Police are hunting a ‘hooded figure’ who sprayed ‘no whites’ on the wall of a primary school in Birmingham. The coppers presumably have racial hatred in mind, but there could be a much more innocent explanation for that which otherwise would be simply a case of vandalism – or even one of laudable graffiti art which may, one day, sell for millions of pounds to a rich idiot devoid of discernment. The school is located in the Alum Rock area of the city, a ward which consists almost entirely of ‘BAME’ people, according to a city council factsheet. So it may be that the hooded figure with the spray can was simply stating a fact, much as perhaps you are inclined to do when looking at television adverts or trailers for new BBC drama series.
If you afford protected characteristics to almost everybody, they are no longer protected characteristics at all
This is just one of the ticklish problems which arises when attempting to police that thing, racial hatred – we are sometimes lost for a meaning, or that meaning is vague or inchoate. The lack of a verb phrase in the graffito suggests to me one of two possible options – either a local non-white person (about 90 per cent of the ward) expressing pride, satisfaction or dismay that there are no whites in Alum Rock, or a white person venturing much the same observation. Hatred may not have been on the agenda at all. The vandal may have merely been saying: look – this is how it is.
I fear that these nuances may be well beyond the grasp of our new Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper – a small ball of confected outrage perpetually on the cusp of detonation. Yvette is already in a spot of bother as the Home Office described all those charged, or about to be charged, for having taken part in those ‘far right’ riots as ‘criminals’ – thus somewhat circumventing our judicial system and leaving it, without doubt, in contempt of court. The Free Speech Union has notified her of this transgression but has yet to receive an explanation.
There seems little doubt in my mind that Yvette believes everybody who took part in those demos and subsequent thuggery, plus anyone who knew anyone who took part in them, plus anyone who cavils a little at the lengthy sentences doled out to people who just shouted arguably insulting things about an imagined God, are de facto criminals and undeserving of the checks and balances we use in our criminal justice system to ensure that people are treated fairly. Or it may be simply that she has a lot on her plate given that she is also in effect attempting to entrench the odious concept of ‘protected characteristics’ so that it includes misogyny.
There has been talk, too, of placing the crime of misogyny in the basket marked ‘terrorism’ which – if I might venture tentatively – seems at first sight to be a certain overreach. For example, if I were to suggest that Ms Cooper is ‘as fit as a butcher’s dog’, it would undoubtedly be misogynistic, as well as crass, boorish, insulting and untrue. But would it be the same kind of offence as stabbing lots of folk to death? Or blowing them to kingdom come? I am not saying definitively that it isn’t – merely, y’know, gently asking the question.
Of course, as soon as the liberal left came up with the notion of protected characteristics, you could see immediately what would happen. What started as an attempt to ensure that black and Asian people, as well as homosexuals, were not discriminated against in the workplace ballooned to include everybody in the country apart from white men. There are a total of nine protected characteristics detailed in the 2010 Equality Act – which was, incidentally, the greatest gift bestowed upon our nation by Yvette’s sponsor, Gordon Brown. It is such a perfect example of the manner by which the left disappears up its own sphincter with an agreeable ‘phutt’: if you afford protected characteristics to almost everybody, then they are no longer protected characteristics at all. Even so, people more radical than Yvette have cavilled. The National Union of Students, for example, decided in 2016 that gay men were no longer deserving of being wrapped in that copious cloak of protected characteristics because they were not actively discriminated against.
Now, with Yvette’s intervention, protected characteristics will be afforded to pretty much everybody except white men, which makes me suspect that it would be simpler to enact legislation saying it’s open season on white blokes, fill your boots. It is probably not my place, as a white bloke, to suggest that effectively singling out for discrimination that tranche of the population which has contributed to the overwhelming majority of great inventions, works of art, industries, literary works, scientific discoveries, explorations and so on may seem a little counterintuitive. It may well be that in our brief hours off from dragging the world out of barbarism we can be quite nasty – I believe ‘toxic’ is the current description of choice – but surely this is counterbalanced by that other stuff I mentioned?
I would suggest that discrimination against white males in the job market, as well as in applications for university courses, will not necessarily result in our society making giant strides forward. Unless, of course, those employment opportunities and university courses are doled out to people from East Asia and India. And yet those people are also being punished by the left in the USA, which leads me to the conclusion that this is a war not against nastiness and toxicity, but a war against competence. People who are quite good at stuff should be restrained so that those who are not as capable can have a go. It’s all there in Lionel Shriver’s latest novel, if you want a glimpse of what the future might be like.
Comments
Comment section temporarily unavailable for maintenance.