Why Are Conservatives Defending Edward Colston?

When you become a Conservative politician, you sign up to the unwritten job description which states (amongst other things) that at times you’ll be called on to defend the indefensible; be it obvious hypocrisy, shady events, blatant doublethink, callous policies and occasionally plain rank stupidity. Yet… we have the spectre of a Home Secretary calling the toppling of a statue to a slave trader ‘utterly disgraceful’. And like the performing seals that they are, other Tories have come out to – amongst other things – criticise the police for not defending said statue from the crowd which consigned it to a watery grave.

I’m not going to discuss the merits of the statue, Colston’s legacy to Bristol or even the crowd that did the deed. No, what has piqued my curiosity is why the hell the likes of Patel and co felt the need to truly defend the indefensible – after all, to complain about the statue’s removal can – and will be – seen as tacit support for the honouring of a slave trader. I mean, why?

Dr King can tell us…

A Call For Unity

Alabama, 1963. Dr King is in prison, after leading a non-violent Civil Rights protest which had been declared illegal beforehand by a white judge. The next day, an open letter – ‘A Call For Unity’ – was printed by the local newspaper. Written by several prominent local clergymen (all white, naturally) it basically called King an agent provocateur, accused the leaders of inflaming tensions by calling out the blatant racism and criticised the law-breaking (said protest) by the likes of Dr King.

Their suggestions of an alternative course of action was that the likes of Dr King should follow an ultra-legalistic method – always following the law and only using the courts – to never ruffle feathers, to never make anyone feel uncomfortable by the current situation and to always be willing to engage in productive ‘discussions’ with authorities.

Letter from Birmingham Jail

Was Dr King’s reply to the previous, and is worth reading in it’s entirety. For it is not simply focusing on the incident which had led to his imprisonment, but the wider state of the Civil Rights movement, and much of what he wrote can be directly translated to any marginalised group when campaigning for their basic rights and freedoms the dominant group(s) take for granted. Here’s a particularly insightful paragraph…

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

(Martin Luther King, Jr.)

This can be quite literally translated into the situation regarding the Colston statue. The campaigners had protested, petitioned and demonstrated about the thing for over twenty years. Yet, the local authorities had continuously dithered and stalled; from technical arguments regarding the numbers of children he had enslaved, the exact wording of an explanatory plaque, the citing of his (biased) philanthropy and so on. Oh, the majority of the ‘moderates’ agreed something had to be done, but the time was not right and so on. Which was – in Dr King’s own words – “the ‘do-nothingism’ of the complacent” and proving that “’Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never’.”.

Which was why the statue ended up being pulled down by a crowd. They’d decided ‘the time’ was now. They’d tried ‘discussions’, and they’d failed. No more excuses, no more explanations, no more empty promises or windy rhetoric. Just get rid.

Unreliable Allies?

Dr King hit the nail on the head when he spoke of “the white moderate, who is more devoted to order than to justice” as being a fundamental road-block to reform. In fact, they are always the road-block for reform, period. The problem is, basically the fact that they generally benefit from the established order – the rule of law and so on – and therefore feel completely unable to condone, let alone support any ‘wrong-doing’. That they basically have a vested interest in seeing you fail.

In our world today, the purpose of law is primarily around the preservation of the state and the protection of property. The statue was property, and therefore had to be protected. But in more general terms, the removal threatened the state by being political activity which was not in the permitted manner. Worse, the police – the first line of the coercive power of the state – did not intervene, therefore failing in their duties to the law. Worst of all, it made the crowd feel that the police did not intervene because what they were doing was right.

Thin End of Colston’s Wedge?

That idea – that civil disobedience is acceptable if the law is unjust – is complete poison to the Tory mind. After all, most of the laws are written in their favour, and the ones that aren’t can be gotten around by paying smart lawyers to argue them away. The law is their weapon, their protection from us unwashed masses if we have unreasonable demands, like for food, shelter or to be treated with respect. The exploitative nature of the capitalist system relies on us working stiffs to be good wage-slaves, docilely following ‘the law’ whatever it says.

