• Recent Comments

    operationblackvote on The Apprentice: in defence of…
    David Stuart on No, not again: Jimmy Mubenga d…
    David Stuart on National Black Police Ass…
    Marvelous on The Apprentice: in defence of…
    Regina Nyametscher on The Apprentice: in defence of…
    Marcus on The Apprentice: in defence of…
    James Odoi on The Apprentice: in defence of…
  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

Jasper: “Government abandons commitment to deliver race equality”

Jasper: questioning Gov race policy

In an explosive article Lee Jasper questions the Government´s committment to race equality, arguing that if the present changes in a consultation go through local authorties and other public bodies will have less obligation to tackle race inequalities that persist.

Jasper argues that hard fought battles that were gained after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry will be rolled back.

We, of course, urge you to get involved in this important debate.

By Simon Woolley

Advertisements

27 Responses

  1. “Jasper argues that hard fought battles that were gained after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry will be rolled back.”

    The sad news is that the hard fought battles have been rolled back under the despicable, deceptive, disrespectful, shallow thinking racist New Labour government. If New Labour could have got away with all their wrong doings, I am not surprised that the coalition government will renegade on all their pre-election promises.

    The Conservatives should remember that they are still re-building the nation’s trust in them. Leading Britain as she is today, and enforcing Equal Opportunities at all levels is the way forward; not racism.

  2. Oh come on;

    This is simple anger speech. There is no constructive suggestion or even showed any justifiable criticism. Just because the political parties do not give in completely to OBVs demands does not make them racist. Does criticising Israeli policy make you an anti-semite? of course not, but this is the direction OBV appears to be going. If one argues with OBV, one must be insulting all deemed ‘black’ minorities.

    The New Labour government created many new schemes and policies with the aim of aiding the disadvantaged. The Conservatives aim to do much less than Labour and will hit the poorest hardest with a regressive budget.

    Equality will never really exist. If there is one thing that Thatcher understood it was that the notion of equality “could make the poor even more poor, provided that the rich were less rich”. This was her criticism of Liberal Democrat policies at the time. Safeguards, however, can, and should, exist.

    It is up to like-minded groups of inividuals to demand more within the free market. It is not for them to be overly demaning in policies that would solve those problems. Such a thing is tantamount to laziness. It is most certainly not for illogical (i.e racial) collections of individuals to simply demand more for themselves with no apparent regard for others. I am sorry that you did not get what you required/wanted from New Labour but, if you look around, not enough people from all walks of life got exactly the system they wanted/required. I cannot believe that all of New Labour members are racists as you say. Which ones in particular? I want names.

    What kind of racism do they practise? White Supremacy? Black Supremacy? Anti-European Supremacy? Racism takes many forms.

    It appears that nearly every political party, in the eyes of OBV, is racist. New Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, BNP…

    Your statement would also suggest that at least 80% of the country are racists considering the number of people who voted for these ‘racist’ parties. We all live in such a ‘terrible’ country. It could be worse.

    This is not racism but, Pakistan, for example, imprisons homosexuals for 2-10 years (with a possibility of lashes or stoning to death). I think myself lucky that we don’t have any of that abusive nonsense here.

    What makes you so jumpy about our country? I would like to know some tangible examples.

    If you are so disillusioned with politics then set-up your own political party and attempt to make the country better.
    Also, tell OBV to stop lobbying, with the use of tax-funding, as, judging by your statement, it is evidently not getting us anywhere.

    • Joshua,

      “This is simple anger speech. There is no constructive suggestion or even showed any justifiable criticism. Just because the political parties do not give in completely to OBVs demands does not make them racist.”

      My criticisms of political parties – especially New Labour (special case) – are based on the results of unrealistic failed policies they have implemented.

      “The New Labour government created many new schemes and policies with the aim of aiding the disadvantaged. ”

      Which race of people did these schemes benefit? Where abouts in for example Peckham, South London, have these schemes been implemented?

      “It is up to like-minded groups of inividuals to demand more within the free market. It is not for them to be overly demaning in policies that would solve those problems. Such a thing is tantamount to laziness. It is most certainly not for illogical (i.e racial) collections of individuals to simply demand more for themselves with no apparent regard for others.”

      You must have heard of the famous glass ceiling? Many black folks have rammed their heads on it. Mr. Paul Boateng is one point in case.

      “I am sorry that you did not get what you required/wanted from New Labour but, if you look around, not enough people from all walks of life got exactly the system they wanted/required.”

      Equal opportunities was all I wanted. Instead this shallow thinking party called New Labour chose to erode the RRA 1976 in order for working class whites to love them and keep them in power. How sad.

      “I cannot believe that all of New Labour members are racists as you say. Which ones in particular? I want names.”

