|
My initial response to Luisa Cripp's
E-mail.
Luisa, on a separate subject but based on
your fear of being thought racist, I have just
been
banned from the Sol Classic Car Club where I have been a member
for about five months, for holding a private conversation with
three others on Tuesday 1 May at monthly social meeting in the restaurant where the club meets
near Fuengirola. One was an invited (by me) guest from another club who was
there to give a talk on registering historic cars in Spain as part of my
talk that I had been invited to give. After the official
meeting and the meal had ended, I
chatted with these three others at the dinner table, as adults do, of my experiences in Africa
and my thoughts which are borne out by what has happened. In
the ensuing conversation, I referred to Zimbabwe, and especially South
Africa where the serious and violent crime now is the worst in the World,
and I am able to discuss such matters with authority as my wife and I
lived there for 25 years. I still have family there (my children)
and I worry for their safety. In fact we took out South African
citizenship and stayed on for five years after the new government came
into power: not the actions of a racist, such was our love for
Africa before the storm. We escaped in 1999.
See history.
___________________________________________________
"Liberty is
meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has
ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the
right which they first of all strike down."
Frederick Douglass,
leading advocate of the anti-slavery movement in the USA in the early 19th
Century.
____________________________________________________
I had friends there who were Black, Indian, Jewish,
Hindu, etc, and for a few months before we escaped, I was Regional Manager
for our area for the Democratic Party, the Opposition Party that was
very anti-Apartheid in the SA
Parliament (Helen Suzman, who is now bemoaning the new South Africa as
well) including through all the years of the Apartheid government.
The discussion was definitely non-racist but obviously contained facts
about my experiences and my opinions to stop the continuing rot there for
which we in Europe will have to pay in the years to come.
Someone at the other end of
the table who either should not have been listening OR
could have asked to join the conversation to give their views, objected
to our conversation saying that they (his wife and he) were "offended"
(they are white) and when I asked why, he described himself as, if I remember
correctly (for I could not foresee what happened later so I took no notes)
he said he was a professor at a British
university whose subject is, if I remember correctly, social sciences. I
asked him if he had ever lived or been to Africa, and he said "No". He
did not indicate that he wished to join the conversation, and he would have
been welcomed. All he wanted to do was merely to stop the
conversation. As
it was a private conversation, I then lowered my voice (as much as one can
in a room with 50 or so others talking), and I finished my points in a few minutes and
went on to another subject.
Two days later I received an E-mail from the
president of the club thanking me for giving the talk on my subject that
night, then tersely telling me that I am banned from going again
and my year's subscription will be returned. Some "un-named members" had
complained about my racist remarks, but no names supplied, as is the usual
way with such un-principled people. I asked for a hearing to discuss the matter,
but was told that "that was that", I had made racist
comments, and in another E-mail that the president sent out to
the other committee members that was copied to me by mistake,
I was referred to by the president, Ian Giles, as a "ranter" and a
"bully" as well as a "racist". I
suggest that the bully here is not myself because natural
justice here has been completely over-ridden. But it appears to
be common now where the PC Brigade override any debates on particular events
but try to just stop them by shouting "racist" to scare people into
being quiet.
It could be said that they are in good
company as Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and the government of South Africa use the
same tactics to kill criticism of the poor government performances and corruption in
those countries. He has called Tony Blair a racist. Surely after ascertaining that I was not
drunk and disorderly, or using bad language (although this appears to be fully
acceptable in modern Britain judging by the TV and some tourists) the matter should have been settled between
the "complainer/s" and myself in an amicable way, if possible. It is
not a club matter to interfere in a private conversation that is not
illegal. In this case there are no written club rules that state what
subjects can be
discussed and I suggest that in an intelligent society, they would be
laughed at by most if there were.
Others on the club committee also did not think in a "just way" and they
appear, in my opinion, to have taken the easy path (the coward's
way?) advocated by the
president of the club, who, with the committee, is supposed to represent
all the members, not just one or two.
And to think that I had just volunteered for
the job of secretary as no one else wanted the job after a few
months of the current one asking for volunteers.
