No matter how hard David Cameron tries to appear all cuddly and progressive, his party salwarts can't seem to help letting the racism slip out.
Embarrassed MP Bob Spink says it is "silly" to accuse him of racism. But, er, Mr Spink, you said that more criminals are black. And, er, that's racist.
He then pursues the "argument" that you have to say racist stuff like this or else the far right will say it and become more popular. I've heard of fighting fire with fire, but not of fighting racism with racism.
Comments
Tories and Racist ideas
This doesnt come as any real surprise. Most Tories I have come accross over the past 20 years have had ideas that would not be seen out of place in the BNP or the NF.
Would you campaign against the Tories as you would against the nazi BNP? This has been a question that I have put to a lot of comrades on the left but have never got a satisfactory response.
It could be argued that the BNP, while having distinctly racist/nazi roots, cannot be compared to the Tories especially all the backwoods/redneck types who make up the Tory rank and file.I find no real difference between them.
Am I being too sensitive because I hate Tories?
workers of the world ,unite
This is too simplistic
To say that more criminals are black is not necessarily racist. I know this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but let me explain.
If following an in depth study of crime and who committed crimes, it was found that more blacks than non-blacks were indeed committing crimes, then this would be nothing more than a description of a real world event. So, let us assume for the sake of argument that we have indeed conducted a study, and yielded through rigorous analysis the result that black people are involved in more crime than white people. Therefore, we could say the following as a politician: ' at present, studies show black people are involved in more crime'.
Is this racist? I think not. It is odd to call someone racist merely because they described, via extensive research, that certain ethnicities were committing more crime.
Racist remarks are usually 1) based on ignorance; and 2) intend negative consequences for the victims of racial abuse.
There is no ignorance based in my example, as our conclusion came via extensive research. Also, my example indicates neither a wish to pursue negative or positive consequences for the racial group in question. However, in the case of the Tory Politician who you say is a racist because he states black people are involved in more crime than non-black, I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that he wants to withdraw rights for black people, or treat them inhumanely. On the contrary, from stating what lots of evidence indicates to be a reality, such a politician could put in place policies to help black people move away from factors which lead people of any races into crime. Hence, a positive policy to help a section of our community could be put in place. Therefore, as positive and not negative policy making is put in place via an acceptance of a real world event, the politician cannot be said to be racist.
However, I think that your definition of racism is as follows: anyone who mentions a racial differences, even if they are based on in-depth real world study, is racist, and thus not deserving of respect. This is a crazy definition which will help noone except the BNP, as that party is thriving from people like you accusing upstanding people of being racists.