      The two leaders between 1997 and 2010 – when they were finally kicked out of government. Both males were the leader’s and were in position’s to put this nonsense to bed. They both chose not to. Mr. Paul Boateng was denied a place in the cabinet in 1997 and this same racist party allowed the leader of the Bnp on national television in order to use him to cover their own racism. It only fooled those who wanted to be fooled.

      “What kind of racism do they practise? White Supremacy? Black Supremacy? Anti-European Supremacy? Racism takes many forms. ”

      The racism that flouts the Race Relations Act of 1976.

      “It appears that nearly every political party, in the eyes of OBV, is racist. New Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, BNP…”

      OBV has given us a platform to debate on these issues. They have highlighted a lot of injustice and unfairness. Under New Labour we were forced to see it from their (New Labour’s) shallow point of view. We also have to understand that racism is real and it exists in all societies on this planet; not just the United Kingdom.

      “What makes you so jumpy about our country? I would like to know some tangible examples.”

      Shallow thinking small minded people like the New Labour government between 1997 and 2010. Tangible eamples of racism are those in position of power i.e; Courts and Employment Tribunals who were given a free hand to exercise it without being held to account.

      “If you are so disillusioned with politics then set-up your own political party and attempt to make the country better.”

      I can happiliy tell you that I have corresponded with different government offices over the issue of racism and racial bullying. During the bullying allegation at 10 Downing Street, I wrote to Mrs Christine Pratt on a number of issues. She responded to me on every occasion and each response was very positive. I have still got a copy of an application to become an MP saved on my memory stick. If I feel I can bring something special to the table which would be beneficial to all on an equal level, then I will fill in that application. I can’t or will not set up a political party of my own as you have suggested, but, will do all I can to fight injustice in my own little way.

      “Also, tell OBV to stop lobbying, with the use of tax-funding, as, judging by your statement, it is evidently not getting us anywhere.”

      I hope OBV will carry on their fantastic work and continue to fight all forms of injustice.

  3. As a side note, Lee Jasper earned £120,000 a year as advisor to the former mayor of London. That’s a lot more money than many people would even dream of earning in this country, who do growth supporting work, so I don’t see how he has been deprived of life chances due to race. I don’t really think he, of all people, deserves to hold a grudge. It is almost as much cash as the position of Prime Minister pays.

    He left school with no qualifications and became a self-made man. In our current political climate we will be lucky if anyone, from any background, with even the highest of academic honors, gets a job with decent pay.

  4. Joshua, the article posted and the response of Yinka Oyesanya are not the work of OBV. Nor are my responses. OBV invited comments: a la “We, of course, urge you to get involved in this important debate”.

    On the other thread you confused myself and OBV. Then at the end of this post you accuse OBV of lobbying with tax-payers money.

    If OBV said the sky was blue would you write an A4 side response outlining how it not blue it is sometimes grey and as clouds blah blah blah and I’m sure you’d weave MLK and “racially derived” somewhere.

    Age UK, MIND, and Stonewall are just 3 of 100s of organisations that receive taxpayers money for their work and will have something to say about these duties too.

    Please provide us with the details of your complaints to the 100s of organisations like these: unless you judge OBV differently or see race as different from Age, Disability, Gender, Sexual Orientation, or Religion. That’s even assuming OBV will respond.

    The duties often complement your views here Joshua. These duties came about because “like-minded groups of inividuals [demanded] more within the free market”. It was their campaigning that led to these outcomes. You seem to want to dismiss any action – even if it is an action you approve of in principle / champion – if you don’t agree with the outcome yourself.

    If the public ‘race’ duties are not complied with there is very little in the means of consequence for non-compliers. Further, some of the work under these duties is so poor it is hardly an achievement or testament to promoting good relations.

    May be we best off doing this work ourselves. This isn’t a new argument for me. I don’t trust in politicians and public sector instutions enough to rely on them for genuine change.

    Perhaps the best approach for those who agree / disagree would be to respond to the consultation. I’m in favour of specific duties and would impose stricter penalties for non-compliance. Parking services do not just stick ‘no parking’ signs up, they follow through.

    I’m going to enjoy seeing the responses between you two. Perhaps you’ll wear each other out. The ‘New Labour Assassin vs. the Count of Contrary’.

  5. David,

    “I’m going to enjoy seeing the responses between you two. Perhaps you’ll wear each other out. The ‘New Labour Assassin vs. the Count of Contrary’”

    Have you read and heard Tony Blair’s revelations lately? His behaviour and the behaviour of the New Labour dictators shows why we had a lousy thirteen years of government.

  6. “Please provide us with the details of your complaints to the 100s of organisations like these: unless you judge OBV differently or see race as different from Age, Disability, Gender, Sexual Orientation, or Religion. That’s even assuming OBV will respond.”

