In a hysterically funny (for a given value of hysterically funny) announcement Lee Jasper declared to the world as Jo Brand did that black people cannot be racist. They apparently can hold prejudiced views, but that shouldn’t be ascribed as racism.


Ken Livingstone’s former race adviser Lee Jasper has claimed that “no black person in the UK can be racist”.

Mr Jasper, an equal rights campaigner and activist, said that while black Britons may hold prejudiced views, they should not be described as racist.
The 53 year-old was forced to resign as senior policy adviser on equalities to Mr Livingstone, who was then mayor of London, in March 2008 over allegations of cronyism. Leaked emails showed that he had exchanged highly flirtatious messages with a married mother of three, whose projects received £100,000 from City Hall on his recommendation.
In one email, he told the woman that he wanted to “whisk her away to a deserted beach and honey-glaze her”. Mr Jasper, who is now the chairman of the campaign group Black Activists Rising Against Cuts, took to Twitter yesterday to complain about the number of black youths being jailed.
Using the hashtag “sackboris2012”, Mr Jasper asked: “Which mayor has seen the number of black youth going to jail in London increase by 100 per cent during his term?”
His comment prompted a bitter war of words on Twitter between him and Ahzaz Chowdhury, a former adviser to the Conservatives in Tower Hamlets, east London. Mr Jasper went on to say: “Institutional racism in the criminal justice means black citizens face discrimination.”
Mr Chowdhury asked: “So you yourself could never be a racist?”
Mr Jasper answered: “Why is it African activists like me seem to attract public political criticism from Asian men? Don’t see Africans attacking Asian activists? You’re confused about the political reality and power dynamics of racism.
“No black person in the UK can be racist. Racism is prejudice plus power. Black people can be prejudiced but not racist.”

So there you have it, when 4 drunken Somali girls are beating up a white woman calling her a white bitch, they aren’t racist in Jasper’s eyes (or the courts apparently) but when a white woman mouths off on a tram train telling other passengers to go back to where they come from (just words no violence) she’s incarcerated without bail and had her child removed and faces a Crown Court trial later this year.

The question is, how are we ever going to get any form of equality whilst the state elevates obvious racists like Lee jasper into positions of power. For yes, that is what Lee jasper clearly is if he cannot recognise that racism touches all and affects all. It’s like a self hating infection within the white political classes and is being fostered in the non white communities too. Aided and encouraged by multicultural and non-integrationalist policies from the liberal left.

All Lee jasper has done is confirmed in the eyes of the many that there is a two tier system in place fostering prejudice and racism against whites by the minority political classes and some in their communities and which is enforced by the judiciary and the political class themselves, the so called powers that be.

Eventually though this will lead to the very situation they want to avoid where people will decide that if the state thinks them to be a racist, they’ll vote for a party which will tell them they aren’t and will look after their rights.

There is no place in a civilised society for people like Lee Jasper or even Jo Brand. Yet we have them telling the majority that non whites cannot be racist but the rest of us are in similar circumstances…

This cannot go on without violence…

10 comments for “Racism

  1. Maaarrghk!
    April 24, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    I would humbly suggest to the Telegraph that Lee Jasper is in fact an UN-equel rights campaigner.

  2. April 24, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    One can have no problem with equal rights; however, what has happened as a result of the obsession with it is that now, minority groups rights trump those of the majority.


    The woman in this was quoted as saying, “I can’t be racist – I’m black”!

  3. David A. Evans
    April 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Some of the most racist people I’ve met have been black.

  4. SteveW
    April 24, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Does that mean that if an American white supremacist travels to China, for example, he would cease to be racist, as white Americans have no power in China?

    Would that then also mean that if the same bloke was locked up then the state would be forcing him to be racist rather than allowing him the opportunity to mend his ways?

    Or, to paraphrase, what an illogical dipshit.

  5. Single Acts of Tyranny
    April 25, 2012 at 6:46 am

    “Racism is prejudice plus power”

    So then, neither Emma West (the tram lady) or the Welsh guy jailed for the twitter nonsense can be racist because they hold no power?

  6. Watchman
    April 25, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    I am always intrigued where this strange definition of racism as prejudice plus power came from. As noted above, that means that most actual racists are not racist (it is arguable that most racists come from the white underclass – a group with less power than any other in terms of politics, as it almost totally lacks pressure groups).

