This blog has now closed. Please visit my new blog, Stepreo.

Archive: racism

Scotland’s well-behaved nationalists

12 June 2009 16:02

Categories: *, Current affairs, Politics, Scotland

One thing that really stuck me about the leaflets from Ukip and the BNP for the recent European Parliamentary election was the fact that they were stuffed full of cheesy patriotic symbols — Union Flags, Spitfires, Winston Churchills and so on. Any electorate in the world will have a certain contingent who are enticed by nationalistic rhetoric at the expense of good policies.

In England, Ukip and the BNP have cornered this market pretty well, with the English Democrats also doing a good job of it. One thing that these three parties have in common — aside from their narrow nationalism — is the fact that they are all pretty vile.

Here in Scotland the nationalist vote is completely mopped up by the SNP. We all know that the SNP uses national symbols which appeal to base instincts which may entice certain types of voters. This gets up some people’s noses, including mine.

But the SNP have done a grand job by keeping a lid on the nastier side of nationalism. For this we can be thankful. All though there is, without a doubt, a nastier side to some of their supporters — as we have seen with the Cybernats — you won’t find these types of views coming from the mainstream of the party.

Indeed, the party is at pains to promote a progressive type of nationalism. They embrace civic nationalism. They reject ideas of Scottishness defined in terms of ethnicity. They avoid anti-English approaches. And we can be especially thankful that violent methods do not form part of the nationalist agenda in Scotland.

This is combined with progressive policies, including an enlightened approach to immigration and a positive agenda towards Europe. While in many other parts of the world nationalism may be equated with right-wing or fascist concepts, the SNP combine a nationalist ideology with a broadly centrist agenda.

Whatever the motives of the voters, the SNP’s form of nationalism is a great deal more tolerant — and tolerable — than the forms of nationalism we see from the likes of Ukip, the BNP, the French National Front, the Movement for a Better Hungary, or any number of extreme parties across the world.

Richard Thomson recently described the SNP as being part of “unquestionably the best behaved nationalist movement in the world”. Looking at the European election results and seeing where nationalist votes seem to go, it’s easy to agree with him.

25 comments

Aftermath of the European Parliamentary election

10 June 2009 01:05

Categories: Current affairs, Make My Vote Count, Politics

The Europe-wide picture

The consensus seems to be that, Europe-wide, it was a good election for the centre-right. It certainly seems as though the governing centre-left parties have taken a bit of a battering, while voters seem content with centre-right governments.

Those of a socialist persuasion may well feel disgruntled. In the midst of an economic crisis which they say was caused by the excesses of capitalism, voters seem to have lost faith in socialist parties’ ability to deal with it. The far left also took a knock. On the other hand, the Green grouping is the one grouping (aside from non-aligned) to have increased its representation in the European Parliament.

Interestingly, despite the fact that apathy was the clear winner of the election across the EU, the main Eurosceptic grouping was almost totally wiped off the map, with the exception of Ukip. Perhaps domestic issues are the cause of this. But if 2004 was the breakthrough year for Eurosceptic parties (which led to the formation of the Independence / Democracy group), 2009 was the bump back to earth. As thing stand (and no doubt they will try to woo more MEPs on board), Ukip alone now account for almost two thirds of the grouping.

The main UK parties

The UK-only picture was rosier for Ukip, but only slightly. This year will be remembered for the fact that they finished 2nd ahead of Labour. But they would be deluding themselves if they believed this was because of a rise in support. Their increase in the share of the vote was a pretty titchy 0.3 percentage points. Indeed, they gained fewer votes than in 2004, and got just one extra MEP despite the huge collapse in trust of the major Westminster parties.

In a lot of ways, the UK picture as a whole is surprisingly static. Yes, there was a massive drop in support for Labour. But none of the major parties were in a position to capitalise, so everyone apart from Labour just shuffled up a bit. In the circumstances, the Conservatives ought to be pretty miffed that they lost votes and increased their vote share by just 1 percentage point. It doesn’t exactly look like a party with the momentum to take a Westminster landslide.

