The gollywog row

The contrast between Carol Thatcher's treatment and that of Jonathan Ross shows the contrast between conventional morality and BBC morality. Conventional morality says that that one should generally be polite and show consideration to others; that, alright, we shouldn't be racist, but let's not force the issue every time; BBC morality says that racism and sexism is unforgivable, even as a joke made off-air, and must be punished unless accompanied by public recantation; in contrast, as far at our national broadcaster is concerned, seedy, bullying or boorish behaviour is generally acceptable; and it is an occupational hazard that occasionally presenters go too far – all in the name of edgy, youth-oriented broadcasting.

This goes against Trevor Philips' contention (made on a BBC Radio 4 programme on the subject of political correctness, masquerading as a balanced portrayal) that political correctness is simply about politeness. But we see that most forms of disgraceful behaviour are outside the remit of politically correct policing. The Jade Goody case in Big Brother illustrates the point. The low-level aggression and rudeness that the Shelpa Shetty received was an accepted part of the reality TV experience; but the minute it becomes “racial bullying” - some comments about curry and what Indians do, then Jade Goody became subject to the full weight of moral opprobrium; Channel 4 itself was criticised for going too far and there was talking of stopping the Big Brother show. Jade Goody felt so under pressure that she was forced into a tearful apology and denial that she was a “racist”: what more terrible crime could there be? Celebrities can get indulge in any kind of boorishness and rudeness, but any suggestion of Racism puts you beyond the pale. This goes against Trevor Phillips' contention that being PC was just another form of being polite and treating others well; the very best construction is that it promotes politeness sometimes.

More to the point, politically correct morality is inadequate: the the BBC has given a lot of airtime to various government-sponsored anti-bullying campaigns, yet many of its best-paid employees take part in activities which would be called bullying if they took place in the playground. Making abusive phonecalls to an elderly gentleman about his granddaughter is excused because Ross apologies – but this is beyond apology. The justification made was that Ross is edgy and has a youth appeal: but is this the kind of behaviour we want to be modelling in our schools? A cursory glance at Cbeebies in the afternoon shows that there is a set of assumptions operating there: the presenters act like overgrown children rather than adults, presumably in order to identify with youth; there are no positive authority figures: there is an evil headmaster in one programme, old people are uniformly ridiculous; these negative portrayals seem always to be of white people – no-one from an ethnic minority is shown in this negative light. This manufactures a world-view, based on the assumptions of the left, which our children, in drip-drip fashion imbibe: that authority is bad, the views of the old don't matter, that white people are objects of ridicule, but other racial groups are not, that children need adults to be older children, rather than to model responsible and mature behaviour. The output of the BBC, generally speaking, could not be better calculated to warp the moral sensibilities of the young, and this has been going on for decades.

That there is inconsistency was noted by Evan Davis on the Today programme this morning and it is worth saying why it exists. It seems to be a historical legacy of the 60's cultural revolution, which was characterised by an “anything goes” conception of freedom: standards of politeness and decency were scorned as antiquated, conventional morality; other facets of this revolution in values was a scornful rejection of the family and childrearing, of the traditional roles of fatherhood and motherhood; a caricaturing of western history as irredemiably racist and imperialist. This world view justifies the politically correct laws of sexism and racism, and the restrictions on free speech they impose; but their prescriptiveness is very far from the promise of “anything goes”. One dared not say that immigration was problematic, that women are harmed by abortion, that black people can also be racist, that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by black youths; nor could one point out the civilising achievements of western civilisation or of Christianity. Underlying this censorship is the a world-view where white people oppress other races, men oppress women, the rich oppress the poor; correspondingly the role of enlightened opinion to combat this.

The irony of this is that the new morality is discriminatory, putting some classes of people under suspicion: at the moment Racism is the main crime, so white people are permanently under suspicion, and need to be re-educated or controlled. I remember a famous black anti-racism campaigner of the old school on-air during Question Time a few years ago; he referred to "every jihadist in the corner shops", meaning Muslim shopkeepers; this can clearly be labelled as “racist” in the sense that it characterises all Muslims and is rather crude thinking, given that all Muslims do not support terrorism. There was a perceptible silence, but no-one challenged him, and I have never any controversy arising from it; whether he was quietly removed from the BBC afterwards, I can't say because the BBC has so many channels and outlets. I suspect if he was white, there would have been uproar; but to challenge a black person would undermine the fiction that the crime of Racism is a historically-determined aberration existing only among white people. Carol Thatcher is the ideal sort of person who can be accused of Racism, being white, and, I would add, from a well-to-do, famously conservative background.

Unlike Darby's, Carol Thatcher's misdemeanour was off-air, but the attitudes of the BBC authorities are uncompromising and punitive; an apology is not enough, it must be an unreserved apology. Calling a mixed-race tennis player a gollywog is not particularly funny, but in the context not harmful, being private; but Carol Thatcher apologised for the offence, qualifying the apology by saying it was a joke. This should have been enough, but it was elevated to the level of unacceptable behaviour and an unreserved apology was required. Yes, as some black people have said, gollywog was a term of abuse for black people in the racially charged 1970's; but Carol Thatcher didn't shout Gollywog across the street with the intention of abusing another person. This is equating deliberate bullying containing a threat if violence in the street from a stranger with a casual remark made in a private or semi-private sphere. Carol Thatcher seems to be the perpetrator of a thought crime.
Without knowing the facts of the case, I suspect that Thatcher is the victim of another kind of bullying, the coercive groupthink that can take place in organisations towards anyone who represents a different view of the world, whether political or moral. In this case, it is the groupthink of political correctness where the slightest slip leaves you open to demonisation and ostracisation. Her colleagues, Jo Brand and Adrian Chiles are clearly BBC people and Thatcher seems to have fallen victim to an intolerance to any other standards than that of the group, perhaps to more petty motives such as personal dislike or willingness to ingratiate oneself to the powers that be. It shows how modern-day progressive liberalism exhibits many of the aspects of totalitarian regimes like Communist Russia, except that in our more free and democratic society, they have less power to enforce their views on the population. Nor should one forget the power of the BBC, which dominates broadcasting in this country (87% of the market, according to Robin Aitken); if a journalist or presenter falls foul of BBC moral dictates, their choices in finding another job will be severely limited. The monopoly of the BBC is one of the greatest threats to free speech and democratic politics in Britain.

The importance of maintaining a charitable approach to free speech is vital here. People make mistakes, they cause offence and perhaps need to be challenged. But this heavy treatment is disproportionate; moreover, it is not clear if it really defeats racism or whether it encourages a hypocritical lip-service to the newly enforced morality. Ironically, the fact that it is treated so seriously is tacit admission that the politics of race and ethnicity are very toxic in spite of many years of education about diversity: rather than a happy melting pot, we can use the “gollywog” controversy as evidence that race relations in this country are a tinderbox, where strong prohibitions on free speech are required in order to keep the peace. This is not a good indicator for the prospects for multi-racial Britain in the future. Rather than pretending that we can end racial tension by correcting the errors of the white population and demonising people who make these errors, we should accept that the tensions exist and be more forgiving when people make mistakes. Otherwise we risk creating more resentment than we avoid, and losing our traditions of free speech into the bargain.