2 THE EROSION OF FREE SPEECH

How many times have you heard someone say ‘You can’t say that any more’? Probably quite a few. It’s usually hissed in a demi-whisper, perhaps by a person with slight crack of a smile on their face. And when confronted with this phrase most people will take it on board. They may still say the thing they were wanting to say but they will be wary next time of saying something similar. This, of course, is the entire aim of those who claim they seek a harmonious multi-racial society. If certain words and thoughts are demonised then they are repressed and over time no longer used, leading to a happier land for everyone. That’s the idea anyway. But there is a danger in the ‘you can’t say that any more’ society. It is partly that it can be misused by those who only seek to fit in and like to feel they are doing good. They can unwittingly suppress speech and ideas that shouldn’t be suppressed. (Those of average intelligence are the most enthusiastic vessels of political correctness. Those of higher intelligence see the absurdities, those of lower intelligence just don’t care.) And it is partly because it leads to a general air of admonishment; that there is some higher force telling people what they can and cannot say, and how what they say sharply defines them. No one wants to feel like a rotter, so they deliberately avoid saying certain things. Thus grows a dangerous swelling that will at some point be in need of lancing.
There was much celebration when the Conservative party got its first black MP in 2005 (the media always like to call a half caste person ‘black’, when they could just as accurately be called, by that logic, ‘white’. Black roots are always deemed more desirable and sexy than white roots). In a way, the celebrations were justified: Britain’s second biggest political party was reflecting the make up of the country. But it was bad in another way: debate of racial issues in the Tory party would become a slightly harder proposition. If the black MP was in the room with you, you might not choose to make a comment on racial matters, even if it was in no way offensive. This is the same as in wider society – people are prevented from saying certain things because they feel one of their group of friends or colleagues might take affront. That person might not take affront, but few like to take the risk. They have seen in life and on their television screens what happens when they do. And so debate is stultified, with long-term repercussions. British people are particularly unlikely to want to offend – John Cleese used to sum it up well when he commented on the fact that we tend to apologise when asking for the salt at the dinner table.
An obvious ‘thing you can’t say any more’ would be ‘Those bloody wogs are taking all the jobs’. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing to stop people saying. But the comment ‘I feel there’s too much immigration into the UK’ could also come under the same banner. And it IS a bad thing if people don’t feel they can say that any more. Indeed, it is very bad, because it indirectly leads to more immigration (because of pusillanimous debate over the issue) and more problems down the line. Each problem that we have now with immigration-related matters will grow, including the limiting of free speech. So the immigration will continue, the problems will worsen, including, again, the erosion of free speech. And so on. A vicious circle. A problem with no obvious solution in sight. And when a white family moves out of an increasingly black area, they will say to all but a few the real reason why they are doing this. They might use a euphemism by saying they wish to move to a ‘nicer area’. When people aren’t talking to each other properly about why they’ve done something like this, you’re on a slippery slope. (I contrast all this with the Malaysian I met in his own country a few years back who baldly stated: ‘I don’t like Muslims.’ He had his reasons, his candour was admirable, almost a breath of fresh air after escaping from repressed Britain, and even though many would criticise him for it, he was only telling the truth about his feelings.)
But the race folk are never happy, and often you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. (I’m reminded of the BBC’s ‘ethnic’ station BBC 1Xtra, which was referred to in disparaging terms as ‘The station for the blacks’ by rapper Dizzee Rascal. The race game is a game you cannot win, so many don’t even bother to try.) The humourlessness of the race lobby goes directly against British people’s way of taking life with a good dollop of humour. In September 2007 Private Eye reported a splendid example of scampering, scared, well-meaning white people getting awfully twisted in knots over being nice to black people. For a survey, a south-east council had created icons of people holding up signs showing a tick or a cross so residents could vote on an issue. These icons naturally showed a mix of whites and blacks. But then it was realised that the black figure was holding up a cross rather than a tick, which could lead to negative associations with black people. So it was changed, with the black person icon ending up with a nice, happy tick. Examples of this sort are far too numerous to list. They all indicate how warped our thinking has become, how our natural behaviour is perverted and how this can lead to absurdities, and often far worse. Multiculturalism makes liars and criminals of us all. The Daily Telegraph’s Peter Simple used to be especially brilliant at satirising the horrors of our new order. They’ll soon come up with The Bumper Book Of Anti-Racism he’d say, only inches away from the truth. The ghastly Macpherson Report has been to blame for much of what we see now, a document so full of contradictions that on one page it recommends treating ‘minorities’ differently and on another page recommending treating them the same as everyone else.
The Left frequently use enormous amounts of energy to not see the bleeding obvious and attribute, say, the failings of black schoolchildren to the R word. There’s very little they don’t imprint with the R word. It’s easy to do. Why bother examining historical, scientific or social factors when you can slap a tag like ‘institutionalised r-sm’ on whatever it is you’re looking at. And the media are mostly dumb little sheep who will publish your findings, so that makes it even easier.