    ‘Race’ is totally different from Age, Disability, Gender etc.

    People of different Ages require different kinds of help. Old people require different help to young people. People who have disabilities require certain types of help. Men and women have, biologically speaking , different needs that, in pursuit of practicality and fairness, have to be separated in order to determine rights and conveniences. Such things are also based on nouns and proven concepts.

    Race is a compounded idea, it includes age, gender etc. because ‘race’ cannot exist without those things that can define people. Race does not include all people of all ages etc.; race includes some people of some ages etc. Race is also made-up nonsense to divide people based on similarities and differences. It was a concept invented by humans, a social idea, as a way to quickly identify an individual in order to aggregate an understanding of culture, tribe, customs etc. It was also a way to easily exclude those that one would assume would not conform to the group. It was a reflex known as a prejudice (ability to prejudge a situation) which, in turn, is, essentially, a concept that would create an illogical database. Reflex ideas, similarly to reflexes, are not logically, or analytically, processed constructs. People’s race’ is an adjective of that individual, All adjectives are subjective concepts and therefore can vary in meaning and experience from person-to-person. Adjectives cannot be proven; adjectives can only be perceived.

    This is why such ‘race relations’ ideas are not possible to enforce as they are subjective and illogical. All necessary things, such as laws, can be reduced to the common denominator (the thing we all share), within these poorly-arranged collections of people, to (that of being based on) an individual person. Laws, ultimately, need to feature, and be agreed upon by, all individuals (or at least groups that make logical sense e.g. Age or Gender).

    This is also the reason why ‘race’ organisations are detrimental to society as it will, because it cannot logically include all, only include some ‘races’ (and ultimately, only the people who agree with each other). This is, again, not a logical organisation so much as a reflex organisation. Reflexes cannot be trusted in any analytical work (i.e. cannot create any necessary constructs, only constructs derived by the host).

    ‘Race’ doesn’t make enough sense for people to make practical laws. Laws cannot be made to enforce the ‘guess-work’ that reflexes do (primarily to keep one safe regardless of expense to others). Racism is inferred, it is not definite. Therefore, there can, logically, be no such thing as a ‘race duty’ that society owes. Not unless you are asking that we treat people differently – I hope not.

    You will have to find a way to go around the ‘race’ idea in order to get whatever result from society that you want. This is what I have been trying to explain.

    Who is a true leading authority, in the interest of protecting all individuals in society, on what is and isn’t ‘racist’? The answer: Nobody that exists.

    Other concepts are there to help all individuals of different needs. Are you really telling me that ‘black’ people have different needs to other people, just because they are ‘black’?

    For example, I have 7 guinea pigs (funny story, I did have two but they BOTH happened to be pregnant before we bought them), all, except two, of different characteristics i.e. colour. None of them seem to find a problem with it. None of them have any different needs (that derive solely from colour) that need distinguishing (and trust me, they are about as different as different can be). None of them appear to suppress the other. I think this is because they would not have anything to gain from doing so.

    ‘Race’ splits human beings in to different, scientifically illogical groups (genetics doesn’t have any absolute ‘race’ group, the hereditary nature of genetics doesn’t work that way, it’s: bit’s of this, bits of that, a little mutation here or there) and such a thing is redundant as different ‘races’ do not have distinguished needs or requirements so it can never be an absolute group. If an idea of ‘distinguishing needs’ is ever there (which it should NEVER be as that is a racist viewpoint), are derived from other reasons and circumstances and therefore not actually true. The concept of ‘race’ now divides people unnecessarily (actually, the difference of opinion, e.g. cultural or theological ideas, is what actually divides our society, under the guise of ‘racism’ but that is something for another time).

    We’re all humans: the same species. we are not different species. We do not have radically different needs. We all have the same basic needs that the law should protect. We cannot have parallel, divisive or unfair laws.

  7. Yinka, if a pigeon pooped on your had tomorrow, I’m sure you find a way of linking that pigeon to a coop owned by a New Labour politician.

    Joshua, I strongly agree that ‘race’ is pseudo-scientific nonsense, and your post clearly shows the biological argument against race. However, I think you confuse ‘race’ and racism. These laws are designed to address racism – which is a real issue.

    I suppose the most succinct point is “race doesn’t exist, racism does”. Further, your posts often place the blame on those who respond to racism, rather than seeing it as a response to an illogical, divisive, and unfair behaviour.

    We have the same way of looking at ‘race’ but my argument is that these laws are designed to address racism and racial discrimination. I appreciate that because racism is a subjective interpretation it isn’t rigid but these laws came out of clear evidence of racially discriminatory practice.

    That is why I can’t agree that organisations like OBV are divisive or segregationalist because they are challenging divisive and biased behaviour. They are fighting for representation and fairness.

