Whites, Jews and East Asians are discriminated against by affirmative action.

It falls under that category too.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2018 10.20am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I'm not going into dozens of examples for you matey.

Here's one that says it all. On the news in the last couple of days, we had a story about the scaling down of the Stephen Lawrence investigation and the family response to it.
Really? How many Black people have died at the hands of other Black people since then? And how much do we hear about those individual cases? How many White people have died at the hands of Black people since then? Have we heard about what their families think about the police on the national news?

Edward Heath was a complete prat and one of the worst Tory leaders of last century.

We will agree that the 'rivers of blood' speech certainly destroyed Powell's Tory career. However, commentary upon it is often exaggerated and says more about the commentator than the speech.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2018 12.08pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

It was intended as a foreboding.

OK, I'll see if I can run with this.

I think technically you may be right if you're talking specifically about the increase in immigration causing problems (nothing new here, but in the interest of balance it of course also brings benefits). You could also argue, if you were to be picky, that there is little that is overtly racist about the words themselves.

However that is of course to take it all at face value.

What is clear, is that the speech was a great exercise in scaremongering, and bringing personal points of view, some emotional and not substantiated, into the public realm, from a respected, public figure.

It was clearly designed to start turning a large part of the population at the time against all immigrants irrespective of whether they were 'good' or 'bad'. It also took one step towards normalising not just this point of view, but also the attitude in which it was expressed. Attitude is also very important here.

At worst you could say it was racist. At best, it's irresponsible, not for the opinion, but for the way it was delivered.

Also, when you consider that immigration and race are very closely linked, what could also be said is that his main angle was not just anti-immigrant, but also anti-race – to quote his own words, specifically 'the black man'. Therefore, by extension, the words themselves might not be overtly racist, but you could argue that its intent was.

HOWEVER

Bringing things back on topic, I see no reason why this should not be broadcast and discussed again. Someone earlier made the point around censorship being dangerous and I agree. But if it's broadcast in a balanced way and in the right context, then I see no issue.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (13 Apr 2018 12.57pm)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

The two are linked because most immigrants were not White. Nothing more or less. It is also clear that the 'culture' of immigrants is often related to their 'race' and or religion. I would find it insulting to the intelligence to discuss one aspect of immigration without acknowledging the others.
You cannot just dismiss a very accurate prediction of the future and the concerns of the vast majority by calling it racist. Calling it any name does not make it less true.
Are you suggesting that people should not tell things how they are just because it is 'irresponsible?' Who would you be protecting with that attitude?