A petition calling for the immediate resignation of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has garnered over 100,000 signatures in less than a week.

Launched last Friday, the petition criticizes Starmer for his “indecisiveness, lack of clear direction, and poor communication of the party’s vision” in response to recent unrest across the United Kingdom. It also slams Starmer’s “lack of action and empathy” following the brutal murders of three young girls in Southport.

The petition argues that “a change in leadership is necessary to restore trust, unity, and a clear sense of purpose within the party.”

Starmer has faced widespread criticism on social media for his handling of the murders and subsequent protests, accused of being more concerned with reassuring migrants and Muslims than addressing the fears of parents worried about their children’s safety.

The Prime Minister may very well have mitigated much of the upset by assuring concerned parents that his government would protect their children as vigorously as he promised to protect migrants and their mosques.

Instead, Starmer came down hard on the protesters, labelling them “far-right thugs,” and guaranteeing they would “regret” their decision to take part in the protests.

Since then, Starmer boasts that over 400 people have been arrested, 100 have been charged, some in relation to “online activity,” with a number of them already in court.

The Prime Minister says he’s expecting “substantive sentencing before the end of this week,” which, he says, “should send a very powerful message to anybody involved, either directly or online, that you are likely to be dealt with within a week and that nobody should be involving themselves in this disorder.”

But this is not a meaningful solution; by focusing on the symptom, he risks exacerbating the cause, and emboldening others.

The questions Starmer should be asking are: (1) Where is the anger coming from? And (2) is that anger justified? If he believes the anger is unjustified, he should make his case rather than seemingly confirm fears of a “two-tiered” approach to crime.

Why are people wrong to feel unsafe? Why are they wrong to feel let down by the justice system? Why are they wrong to feel that their government isn’t prioritizing its own citizens?

This is the case the Prime Minister needs to make. Until then, the appearance of partiality could sadly worsen the situation. Unfortunately, these don’t appear to be questions Starmer cares to entertain.

In a recent statement, Starmer emphatically stated that “it does not matter what the motive is” behind the protests. However, the motive does matter. The protests were sparked by the brutal murder of three young girls. That matters. Dismissing real concerns will only fuel anger and reinforce the belief that the government is putting its own citizens last.

Moreover, Starmer’s credibility has been further damaged by condemning protests against mass immigration while applauding the Black Lives Matter protests in the United States.

If one protest is justified, why not the other? What is the point of difference?

Is it the presence of violence?

Starmer’s support for Black Lives Matter came just three days after former police captain David Dorn was killed in the violent US riots of June 2020. Between May 26 and October 31, there were 19 confirmed deaths as a result of the violence. In Minneapolis-Saint Paul, from May 26 to June 8, 2020, property damage amounted to $550 million, with $1-2 billion in insured damages across the United States.

Four days after London’s BLM copycat protests (which BBC News described as “largely peaceful,” despite the fact that 27 police officers were injured) Starmer was voicing his support for BLM again, posting a photo of himself kneeling with the caption, “We kneel with all those opposing anti-Black racism. #BlackLivesMatter.”

He did not dismiss “peaceful” Black Lives Matter protesters because of the presence of violence, so he should not dismiss those who are peacefully protesting today for the safety and future of their children.

All of this only further suggests a bias in which protests the establishment deems acceptable. If BLM violence did not render the protest illegitimate, then Starmer has undermined his claim that the motive behind the protests “does not matter.”

Evidently, the motive does matter to the Prime Minister. It is the difference between, what he called a “fundamental democratic right to peaceful protest” and a crime that everyone involved will come to regret.