Sorry for the tabloid style headline, but I don't know how you would explain Patrick Mercer's outburst in a polite way.
If you don't already know, Patrick mercer, who was Conservative "Homeland Security" person on the Tory front bench has been forced to resign after stating that calling someone a "black bastard" was normal language in the Army.
Read the full BBC report which goes in to all the gory details.
In mitigation to the Conservative Party, at least he was asked immediately to resign his position from the Tory front bench, but equally, it is disturbing that senior Tories can still think this way and perhaps shows that changing the Conservative Party is a lot more problematic that changing the party logo.
I wonder what language we should all use towards Mr Mercer from now on ? "Evil Tory git" ?
17 comments:
For new(ish) and genuinely moderate centre-right party members stories like this are incredibly dispiriting.
The man is a complete embarrassment and the only solace to be had is in Cameron's immediate & forthright denunciation.
And yes, it is illustrative of the size of the job Cameron has on his hands.
I fail to see what the fuss is with respect to his statement.
He stated something which is probably a fact. That is no resigning offense.
What was possibly more serious was the way he said some black soldiers use racial abuse as an excuse for things - but undoubtedly that happens too, his wording however could be taken as saying black soldiers are all lazy, but that is stretching it a bit.
How is it disturbing that tories think this way? He is just saying what his experiences were. Have you been in the military? If so can you say that he is wrong and black people are not called black bastards?
This is one of the big problems I have in bringing myself to actually support the Conservatives. They appear nice and polite on the outside but then suddenly sinister and vicious on the inside. Demanding the right to say anything they like and if you are genuinely offended, that is YOUR problem. The trouble is THEIR problem is that my pencil keeps moving away from the official Conservative candidate on the ballot paper. As it has done since the mid 1990s. Saying that, I was quite impressed by David Cameron's response to this. Strong, proper and moral - makes a change for the Tories.
So is recounting the truth a sack-able offence in 2007?
It's worth noting that "you don't know me" is a BNP activist.
I'm sure Nich will add his thoughts but can I just clarify this 'he was just stating fact' nonsense?
He's a senior front-bench politician who suggested racism was part of army life and of no more consequence the remarking on the colour of someone's hair. That show an almost unbelievable lack of understanding for the impact racism has on it's victims. The fact that nowhere in the interview did he seek to condemn this behaviour is the issue.
He hasn't been forced to resign for telling the truth - he's been forced to resign for excusing racist behaviour.
Liam, I agree 100%.
Mercer's views were like saying "I used to be bullied at school and it never did me any harm".
Also his almost blanket comments aobut black soldiers being lazy was ill thought out.
I can't help feeling sorry for him, but Cameron was wise to act swiftly.
Neil, Liam,
I am glad you are both Conservatives. We need as mnay supporters as we can get.
Do though read what Mercer said. he did not say he wanted racism in the army, he was recounting what life was like when he was in the army.
His words were ill-judged and for that alone I agree with Cameron that he had to go. Where you both need to concentrate on is what he said, not what the left have mis-quoted him as saying.
YDKM has a point here. Is it wrong to tell the truth if that is unpalatable? I have some military experience and what he said chimes with me. Go look on the army post boards and see what they think of him there. Ignore what the journo's out for a story and a troy scalp want you to think.
To say there is a nasty undercurrent of racism in the Tory party is just unbelievable based on what mercer said.
'City' - I am concentrating on what he said and explicitly on what he chose not to say - his reluctance / refusal to condemn racism is what's at stake.
That is my point, you are following the agenda set by the left. he did not condone racism; he said it was prevalent.
He did, however, use a blamket statement about black soldiers which virtually described them all as lazy and quick to cry "racist".
Perhaps Patrick mercer ought to remember who the most decorated soldier was in the Iraq War.
Hello there The City Unslicker. I wouldn't say I was a Conservative as such, more a conservative with a small 'c'. I will admit to you I have deep conservative instincts, but don't necessarily agree with some aspects of the modern Conservative positioning. They are still a bit too Thatcher crackers. A great shame really. For my heart is so conservative, yet my brain keeps on telling me otherwise - especially over these past fifteen years.
Having served in the Army myself I did concentrate on what Mercer said - and it disturbed me even more. Just because "something goes on" it doesn't mean it is right or should "continue to go on". Would you apply this bizarre principle to murder, rape or child abuse?
During my time as an Officer I never just believed in the Army. I believed in a decent and respectable Army too. As a leader of men it is so important to lead by an example and to show them (often the poorly brought up) the way to behave - in all situations. Mercer fails on this basic qualification. For an Army can only respect others if it is an Army that fully respects itself. Has it occurred to you that some of the problems the Army has had in Iraq (allegations of prisoner abuse) stem from this whole idea that something is right and correct because "it goes on"? If not, it certainly occurred to me.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying what Mercer says doesn't go on - it does. Yet as a leader (even more so in politics) you have to be above it. You set the standards, not follow them. You lead like a beacon, not blow out like a matchstick. For there are plenty of ways to instil discipline - and racist abuse ain't one of them. Be assured. I know. I made sure it didn't happen on my watch - however "freakish", "killjoy" or "peculiar" that made me. For I couldn't care less. I couldn't give a fig.
You say it is unbelievable to suggest that there is a nasty undercurrent of racism in the Tory party. I don't know. The Conservatives are very good at behaving themselves when they are desperate to get their hands on power. When elected - then we see. For the jury is still out. Yet you have to admit that some members of the Conservatives are a bit odd in their views and ideas of the world. Anyway, in brief - Mercer was very wrong because he didn't condemn racism. On the contrary he appeared to almost justify it. Even worse in my book.
Neil, thank you for your well written response.
Was Mercer asked to condemn racism? i don't think he was. He was asked if it was prevalent. this was a very cleve journo leading on a somewhat niiave MP.
You are quite right to say that becuase something goes on that does not make it acceptable. However, to deny its existence is also no way to get things changed. Your way was perhaps the most diffuclt and most impressive choice.
it is easy to say people are racist as it is such a catch-all term. Tories are accused all the time and no doubt occasionally some are being racist. However, this is not the spirit of the party and those who are caught are expelled and always have been.
As an example of where it is right to raise an issue I cite immigration. The Tories, precisently, fought and lost 2 elections telling everyone that the excessive immigration would cause problems for social cohesion and in the finances of our country. they were called racist and duly lost. 8 years later and now the Labour Government is more right-wing and racist in its approach to immigrants than the Tories ever were in office.
Think about this the next time left -leaning journo's and politico's play the race card.
Mercer's views were like saying "I used to be bullied at school and it never did me any harm".
Thanks for that clarification, agree with that 100%.
I have great trouble with the idea being put around that abuse based on non-racial attributes is somehow not as bad. Tristran sums it up beautifully, there was no "most black soldiers were lazy" comment, and any attempt to say otherwise is deeply dishonest.
Mercers comment seems to be that racism is OK because discipline in the army is maintained by systematic victimisation, and because there is (in his eyes) no discrimination over who gets victimised, it's all fine and dandy. No! Not one bit!
I don't however buy the idea that gingers get more ginger abuse than blacks get racial abuse.
If you hadn't quite grasped the scale of the Tory surrender to the forced of militant far-left political correctness, then I'm quite sure you have now.
Outrageous.
Post a Comment