Therefore, the toppling of a statue must be held as nothing more than a crime. Doing anything else would set a dangerous precedent which the Conservatives do not wish to do. For as long as the likes of Colston’s statue stood, it meant their money-bags were safe. For the day that us ordinaries realise that one law appears to be optional, what about the others?

And it’s this reason why the Conservatives are siding with Edward Colston. For it’s a line in the sand; and they fear the crossing of said line will ultimately lead to the expropriation of their super-rich owners by the people. And it’s this eventuality they will do anything and everything to stop.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions – save the four quotes contained within. Part of my Essays series.

Extinction Rebellion are Extremists

So, it turns out the British counter-terrorism unit, in their guise of protecting society placed the environmentalist group “Extinction Rebellion” on their extremists list; thus placing them in the company of such lovely people as neo-Nazis and Islamic jihadists. This also meant that it fell under the government’s “Protect” programme; where people are strongly encouraged to inform the authorities of “suspect behaviour”.

Said document stated to look out for include people who speak in “strong or emotive terms about environmental issues like climate change, ecology, species extinction, fracking, airport expansion or pollution”. Actions to be flagged also include school strikes, going on demonstrations, circulating leaflets or “writing environmentally themed graffiti”. The fact it was put under “Protect” means the like of school teachers and youth workers are “obligated” to inform – and the obvious conclusion; some of these people may also be “extremists”, and so shouldn’t be in a position of authority over children to spread their “poisonous ideology”. And so on.

Now, the police now say it was “an error” and have “recalled the document”, but I don’t believe it for one fucking bit. Well, the first half of it at least.

We have to bear in mind, the police are the first line of the coercive arm of the state. They enforce the “laws of the land” – with violence, if needed – and said laws are made by our political class; people who are either allied, bought or part of the ruling capitalist elite. They are the main arbiters of the “Overton window”, which marks the limits of “acceptable opinion” within general society. Within this window your opinion is “acceptable”, when you’re outside you’re “an extremist”. It’s this point where the average person comes to realise that there is steel within that velvet glove, than behind all that that comfortable guff about ‘policing by consent’ stand hard men and women who will make you conform whether you like it or not.

Therefore, Extinction Rebellion are extremists, for their campaign implicitly runs afoul of the current model of neoliberal consumerist capitalism powered by cheap fossil fuels and resource exploitation. What’s more, they’re willing to break the law to push their point; the other aspect of the “Overton window” when it comes to define extremism.

What’s more, Extinction Rebellion did this consciously. They understood the window, that the police primarily exist to enforce the status quo of society, that firm, illegal (but non-violent) action was required to “shift” the window towards their viewpoint. They were knowledgeable about previous campaigns of this type; the Chartists, Suffragettes, Trade Unionism and animal rights. And like the previous, they firmly believe they’ve “got right on their side”. And hell, I don’t dispute this; the human race is in a direct collision-course with the wholesale destruction of our planet.

And like their other demonstrating forebears, they’d also must have expected to be officially labelled “extremists”; to be spied on, to be infiltrated and so on. The British state has a long, long history of this; from police informers infiltrating leftist and green groups – some officers leaving activists pregnant – to siccing Special Branch and MI5 to bug, burgle and tap organisations outside of the window.

Remember this; it was the British State which sent the dragoons in at Peterloo against the Chartists, that had Suffragettes force-fed in prison, that sent in the police to defend the capitalist’s ‘right’ to deny the rights of the workers to unionise, to later use baton charges and tear-gas against strikers in the ’80s and label Nelson Mandela as “a terrorist”.

But one thing needs to be remembered; while the state might have the will, it relies on the rank-and-file to be willing to do the deed. Which was part – I think – of the relatively mild police response to the protests last year; the fact that not only were a decent slice of the British population supportive of it (more than I thought, actually) but elements of the police were too. After all, they’re human beings too.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.