The Lib Dems, who arguably weren’t hurt nearly as much as Labour and the Tories by the expenses scandal, managed to reduce their share of the vote, which almost no other party did. Of course Labour’s share decreased. Plaid Cymru’s UK-wide share decreased, but their Wales-only share went up. The only other party to reduce its share of the vote was the Scottish Socialist Party, which has cemented its place in history by being consigned to it.

The BNP

The BNP made a different kind of history by winning two seats, which became the story of the election. It was probably inevitable that people would “blame” proportional representation for this. But the simple fact is that PR doesn’t vote fascists in — fascist voters do.

6.8% is not an inconsiderable share. Almost a million voters decided to put their cross next to the BNP on the ballot paper, and they didn’t do so by accident. Gerrymandering them out of existence will only exacerbate the problem.

That’s not to say that the closed party list system used for European Elections isn’t flawed, because it is — deeply so. But the corrupt First Past the Post system would only further increase the anger that people feel at being disenfranchised by the political system.

In a lot of ways, the BNP’s “success” is pretty unremarkable. In 2004 they were the sixth most successful party. This year, they were still the sixth most successful party. In the region where Nick Griffin won his seat, the North West, the BNP actually got fewer votes than in 2004.

The BNP only got seats because Labour’s collapse was so dramatic, and those former Labour votes went to a large variety of smaller parties. 11.3% of votes went to parties that weren’t among the top eight, compared to 8.3% that went to other parties in 2004 (and that was in the days of a relatively strong Respect party).

The BNP didn’t gain seats because they caught up with those in front. They gained seats because others joined the queue behind them. Despite still having five people in front of them, the BNP effectively moved closer to the front in relation to the entire queue — just because more people joined behind them.

Nonetheless, any attempts to ignore or belittle the BNP’s success, or to gerrymander it away, should be condemned. It is important to understand why people would come to vote for a fascist party, because that is the best way of defeating the ideology.

Luckily, YouGov have done a good job at finding out (more detail here). And — surprise surprise — it seems that BNP voters are mostly racist. That rather undermines the idea that people voted for the BNP just as a protest vote. With so many potential protest parties, why choose BNP? I guess they were at the top of many ballot papers, but that oughtn’t gain them so many votes. No, people vote for the BNP mostly because they are racists.

In difficult economic circumstances, people often turn to fascism. It is totally misguided to do so though. One potential plus side of the BNP gaining a couple of MEPs is the fact that the spotlight will now be shone on them, and people will see just how rotten their ideology is.

I will look at the Scottish results in a separate article

2 comments

Did Bernie Ecclestone condone racism?

10 November 2008 02:33

Categories: Opinion

I didn’t have the time to blog about it when the story originally blew up, but I have a few thoughts on the issue. Late last week Bernie Ecclestone gave an interview to BBC Radio 5 Live where he made comments that were interpreted by some as condoning racist behaviour in the grandstands at Formula 1 circuits.

I actually heard a little bit of that interview when it was originally broadcast, and I heard the controversial comments. I was initially surprised, because I saw how the comments would be interpreted by many. I was just surprised because I would have thought Bernie Ecclestone was savvy enough not to give an ambiguous answer to such a question. Sure enough, it became a bigger news story.

But while the comments were unfortunate, I don’t think they really deserved the reaction they got from some quarters. Ex-footballer Paul Elliot, speaking on behalf of Football Against Racism in Europe, even called on Ecclestone to resign.

This is a completely over-the-top reaction. I understood the nature of what Ecclestone was trying to say, even if he didn’t manage to articulate it very clearly on breakfast radio.

Formula 1 has only ever had one publicised incident of racial abuse, when a small clutch of Spanish spectators blacked up at a Barcelona test session before the 2008 season started. The pictures at were shocking, and I criticised the participants at the time.

However, in the discussions that ensued it became clear that many Spaniards were perplexed at the shocked reaction from Brits. I doubt that this is because Spain has a problem with racism. That was despite what some in the media tried to make out, without a hint of irony of course (read Richard Herring for a good take on this). It seems as though blacking up simply does not have the same connotations in Spain as it does in places like the UK and the USA. (And let us not forget, too, that it was only a few short decades ago that blacking up was totally acceptable in the UK.)

