Google the definition of “racism” and the following is returned:
1. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as…
2. Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
Five former Labour councillors who were expelled from the party after they defied the whip and joined Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s cabinet should reflect on this.
It is a powerful word, so it would be wise to keep it that way. Lutfur’s councillors have developed a disturbing and unhealthy habit of chucking it around so freely and without thought that it loses its bite.
Here’s a press release issued by Mayor Rahman last week:
From Office of the Mayor of Tower Hamlets
For immediate release – 13 December 2012
Independent Councillors condemn Joshua Peck’s “Labour” for double standards
Selective application of rules undermine Ed Milliband’s ‘One Nation’ message
Five Bangladeshi Councillors expelled from the Labour party say that the ruling stinks of a stitch up.
All five were expelled for working with non-Labour candidates in local elections but two deny the charge and the others have cited several other examples where doing the same has not led to any disciplinary consequences.
None of the Councillors attended their appeals, instead submitting written statements.
Cllr. Abdul Asad, who serves in Independent Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s cabinet, has served as a councillor for 23 years, 22 of them with Labour, said: “Labour Peer Lord Alan Sugar used a column in the Murdoch press to openly campaign for Boris Johnson against Labour, but no action was taken.
“Journalist and Labour member Dan Hodges did the same in his column in the Telegraph but again no expulsion.”
“We have evidence that in Middlesborough many local party members have campaigned for Independent Mayor Ray Mallon against their own party in three separate elections without any consequences. Indeed, direct complaints to the local and regional leadership fell on deaf ears. So why are five Bangladeshi councillors being expelled by Joshua Peck and his ruling clique, when others get off without even a slap on the wrist?”
Cllr. Shahed Ali, who also serves on Mayor Rahman’s cabinet added: “My appeal was based upon fact. The party ‘auto-expelled’ me, citing the only reason being a breach of Clause 2.1.4.B of the party rules. If this is the case, then my question is simple, why has this rule not been applied to the likes of Sir Alan Sugar, Dan Hodges and Ken Livingstone?
“Unfortunately, it has become obvious to me by these actions that elements of institutional racism and discrimination are still entertained within the Labour party”.
One of the expelled five, Cllr. Rofique Ahmed said: “I deny this charge. I did not campaign for a non-Labour candidate. I am engaged in legal action to fight this accusation.”
Shahed Ali needs to grow up and concentrate on campaigns against genuine racial discrimination. He was kicked out of Labour because he broke the rules during a very acrimonious split in which the leadership was determined to send a clear message. It was the same message that deterred Marc Francis from crossing the Rubicon: Marc toyed with the idea of joining Lutfur but knew it would be the end of his political career with Labour.
Shahed is right, however, to question why the party didn’t discipline Ken Livingstone over his campaigning for Lutfur. But isn’t it significant he doesn’t also ask why it failed to take action over Lord Nazir Ahmed’s open support for Lutfur during that campaign? I suppose that wouldn’t quite fit with his ‘racism’ argument though, would it?
No, I suspect the real reason he and others were booted out was because they weren’t important or good enough. But “institutional talentism” isn’t a phrase I’ve heard bandied around before.
Trial by Jeory 
It has lately struck me that “Racism” in TH is better defined as “Being critical of someone more Bangladeshi than you”, and that this holds true in just about every case when viewed with the luxury of retrospect. As one who hails from a different bit of the Asian subcontinent it’s not something I have ever been allowed to experience ….
On that note, Livingstone should have been held to account for his support of Rahman in the Mayoral elections. I remain in the dark as to why he wasn’t.
(Note to Sheraz: Yes, it’s another racist comment from Tim-Nice-But-Dim! I’m sure you won’t disappoint us all in your response, eh?)
Tim.
Tut-Tut…. you are now known simply as TNBD remember – I’m afraid one does not deserve a larger volume of oxygen to be used in referring to thee!!!
(Enough of a reply for you eh eh 🙂
Interesting.
I sometimes think you’re a bit too quick, Ted, to see red whenever you perceive the ‘race card’ being played. I agree completely with you on the principle of not diluting racism as a concept, but I honestly perceive it to be relevant here.
