UKIP in Wales leader Neil Hamilton has been embarrassing himself more than usual, defending Enoch Powell’s so-called rivers of blood speech as “proved right by events”.
The BBC reports:
When it was put to him that Powell accepted he was a racist, Mr Hamilton suggested that it was “racism in the sense of appreciating differences in cultures, and differences between nations, not that one race or nation is inferior to another by definition”
“He wasn’t a racist in the crude sense”, Mr Hamilton added.
So ‘good racism’ not bad racism, then?
At least he likes his envelopes brown.
Snowflake says:
Racists are down there with rapists and the worst in society
Michael says:
There is no such thing as a “Good Racist.”
Alan says:
Hamilton spouting drivel. No changes there.
Alan Faith says:
This man is unbelievable. Hopefully he will be the next and last UKIP leader.
Faerie Son says:
Presumably then, Neil Hamilton himself has also expored the fringes of racism? Why, he’s doing it now.
Paul Evans says:
Facts are facts though. Enoch Powell was right!
Clem Fandango says:
Enoch Powell was a right winger.
There finished that for you.
Keith Sharpe says:
“Facts are facts”? We all remember those rivers of blood!
Tim says:
Yes Paul Evans, there was DEFINITELY a civil war within fifteen years, like Enoch Powell predicted. Do you remember it well then?
Anonymous says:
Well, he is an ex Tory, what can we expect.
Captain says:
Well, he is an ex Tory, what can we expect.
Brian says:
Except, Neil Hamilton never called him a “good racist”, the article is a complete farce. Read what Hamilton said, instead of the bs that the article is peddling. The title of the article could be from the Daily Mail. It’s just completely dishonest, Hamilton never said that.
Marc Evans says:
Powell’s speech attempted a distinction – ‘racialism’ – as if it were a neutral, fairer word than racism. But the differences he perceived – not least skin colour – are arbitrary and meaningless. They are the self-serving dogma of imperialism: might is right, the conquered deserve their inferior status and subservience, they are lesser or even worthless people (collectively & individually). But in every implementation of the enforced separation of communities by a ruling group leads inexorably to discrimination. Indeed, under apartheid, whether in South Africa, the Warsaw ghetto or Ghaza, it is intended to oppress, exploit and dehumanise. All lead to one group of humans seeing another as ‘untermensch’ – inhuman, vermin. Racialism, in recent history at least, is the justification for racism, whether or not the proponent affirms it. Powell and Hamilton and May mislead by talking about numbers, to hide the evil assumption that some people are born innately ‘purer’ than others.
Andy B says:
“foamng with much blood” was pretty vile and intentionally provocative in my view and the verdict on that Enoch Powell is as it should be imho. As for the “other guy” I can remember him on the TV denouncing the death penalty he was also co-sponsor of the Sexual Offences Act and – paradox city – virtually a lone voice in parliament condemning the killing of suspected Mau Mau prisoners at Hola Camp in Kenya …. “In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgment on a fellow human-being and to say, “Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow.”
Baffled…
Slacker says:
Hamilton is a disgusting, unprincipled little crook – if he had even the slightest sense of decency he and his odious wife would have slunk away for good once he’d been lobbed out of the Tory party for taking bungs.
An entirely worthless human being, even when judged by the low standards of MPs.