How a lawsuit against Tommy Robinson could open up a new front in the battle against the far right

Tommy Robinson, or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to give him his real name, has had quite a year. The founder of the English Defence League has spent time in prison for alleged contempt of court, whipped up angry crowds in front of the Old Bailey, doorstepped critics in the dead of night, and is now attempting to set up his own social network.

Last week, he went to Glasgow to confront Stewart McDonald, the SNP MP who had called him a “racist thug and fraudster” in the House of Commons last year. It is turning into common strategy.

Robinson rides a wave of resurgent far right figures and movements, funded from overseas – as well as by small microtransactions from supporters; set piece events like Glasgow are designed to drive funding. From outside, he seems unstoppable. But could the wave be about to crash?

In October 2018, a piece of footage went viral online, showing a young Syrian refugee, who can only be referred to as “Jamal”, being pushed to the ground and having water poured over him by another boy at his school in Huddersfield. In the wake of the incident, Robinson travelled north and interviewed the alleged bully on Facebook livestream, making and repeating several statements about “Jamal”. These statements allegedly portrayed “Jamal” as violent and abusive towards other students and he and his family were forced to flee to another, undisclosed community.

Following legal demands, Robinson removed the allegedly defamatory statements from his social media streams. Even so, a law firm acting on behalf of Jamal – Farooq Bajwa and Co – are now launching a crowdfunded defamation case against him. Not only that, they will explore whether social media companies such as Facebook are liable for their role in spreading “Tommy’s” potentially defamatory statements.

About time, some might say.

Here’s the most interesting part, however. To quote the page for the crowdfunding campaign, the lawyers are seeking to “penetrate the veil of Lennon's finances, identify and forensically trace all of Lennon's financial assets so that he does not escape the economic consequences of his defamation of others”.

It has long been known that in the age of Brexit and Trump, extreme, possibly hateful rhetoric can be a moneyspinner. We know that Robinson himself lives in a gated home in central Bedfordshire worth upwards of £950,000. It appears that railing against Islam has been good business, and he certainly does not want the good times to end.

Much of “Tommy’s” screen time last year came from his claims that his “freedom of speech” had been curtailed – even crushed – by the UK government, after he was prevented from reporting on grooming trials. Images of Robinson, mouth covered with gaffer tape, became a regular sight at rallies dedicated to him, especially during his imprisonment. It was a spectacularly effective tactic on behalf of him and his funders.

It may be, however, that those who oppose “Tommy” and his ilk now realise that the way to bring these figures down is through targeting the proceeds of their rhetoric.

Many of the arguments used by the far right to justify a place in mainstream media over the last decade have revolved around the notion of freedom of speech, and of the need to have their views, no matter how extreme, expressed on a footing similar to those of their opponents. This is a matter for relentless discussion: should Steve Bannon be invited to speak at the Oxford Union? Should Milo Yiannopoulos be discussing political correctness with students at New York University?

What is not so open for debate, however, is the idea that people like “Jamal” must have the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law, in both the criminal and civil realms. It’s hard to rebuff the idea that those targeted by far right activists should have legal redress against those who might lie about them.

This might just be the key to ensuring that what many consider “hate”, doesn’t pay.

In my view, the “Jamal” case holds the potential to curtail Robinson’s nasty “work”, if only by leveraging the threat that lawyers might be able to dive into a detailed examination of his assets and their sources.

“Tommy” will have something to say about it to his sizeable audience. But it will be instructive to discover if the position changes when he knows the nuts and bolts of his finances could be laid bare.