This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/22/tories-attempt-smear-sadiq-khan-repellent

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Tories’ attempts to smear Sadiq Khan are repellent The Tories’ attempts to smear Sadiq Khan are repellent
(about 4 hours later)
David Cameron is not a racist. He may have occasionally been in the same room as people secretly harbouring dodgy views about race, obviously. And he did get called a racist in parliament this week.David Cameron is not a racist. He may have occasionally been in the same room as people secretly harbouring dodgy views about race, obviously. And he did get called a racist in parliament this week.
But just because you keep reading the word “racist” alongside his name – in a way seemingly calculated to tap into any wholly wrong-headed prejudices you might have about Tories being predisposed to racism – doesn’t make it true. Although if I were trying to plant the entirely inaccurate idea in your head that Cameron was indeed a racist, this would be a pretty good way to go about it. But just because you keep reading the word “racist” alongside his name – in a way seemingly calculated to tap into any wholly wrong-headed prejudices you might have about Tories being predisposed to racism – doesn’t make it true. Although if I were trying to plant the entirely inaccurate idea in your head that Cameron was indeed a racist, this would be a pretty good way to go about it.
Ugly, isn’t it? Such sly, insidious poisoning of the well is hard to shrug off, precisely because nothing is ever said directly; you’re left boxing with shadows, or with people too cowardly to come out of them. Such tactics should have no part in decent politics. And that’s why Cameron should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for employing them against Sadiq Khan.Ugly, isn’t it? Such sly, insidious poisoning of the well is hard to shrug off, precisely because nothing is ever said directly; you’re left boxing with shadows, or with people too cowardly to come out of them. Such tactics should have no part in decent politics. And that’s why Cameron should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for employing them against Sadiq Khan.
Like most of the 56 million-odd Britons who don’t live in London, I’ve struggled to give much of a stuff about the mayoral election. London is no longer a reliable weathervane for the national mood – and, besides, Sadiq Khan v Zac Goldsmith isn’t exactly Ken v Boris. After years of compelling, charismatic mayors this feels rather like a battle of the B-listers.Like most of the 56 million-odd Britons who don’t live in London, I’ve struggled to give much of a stuff about the mayoral election. London is no longer a reliable weathervane for the national mood – and, besides, Sadiq Khan v Zac Goldsmith isn’t exactly Ken v Boris. After years of compelling, charismatic mayors this feels rather like a battle of the B-listers.
So it barely registered when the Goldsmith campaign began calling Khan “radical”, one of those words bandied around pretty freely between politicians but that take on a slightly different edge when applied to a Muslim one. Were we being silently invited to conflate it with “radicalised”? Khanites thought so, but it was hard to be sure.So it barely registered when the Goldsmith campaign began calling Khan “radical”, one of those words bandied around pretty freely between politicians but that take on a slightly different edge when applied to a Muslim one. Were we being silently invited to conflate it with “radicalised”? Khanites thought so, but it was hard to be sure.
Then came a Tory mailshot apparently targeting Sikhs and Hindus, suggesting Khan might slap a wealth tax on their family jewellery. A bit divisive maybe, but everyone targets their mailshots ruthlessly these days; you couldn’t put a finger on anything specific.Then came a Tory mailshot apparently targeting Sikhs and Hindus, suggesting Khan might slap a wealth tax on their family jewellery. A bit divisive maybe, but everyone targets their mailshots ruthlessly these days; you couldn’t put a finger on anything specific.
But when Cameron used this week’s prime minister’s questions to reheat and serve up for the telly bulletins the fact that Khan has shared a platform nine times with a supposed Islamic State sympathiser – although embarrassingly, Downing Street couldn’t immediately cite any example of Suliman Gani sympathising publicly with Isis – it all became clear.But when Cameron used this week’s prime minister’s questions to reheat and serve up for the telly bulletins the fact that Khan has shared a platform nine times with a supposed Islamic State sympathiser – although embarrassingly, Downing Street couldn’t immediately cite any example of Suliman Gani sympathising publicly with Isis – it all became clear.
The game is just to get the words “extremism” and “Sadiq Khan” to appear as often as possible in the same headline, and hope the detail goes over voters’ heads. And by joining in, Cameron turned London’s nasty little problem into one for all of us.The game is just to get the words “extremism” and “Sadiq Khan” to appear as often as possible in the same headline, and hope the detail goes over voters’ heads. And by joining in, Cameron turned London’s nasty little problem into one for all of us.
Let’s be clear: if they genuinely suspect Khan of being a secret extremist, the Tories have not just a right but a moral duty to shout it from the rooftops. If the prime minister thinks someone harbouring warmth towards Isis is on the verge of running the capital, then sod cultural sensitivity or community cohesion – he should be calling daily press conferences warning of a threat to national security.Let’s be clear: if they genuinely suspect Khan of being a secret extremist, the Tories have not just a right but a moral duty to shout it from the rooftops. If the prime minister thinks someone harbouring warmth towards Isis is on the verge of running the capital, then sod cultural sensitivity or community cohesion – he should be calling daily press conferences warning of a threat to national security.
