Notes on a scandal
Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 19:41 The New Statesman/Roger Scruton ‘scandal’ rumbles on.
The Mail on Sunday devoted a double-page spread to the subject, including an article by Scruton himself.
If you haven’t been following the story, a quick recap.
A few weeks ago conservative philosopher Sir Roger Scruton gave an interview to George Eaton, deputy editor of the New Statesman.
As the magazine’s former wine critic Scruton didn’t expect to be shafted but that’s what happened.
The published article took some of his comments out of context and allegedly made him appear racist and antisemitic.
Within hours he had been sacked from his unpaid role as housing adviser to the government with one opposition MP suggesting he had used ‘the language of white supremacists’.
Eaton’s response was to post a photo of himself on Instagram drinking a bottle of champagne. Alongside it he wrote:
The feeling when you get right wing racist and homophobe Roger Scruton sacked as a Tory government minister.
Douglas Murray, an author and political commentator who writes for the Spectator, asked the New Statesman to release a tape of the interview. The magazine refused.
No matter. On Wednesday Murray announced he had a copy of the tape. Intriguingly he didn’t say how he had obtained it.
In this week’s Spectator, published on Thursday, Murray revealed how Scruton’s views had been misrepresented.
The Scruton tapes: an anatomy of a modern hit job is a must read. Far from being a ‘racist rant’, Murray noted that Scruton’s words were ‘measured and careful’.
The full recorded interview was also posted online. Belatedly the New Statesman then issued a transcript of the recording.
But wait. An eagle-eyed Murray noticed an error and late on Friday night the editor of the New Statesman was forced to add an embarrassing note to the transcript:
An error in the transcription was corrected on 26 April at 23:09pm. Roger Scruton said of gang membership, “I don’t say that it is something special to black people”, rather than “I know it’s something that is special”.
In other words, what Scruton had said about gang membership was the complete opposite of what was in the transcript.
The deputy editor isn’t the only one to come out of this badly. His editor may wish to consider his position too.
Worst of all perhaps - because of his spineless, knee-jerk reaction - was the behaviour of Communities Secretary James Brokenshire who sacked Scruton without checking to see if Eaton’s claim that Scruton had ‘made a series of outrageous remarks’ was actually true.
That’s the real scandal.
You may be wondering why this story interests me. Well, many years ago I visited Scruton at his London home.
It’s so long ago I can’t remember why I was there or who I was with but I know that a few of us were invited round for afternoon tea and a chat.
It was probably when I was editing a national student magazine and the Salisbury Review, which Scruton edited, was an advertiser.
I was struck by his quiet modesty and the thoughtfulness with which he spoke. He wasn’t bombastic or a showman like some self-styled intellectuals.
And it wasn’t all about him. He had time for other people’s views too.
Another reason the story interests me is because in 2002, three years after I joined Forest, Scruton found himself at the centre of another ‘scandal’ when the Guardian revealed he had been doing some work for a tobacco company.
The paper got hold of an email Scruton had sent to the company asking for an increase in his monthly fee and, naturally, put their own spin on it - Scruton in media plot to push the sale of cigarettes:
Within days it was reported that Scruton had been ‘sacked’ by two newspapers, the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal, for whom he previously wrote.
He quickly acknowledged his error - Pro-tobacco writer admits he should have declared an interest - but if he was guilty of anything it was probably naivety.
Others however weren’t so charitable:
Clive Bates, the director of the anti-tobacco group ASH, said: "Japan Tobacco should follow the FT and Wall Street Journal and dump Roger Scruton. Anything he says on tobacco now will immediately be discredited."
If that argument sounds familiar it’s because it’s used repeatedly to try and discredit anyone who accepts money from industry. (Taking money from government is of course OK.)
Personally I believe in transparency but ‘who funds you?’ is designed, quite simply, to silence debate.
Ideas and beliefs sincerely held are trashed simply because money changes hands - money that pays for wages and other legitimate expenses.
Would most tobacco control campaigners work for nothing? Of course not.
Anyway, ten years after that controversy I bumped into Scruton when I spoke at a conference in Windsor called 'A Renewal of Conservatism – How to secure a Conservative majority in 2015'.
I was one of three speakers invited to respond to the question, ‘Is the Conservative party still the party of freedom?'. (See ‘The Conservatives and the f-word’.)
In the evening, before dinner, there was a drinks reception at the Guildhall. As I wrote at the time:
My son and I enjoyed a long chat with Professor Roger Scruton who later gave a charming, entertaining yet thoughtful after dinner speech.
Scruton had a quiet charisma that was deeply impressive. He held his audience’s attention not by raising his voice but by articulating a clear, considered message.
That brings me to the final reason I’m interested in the New Statesman story.
Having read several of Scruton’s books, my son later interviewed him for a student newspaper. The article was published in January 2016 and you can read it here.
It’s worth reading, I think, not because it’s by my son but because it’s clear how carefully Scruton chooses his words. His commitment to free speech despite the impact it’s had on his career is pretty impressive too.
What I particularly like is Scruton's aura of gravitas (not to be confused with a lack of humour) that is rare these days.
Writing in the Mail on Sunday Peter Hitchens calls Scruton ‘guileless’ (ie devoid of guile; innocent and without deception). I think that’s a good description of a man who doesn’t seek trouble but, like an innocent abroad, tends to attract it.
The idea that an honest thinker like Scruton could be driven from public life because of the actions and reactions of journalists and politicians who aren’t fit to lick his boots is genuinely depressing.
Credit then to Douglas Murray and the Spectator for attempting to put the record straight. The question is, will James Brokenshire have the guts to admit he acted in haste and give Scruton his job back?
I wouldn’t bet on it.
Update: Top Tories call for sacked aide Roger Scruton to get his job back after he was ‘stitched up by the left’ (The Sun).
Reader Comments (3)
Clive Bates??? Who believes a word that rabid smokerphobic says about anything, especially ecigs? They lost credibility as an alternative once the ecig lobby embraced that hater knowing how much he was behind the public hate campaign waged against us.
No surprise that partisan extremists manipulate statements and rely on calumny to promote their totalitarian view and suppress dissent. Tobacco control epitomizes this unethical tactic.
Scruton is a philosopher and philosophers through training and use of their discipline use language very carefully. I'd be shocked if he'd rante, irrespective of the subject and stance of the rant. No matter if you disagree with his views, it's the behaviour of a moral bankrupt to wilfully misrepresent them and then to crow about the damage to his reputation.