That is not to excuse the behaviour. We all must be sensitive to other cultures, and all decent people should take great care not to offend others’ sensibilities. Clearly, a widespread interpretation of the behaviour of those people at the Barcelona test was that it was racial abuse. Indeed, that was my interpretation of it, even if it was not the intention of them to cause offence.

The fact that it is not obvious that the people deliberately set out to cause offence is, I believe, the origin of Bernie Ecclestone’s comment that it was a “joke”. I noticed many Spaniards saying that it was something to do with a carnival which involves dressing up, and I saw at least one person saying it was intended as a friendly gesture towards Lewis Hamilton rather than a malicious one.

The wonderful thing about improved communications and increasing globalisation is that we can more easily learn about other cultures. In that regard, it is notable that there has not been a repeat performance of the behaviour from Spanish supporters. There were two grands prix in Spain this year which, as far as I am aware, went off without any hint of trouble.

There was some booing in Brazil which Anthony Hamilton criticised live on ITV. I did not spot Anthony Hamilton implying that the booing was of a racial nature, although he may have thought that. It was certainly the spin that some in the media attempted to apply to the booing. But I saw absolutely no evidence that the booing was of an abusive or racial nature, and most accept that. In sport, you will have a partisan crowd, and this is understandable and should not be criticised.

Following on from the reporting of Ecclestone’s comments, news bulletins spoke of Lewis Hamilton “hitting back” and “blasting” Ecclestone’s stance. Going by the reports, you would have thought Hamilton had been mortally offended. In fact, Hamilton’s comments were quite measured:

I didn’t see it as a joke. It’s something that happened but it is in the past.

What’s more important to me is that I had a lot of support, especially from UK fans. As long as I have my country behind me, it makes me very proud. I’m proud to see my fellow countrymen holding up the flag. All the other stuff I need to put behind me.

I don’t generally keep up with what’s being said and I haven’t read what Bernie said. I know Bernie and have a huge amount of respect for him. I can only assume he said positive things.

It is unfortunate that Britain’s excitable media has distorted the reporting of this issue so much that I know of at least one person who was under the impression that Hamilton was subject to a barrage of abuse across all three days of the Spanish Grand Prix, which is not the case at all. The fact is that a small group of people did a stupid thing which was a one-off incident at a test session. In fact, the very reason it was so shocking is because it was so unknown in Formula 1.

Formula 1 can be proud of the fact that racism is as small a problem as it is. That is certainly a lot more than can be said for certain other sports. Barely a month goes by without reports of racial abuse at a football match, sometimes even coming from the players themselves. In comparison to the world’s most popular sport, Formula 1 is highly civilised.

David Coulthard is absolutely right in his comments supporting Bernie Ecclestone:

It is trying to be built into something much bigger than it is. What happened in Spain because of those four guys, I’m sorry, but it hardly represents a nation of racists.

I’ve seen some people having a pop at Bernie for trying to play it down, but what would you expect him to do? He is the ringmaster, the guy that has created this amazing foundation of business success that enables all of us to earn our pennies.

We’re all talking about Lewis being the first billion dollar sportsman, well that is on the foundations of what Bernie has created. To turn round and try to get Bernie to offer an apology to Lewis is just ridiculous.

F1 may have many failings, but it does not come close to the racism you see in people’s first love, and that’s football.

Ecclestone’s claim that he pulled the South African Grand Prix in 1985 because of apartheid may be spurious. But it is worth remembering that Bernie Ecclestone played a pivotal role in Formula 1 having its first black driver.

No, not Lewis Hamilton as the media may sometimes have you believe, but Willy T. Ribbs. The then-Nascar driver was given a test at Ecclestone-owned Brabham. Ribbs became the first black person to drive an F1 car, and although it was only a test and not a race drive, it hardly represents the actions of someone who would condone racism. For that reason alone, the calls for Bernie Ecclestone to resign are wide of the mark.

The media seriously needs to calm itself down over the colour of Lewis Hamilton’s skin. The civil rights activist Martin Luther King dreamt of a time when people “will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.” I agree, and that is why I find the obsession surrounding Hamilton’s colour so distasteful.