    To suggest there should be an Operation People Vote instead would remove the right of people to whom exclusion, bias or racism affects or has affected most frequently (BME, non-white, whatever definition) to defend and represent themselves.

    I’m not sure as someone who does not have the same experience whether I’d opine to OBV about what it should or shouldn’t do in response to historical and contemporary inequality and racism.

    So whilst I’m glad to see someone who knows the truth about ‘race’ as a biological myth, I have to disagree with some of your analysis.

    “This is why such ‘race relations’ ideas are not possible to enforce as they are subjective and illogical”.

    What I find illogical is that a society would be so resistant to face up to the fallacies of ‘race’ and realities of racism so much in spite of clear evidence. Why should we have had to rely on laws to encourage human respect and decency? Perhaps because some people had waited decades for change without them and did not get very far .

    When done well work to improve community relations and dismantle racial prejudices is designed to overcome the illogical belief in ‘race’ that has led to discrimination and exclusion. However, as I said above – it would be better if the community address this itself, but you have to admit many people don’t want to, they want to pretend its all a PC industry.

    “Racism is inferred, it is not definite. Therefore, there can, logically, be no such thing as a ‘race duty’ that society owes. Not unless you are asking that we treat people differently – I hope not”.

    If you want to suggest that there has not been definite examples of racism, and it only ever inferred, fine. I can agree that because there is far less overt discrimination, it may remain in many cases ‘inferred’, yet the outcomes are often the same as when racism was more overt. How do you address that supposed anomaly? p.s. “society owes?”

    You may also wish to consider whether a society that denies evidence of racial discrimination, or refuses to believe that racial slurs e.g. Carol Thatcher’s are examples of racism, is really being honest and fair about the R-word.

    “You will have to find a way to go around the ‘race’ idea in order to get whatever result from society that you want. This is what I have been trying to explain”.

    No, you should highlight that race is a fallacy and work on that until the message gets through, whilst allowing for the fact we are not there yet, and challenge racial inequality until we are there.

    “Who is a true leading authority, in the interest of protecting all individuals in society, on what is and isn’t ‘racist’? The answer: Nobody that exists”.

    If you put it like that it is hard to answer you. However, if you ask me who is more of a leading authority – people who experience it more. Your definition could apply to most areas of human activity, but as life is not rigid and perfect, I say experience counts for a lot.

    “Other concepts are there to help all individuals of different needs. Are you really telling me that ‘black’ people have different needs to other people, just because they are ‘black’?”

    Again, it is how you frame the argument. All concepts are to help all individuals (although the disability duty is not there to help the need of people who are not disabled). Some people have differing experiences, and the ‘other’ concepts reflect that too.

    What I am “really telling you” is that the experiences of ‘black’ people do differ, so substitute the word outcomes or experiences for needs. These laws are to address inequalities and they do exist.

    “We’re all humans: the same species. we are not different species. We do not have radically different needs. We all have the same basic needs that the law should protect. We cannot have parallel, divisive or unfair laws”.

    In an ideal world free of racial discrimination may be Joshua, but this is the legacy of exclusion and discrimination. These laws when viewed in a different light were designed to respond to the very point you make “We all have the same basic needs that the law should protect. We cannot have parallel, divisive or unfair laws”. Your interpretation suggests that the laws that try to reduce or prevent unfairness are by their nature unfair. I argue that they are the consequence of the inability of organisations / society to protect or act fairly.

    Hence the reason why I suggested you should investigate the veracity of other organisations addressing equalities. The tone of your arguments prior to this post and particularly the one I replied to before this could be construed as a vendetta and singling out one organisation out of 1000s.

    • “Operation People Vote” would be much better. It would be inclusive. People achieve more when given the correct framework, i.e (political) literacy, than they do when being told the exact role that they must fulfill (i.e vote for whatever OBV suggest).

      The ideas of forced social change are Authoritarian principles. They do not show faith in human nature or society. I believe that things often work better when people are given choices, and evidence, than they are when told how to act. The danger is that they have not been told correctly and can no longer use their minds to fully grasp the power of choice. People need to feel responsible for their own actions (especially for such jobs as MPs, you cannot expect for people to just accept the idea of ‘fast tracking’ people, many examples of people’s lives have shown it leads to individuals, and the people around them, being miserable).

      I would like for you all to tell me the personal issues that you have faced with regards to racism. Do not worry about Cabinet Ministers (Mr. Paul Boateng was the first ‘black’ cabinet minister ever, under a New Labour government in 2002, he also had a senior job in 1997) or Government, Civil service, celebrities etc.

      Tell me about the problems that yourselves have faced. We might then be able to discuss how such issues might be dealt with through different means.

