By Andrew Field
Europe has become frightened of words. Not obscenity, incitement or threats, which the law knows how to deal with, but labels: racist, islamophobe, far right. They have acquired a peculiar authority outside the law, capable of ending careers, closing arguments and frightening institutions into silence without evidence being tested or an offence proved. The fear of being named has become more powerful than the confidence to ask whether the accusation is true. A society governed by law depends upon people trusting the law to distinguish wrongdoing from disagreement. When those entrusted with enforcing that law know what is happening, possess the authority to act, yet retreat because they fear what somebody might call them, caution has crossed a line. It has become cowardice.
That institutional cowardice matters. Officials, politicians, journalists and ordinary citizens increasingly regulate what they say and do according to the label that might be attached to them. The accusation becomes punishment before anything has been proved, and fear begins doing work that once belonged to evidence, argument and law. Cowardice then acquires a respectable vocabulary. It becomes sensitivity, community relations, social cohesion or the avoidance of offence. In Rotherham, stripped of those euphemisms, we know what it eventually cost.
Fourteen hundred children were raped in Rotherham while officials who knew about it worried about being called racist. Professor Alexis Jay’s 2014 inquiry found that council staff and police had for years suppressed or minimised what they knew rather than confront the racial dimension of the offending. The abuse was documented. The perpetrators were identified. Reports were written and warnings ignored. Nobody concluded that the children did not matter. But people entrusted with protecting them were frightened of an accusation against themselves. There is an uncomfortable word for knowing that others are being harmed, possessing the authority to intervene, and choosing self-protection instead. It is called cowardice.
That is the cost of a word used as a weapon, and it is worth stating at full weight because the argument that follows is often dismissed as theoretical. It is not. The machinery of the state worked as designed until it encountered a fear of being named. The accusation of racism was once a serious charge with a specific meaning. It described the attribution of fixed moral or intellectual character to a person on the basis of ancestry, irrespective of what that individual actually does. That definition names the Nuremberg Laws and the Land Apportionment Act. It names the Belgian calipers that turned Hutu and Tutsi into races and produced a million dead in a hundred days. It is a real category describing a real evil. The case against it does not need overstating.
What has happened since is a widening so thorough that the word no longer refers to anything in particular. It now covers disparate outcomes without intent, opinions about immigration, questions about statistics and disagreements over religious texts. A term that means everything is a term that means nothing. Each widening served somebody. Consider the structure of the accusation, because the structure explains its power. Used in place of an answer, racist, islamophobe and far right become the ultimate political ad hominem. They do not rebut the proposition; they classify the person making it. The argument over immigration, religion, crime or integration is abandoned and replaced by an argument over the moral character of the speaker. Worse, the accusation targets an interior state, so denial can itself be presented as confirmation. Once the label sticks, no rebuttal is required. The speaker has become the evidence against his own argument. Whoever raises the label stops needing an argument and acquires a veto.
That combination makes it the perfect instrument for anyone losing on the merits. A minister facing a forensic audit discovers that the auditor has a colonial mindset. A land seizure requiring retrospective justification becomes a matter of historical redress. The tell is topical irrelevance, every time.
Islamophobia performs a subtler trick and is therefore more useful still. The word fuses two entirely separate things: hatred of Muslims as people, and criticism of Islam as a body of doctrine. The first is prejudice and indefensible. The second is theological and political argument of the sort Christianity, Judaism and every other system of ideas has absorbed for centuries. Nobody has proposed a term for criticism of Catholicism that implies psychiatric disorder in the critic. The suffix is doing the work, placing a set of propositions beyond argument by pathologising the person who argues.
Once that fusion is accepted, ordinary questions become unaskable. Whether apostasy should carry social penalty is a question about doctrine. Whether sharia councils should operate as parallel arbitration within a jurisdiction guaranteeing equal treatment before the law is a question about law. Whether blasphemy should attract prosecution, or a schoolteacher in Batley should still be in hiding years after showing a cartoon, concerns the reach of the state and the safety of citizens. None concerns anyone’s ancestry. All attract the accusation.
