07 November 2007

Enoch Was Wrong!

Enoch Powell was a strange sort of chap. Voted Labour in 1945 then...

immediately joined the Tories. Resigned from the Tories (he was not chucked out), joined the Ulster Unionists (but not the Orange Order) then campaigned for Labour in both elections in 1974. Was at first enthusiastic about the common market then a bitter opponent. A militant atheist then a bible basher. Hated Thatcher (because women had no place in politics) then liked her. Described Indians as intellectually superior and yet that immigration conjured images of 'the Tiber foaming with blood'. He was not a man who did things by half, like most bigots he veered from one extreme to the other. With this many opinions he was bound to get some things right at least some of the time. However what he is mostly remembered for by most people - his 'rivers of blood' speech, is not one of them.

He did correctly predict that about 10% of the UK population would be commonwealth immigrants or descended from commonwealth immigrants by the year 2000. But so what? Is that a bad thing? Where is this catastrophe that Powell foresaw? I see a prosperous integrated society, with many problems yes, but not a society that has been destroyed by immigration, something his infamous 'rivers of blood speech' suggested would be the case.

The Tories and their candidate in Halesowen and Rowley Regis knows there are millions of votes in pandering to racism and that racism extends over all classes of society, particularly their hard to reach lower socio-economic classes that Tory policies so rightly alienate. Enoch has been made into some sort of folk working class hero in some quarters but for what reason?

Judging by the Nigel Hastilow/Express & Star mailbag, it seems the Tories are drumming up support with this 'siren call' of theirs, doing 1970 all over again. Get one of their prospective candidates to siren call the racists with 'Enoch was right' slogans and tap into that demographic. It helped them get elected in 1970 in the West Midlands, and they are trying it again. But at the same time the Tories know such racist sloganeering is distasteful to many voters - they are trying to get both sets of voters on side. I was hoping that the 2005 'are you thinking what we are thinking?' campaign gave us an answer to that Tory tactic - 'NO, we are not thinking such racist garbage' and it will increase people's determination to vote Labour.

Was Enoch a racist bigot? Did Hastilow know what he was doing in using such far right language? Was he being racist? The answer is yes to all these questions, but Hastilow can of course say what he likes and I would have liked him to stand in Halesowen and Rowley Regis as Tory candidate. He would have lost.

So why was it so bad of the Tories to use this 1960s/70s/80s far right slogan when referring to immigration? Even if Hastilow was not aware of the racist connotations of the speech (Enoch's speech talked of the 'black man having the whip hand' and sympathised with a lady who refused lodgers because of their colour), and come on, how could Hastilow not know the connotations? - his ignorance would be no excuse because he still refuses to apologise. Other than his endorsement of Powell, what he wrote in his article cannot be pinned down as racist, but with the Powell reference and the cries of 'suppression of free speech' afterwards, it is pretty clear that the Tories are trying their racist games again to play to the bigoted gallery. The turning point was 2005, when in a general election for the first time, this tactic lost the Tories more votes than it gained. Hopefully we will get the same rejection of this tactic once again at the next general election and bury this sort of distasteful campaigning forever.

12 comments:

  1. He was right. You leftists are getting worried. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In what way was he right? And what policies do you want to see?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Neil,

    The previous comment was not me but I want to answer your question.

    So, it's already clear you and I have very different views on multiculturalism. My view is that Enoch was right and his warning was prescient. Immigration is a huge problem, I have seen with my own eyes the number of people granted temporary asylum in my home town. They each get a free six year passport and a warning that they must go home afterwards. Neil, in your wildest left wing dreams, can you honestly tell us you think that even half of these people will go home? Remember they crossed ten or so other countries to get here, why?

    Why is this important? Simple, it's a burden on the tax payer that I cannot find a strong enough adjective for. Remember, I have seen this with my own eyes, an office full of files of those granted temporary asylum, I have nightmares about what the full asylum grantees get.

    Second: crime. Again, I've seen it. It's happened to close family and friends. I've seen the statistics. I've watched my city change visibly and mentally. We both know what the truth - the non PC truth - is here.

    Third: The sheer weight of numbers and its affect on our culture. I do not want our small island to be overcrowded. Migrationwatch tells the truth on this.