  8. “This is also the reason why ‘race’ organisations are detrimental to society as it will, because it cannot logically include all, only include some ‘races’ (and ultimately, only the people who agree with each other). This is, again, not a logical organisation so much as a reflex organisation. Reflexes cannot be trusted in any analytical work (i.e. cannot create any necessary constructs, only constructs derived by the host).”

    Joshua.

    1) We all know there is no such thing as race. This has not stopped people treating others differently on the basis of what they perceive to be race (i.e. skin colour)-try telling someone who has been on the receiving end of racism “It’s ok there’s no such thing as race”

    You have missed the point here.

    2) “This is, again, not a logical organisation so much as a reflex organisation. Reflexes cannot be trusted in any analytical work (i.e. cannot create any necessary constructs, only constructs derived by the host)”

    What’s not logical is your argument.

    To clarify; you are saying is that because there is no such thing as ‘race’ (despite the evident history of peoples around the World suffering persecution because of their ‘race’, or skin colour) we should ignore racism, and ignore the effects?

    3)

    “Other concepts are there to help all individuals of different needs. Are you really telling me that ‘black’ people have different needs to other people, just because they are ‘black’?”

    No Joshua my experience in life tells me that actually people with a skin tone other than white would just like to be treated equally. That’s the whole point. We do not have different needs, we share the same needs and all desire the same equality of opportunity.

    I agree the concept of race is baseless. But you could have summed that up in two paragraphs.

    And to be frank to try to construct an argument that because there is no such thing as ‘race’ we should therefore dance around the maypole, and ignore the fact that people have been held back, persecuted, and descriminated against because of this perceived difference is ludicrous.

    All you’ve done is give us a good explanation of why the word ‘race’ is meaningless. And compared people to guinea pigs.

    Not quite the same Joshua. As far as I can tell there has been no history of guinea pigs being persecuted on the basis on the colour of their hair.

  9. Let me sum up this logical conundrum:

    Ultimately Logic dictates that in order to stand up for ALL ‘races’ (or to bypass the race idea, as it is logical gibberish: all people), we must NOT stand up for ANY ‘races’.

    Standing up for SOME ‘races’ only has the effect of standing up for self-interest.

    We cannot have laws based purely on self-interest. We must have laws based on true mutual interest (within society).

  10. Nah Joshua it’s your conundrum by your definition. No one needs you to do so except people who have your viewpoint.

    However, your logic is a conundrum to me: because ‘race’ is a biological myth, there should be no laws to address racial discrimination. Riiiiiiiight.

    1) Like the points made above, the laws are to address racial discrimination, not to “stand up” for any particular so called ‘races’.

    2) However, the race equality laws and the criminal justice laws covering racially motivated crimes do apply to everyone so they do not benefit “some ‘races'”. If an organisation did not employ me because I applied for a job with them and I had clear evidence that this was due to me being European then the laws apply. If someone assaulted me and it was clear (due to their words or actions) that this was because I am ‘white’, then the laws apply.

    3) So how are these laws self-interest? If anything, the “self-interest” if there were any was foregone for the “mutual interest” i.e. even though Europeans (aka ‘whites’) rarely experience racial discrimination comparatively (both civil and criminal), they are still covered by the laws.

    “We cannot have laws based purely on self-interest. We must have laws based on true mutual interest (within society).”

    So go and complain to the Attorney General about the sentences for property crime being tougher that those for crimes against the person – whose (mutual) interest does that serve?

  11. “To clarify; you are saying is that because there is no such thing as ‘race’ (despite the evident history of peoples around the World suffering persecution because of their ‘race’, or skin colour) we should ignore racism, and ignore the effects?”

    People have suffered throughout the world because others can profit from the suffering of individuals. ‘Race’ is not the reason these people make others suffer; Race is simply the excuse.

    Why does Pakistan law over-zealously react to homosexuals, by imprisoning them? Two reasons. Cheap (i.e Free) Prison Labour and Population Control/Discipline. The fact that they are gay is just the excuse to exploit them.

    By focusing on, whatever you define as, ‘Black’ people being discriminated against you are also making excuses. You cannot legislate against excuses, my friend, you can only work to PREVENT excuses from being excusable. By focusing on ‘black’ people you are also forsaking others who are, in fact, in the very same situation.

    Example: I feel sympathy for poor ‘black’ people in America because they are poor and I could not care less about Obama being ‘black’. You appear to care about Obama being ‘black’ more than you appear to care for the poor. That is just bad ethics. Obama, and other rich, successful people, can look after themselves for crying out loud. If you believe that those successful people have had a hard life, you must be kidding me. You also cannot expect these people to solve your problems simply on the grounds that they are ‘black’. That’s stupidity. The same goes for any other individual,

    If you think that a ‘black’ person will help another ‘black person on the grounds that they are ‘black’, that is known as prejudice.

