The Guardian view on Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech: handle with care | Editorial (original) (raw)

Next week marks the 50th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech. Edward Heath, then Conservative leader, sacked him at once as shadow defence minister; four colleagues had warned they would otherwise resign. One newspaper described his words as “evil”. This was a speech of real and malign import and the BBC is right to analyse its impact, as it will do in a Radio 4 programme on Saturday. It was and is a serious matter, deserving serious attention. It is even more relevant as the 70th anniversary of the Windrush generation’s arrival, upon invitation, approaches; and as long-term residents from the Commonwealth, Britons in all but paperwork, face deportation in a “hostile environment” for migrants that began with populist rhetoric and is now official policy.

But to promote the show by boasting that Powell’s speech will be read in full on radio for the first time “EVER”, by a well-known actor, is not only crass but damaging. This is what the presenter and BBC media editor Amol Rajan did in a tweet. Whether the address should be aired in its entirety is questionable, even if it is broken up and critiqued. The show purports to examine its historic effect, yet perversely will give it a much larger audience than it had at the time, when only extracts were broadcast. Listeners will judge the merits of the programme for themselves. But treating such a sensitive and important matter as if it were a titillating showbiz exclusive is wrong, and dangerous. It trivialises the very real damage Powell wreaked, and contributes to ongoing attempts to rehabilitate him. Sympathisers portray him as too clever, too scholarly, too polyglot to be racist and claim his speech was purely about immigration. That is absurd. He was attacking the race relations bill; he spoke of “grinning piccaninnies” and quoted the prediction that “the black man will have the whip hand over the white man”. He warned of the “growth of the immigrant-descended population” and, most notoriously, looked ahead “with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’”.

History has, broadly, proved him wrong; there has been no race war. But blood flowed from black and Asian families in the wake of his words and, as dockers and meat porters marched in his support, many more households packed suitcases just in case. And half a century on, some still heed him. Nigel Farage has said that the “basic principle” on immigration was right. Jenny Bourne of the Institute of Race Relations has outlined the ways in which Powell’s rhetoric fixed arguments to this day: integration (by which he means assimilation) is impossible; its failure will lead to race hatred; immigration was a grand conspiracy; the only answer is reducing numbers. Most striking is the cult of victimhood, portraying the white majority as a persecuted minority, warning that immigrants “seek domination” and the voter must not be “denied his right to discriminate”.

The persistence of these ideas is what makes the note of self-congratulation in promoting the programme so ill-judged. The tone is one of daring in breaking a taboo. But if many have moved on in their views and others are more cautious in their wording, the sentiments are still shared and expressed too widely. In 2016/17, the police recorded more than 80,000 hate crimes: an increase of almost 30% year on year, ascribed to a genuine rise in such offences as well as improved recording. Powell’s contemporaries recognised how dangerous his speech was, and took a stand. That commitment must be renewed.