Gordon Brown, hypocrisy and bigotry

All that Gillian Duffy (a life-long Labour supporter) attempted to do was discuss the issue of immigration. She observed: "You can't say anything about immigrants. All these eastern Europeans - where are they coming from?"

Gordon Brown was patient with her, and said to her face: "Very nice to meet you, very nice to meet you."

He then said behind her back: "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous... she was just a bigoted woman."

This episode is rather timely after what His Grace posted earlier today.

A bigot is now anyone who happens to disagree with a point of view, especially if those views are concerning matters of religion, immigration or sexuality.

Even intelligent commentators seem to think it unarguable that deeply-held beliefs against immigration, homosexuality or some religious beliefs are bigoted. Anyone who maintains their view in the face of modern social pressure is only following their conviction, which is often rooted in faith. The word ‘bigot’ does have an accepted meaning: it is the obstinate and blind, often nasty and hypocritical, attachment to a particular creed. No doubt some people who oppose immigration or homosexual relationships are indeed like this — venting hatred towards foreigners or homosexuals. But many are decent, conscientious and thoughtful.

Isn’t it rather bigoted, in fact, to assume that your opponents on certain issues are bigots?

And isn't it rather hypocritical to pretend to enjoy meeting life-long Labour supporters when it is evident that Gordon Brown holds them in utter contempt?

The mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

What sort of 'ordinary, middle-class' man from an ordinary town would be so pompous, patronising and duplicitous? On the day of the final Leaders' Debate, this is a devastating and potentially fatal blow to Gordon Brown's campaign. The people want authenticity: Gordon Brown is not only incapable of expressing the virtue, he is evidently socially retarded.

The self-censoring of debate

Cranmer really does not know what to discuss today.

If he turns to immigration, he is racist.

If he queries issues of European Union, he is xenophobic.

If he expresses an opinion on the case of Philip Lardner, he is homophobic.

If he questions the Pope, he is a bigot.

If he expresses concerns over aspects of Islam, he is Islamophobic.

Thus is the level of political discourse in modern Britain: every contentious issue, no matter how worthy of scrutiny or debate, is swiftly closed down with threats of a fatwa or character assassination. In this age of hyper-sensitivity to offending anyone on any matter, discussion is suppressed and liberties are surrendered.

What do you call a liberal democracy which prohibits rational discourse?