    But I do think there is a simple reposte – which is the nature of power. The logic that racism requires power is very much tied into the Foucault School of thought, but to actually apply this properly (and yes, that is possible…) it is necessary to understand power is in this school best understand as the French word, pouvoir, which is also the verb ‘to be able’. Power is simply the ability to do something. So if you can manipulate the courts to suit people of your skin colour (or whatever self-identifier you chose) you are using power. If you can intimidate others to do what you want or simply not to sit on the bus near you, that is a form of power as well. We can accept Mr Jasper’s stupidity, and agree that racism equals prejudice plus power, but then point out he clearly can be racist as he has power because he is recognised as a ‘community leader’ and gets media attention – so he can be racist.

    Or we could just go back to the actual meaning of the word and claim racism is discrimination on the grounds of race, with no qualifiers. Either way Mr Jasper qualifies rather nicely.

    • DerekP
      April 25, 2012 at 6:44 pm

      I suspect “this strange definition of racism as prejudice plus power” is an attempt to push a Politically Correct argument for the ‘only white people can be racist’ bigotry.

      I think your analysis of racism is far more logical, but then it is an analysis and not a prejudice so you haven’t had to jump through contrived ideological hoops.

  7. mrbp
    April 29, 2012 at 7:47 am

    This nonsensical redefinition of the word which is so popular on the left and in the black community really needs to be put to the sword.

    It originated (decades after the word racism was first coined) in a book by Pat Bidol titled “Developing New Perspectives on Race” in 1970. This butchery of a perfectly good word was carried out for the express purpose of shielding minorities from accusations of racism. It is a cynical political hatchet job on one of the most important words in the English language.

    Over the decades it has gained traction in certain obscure Marxist and left wing intellectual circles; but due to it’s illogical and racist implications it has never caught on in wider society. The dictionaries still reflect the real meaning of the word.

    The problem is this mangled definition of the word has flown the coop of obscure Marxist theory and is being touted as gospel by certain “anti racist” organisations, far left activists and many in the black community.

    It is a concept which is not only dividing humanity it is damaging the credibility of left wing/progressive causes. Just think about what an amazing example of Orwellian doublespeak the “racism = prejudice + power” formulation is.

    The word racism has always meant the racially based prejudiced of one person to another based on their racial difference regardless of the political power or of which racial group the perpetrator comes from. No more no less.

    Pat Bidel’s Orwellian twisting of the term creates a world in which a Moroccan man in France can grab an 8 year old Jewish girl by the hair point a 45 calibre gun into her terrified face and shoot without being accused of racism because he comes from an “oppressed minority”

    It is not even about power as the formula suggests it is about race.

    The proponents of this formula always go on to claim the “white power structure” is global so a racist attack carried out by a black man in a black majority country still isn’t racist because the power of the “white supremacist conspiracy” is global in it’s reach and supersedes the black power structure of that nation.

    It singles out one particular race as guilty of the crime of racism. In their world view racism is reliant on the prejudicial party being part of the “power construct” and not just any power construct. One must specifically be part of the racial group which benefits from and is responsible for the past crimes of European colonialism and the transAtlantic slave trade.

    The implication of this is that anyone who is within the power construct is to some extent guilty of perpetuating racism regardless of how they think or feel because racism is structural and they are a part of the racist order of society. It matters not a jot how low their economic or social status is; as members of the power structure they hold some responsibility of perpetuating the racist status quo.

    An antisemitic attack carried out by Asians or Africans ceases to be racist because the Jewish community has more political power than that of their attackers. But an identical attack carried out by a Neo Nazi for identical reasons is racist not solely because of the racial motive but because of the perpetrators racial identity.

    Anyone should be able to see that this turns the word racism itself into a racist doctrine in its own right, Orwell’s Big Brother would have been proud of you.

    The fact the proponents of this view claim it is reasonable leads me to believe that they are not being honest.

  8. mrbp
    April 29, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Anyway as a Londoner I can count on one hand the amount of white racist incidents I have seen but the amount of hatred and extreme violence I have seen emanating from the black community towards white people boggles the mind.

    I have seen a black woman jump from her car and pull a white woman from her car by her hair and punch her repeatedly in the face for beeping her horn, I have seen a group of black lads beat a white man to a pulp with baseball bats outside my house and I myself have been robbed more than once. Whilst there was no racist language used on any of these occasions if it was white attackers and black victims everyone would scream racism.

    Black people may not hold as much economic or political power as whites but in many ways they have more power. For a start they have minority status which in Britain today carries immense social currency and whilst violent white racism has thankfully declined to a miniscule amount many young black people hold one of the most potent sources of power over their white counterparts.

