But I’m led to comment because I’m not happy about some of the responses to this appalling case.

One species comes from racists like the BNP who have – largely unsuccessfully, I’m happy to say – been trying to stir up trouble in Pollokshields on the back of this crime.  They are beneath contempt; this can’t be said often enough.

But while obviously not of the same nature, neither can I agree with those who seem to be collapsing the racist nature of this murder into a general analysis of Glasgow’s ‘gang culture’.  This was, as Martin Kelly rightly says, a ‘very Glaswegian murder’.  But I was left wondering what the purpose of making this point was.  It’s not as if Glasgow gangs are exactly strangers to racism – so I don’t see how a murder somehow becomes proportionately less racist if you can attribute it more to territorial violence.

I also can’t agree with those arguing that the focus on this case distracts from the ‘wider problem of institutional racism’ – because what they really mean is that it distracts from the narrower problem of institutional racism. 

Everyone who isn’t Nick Griffin understands the point that Julaybib makes about black and brown people being more likely to be victims of racism than white people but this collapsing of the problem – or the ‘significant problem’ – into ‘structures’ simply won’t do.  I have never been happy with the psuedo-Marxist and frankly racist notion that ‘racism is all about power’.  If it wasn’t clear already, the murder of Kriss Donald shows that this idea has to be given up once and for all.  It is dangerous to do otherwise because even if we sorted out all our gangs and reformed all our institutions we would still be left with this problem and what this case shows is that it requires very little power indeed for it to be a literally lethal disease in our society. 

 I’m wondering if Britain is the only country in the world where anyone would think it was a sensible idea to ban the burning of any country’s flag? It’s not quite in keeping with our traditions but typical of what we are becoming under NuLabour:

“Mr Malik, MP for Dewsbury, said burning a flag was clearly an incitement to violence practised by a small number of “thugs” who get to the front of demonstrations. “They hijack what are very legitimate and peaceful protests. “Not only do they spoil it, but they have the potential to turn it into something much more sinister.””

Note the now familiar coupling of nannying and the notion that the state should intervene because of what people might do. It’s the latter I fear is turning into something more sinister. It was left to Massoud Shedjareh of the Islamic Human Rights’ Commission to make the liberal point. He said whether it was incitement or not depended on the circumstances, but police already had powers to deal with it.

But as we already know, this government cleaves to the managerialist logic of preferring new laws above enforcing the ones we already have.

It’s the standard liberal position he takes and the reasoning behind it is one I largely accept. How can we expect a politician who betrays his wife to be faithful to his vocation as a minister and as an MP? Not sure exactly – we just can. Human beings compartmentalize and one area where they do this probably more than in any other is in their sex lives. Martin Luther King committed adultery; Hitler didn’t – does anyone need any more historical examples over these?

 But the weightier part of the argument has to with privacy and how it is essential to liberty: this relates to the concern that the tabloids, by exposing the petty peccadilloes of politicians undermine the very concept of a private life itself.

The argument is reasonably sound and I’ve often made it myself, but increasingly I’m finding a problem and I think it lies in John Prescott’s response, which David Aaronovitch mentions:

“Mr Prescott, who should have told his interlocutor to take a hike, prevaricated…”

Yes he really should have – but he didn’t. Neither did Bill Clinton. Neither did Tommy Sheridan. Neither did David Cameron. And I’m wondering where this implicit acceptance of the right to have their privacy invaded comes from? My own view and hope is somewhere, maybe subconsciously, they realise they can’t really do this. Perhaps they understand it’s a bit rich asking people to respect their privacy when they have no respect for it themselves and, more importantly, they have no respect for ours. That would be probably too much to ask for – but they should.

Many people, including myself, cite the Major government’s disgraceful ‘Back to Basics‘ campaign as an example of how politician’s private lives can be salient to their role in government. David Cameron has declared the Tories’ war on single-parents to be over. Since I’m one myself, I suppose I’m bound to welcome this but I think the problem behind ‘Back to Basics’ is still with us. They might be nicer about it but politicians are still preaching to us about our private lives and seeking to regulate them in various ways – more so than ever.

I don’t care about John Prescott’s sex-life; what concerns me is that he’s the Deputy Prime Minister in a government that has advanced surveillance in our society to an unprecedented degree, that wants us all to be bar-coded, that seeks to regulate how we might express our views on terrorism and our very feelings about religion.

I don’t give a rat’s-ass whether David Cameron had a few lines of cocaine when he was at university. What concerns me is that the option is open for him (which, tellingly, he didn’t take) to say it’s nobody’s business, when no such option is open to me – what with cocaine being an illegal class A narcotic and all.

I don’t care about Cameron’s private life, so what’s he doing telling the media what kind of underwear he has? And where did he get the idea that it’s appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to instruct expectant fathers how they should conduct themselves on the birth of their children?

I’m not concerned whether Tommy Sheridan frequents swingers’ clubs or not. What concerns me is that Scots Law permits such activity in private clubs but does not extend this to the rather larger constituency of consenting adults who may want to indulge in the more mundane pleasure of having a cigarette with their pint.

Speaking of Tommy Sheridan, when he was announcing the arrival of Rosie Kane MSP to the ranks of the SSP, he was never done mentioning that she was a single-parent. The relevance of this was what, exactly? I also know Tommy Sheridan recently fathered a baby. It was in the papers. But why? If you’re a man, I can say from experience the material contribution you make is pretty limited, to say the least. But don’t doubt the political relevance; free-school meals are a better idea than they were before because Tommy’s had a baby, apparently.

None of these believe in the concept of a private life. Not really. That’s why they presume to lecture us about how we conduct ourselves, what we should eat, how we should raise our children, how much exercise we should do, what amount of homework per week is suitable for your child to be doing, what our attitude to teenagers wearing certain forms of clothing should be.

My mother, who was born in the Thirties said that while she remembers seeing Clement Atlee on newsreel, she can’t recall ever hearing him speaking. And now to this age of Colosseum TV where political life, like its civic counterpart, is increasingly understood as a revelation of character. Technology has decreed that there will be no return to the past but this doesn’t mean there’s anything inevitable about this present situation. For would it not be improved if politicians learned to respect our privacy? And if only for dignity’s sake, I for one would be grateful if they would show some respect for their own. Maybe then they’d have a better case for saying they should be left in peace. ]]> http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/privacy-what-privacy/feed/ 4 http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/educational-selection-in-an-age-of-meritocracy/ http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/educational-selection-in-an-age-of-meritocracy/#comments Wed, 31 May 2006 17:45:38 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/31/educational-selection-in-an-age-of-meritocracy/ Read More