Julie Bindel and Nick Cohen are both Powellites

Here:

Julie Bindel, a veteran of radical feminist campaigns, remembers when such circumlocutions were unthinkable. She told me about a vigorous movement to force the police to investigate child abuse allegations in an Orthodox Jewish neighbourhood in London.  Her sisters said that it would be racist for the police to leave it to the community to administer its own justice, as they had done in the past. They had to show that the same rules applied to everyone.

\”Now they say it is racist to intervene. They\’re so frightened of being called an Islamophobe, they will defend the right of men to force women to be shackled. They smugly declare that ‘we haven\’t got the right to impose our values on another culture\’ and think themselves liberal when they do it.\”

Here:

“Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, ‘We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home’. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility”

Of course, Powell was a racist so we can dismiss his opinions without having to think about them.

25 comments on “Julie Bindel and Nick Cohen are both Powellites

  1. Out of interest, where did Sunny say that everything Powell said was racist? I can’t find it.

    And we have done far more work in exposing cultural relativism than most.

    Tim adds: I’m not aware that he did say that. Only that Hannan saying he admired Powell (for non racist things he did and said) was not allowed/evil/contemptible because Powell said some things which Sunny thought were racist.

  2. Er, he didn’t say that. And Tim never said he did. Sunny’s implying that, because Powell said some racist things, all his thought is tainted, and thus anyone who praises those other thoughts is to be dismissed. Tim is pointing out that that’s silly, and that he said many things which those of Sunny’s disposition would agree.

    btw, who is this ‘we’ of whome you speak.

  3. Tim and prm:

    I don’t think that Sunny said, or implied, that anything Powell said can be dismissed as racist. But Hannan was talking about Powell’s views on nationalism/the nation (amongst other things), and Powell said things like :

    “The West Indian or Asian does not, by being born in England, become an Englishman. In law he becomes a United Kingdom citizen by birth; in fact he is a West Indian or an Asian still.”

    http://www.enochpowell.net/fr-83.html

    Which is little different from saying British=white. It is the language of the BNP.

    If Hannan had stuck to issues like Europe (when citing P0well), then fair enough.

    prm:

    I was talking about those of us over at Pickled Politics.

  4. Unless I missed something, Hannan referred to Powell’s views on British “independence”, ie anti-Common Market views.

    You can draw a line from this to his anti-immigration stance, but it’s a tenuous line. Saying that Hannan was talking about Powell’s views on “the nation” is stretching it pretty thin.

  5. Sunny claimed that “Enoch Powell was someone who wanted a racial war in the UK merely because a few immigrants had come over to settle here” – Powell in fact warned of racial conflict in the UK because of immigration. There is a difference between ‘wanted’ and ‘warned’.

    (Powell also said all citizens, whether white or Asian, should be equal before the law, which is hardly racist.)

  6. I don’t think that Sunny said, or implied, that anything Powell said can be dismissed as racist.Sunny said or implied that because Powell was racist (a claim he neglected to support) anything he said can be dismissed and anyone who approves of anything Powell said can likewise be dismissed.

  7. Rumbold – Yes, what ukliberty said. To repeat – I said;
    “Sunny’s implying that, because Powell said some racist things, all his thought is tainted”

    And your misreading from that:
    “I don’t think that Sunny said, or implied, that anything Powell said can be dismissed as racist”

    So you are in danger here of raising a straw man: ‘Sunny never said all Powell’s words were racist’, something no one said he said. Especially when, once this strawness was pointed out, you repeat it.

    Ah you’re from PP, that rather explains things.

    I suppose an interesting point here (and hence the straw man) is we have a narrative here. First the pointing because someone dared to suggest that a standard demon-figure might have said some good things; when this yah-boo pointing is itself pointed out you get the straw man, and when this is pointed out you get the repetition of it to try to impose said narrative. Fascinating.

  8. “The West Indian or Asian does not, by being born in England, become an Englishman. In law he becomes a United Kingdom citizen by birth; in fact he is a West Indian or an Asian still.”

    “Which is little different from saying British=white.”

    Wrong. You’re projecting your own assumptions about nationality onto what Enoch actually said. He’s actually talking about ethnicity, not race. Skin colour has nothing to do with it. He means it in the same sense that someone would say the British actress Joanna Lumley, for example, was English. Not Scots, not Irish, not Welsh, certainly not American or Australian, but recognisably English. Where she was born, or the colour of skin or hair, has nothing to do with that identification.

    Next thing, you’ll be telling me how Rudyard Kipling was a famous Asian/Indian author…

  9. Here’s what I said before:

    “Mr. Hannan was not talking directly about immigration and race, and as Sunder Katwala points out, he has criticised Enoch Powell’s views on immigration in the past. Other politicians have lauded mass murderers and been excused. Yet he was still wrong to praise Enoch Powell, given the connotations surrounding him.

