The protesters who toppled the statue of Edward Colston have been acquitted
of criminal charges for doing so.
I support the removal of Colston's statue. Slave trading was the most
impactful thing he did in his life; his local philanthropy, using part
of the profit he got from slave trading, cannot compensate for the
wrong of the slave trading itself.
Many other famous people are similar cases and we could well reach the
same conclusions about them. They include Bill Gates and Steve Jobs,
whose main "contribution" to the world was software that subjugates
users.
But there are also cases where the balance goes the other way: people
who did important good that is worth commemorating, but also
participated in some widespread practice or widespread view that we
condemn today. How should we judge them? I think we should weigh the
importance of the good and the bad they did, and commemorate them on
that basis. For instance, Thomas Jefferson gave crucial impetus to
separation of church and state — a vital liberty now under threat in
the US. He also owned slaves, but he was not a champion of slavery.
We must commemorate
What about when the balance seems roughly equal, as in the case of
Woodrow Wilson? I suggested a statue which shows him with two sides,
the good side and the evil side.
The Tories want to punish the toppling of a statue with 10 years in
prison. This is draconian when compared with the small physical
damage that usually results.