Kilroy was 'ere... unfortunately

The Kilroy incident got me to thinking about discrimination.

That was once I'd got past the freedom of speech issues. If you truly believe in free speech, you must support the right of all to speak freely. I don't believe a person should be punished for speaking their mind--not even if they do it in the Express. The BBC represents a soft-left orthodoxy that mistakes its version of morality and how the world should be with an objective truth, and is not careful enough to be clear that it is not. It also ignores the importance of realising that most of the people it serves--us--do not agree with them (well, I do, as it happens, on this and many other issues, but I'm not most of the country).

If my managers sacked me for having views that they do not like, I think I would feel aggrieved. If they victimised me to stifle dissent, I would feel doubly so. Kilroy is a dissenting voice from the orthodoxy. An unpleasant one, for sure, but still, should he not be allowed to bray his nonsense anyway? Why should he be censored by his employers?

As for Trevor Phillips and the Commission for Racial Equality, they do a fine job of proving that they are a waste of time. This country has plenty of serious problems, plenty of racial tensions that need the attention of the CRE. For sure, Kilroy hasn't lessened those tensions any, but he is not inciting racial hatred. Trevor Phillips is the definition of a waste of time, though. He's doubtless not the Uncle Tom he's often painted (is there something actually wrong with succeeding in a white man's world? Is that not how we will eventually change it to something a bit less white and a bit less male -- by encouraging routes to success for all?), but race aside, he's a slimy fucker with a bent for self-publicity that even Kilroy would struggle to match.

Kilroy has not in my view been taken to task for the right thing. He's castigated for discriminating, but actually he has not been discriminating enough. I think it's fine to discriminate, in some circumstances. For instance, trivially, I will only have sex with Mrs Zen. I distinguish Mrs Zen from the rest of the human race as a sexual partner. Actually, if I did cheat with Mrs Zen, it would probably only be with an attractive woman (hey girls! don't sulk, attractive is a very broad concept -- I've blogged about that!). So I discriminate against not attractive women, all men, and beasts.

Thinking about Kilroy brought me to thinking about racial profiling, and in particular, stopping and searching swarthy types who you suspect of being terrorists (not that all would-be terrorists are swarthy; nor are all Arabs swarthy -- I'm not saying they are, but I am saying that was the kind of assumption this type of profiling was based on; nor is there anything wrong with being swarthy -- I'm pretty swarthy myself).

Consider this [cue implausible scenario of the kind much loved in moral theory pieces]:

1. If there were a disease that caused all redheaded men to attack and kill their neighbours every full moon, would the government be justified in a policy to intern redheaded men each full moon?

It seems to me that the government must weigh up the harm done by pursuing the policy against the harm done if they do not. In this case, I think there is an easy case to make for the internment. One of the government's prime responsibilities is to protect its citizens (from one another if needs be--hence the police). The redheaded men lose some liberty but their neighbours gain by not being killed. But consider:

2. If there were a disease that caused some redheaded men -- quite randomly -- to attack and kill their neighbours every full moon, would the government be justified in a policy to intern redheaded men each full moon?

It's more difficult. The government still has the responsibility to protect its people. There is a gain for some neighbours. And the policy for scenario (1) holds for some of the redheaded men, although we do not know which.

This, I think, is a fuzzy moral problem. If we substituted this:

3. If there were a disease that caused some redheaded men -- quite randomly -- to attack and rob their neighbours every full moon, would the government be justified in a policy to intern redheaded men each full moon?

it becomes much more difficult. We would need to ask how many neighbours are harmed and how badly. How much harm must we spare the neighbours to justify the harm of interning all the redheads -- who it must be remembered have done nothing wrong.

(At this point, it should be clear that whatever else can be said about the merits of Kilroy's argument, he has foolishly described all redheads as being murderers when what he has is something like scenario (3).)

The problem would be compounded if it were not easy to define what exactly counted as being redheaded. It's just a label, after all. What if some of the would-be internees claimed they had dyed their hair?