But he isn’t, because he doesn’t think that. Goldsmith himself has insisted it’s only “a few nutjobs on Twitter” calling Khan an extremist, that Team Goldsmith thinks no such thing, and that he’s merely questioning Khan’s judgment by dredging up the association with Gani.But he isn’t, because he doesn’t think that. Goldsmith himself has insisted it’s only “a few nutjobs on Twitter” calling Khan an extremist, that Team Goldsmith thinks no such thing, and that he’s merely questioning Khan’s judgment by dredging up the association with Gani.
Presumably this is not at all the same as the judgment made by Dan Watkins, the Tory candidate for Khan’s parliamentary seat of Tooting, to whom Gani says he lent support and canvassers at the election. (Yup, Khan is so dangerously close to the supposed bogeyman that the bogeyman backed the Tories against him.)Presumably this is not at all the same as the judgment made by Dan Watkins, the Tory candidate for Khan’s parliamentary seat of Tooting, to whom Gani says he lent support and canvassers at the election. (Yup, Khan is so dangerously close to the supposed bogeyman that the bogeyman backed the Tories against him.)
It must be very different too from the judgment of the Tory minister Jane Ellison, who has also shared a stage with Gani. Or of whoever invited him to address a Conservative Muslim forum in London last year. And it’s naturally nothing like the time Goldsmith himself was photographed with Gani.It must be very different too from the judgment of the Tory minister Jane Ellison, who has also shared a stage with Gani. Or of whoever invited him to address a Conservative Muslim forum in London last year. And it’s naturally nothing like the time Goldsmith himself was photographed with Gani.
Why, it’s almost as if politicians of all parties grub for votes wherever they can get them – or to put it more generously, regularly bump into or speak at the same conferences as people whose views they don’t remotely share, to the point where all this becomes fairly meaningless. Does the fact that I shared a debating platform a couple of weeks ago with the Brexiteer Dan Hannan and a bloke from Occupy mean any of us share each other’s views? Or just that the whole point of debates is to combine people likely to challenge each other’s half-baked ideas?Why, it’s almost as if politicians of all parties grub for votes wherever they can get them – or to put it more generously, regularly bump into or speak at the same conferences as people whose views they don’t remotely share, to the point where all this becomes fairly meaningless. Does the fact that I shared a debating platform a couple of weeks ago with the Brexiteer Dan Hannan and a bloke from Occupy mean any of us share each other’s views? Or just that the whole point of debates is to combine people likely to challenge each other’s half-baked ideas?
Yet when a brown-skinned Muslim MP does these things, for some voters it takes on very different connotations.Yet when a brown-skinned Muslim MP does these things, for some voters it takes on very different connotations.
And it’s this perception that Muslims are different – not quite to be trusted, not quite One Of Us, their loyalties forever open to question – that the Tory campaign is dangerously close to exploiting. Just keep reminding voters he’s a Muslim, and let their imaginations do the rest. It’s a strategy as repellent as it might be efficient, given research that suggests white voters are less likely to vote for Muslim-sounding candidates.And it’s this perception that Muslims are different – not quite to be trusted, not quite One Of Us, their loyalties forever open to question – that the Tory campaign is dangerously close to exploiting. Just keep reminding voters he’s a Muslim, and let their imaginations do the rest. It’s a strategy as repellent as it might be efficient, given research that suggests white voters are less likely to vote for Muslim-sounding candidates.
What makes this more maddening is that there are perfectly sound reasons to question Khan’s judgment without inflaming religious tensions in a city already tense enough.What makes this more maddening is that there are perfectly sound reasons to question Khan’s judgment without inflaming religious tensions in a city already tense enough.
This is the man who remained a close lieutenant of Ed Miliband right up to his crushing defeat, and responded by nominating Jeremy Corbyn; who rode Corbyn’s coat-tails to the selection and then promptly distanced himself from Corbyn. If you were to criticise him for anything it wouldn’t be blinkered extremism but the opposite: an oddly flexible knack of ending up close to wherever the centre of power happens to be.This is the man who remained a close lieutenant of Ed Miliband right up to his crushing defeat, and responded by nominating Jeremy Corbyn; who rode Corbyn’s coat-tails to the selection and then promptly distanced himself from Corbyn. If you were to criticise him for anything it wouldn’t be blinkered extremism but the opposite: an oddly flexible knack of ending up close to wherever the centre of power happens to be.
But to suggest Khan secretly shares Gani’s repellent views on homosexuality or the subservience of women, when he defied death threats to vote for same-sex marriage and defines himself publicly as a feminist, is laughable. And to infer without evidence that the MP who whipped 42 days’ detention without trial through a mutinous Commons is a terrorist sympathiser is something worse.But to suggest Khan secretly shares Gani’s repellent views on homosexuality or the subservience of women, when he defied death threats to vote for same-sex marriage and defines himself publicly as a feminist, is laughable. And to infer without evidence that the MP who whipped 42 days’ detention without trial through a mutinous Commons is a terrorist sympathiser is something worse.
David Cameron categorically is not a racist. But he looks more and more like a man unsqueamish about pandering to racists, just to win a piffling local government election; like a prime minister perfectly prepared to divide, so long as he continues to rule.David Cameron categorically is not a racist. But he looks more and more like a man unsqueamish about pandering to racists, just to win a piffling local government election; like a prime minister perfectly prepared to divide, so long as he continues to rule.