Douglas Murray on denunciations and Lawrence Fox

[BovaryX]

Douglas Murray takes aim at the cancel culture and denunciation tactics at the heart of # no debate. Those who try to control and police what people think and say have dominated public discourse to its detriment. Many are aware of the existential threat to freedom of speech this faction represents.

Nothing that Fox said on Question Time was at all controversial. He suggested that the Labour party leader might be selected on merit and he suggested that Britain is not a racist country. Both these sentiments are held by the majority of the public. Yet so dominant have the minority-opinion pushers become that many people are persuaded that it would not just be career-damaging but socially fatal to say anything to the contrary. Even when that thing is the truth

We can no longer effectively use valuable class-based analysis (where the expression "white privilege" originated), precisely because, as PP have pointed out, its premises and conclusions have been divorced from context and reduced to sound bites in what is scathingly termed "oppression Olympics".

I think it's incredibly dangerous to decree that Fox has no right to define racism. What is the justification for that?

It's obvious to me that POC living in a predominantly white country may have not only a different definition, but also and much more importantly much more experience of how this racism effects them in their lives. And that we should give much weight to what they have to say on racism.

But we shut down much needed societal debate around all of these issues of we decree that an entire section of the population has no right to fully participate because of their skin colour, their sex, their age or their ability. Much as I don't wish to exclude men from the discussion around sexism and equality - because we have to reach solutions addressing the issues together or they will not work.

And yes, "white privilege" exists, but as a concept it does not serve any useful purpose if it is applied devoid of context. Worse still, it is counterproductive if it is applied devoid of context - the assertion by an upper middle-class POC that a white homeless drug addict is privileged over them because of their race is not simply ludicrous, it is damaging to the fight against racism.

We on the left have embraced this damaging discourse to our own detriment and until we emerge from identity politics, I fear we will continue to prove unable to effectively address, let alone redress, the inequalities caused by class, race and sex and we will continue to lose public support.

A senior police officer admitted that his force ignored the sexual abuse of girls by Pakistani grooming gangs for decades because it was afraid of increasing “racial tensions”, a watchdog has ruled

This is for Foxy who is twisting in the wind trying to deny the motivation for an industrial scale failure of the state to protect vulnerable girls living in state care

Not clear what is meant by the fear of provoking racial tensions.

Do they mean a fear of provoking cries of "Racist!" from the the Asian community? Or are they worried about a white (racist) backlash against the Asian community as a whole?

Could it be that the delightful South Yorkshire Police, who used to turn up for overtime to beat up white, working class miners (and probably the odd brown one), just didn't give a fuck about white, working class girls, like they don't give a fuck about Muslim girls, or in fact any girls, and use excuses like "cultural sensitivity" for inaction.

I think Foxy has a point. It could be, of course, that this is all about not wanting to exacerbate racial tensions. But then why didn't the police act on claims against Savile? Why have there been so many cases of sexual abuse in children's homes over the years which are nothing to do with race but that the police nonetheless failed to act on? Increasingly, I think that the police couldn't care less about children, particularly girls, who live in care, because they regard them as the lowest of the low.

For me the thing is that because someone is privileged, whatever you mean by that, does not mean they are reading the situation wrong. And what always seems to be forgotten about bias is that it works both ways, always. If you have an experience of racism, that becomes part of your interpretive lens and influences what you see and interpret.

If you want to say a particular phenomena, like media attitudes to H&M, is due to racism, it's not enough to say it is, or point out that there is racism in society. Just like any other social analysis it needs to be grounded in material reality, there needs to be some evidence that this is why the media is taking a particular stance.

Especially given that the media has, on many occasions, been cruel and biased in reporting of particular members of the royal family, often with little real reason, it seems pretty clear that racism isn't the only explanation for that kind of thing. If someone wants to claim it must be they need to point to some concrete evidence that's the case.

