Social action sparks debate

IT was right to destroy the statue of Edward Colston (pictured). This was a symbol of racism. It was also a lie. Slavery – and not Colston – created the wealth of Bristol and ‘Great’ Britain. The statue was an abomination.

But, without the slightest hint of irony and in black-andwhite terms (pun intended) Jack Rough writes, “this is criminal damage…and should be dealt with accordingly” (Letters, June 12).

Three centuries ago it was lawful to own a slave, which meant aiding and abetting the escape of a slave was a crime. If the ‘rules of law’ are the bonds that hold society together then Jack would be obliged to support slavery back in the 18th century. He would have had to condemn the theft of ‘property’ and oppose the rights of man.

On the same day the editorial claimed, “it would be a pity if, by losing [statues] through force we lose the opportunity for democratic debate”.

But, what ‘democratic debate’ were we having before the Colston statue was demolished? Once again the irony is heavy in the air.

The indisputable fact is the ‘democratic debate’ began BECAUSE of the destruction of the statue.

Perhaps my memory fails, but where were the angry letters when the heritage of Iraq was dispersed to the four winds? When the images and statues of Saddam

Hussein were destroyed, the mainstream media celebrated the destruction as a sign of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ and thereby denied Iraqis the right to ‘democratic debate’.

The hypocrisy is obvious. While the physical chains of slavery are long gone, our mental chains are clear to see.