I posted this tweet when watching Channel 4 News last night.
Why should someone be allowed to describe people who believe in racial equality as ‘members of a mob’ on @Channel4News ?
— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) March 10, 2021
The comment made actually referred to a ‘woke mob’. It was made by a person from the right wing think tank Policy Exchange whose name I did not catch. It was not picked up on by the interviewer, Jackie Long, who stuck with the Meghan Markle story to which it, apparently, related.
Except it did not. That’s because whatever else she is doing I very much doubt Meghan Markle is seeking to destroy the British institutions of government, which seemed to be the claim.
Nor are those who are woke a mob. The Cambridge Dictionary defines woke when used as an adjective as:
aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality:
By this definition I am most certainly woke. The government and every employer has a legal obligation to be so. Every major wisdom tradition is, of course, also woke by this definition. Quite explicitly, it’s simply not possible to claim to be Christian and not be so. Loving your neighbour as yourself, the most basic rule upon which it is based, requires it.
So what was being said by this person, and Policy Exchange, for whom they were speaking?
Are they suggesting that government should be built on the basis of racism and inequality? I hope not, but cannot be sure.
Are they also suggesting, as very definitely followed from the language used, that a woke mob is threatening the institutions of state?
Are they also suggesting that this mob be stopped?
And are they suggesting in that case that the power of the state be used to defend institutions rhat are racist and promote inequality?
If so, why?
And if they are, institutions promoting racism and inequality what is the reason for defending them from the mob?
And what should happen to this supposed mob, fur having the temerity to stand up for rights enshrined in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which we signed up to long ago?
What is going on here?
And why is such language unchallenged, as if to imply that to support human rights places you outside society, as it would seem Policy Exchange might wish?
I refuse to be described as part of a mob for defending very basic human rights.
I condemn those who describe the protection of such rights as the work of a mob.
I fear that if this continues it will not end well. This was the deliberate use of language to create ‘otherness’ to which blame is then attached. They did it to Europeans and it worked. Now they are doing it to us. They think it will work. Worry.