    Forth: Political correctness Is there any greater adducement of Enoch's claims than the fact that a Tory was sacked for echoing his sentiments this week?

    Last: Incompatability with Islamic cultures. The cartoons and the fact that so many Muslims want sharia law. I fear that one day you and people with the same views as you will realise just what you were supporting, but it will be too late. By the way, I've read the Qu'ran and the Sirahs, which is probably more than many Muslims have done.

    The last thing I would say is that while I respect your stance and acknowledge it is the "feelgood" argument, I find it interesting that slowly but surely people are starting to have the quixotic veil lifted away. Your opinion could soon be in the minority.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Neil
    I have read (as I have no doubt you have) the speech in question. You are 100% right about the fact that Enoch was wrong. He predicted a country in which white people would be denied (for example) maternity services because all the provision had been given to ethnic minorities (or what he prefers to call "charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies") and that is clearly as wrong as most of the statistics you post :-)

    He did have a point about the cultural effects of some of the immigration though, I see only today there is a debate on the rights and wrongs of Asda stocking Halal meat - and as someone who is as atheist as you, we both need to be concerned about faiths that are even more intolerant of atheists than other faiths.

    What is most depressing is that most of the "enoch was right" merchants haven't even troubled to read his words.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Urko you and I must have read a different speech. There are some points where Enoch went too far but the core message of his speech is slowly but very surely becoming reality. I've just turned 30 and I can see the change from my school days. I dread to think what England will be like in another twenty years.

    I am proud to be from England, but for all its faults I think my son is safer (if not better educated) growing up out here in Thailand.

    ReplyDelete
  6. red&white: Asylum seekers are only a burden if they are allowed to work. We can simply change this.

    1 & 3. Population & Overcrowding - since you are so concerned about the 200k net immigration, what do you propose to do to reduce the 600k births every year? I bet you are even one of those right-wingers who wants to ban abortion - which would be another 200k unwanted children - a far worse 'burden' than immigration. Remember children are a 'burden' for at least 16 years and that is the absolute truth. World population is set to rise to 9bn by 2050, the UK pop. 'might' reach 71m. The population of the world has trebled since 1980 and will increase another 50%. In this context the modest UK pop. growth is negligible. We cannot expect that with the growth in air travel and tourism and migration generally, that the UK would be unaffected.

    2. Crime. The stats actually show that immigrants are less likely to commit crime, especially if you take socio-economic groups into account.

    4. He was not sacked, he resigned. If you want to blame someone, blame the Tory party not political correctness. The Tories could have still stood him as a candidate, indeed I WANTED them to stand him as a candidate, He would have lost.

    Finally there is no bigger opponent of religion than me. I share your concerns about intolerance - but of equal if not more concern is the intolerance of the far right. I oppose both this far right bigotry and the bigotry of muslims and other groups. Do you accept we have to fight the far right?

    Unlike Urko, I think that immigration has improved our culture and work ethic. It has introduced new vibrancy into our previously less attractive areas. If you want evidence look at pictures of areas in the 1950's or even the 1980s before immigration. Or even compare your town centres and other areas to 10 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thats if they are not allowed to work I meant to say

    ReplyDelete
  8. nlike Urko, I think that immigration has improved our culture and work ethic.

    Oh dear, putting words in my mouth again, how dare you presume to know my opinion on that? I haven't expressed it.

    Oh I see, you (as usual) can't read a simple English word - SOME,.

    You take the biscuit when you're so rabid with someone who basically agrees with you. I see that as usual you make no reference to what I actually said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Urko, sorry if I have misinterpreted what you said. You said the following - 'He did have a point about the cultural effects of some of the immigration though'.

    From that, I read that you thought that Enoch was right to condemn some immigration because it had been detrimental to our culture. It would have been nice if you had also mentioned a positive about immigration when referring to how our culture has changed rather than just a negative. It is this that gave the impression to me that you didn't see a positive side to immigration on our culture. I am glad that you do see that. Overall, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I didn't get that impression from your comment. But if you think the same as me, why say Enoch was right on this point? Cos clearly Enoch saw no positives to immigration and our culture.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Neil, I am in full support of a woman's right to abortion. Quite simply, it reduces crime. The foetus is not capable of thoughts or pain so I do not class it as murder.