The response from Britain’s left has too often been to treat the questions themselves as evidence of the disease. That is a category error, and its consequences are not confined to bruised feelings in a television studio. Rotherham is what the error costs when it reaches an institution with a duty of care. Here the argument requires a discipline that its own advocates frequently abandon. The case against the accusation is only as strong as its refusal to commit the same offence. The moment the complaint shifts from what people do to where they came from, it forfeits everything. A grievance about doctrine is arguable. A grievance about descent has no exit, because nothing anyone could do would satisfy it.
This is where much of the European populist right defeats itself. It has a genuine case about integration policy, parallel legal norms and institutional cowardice in the face of documented crime, and buries that case beneath language about bloodlines and indigenous populations. Every time it does so it hands the accuser the one thing he needs, a premise about ancestry to grip. Deny him the premise and he has no case, only a grudge.
The empirical picture also refuses to cooperate with the simpler story. British Hindus and Sikhs outperform the national average on educational attainment and household income, and second-generation outcomes across most migrant communities diverge sharply from the first, generally upward. Any argument that migrants do not integrate collapses against communities that plainly have. The serious case is narrower and harder to answer: specific doctrinal demands, made by specific movements on specific points of law, may be incompatible with a jurisdiction guaranteeing equal treatment regardless of sex or belief, while the state has repeatedly declined to enforce its own standards for fear of the word.
Africa supplies evidence the European debate rarely touches. Gukurahundi killed 20,000 Ndebele in Matabeleland in the early 1980s, and colour explains none of it. The sorting was by language and lineage, a distinction invisible to any photograph. There is no tribunal, no reparations claim, no seat on any agenda. Meanwhile a party that carried out that campaign lectures the world on racism and is received politely, because one category of prejudice by descent attracts international attention and money, the other none.
That asymmetry matters. If the concern were prejudice by descent, both would rank equally, since the principle is identical. Instead, the utility of the accusation depends upon its target, and where the accusation yields nothing it is not made, however many are killed. The pattern is not confined to those two words. There is now a third doing the same office, and it is the most fashionable. To be filed as far right no longer requires that any specific prejudice be alleged. It is a classification rather than a charge, placing the speaker in a category the listener has already been taught to treat as beyond reply.
A real far right exists, organised and ethno-nationalist, and naming it accurately matters for the same reason naming racism accurately matters. But the term has stretched from those movements to cover a pensioner worried about the rate of arrivals, a columnist questioning asylum figures, a party polling at 30 percent. When a label expands to fit a third of the electorate it has stopped describing a fringe and begun describing a disagreement. At that point it ceases to inform and serves only to dismiss.
The tactical use is also self-consuming. A word used to end arguments eventually stops describing anything, and a currency printed without limit loses its value. All three have been spent on so many trivial and self-serving quarrels, thrown at a comedian, a novelist, a parent questioning a syllabus, that growing numbers no longer flinch when they hear them. The charge lands and nothing follows. That is not a victory anyone won. It is exhaustion, the natural death of a word worked past the point of meaning.
The real cost of that death falls on the wrong people. Racism exists. It killed a million in Rwanda within living memory. The greatest threat to naming it accurately was never the sceptic who asked for evidence, but the activist who spent the word on disputes that had nothing to do with it, until no credit was left for the day the naming would matter. If the words are spent, the fear of them is the stranger thing to keep. The accusation has become a cheque drawn on an empty account, and it clears only when the person handed it does not think to present it. Its remaining power lies in not being tested, which makes the person who flinches the last one keeping it alive.
None of which requires abolishing the terms. The claim that every accusation of racism is a diversion is as unanswerable as the accusation itself, and just as useless. The test is procedural rather than motivational. Does the charge specify conduct that could in principle be disproved? Would the accuser state what evidence would retract it? Does it survive the removal of his interest in making it? Three questions, applied without exception, and the genuine charge separates cleanly from the tactical one.
Apply them to Rotherham. The officials were not accused of anything. They were afraid that they might be. Children therefore carried the consequences of adult cowardice: officials protected themselves from a word while those they were employed to protect remained exposed to the crime. That is the obscenity at the centre of the story. The label required no evidence, no hearing and no verdict. It needed only people frightened enough to obey it. Fourteen hundred children paid for that fear. What is a word worth, when the price of doubting it is paid by somebody else’s daughter?
Guest writer, Andrew Field, is the founder and author of the chronicle South of the African Equator and photoblog Simply Wild Photography
Discover more from Africa Unauthorised
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
