Diversity - a diverse opinion

Diversity - a diverse opinion



Lifer Charles Hanson concludes that race and religion now appear to be the dominant features of diversity

Quite recently, I was asked by a member of the prison staff to sign a form acknowledging that I understand the meaning of diversity and that I accept the meaning of diverse needs and rights to specific groups of prisoners which, in this instance, seemed to focus entirely on different ethnic and religious groups. At first I refused to sign, as what I was being asked to comply with seemed to be entirely misleading, for surely diversity should include all groups within the outside community and indeed the prisoner population, according to modern liberal and Prison Service thinking. It was on the pain of being transferred to another establishment that I acceded to the request to sign and set about looking deeper into what was, after all, a politically correct exercise.

Being coerced to undertake a social engineering exercise may satisfy the lentil-munching liberals of Islington but it hardly commends itself to free speech and freedom of thought. I have nothing against religion, although as a confirmed atheist and member of the National Secular Society, I would argue against the myths and superstitions of religious faith. Besides, I am certain that no wars or conflicts have started over non-belief. I am even more certain that religion and religious differences have, down through the years, claimed countless lives. However, I am simply contented to let sleeping dogs lie and let other people believe what they want to believe, as long as it is not imposed on me or that I have to accept it. Yet that is not enough for the ‘thought police’.

I have to agree perhaps that faith schools should be the norm for Christians, Muslims and Jews, which in my view is a form of self-imposed apartheid and also elitist; where particular faiths are able to shield their young from the ‘awfulness’ of the outside world and those who do not conform to their faith - and all in the name of diversity.

Likewise, I am being asked to agree to the rights of the twenty-five unelected Bishops of the House of Lords and the religious privilege which they enjoy. All of this goes against my secular beliefs and is in direct conflict with them, but my views do not count, for atheists have no rights other than to keep their views to themselves and are compelled to accept religious differences and the needs of their followers.

Perhaps I am also being asked to agree that Rastafarianism and Scientology should be proscribed or banned by the Prison Service as not being religious at all.

So there we have it. It's not what we, as prisoners, think that counts, it's what the ‘thought police’ and perhaps the wishy washy liberals think that is morally correct.

On the issue of ethnicity, it seems to me that it is precisely those wishy washy white, middle-class liberals who are the deciders of what counts and who they perceive are most offended. Take for example the decisions by certain councils to re-name Christmas as Winterval or to ban Punch and Judy shows for kids because it perpetuates domestic violence. It was clear from Muslim and other religious leaders that they weren't in the least offended by Christmas and some took part in the festivities themselves, even if they didn't count it as being one of their own.

As for Punch and Judy shows, there exists no evidence whatsoever that such entertainment, if you will, actually encourages domestic abuse unless we now have five year-olds already abusing their future wives.

It really is all a nonsense and the country, and no less the Prison Service, are spending fortunes on promoting a smug and so-called ‘happy and equal’ society. But diversity is supposed to be about all groups in society, many of which are always so seemingly absent on the agenda of diversity and not least of all on the form I was asked to sign.
There are the elderly, who quite shockingly are often ignored and neglected, not least of all in prison which I find more offensive than any discrimination which can be challenged and for which laws exist to combat. The same is true of disabled prisoners, and of course many afflictions can amount to a disability, many not so visible to others. The mentally ill are another group of prisoners who, like the elderly, are containable if they remain quiet and easily manageable by prison staff. But diversity? Their needs?

There is also the gay community but of course they don't count for the Prison Service, which does little more than pay lip service to their needs and rights. Women and children are also specific groups within the prison population .. but diversity for them?

Race and religion now appear to be the dominant features of so-called diversity, so much so that for the liberal it's become a crusade and an obsession, accompanied by a knee-jerk response along the way to any perceived discrimination. Diversity within the Prison Service is therefore highly selective and in keeping with current liberal obsessions and fashionable thinking.

History tells us that Nazi Germany formulated a social and racial engineering programme which saw the mentally ill (now called learning difficulties) being put to death in sanatoriums. This was followed by the elderly and the infirm, and eventually Auschwitz and millions of Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Trade Unionists. Indeed, the original ‘thought police’ at work with devastating consequences. Things are more subtle these days.

So, I stand somewhat against the accepted notion of diversity and feel as if old standards of thought and free expression have virtually been outlawed. We all have a responsibility to curtail any extreme form of belief or action, and free speech is not unlimited and does have its boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. Indeed, legislation such as the Race Relations Act, Disability Discrimination Act and Age Discrimination Act, and various other Acts, exist to render accountable those who cross the line. And of course there are prison rules which forbid the same. So now I know that the diversity form I was compelled to sign, and which was limited to only two features of diversity, was little more than a politically correct exercise and a measure of a target driven ideology. The policy makers, who seem hell bent on attacking free speech and forcing us all to conform to ideological, politically correct diktats, might like to consider the following from Adolf Hitler in 1933:

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, your children belong to us already. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

The line of reasoning behind liberal thinking is that there exists a so-called community of similar needs and wants, and that equality of opportunity should be pursued at all costs for everyone. Yet of course this is totally unrealistic, as is the notion of community. Equality of opportunity is a noble aim but is it realistic? For don't we all have different skills and abilities? Disability, for example, makes it extremely unlikely that someone in a wheelchair would make a good firefighter, which a disabled person would readily acknowledge but not the liberal do-gooder who, by their thinking, would place them at risk.

I would merely ask the politically correct meddler if he or she would be willing to sit in a plane piloted by a blind man; allow a blind surgeon to operate on their brain; or have their children driven to school by a blind bus driver?

Community is also a notion which implies a brotherhood of man which clearly does not exist and it is doubtful if it ever has. There may be communities of varying sizes and types but certainly no national or indeed international community. Is a community therefore a place, and what kind of place is it? Is London a community, and how far does it reach? Does it include the suburbs? Even in a street, do we assume that all the residents comprise a ‘community’ of friendliness, basking in a genuine humanity and selflessness. I think not.

We often hear of the expression Gay community, Black community, Jewish community, Muslim community, Disabled and Elderly community, but to say that Gay people, all taken together in the same way as Black, Jewish, Muslim, Disabled and Elderly people, might be considered as individual communities is to say that they are all separate, that they associate amongst themselves but keep themselves aloof from others, and by virtue each group has common interests and all think alike. Again a total nonsense.

The use of the word ‘community’ tends to imply that there isn't a diversity of opinion and for those groups described above there is also a notion that by describing each and every group as such defines their whole identity. So much for liberal thinking, which seems to me to be far closer to fascism than one might believe.

The word ‘tolerance’ too is often used in promoting equal rights but I doubt that those most fervent in its promotion have given much thought to what tolerance actually means, for would it not be reasonable to suggest that being tolerant doesn't actually mean we have to like a person or their beliefs for we usually tolerate what we despise. It is often reported that a community is demanding or opposing some political action as though people act like bees with a hive mind. What is really happening is that some self-appointed community leader or spokesman, and their views, are taken as being representative of the entire group. This also happens within Government departments, so it comes as no surprise that I was asked to sign a form on diversity by one of their representatives.

There is clearly a political line from which we must not be allowed to deviate. Nazi Germany operated along the same lines as do most totalitarian dictatorships. We are therefore to be judged not by our understanding of acquired knowledge and morality but by our attitudes and conformity to what can often be contentious political opinions, often held by those who think they know what is best for others - the original ‘nanny squads’ and ‘thought police’, who seemingly are forever intent on patronising, condemning and penalising as many of their victims as possible in order to enforce their muddled worldly thinking upon us all.

• Charles Hanson is currently resident in HMP Blantyre House