A colleague disagreed with me about the tone of Yasmin’s piece. What follows are some extracts from my responses:

The colour of someone’s skin has absolutely nothing to do with their attitude to anything, any more than people with size nine feet all think the same or act the same, or make the same decisions.

There are stereotypes, of course, which is why one of my friends calls himself a ‘coconut’ and their half-Philipino friend once called himself a ‘banana’, but the same may be true of people with big noses. They’re likely to have a chip on their shoulder, no?

Yasmin has every right to say what she thinks, but that doesn’t change whether she’s wrong or not. And she is wrong: morally and when it comes down to whether something is true or not.

Race becomes an issue because people place so much emphasis on it — aside from some facial features its even more meaningless than skin colour. Compare, for example, Colin Powell’s skin hue with that of George Bush and Condoleeza Rice. Colin Powell is actually as pale as George Bush. Now lets suppose skin colour was somehow relevant to someone’s attitude or political outlook, how should Colin Powell behave? White or black?

And while she’s making these sweeping generalisations, are black people more left-wing or more right-wing? Is strong family a policy of the right or the left? I would say right, but how much stronger is the family unit in Italian, Hindu and Muslim families, those supposed Boris-haters? Is positive discrimination a sop to their guilt-ridden white population or is it a genuine attempt to help those people who are not given as many chances because of racism in the white-dominated management structures? I’ve yet to meet someone who has thought carefully about the situation who would benefit from positive discrimination (a non-white in other words) who supports it. But positive discrimination is a policy of the left (and Ken) and not of Mr Johnson. And what about homophobia? Mr Livingstone (and other left-wing extremists) welcome Islamic preachers who spout homophobic diatribe, while the right (and Boris) condemn them. Yasmin would claim this is a race issue, but I would argue that it is just bad manners: if you invite and welcome someone with openly hateful views without publicly criticising those views, you are implying support for them. It is not racist to condemn preachers of hate (and no-one outside the BNP to my knowledge has condemned Islamic preachers without referring to those among them who preach hate) but it is homophobic to embrace them.

So back to my point, is it left-wing or right-wing to be non-white? Is it reasonable to suggest that a particular colour would vote for Boris? And is it acceptable to label people that you are criticising by their skin colour?

The second is in our next Housing and Central Services Committee (HCSC) Agenda (Item 8). By the way, here’s the HCSC minutes and agenda index.

Okay, so before we read it (like you were going to!), let’s discuss some background.

There are two types of racist in my humble opinion:

There is the stereotype (who is hard to find, actually) who believes that black people are inferior, that they shouldn’t be employed if they come to an interview, that they should not be allowed to use the same buses etc, etc. Let us call them ‘old Tories’.

Then there is the more common type: the do-gooder. They say “Ah, you have [insert colour here] skin so you are less able to obtain training than a white person” or “Ah, you have [insert colour here] skin so you need more careful treatment” or “Ah, you have [insert colour here] skin so you must need help speaking English” (Hands up those who thought I should have copied and pasted some of that.). Let us call this, more common and thoroughly more underhand and manipulative racist ‘socialists’.

So socialists (read Ken Livingstone or the person who introduced the legislation allowing this) are the ones responsible for some of the measures that our Council must make.

In Item 8, then, there is a survey of Council Tenants in Adur District Council. Apparently ‘ethnic minorities’ (you know, the ones the socialists believe are less intelligent) answered the survey differently to white people. Just to be clear an ethnic minority can only be non-white — the proper definition of the type of respondent the government required us to identify is “black and ethnic minorities (BEM) (excluding white minorities)”.

Scroll to the last page and you will find the bit that has got my goat. This is the ‘Action Plan’ as a result of the survey’s findings:

Black Minority and Ethnic groups are less satisfied with opportunities for involvement in management and decision making. Action – further investigation is required and efforts made to include members of BME groups in tenant participation.

So, basically, a statistical anomaly that should never have been measured throws up something vaguely interesting and the answer is to ‘solve it’? Erm no.

I am quite sure no-one is sending letters to white tenants only. I am quite sure no-one is turning black people away when they offer to participate. And even if they were, I’m positive a survey is not the best way to find that out!

To put it to a test I telephoned a tame ‘ethnic minority’ and asked them what they thought.

Warning, the next paragraph contains swearing that is necessary because it is a verbatim quote. If you don’t like it, skip it, okay?

When asked whether we should do this the tame (tame because socialists tell me they are less intelligent etc.) EM said “Why are we collecting that information? Like anyone gives a shit.”

And why did I quote an EM? Because in this ultra PC (but we took their great, great, great grandfather’s land to grow sugar plantations on, sob) modern era, I couldn’t say that myself without being described as an ‘old Tory’. And let’s be honest, if I was one of those, how could I have tamed that stupid (the socialist’s intimation, not mine) EM in the first place?

The question is, why wouldn’t Boris win? The English have an interesting humour and I would guess the vast majority of English people would vote for him purely because he appeals to them.

