http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4231174.ece

bi Rod Lidl

James McGrath is a man of high integrity and sound moral value, who hopefully doesn’t pay too high a price for one slight error in judgement.

And this is what it comes down to.Truth is vastly more important to me than any other consideration here. Just think of all the ways that Obama and his wife’s comments have been twisted to make them sound like they are un-American. For many Americans being un-American is just as bad as racism. Should Obama stand down because he is perceived as unpatriotic? Doesn’t somebody’s true beliefs and somebody’s actual words matter at all in this?

As for annoying Littlejohn, I would happily do that all day long. However, I’m not willing to do it in a way which is counterproductive to fighting racism.

Ultimately though McGrath was sacked for purely political reasons to avoid any mud sticking to Boris. The truth of what he actually said and what actually happened didn’t matter to Cameron and the Tories anywhere near as much as the political strategy. Hey, I know that’s politics and I wouldn’t expect anything else. I just don’t think that we should be applauding people for sacking a man for something he didn’t actually do.

but I do balk at any suggestion that “go back to where you came from” or any variation of that could become accepted discourse in any way.

Look I don’t want to defend him too much. For all I know this comment was just the tip of the iceberg, but I can’t see how sacking him has done anything but create more resentment and tension than would have been the case.

Adam, I know where you’re coming from and this is my view in most cases too. But does the right ever censor itself when it wants to get outraged over something because the left might get annoyed over it? No they don’t.

So I ask myself – should I be more worried about annoying right-whingers like Littlejohn, or should I be more willing to take a stand at this sort of language going unremarked? In this case, I take the latter.

…not to forget Naomi Campbell, wearing the race card even thinner as she assaulted the police…

I’m not sure any even handedness exists anyway.

Most of the stories made up about Muslims or ethnic minorities in the media are made up – you only have to read the blogs of Obsolete or 5 Chinese Crackers to see how. And yet where do you hear the outrage from minority groups when they’re mis-represented? You don’t because they’re not allowed to express that outrage through the papers who make up those silly stories anyway.

I take the point about how this feeds their grievance… but I’m not obsessed by that because I monitor the press and I know that they’ll find something else to feed their grievance. That is in their nature.

On the other hand, I do like the fact that a precedent has been set whereby someone in a political position is severely remanded if they talk about telling people to go home if they don’t like it here.

I don’t expect this to be a popular position because this is one of those situations that fall in the middle – on one side you have stuff like MArtin Amis considering that Muslims could be locked up enmasse…. and on the other side you have Lee Jasper’s pathetic defence.

My gut feeling is that as it stands, that phrase should not be part of acceptable discourse. I’m not obsessing too much about giving the BNP ammunition or LittleJohn ammunition over this. I do that when for example a Muslim person is let off lightly for being punished for a crime when “their culture allows it” or something like that.

Please listen to Adam and Lee; you are being quite unreasonable. The man was sacked because like Mr. Mercer before him, he was wrongly accused of racism by a small set of intolerant bigots. No doubt, he thought the air of England was too free for such fascistic censoriousness –but he had been thinking of another country and they took away his job. Only a fool who has been educated beyond his own intelligence could argue himself into believing that his punishment was fair and just; a person such as Boris Johnson perhaps or David Cameron for instance.

And both the Mercer and McGrath episodes illustrate a profound problem with our overly intellectualized but badly educated and frivolous country; the concept of virtue has changed. Virtue is no longer the exercise of stoicism, modesty, patriotism, unsung heroism, responsibility or self-sacrifice; it is expression of the correct opinions of the day.

The old virtues were difficult and many people fell short of them, but our society was wholly committed to them. They proved to be just too demanding for the post-war generations and this is why ,for the most part, they were discarded. They can still be found, but only in people who are of little importance. They have practically no relevance in public administration today (Read Peter Oborne’s very illuminating book “The Triumph of the Political Class”)

These days you can be a devious, ruthless, avaricious, careerist, adulterous, drug-addict but if you ‘care’ as noisily as you can on Tibet, on global warming, or on land-mines or AIDS in Africa then it is taken a sign of virtue. This lends rapidly to the notion that the more you care, the better you are and your moral worth can be based on the strength of your opinions.This moral confusion is the reason for why people such as Mr Mercer and Mr McGrath were sacked.

To take Col. Mercer, a man who risked his life for his country along with his black soldiers who both liked and respected him. Whilst he was wearing the Queens uniform, Dave and Boris were posing in their dinner jackets and boozing and vomiting about the streets of Oxford. Yet, strangely, it is Dave who leads the Tory Party and who sacked Mr Mercer for saying something that was politically incorrect but which did not condone racism (nobody actually doubts its truth but this is unimportant).

Today words are the test of virtue. But sanctimonious, politically correct words go very well with ruthless self-interest and political expediency.

And another thing, the phrase ‘political correctness gone mad’ is a stupid one because PC is a stern, purposeful movement that sets out deliberately to stop people from saying and thinking unorthodox things. Some of it is a simple plea for good manners, and it succeeds largely because of this. It claims that it is the only force that can stop people being rude or dismissive towards racial minorities, women or homosexuals. But it’s objective is at least partly to force conservatives into situations which can be deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented. Mr McGrath is its latest victim.

While we’re putting things in context, McGrath never told anyone to move out of the country if they don’t like Boris.

I mean it must be in that it morally ought to be.

I actually can’t believe you have questioned whether ‘”racism against non white people is equal to racism against white people and between non white people?”

This is exactly the sort of counter-intuitive thinking that is alienating voters.

If you are e.g. a white or Asian person who has suffered racist targeting from a black person, are you supposed to just say ‘that’s OK, I understand the context’?????

equality = equality

racism = racism

common sense = common sense

“And the date supports this I take it?”

???

Data.