    As for these statistics that show immigrants are less likely to commit crime, well I can't wait to se this. Please provide a link ASAP.

    Finally, do I agree we have to fight the far right? Well that depends on your definition of "far right". If you mean fascists, then yes of course. If you mean parties who are legal political parties that have some good policies then no. In the same way, I would class you as centre/far left but I would not class you as Communist (going by your blog).

    I used to work in a tax office so I had first hand access to files and was required to examine them. I can tell you now, the number of immigrants claiming benefits scared me. Many of them had come across Europe just to get to our island. I don't blame them, I blame Tories and Labour, but please don't tell us that we "have" to give all these people work or benefits. What we "have" to do is vote out the pigs who got us in this mess, apologise to the immigrants and assist them in returning home.

    ReplyDelete
  11. R&W, glad we are in agreement about abortion (I also think it reduces crime and is not murder).

    Here are some links - here and here on immigration and criminality.

    It is difficult to find specific figures about the UK, but I did see in the right-wing Daily Mail owned Evening Standard that said foreign born people in London commit less than 20% of crime in London but make up 31% of the population. Also because immigrants are more likely to be aged between 18-39 (most criminals retire at 39) they must make a much lower percentage of crimes amongst this age group. Also I have read in a UNISON leaflet (pdf) that police figures compare that foreign born people commit less crimes relative to UK born.

    The fact immigrants commit less crime is probably down to this.

    By far right I mean the BNP and other racist groupings.

    The market properly regulated can work better in most (if not all) areas of life. But the key is to regulate the worst distortions and effects of the market. I certainly am not a marxist and communism (soviet style) I never supported - it was undemocratic and effectively state capitalism (but badly managed and delivered). I do however believe that the more democratic a country, the more socialist it becomes - see Scandanavia etc.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Neil,

    Thank you for taking the time to provide the links.

    I see some flaws. Firstly, the US statistics are utterly irrelevant to our situation because we are talking about a different country dealing with different immigrants from a different culture in a different historical context. Now, the London stats you refer to class the "1 in 5 crimes" as being from foreign nationals. This excludes second generation immigrants, dual nationalities and scariest of all, those who have been given a (free) British passport. As already mentioned, I know how often this happens.

    Secondly, the CJS statistics (not that I trust them too much either) throw up the following facts (I did not write this, I am cutting and pasting)


    A preliminary analysis of official crime data shows:

    ? Violence against the person is 5 times more prevalent in the
    black community, than in the white community.

    ? Drugs offences are 16 times more prevalent in the black
    community, and 3 times more prevalent in the Asian community, than in the white community.

    ? Robbery is over 9 times more prevalent in the black community, than in the white community.

    ? Committing homicide is 6 times more prevalent in the black community, and twice as prevalent in the Asian community, than it is in the white community.

    ? The homicidal killing of white people is 90 times more
    prevalent in the black community, than the homicidal killing of black people in the white community.

    ? The homicidal killing of white people is 30 times more prevalent in the Asian community, than the homicidal killing of Asian people in the white community.

    ? The number of white victims of interracial homicide is approximately 40 times greater than expected, when compared to the number of such victims in the minority (BME)community.

    ? The white community suffers more victims of interracial and racially motivated homicide than all of the minority (BME)communities put together -- despite the BME communities being less than 10 per cent of the total population.

    ? The number of white victims of racially motivated homicide is approximately 50 times greater than expected, when compared to the number of such victims in the minority (BME)community



    Now I am a Social Studies teacher not a Mathematics teacher, so if anyone wants to analyse the statistics themselves and confirm the above please do so. All I could muster from a cursory glance is that the violent crime convictions for the black and Asian community (excluding Chinese) are way out of proportion to their statistical population.

    Care to comment on that Neil? And one more thing, why are the Chinese stats so low? I know this is because unlike other cultures, the Chinese buckle down and respect the law and culture of their host country, but I want to see how you dress it up to avoid offending anybody :-)

    ReplyDelete