2009-08-29 08:56 pm (UTC)
hero noun A person, typically, a man who is admired for their courage [Source: Oxford English Dictionary]
Whatever you, or anyone else, may think of his opinions, I cannot see how anyone can honestly deny that Enoch Powell was admired for his courage.
You are accusing Hannan, an immigrant, of thinking that "being a racist is okay" with no evidence whatsoever and it seems that your excuse for this smear is that you don't know what "hero" means.
If I say that I admire General de Gaulle's heroism I do not automatically become a French poodle.
Given that those cheering on Enoch Powell for his "courage" are usually National Front thugs and English supremacist bullies, forgive me if I find it disturbing that anyone would want to align themselves with that sort of company.
The fact that Hannan is an immigrant is irrelevant. He is willing to publicly enthuse about a man who is a national by-word for racism. It pretty much returns me to Mark Hanson's original point - which is that invoking such a divisive figure positively is dangerous and makes you wonder what his actual opinions are. I think you underestimate what the invocation of Enoch Powell means to some sections of our society.
What Hannan has effectively said is "I disagree with his policy on immigration, but it isn't enough for me to stop endorsing him in public". Therefore, he cannot think that Powell's stance on immigration is a very bad thing. If Hannan did consider it a bad enough thing, he wouldn't hold Powell in high esteem.
Would you not question someone who said that they admired Robert Mugabe and considered them a political influence or hero, but only because of the ability he had to instil pride in black Rhodesians prior to independence?
2009-08-30 05:19 pm (UTC)
"Would you not question someone who said that they admired Robert Mugabe and considered them a political influence or hero, but only because of the ability he had to instil pride in black Rhodesians prior to independence?"
No, I should not bother because he/she was basing his/her arguments on the basis of something that existed only in his/her imagination and therefore was not subject to rational argument. [You might think to check your history before quoting it - you seem to be confusing Mugabe with Mandela or Nkomo or both.]
If you were both capable and willing to admit that you are wrong after that fact has been clearly demonstrated it would be possible to have a rational discussion with you. Regrettably this does not seem to be the case.
I find your remarks unjustifiably offensive since I emphatically oppose the BNP and always have done so (including its predecessors: National Front etc) and English supremacists (incidentally, did you not know that Powell was Welsh?) and have always strongly opposed to bullying even when I got physically hurt as a result of trying to prevent it. I admire Powell's courage and his magnificent intellect (although not always his use thereof) and see no reason why I should not say so.
"I think you underestimate what the invocation of Enoch Powell means to some sections of our society." Well even the mention of his name seems to make a very small section of it foam at the mouth, but those of us old enough to remember what he actually did can take a more balanced view - and those of us who know what the word "invocation" means can inform you that Hannan did not include a religious ceremony in his interview - and admire some of his achievements while disagreeing with and regretting his "rivers of blood" speech which advocated a more liberal immigration policy than is adopted by the current Labour government. I also disagree with and regret his support of the more reactionary strand of Ulster Unionism in the twilight of his political career.
"A national by-word" is a clever piece of spin. I think that there are a number of national by-words for racism, that would include "racist" (of course), "Nazi", "Fascist" (incorrect, most fascists weren't racists and Hitler regarded Italians as second-class), BNP, Nick Griffin ... but I don't believe "Powell" is one of them.
Apologies if Mugabe didn't empower black people in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. I was under the impression that he did and still does, which is part of why he still has some support in the country and uses the white British man as the enemy. If I'm mistaken then so be it.
I have no issue admitting that I am wrong, only I don't think that I am. I do however think you were being unnecessarily rude in your response to me and I'd appreciate it if you employed a less sarcastic tone.
Why do you find my opinions offensive? Because I find it difficult to believe that anyone could cite Enoch Powell as a political influence without condoning, at least subconsciously, his position on immigration? You can admire Powell's courage and intellect and say so if you wish, nor am I saying that Daniel Hannan cannot do so either. I will however reserve the right to wonder just how much you or he condone his stance on immigration. For me, I consider his take so wholly unacceptable and unforgivable that I refuse to credit him in any way. If you are willing to credit him, I can only conclude that either you do not find his views as unacceptable as I do, or you are willing to forgive his views.
Enoch Powell is a national by-word for racism - that's why there has been the outcry. If he wasn't, there wouldn't be a story. Enoch Powell is best known for his Rivers of Blood speech, regardless of all else that he did in his career. Not only that, he is associated with a brand of "respectable racism". As someone who fears for her life whenever she sees or hears the phrase "Enoch was right", I can assure you that the mention of Enoch Powell is synonymous with anti-multiculturalism and anti-immigration in the minds of certainly a few, and probably many more, people.
2009-08-31 01:43 pm (UTC)
I said "remarks" not "opinion"
As I have said I actively oppose BNP and bullies, so to imply that I "would want to align themselves with that sort of company" is unjustifiably offensive.
I had formed an opinion of Enoch Powell a decade before the "Rivers of Blood" speech with which I disagreed at the time but that did did not suddenly become the only thing that he had ever said. Nye Bevan is most easily remembered for his "lower than vermin" speech but that does not wipe out the rest of his political career.
Your first paragraph is not answering my point but trying to pretend that you did not the make the error in your previous post that I pointed out. Also you might compare the number of black people murdered by his thugs with the number of whites he has had murdered. Also Mugabe did not empower the blacks - that had already been done before he came to power.
There hasn't been that much of an outcry despite it being the silly season because
"Enoch Powell is synonymous with anti-multiculturalism and anti-immigration in the minds of certainly a few" but only a relatively small minority. A lot of people even on the left have dismissed the rehashing of an old interview in California as an attempt by New Labour spinmasters to distract attention from current news. If a lot of people took your view that just mentioning his name verged on thought-crime then there would have been a lot more fuss which I should have noticed.
Powell did not, in fact, oppose multi-culturalism: if he had opposed multi-culturalism he would have suggested imposing "British culture" - whatever that is - on all immigrants. You might find, if you compared his immigration policies with those of the current Labour government, that his were not, except in respect of continental Europeans, noticeably extreme by current standards.
You may reserve your right to wonder anything you like but to suggest anywhere to anyone in any context that I am aligned with the BNP or bullies is totally unacceptable false and insulting.
To complain, after that, that you felt that my tone was sarcastic is mind-boggling. I felt that I was being admirably restrained. If it's rude to point out errors, tough! Failing to do so can never help anyone.