Race runs through all the rows here like the word Brighton does through a stick of rock. For example, it would have been prohibitively unpalatable to remove Lutfur after his landslide selection if he’d been white. It was possible owing to widely held stereotypes about Asians and Muslims, in the media and (a la Warsi) at the dinner table. ‘Travesty of natural justice!’ as a reaction is replaced by thoughts of ‘extremists’, ‘terrorists’, ‘entryists’, ‘vote-rigging’, ‘village politics’, ‘community in-fighting’, ‘third world banana republic’, ‘benefit-claimants’, ‘immigrants’, ‘scroungers’ etc… That’s the backdrop.
You’re absolutely right about Lord Ahmed. But that doesn’t disprove the relevance of race. It merely indicates that race is not the only factor – it sits alongside power and class too. Ken, and Nazir, and Alan, and Dan are powerful, famous, privileged people. Whereas these guys don’t get special treatment because they’re merely Asian, Muslim, local councillors from working class backgrounds in a deprived borough (all of which are relevant). Anyway, I think the better comparison is with local activists in Middlesbrough who apparently repeatedly campaigned for the independent mayor without sanction.
Well I don’t want to put a fly in your ointment oldford1 but your analogy is such absolute tosh and the combination of your catastrophic memory loss compounded with your acute state of denial so apparent, that it might be sensible for you to discuss your condition with a doctor! Perhaps you are just in denial or maybe you are a ‘Lobot’ sent Terminator-style from the past to confuse everyone and murder this debate? Whatever the cause you have somehow forgotten that Labour racially discriminated against poor old Lutfur in favour of another local politician who last time I looked was just as Bangladeshi – Helal Abbas. This renowned politician came third in the poll, not second and was chosen ahead of the white guy. How utterly perplexing and complex an example of anti-Bangladeshi “racism” this is indeed….or maybe its just bollocks.
That is not say that Labour in this borough doesn’t operate through racial paradigms because it obviously does. The evidence that it works the other way around (e.g. in favour of the Bangladeshi community) is quite compelling when one contemplates the institutional bias within Labour which has led to the disparity between a 30% Bangladeshi-origin population and a 60% Bangladeshi-origin council make up….oh and then there’s the quiet acquiescence to public funds being spent on “faith buildings”… the generous gifts to “community organisations”, “community centres”, translation services and all the hangers on which collectively only serves the interests of one community.
Yes racism is relevant here…but not in the way you want us to believe.
Racism has connotations of superiority where as racial discrimination is often far more subtle and passive. The vast majority of Labour Cllrs aren’t racist but there are one or two who really don’t express themselves in a way that would be publically acceptable. That said, that also goes the other way too.
Tokenism is a form of racial discrimination and there is lots of that. Selecting ethnic minority candidates many of them now Cllrs who struggle with literacy with no policy expertise is a form of racial discrimination in my opinion. People like that can’t perform, they’re selected to be passive, follow the group line and roll out the ‘community vote’ at election time.
Diane Abbots divide and rule quip is appropriate in this context. We have good ethnics and bad ethnics. We have expelled Cllrs and members who have been allowed to re-joined the Labour party not because they’re any good but because they’re going to vote the right way and not challenge people. They’re quite happy with the prefix, SRA and salary.
Ted : “It was the same message that deterred Marc Francis from crossing the Rubicon: Marc toyed with the idea of joining Lutfur but knew it would be the end of his political career with Labour”.
To suggest that Marc hasn’t crossed the Rubicon is ridiculous. There is more than enough evidence from members of the party and the public to expel him. That said, I’m glad he speaks his mind he’s one of the few Cllrs we have with any principles. It doesn’t take much to trigger this process the words of good ethnics go along way even if they can’t spell >>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/117171123/Anwar-Email-2
Dour Shamelets: “Whatever the cause you have somehow forgotten that Labour racially discriminated against poor old Lutfur in favour of another local politician who last time I looked was just as Bangladeshi – Helal Abbas. This renowned politician came third in the poll, not second and was chosen ahead of the white guy. How utterly perplexing and complex an example of anti-Bangladeshi “racism” this is indeed….or maybe its just bollocks”.
Don’t you see any institutional Racism here? Ditch one brown face stick another one in and the ethnics won’t notice and white working class residents will vote Labour anyway? Abbas was a very good candidate and he’s a really valuable member of group but I think the party used him because he is Bengali. The fact that we skipped over the white dude who came second underscores that in my view. We ought to have been selling Abbas as an effective council leader with a good record rather than descending into ‘community politics’. Who is the one being exploited and pigeon holed for their ethnic credentials?