    And the poor ‘black’ people are not poor because they are ‘black’, regardless of what you say, they are poor because other people can, and do, deny other people wealth so easily.

    It’s what Dr. King tried to teach. I thought you respected his work and teachings. Or do you respect him predominantly because he was ‘black?

    You cannot just focus on ‘black’ people’s needs because it is selfish if you are ‘black’ and racially divisive if you are not. You would give these people help, the predominant reason being ‘black’ (however you might define that). There is no logical reason to. This is not fairness and will not create a fair society. OBV’s attitude is one of the very reasons as to why there is a perpetual attitude, of people having the “look after those who identify with you”, within society.

    OBV is funadmentally flawed in that concept. OBV is not a progressive organisation; OBV is a regressive organisation.

    You, yourselves, must bypass this notion of ‘race’ idea in order to find more progressive ways of denying people the excuse to commit the illogical (i.e racism). You cannot just deter people. Capital punishment was not effective for that reason (deterrents are not efficient, full preventions, by this I mean setting up conditions where the impulse to committ offense is not in their mind because they would have no reason to do so). Deterrents are simply a gamble. Do you want to gamble with the future of society?

    ‘Ethnic’ MP shortlists is an example of one of those ‘racist’ policies. They are an illogical reflex idea. It is also Authoritarian (which is un-democratic). You strive for Equality; Ethnic MP shortlists will not lead to Equality within society, for those reasons.

    If you cannot understand, or care not for the implications of, such a concept that then you must, quintessentially, be a racist.

    By advocating such a policy you are discriminating (based on whatever way you decide to discriminate i.e colour of skin). Since when was Authoritarianism an acceptable within democratic Law?

    P.S (it was a metaphor)
    I will reiterate. There is no history of Guinea Pigs subjugating each-other, on the grounds of hair colour, because either they do not understand the concept or they have nothing to profit from doing so.

    We must ‘adopt the ways of the Guinea Pig’ and pretend to not understand the concept of racism. Nobody actually understands racism because there is nothing to understand.

    You must understand the reasons WHY people commit Supremacist acts under the guise of ‘racism’ – then PREVENT them from wanting to.

  12. Hello Joshua.

    You made a number of comments in your last post that do not make sense.

    You use the word ‘logical’ often in many of your previous posts whilst at the same time do not use logic to justify what I fear are at best fleeting and unquntified generalisations, and at worst whimisical statements packed with meaningless rhetterich, the likes of which (dangerously) border on the kind of racist rhetoric used by many a Far right blogger used to justify racist commentary.

    Careful when you say “If you cannot understand, or care not for the implications of, such a concept that then you must, quintessentially, be a racist” as your are in danger of by your own admission becoming that which you claim to dislike. I
    Let’s examine your latest comments.

    1)
    “You appear to care about Obama being ‘black’ more than you appear to care for the poor.”

    Please justify the above comment if it was directed at myself Joshua.

    If it was aimed at OBV again please justify-with evidence.

    2)
    “Race’ is not the reason these people make others suffer; Race is simply the excuse”

    Sure. Millions of people were enslaved from Africa not because they were black. I guess it must have been a coincidence that they all ended up being black.

    3)
    “By focusing on ‘black’ people you are also forsaking others who are, in fact, in the very same situation”

    Yes many people suffer discrimination. We deal with the black democratic deficit.

    3)
    “I feel sympathy for poor ‘black’ people in America because they are poor and I could not care less about Obama being ‘black’. You appear to care about Obama being ‘black’ more than you appear to care for the poor. That is just bad ethics. Obama, and other rich, successful people, can look after themselves for crying out loud. If you believe that those successful people have had a hard life, you must be kidding me. You also cannot expect these people to solve your problems simply on the grounds that they are ‘black’. That’s stupidity. The same goes for any other individual,

    If you think that a ‘black’ person will help another ‘black person on the grounds that they are ‘black’, that is known as prejudice”

    None of this makes any sense. If you think it does please clarify your point.

    The last comment is especially worrying;

    “If you think that a ‘black’ person will help another ‘black person on the grounds that they are ‘black’, that is known as prejudice”

    I don’t think I am alone in wondering what on earth the above is supposed to mean. I can hasten a guess as to where it stems from though.

    4)
    “OBV’s attitude is one of the very reasons as to why there is a perpetual attitude, of people having the “look after those who identify with you”, within society”

    OBV was founded in 1996. Even if one agreed that OBV is “divisive” which we are not, in 14 years I think it would be difficult within such a short period of time for us to somehow have managed to eclipse the measure of racism that the World has seen over hundreds if not thousands of years.

    I think the “perpetual attitude, of people having the “look after those who identify with you (themselves)”, within society” actually stems from people who share your opnions.

