Debating the E-Word
Last week Nigel Hastilow was the Conservative Party's Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis. Then he was forced to resign after refusing to take back comments he'd made in a newspaper about Enoch Powell. As he explains on his blog:
Amazing how powerful some names can be. Last Friday I mentioned Enoch Powell and suddenly all hell broke loose.
In an article supporting Tory leader David Cameron's remarks on how uncontrolled immigration would change the country, I mentioned that many people say "Enoch was right".
I have discovered that this is enough, still, 39 years after the controversial speech which undid him politically, to cause outrage.
The resignation sparked a great deal of debate, much of it focussing on whether David Cameron was right to have taken the tough line he did. But as the story rumbled on, a number of bloggers took a closer look at the man whose name caused all the trouble. Peter Simmons emailed iPM to ask:
What exactly did Enoch Powell say? Lots of people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who quotes him favourably, interpreting it as racist, but is this down to Johnny Speight making Alf Garnett a fan of Enoch, rather than an assessment of what he actually said?
As I remember it, Mr Powell warned against uncontrolled immigration because it would alter this country irrevocably and lead eventually to violence between separate communities. The country is certainly changed from 40 years ago, and what are we seeing now? Inter-community strife.
You can read the full text of the 'Rivers of Blood' speech here. We asked Sunder Katwala, who blogged critically about Powell's legacy on Comment is Free this week, to take part in a discussion with his biographer Simon Heffer, who put up a vigorous defence of Enoch in his Telegraph column.
You can hear a shorter version of this on the programme tomorrow. This is the full, unedited discussion (12 minutes) but we'll probably run it on air at around four minutes or less.
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~38~RS~)
Comments
Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech came to mind as I listened to the news report about the bus bomb explosion in Tavistock Square, on the 7th July 2005. The reporter described the appearance of the BMA (British Medical Association) building being splattered with blood. In my opinion, Enoch Powell was right.
Thank you for putting Enoch Powell's speech on the site. I have just read the whole thing, and feel the reaction to his name being used is entirely justified. Of course some of the things he said in his speech have happened, this country is very different now. Most of the changes are for the better.
The reason quoting him always gets such a strong reaction is that he is regarded as a racist, and also as someone who tried to make an intellectual case for racism. Reading the speech, the underlying assumption that England should remain a country for white christians is very clear.
I am profoundly grateful that his argument was rejected utterly by the country when it was made: Powell's career never recovered. I trust such arguments will be rejected equally strongly now, and think Nigel Hastilow well deserved to have his political career cut short too! David Cameron has been trying to drag the conservative party into the 21st century, the last thing he needs is PPCs quoting Powell!
aaaaaa
It's true that we may have a looming crisis.
However I'm not personally convinced that digging into history is worthwhile.
So much has changed since Enoch made the speech.
The Cold war has 'hopefully ended' we have a unified Germany. Communication, thanks to the Internet and telecommunications have generally made the world far smaller.
Should we not now be viewing the current - so called crisis - from a fresh perspective?
Many of my peers seem to think we are embarking on new age of no return - in my view a very negative perspective.
I think we should all start embracing the new cross culture society. If not now then when?
The other nations have so much to share and contribute don't they?
Just because we are a 'so called' Island rece - should our views now, be so insular?
Is it just me! - but my computer - although running Vista - gave up on Eddie's audio and this splash cast thingy.
Was realplayer that bad! -- In a huff after wasting 40 minutes for nothing!
Enoch Powell may be regarded a "Racist" by some. By others he's seen as a teller of truth - no matter how un-palatable
Also, I'm far from sure his argument was "rejected utterly" by the British Public. The "Public" were never asked.
Also, no Political party at the time was prepared to risk civil unrest by proposing immigration limitation measures and requiring that the English language be spoken a pre-cursor of citizenship.
Many thought such measures necessary then. Now some 40 years later, politicions are discussing such a measure
"...this country is very different now. Most of the changes are for the better"
By the very nature of evolution, this and many other countries are different now. But "Most of the changes are for the better"? Well, it's often stated that if three people view an incident, three different views of what happened will be given. So it is with that statement I think
Other countries have had far more sense than the UK. Try, for example, emmigrating to Australia, canada, the U.S. and compare
From George's posting:
"As I remember it, Mr Powell warned against uncontrolled immigration because it would alter this country irrevocably and lead eventually to violence between separate communities. The country is certainly changed from 40 years ago, and what are we seeing now? Inter-community strife"
Succinct and regrettably correct
Well, as I heard Mr powell say one day
"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it..."
He was, in my opinion right. It is agreat shame that at the time when the UK could have controlled the immigration issue, it didn't. Now...