It is true that Lewis Hamilton has achieved amazing things, and he has undoubtedly broken barriers by becoming the first black race driver in Formula 1. But time and again the media keeps on making comparisons with people like Tiger Woods and even Barack Obama. And while I am not in the best position to judge, in my view, that is just crass.

Lewis Hamilton is not “Lewis Hamilton black man”, “Lewis Hamilton mixed race man” or “Britain’s Lewis Hamilton”. He is “Lewis Hamilton racing driver”. My understanding is that Hamilton sees himself as a racing driver who happens to be black rather than a black racing driver. This report on the celebratory McLaren press conference very much suggests that:

Questions included his thoughts on Barack Obama’s victory in the US presidential election that very morning and how he feels about his position as a black role model. Hamilton shifted uneasily in his seat and swerved around the ‘race’ question as best he could. He just sees himself as a racing driver, nothing more, nothing less.

I very much think it’s time to get over Lewis Hamilton’s skin colour. That goes for anyone who may racially abuse him, but it also goes for the media which constantly makes his colour the story. His colour was notable at first, but now it is not the story. His driving is.

4 comments

Insight into Republican America

11 October 2008 16:42

Categories: Current affairs, Politics

This is an interesting video of some happenings at a Republican rally yesterday.

It’s difficult to tell exactly what John McCain’s strategy is now. Just a few days ago Barack Obama was just “that one” to Mr McCain. Now the Republican nominee seems to be going well out of his way to be polite about Mr Obama to the point that he is getting booed for it by a Republican crowd. I guess McCain just doesn’t know whether to lay into Obama or start appearing to be more bipartisan. Maybe it is desperation and he just doesn’t know what to do now.

Anyway, what interests me most about the video is the little chat at the end with a woman who says she can’t trust Obama because he’s an Arab. The all-new fluffy McCain must have wanted to floor to eat him up at that moment. McCain’s retort is, “No ma’am. He’s a decent family man who I just happen to have disagreements with.”

There is the factual inaccuracy of the woman’s beliefs about Obama’s background, which is what McCain decided to pick apart. But there is also the sheer naked racism of it.

Something great is happening with this US Presidential election. The USA will soon have either a non-white President or a female Vice-President. Whichever, it is a great stride ahead for America. Brits can sometimes be quite smug about this sort of thing when it comes to comparing Britain to America. But you have to say that the chances of America having a non-white President sometime soon is much greater than the chances of Britain having a non-white Prime Minister.

But it looks like they will still have a long way to go until they can elect an Arab.

6 comments

A breath of fresh air from F1 Racing

22 February 2008 15:02

Categories: Blogging, Current affairs, Formula 1, Internet, Media, Newspapers, Radio, Sport, Technology, Television

I’m taking a brief break from my break because I think I can afford to now.

When I last wrote about the racism issue in F1, it was to bemoan the media’s role in fuelling the fire. If you have been reading for a while you might know of the distaste I have for some of the coverage found in F1 Racing over the past year or so.

I am not the only person to have noticed a decline in the standard of the journalism in F1 Racing. For instance, Clive has spoken about “the abandonment by the magazines of the high ground.” Alvin in the comments here has said he is currently boycotting F1 Racing.

Craig at craigblog has posted at least twice on the subject of cancelling his subscription to F1 Racing. And there are a few people in the comments saying the same thing time and again — “I have been buying F1 Racing for around ten years, but now I have to stop”.

Speaking as someone who is sitting just yards in front of a huge pile of eleven years’ worth of issues of F1 Racing, I have to say I am in the same position. This is not the result of some kind of mass internet campaign against the magazine. But I can’t help but notice for a lot of people that at some point in the past year came a few straws that broke some camels’ backs.

One particularly low point came when the editor Matt Bishop wrote a poisonous piece about Ralf Schumacher. It was little more than an excuse for “The Bish” (as no-one but Mr Bishop himself calls him) to use up four or five pages to explain how he told Ralf Schumacher to “off you fuck!”

