Thank you to Jonathan Freedland for his insightful article about the issues concerning asylum seekers (Gary Lineker spoke his mind. Now we should too: fate could have put any one of us in those migrant boats, 10 March). I would just take issue with his statement that Gary Lineker has “deployed the wrong analogy” in saying the language is “not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s”. I beg to differ. I believe the analogy was very well chosen.
“Not dissimilar” means there may be points of similarity; it does not mean that words and deeds correspond exactly. Anyone who watches series one of the BBC’s Rise of the Nazis will quickly see the truth of Mr Lineker’s words. In 2023, just as in Germany in the 1930s, we see the government curbing our right to engage in demonstrations, seeking to undermine the judiciary, making it less easy to cast a vote, and dehumanising and othering minority and migrant groups. Need I say more?
The steady suppression of dissenting voices in Germany in the 1930s created the conditions in which extreme rightwing ideology could flourish. I fully endorse Mr Lineker’s view that the government’s language is “not dissimilar” to Germany in the 1930s, and I am most grateful to him for speaking out and sticking to his views, and for all those who have backed him.
Elizabeth Palmer
Oldham, Greater Manchester
• Contrary to the government narrative that Gary Lineker was being disrespectful to the victims of the Holocaust and their families and descendants, he was raising the danger that government policy on immigrants would fuel a similar future for them. Jonathan Freedland argues that the language and actions of our government are not as bad as that of the German government of the 1930s, but such language softens up public opinion for what might follow. Attacking civil liberties, as the government has done over several years, is the top of the slippery slope to what happened in Germany during the 1930s. Germany has learned the lesson of its history. The UK, so instrumental in leading the world against authoritarianism, apparently hasn’t.
Martin Niemöller’s poem, First They Came, comes to mind. Lineker is not a migrant, but he has, rightly and bravely, spoken out on behalf of a minority that has no voice. It’s now our responsibility to speak out and support him.
Robin Thomas
Bedford
• Jonathan Freedland is right to applaud Gary Lineker’s intervention, while rejecting his historical analogy. But the controversy also distracts from another regrettable utterance – by the Labour party. In an era when the political soundbite is king, Labour’s “unworkable” riposte to the government’s disgraceful plan is perplexing to say the least.
Both logically and rhetorically, “unworkable” suggests that what matters most is the effectiveness rather than the legitimacy of the policy. But its focus on efficacy rather than ethics reveals Labour’s chronic neurosis over the possibility of alienating those with anxieties about immigration. Instead, the party ought to be reminding the government of its moral responsibilities, legal obligations and international reputation – not playing a political percentage game.
Paul McGilchrist
Cromer, Norfolk
• In contrast to some other presenters, Gary Lineker was not revealing any party preferences nor his voting intentions in his tweet. He was not offering general criticism or endorsement of any party per se. He was simply commenting on a single government policy affecting a human rights issue to which he is committed. Given the BBC director-general’s own history of Tory activism, isn’t it he who needs to defend himself – and thus the BBC – against charges of political partisanship in this matter?
Ian McCormack
Leicester
• Currently, the word impartiality is meant to be a term indicating having no opinion, which has been assigned to the BBC as a virtue. Thus Gary Lineker has crossed that assumed line and has been the centre of an infantile fuss for stating an opinion. But is not impartiality a state of conducting evenhanded debate, and a better policy? Also, why do public bodies fear offending the right so much? I’ve yet to hear anyone worrying about upsetting the left.
Margaret O’Connell
Wincham, Cheshire
• Does anyone think Gary Lineker would have been suspended or even noticed if he had tweeted in favour of government policy? This, together with not broadcasting an episode of David Attenborough’s Saving Our Wild Isles, shows where the real political bias is. It is the BBC that is biased – not Gary Lineker.
Geoff Wheeler
Coventry
• Germany at one time considered sending Jews to Madagascar. Our government wants to send refugees to Rwanda. QED.
Mike Johnson
Rustington, West Sussex
• If you speak out against government policy, it’s political, but if you say nothing it’s not? We take silence for consent.
Mark Doel
Emeritus professor, Sheffield Hallam University
• While I fully support Gary Lineker’s right to free speech, I must admit that I rather enjoyed the replacement Match of the Day format, with no talking at all. I found it restful and comforting.
Steve Lupton
Prestwich, Greater Manchester
• Is Gary Lineker now the voice of reason in this country and the de facto leader of the opposition?
Steve Fleming
Claygate, Surrey
• The penultimate letter was amended on 15 March to reinstate the first few words
