Sean Gabb Article on Hate Crime at the BBC

Witch hunts usually run out of steam in one of two circumstances. The first is when the hunters turn on each other. The second is when they make absolute fools of themselves. That has now begun to happen in England.

David Lowe worked for thirty two years as a disk jockey at BBC Radio Devon. He was always popular with his listeners—until recently he committed the ultimate sin.

The Sun Has Got His Hat on was one of the biggest hits of 1932 in England. Released in the middle of the Great Depression, it is a bright and cheerful song. There are two versions available on YouTube. One is by Ambrose and His Orchestra, (embedded below) the other by Henry Hall. On the 27th April this year, Mr. Lowe thought it was worth another hearing, so he played it on air. [More]

18 responses to “Sean Gabb Article on Hate Crime at the BBC

  1. Enoch's Eyebrow

    How is the witch-hunt going to stop when more and more people who benefit from it are entering the country and being born here? The MacPherson Report has acquired the status of holy writ and any mainstream public figure who dared to question the sanctity of Stephen Lawrence would be lucky to escape prosecution. Cultural Marxism is too deeply embedded in public life to be removed without something very drastic happening.

    So it is with Political Correctness. The British and American Ruling Classes are engaged in a Cultural Marxist project of radical change. We are to be made into new peoples…

    No, we are not to be “made” into new peoples. We — the white authochthons — are to be replaced and enslaved. And it is not Muslims or blacks who are running the Slave-State Project. They are merely its tools.

    • Exactly. The real crime is the flooding of the country with immigrants from Africa and Asia. And the main effect of the stifling of free speech is that people are not allowed to speak out against the replacement of Britain’s indigenous population, on pain of arrest and imprisonment. Over the last few decades, they have watched helplessly as their rulers engineered the invasion of their homeland.

      • Enoch's Eyebrow

        Over the last few decades, they have watched helplessly as their rulers engineered the invasion of their homeland.

        And who are our rulers? Not a question Mr Gabb is anxious to explore, because he won’t have a career if he goes too far in exposing the enemies of free speech.

        Here’s proof that the witch-hunt is not going to end:

        However an anti-racism campaigner, Weyman Bennett, of Unite Against Facism, said that Mr Lowe had made a mistake and should not have been forced out.

        He suggested Mr Lowe had been dealt with severely partly because the BBC had decided not to sack Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson, who was recorded mumbling the N-word during filming for his show, and who also apparently used the word “slope” to describe an Asian man.

        “Clarkson uses the N-word and is allowed to cover it up because he’s a very lucrative individual,” he said. “The reason why the BBC is getting into this mess is because it didn’t deal with Clarkson.”

        Mr Bennett said Mr Lowe should have been suspended but added: “I would put him back on air.” Anti-racism campaigner says sacked DJ David Lowe should return on air

        S0, just like Mr Gabb, the Trotskyists in Unite Against Freedom think the B.B.C. went too far. I believe Nick Griffin has described Mr Bennett as an “orc”. See for yourself whether that’s the mot juste:

        Bennett in action

        • We have made our position plain on discussion of your favourite topic. As for your sneers about our “cowardice,” you won’t even tell us your real name.

        • Enoch's Eyebrow

          We have made our position plain on discussion of your favourite topic.

          Yes. You’re “frit”. With good reason. And it’s not my favourite topic: it’s central to the question of liberty, which you are supposed to defend. You’re also supposed to be an expert in free speech, the most important liberty of all. I think you’re an expert in the same sense as Doreen Lawrence is an expert on jurisprudence.

          As for your sneers about our “cowardice,” you won’t even tell us your real name.

          It is possible that I may have first-hand knowledge of what can happen when one offends the group in question. I am not sneering at you, but what I say is obviously striking home. You have good reason for being frightened. When one is not committing genuine crimes, anonymity is perfectly moral in a police state.

          • Anonymity may well be moral in a police state. My present complaint is your hypocrisy. The Blogmaster and I write under our own names. Even assuming we shared your opinions, there would be good reasons for not broadcasting them. Since we do not share your opinions, and do not wish to get into trouble by letting you write about them on this blog, we will ask you once more to shut up about them.

            • Concerned Briton

              Just for the sake of clarification, despite my similar viewpoints (including that regarding the tendency and nature of those who must not be criticised)…I am not masquerading as Enoch’s Eyebrow! I have left the subject alone for a while after last time and the conversation we had over the matter. Cheers!

            • Enoch's Eyebrow

              You do share my opinions. I say it is dangerous to offend a certain group. You say: “[We] do not wish to get into trouble by letting you write about [your opinions] on this blog.” You are frightened of the group in question because it is a) very powerful; b) opposed to free speech about its power. So you simultaneously deny that you’re afraid and ask me to keep quiet for fear of the group. So I ask:

              How on earth can a sincere libertarian express fear about the consequences of free speech without condemning the group responsible for instilling that fear and imposing those consequences?

              I also ask:

              Is it ok for me to quote your good friend Paul Gottfried on the topic?

              This brings me to the heart of my Politically Incorrect argument. Jews in public life and in academe have trouble living in an intellectually open society, because it would allow those whom they fear and/or loathe to be heard in open forums. This is something that Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals seek to avoid at all costs, through “Hate Speech” laws, academic speech codes, and associating dissent with the Holocaust or anti-Semitism.

              A Jewish Conservative Wonders: Is Free Speech Really A Jewish Tradition?