Now, Ralf Schumacher was not the most popular driver in the paddock and you would struggle to find many fans of his. But for me, Matt Bishop’s piece was highly unprofessional, particularly for an editor as experienced as him. It was just so childish. “Ooh! Look at me! I told Ralf Schumacher to fuck off!” It’s like a small child saying, “Hahaha! I called the teacher a fanny!”

Last year there was also a heavy dose of unbearable Hamilton hype (or should that be “Lewis hype”, seeing as the whole British media is apparently on first name terms with him?). Then of course there is the fact that it is much more convenient and quicker to get all of the news on the internet rather than waiting every month for a dead tree to pop through the letter box. By the end of last year, it is fair to say that quite a lot of us were bashing The Bish.

And then The Bish left. In retrospect, that is probably why he felt free to write that terrible Ralf Schumacher article. His new job is as an apologist for Lewis Hamilton–no change there then.

But it begged the question–would F1 Racing improve again with someone else at the helm? The first couple of issues sans-Bish did not promise much. But what a pleasant surprise I had when I read this month’s editorial, written by the magazine’s deputy editor Stuart Codling.

I sorely want to quote it in full, but out of respect for the publishers I will summarise it. Mr Codling writes about how the phone was ringing off the hook after the racism story broke as radio producers went on the hunt for “experts” (those are Stuart Codling’s scare quotes, not mine). He writes about this poisonous era of 24 hour radio and television which is making coverage of anything increasingly confrontational and shrill. “Complex issues become a shouty amalgam of ‘Us’ vs Them’.”

He continues, racism does not solely exist in Spain. The aggravation that Lewis Hamilton faced was as a result of his rivalry with Fernando Alonso. As I wrote a couple of weeks back, we all know that the racists would be out in force no matter what country was involved, and British people especially are not in a position to lecture others countries on how their sport fans should behave.

Mr Codling’s next sentence is such a breath of fresh air–it actually felt like a relief to read it.

But who stoked up this grudge that has so publicly become a vehicle for xenophobia and racism? Well, we all did — both writers and readers, supply and demand.

He goes on to bemoan the goading that Alonso received from a British press eager to get an anti-Hamilton comment from the Spaniard. It has to be said, that Alonso’s behaviour in the media has been absolutely faultless, and you seldom hear him commenting on Hamilton in negative terms, and certainly not on anything other than his on-track actions. This is certainly a great deal more than can be said for Lewis Hamilton, who cannot seem to resist constantly making snide comments about Alonso.

Stuart Codling clearly has his head screwed on. He has a sense of morals, unlike most in the media. The way his editorial ends basically sums it up. Hearing that Mr Codling speaks with a modicum of balance, the radio producer ended the call “to find someone ‘better’.”

Three cheers for Stuart Codling. His behaviour was certainly much better than that of Matt Bishop. Mr Bishop had no qualms appearing on Radio 5 Live to say one of the most ridiculously overblown things I have ever heard someone say about Formula 1:

Lewis Hamilton is in the same chapter only as Juan Manuel Fangio, Jim Clark, Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher. And that’s it.

This was made after Lewis Hamilton had completed his third race. No-one has a career after three races. Not even Michael Schumacher was Michael Schumacher after his third race. To compare Lewis Hamilton with names like Ayrton Senna after just three races does justice neither to Hamilton’s talent nor Senna’s legacy. If that needs explaining, as it did for one commenter* on this blog, please read this.

So I will not be cancelling my subscription to F1 Racing just yet. Unfortunately, this month’s issue is the last of Stuart Codling’s short tenure at the helm of the magazine as Matt Bishop’s replacement has been hired. For those who are worried about the increasing tabloidisation of F1 Racing it could be bad news. The new editor is Hans Seeberg. Is that the same Hans Seeberg who has recently been deputy editor of Nuts And / Or Zoo Magazine? Oh dear…

*Quite ironic when you look back on that actually. Lawrence says that Hamilton deserves comparisons to Fangio and Senna on the basis of his drive in Fuji. Hamilton was later to be investigated for dangerously bad driving during that grand prix.

9 comments

doctorvee