Apologies 2. Blair's remorse but no apology

1. According to the black weekly, the Voice (Nov 6, 2006), "Tory leader David Cameroon as well as the Queen are not prepared to apologise over the slave trade."

Yasmin Alibhai Brown of the Independent (20 Nov 2006) added:
"It is an abiding tradition in this country never to apologise to non-Europeans for British policies, past or present, no matter how abhorrent or murderous. Neither was there a cheque presented for reparations. We could perhaps offer university grants for a 1000 deserving Afro-Caribbean students every year for a decade. That would do some good."

We've already noted in an earlier article how the Church of England kept slaves for over 100 years. Archbishop Rowan Williams made an apology of sorts last year in that pedantic language of clerics but offered no restitution although Christ endorsed the idea.

2. U-turn: Crime against humanity? Not in 2001
In 2001, PM Blair and the EU had refused to admit slavery as a crime against humanity at the UN Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa. But some five years later, there was a U-turn.
In a statement to the Commons (27 Nov 06) and in the black paper the Nation, Tony Blair said:
'It is hard to believe that what would now be a crime against humanity was legal at the time. 'Personally I believe the bicentenary offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was - how we condemn its existence utterly and praise those who fought for its abolition, but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever happened, that it ever could have happened and to rejoice at the different and better times we live in today.'

It was not a formal apology and there was definitely no offer of reparations.
Joint co-ordinator, Kofi Mawuli Klu, of the campaigning group Rendezvous of Victory, commented: "There is nothing in this statement about the enduring legacy of slavery in terms of racism and global injustice. It's adding insult to the lingering injuries of the enslavement of African people by the European ruling classes. The message is that if you commit crimes against African people you cannot be held responsible; even when you acknowledge that you have done wrong, you do not feel it necessary to apologise."

3. BLINK (Black Information Network) editorial comment:
(26 Nov /2006) headed "Weasel-worded slavery apology worthless "
"Only a full-blooded, unequivocal apology - which leaves the door open for reparations - will be acceptable to many in the black community. For much of Blair's premiership the official government position has been that slavery is not a crime against humanity because it was legal at the time. This ridiculous position has been maintained in the face of derision from anti-slavery campaigners. Now Blair plans to tell parliament: 'It is hard to believe that what would now be a crime against humanity was legal at the time.'

"There is little difference between the British position at the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001, and Blair's position today. This minor change is now being spun into an "historic statement", just in time for the bicentenary of abolition next year. In fact, two years ago the then Home Office minister Fiona MacTaggart said: 'slavery is a crime against humanity. Slavery and the slave trade were, and are, appalling tragedies in the history of humanity.'
[Note the passive voice - as though the slave trade was some epidemic that just happened. The central player is not named.]

"Blair, the lawyer, has cleverly divorced slavery from the economic trade in order to avoid reparations. We must not be fooled by this slight of hand. Slavery provided the human and material resources to fuel the industrial boom and make Britain a world power.

" There are three problems with Blair's statement.
First, we cannot "rejoice" because the legacy of slavery is evident in statistics showing disproportionate levels of black people going through the criminal justice and mental health systems. It is also clear from unemployment, exam results, mortality rates, health, and homelessness figures.

Second, expressing a personal "deep sorry" about slavery avoids acknowledging the state's regret and acceptance of blame. This "sorry" is no more than the personal apologies given over the Irish potato famine, the Bloody Sunday shootings and the jailing of the Guildford Four.

Third, condemning the "existence" of slavery as "profoundly shameful" is a start, but is skirting around the reality of how truly horrific slavery was. No mention of how many millions of people died, and no mention of who benefited."

But last week, when Mr Blair held a joint press conference with Ghana's president, he was asked (14 March) why it was so hard to say sorry for slavery. "Well actually I have said it," said Mr Blair. "We are sorry, and I say it again now. I think for us the most important thing is obviously to remember what happened in the past, and to condemn it ..."

The statement went unspun by No 10 and almost entirely unnoticed by the media. So has he apologised or not? A Downing Street spokeswoman said Mr Blair's position remained what was laid out in the New Nation in November. He would be saying nothing further.