^An inquiry found that between 1997 and 2013 more than 1,400 children in Rotherham were exposed to severe levels of sexual abuse
A senior police officer admitted that his force ignored the sexual abuse of girls by Pakistani grooming gangs for decades because it was afraid of increasing “racial tensions”, a watchdog has ruled.After a five-year investigation, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) upheld a complaint that the Rotherham officer told a missing child’s distraught father that the town “would erupt” if it was known that Asian men were routinely having sex with under-age white girls^

That is from The Times. One of the most shocking things about this case is that the girls in care were deliberately targeted because of their vulnerability The response of not only the police but the children's homes to this blatant, organized abuse was to confirm its perpetrators' contemptuous view of its victims. There were those brave enough to speak out at the time. Anne Cryer. Detective Maggie Oliver. Predictably they were dismissed as racists. If the racial demographic of this long term abuse was reversed? Would people be posting flippant BS like Foxfan?

BovaryX

"Perhaps you can explain the white privilege slogan to the girls in Rotherham?"

I am struggling to think of a better reply than that.

Nope, not twisting in the wind or anything else, can't you read? Pakistani men preyed on poor white girls in care who were easy pickings. The police said they didn't want to stoke racial tensions so did nothing. I'm saying fuck that. If it's true there would have been race riots, then they should have stirred that pot, helped those girls, and drafted in the Home Office to help them out with reinforcements. However, if they didn't do it because helping women in distress seems to be very difficult for the police, and frankly, they don't seem to care that much, then crying they had no choice because of race is very convenient for them. It's like the reverse race card. It deflects attention away from police incompetence and neglect to the notion that certain sectors of society have some sort of get out of jail free card. Which h is clearly not the case as men from the same community are constantly under surveillance and arrested for terrorism and drug crime, with no ensuing civil unrest or stoking of racial tensions.

I think that the police couldn't care less about children, particularly girls, who live in care, because they regard them as the lowest of the low
That is true. And that was exactly the attitude of the perpetrators of this abuse. They deliberately targeted those girls because of their vulnerability But that is not the only reason the authorities failed to act. Imagine if the racial demographics of this crime were reversed? Do you think the police would have done nothing?

I don't know why people who froth on this thread find it so hard to Google or research things.
I'm a white person. I don't know what it's like to live life as a person with black skin. My privilege is that when I go to a shop, or apply for a job, or drive my car, it is unlikely my skin colour will affect my experiences negatively. My "privilege" is that I don't have to think about it. I don't worry about a stop and search, I don't worry that recruiters look at my picture and think "she's not a good fit for this company". I get to live life without that mental load. That is a privilege.

White privilige does not mean all white people are better off than those of other skin colours. That is patently ridiculous. A black surgeon is better off than a unemployed white person. However has that black surgeon had the same opportunities to promotion/ professorship etc. as a white one? Is a black unemployed person less likely to get a job offer?

Class, income and education are all important determinants too. But it it also important to recognise the links between them all, as racism and racist societal structures can also determine those other factors.

I hope this helps those of you who genuinely wanted to know more. I know nothing about Rotherham as I haven't read the full investigation reports and wouldn't trust the tabloids to give the full story. But those girls were utterly failed and I hope the perpetrators are doing long long sentences.

And go fuck yourself with your flippant BS, BovaryX, I'm actually from one of those communities, and if you think Pakistani girls aren't habitually abused too, you are deluded. But this too is left largely un-investigated because once again, the police don't want to stir the race pot and deal with "cultural sensitivities". Bollocks to that, a crime is a crime is a crime, and the police just do not want to deal with crimes against women.

Nope, not twisting in the wind or anything else, can't you read?

I can read perfectly well. If you want to claim that the racial aspect played no part in the failure of the authorities to take action? Despite the industrial scale of organized abuse, which was taking place in blatant view of state agencies? Fill your boots. That is not the conclusion of the report I cited.

If you take race out completely:

“Men were preying on vulnerable under-age girls”

there is no excuse for inaction.

