I’m sure that the Barclay brothers, owners of Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, are delighted. The reaction to an article by Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary, has guaranteed them huge web traffic. Nothing drives clicks like controversy.

This week, the Telegraph alone has published 24 articles on the subject, not including Johnson’s own. And countless more column inches in other papers, and broadcast airtime, have been spent on it. 

Written by most other people, I’m not sure that Johnson’s article would have caused so much angst. But then most other people aren’t the former foreign secretary, and don’t throw playground insults into a serious argument — not, at least, if they wish the argument itself to be what readers take away with them. Now, because I would like to be fair to Johnson, and most of the coverage I have read doesn’t actually present his argument, I will summarize it here: “Whatever one’s personal views on burqas and niqabs, they shouldn’t be banned.”

For colour, he added something of his own personal views on face veils: “Oppressive,” “weird,” “bullying” and “odd.” He adds that he “can find no scriptural authority for the practice,” which leaves one with the pleasing image of him poring over the Qur’an looking for references as he writes.

To ratchet things up a notch — and this is really the nub of the issue — he wrote that women wearing the niqab look like letterboxes and bank robbers. This has been described by some as a “dog whistle” — a political message hidden in the way he wrote, designed to fan the flames of anti-Muslim prejudice.

There is a bit of a debate that follows Johnson around: Does he strategize, or is he entirely instinctive? Many who have worked with him say the latter: They cite the fact that his columns are always written in a rush, or the fact that his inability to knuckle down is what fatally damaged his last attempt to become prime minister. 

It wasn’t religion as such that was the target of his insult. It was individuals. It was the people wearing the niqab or burqa, described as “choosing” to dress like letterboxes or bank robbers

Peter Welby

If he runs entirely on instinct, then the process of writing the column would have gone something like this. Subject: Denmark bans burqa. Principle: Banning things that don’t harm other people is illiberal (remember that Johnson is essentially an old-fashioned liberal), and counter-productive. Word count: Too short. Throw in a few off-colour jokes to rally the troops, and send it off.

That is the charitable view. The other view is that he knows that both the Telegraph readership and the Conservative Party membership (often much the same thing) is older, whiter, and more — well — conservative than the population at large. They probably don’t know many Muslims, if any, aren’t too keen on immigration, and probably aren’t too keen on face veils. So, if he is going to keep their support while making an argument many of them won’t agree with, he needs to whip up a bit of controversy to indicate that he is on their side really. And he wants to keep their support, because he wants to be leader.

If there was a Conservative Party leadership election tomorrow, Johnson would probably not win. Members of Parliament choose the top two candidates and then the party membership votes for their favourite. Johnson probably wouldn’t get to the final two. But if he did (and British politics is changing very fast at the moment), then anything he can do to show that he shares the membership’s hopes and fears will benefit him.

Johnson’s reaction to the controversy seems to point toward the “strategy” interpretation. He will not apologize for the comments, describing requests for him to do so as an attempt to shut down debate. This is another pitch to the Conservative membership: He is presenting himself as suffering for raising issues they care about. But the fact is that he was not — remember, the argument was that the face veil should not be banned. It was the jokes that caused the trouble.

Rowan Atkinson, also known as “Blackadder” or “Mr Bean,” wrote a letter to the Times defending Johnson on the grounds that it is a long-standing British tradition for religion not to be off limits for comedy. Of course, on the face of it, he is right. Free speech is also a cherished cornerstone of the Western liberal order. But I don’t think most of Johnson’s critics would dispute that.

In reality though, it wasn’t religion as such that was the target of his insult. It was individuals. It was the people wearing the niqab or burqa, described as “choosing” to dress like letterboxes or bank robbers. At the same time, he says that they are oppressed. Wouldn’t it be a good idea, perhaps, if we didn’t insult those we think are being oppressed?

The issue here is not free speech. Very few people are saying that Johnson shouldn’t be permitted to write what he did. But the fact that we have the right to say insulting things doesn’t mean we should. Children are taught that in the playground.

We should have an open debate on these matters. No one should think that they are, or should be, off limits. But debates are not had by powerful people throwing insults at those who can’t answer back. The discourse within parts of the Conservative Party increasingly mirrors the extremes of Labour's Corbynism. This week showed Johnson wants to take it up a culture war cul-de-sac. And, for a movement that prides itself on moderation, conservatism, and realism — ingredients that have kept it in power for the majority of the last century — the Tories will be pondering how to counter a potential leadership candidate who is prepared to take this path to victory.

  • Peter Welby is a consultant on religion and global affairs, specializing in the Arab world. Previously he was the managing editor of a think tank on religious extremism, the Centre on Religion & Geopolitics, and worked in public affairs in the Arabian Gulf. He is based in London, and has lived in Egypt and Yemen. Twitter: @pdcwelby.