    Any mention of Enoch Powell brings up bad memories for some, and understandably so. He was not some otherworldly academic absently quoting Virgil in a seminar. This was a deliberate message from a highly intelligent and articulate politician: that the rivers of blood would flow if Britain allowed too many non-white immigrants in. How many times have the words ‘Enoch was right’ been uttered? He felt that only white people could be British, even if in law non-whites could be born here or acquire citizenship. He was a racist who knew what he was saying and knew the effect in would have (though probably not the scale). He should not be anyone’s inspiration for understanding how to live in “an independent country”.”

    I thought that Sunder Katwala’s post summed up the whole affair best:

    http://www.nextleft.org/2009/08/what-hannan-gets-wrong-about-enoch.html

    Prm:

    Tim Worstall said:

    “As far as I can work it out everything Enoch Powell thought, did or believed in is, according to Sunny, to be rejected because the man was a racist.”

    Which is what I was criticising. I obviously chose my words badly. Apologies. Sunny wasn’t saying that everything Powell said should be rejected because he was a racist.

  10. Pa Annoyed:

    “You’re projecting your own assumptions about nationality onto what Enoch actually said. He’s actually talking about ethnicity, not race.”

    It seems pretty clear to me. People are British if they hold British citizenship, and especially if they are born here. They might have other identities (e.g. we might refer to those of South Asian descent), but they are British. Too many non-whites in this country are told they can’t be British, even if they have been born here. Just look at what the BNP says. This is just another example of that.

  11. Rumbold – “It seems pretty clear to me. People are British if they hold British citizenship, and especially if they are born here. They might have other identities (e.g. we might refer to those of South Asian descent), but they are British.”

    When someone like Powell uses the word English instead of British he is probably doing so with a reason. Your quote didn’t have EP saying that Black British people were not British, but that they were not English. Whether or not a Black person can be English is an interesting question. I think they can. But that is only because the definition of English has changed. So your comment here does not really relate to the quote above given English and British are not the same.

  12. This whole attempt to smear anyone who mentions Powell is daft; one might as well smear someone if they ever quote Tony Benn favourably, for example.

  13. By the same logic applied by Rumbold, the white farmers of Zimbabwe have as much right to their property, and their national birthright as Zimbabweans, as their black brethren. Furthermore, the Palestinian refugees in the Middle East have no “right of return” to Israel, a land in which they were not born or granted citizenship.

    It strikes me that some folk want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be domiciled in one state, in which they demand full recognition, and yet hang on to their “ancestral homeland”, into which no foreign foot must tread.

    Something wrong there….

  14. “It strikes me that some folk want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be domiciled in one state, in which they demand full recognition, and yet hang on to their “ancestral homeland”, into which no foreign foot must tread.”

    An extremely astute observation.

  15. No country of 50 million people needs immigrants, unless you are making an entirely dubious and racist claim that there is something lacking in that indigenous population, which will spell doom for its descendants.

    Way back in the mid 1970s I was living in North Manchester, watching the textile industry dying. The local womenfolk who had spent their lives working at the mills, had already been laid off. At the same time immigration was being stepped up to supply “much needed labour”, to the textile industry. While the steeplejacks were dismantling the very same mills.

    Any society in a process of dynamic equilibrium, will always find ways of nurturing it’s own doctors, engineers, astronauts, infantry, roadsweepers, binmen, nurses, vets, and hairdressers. It isn’t rocket science, it is the force of nature. And this is why we have very few witch doctors in Motherwell, and no bullfighters at all in Sunderland.

    Immigration, has always been a government sanctioned fraud. A ponzi scheme made from human beings.

  16. “Any society in a process of dynamic equilibrium, will always find ways of nurturing it’s own doctors, engineers, astronauts, infantry, roadsweepers, binmen, nurses, vets, and hairdressers.”

    Alas, not English teachers. Or at least, those can can make a lesson in the use of the apostrophe stick.

    You’re daft if you think that there are never shortages of certain skilled workers. Your solution might be to train more and for the rest of us to twiddle our thumbs waiting for them to graduate. But I think that it’s self-evidently inefficient.

    “Immigration, has always been a government sanctioned fraud. A ponzi scheme made from human beings.”

    For immigration to be a Ponzi scheme we’d have to be feeding new immigrants with Soylent Green. You know, I don’t think you understand what a Ponzi scheme is (hint: it’s not a general insult that you hurl around like the lefties do with “racism”).

  17. If the same people who flung the doors open and ushered in the immigrants, had not also buggered up our education system, we would have had no shortage of qualified professionals.

  18. “Alas, not English teachers. Or at least, those can can make a lesson in the use of the apostrophe stick.”

    I do hope you know where to stick it.

