Why Won't the Jo Cox Foundation Defend Rosie Duffield?

The Jo Cox Foundation has come to the defence of Jess Phillips over the recent comments made about her by Elon Musk.

However, the foundation set up in the name of a murdered MP still hasn’t said a word about a man who threatened to kill one of her colleagues – even after he was convicted.

In June 2016 Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered by a man with a knife and a gun while travelling to a surgery in her constituency. A politically motivated assassination, a tragedy, and a warning about the dangers of violence and threats against our politicians and public figures when they speak out on issues which may be contentious.

Shortly after her murder, family, friends and colleagues of Jo set up a foundation in her name. The Jo Cox foundation has three priority aims which include “Respectful Politics” with the statement of intention that:

We want anyone, regardless of their background, to feel able to participate in our political discourse and be treated with respect.

The foundation is a registered charity and continues to speak out, particularly on violence, abuse and threats towards MPs and other elected representatives.

Five years after the murder of Jo Cox, British democracy was shaken by another politically motivated assassination of a sitting MP, the Conservative David Amess. Again, there was much soul searching about “respectful politics”, how this could have been allowed to happen again and what might need to be done about it.

The foundation has fulfilled its remit, condemning violence and threats against politicians from across the political spectrum. It was formed in response to the murder of a Labour MP. It mourned and condemned the murder of a Conservative MP. During the last General Election it was vocal in condemning threats and drink-throwing incidents aimed at Reform’s Nigel Farage.

It looks, on the face of it, as if the foundation is indeed supporting respectful politics and condemning violence and threats against politicians and public figures from all sides of the debate. However, there is one particular case in which the foundation has gone missing in action.

In January 2023, a man in Manchester posted audio clips online which threatened violence “with a big hammer… and a gun”. The targets of these threats were two women, a sitting Labour MP and a high profile author and public figure.

The police took these threats seriously. The case was investigated. A man was arrested, charged, tried, convicted and then sentenced for the crime of “sending an article conveying threatening messages”.

You might think that this kind of crime, credible threats against the safety of two public figures, would be exactly the kind of thing that the Jo Cox Foundation would be particularly concerned about. Preventing and condemning crimes of this kind is surely the very reason for the existence of the charity?

I can find no mention by the foundation of this case. I’ve searched its X posts, its Facebook page, its own website and Google. Nothing. It seems the foundation has said nothing at all.

Not just that, at the time of the conviction of the man who committed these crimes, I asked it directly if it would comment. I posted on X asking the foundation for comment. I went to its website and filled out the contact form asking it for a response. I did get an automated reply saying that it would respond. It did not.

What possible reason could there be for the foundation to completely ignore this case and offer no comment at all, no condemnation of the perpetrator and no words of support for the two women targeted?

The victims of this offence were Rosie Duffield MP and the author J.K. Rowling.

I think we all know very well why the Jo Cox Foundation has ignored this case. It is surely one of the following two related reasons.

Either it believes in the right of Labour, Conservative and Reform politicians to express their views without fear for their safety; but not anyone who is critical of gender ideology.

Or, it did not want to comment on this case for fear of an online backlash from those who clearly do not want Rosie or J.K. to be able to speak, and who have threatened or supported threats against them (and many others) because of their views on women’s rights.

Whatever the reason, and it could be both, it is clear that the Jo Cox Foundation is failing in its remit and aim of fostering respectful politics.

This is one of the few political issues which is genuinely black and white. There are no grey areas. You either support free speech and everyone’s right to have their say, especially when you disagree with what they are saying, or you don’t.

If you don’t support everyone’s free speech rights, you support none.

There can be no exceptions, apart from the already illegal and criminal, incitement to violence and such like.

The Jo Cox Foundation was formed from tragedy and has, in theory, laudable aims. This does not give it a free pass or exemption from public scrutiny. It must support the free speech of and condemn threats and violence against all politicians and public figures.

Addendum

A job advert at the Jo Cox Foundation invites applicants to select their pronouns (required field) from a long list of 11, with space for “other” should you not be covered by “Xe/Xem” or “Ae/Aer” (pronounced “eh?”/”err”)…