???

YES! It must be.

And the date supports this I take it?

By denying their grievances mainstream recognition you are abandoning them to extremists.

I don’t deny them just try to understand the context that’s created our society as it stands. You never heard of the saying ‘Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it’?

“So racism against non white people is equal to racism against white people and between non white people?”

YES! It must be.

“Nothing about the dynamics of power then or the institutional marginalisation that exists in our society. Nothing either about the legacy of slavery and empire which formed the path toward present racism…?”

And here we get very quickly to the heart of the left wing position.

It’s not about REAL racial equality and even-handedness, it’s just window dressing for a Marxist political and economic viewpoint.

That’s fine, as long as you don’t want to re-capture voters who have NO CONNECTION to slavery or empire, and just feel like they are being treated unfairly to satisfy someone else’s ideology.

By denying their grievances mainstream recognition you are abandoning them to extremists.

“Whether James McGrath, Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Iain Dale or Tim Montgomerie like it or not – just using the phrase “move to another country if you don’t like it here” has deep associations with BNP language and terminology.”

Actually, the phrase has a lot to do with the Australian immigration system which takes precisely that approach and has done for years. McGrath was just speaking like an Australian.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

The sort of crude approach which always singles out white racism to the total exclusion of the racism that exists among BME communities is also in fact feeding the BNP. People are not seeing real even-handedness in the handling of race issues, and it frustrates them.

So racism against non white people is equal to racism against white people and between non white people? Nothing about the dynamics of power then or the institutional marginalisation that exists in our society. Nothing either about the legacy of slavery and empire which formed the path toward present racism…?

“unnecessary sackings like this one do nothing but give ammunition to genuine racists like the BNP. When people lose their jobs for saying things that weren’t actually racist but can be portrayed as such, then it discredits the whole anti-racist cause.”

Good point. It’s this kind of anti-common-sense approach that frustrates a lot of people. Who says this guy is ACTUALLY a racist? And by what definition of ‘racism’?

@ Sunny

“People can quite easily put themselves into contradictory positions by saying they’re not racist but they find it difficult to live [or marry] amongst too many [...]whites.” (my edit…)

The sort of crude approach which always singles out white racism to the total exclusion of the racism that exists among BME communities is also in fact feeding the BNP. People are not seeing real even-handedness in the handling of race issues, and it frustrates them.

It is very obvious to most people with a brain that ‘anti racist’ in the campaigning sense is a term which has been hijacked by the left as a shorthand for ‘anti right wing’ (in an attempt to slur the two positions together) and in fact is very openly anti WHITE racism, not anti any other kind of racism.

It is very silly to expect people outside the hard left to buy this ‘anti racist’ line when it looks increasingly one-sided.

Most of the people turning to the BNP are only doing so because of failiure by the big 3 parties to engage with common-sense grievances. Sacking James McGrath hasn’t really advanced genuine racial harmony one bit.

Look I don’t want to defend him too much. For all I know this comment was just the tip of the iceberg, but I can’t see how sacking him has done anything but create more resentment and tension than would have been the case.

You are right of course that Littlejohn et al will bang on about this kind of thing regardless. However it makes it a lot easier to argue against their extreme reactions when you don’t make extreme reactions yourself. I understand all the political and PR reasons why he should have been fired, but I think there is a more important issue here, which is truth. Were his comments racist? I don’t believe that they were.

Because I think there has been some real doublethink in the defence of the Tories decision here. Most people accept that the comments were not by themselves racist but at the same time believe that he should have been sacked because they can be interpreted as such or because they are similar to genuinely racist comments. This to me is very dangerous thinking and not a million miles away from the extremes of McCarthyism. Either the comments were racist or they were not. If they were not but can be interpreted as such, then he should have explained and apologised for any offence. But to sack him is to play into the hands of the very people who genuinely hold those views that, as far as we can tell, McGrath does not.

Adam:
However, his comments were not by themselves racist and so he shouldn’t have been forced out.

Unfortunately its not so simple as that. Racism isn’t necessarily about simply saying – pakis smell or black people are all muggers. People can quite easily put themselves into contradictory positions by saying they’re not racist but they find it difficult to live amongst too many non-whites.

Its the legitimisation of a discourse that isn’t overtly racist – but pernicious in having the same effect. The point here is that it politically legitimises the discourse that non-whites have an alternative home.

Its not so different when the BNP and their sympthisers keep saying that blacks are getting all the housing. Then a mainstream politician picks it up and it becomes legitimate discourse…. and suddenly the BNP’s talking points become part of the national conversation without there being evidence. People then say – of courseits not racist because they’re blaming the council people… but the impact is the same.

When people lose their jobs for saying things that weren’t actually racist but can be portrayed as such, then it discredits the whole anti-racist cause.

Yes and no. I don’t know where the dividing line is… though I do know that when Lee Jasper and Ken Livingstone were crying racism because he was being investigated – I didn’t say it was racism.

The legitimisation of such discourse must be opposed at all times. Littlejohn and their ilk will cry wolf anyway – that is their job. If they can’t find stories they’ll make them up. Why should we be afraid of their hysterics? We have to be confident enough on the left of drawing our own line in the sand.

Bob
1) Yes, the first. But the point isn’t that Jenny Tongue was saying she would like to become a suicide bomber. Its more nuanced than that… but I can see how many people would be outraged that it becomes part of the discourse. Same goes here.

2) On Mel – well I don’t take her seriously because 99% of the time I’m opposed to whatever she’s advocating. But I take her seriously in that unless her garbage is countered, then it becomes part of other people’s conversations.

She may be part of a minority but the same standards don’t apply – she can talk about moral decay while other Muslims can’t. She’s seen as a conservative commentator, not a Jewish writer who wants people to convert to a different religion. So she’s not seen as a threat…