Published earlier today in the New Statesman is an inflammatory article by Daniel Trilling entitled: coroner finds "pervasive racism" among G4S guards.
Daniel Trilling is quick to blame what he calls "the way immigrants are discussed in the media and politics" for the violence necessary to remove illegal migrants. However he seems entirely oblivious to his own role in the death of Mr Mubenga - if he and his informal colleagues in the pro-immigration lobby use language that encourages potential migrants to think they have a chance of obtaining British residency (when in law they have no chance) then he must accept partial responsibility for the inevitable measures that must be taken to ensure compliance with the law. In short Daniel Trilling has Mr Mubenga's blood on his hands.
Also note the causal way in which G4S is accused of "casual racism".
It is possible that G4S staff are casually racist, but neither the corona nor Daniel Trilling offer any motive they might have for being so.
It is of course perfectly possible that murderous racist individuals have gained employment with G4S by concealing their true nature, in the same way that murderous communists might do so. But if we are to accept that the majority of G4S staff are casually racist one would expect a bit more in the way of motivational analysis. Why should G4S staff be any more casually racist than say an equal number of New Statesman writers?
Does G4S specifically recruit casual racists? (in which case where is the evidence).
Or do they become casual racists after their employment? (in which case by what process and why).
Or is the "racist" accusation an entirely gratuitous insult flung about by people too lazy and prejudiced to think seriously about the absurd things they are saying, confident that heretofore the mere allegation that someone is a racist is enough to damn that person without any chance that they can defend themselves.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/08/jimmy-mubenga-coroner-finds-pervasive-racism-among-g4s-guards
Daniel Trilling is quick to blame what he calls "the way immigrants are discussed in the media and politics" for the violence necessary to remove illegal migrants. However he seems entirely oblivious to his own role in the death of Mr Mubenga - if he and his informal colleagues in the pro-immigration lobby use language that encourages potential migrants to think they have a chance of obtaining British residency (when in law they have no chance) then he must accept partial responsibility for the inevitable measures that must be taken to ensure compliance with the law. In short Daniel Trilling has Mr Mubenga's blood on his hands.
Also note the causal way in which G4S is accused of "casual racism".
It is possible that G4S staff are casually racist, but neither the corona nor Daniel Trilling offer any motive they might have for being so.
It is of course perfectly possible that murderous racist individuals have gained employment with G4S by concealing their true nature, in the same way that murderous communists might do so. But if we are to accept that the majority of G4S staff are casually racist one would expect a bit more in the way of motivational analysis. Why should G4S staff be any more casually racist than say an equal number of New Statesman writers?
Does G4S specifically recruit casual racists? (in which case where is the evidence).
Or do they become casual racists after their employment? (in which case by what process and why).
Or is the "racist" accusation an entirely gratuitous insult flung about by people too lazy and prejudiced to think seriously about the absurd things they are saying, confident that heretofore the mere allegation that someone is a racist is enough to damn that person without any chance that they can defend themselves.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/08/jimmy-mubenga-coroner-finds-pervasive-racism-among-g4s-guards
No comments:
Post a Comment