The Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen was “never the most glittering star in the political firmament”, said Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian. He was known largely for his blunders: posting a “raunchy video” in a ministerial WhatsApp group; being suspended for breaching lobbying rules.
Last week, Bridgen’s colleagues’ patience finally snapped, after he tweeted that the mRNA vaccines that saved millions of lives constituted part of “the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust”. He was condemned by all sides, and the Tories suspended him from the parliamentary party.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Bridgen has form when it comes to deranged ravings, said Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times. Last spring, for instance, a judge branded him a liar, as the High Court ruled against him in a bitter, decade-long legal battle with his own family’s potato business – a case which he then claimed to have won.
The sad irony is that Bridgen’s brand of inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t only hinder life-saving immunisation campaigns, said Michael Head on The Conversation. It also makes it harder to discuss genuine “vaccine injuries” – such as the 50 officially documented deaths in England, and one in Wales, caused by Covid vaccines. This is an issue that’s difficult to scrutinise properly, when anti-vaxxers “persistently muddy the waters with misinformation and abuse”.
For all that Bridgen’s views are “inflammatory” and “misguided”, they are plainly lawful, said Molly Kingsley in The Critic. Punishing an MP for expressing “contrarian” views erodes our democratic system and promotes a “hegemony” of state-approved thought that’s only a “few short steps from authoritarianism”.
On the contrary, said Henry Hill on CapX. Political parties must be free to choose who they want as members, and to specify which beliefs they won’t tolerate. This isn’t about freedom of speech: it’s about “freedom of association”. Or, in Andrew Bridgen’s case, “disassociation”.
-
Dick Cheney: the vice president who led the War on Terrorfeature Cheney died this month at the age of 84
-
The ‘Kavanaugh stop’Feature Activists say a Supreme Court ruling has given federal agents a green light to racially profile Latinos
-
Affordability: Does Trump have an answer?Feature Trump ‘refuses to admit there is a problem’
-
Asylum hotels: everything you need to knowThe Explainer Using hotels to house asylum seekers has proved extremely unpopular. Why, and what can the government do about it?
-
Massacre in the favela: Rio’s police take on the gangsIn the Spotlight The ‘defence operation’ killed 132 suspected gang members, but could spark ‘more hatred and revenge’
-
Obamacare: Why premiums are rocketingFeature The rise is largely due to the Dec. 31 expiration of pandemic-era ‘enhanced’ premium subsidies, which are at the heart of the government shutdown
-
The GOP: Will it welcome antisemites?Feature That Carlson would grant Fuentes access to his massive audience is proof that his hate ‘is entering the MAGA mainstream’
-
Trump’s trade war: has China won?Talking Point US president wanted to punish Beijing, but the Asian superpower now holds the whip hand