  19. Monty-

    “Any society in a process of dynamic equilibrium, will always find ways of nurturing it’s own doctors, engineers, astronauts, infantry, roadsweepers, binmen, nurses, vets, and hairdressers.”

    Alas, not English teachers. Or at least, those can can make a lesson in the use of the apostrophe stick.

    Kay Tie-

    You’re daft if you think that there are never shortages of certain skilled workers. Your solution might be to train more and for the rest of us to twiddle our thumbs waiting for them to graduate. But I think that it’s self-evidently inefficient.

    This argument to me seems somewhat flawed, if it is characterised as the idea that any particular national economy needs external workers in order to reach some working equilibrium. The obvious objection is that if we apply it to the global economy, we must conclude that the global economy cannot function properly without an external source of labour (from Mars, perhaps?).

    It seems to me that the reality is that people are really arguing for cheap migrant labour, and that is predicated on the assumption that there is somewhere elsewhere in the world with worse living standards to supply it. If one dreams of the Third World reaching western economic standards, as I do, then at some point we will have to figure out a way for our economy to work without the assumption that darkies will sweep the floors for 50p per day.

    I’m not arguing for autarky- I’m a libertarian, gosh darn it- but I am arguing that free markets can work perfectly well without exploitable poverty stricken hordes. They’re going to have to when the GDP/cap of currently poor nations becomes comparable to our own.

  20. “This argument to me seems somewhat flawed, if it is characterised as the idea that any particular national economy needs external workers in order to reach some working equilibrium.”

    I was thinking from the perspective of an employer who needs a post filled and can’t find anyone. He’s supposed to sit around whauting for the market to make a particular career path attractive to then provide the skilled candidates? Or is it better to be allowed to recruit the skilled person from another country?

    The argument about unskilled migration is a different one. For a start, there’s no time taken to learn skills. And it interacts with the benefit system: we are paying millions of feckless people to be idle while millions come here to do the work they would have done. While I would prefer someone with get-up-and-go to serve me coffee, I can see that the feckless underclass becomes a dangerous force to be reckoned with when it starts agitating.

  21. Or is it better to be allowed to recruit the skilled person from another country?

    Why is the British economy so hopelessly short of skilled workers as to need mass immigration? Is Somalia really bursting to the gills with highly skilled workers?

    The argument about unskilled migration is a different one. For a start, there’s no time taken to learn skills.

    I don’t understand what point you’re making here. Unskilled foreign workers don’t have time to learn skills? When, before they arrive or afterwards???

    nd it interacts with the benefit system: we are paying millions of feckless people to be idle while millions come here to do the work they would have done.

    Shouldn’t we fix that then, instead?

    While I would prefer someone with get-up-and-go to serve me coffee, I can see that the feckless underclass becomes a dangerous force to be reckoned with when it starts agitating.

    There seems to be this general idea that Britain consists of only two types of people; hard working upper middle class ones and the feckless residuum. It’s like all those ordinary working class people I’ve worked with over the years just don’t exist. It’s just company directors and scrounging untermenschen, isn’t it? That’s all there is, apparently. I imagined everybody else, it seems.

  22. My point on unskilled immigration was that there is no shortage of domestic unskilled workers and so it’s a different type of immigration from skilled workers with sought-after rare skills and that we shouldn’t conflate the two. Unskilled immigration cannot be addressed without looking at the benefit system, for example. Something that is irrelevant for skilled migrants.

    Have a quick trip over to the Devil’s Kitchen and see what happens to skilled migrants (e.g. DK’s new wife) when the hysterical Daily Mail bigots set the agenda.

  23. Trading in labour works much the same way as trading in the products of labour. More trade and freer trade is generally good. Tariffs, subsidies, and trade barriers are generally bad.

    International trade improves matters because each nation has its own set of comparative advantages. Each specialises in those tasks at which they are most productive, compared to the other things they might be doing, which frees the other nations to concentrate on those other things where they have the advantage. Because each spends more time doing what they are better at, the overall production increases, and both participants gain from the cooperation.

    Subsidies and tariffs involve participants carrying on doing what they are relatively bad at, less cost-effectively, and producing less overall. As a nation, and on average, we lose; but it is possible that some small subset of the population gains at our expense. But they probably lose more as a result of all the other special interests.

    The same goes for immigrant labour. Each immigrant requires food, clothes, housing, and all the other products we need, creating all the jobs needed to produce them. In turn, we pay them for the things they make for us. If they can do it cheaper than we can, that’s a net benefit to the economy, and if they’re producing this benefit over here, more of it accrues to our nation rather than their native one than would be otherwise.

    We gain much of the advantage indirectly, because it makes all the goods we buy cheaper, and makes our money go further. Unfortunately, that means we often don’t recognise it.

    From an abstract economic point of view, children growing up and entering the workplace count as ‘immigrants’, too. What would the economic consequences be, do you think, if it stopped?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>