“This reluctance to provide any real response shows an astonishing level of disrespect and contempt for the public.”
Ian Lavery MP
Ian Lavery MP has written to the Prime Minister with questions around Andrew Sabisky’s views & how he was recruited. We publish the letter below:
Dear Prime Minister,
Andrew Sabisky has thankfully left your government. However the disturbing nature of his previous comments on eugenics, race and women, which have been well documented in the press, raise very serious concerns about your own views. Furthermore, there are unanswered questions about how somehow with such abhorrent views was ever considered for employment in the first place.
Yesterday morning your Official Spokesman defended Sabisky’s appointment and declined to distance you from Sabisky’s comments, saying only “the PM’s views are well publicised and well documented”. This reluctance to provide any real response shows an astonishing level of disrespect and contempt for the public, and it is for that reason I am writing to you now, and ask you to answer, in full, the following questions.
- Do you agree that black people are more “in the range of IQs 75 or below, at which point we are close to the typical boundary for mild mental retardation”?
- When you were the editor of The Spectator you published an article which said that that “Orientals…have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/boris-says-sorry-over-blacks-have-lower-iqs-article-in-the-spectator-6630340.html - You also said that the “best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, scrambled once again in her direction”.
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/2nd-february-2002/14/cancel-the-guilt-trip
If your spokesman was not referring to these views as being those that are well documented, could you explain which ones he was referring to?
- Do you agree it is a man’s “place to command her to get on her hands and knees and her place to obey”?
You have in the past:
- Bemoaned “the modern Briton [for] his reluctance or inability to take control of his woman”. Spectator, 19 August 1995, http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-august-1995/6/politics
- Stated that it is “outrageous that married couples should pay for ‘the single mothers’ desire to procreate independently of men”. Spectator, 19 August 1995, http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-august-1995/6/politics
- Described the offspring of ‘single mothers’ as “ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children”. Spectator, 19 August 1995, http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-august-1995/6/politics
- Written that the way to deal with advice from a female colleague was to “just pat her on the bottom and send her on her way”. Spectator, 17 December 2005, http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/17th-december-2005/23/welcome-to-doughty-street
Again, are these the well documented views your spokesman was referring to?
- Do you share Sabisky’s views that eugenics is “‘for’ good things” and that “long-term contraception at the onset of puberty” would prevent a “permanent underclass”?
- What was the process used to vet Sabisky before offering him employment? Who recruited him, on what terms, under what process, and who was he to report to? Did you personally have any involvement in or sign off his hiring? If not, were you aware at all that he was being employed before it was reported in the press?
Your chief adviser has appealed for “misfits and weirdos” to approach him for employment. It is vital the public has confidence that sufficient vetting will take place to ensure no one with views only seen in the darkest corners of internet chatrooms is appointed to the heart of your government.
I look forward to receiving detailed replies to the questions above. People deserve more than to be fobbed off by an unelected adviser and his press team.
Ian Lavery
Labour Party Chair
