He who throws the first stone

Subject: He who throws the first stone.

Clearly a country riven with doubt over its identity is in a poor place and the claim and counter claim as to who is more racist, the men who called the Yorkshire cricketer Azeem Rafiq's names or Rafiq who offered anti Semitic comments of his own. Does an anti semantic comment trump an anti Pakistani one or do we modify each depending on the circumstances. Does the influence of alcohol mitigate or is a muslims avoidance of alcohol mean that he has no excuses. Does historical context play a part when prejudice is driven by tribal animosity and slips out of its cultural straight jacket at a party amongst friends.

And where does freedom of expression come into this if the words spoken were not intentionally meant to harm, surely it's the intent which is important. And the grovelling apologies from all parties make one wish we could have some perspective in terms of the real evils happening in the world at large whilst headlines devote themselves to a sort of self flagellation which in this country it's rapidly becoming our most popular past time.

From Colonialism to the voyages of discovery which preceded it, the pollution brought about by the Industrial Revolution for which we must pay a premium whilst non industrialised nations still conduct their lives along the lines laid down 200 years ago.

Of course in an attempt to level the playing field and project equality, a bit of self flagellation doesn't go amiss since with hindsight we should have projected a better understanding of the subtly of tribes and cultures so different to our own but when Captain Cook witnessing the equivalent of the Hakka on the beach or the British soldiers at Rorke's Drift, listening to the stamp of advancing feet and the deep throated chant accompanied by the thump of the Zulu spear on his shield as his thin red line held its position, would that they think they would be assailed by the libertarian, hidden in the anonymous columns of bile served up as communication on media platforms.

These clashes of culture are now 'infra dig'. We live instead in a claustrophobic world of competing ethical claims. Where would we be if no man or woman had crossed their local boarder and were still constrained by local tradition. "Ignorance is bliss" comes to mind and it's this aversion to ignorance and the ongoing unearthing of commentary made when we young, perhaps reckless that now, out of context, haunts us as it is used against us.

Perhaps the world is only fit for the Puritans, the Evangelical not the Episcopalian where forgiveness is not easily earned and you continue to carry the mark of any wrong doing to the grave.

We are in a mess because these days we find hair-shirted penance inappropriate and yet wail like banshees when whipped up to do so. Do you think the editors of those papers castigating the cricketers don't curse and use epithets about all and sundry, so perhaps the sins of those who would claim being sinned against should first get their own house in order before throwing the first stone.