The only people that seem to have a problem with Enoch Powell's speech and the recent airing of it are left-wing people that don't like anything that may challenge their own preconceived beliefs. Many also have misconceptions about Powell and his beliefs.
Can someone actually refute any of Powell's arguments?
Also, just for the record, Powell never once argued against race, he argued against mass immigration. I've not seen any evidence that Powell was racist.
Powell was a highly intelligent man and principled politician, unlike the so-called politicians of today. He was a classic scholar and became a full professor at Ancient Greek at the age of 25. He fought during WW2 in staff and intelligent positions. He was a for a few weeks the youngest brigadier in the British army. He could speak several different languages and was fluent in German, Italian, French, Urdu, Russian, Welsh, modern Greek, Portuguese, etc. At the age of 70 he was learning his 14th language, Hebrew. He was noted for his gift of oratory and his ability to speak in different languages.
He wrote poetry and books about social and political subjects.
For those generally interested in the life of Enoch Powell, I recommend you to read Simon Heffer's biography: Like The Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell. There are other books available but that book is the best one out so far.
Also, some of his comments about immigration and race:
In 1964 he said:
"I have and always will set my face like flint against making any difference between one citizen of this country and another on the grounds of his origins."
David Frost asked him "are you a racialist?", he replied:
"It depends on how you define the word "racialist." If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically "No."
In The Guardian he wrote in 1970:
"It so happens that I never talk about race. I do not know what race is."
In 1968 on Any Questions?:
"...it depends indeed on whether the immigrants are different, and different in important respects from the existing population. Clearly, if they are identical, then no change for the good or bad can be brought about by the immigration. But if they are different, and to the extent that they are different, then numbers clearly are of the essence and this is not wholly - or mainly, necessarily - a matter of colour. For example, if the immigrants were Germans or Russians, their colour would be approximately the same as ours, but the problems which would be created and the change which could be brought about by a large introduction of a bloc of Germans or Russians into five areas in this country would be as serious - and in some respects more serious - than could follow from an introduction of a similar number of West Indians or Pakistanis."
In 1969 on the BBC TV:
"Trevor Huddleston: ...what I still want to know from you, really, is why the presence of a coloured immigrant group is objectionable, when the presence of a non-coloured immigrant is not objectionable.
Enoch Powell: Oh no, oh no! On the contrary, I have often said that if we saw the prospect of five million Germans in this country at the end of the century, the risks of disruption and violence would probably be greater, and the antagonism which would be aroused would be more severe. The reason why the whole debate in this country on immigration is related to coloured immigration, is because there has been no net immigration of white Commonwealth citizens, and there could be no migration of aliens. This is merely an automatic consequence of the facts of the case; it is not because there is anything different, because there is anything necessarily more dangerous, about the alienness of a community from Asia, than about the alienness of a community from Turkey or from Germany, that we discuss this inevitably in terms of colour. It is because it is that problem."
Also, let us not forget that in 1959 he made a speech about the Hola Massacre:
"On 27 July 1959, Powell gave his speech on the Hola Camp of Kenya, where eleven Mau Mau were killed after refusing work in the camp. Powell noted that some MPs had described the eleven as "sub-human", but Powell responded by saying: "In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgement on a fellow human being and to say, 'Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow'." Powell also disagreed with the notion that because it was in Africa, different methods were acceptable:
Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home'. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.
Denis Healeey, a member of parliament from 1952 to 1992, later said this speech was "the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard... it had all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes". The Daily Telegraph report of the speech said that "as Mr Powell sat down, he put his hand across his eyes. His emotion was justified, for he had made a great and sincere speech"."
I find it really sad that if anyone seems to say anything positive about Enoch Powell some will regard that person as far-right, racist, fascist and lots of other nonsense. The same can be said if anyone criticises immigration, etc.
Nevertheless, those people that resort to name calling clearly cannot hold an argument so it's pointless even trying to debate with such people.
Recently the Express & Star did an online poll about the question of whether or not Powell should get a blue plaque and out of the 20,000 asked 70% of people agreed he should.
