Comment Writer Jolie Summers argues that Jacob Rees-Mogg’s comments regarding the BLM movement are harmful and indicative of greater issues within his Government
In a fortnightly ‘Moggcast’ published on Conservative Home website, Government Efficiency and Brexit Opportunities Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg declared that top civil servants should not publicly support Black Lives Matter (BLM) so that they remain ‘apolitical,’ stating that officials can, instead, acknowledge events that are state-sanctioned such as the Queen’s Jubilee and Remembrance Day. These comments were made after Mogg was asked in the podcast to respond to Jonathan Slater, who was a high-ranking civil servant in the Department of Education at the time, having used the BLM hashtag in a social media post in 2020, and Stephen Lovegrove, a civil servant in the Department of Defence, who said in 2020 ‘systemic racial inequality is not unique to America but also has deep roots within UK society, including Defence.’
As we all remember, the events of 2020 propelled the discourse around racial inequality in Britain to the forefront of public discussion. However, in my view a lack of action has been taken by the current government – of which Rees-Mogg holds a Cabinet seat – to tackle systemic racism, with a 2021 government report going as far as denying that institutional racism exists. Equally, depending on how MPs vote this week, the new Policing Bill could grant the Police the ability to shut down protests for being too noisy or disruptive. With protests being a cornerstone of the BLM movement, within this context, Rees-Mogg’s comments position themselves in a whole new light. If the public are being silenced for speaking out and taking action against injustice, and government officials cannot express support for tackling systemic racism how will change ever occur?
If the public are being silenced for speaking out and taking action against injustice, and government officials cannot express support for tackling systemic racism how will change ever occur?
On the one hand, Rees-Mogg’s comments shine a light on the wider political context regarding the status of civil servants in the UK political system and the concept of being apolitical. It is significant to view Rees-Mogg’s comments in the context of his wider perception of the civil service, previously stating his aim to cut the civil service by 65,000 jobs to improve government efficiency. Ironically, however, one of the major reasons for the influx in the volume of the civil service has been due to the greater workforce required to deal with new political terrain caused by Brexit, of which Rees-Mogg is a huge supporter. I think that the decision of the Moggcast to include the question of whether high-ranking civil servants should endorse BLM publicly, almost two years after the comments were made, cannot be undistinguished from Rees-Mogg’s aim to drastically re-shape the government. Job cuts and public silencing do not appear to suggest a bright future, in my opinion.
Additionally, I think it is important to ask: what is it to be apolitical? Rees-Mogg’s view that BLM should be ousted from the discourse of top officials makes it apparent to me that, under this government, recognising racism as a problem in Britain is deemed to be a political statement that extends beyond neutrality. Pointing out the systemic murder and abuse of Black people by the Police, and the subsequent lack of public acknowledgement of this injustice is made political by those like Rees-Mogg. I would argue from these comments that Rees-Mogg would rather the public continue to ignore this institutionalised discrimination. Yet, he deems a celebration of the monarchy to be entirely acceptable.
Mogg’s view that BLM should be ousted from the discourse of top officials makes it apparent to me that, under this government, recognising racism as a problem in Britain is deemed to be a political statement that extends beyond neutrality
The issue I take with this is it ultimately assumes that a celebration of the monarchy, as an institution, is apolitical. To Rees-Mogg, an institution that in my eyes is historically and inherently racist and classist, is exempt from political discourse, whereas a movement fighting for racial equality is not. Furthermore, it was revealed that the Queen used her status to interfere in political affairs to protect her own wealth from becoming public knowledge, but the Queen is still regarded as an apolitical figure? Beyond the status of the monarchy, I think Rees-Mogg making an exception for state-sanctioned events like the Queen’s Jubilee as appropriate for public discourse reiterates Rees-Mogg’s ideal Britain: celebrating the status quo, and ignoring those it harms.
On Black Lives Matter’s UK’s website, it is clearly stated that ‘We are apolitical’ and that BLM is ‘not operating in any political capacity’, and is focused on ‘Racial Equality and social justice.’ Therefore, BLM has made it publicly known that as a movement the primary aims are motivated by social justice, not politics. As such, if BLM positions itself as an apolitical movement, why is Rees-Mogg so certain that an organisation based on anti-racism is so overtly political? Especially in the context of 2020 when Slater and Lovegrove made the comments, the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ was being used quite literally and sometimes not in explicit reference to the organisation itself: the powerful words were utilised to protest the murder of black people at the hands of the police.
As such, if BLM positions itself as an apolitical movement, why is Mogg so certain that an organisation based on anti-racism is so overtly political?
I believe Rees-Mogg’s comments are more to do with his antagonism towards BLM, and the argument of being ‘apolitical’ is a convenient disguise for squashing a public discussion about racism in the UK. This is made more apparent by examining Mogg’s history of criticising BLM and anti-racist symbols, such as labelling taking the knee as problematic, and arguing that BLM is ‘unsympathetic to the United Kingdom as a nation.’ This nationalistic sentiment, in my eyes, creates a narrative that suggests that to protest is not ‘British,’ and this rhetoric appears even more alarming under the context of the Government’s agenda to repress our right to protest. civil servants speaking in favour of BLM as an activist movement is not in line with the political ambition of the Government Efficiency minister.
However, ignoring the deeply embedded racism that exists in the UK, including the fabric of the government, will not make it go away. Again the irony is for someone so concerned with ‘efficiency’, to the extent of making 65,000 people lose their jobs, Rees-Mogg seems slow to act on tackling racism. Rees-Mogg’s opposition to civil servants supporting BLM, in my opinion, has seemingly more to do with his opposition to the movement than any notion of officials remaining ‘apolitical.’
If you Liked This Article, Read More From Comment:
Ending Plan B Restrictions: Living With The Virus
Comments