I am obviously not leaving it at that but
will protect the club and the other members who would probably object to
the arbitrary way the "banning" was carried out without their
knowledge. I have contacted one of those involved in our private
conversation, Mauricio Yeo, President of the Clasicos Balcon de Europa, and he was shocked. He is the president of
another classic car club here, but was born here, so has none of the
apparent "hang-ups" that are described in this article
copied from the
UK Daily Mail. But he was born
here though and has not been subjected to the PC claptrap as have
us British.
During a phone call to him, he agreed that in no way did I say
anything that could be described as racist or insulting. The other
two in the conversation, a husband and wife have now returned to Ireland
(I was told by them that they were going that week), but they bought a
copy of my book and carried on chatting amiably for another 15-20 minutes
or more, so I am sure they were not offended.
Hence my point about you fearing
being called racist. Sadly, Luisa, you appear to have
become one of the many who are fearful of being labelled as such by these
"bullies", even though you are not breaking the UK laws which do not
apply here anyway, or broadcasting "hate". You apologised for thinking probably correctly of
the origins of the robbers. Why apologise? You are helping
others not to become victims. You could be described as
suffering from the "PC madness" as many Brits appear to do because they have been
brainwashed by the "PC brigade".
It is George Orwell's 1984 here
already. I believe that many of the "fanatical" members
of the PCB in Britain are well-meaning but are taking the wrong
road to control and solve the problems and the facts bear this opinion
out. Many are protecting the career paths they have made for themselves,
often financed with tax-payer's money. Other citizens push it under the
carpet hoping it will go away but complain in private. Many British
citizens are
voting for the BNP now feeling helpless against the bullying PCB and the
seeming don't care attitude of most others.
Many others lack the moral fibre to object when the PCB go too far.
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."
Thomas Paine. USA
(born in Britain) advocate of “natural justice” and freedom of speech.
Anyway, I have written my piece but it is a
good subject for public discussion or newspaper articles with public
feedback. See the RUTH DUDLEY EDWARDS
column in the Daily Mail reproduced at at - click:
islam mail may07 This lady is obviously
not "bullied" by the PC establishment.
Brian Deller, May 7th 2007
______________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF THE UK RELIGIOUS AND RACE HATE LAW
The new Racial and Religious Hatred Act
has made it an offence to stir up hatred on religious grounds and
amends the law on encouraging racial hatred.
It applies to the display, publication,
broadcast or distribution of words or behaviour that is likely to stir
up religious or racial hatred.
Under previous hate law, Christians and
Muslims did not get protection because they were not considered to
constitute a single ethnic block.
Prosecutors must still prove a
criminal intent behind the words, rather than simply
"recklessness" as the government had originally proposed before the
bill was debated.
But
as the UK High Court decided in the recent failed prosecution case against
Nick Griffin and Mark Collet of the British National Party, it should not be
allowed to stifle honest debate based on facts where they need to be
published to warn the potentially ignorant (this really means people who
have not bothered to check the facts) of what is happening. It
also gives a chance to the tolerant members in society of all races and
religions to do something positive about the radicals by opposing them at
every opportunity. And that is where the problem lies. Most do
not bother because they are wrongly frightened into believing that they are
breaking this law, so they talk amongst themselves only.
And so the problems persist...
The
BNP, which is a legally constituted political party (and I am not a member) exists because of people being afraid to speak their minds in public
and they are worried about the path that the current main parties are
taking. Leadership is needed to make the politicians do what a
sizeable proportion of the British public want for many can see the problems
in the future that the politicians are ignoring. Many people
believe that some newly arrived extremist members of UK society need to
be deported back to countries where their brand of hate is accepted.
And this should be encouraged by members of the same faith who are rightly
very concerned about the backlash these radicals are causing against their
religion. And most important, the situation must be discussed in
public, not forced into back rooms where seriously violent actions could be
planned by increasingly desperate people. That is what open democracy
and freedom of expression is all about.
And many of the "PC Brigade" are
part of the problem by refusing to accept these debates for fear of
offending others or to ensure that their views are mostly illegally held
(obeyed?) above all others.
BULLIES INDEED!
_______________________________________________________________________________
"Your Comment"
Column printed in the Costa Del Sol News, 24 May 2007 |