    I worry that the above comment (“If you think that a ‘black’ person will help another ‘black person on the grounds that they are ‘black’, that is known as prejudice”) comes from “perpetual attitude (s)” that are actually held by people like yourself.

    You see many people agree with the aims, objectives and initiatives of OBV including white people.

    5)
    “Ethnic MP shortlists will not lead to Equality within society, for those reasons”

    Do you have an alternative? If so I’d like to hear it. And whatever it is we cannot work on the basis that society is already equal because it is not, so please no philosophical claptrap.

    Representation wise We (Britain) are minus and are actually just tring to jut get to neutral. Any notion that OBV i racist therefore holds about a much weight as your guinea pig “metaphor” analogy.

    But if you have a better idea I am all ears.

  13. I will reiterate:

    When I say ‘You’ I am interchanging between the individual and the collective (however much I might disagree with collectivism). I believe that ‘you’ can distinguish what applies.

    You (by which I am generalising OBV and sympathisers) are an organisation motivated by race. You motivate yourselves based on something that (you, Richard, claimed) is illogical.

    Ethnic Minority Short-lists: If you believe that, at any time or grounds, discriminating people based on Ethnicity (Definition: An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other)

    or Ethnic Minority (Definition: An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a SMALL group of people whose members identify with each other).

    Then you are an Authoritarian (which is un-democratic) because THIS is a Far Right Wing Policy. You cannot fight the Right Wing with the same Right Wing. If you believe that it is, in any way, appropriate discriminate based on ‘race’, you show a racist trend. It is simply not possible for me to revoke that statement.

    “If you think that a ‘black’ person will help another ‘black person on the grounds that they are ‘black’, that is known as prejudice”

    Firstly; OBV, by condoning Ethnic Minority short-lists and talking of the ‘black democratic deficit’ (other than being purely nonsensical, you must learn that, based on human nature, nothing is ever ‘owed’ to anyone), appears to condone the mentality that someone who is considered ‘black’ will look after the interests of someone else that is ‘black’. This is a prejudice assumption as such a thing can never be guaranteed. This is why the concept of ‘representation’ failed and democratic moved on to Universal suffrage (the concept that the people’s vote matters most). In short, the concept of ‘representation’ is regressive. It also shows a Authoritarian attitude to ‘The Model Parliament’ that can never be reasonably achieved without some form of dictatorship.

    Political ideas, many agree, must reflect the nature of people and not try to buck a trend in favour of dictatorial policies.

    the idea of ‘harsher fines’ and ‘race-duties’ is fundamentally flawed. Fines work as a deterrent. People would rather avoid and exclude others, those that may cause an individual to receive a fine, than include. This is an unavoidable situation that results from human nature. It would enforce the idea, in people’s minds, that individuals should be wary of those that are different and the natural solution would be to avoid such people. I do not want to see this happen.

    I am sorry to say, OBV simply not must be so ‘uppity’ about things. Particularly such problems that, let’s face it, are mere gripes compared to other, more immediate problems, such as poverty.

    I would hazard a guess that I am more liberal (I believe that, so long as people do not cause problems, they can do the things that I might not find familiar or I might not personally agree with). OBV, however, regarding Ethnic Minority Short-Lists, is a problem. I do not attempt to condone any form of racially derived organisational supremacist activities. Such an idea is, other than wrong, prejudice, an affront to Equality etc., for lack of a better word, ‘shallow’.

    “OBV was founded in 1996. Even if one agreed that OBV is “divisive” which we are not, in 14 years I think it would be difficult within such a short period of time for us to somehow have managed to eclipse the measure of racism that the World has seen over hundreds if not thousands of years.”

    Now, that is simply rhetoric. How pious can YOU get? You seem to believe that racism within society is much more of a problem than I have seen evidence for. (the most serious problem I have been made aware of is apparent discrimination based on ‘ethnic sounding’ names. Such a problem, it if is even true, has not got anything inherently to do with racism. Racism isn’t an inherent problem for anything, it is a DERIVED problem, this means that people ‘think it’ rather than do it, they do OTHER things based on what they are thinking and what they can get away with).

    E.g calling someone a ‘racist’ word isn’t a ‘racist’ act. It is the act of, mostly likely, offending another. This is something that an organisation, that both people are part of, can act. It is in no way for the police and government to act upon, that’s Right Wing Censorship.

    I would like to support your organisation but, so far, the only problems I have been made aware of are ‘implied’ and ‘inferred’ problems regarding ‘race’. I don’t believe that Objective law can police subjective implications that an individual believes themselves to be the victim of. It makes no sense.

    Malcom X said “Who taught you to hate the colour of your skin”. Malcolm X, ultimately, in his own mind, taught himself to ‘hate’ the colour of his skin – and spread these feelings to others.