Instead so many girls were let down and brutalised because of a perceived need to tiptoe around race.

My concern is that there is still more to come. Do we really believe these men went home to their wives and daughters and treated them much better. Not least we know where they were spending their time and money. Vulnerable white girls had no voice. Vulnerable Asian girls have none either. Equality of a sort. Because we prioritise the rights of one group (Asian men) over others?

And yes Bovary won MN today.

Where have I said that the racial aspect played no part? I am clearly saying it played a part, but not to give immunity to the perpetrators, who are habitually arrested for every other fucking crime that is rife in those communities. It was used as an excuse for incompetence and inaction by he police. You are incredibly credulous of the police, BovaryX. Do you believe everything they say as an excuse for their incompetence? Did you believe them when they said Hillsborough victims where football hooligans. Or did you think they might be using that one as a defensive shield?

Abuse within south Asian communities is a great big dirty non-secret that nobody dares mention. The last time somebody tried, they broke the windows at the Birmingham Rep and the Blair govt. couldn't give a toss.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behzti

Foxyfan,
I find your belligerence and rudeness tiresome. If the racial demographics of this crime were reversed? If 100 white men were engaged in organized abuse of girls from a specific ethnic minority and were perpetrating this abuse in full view of the authorities from 97 to 2009? Do you think the police would have done nothing?

You are incredibly credulous of the police,

Sure I am. That's why I am accusing them of institutional failure in their most important role; to protect vulnerable children

And yes Bovary won MN today

Thanks needmore

The point of the concept of 'white privilege' is not that white people cannot have incredibly difficult and disadvantaged lives. The point is that their skin colour is not one of the things that makes their lives more difficult.

We on the left have embraced this damaging discourse to our own detriment and until we emerge from identity politics, I fear we will continue to prove unable to effectively address, let alone redress, the inequalities caused by class, race and sex and we will continue to lose public support.
Charlie

That is absolutely true. There is a paradigm shift in the political landscape and both the referendum result and the election results are manifestations of this. But Labour can't stop digging deeper into the dead end of identity politics. If they don't extricate themselves, they will continue to flounder

The absence of a disadvantage is not a privilege. The right to be judged according to the content of your charcater and not the colour of your skin is not a privilege. To describe equality of opportunity as a privilege is to endorse middle-class socio-economic hegemony.

The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.'

R4 have a series os programmes about George Orwell this week. Interesting stuff.

Flinging insults like racism and transphobia is a fantastic way to avoid considering real, underlying issues. Demonising LF is a convenient way to avoid listening to what he said,

No Bovary, I don't think they would, but then, what excuse would they have to hide behind if they didn't investigate? They couldn't claim there would be a white man race riot, could they? They did in the Rotherham case, because they had a convenient excuse to do nothing. Plus, they held the girls in question in utter contempt. Would they hold ethnic minority girls in similar contempt? Yes, on all the evidence, women of colour in the legal system, whether victims or criminals, are treated with utter contempt. We are not at cross purposes here. We are both accusing the police of institutional failures. We both agree that the girls were incredibly vulnerable and had next to no voice. I am the one saying they should have arrested and risked a riot, if that's what they genuinely thought would happen. I don't think they believed that for a minute.

And I don't care at all if you think I am belligerent or rude. One could say the same about Mr Fox. I prefer passionate and exasperated.

Perhaps you can explain the white privilege slogan to the girls in Rotherham?

Yep this ☝️ I'm sure they'll be very understanding.🙄

and we should firmly reject his right to do so.

He has every right to speak. Just as you do. I will never reject the freedom to speak.

Flinging insults like racism and transphobia is a fantastic way to avoid considering real, underlying issues

It's interesting, isn't it? Douglas Murray wrote about Scruton's death and the rise of the new totalitarians. I was trying to remember which feminist, when asked which book most accurately reflected the current climate, said 1984. I think it was Meghan Murphy