  2. Hugo Miller

    One aspect which seems to get overlooked is why ‘racism’, whatever that may mean (and I genuinely don’t know what it means, any more than do the accusers) is the most heinous offence a person may commit. It’s not as though we have race riots and simmering racial tensions which are waiting to explode into violence with one wrong word.
    In my view there are far worse things one can be accused of than calling somebody a ‘nigger’.

  3. Paul Marks

    Hugo it went beyond even this insanity – the man did not use any word (vulgar or not), he played a song which (without his knowledge) had the vulgar word in it.

    This is not “Political Correctness gone mad” – it is EVIL (not “mad”).

    Indeed the very line “Political Correctness gone mad” is the reason for the gradual defeat of freedom over the last several decades – for it assumes there is a non “mad” version of P.C.

    Actually “Political Correctness” was always evil and MEANT TO BE EVIL.

    It is the creation of the Frankfurt School and, life everything they did, meant to undermine the West.

    Accepting the PRINCIPLE (just arguing over details) was the central error of Western conservatives in relation to freedom of speech.

    And in this country that error was made by Mr Heath (then leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party) as far back as 1965.

    Certainly things have got gradually worse and worse – but once the principle was accepted. of course they have got worse and worse.

  4. Hugo Miller

    Well, I have started a one-man campaign to reclaim the English language. I refer to Negroes as, well Negroes, to homosexuals as homosexuals, to Pakistanis as Pakistanis (rather than ‘Asians’), to Bejing as Peking and Mumbai as Bombay, and to ‘one-parent families’ as unmarried mothers. In short, if you’ll pardon the pun, I always call a spade a spade. No offence is ever intended, and if people choose to get offended that’s their problem as far as I’m concerned.

  5. Indeed Hugo – quite so.

  6. Julie near Chicago

    Hugo, me too! (Actually I haven’t had occasion to refer to Beiping at all lately, but if I did that’s what I’d call it, ’cause that was its name when I was a kid — I think until at least 1957, no matter what WikiFootia says. I suppose that technically, people have the right to call their cities or their country what they please, but I object to changing Koenigsberg to Kaliningrad (if I’ve got that right).

    Be that as it may, I do refer to Negroes as Negroes and homosexuals as homosexuals. It’s true that English is a “living language” and word-usage changes naturally over time; a pity, but it can’t be helped, although we can drag our heels attempting to slow it down. This I do because shifting meanings create problems not only in communication with others but in thinking clearly inside our own heads. However, I draw the line at attempts to force euphemisms onto people, and to the distortion and vandalization of the language, for political purposes.

  7. “Negro” has had a negative connotation for many decades now, and I hardly think that using something less confrontational is a problem. Frankly, to me, using “negro” in common speech would sound as anachronistic as “omnibus” or “wireless”. I sometimes use the latter as a deliberate affectation, but it’s not like that’s offensive to anyone.

    I appreciate that the word “offensive” has been itself expropriated by New Leftists, and gives one the urge to kick against the pricks by using those words that offend. But I was brought up not by PC new leftists, but small “c” conservative parents, who taught me to try to act decently and kindly to people, and not to be prejudiced on the grounds of race, creed, etc. So that’s my rule of thumb.

    Words do change in their connotations. The word “spastic” originally just referred to a certain congenital condition. By the time I was a child, it had acquired a negative usage, especially in the diminutive “spaz”, so it became deprecated. Language does change. “Cunt” was just a word once, which became deprecated except for swearing. I daresay that Hugo isn’t rushing to sling that one around in everyday speech.

    • I agree. Since it causes offence, and has done so in lesser degree for at least the past hundred years, I haven’t used the N-word since I was about ten. This isn’t to say that using it is a crime against humanity, or that it should be airbrushed from past literature. In the same way, no one should ever be prosecuted for using any of the unflattering alternatives to “homosexual,” But I tend either to use that word myself, or to go along “gay,” which should now be considered to have changed its meaning.

  8. Hugo Miller

    “….“Negro” has had a negative connotation for many decades now….”
    I don’t see how. ‘Negro’ is the correct term for, well, for Negro. What alternatives are left? ‘Black’? I remember reading that ‘Black’ was now deemed offensive. By whom I know not. It certainly sounds worse to me than ‘Negro’. If I were a negro I think I’d prefer to be referred to as such rather than as ‘a Black’.
    ” …“Cunt” was just a word once, which became deprecated except for swearing. I daresay that Hugo isn’t rushing to sling that one around in everyday speech….”
    Well yes, but I don’t think it has ever been anything other than a slang term at best, and I doubt whether it has ever been used as anything but an expletive. If I wish to refer to anatomical parts or indeed races I would try to use their correct name.
    ‘Negro’ is exactly that. ‘Cunt’ is not.

  9. Hugo Miller

    Furthermore, is ‘Boy’ now to be a term of abuse? That’s what prejudiced white people used to call their inferiors (i.e.) black people on the street.
    A while ago the accepted phrase was ‘ethnic minority’; now we are told that is somehow offensive and they are henceforth to be referred to as ‘minority ethnic’.
    You know, we have two choices; we can either meekly go along with this codswallop or resist it and take the opprobrium.

  10. Hugo Miller

    Just listening to an internet radio US folk channel – they just introduced a ‘Negro Spiritual’. What should that be? – ‘Black Man Spiritual’ perhaps? Is that ok with everybody?