Also, I think it’s totally patronising and bordering institutional racism to pretty much reconcile the vast majority of your ethnic minority contingent to community orientated roles and it’s rarely community in the full sense. Diversity isn’t just placing underrepresented groups in positions they ought to have an equal voice in decision-making and policy and they don’t. In private many of them complain about that particularly under the current setup.
Dour Shamelets: “The evidence that it works the other way around (e.g. in favour of the Bangladeshi community) is quite compelling when one contemplates the institutional bias within Labour which has led to the disparity between a 30% Bangladeshi-origin population and a 60% Bangladeshi-origin council make up…”
I don’t accept your view that it ‘works the other way around’ and your comment is indicative of the racial paradigm you referred to. What institutional bias are you talking about? Is this the one where the Labour party makes the calculation that white residents don’t vote or are difficult to get to the polls so it’s advantageous to select candidates disproportionately from ethnic minority communities irrespective of their ability or commitment to the Labour party to win elections? There’s more than one beneficiary from that arrangement.
Dour Shamelets: “Yes racism is relevant here…but not in the way you want us to believe”.
We can agree on that at least.
What a lot doublespeak fudge… what actually is the point you are trying to make?
I have had to re-read your comments about sixteen times to figure out what you are saying… now then..
Your paragraph 2… yes I AGREE with your point here. I think we are actually making the same point but alas are coming to different conclusions. We both acknowledge something wrong is going on in Labour in the selection procedures but then we differ. For example, in the selection of Abbas for mayoral candidate you can only see ‘racism’ (in selecting “another brown face” as you put it) ever affecting people with, erm, brown faces. Why not select the white face who came second? I know the official line is he “voluntarily stood aside”… but isn’t the real point here that Labour knew a “white dude” would not get elected in LBTH because (a) the white folk don’t vote Labour any more – almost all of the working class white folk have stopped voting because they are so disgusted by THLP – and (b) the brown folk, when faced with a choice between a white face and a brown face tend to vote for other brown face regardless of party allegiance. This was seen when Respect fielded candidates of both colours across this borough and only the “brown” ones got elected.
I believe that with Labour looking down the barrel of the electoral gun and with Lutfur inevitably going to stand as an independent Labour believed that their only chance of winning was by selecting another brown face (Abbas) over the white dude (Biggs). To say that the white folk “will vote Labour anyway” is seriously untrue. As I said, the white working class have by and large stopped voting altogether in areas where Labour or Respect/Independent always win. The white middle-class now by and large vote Tory and seek ‘safety in numbers’ by coalescing in places like Wapping and the Isle of Dogs.
In paragraph 3 you say: “Diversity isn’t just placing underrepresented groups in positions they ought to have an equal voice in decision-making and policy and they don’t.” … Now I had to go over this a couple of times but I think I get what you mean, and if I understand you correctly you are saying that, at present, “unrepreresented groups” ought to have an equal voice in “decision making” and policy… I don’t know what planet you live on but in case you have just arrived “decision making” is made by Lutfur and his cabinet and in this case currently 32% of the borough’s population (white folk) have 0% of the representation (cabinet seats) within that body and are under-represented in the council chamber by -50%. You may say that Labour don’t allow any “white folk” to join his cabinet but Lutfur could have fielded a non-Bengali candidate in the Spitalfields by-election but chose not to because he knew that the Asian community would not vote for a white candidate. Is that racism? I presume you will say it isn’t but once again – you can only see unfairness when it affects one community (Asian people) but seem entirely blind to it (holding your own hands over your eyes and singing na-na-na) when it is so blatantly the other way around.
In your fourth and fifth paragraph I am frankly rather bemused…Why don’t you accept my view that it works the other way around? That is just pure, unadulterated denial. Why is it impossible for non-Asians to be discriminated against?
.
All of these councillors are opportunist scums. Most started their pathetic political life with Galloway. If it hadn’t been for him they would still be wiping the back side of real labour councilors today. The shameless parasites then deserted Galloway for Labour at the first opportunity. When the Mayor threw crumbs their way the greedy dogs couldn’t resist. And now they are complaining of being treated unfairly? What about their colleagues and voters of Respect and Labour who they so shamelessly betrayed? They are a disgrace, all of them.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lutfurs+downfall+youtube&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
Contentious, but lot more genuinely creative than anything Takki Suliaman ever came up with.
