TRUTH IS NOT COLOUR-BLIND
that censorship will not solve Britain's raceproblem
THE media enjoys more freedom in Bri- tain today than ever before. Thanks to the taming of the print unions, launching a new newspaper is now a reasonable commercial gamble, instead of an impossibility. Equal- ly, the breaking of the broadcasting duopo- ly will lead to a multitude of new ventures in the 1990s, greatly increasing the viewers' freedom of choice. These days it is not so much the state itself which impinges on freedom but the lobby, particularly when it penetrates state organs. It is now becoming increasingly difficult, for example, to dis- cuss homosexuality or the related problem of Aids, except in terms approved by the homosexual lobby. It is worrying, for instance, that government advertising on Aids, paid for by taxpayers, should be propagandistic rather than objective; wor- rying, too, that a book like The Myth of Heterosexual Aids should have found such difficulty in securing a publisher here. Although a good deal of pro-homosexual material appears on the duopoly it is now almost inconceivable that a programme critical of such activities could be broad- cast. That is censorship, and all the more objectionable in that it is imposed by controlling elements in the media, rather than by law and Parliament.
The outstanding area of censorship, however, is race. Here the lobby, the race relations industry, is itself subsidised by government both local and central, and backed by law. The result is that Britain's race problem, or rather problems, are not debated at all in public or in the media, though they are talked about constantly in private, in pubs, canteens, factories, offices, homes — everywhere where the writ of the liberal establishment does not run. There is a very general feeling among ordinary working people, especially those living in the cities, and therefore at the receiving end of the issue, that for many years the public has been conned and lied to on race, that there has in effect been a conspiracy to conceal or misrepresent the facts. Such presentation as race does re- ceive in the media is strictly within the guidelines laid down by the RRI — any- thing else is immediately denounced as 'racist' — and the obvious existence of an officially approved orthodoxy, all other views being verboten, reinforces belief in the conspiracy and so strengthens the resentment it arouses. One reason why racism of all kinds continues to flourish in Britain is precisely that the subject is protected from the free winds of public exposure and debate. The result, quite apart from anything else, is that the public is grievously mis- or under-informed, and disbelieves such 'facts' as are allowed to trickle through. This is the fertile ground from which racial prejudices and harass- ment spring. Hence we have the paradox that in Britain today racial antagonism is increasingly the work of the race relations industry itself. Yet those who support official ortho- doxy continue to try to sweep the race problem under the carpet. Last week the Press Council condemned a number of newspapers for stating that a man accused of rape (he was acquitted) was black. The newspapers defended themselves on the grounds that, as the man was the first black to dance with the Ballet Rambert, the fact 'So when did this home-owning begin?' was noteworthy and mention of the man's colour therefore relevant and justified. Such a defence seems to me almost as silly as the Council's verdict. (A better one, come to think of it, would be that it is very rare indeed for a male ballet dancer to be accused of rape — at any rate of a woman — and this itself made the details of the case a matter of unusual interest.) Rape is one of the most serious crimes on the calendar and rape cases are bound to arouse a good deal of public concern, especially among women, who put them- selves in the place of the victim — not surprisingly, since the crime statistics indi- cate that they are increasingly likely to be victims themselves. Reporting is already complicated by the need to conceal the victim's identity and any further restric- tions, especially voluntary ones, need to be looked at carefully. Whatever the Press Council says, the overwhelming majority of readers do want to know the race of the accused rapist. They regard it as highly relevant because it affects the gravity of the crime in their eyes. Human nature being what it is, a woman — given such an odious choice — would prefer to be raped by a man of her own race. A cross-race rape thus arouses particularly strong emotions and not to report the fact is an omission of duty in a newspaper. Moreover it is an omission which is always spotted in the neighbourhood where the crime took place. There, the details circulate by word of mouth and the decision of newspapers to suppress what the neighbours regard as a vital fact further undermines their confi- dence in the media, which is pretty low anyway. It tends to confirm the general view: 'If ever you know about a newspaper story, you always find they get it wrong or twist it.'
In broader terms, it is foolish for news- papers to engage in a concerted attempt to minimise the extent of black crime — for that, after all, is what the Press Council's ruling is intended to do. The public is not easily fooled, especially on matters of race, where it is already highly suspicious. There is, for instance, a widely held belief, based on personal experience, accounts by friends and neighbours and much other anecdotal evidence, that a high proportion of muggings are committed by blacks. It is regrettable that authoritative statistics are not available on this as on other crimes believed to be race-related. And newspap- ers certainly do not help matters by sup- pressing the colour of the accused when such cases come to court. Readers spot there is a cover-up and the only conclusion they draw is that all muggings are commit- ted by blacks, which is far from being true. There is no easy solution to Britain's race problems; maybe there is no solution at all. But we can be quite sure that censorship will not help, and newspapers should resist those who try to impose it.
Previous page
