Anton

So it is only week 3 of the series, and already the tabloids are revelling in another anti-BBC story. This time, however, the own goal has been scored by Anton du Beke, who has served up the perfect opportunity for the red-tops to bash both Strictly and Hole in the Wall.

The big story of the day is that Anton is alleged to have used an offensive, racially charged term to describe his partner, Laila Rouass. Anton has issued an apology, no doubt carefully worded by the BBC’s legal department, stating that the word had been used in jest, and that his profound apology has been accepted.

First things first. I tend to take every story published by the News of the World with a whole cellar full of salt. And it is almost beyond belief that the rag should now be positioning itself as a kind of moral compass with regards to accusations of racism. They, like the rest of their ilk, are governed by both commercial and political imperatives – they need to sell more papers, and they have a political agenda against the BBC.

However, an apology has been issued, together with a statement from the BBC, so in this case it would seem that there is no smoke without fire.

I feel shocked and disturbed by Anton’s use of the word. Deeply saddened as well, because it is always hard to admit, when confronted with direct evidence, that those we admire can have feet of clay. I believe that Anton should face sanction by the BBC, and unfortunately, as the original conversation itself has been made public, so I think that the penalty paid needs to be known in the public domain as well.

I know that if I used such abusive language in my job, I would be facing a disciplinary hearing, with a high likelihood of a written warning that would stay on my employment record for some time. It would also most likely have direct consequences for any ambitions of promotion that I had previously entertained, quite rightly so, as my employer would also have to question my judgement, my ability to deal appropriately and fairly with colleagues, and my suitability to represent them in public. It would also raise doubts about the motivations behind my words and actions – if I could be capable of casual racist abuse, then I could well be capable of intentional racism and discrimination, even promulgating racial hatred. (Or for that matter, sexism, xenophobia or homophobia).

In this case, I think Anton can kiss goodbye to any hopes of a mainstream presenting career, and very probably to future contracts on SCD. Whether he should continue to compete in this year’s series is a moot point. If Laila is truly happy to dance with him, then he could be allowed to continue. If she is unhappy with the situation, then this should not jeopardise her position in the show, and she should be allowed to dance with another professional partner.

Whatever happens next, this is an incredibly difficult situation for the BBC, and likely to be an issue that runs and runs. As far as Anton is concerned, he should be learning his lesson the hard way – there are some things that are just beyond decency, even if said in jest.

One of the more shocking aspects of this situation has been the response on the internet, which I think is currently running about 60% in support of Anton.

Let’s get some things straight:

1) It is not different for “creative” types. Just as Roman Polanski is now finding to his cost (and I do not mean to trivialise) rape is rape, regardless of whether the perpetrator is considered a genius by his peers. Racial slurs are racial slurs, whether they are delivered by someone you have heretofore admired or not.

2) The word in question is offensive, end of. It is not a term of endearment or affection, or a convenient abbreviation. It cannot be compared (as so many posters on internet forums have done today) to Aussie or Brit, and to do is disingenuous in the extreme. The term was appropriated in the 1970s by the National Front, not as a harmless abbreviation to refer to specific nationality, but as a term of hatred for all South Asian migrants to this country (and was used about North Africans and Middle Easterners as well). The very fact that the term was not used accurately in terms of nationality makes its use even more loaded, as National Front thugs simply lumped many nationalities together, defining people solely by their skin colour. The word in question was used solely to threaten, to intimidate, to abuse, to degrade, and to inspire fear and hatred. It should not be a part of any decent person’s vocabulary.

3) True, there can be a contextual difference between intended insult and thoughtless comment. But an environment in which casual racism, spoken in ignorance or carelessness, is tolerated, is an environment that makes a more fertile breeding ground for intended racism, discrimination and race hatred.

4) It is not political correctness gone mad, or an end to freedom of speech. For us to live in a society where freedom of speech prevails, we need all of us to accept the responsibilities that that entails. I might believe that I have the freedom to do whatever I please, but if my words or actions were to damage another human being, I also have the responsibility to temper my actions or face the consequences. Children at nursery school are taught that there are boundaries; it is all part of the socialisation process. So why do some adults have difficulty with the concept that there are some things which are unacceptable?

As for political correctness gone mad, it actually makes me mad, as well as sad, to see this much-maligned concept dragged through the mud. Surely every decent person should strive to avoid that which offends or degrades another human being? So why should anybody be able to hide behind the banner of “political correctness gone mad” to justify their own failings and disguise their bigotry? It is as though those possessed of a certain mind set, when deprived of the opportunity to victimise or bully, claim that they are now victimised or bullied by those who promote equality.

So in conclusion, I don’t know what saddens, disturbs or angers me most – the use of a vile term of abuse by one of my favourite dancers, or the headlong rush to defend the indefensible.