Correcting myself, then, the question should be: Is there enough cultural Englishness left in London for the natural winner of this contest to win? The answer will likely be the poll result — I hope and expect the answer to be “Yes”.

Vote for the blue buffoon that we all think is nuts!

Why does Germany buy fewer games per head than the UK or France:

[Germany] is the third-biggest market for video games in Europe, behind the UK and France, with PC titles dominating the market.

This from a story about the PS3′s new PVR capabilities: BBC News

It would seem to me that Germany’s cultural similarities concerning alcohol and free time would make the number of games bought there similar to in Britain… But obviously not.

BBC News

When will the Tories start being the party of merit?

Why is this message considered too sensitive?

I have known for a couple of years that the government doesn’t give free training to white people (only to ‘ethnic minorities’). I wrote to the lady in charge of the free training a while ago and published the answers here.
But it seems it now goes further than the cost of training, now it extends to the provision of training at all according to This is London.
David Cameron’s walking a dangerous tightrope between public opinion, the leftwing media and his party — I understand that. But when will he say that things like that article are wrong?

First, the opposition (actually the lone LibDem cannot officially be called an opposition — but for the sake of clarity) voted for all the proposals which will lead to Worthing and Adur Councils moving toward a single workforce. Adur Council will now work out a basis for moving to a cabinet system of government.

Also, the speech I read and copied below for your information, was well received and you’ll be pleased to know that the Motion was not carried! I’ll take some of the credit for that especially because the Liberal Democrat (apparently not the party of liberalism and freedom) failed to stir even for that.

So all recommendations before tonight’s Council were carried unanimously and Motion 11a lost while Motion 11b (on West Sussex Hospitals) was carried.

Why we should not allow prayer in Adur Council

Councillor Privacy

Religious belief, or the lack of it, is very personal and I believe it should not normally be discussed in this context. One of the problems with public worship as proposed in this Motion is that it may require by implication that a Councillor expose their religious beliefs. A member of the public might arrive during the period set aside for prayers and see their Councillor praying and decide that their Councillor’s religious beliefs worry them or, similarly, find their Councillor not in attendance and decide that they cannot vote for an non-believer.

The reason I mention that now is that this debate could do a similar thing. By standing up now I could be exposing myself either as an immoral man, a godless infidel or a heretical heathen or as a devout follower.

Why should that matter? Surely the voting public have the right to know about their Councillors’ beliefs?

No.

Religion and Politics

Religion and politics do not go together and it is when they do that we are fearful. It is the Islamic AK Party in Turkey who yesterday won the general election which some fear could mean the end of secularism in Turkey. And it is religion in US politics which makes the Republican Party so different from the Conservative Party. I’d like to read a passage written by Fred Halliday on the Open Democracy website on 12 January this year:

From the evangelicals of the United States, to the followers of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, to the Islamists of the middle east, the claim about the benefits of religion is one of the great, and all too little challenged, impostures of our time. For centuries, those aspiring to freedom and democracy, be it in Europe or the middle east, fought to push back the influence of religion on public life. Secularism cannot guarantee freedom, but, against the claims of tradition and superstition, and the uses to which religion is put in modern political life, from California to Kuwait, it is an essential bulwark.

I do know that this country has prayers read in the House of Commons before each sitting of the House and that twenty-six unelected, non-democratically appointed Bishops sit in the House of Lords. Nobody ought to think that is unreservedly a good thing. I accept that this is a Christian country, I do not believe it should manifest itself in politics.

Libertarian

English culture is a subject of much debate recently. With the trend for multiculturalism apparently under attack from the former Home Secretary John Reid, the question about what it means to be English has re-started of late. My input to that debate would be to talk of the most obvious of virtues: the ability to tolerate — without trying to — other people’s beliefs. Some people may say that this Motion is something we should welcome as an effort to reassert the English (or in some cases British) cultural values. But if you agree with what I just said then reasserting English culture would not involve reintroducing prayer, in any religion or denomination, into public offices.

In 1906 Evelyn Hall said “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” although this is often attributed to Voltaire. That should mean it could be argued, that I could sit out of these prayers and feel warm inside that the libertarian cause was living on. But this is the exact opposite of the case. Using the Council Chamber, or the Council building, for non-Council activities is an abuse of power. I dare say any number of alternative pre-meeting activities would not be considered and this is as personal as any of those.

I like to think of myself as an open minded person. We’ve all read articles in the tabloid press written by a homophobe that start “I have gay friends but…” But I’m going to use that excuse anyway: I have Christian and Hindu friends and Muslim relatives but I don’t believe religion has any relevance to the Council’s proceedings.

Summary

In summary the reasons for refusing this Motion are:
• That it is a violation of each Councillor’s privacy;
• that it is an irrelevant and dangerous melding of Church and State;
• that it does not merit support under libertarian values; and
• that it is a misuse of tax payer’s facilities.

If you agree, or even if you just know there’s no reason to believe in God, consider signing up (for free) as a Bright and spreading the 21st Century’s Enlightenment.