    I didn’t mean for the guinea pig to be a serious analogy. It was simply an analogy that, on a human level, the ‘colour of skin’ discrimination argument, in principle, is no more a serious offence than that of bullying based on (a human’s) hair colour, or height, or age, or disability, or anything. Your organisation only appear concerned about SOME people’s skin colour. This is selfishness. It’s no surprise that other people might be selfish in response. Your organisation is not exactly the ‘good Samaritan’ in this respect. The problem posed is that even if an individual is discriminated based on another reason, your organisation would suggest that it was because they may be ‘black’. Two organisations would aim to help this individual; conflict of interest.

    Of course, If you believe that, in principle, bullying based on hair colour is a less serious offence, please let me know. I’ll call for Operation (insert hair colour here) Vote.

    Ethnic Minority short-list are (racial) discrimination. NO racial discrimination should be allowed in the law. It doesn’t matter which group of people it benefits, It is still discrimination. You MUST find another way. You cannot fight discrimination with discrimination. Next thing you’ll be telling me that we need more ‘Ginger Haired’ MP’s because they’re under-represented.

  14. David,

    “Yinka, if a pigeon pooped on your had tomorrow, I’m sure you find a way of linking that pigeon to a coop owned by a New Labour politician.”

    I only stated facts about New Labour.

  15. Joshua.

    “You (by which I am generalising OBV and sympathisers) are an organisation motivated by race. You motivate yourselves based on something that (you, Richard, claimed) is illogical.”

    We’ve been here before. We agree there is no such thing as race.

    Racism does exist.

    People treat others differently on the basis of what they perceive to be race.

    SIMPLE.

    I think you need to understand this point and also grasp that more black people in Parliament benefits ALL people,white people included Joshua.

    Comparing this goal and the wider fight against racism to guniea pigs and people with ginger hair being represented in Parliament is either incredibly naive or incredibly insulting.

    By not seeing OBV as bettering democracy it’s clear you see this as black vs white. Your on your own here I’m afraid.

    Malcom X said “Who taught you to hate the colour of your skin”. Malcolm X, ultimately, in his own mind, taught himself to ‘hate’ the colour of his skin – and spread these feelings to others.

    ARE YOU SERIOUS??

    Next you’ll be telling me Hitler was a civil rights activist.

    You bring up BME shortlists again.

    I REPEAT WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE. My guess is that you probably don’t have one as you seem to think a more inclusive parliament is racism at it’s worst an any efforts to redress this are “selfish and illogical”

    Indeed.

  16. I have an alternative. I don’t know whether I should share it with you or not. I don’t get paid for it. I thought your job was to come up with progressive ideas. Do you any of you get paid?

    • Joshua,

      “I have an alternative. I don’t know whether I should share it with you or not.”

      I am all ears.

      “I don’t get paid for it. I thought your job was to come up with progressive ideas. Do you any of you get paid?”

      The logic behind this line of questioning is not clear at all. Can you kindly expound on it?

  17. P.S don’t give me all of this “You only see it as black and white” nonsense. I’d say that applies to your organisation more than it applies to me. In fact, your organisation only appears to see the ‘black’ part of the argument.

    OBV, by the measures that it is instigating, will NOT better democracy. It will make democracy worse.

  18. Thanks for your comments Joshua, and for very clearly and maturely addressing the points I made.

    Good luck with your ‘progressive’ and clearly defined ideas.

    You’ve clearly given the issues we discussed a lot of thought over a great deal of time, and given your nuanced response to my comment above, I’m sure you have an understanding and grasp of the issues that apparently is beyond the rest of us.

    Good luck.

  19. Joshua,

    “OBV, by the measures that it is instigating, will NOT better democracy. It will make democracy worse.”

    No you are wrong. OBV highlights the racial injustice which most of the media in this country prefer to sweep under the carpet. I hope OBV keeps up their tremendous work in exposing racial inequality.

  20. “I have an alternative. I don’t know whether I should share it with you or not. I don’t get paid for it”.

    Yeah, because you’ve really held back on sharing ideas free of charge.

    Admit it, you haven’t got an alternative have you? You’re the OBV blog equivalent of a food critic that can’t cook himself.

  21. I do have a plan but I honestly don’t trust it to people who would call me a “racist” and use the ‘hitler-expression’: the point where ettiquette suggests that that whomever uses it is no longer qualified for debate and as such the debate is over.

    My Plan won’t be anywhere near as good for you as divisive policies and representation through dictatorial suggestions.

  22. Well seeing as I haven’t called you a racist or used the ‘hitler expression’ what was all that about?

    If you spent more time putting your plan in to action than criticising OBV, perhaps your plan would be half way to fruition. It’s not about whether it’s good for me though is it?

  23. I have put my plan into action.

  24. Let us know when you plan to reveal what it is *drum roll*

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: