Karen Chouhan, chair of the Black Londoners Forum, said: ''The ENB must sack Clarke... for her vile views, which run contrary to the Arts Council funding criteria...' But what are these 'criteria'? Is it not the case that the organisation concerned must actively promote diversity, but that the personal politics of a given organisation's members becomes irrelevant? This is because no organisation can control against whose names any member chooses to put his "X" against in a secret ballot? The criterion quoted focus on 'their work', not their personnel. If La Clarke had not been outed by the guardian then 'their [ENB's] work' would never have its multicultural credentials attacked in this way. The 1990 Trust has failed to demonstrate that the ENB has violated this criterion; only its deep suspicions that a racist will be instrumental in such a violation. Nevertheless, when one considers the ENB's work, one sees no evidence of this. It's as dangerously socially divisive to punish racists for their views as it is for racists to punish blacks for their skins. One must only punish for actions, not thoughts. Moreover, The 1990 Trust cannot support both democracy and rigid controls on whom one chooses to vote for. That way lies the one party state where democracy only thrives because there's only one state approved political party to vote for. Karen Chouhan demands that 'all publicly-funded bodies... promote good race relations'. What she doesn't explain is how English National Ballet is not doing this. Does this mean that members of any organisation reveal their political allegiances? Has Ms Chouhan never heard of a human right to privacy? Obviously not! Chouhan continues (naive to the last): 'The BNP are seeking supporters in the establishment who aim to quietly undermine multiculturalism. 'The party has been expanding its' membership among the powerful with recruitment drives in places such as Belgravia and Chelsea.' There's no need for the British National Party to do this the so called establishment don't believe in multiculturalism – they only pay lip service to it. The issue for the BNP is that they know they are on fertile ground – with the so called establishment – so are more concerned to get members of this establishment to come out and publicly declare their racism. The British National Party knows that those they recruit are, for the moment at least, merely closet racist. It is not a recruitment drive but a drive to make racism VISIBLY mainstream and acceptable while it remains currently INVISIBLY mainstream and acceptable. This is better for Blacks since They will then be able to more clearly see Their enemies; making it easier to take them down – by any means necessary. Eye of the storm, Simone Clarke, said 'I don't regret anything. I will stay a member [of the British National Party]. This is to be applauded. Anyone who takes a stand for what they believe is to be admired – no matter how objectionable their beliefs. If there were more people in the world like this, we'd live in a much better world. This is not to say that I wouldn't sanction her assassination by contract should her murder become necessary at some future time since, like her, Frank TALKER also stick by His guns – both literally and metaphorically. Let's be honest, if ms Clarke is sacked, it won't be as the result of any moral scruplkes among Whites regarding the employemtn of White Racists, it'll be as a public sacrifice to make the Whites at the ENB look good. This is especially true given the fact that no White Organisation would ever countenance emplloying (or continuing to emply) a Black Racist or one subsequently found to be so. Postscript: the most amusing aspect of this article follows: 'One insider was reported to have said: "The management have got their heads in the sand on this. They know they are facing a backlash against the company, not least from our financial backers, but they are clearly hoping it will just go away'. Is this 'insider' saying that if there is no negative financial consequence of employing a racist that that makes racism OK? He continues: "We are looking at a disaster for the ENB. At a time when funding for the arts is being tightened [yet again, a greater concern for money over morality], who is going to want to be seen giving money to a troupe led by someone who supports a political party considered by many to be racist?" Who, in their right mind, thinks the British National Party is anything other than constitutionally racist? Obviously, this 'insider' is a complicitly racist moron who thinks Arts' Council funding is more important than ethics. Does this mean the ENB is institutionally racist? Of course it does!
Article copyright © 2007, by Frank TALKER. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s Website/log http://franktalker.blogspot.com/ is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on Body Odour (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1996) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.