{Boycotts [continued]}[6th May 1970]

[Redbook1:146-150][19700506:1750a]{Boycotts [continued]}[6th May 1970]

Wednesday 6th May 1970   5.50pm [continued]

            Nevertheless these comparisons between institutions and individuals must be made because actions among the former so often occur later among the latter.  This might seem even more probable in view of our present ambivalent attitude to individual rights.  One example of this is the way 4 Labour MPs and the Surrey anti-apartheid group (individuals within an institution, and another institution) sent a petition to the Queen (one individual forced permanently to represent, and be, a neutral institution) requesting that she should not meet (partly as the institution, partly personally?) the mayor-elect of Epsom (representing a neutral -- on this subject -- institution) because of his views held (as a person, not for an institution) on Rhodesia (a political institution to which the petitioners are opposed). 

Now, there are several ways of seeing this.  One is to say that the petitioners are within their rights because the Queen represents the Government which does not recognise Rhodesia, and the Mayor-elect (presumably) supports this Rhodesia, and that therefore the Queen should not recognise this man or communicate with him.  On the other hand, one could say that the local left-wingers were trying to get at the local right-winger, with whom they may have other differences and perhaps personal animosities.  I think the first argument is dangerous, and the second one we cannot discuss here. 

My argument is that this becomes dangerously near to the A-B-C pattern of personal relationships outlined above -- and that would be a form of blackmail.  Every man is entitled to his own opinions provided they do not harm others (or, to a lesser extent, himself): the mayor-elect is not an official representative of Rhodesia and he should not therefore be treated as an institution as an individual, so far as his views on Rhodesia ago.  He is a representative of Epsom in local government and was elected by the good citizens of Epsom and/or their elected representatives, who presumably knew about his views on Rhodesia, if the Surrey Anti-apartheid group did.  He is therefore more representative of local people than is the A-AG -- whatever the Government may say at a national level. But as far as his personal views on foreign policy go this is irrelevant, and those views in their turn are irrelevant to (a) the official (local) status in which he might meet the Queen and (b) his worth as a person in personal relationships.

            The reason why I am so annoyed about this is because I can see myself, for example, going to Rhodesia to have a look at what's happening and being pigeonholed ever after as a racialist -- which, oddly enough, I am not!  The principles on which one must not question the thoughts of the leaders because they have been proved right by the people who don't question are (a) infantile and (b) the foundation of tyranny.  There are many reasons for their success -- such as the security they give -- which I cannot go into here, but I instinctively sheer away from movements which accept only converts as people and treat all critics as enemies.

[PostedBlogger19022013]