It’s always struck me that “racism” as a term has a whole new life and meaning when bandied about in Tower Hamlets – as opposed to other areas and London Boroughs which are also concerned to eliminate racism.
I’m not normally a Telegraph reader but this article was drawn to my attention.
Lutfur Rahman and Labour Newham: compare and contrast
To me, it has some considerable merit in highlighting the ways in which LBTH is at variance with virtually every other Council in the land – albeit the comparison here is with Newham just up the road.
Incidentally this is thetheOxford Dictionary definition of “racism”
Definition of racism
noun
[mass noun]
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
– theories of racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
– a programme to combat racism
@ Dour Shamelets
I don’t want you to have to read something I’ve written sixteen times to understand it so I won’t reply to your post. If you can bring yourself to reading it seventeen times maybe something might click, maybe not.
@ You couldn’t make it up!
You couldn’t make it up!: ‘the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races’
I think that definition of racism is really out-dated and it’s rarely applicable. Even when you come across BNP voters very few of them believe in racial superiority. You can be racist without being a supremacist.
If you look at racism historically say pre emancipation America, Apartheid South Africa or Nazism those are examples of white supremacism. I’m not sure if your familiar with Liberation movements but there are many examples of ANC racism against white South Africans or in Modern Day Zimbabwe which were violent and in many instances unprovoked which are distinct from Black Supremacists like Louis Farrakhan or at one point in his life Malcolm X.
Macpherson’s definition is a much better fit for what we sometimes see in the UK : ‘The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racial stereotyping.’
What would you call a person or a group of people who were engaged in that sort of activity? I’d call them racist but that wouldn’t necessarily mean I thought they were supremacists. You can do all of those things without believing in racial superiority and I think that’s a pretty good fit for what we see sometimes here in Tower Hamlets. Semantics meh.
How convenient… that way you don’t need to address the points I made, which I would contend, is because you can’t without exposing the flaws in your case.
As regards YOUR definition of “racism” (you cannot pick and choose to suit your philosophy) I still think it cheapens an otherwise powerful word which should be reserved for what is genuinely racist.
Why not just describe what you say we see sometimes in Tower Hamlets by using appropriate language such as; unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and – perhaps – racial stereotyping rather than employ “racism” as a catch all which as you well know is inappropriate because it IMPLIES the “historic racism” and supremacism which you refer to. I would contend that this inappropriate word is deliberately utilised by the extreme-left exactly because of its dangerous connotations and the understandably emotional response it often provokes.
You also seem to have “issues” accepting that prejudice, stereotyping and discriminatory behaviour are universal traits of mankind and not the exclusive preserve of one race – the much maligned “white dude” (to use your terminology). To believe, as you appear to do, that such thought processes are maintained exclusively by one race actually demonstrates the universality of these creeds but in an inverted self-loathing form…anthropologists would be fascinated by le pêcheur!
For the Mayor’s Office to refer to the five as “Bangledeshi Councillors” is blatant sectarianism and does nothing but divide the community of Tower Hamlets. Whatever happened to “One Tower Hamlets”?
Cllr. Abdul Asad has been an elected councillor for over 23 years and is still referred to as “Bangladeshi”. Sure it is a key part of his cultural identity. BUT after at least 23 years in the UK (maybe he was born here – I don’t know?) is it REALLY ON to headline “Bangladeshi” in seemingly every other sentence?
Maybe we should start a TWO TOWER HAMLETS Campaign?
You really ought to explain the context to his office using the phrase ‘Bangladeshi Councillors. I don’t think the concept of ‘One Tower Hamlets’ means that you forget that there are many distinct groups and we ought to celebrate that difference whilst looking for common ground. Communities have different interests and needs and there’s nothing wrong with recognising that.
For example, OBV based in Bethnal Green often hold events with ethnic minority politicians usually from the Labour party but occasionally the Tories who emphasise the burdons associated with being a politician of Asian, African, or Caribbean heritage. What’s the difference ?
Your ethnicity, class, gender etc force you to experience the world through a particular prism. Bangladeshi and White Cllrs are likely to have varied unique experiences especially in Tower Hamlets.
Do you have any other examples of sectarianism?