Dereliction of Duty

Imagine that you’re a distraught husband whose wife was just murdered during a home invasion by a Somali. You were a witness to the crime, and you live in Minneapolis, so you know all too well what Somalis look like and how they speak.

Naturally, when the cops talk to you, you tell them that the murderer was a Somali. The lead detective looks at you more closely and asks you in a less-than-friendly fashion how you know the killer was a Somali. So you tell him — the guy looked like a Somali, dressed like a Somali, and shouted at your wife in a Somali accent just before he shot her.

The detective tells you that he will have to write you up for making racist remarks, and the next day you are visited by two officers from the Diversity and Community Cohesion Division of the police force, who pressure you to sign up for an intensive three-week multicultural sensitivity training course.

When the police send out an all-points bulletin on the suspect, they include height, weight, hair length, and clothing style, but neglect to mention the perp’s race or Somali accent. When you call down to the station to ask about this omission, they tell you that state law forbids them to “profile” suspects in such a fashion. Not only that, they are required to spend at least as much time on any given case investigating white suspects as they are on “minorities”.

Nevertheless, the murderer is so incompetent that, despite all the legal impediments, the police manage to find him and arrest him. The day after his arraignment, his lawyer — chosen and paid for by the state from the local Social Justice and Legal Aid Foundation — argues successfully before a judge that his client must be released, because over the last six months the Minneapolis police have arrested a disproportionate number of Somalis, thereby discriminating against them.

So the murderer walks away free, and you start attending your Multicultural Awareness course, which, as a matter of interest, is subcontracted by the city to the local office of ACORN.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
OK, I admit it: the above story is a bit far-fetched, at least for the USA. But for Britain it’s hardly even a fantasy — and we will be emulating the British before you know it.

Under an Orthodox Multiculturalism regime, justice is not served by investigating a case objectively, determining the facts, and punishing the guilty.

Multiculturalism is concerned first and foremost with the correct predetermined treatment of defined social groups. Whatever benefits or punishment are handed out must fall upon those various groups in the proper proportions.

Individuals are irrelevant. Facts are irrelevant.

Objective, factual language is a hindrance, and must be modified to better serve the larger Multicultural goals.

The behavior of the Multicultural authorities is more Orwellian than George Orwell could ever have imagined. Newspeak has nothing on Diversitalk.

I bring all this up as a way of introducing an article about the latest in Multicultural Dyslexic Disorder as reported from the UK by The Sun.

Before you jump all over me: yes, I know what kind of paper The Sun is. But regular readers will have noticed that similar articles appear virtually every night in the news feed, taken from The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Times, and other venerable Fleet Street organs. This is not an anomaly.

Here’s the Brave New Language being forced on government apparatchiks in the UK:

Ministers Have Been Banned From Using Words Like Islamist and Fundamentalist — in Case They Offend Muslims.

An eight-page Whitehall guide lists words they should not use when talking about terrorism in public and gives politically correct alternatives.

They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence. Instead, they are urged to talk about terrorism or violent extremism.

Fundamentalist and Jihadi are also banned because they make an “explicit link” between Muslims and terror.

Ministers should say criminals, murderers or thugs instead. Radicalisation must be called brainwashing and talking about moderate or radical Muslims is to be avoided as it “splits the community”.

- - - - - - - - -

Islamophobia is also out as it is received as “a slur that singles out Muslims”.

The guide, produced by the secretive Research, Information and Communications Unit in the Home Office, tell ministers to “avoid implying that specific communities are to blame” for terrorism. It says more than 2,000 people are engaged in terror plots.

The guidance was branded “daft” last night by a special adviser to ex-Communities Secretary Hazel Blears. Paul Richards said: “Unless you can describe what you’re up against, you’re never going to defeat it. Ministers need to be leading the debate on Islamic extremism and they can’t do that if they have one hand tied behind their back.”

The Home Office said: “This is about using appropriate language to have counter-terrorism impact. It would be foolish to do anything else.”

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the mass insanity described above is that Her Majesty’s Government can no longer perform its primary function, which is to protect and defend the subjects of the Queen. On the contrary, the behavior of the government demonstrably gives aid and comfort to the enemies of those same subjects. Official state policy actually increases the chances that Britons will be killed by their enemies.

This is an unprecedented dereliction of duty.

In a sane world, it would be considered treason.


Hat tip: AA.