Monday, December 07, 2009

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.


bewick said...

and it gets WORSE.
A few days ago a UK Government Minister "came out" and said that the Government had neglected the white working class (ie the majority) in favour of minorities and immigrants. There was some sort of plan to correct this - or so he said. Promises promises.

Only a few minutes ago I heard an interview on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. Radio 4 is a SERIOUS channel and Today is a hard hitting and challenging news programme with some political items.
The interviewee was a Muslim representative of an organisation serving the Muslim immigrant community. Guess what? She was COMPLAINING that the white working class should be given any consideration since it would likely take away funds (taxpayer funds provided mainly by the white working class) from the immigrants.
I over simplify but that was the essence of it.
Much talk of "demonising" the Muslim Community but the real point, as I heard it, was the money.
She was, uncharacteristically for the Today programme, given a fairly easy ride.
Silly me. I forgot. White indigenous, likely Christian, citizens are 3rd class in Islam and jizzya must only benefit Muslims.
They are already acting as though they are in charge. Soon will be I fear.

Anonymous said...

They are already acting as though they are in charge.

Evidence suggests they are.

Furor Teutonicus said...

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

Well....yes... THAT is why the word was INVENTED. To describe people who discriminate against islam. And when talking about people who have a "phobia of muslims", therefore singling them out, what word WOULD you use?


Does Anachrophobia mean we are discriminating against spiders, therefore we are all likely to turn in to homicidal spider murderers over night?

Do we ban "Racism" as a word, because that discriminates against "Races"?

This is PURE George Orwell. This is so stupid I can not even think of a response that really justifies the idiocy shown by it.

If you stop using the word "water" are we all going to die of thirst?

Sorry, I have just lost the entire plot on THIS one.

Furor Teutonicus said...

The Daily Mail,... and other venerable Fleet Street organs.

The Daily Mail, a "venerable Fleet Street organ"?

You ARE taking your medication ar#nt yo`?

I mean, short of falling on the floor in hysterical laughter, I can think of no answer to THAT one either. Almost as bad as banning the word "islamophobia" as I wrote above.

If you REALLY think that, I have a large green satue, with a crown, torch and a book, that at present stands in New York harbour I wish to sell you.

Professor L said...

I am sure that Her Majesty is most displeased with Her Government at this stage. Not only have they attempted to gerrymander the electorate (against the spirit of democracy) via mass immigration, but they have also signed away the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

They are traitors one and all, and I think that the British electorate knows this. UKIP, BNP, they're all gaining ground because the mainstream parties aren't talking about the issues concerning the electorates.

The worst thing about it all is that a government that is supposed to serve its core demographic (the British people) is now working almost actively against that demographic via crippling red tape and such perverse logic that even a pathologically mad scientist such as me is left dumbfounded, scratching my head. Indeed, it appears as though it has been determined that no one with white skin can legitimately have a homeland.

It is only the worst, most tyrannical and most treacherous government that would so willingly, knowingly conspire, no matter their intention, to destroy the nation they are supposed to serve.

Furor Teutonicus said...

The gun ban in Britain was just TOO perfectly timed to be a coincidence, I feel.