With friends like Graham Smith …

Author: James Collins

The division amongst those advocating legal cannabis consumption is just unacceptable, so says Graham Smith.  Who the hell is that?  He’s a rather vocal supporter of Peter Reynolds and CLEAR.  He celebrates diversity, because he cares about all the peoples of the world.  Just check out his opinion piece on the CLEAR page.  Nice to see somebody call for unity in a time of division, isn’t it?  This guy is like Jesus or something.  Blessed are the peacemakers!

http://www.clear-uk.org/when-campaigners-take-sides-they-end-up-outside/

Sounds pretty great, doesn’t it?  He cuts through the bull and gets down to brass tacks.  He lays it out for us, how unity is the most important aspect of this fight.  A house divided cannot stand.  Divided we all fall.  You’re either with us or you’re against us.  Wait a minute … where have I heard that kind of rhetoric before?  Oh, I know.  It’s from the extreme political right wing.

The glaring problem with this stance is that it is completely incongruent with Graham’s other stated opinions.  Very much like Peter himself, Peter’s supporters have short memories and assume very lax research skills on the part of their detractors.  Fortunately for thinking people, the Internet has again shown us the way.  What does Mr Smith really think?

Mr Smith doesn’t care if Peter commits mass homicide.  He doesn’t care if Peter gassed the Jews.  He doesn’t care about any of his behaviors or proclivities, as long as he gets what he wants, and that is apparently legal cannabis consumption.  This is the mentality brewing just below the surface.  The ends apparently justify the means to Mr Smith.  It’s hard to imagine a more callous attitude, it really is.  This is the sort of person who finds themselves drawn in by the rhetoric and venom of Peter Reynolds.  We want what we want, and who cares if a lot of people who aren’t white Brits were to die in the process?

I’ll start by saying that the use of the term “yellow people” is pretty damn racist.  I think everyone living in the 21^st Century is pretty much aware that to refer to the peoples of South East Asia as “yellow” is beyond passé, it is indicative of a total lack of sensitivity about other races and cultures.  It divides people into a simplified colour spectrum so that they may be judged on that basis.  It’s a fairly simple system, we divide all the people of the world into a colour wheel, and then assume all those not falling into the white wedge are inferior.  We express this opinion by applying these colour grades to them verbally.  People so deeply ingrained with this kind of racist thinking invariably expose themselves by using these terms in casual conversation.  They do it in the way Mr Smith did in the above comment, without stopping to consider what kind of attitudes they are broadcasting concurrently with such dismissive language.

In short, you can’t polish a turd.

The most damning part of the comment above is the fact that Mr Smith clearly details where he draws the line with inhuman behavior.  He states openly that in his opinion it doesn’t matter if Peter harms a number of groups.  Dark-skinned people, Jews, those from Asia and women get included in this little tirade.  Mr Smith could have simply made his point by saying he didn’t care if Peter Reynolds hurt “people”, but he specifies who the people he is unsympathetic towards are.  I wonder what he would feel about Peter hurting a bunch of white men.  He doesn’t say that much and it’s hard not to infer that this is the only group he feels a sense of connection with.  Perhaps Mr Smith will clarify this for us one day before the people of Corby have to cast a vote.

Peter himself is not below using racist terminology both in public and in private.  In one choice case he uses the term “Paki” in an email to Sanj Chowdhary.  Perhaps he is not aware that “Paki” isn’t actually an ethnic group.  The region known as Pakistan is occupied by Pashtun, Arabic, Kurdish and Indian people, which is precisely where the name Pakistan came from in 1919 when the nation was formed by European powers after the First World War.  To simply refer to people from that region of the world as “Pakis”, rather than recognizing the ethnic and cultural diversity of this part of the world, is in and of itself racist.  It has been accepted amongst decent people for a long time now that this word is offensive.  Sanj Chowdhary is of Indian descent, as anyone who has dealt with him at all would know.   Come to think of it, Peter knows as much, and would only use the term Paki if it was meant to be derogatory.

CLEAR UK talks a lot of about diversity, very much like the Republican Party in the United States.  It’s a “big tent”, and you are welcome, so long as you don’t trample on the rights of white men to be arrogant and dismissive of all other races and cultures, gender and sexuality.  We’re not talking about an isolated statement.  We’re not talking about a callous joke, or some form of dark humor meant to provoke discussion about difficult issues.  We’re talking about a persistent pattern of racist, sexist, and generally bigoted language and attitudes.  This paradigm of white power pot smoking isn’t just found with Peter himself, but is rapidly garnering support from cannabis consuming bigots all around the UK.  How many racist things does somebody have to say before you can accurately label them a racist?

When you are a Member of Parliament, you will be sitting to vote on many issues, not just the legal status of cannabis consumption.  There are a broad range of issues facing modern society, and issues of race and division become more sensitive in hard economic times when people are frightened and often looking for scapegoats.  Mr Smith did get one thing absolutely right.  When you pick sides, you put yourself on the outside.  By casting aspersions upon people and dismissing their value as humans on the basis of their race and gender puts you way on the outside of decent society itself.  It labels you as a bigot and sexist, and displays an ideology that has no place in the modern world.  Is this the kind of person you really want to represent you in Parliament?