(Caution: the following words are written by a rusty lawyer. On the specific legal issues, the views of a smarter and more up to date lawyer are demanded. I was though personally a successful Claimant in a case for discrimination reported in The Guardian)
Despite my vintage, at 3am last Sunday morning in Puerto De La Cruz, Tenerife, I was, for the first time in a decade, nightclubbing. I wore a suit, of course I did. The impresario of this techno and/or trance night was a friend. Therefore, it would have been rude – and frankly pathetically unadventurous – not to attend. And I am glad that I did. I didn’t dance, for those days are long gone and, anyway, how does one dance to techno music?
Watching the party-goers bop away, I was reflecting on a section of George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, which I am re-reading. In particular, I was contemplating whether there was a definable Spanish character. I was trying – and failing – to discern whether what Orwell wrote on this topic was racist. Below are his words about the “manana culture” – i.e. “tomorrow culture”:
“Every foreigner who served in the militia spent his first few weeks in learning to love the Spaniards and in being exasperated by certain of their characteristics. In the front line my own exasperation sometimes reached the pitch of fury. The Spaniards are good at many things, but not at making war. All foreigners alike are appalled by their inefficiency, above all their maddening unpunctuality. The one Spanish word that no foreigner can avoid learning is mañana – ‘tomorrow’ (literally, ‘the morning’). Whenever it is conceivably possible, the business of today is put off until mañana. This is so notorious that even the Spaniards themselves make jokes about it. In Spain nothing, from a meal to a battle, ever happens at the appointed time. As a general rule things happen too late, but just occasionally – just so that you shan’t even be able to depend on their happening late – they happen too early. A train which is due to leave at eight will normally leave at any time between nine and ten, but perhaps once a week, thanks to some private whim of the engine-driver, it leaves at half past seven. Such things can be a little trying. In theory I rather admire the Spaniards for not sharing our Northern time-neurosis; but unfortunately I share it myself.”
In his book Orwell details his exploits fighting in the Spanish Civil War, during which he sustained a nasty injury. Orwell was famously candid in his works, memorably criticising the racist British elites which governed pre-independence Burma in the exquisite Burmese Days. Orwell never pulled his punches. He would, I’m sure, regard himself as “pro-Spanish”.
Since I bought an English language academy in May 2023, many people, both Spanish and British alike, have referenced to me the “manana culture” in these Spanish islands, as identified by Orwell. Try as I have, I have been unable to discern whether Orwell’s words are racist. And, if what Orwell says is true, I cannot determine with any authority or logic whether truth negates racism. I.e. can something be true in addition to be being racist? And if a Spanish person says to me that there is a “manana culture” in Spain, should I pick them up on this racism? That would be weird.
And I cannot determine, in my own head, the precise moment where stereotyping ends and racism starts. I strongly suspect that to express Orwell’s views in a UK workplace setting would fall foul of the Equality Act 2010, specifically nationality-based discrimination (as a branch of race-related discrimination), but his expressed views wouldn’t be unlawful if, say, the comedian Jimmy Carr performed a sketch on “manana culture” at the Royal Variety Show on BBC1. However, to repeat a hypothetical Jimmy Carr sketch, from a public broadcaster, about “manana culture” in a workplace setting is likely to be unlawful. Intellectually, I have tied myself in knots when writing that sentence. Surely, matters of morality and legality shouldn’t be unclear.
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Still in glorious Tenerife, from where I type in this friendly Venezuelan restaurant, I have discovered that the locals occasionally refer to British people as “the pirates”. This is a historical reference which can traced back to the history of naval conflicts and piracy in the Atlantic, when British pirates were active in the waters around the Canary Islands. In one of the battles, in 1797, Admiral Nelson, lost his right arm.
By common agreement over here, the pirate reference is regarded as somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but some Brits hate it. I don’t know how I feel about it, but the origin is quite funny.
But under UK employment law, imagine, if you can, a hypothetical majority Canarian-staffed organisation based in the UK. Imagine, then, that British workers are chastised as “pirates” by their Canarian co-workers. In this unlikely situation, it seems likely to me that this would be unlawful discrimination against British staff, even if most of the British staff weren’t offended. And this hypothetical organisation couldn’t refuse to provide their services to British people, too.
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Against this backdrop, in my hometown of Harrogate the news this week has been dominated by the vile words of my local councillor. In short – for her words make me feel sick to repeat them – the councillor posted on Twitter/X, grotesque antisemitic posts on a number of occasions. I suggest that readers take my word for it, for the words are quite extreme.
Oftentimes in politics, politicians’ words are distorted and misquoted in order to character assassinate their target: this was not one of those times. And oftentimes, people in the public eye misspeak when caught off-guard: this was not one of those times, as similar racist posts were made over a number of days. I am convinced that no reader of my councillor’s words would be left in any doubt that they were racist – racist and wrong.
The councillor’s words provide the clearest example of racism from which to frame my thoughts on this challenging topic. What she said was definitely racist. Reassuringly, the police have been involved.
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
In recent and fascinating UK employment law news, former Bristol University Professor, David Miller, won his claim for discrimination and unfair dismissal against the university. Miller was sacked because he had promulgated his “anti-Zionist” views, which offended lots of students and staff. Notwithstanding that he caused offence, the Employment Tribunal found that his “anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic pursuant to section 10 Equality Act 2010.” Hence why he won his case for discrimination.
Therefore, given that in separate Employment Tribunal judgments pro-British National Party views, pro-BBC Values views and pro-veganism views have all been found to be protected under the concept of “philosophical belief” category, both pro-Zionist and pro anti-Zionist views appear to be protected under the law. Get your head around that!
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Bizarrely and surely morally indefensibly, in the UK, it isn’t unlawful to “discriminate” against someone in a workplace because they have red hair – something which is of course genetic – but an employee enjoys legal protection when promoting anti-Zionist views – views which are likely to be offensive to others.
Similarly, someone from Liverpool – a “Scouser” in common parlance – has no protection from discrimination legislation even though the place of their birth was outside of their control. Likewise, the law affords no class-based rights.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Reflecting on this tricky subject over the past week, my conclusion, albeit unsatisfactory, is that UK discrimination law is illogical. And while we can universally identify and agree upon what constitutes blatant racism – such as the words of my councillor – delineating what is permissible outside of these extremes becomes a daunting task, often eluding logical judgment.
Readers may recall that when I (foolishly?) stood for election in the Selby and Ainsty by-election, I repeatedly made the case that the UK, though imperfect on matters or race, was one of the least racist countries. As evidence, I made the case then, and I make it now, that when Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, his race wasn’t an issue (though many did care that he was very wealthy).
In my view, although British legislation seems to make little coherent sense, and that morality on this issue is confused, British people ought to make a big deal of the fact that we didn’t make a big deal about our first Asian Prime Minister.
And that’s yet another sentence on this thorny topic which makes little sense. This blog has earned me a Cuban mojito. I hope they sell them in here.
