RACISM
“…Let’s call it by its name. Its racism. She’s a black woman and she has been torn to pieces” as Rachel Boyle is reported to have accused Laurence Fox on Question Time on BBC on 16 January, referring to the Duchess of Sussex. On Andrew Marr’s show on 19 January a Labour MP , Nadia Whittome, in reviewing the newspapers, in effect endorsed the view that Meghan Markle was being driven out of the UK by racism- among other things comparing how the media dealt with the Duchess of Cambridge eating an avocado to how they dealt with the Duchess of Sussex also eating an avocado-more favourably it seems to Kate than Meghan, with the implicit reason for difference being the colour of their respective skins.
Where is the hard evidence that Meghan Markle has been the victim of racism in the UK? If people such as Rachel Boyle did not point out that she is black, Sherbhert for one would not have known she is. Is she? Certainly, she has one black parent- is that the same thing? Answer uncertain in these days of non-plain English and ever-changing acceptability of terminology.
Laurence Fox merely expressed the view that claims that she was being driven out by racism were boring. He did not even say “nonsense” which he fairly could have. And he called in aid a quote from Martin Luther King, repeated at the end of this article. Later, representatives of his Union, “Equity”, criticised him as a” disgrace to our industry” on social media. Later this criticism was deleted by the same Union, because it was written by two rogue members of their diversity committee, unauthorised! More of the same racist obsessives.
SEXISM
Laurence Fox was also called by Rachel Boyle a “white privileged male” as if that was an insult, an accusation. Laurence Fox regarded such a remark as in itself racist: it can of course be characterised as such, but why bother to do so unless you want to play the same racial slur game. Why, if criticism is levelled at a person of colour or a black person, do some people then cry, as if wired to do so, racism? This is a warped obsession, when the facts receive little or no examination or a justifiable opinion is simply being shared, Sadly, people who do so cry of course weaken the honourable fight against racism, as “crying wolf” never helps.
Laurence Fox not only had to deal with this “ism” recrimination. The Labour representative on the same panel on Question Time, Baroness Chakrabarti, rebuked him for preferring Keir Starmer as potential leader of the Labour Party to the 4 female candidates: he was now sexist. He responded with despair that this leadership issue seemed now to be about women, rather it is assumed than about the most suitably skilled candidate. Why do people obsessed with their favourite “ism” of the day have to be aggressively confrontational and make all roads lead to their obsession? Should it be assumed that if a woman is not elected leader, the voters will be branded by Baroness Chakrabarti as misogynists?
AGEISM
Reverting to Nadia Whittome. On the subject of the Sussexes’ new lifestyle, she reflected that it was mainly old people who disapproved of their approach to deciding their future and propounded that the progressive young however understood their decisions. The suggestion is that progressive is a good thing, and that old people are not progressive. Is that true and, if so, is it ageism? Is that as serious as racism, as sexism? There is confusion over the meaning of progressive as it seems to mean whatever a person wants it to, and so means nothing. It is thrown in by its user to put them in a class of people who think like them (maybe).
A BETTER APPROACH?
Laurence Fox explained his philosophy by invoking Martin Luther King’s dream that “his four children would one day live in a world where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character”, a sentiment that perhaps the vast majority of people in the UK would share. Perhaps this quote can be adapted more broadly by referring to “gender” not colour, to refer to “class” not colour, to refer to “religion” not colour, to refer to “age” not colour. There would not then be knee jerk reactions such as references to “white privileged male” as if such a person is to be despised, and the invocation of the ism reined back.
