|
I'm always interested to see how people justify racism (or other forms of ism) and they usually use the 'magic but'. Essentially they make a statement like 'I'm not racist' then insert the magic 'but' that allows them to make a statement that is blatantly racist directly afterwards. Today's example is a farmer who opposed a traveller site and has been warned about making racist 'representations' by the council to whom the objection was made.
Naturally the Mail commentators - spurred on by the headline: Farmer who opposed traveller site is branded racist by council and threatened with prosecution - are up in arms about another example of PC-gone-mad-can't-even-call-them-pikeys-anymore. However, when you actually take a step back, inhale a deep breath and read the article you can see why the council had no choice but to act in the way that it did.
The farmer - Bryan Lee - has according to the Daily Mail '30 years experience of living next to a community of travellers' which naturally makes him an expert on the subject and his experiences of one community can be applied to the whole race.. Therefore Bryan Lee wrote to the council with what the Mail terms as 'valuable insights into plans to provide them with a permanent home'. So what were these insights?
In Bryan Lee's own words:
'The number of families at any one time on the permanent site was an ongoing problem for the local authority as was the nature of business carried out on the site, including vehicle wrecking and various small-scale livestock ventures.'
He continued: 'Horses were turned into my fields on a regular basis.
'The police were regular visitors to the site, usually to trace stolen property but also to break up fights with other traveller families from other sites.'
So basically, Bryan Lee didn't enjoy living next to a community of travellers and I have genuine sympathy if they were a cause of distress - just as I would about any inconsiderate neighbours. However, if he then takes this personal experience of one community and applies it to all communities of travellers then this is a racist action. It is homogonizing a diverse race of people after one - albeit extended - experience with one community. However just his concerns, however just his anger during the 30 years of living next to a site; it does not give him a right to make assumptions about all travellers.
In response the council had to point out that they have:
'a responsibility under the Race Relations Act 1976 to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between racial groups.
'We have a very clear policy based on national guidelines that we will not take into account comments made in relation to planning applications where they could reasonably be considered to be racist.'
Bryan Lee does use the classic 'magic but' argument stating: 'I think it is absolutely outrageous. I am not a racist.' but then goes on to add:
'I spent 30 years living next to a travellers' site and unfortunately in my personal experience it was hell.
'I had lots of my farming equipment stolen over that period. If my property wasn't bolted down it would disappear overnight.
'Also the place was a complete tip with rubbish everywhere. I also witnessed some very aggressive and unpleasant behaviour.'
And his assumption is - of course - that any travellers who may be moved into nearby land will behave in the same way; why else would he be opposing the application?
Sometimes we have to look past our own personal experiences (which I fully admit can be a difficult thing to do) and remember that there are millions of people we may never meet who may completely alter our perception of a race or group. Personal experiences can rarely be extrapolated to accurately reflect any race or social group. This is the reason that councils and other public sectors are accountable to race relation laws: they need to be impartial when others - like Bryan Lee - cannot be.
I just want to make one final point regarding one of the comments made under the article by 'Alan Digby':
Whatever sort of country are we living in under this absurd government, where our freedoms are being eroded by this ridiculous ''uman rights'' nonsense.
If it's not covered by ''uman rights'' then the ''anti-terrorism'' bill kicks in. Come on people of Britain, take back OUR ''Human Rights''
- Alan Digby, Whitby, 1/6/2009 15:10
Click to rate Rating 328
Can I just say that the above story is actually a shining example of the freedoms we enjoy. What a fantastic country we live in when in spite of all the negative press coverage travellers receive, the negative stereotypes that persist and people like Bryan Lee; travellers are still treated as human beings by councils. They are not held accountable for the actions of other travellers, no more than I am held responsible for the actions of anyone who just happens to share my race. That, Alan Digby, is a human right and a true freedom that you share along with any other person in Britain (no matter how little I personally think you deserve it [1]).
1 - This highlights - again - the importance of impartiality when dealing with identifiable groups. For example, here I might personally think that Alan Digby doesn't really deserve to live with that attitude and level of ignorance, and I could probably go further and say that I think all Daily Mail readers should also perish for being such utterly reprehensible human beings. However, this is just my personal experience of Daily Mail readers and commentators clouding my judgement, I should not assume (like Alan) that my views are shared by any majority, nor that they are correct or appropriate. Therefore I am happy for my ideas to be rejected by an impartial observer using the neutral rules of law. I would be given a fair hearing (it's my 'yuman rites'); what more could I (or Alan) ask for?
|