What if some of the people who had dyed their hair joined the redheads in murdering their neighbours each full moon?

How much more complicated is the policy to make if it is clear that the redheads are not the only people who rob their neighbours?

Some answer that we should not intern the redheads on any account because this infringes their human rights. But human rights don't drop from the heavens. You only have what rights you are afforded. And their loss is only one harm that can be done to you, which can be measured against others. In scenario (1), the clear infringement of human rights is to my mind completely justified. If you know there will be harm, should you not prevent it? The harm is even widespread enough that I think the government could justify interning all redheaded men, even those who claimed they had dyed their hair. (Could it justify interning those it suspected of having red hair? Maybe not. Could it justify asking its citizens to prove their hair colour by dropping their daks or providing a sample for testing?)

So, what am I saying about the Islamists and their struggle with the American West (I think we might more accurately call bin Laden's followers Qutbists because there are many who could be called "Islamist" whose goals and aims are not anything similar to those of Qutb-- but see this too. If you visited the first link in this par, you will have noted that Salafis are one group who very much don't)? I am saying that our disagreement over their discriminatory policies are, or ought to be, disagreements over too broad a discrimination. We know that there are people who will harm their citizens if they can (and we can leave aside the whys and wherefores -- what policy the US should pursue in this area is not really affected by whether it's its own fault that it has a problem, although it would be true to say that there are other means to lessen the problem that it should also pursue). They cannot easily be distinguished. Not only are Arabs not as distinct as redheads but not all of our potential killers are Arabs. There is nothing whatsoever to distinguish a Muslim, except that it's rare that they should be white Westerners. If we fed them into our template moral problem, we quickly realise that we need a new scenario: at the time in question, some non-redheads will kill some of their neighbours (the disease that causes the killing, we realise, is not really all that important -- it can be envy, if you like, or US foreign policy, or rabies, whatever). We do not know the time in question (it's not as clearcut as on one day a month).

Some Arabs are limb-lopping lunatics. Sure they are. But Kilroy could not have made a newspaper column out of writing that there are a few badboy redheads out there. He needs to smear the whole russet crowd. I daresay that even a rampant racist buffoon like Kilroy knows that his words don't apply to Arabs on the whole (although you do wonder -- there really are people in this world who say all redheads smell funny or that all redheads will rape our womenfolk if we don't watch them carefully -- and Kilroy does have form -- he's made anti-Muslim comments before in his column, and was famously rude about the Irish). But newspaper columns are not forums for fine discrimination. They are for the sweeping statement.

What should be done with him? Nothing. He certainly should not be jailed for speaking his mind. I'd like to whip Trevor Phillips like a dog for suggesting that there is anything criminal in it. I realise I am inciting Phillips hatred (well, mild distaste, but those CRE guys prefer the exaggeration to telling it how it is) but “I have to say, if it’s deemed not to be a breach of the laws on racial hatred, we will have to have a pretty good look at those laws.” deserves him a flogging. Does he really think that having a distaste for other races itself should be criminalised? Fuck me, you'd have to imprison most of the country! Does he think that expressing that distaste so emboldens the racists among us that we should curtail the right to free speech? (As if neo-Nazis go out on the ratonnade because an orange-faced guy off morning telly gets ugly about Arabs!) Jaysus, where would it end? If we're right, Trevor, we're right. We write our own columns and we point out why Kilroy is wrong. We don't win by making ever more repressive laws to silence those we disagree with.

And he should not lose his show. He didn't express the opinion on his show. He does not have his fame because of his show (he was given the show because he is a well-known controversialist), so it is not really even right to say he is using the platform it has provided to pursue some ugly ends. He is not the only racist with a show on the Beeb (Jim Davidson wouldn't have a career if racists couldn't get hired for TV). This is how it should work. The show continues. The viewers express their displeasure because of this column. He loses the show because it doesn't achieve the required ratings.

posted by Dr Zen @ 6:43 am