Call us now on: 0800 731 5905 - Viva Lewes

NORMAN bAkER
...on that Sunday Times article
It was with dismay that I read the
long, long piece in the Sunday Times
magazine recently about Lewes. It
raised so many issues that I barely k<strong>now</strong>
where to start, but let me try.
First and foremost, Lewes is not a town
riddled with racism, and I resent the
implication of the article that it is. I
particularly resent it beca<strong>us</strong>e, actually,
it’s a very tolerant place, a liberal town,
where you will find members aplenty
of Amnesty International for example,
but almost no BNP members – four
in total, in fact, according to that same
Sunday Times piece.
Second, I resent the patronising tone
of the article in the London-based
paper, with its implication that we are
all backwoodsmen down here, rather
behind the curve compared to a vibrant,
all-embracing modern capital city.
(Barking or Dagenham, anyone?) J<strong>us</strong>t
in case we missed the message, there
was a gratuito<strong>us</strong> picture of Bonfire to
imply that we are all anti-catholic as
well as racist.
Now I don’t want to pretend that
racist incidents never occur. They do
sporadically, as they will do anywhere
in the country you care to mention.
And they m<strong>us</strong>t be dealt with firmly
when they occur. But I can count all
those that have crossed my desk in 13+
years as the town’s MP on the fingers of
one hand. I could also point out other
towns not very far away where the
problem is far worse.
But then perhaps it turns on what you
call racist. I would define it a deliberate
act of discrimination, an insult, or
worse an act of violence against an
individual or group generated largely
or wholly by their race or racial
characteristics.
w w w. V I VA l E w E s . C o M
Doubtless there is also what you
might term unintended racism, when
people, with no intention to offend,
nevertheless can do, for example by
calling someone “coloured” rather than
“black”.
In the article, there was an example
given of a child who had observed,
innocently I expect, that another child,
black or mixed race, had bigger nostrils
than he did. This seems to have been
taken as a racist comment, but to my
mind, it was most likely simply a child
noticing a difference, which in this case
was nostril size, but might equally have
been eye colour or presence of freckles
or a hundred other characteristics.
Then there was the complaint that
the S<strong>us</strong>sex Express should not have
put on its front page a picture of a
14-year-old black child who had been
given an ASBO. Now there is certainly
a legitimate debate as to whether it
is appropriate for a local paper to put
photos of such 14 year-olds on its
front page, and I can see both sides.
But the article appeared to be arguing
a different case: that it was wrong to
print a picture of a black 14 year-old,
with the implication that it would have
been all right had the boy been white.
Racist incidents, where they do occur,
m<strong>us</strong>t be dealt with firmly. But it does
not help anyone to portray the town as
racist, when it is not. Nor does it help
our community, indeed any community,
if people become so fearful of speaking
for fear of offending that they stay
quiet instead. That only breeds a
different kind of intolerance.
I think Lewes generally gets it about
right. Which is more than I can say for
the Sunday Times.
C o l U M N
9 3