist strikes, that I should light a candle and refrain from looking back in anger.

We are entitled to get angry about the danger to our safety posed by radical Islam. This is not about denying the right of ordinary Muslims to follow the faith of their choosing.

On the contrary, we should defend religious liberty with every fibre, and I have long argued that there are aspects of the Islamic faith which are admirable and from which the West might learn.

But it is about acknowledging that the threat from the fundamentalists is real, it is in our midst, it is growing, and it is quite literally disfiguring our national landscape.

We should not have to put up with it. We should not be forced to live like it. That we are is testament to the failure of a political class which is fast losing all legitimacy across large parts of our country.