I’ll give you my milkshake when you pry it out of my cold dead hands

I’m pretty sure editors and sub-editors everywhere rubbed their hands in glee at the news that a McDonald's in Edinburgh close to a location where Nigel Farage was giving a speech had effectively banned milkshakes. There’s no doubt, it’s a story that gets people’s attention and eyeballs on newspapers. And the social shares, just imagine the social shares.

Naturally, as with anything nowadays, the discussion on the “weaponised Milkshake ban” polarised straight away into two camps and was seized for political purposes.  The far-right's was for me the most interesting with its screeching about political violence. Let me explain a little about why that caught my attention.

Why do those people I keep trying to destroy keep doing mean things to me?

The right’s reaction has interested me as it smacks of phoney martyrdom. One commentator calling it political violence was one of the alt-right's loudest contrarians Paul Joseph Watson, who made this statement whilst blaming the left for hypocrisy when Burger King announced (in a moment of inspired brand opportunism) they would be still selling milkshakes in Scotland.

Whilst throwing a milkshake at someone you’re politically opposed to could just fall within the loosest form of that definition and while I agree that it’s not good form for political debate, this is a ridiculous position to take. If we work under that premise then coughing loudly during someone’s speech is political violence.

The far-right doesn't really come out of that kind of debate unscathed either. It was only this month that Carl Benjamin (a notable milkshake victim) publically implied he would rape Labour MP, Jess Phillips. Is this not political violence too?

I have a feeling the far-right crowd is being selective with their evidence of "political violence". I, of course, invite you to wonder if equating milkshake throwing and threats of actual violence and rape is false equivalency? That and the fact that the assassination of Labour MP Jo Cox and a foiled plot to assassinate another were both perpetuated by followers of the far-right, makes you wonder.

This behaviour is almost certainly not by accident and seems to fall into common far-right political smear tropes. A common tactic of this political tribe is to accuse the enemy of something they (the far-right) themselves are guilty (paraphrased from Josef Goebbels in 1943). It can be a good distraction tool and a form of discrediting your enemies and it used often today if you look carefully.  The whole milkshake fiasco also fits in very nicely with what Umberto Eco lists in his influential UR Fascism essay about the far-right’s obsession with plots and a need for constant struggle. In this case, however, that struggle is against not being covered in milkshake.

Therefore it can be argued that screaming “political violence” and “oppression” at the threat of milkshakes in the face is a way to keep the broader population on their side, whilst sidestepping the reasons for the milkshake throwing being necessary. Which is principally motivated by their politics and the often oppressive or racist things they advocate for.

Milkshakes = bad freedom but guns = good freedom

Another comparison I got thinking about in all this was about weapons and access to them in general. The discussion about banning “tools for violence” that came into play with the temporary outlawing of milkshakes, reminded me of the angry debate around US gun laws.

This is also somehow apt as the probable Edinburgh milkshake victim Nigel Farage is in favour of relaxing the UK’s notoriously strict gun control laws (which were introduced after a horrific school shooting in 1996). This despite the fact the UK isn't a country that's screaming for liberalized gun laws like in the US.

We hear an awful lot from the far-right about freedom, be it freedom of speech, freedom of expression and in some cases freedom to bear arms. Of course, this is more prevalent within the American right. However, I’ve never seen such a push to outlaw a “weapon” from these people who decry the end of freedom if responsible gun laws are touted in the US. The sudden clamouring for the banning or removing from sale of a beverage seems uncharacteristic from a group that seems unable or unwilling to have a sensible debate about gun ownership.

After all, this is a political tribe that recently bemoaned the Green New Deal will “take away your hamburgers” (according to overstuffed Beanie Baby in a suit Sebastian Gorka). However, when it comes to other popular fast food items being thrown at one of their own they suddenly become very protective and start trying to ban things and criminalise behaviour. Although, is implying that Mexicans are rapists and Muslims are terrorists etc (i.e. things that can lead to real persecution and violence) ok if you're just "telling it like it is" and it's "free speech"? Does that free you from any responsibility, be it criminal or social?

Indeed, what about those good old freedom-loving folk in Edinburgh who just want to a tasty milkshake on a Saturday afternoon. Who will stand up for them? We can also only imagine the reaction if it were hamburgers the people were throwing at the far-right... 

Of course, banning guns and the milkshake situation in Edinburgh is not a perfect comparison. Naturally, the move to ban guns is more universal than a local ban on milkshakes during a political speech. However, it’s always interesting to see the loudest people on the far-right using the same arguments that many on the opposing side use against them at the slightest infraction.

Just for clarification, I’ve never thrown a milkshake at someone. Hopefully, I never have to. I don’t encourage milkshake throwing as everyday behaviour. However as a form of protest against a political movement that is trying to trivialise persecution of ethnic groups then have at it.

Now I don’t know why but I really want to drink a milkshake right now for some reason. Perhaps that was McDonald's plan all along...

via GIPHY