    Violence and the threat of violence.

    I don’t know any black lads who fear violence from the BNP or white bigots but many white lads live in constant fear of being robbed or beaten up by black gangs.

    I grew up with black people and count many of them as close friends but I have lost count of the amount of times I have heard black people say things like “white people are pussies” and “all white people are racist” I even have an acquaintance who recently sent me a youtube clip of a certain individual called Dr Francis Cress Welsing who claims white people are genetically inferior and racism is our reaction to the innate black genetic superiority.

    If black people are powerless victims incapable of racism then I must be living in another dimension.

  9. sebastian weetabix
    May 18, 2012 at 7:51 am

    I came across this definition during the 70s but then it was Racism = Prejudice + Discrimination + Power. And as such, “blacks” (whoever they are), being powerless (depending on how that’s defined), couldn’t be “racist”. So this undifferentiated “black” community was exempt from the sorts of censure the “white” community – being either intentionally, unintentionally, institutionally or culturally “racist” (varieties seemed to proliferate as terms were invented) – had increasingly heaped upon it. But heaped upon it by whom? And why?

    Mostly, it seemed at the time, by Marxist (or Marxist type) agitators and haters of western democracy and life-styles seeking to destabilise and disrupt a “capitalist” society they affected to despise. The “black” community was a potential constituency or task-force of the potentially disaffected or aggrieved to be galvanised against the “white” one for the sake of some mythical and wholly unattainable “just and equal society” that the collapse of racist capitalism would usher in. This is how the argumant ran; and the mathematical style formula used to define “racism” (thereby inevitably setting black against white) lent this spurious calculation some sort of superficial (though persuasive at the time) rigour. This was supplemented by carefully chosen statistics showing, for instance, educational achievement, employment, housing, health, law and so on, where discrepancies were emphatically presented as evidence of “racism” in all these services, deeply rooted and infecting the people empowered to deliver them. There was never any other explanation. To explain matters otherwise was, itself, “racist”. To deny or question the anti-racist narrative was, too, “racist”. There was then, and is now, explanatory bigotry and conceptual terrorism of the most extreme kind. Everything was because of “racism” and don’t dare to deny it; or else ….

    It was, of course, utter horsecock. And still is.
    The fatal flaw is in their denial – conveniently formulaic if you accept the formula, which I do not – that “blacks” cannot be racist (try looking around Africa). But common sense – much absent from this debate – says otherwise. Why don’t they condemn Mugabe as “racist” and evil? Surely because he is “black” and, anyway, fighting colonial oppression: so anything goes. But that’s not much comfort to those Mugabe has slaughtered and starved because they weren’t “Mugabe” enough and from the wrong tribe or group. Common sense says Mugabe is perhaps more “racist” than most. As was Idi Amin who expelled the Asian Ugandans and slaughtered many of his own citizens – given comfortable sanctuary in Saudi Arabia where he finally died and went to meet his much displeased Maker.

    Why not the savage Lord’s Resistance Army? Surely, too, because they are “black” and, being lawless and uncivilised, lack the institutional force – the formal structures – that might otherwise (if they were white) condemn them: so that’s alright then. Different story if they were “white”. But they’re not. They can kill, rape, mutilate, capture and enslave and steal from because their victims are different, and still not be racist. They may not be the same, but they’re “black” so that makes up for it. Purely wicked, perhaps? Well ……….. let’s not be judgemental. But “powerless” and therefore never “racist”; and that’s what’s important.

    The anti-racist binary division of society into “black” and “white” is equally faulty. Again, common sense tells us this is not how the world is. Most but the anti-racists see this. They, instead, blindly cling – because it suits them to – to a wholly artificial and concocted segregation of mutually homogenous (black/white) bitter rivals: a division which tends not to integration, justice, reconciliation and amity, but to conflict, resentment and violence. We’re idiots to accept this. But we have. Idiots!

    In singling out “whites” for the “racist” insult, the anti-racists are surely guilty of a sort of reverse “racism” on one hand, and on the other, of losing entirely a proper sense of right and wrong, good and bad, tolerable and intolerable, righteous and evil of a sort that transcends the ethnic and racial distinctions they seek so assiduously and damagingly to impose on us.

    So forget narrow and partial “racism”. Remember, instead, those more universal tests that in the true spirit of equal treatment, really do apply to all.

Comments are closed.