Diversity vs. Freedom (contd.): Three Scenes From The Decline of Britain (last act?)

Scene
One
:
In America, desecration of the U.S. flag
is treated as a constitutional right (many
constitutional rights are capable of exercised in a
despicable fashion), protected by the ACLU,
but recently a woman in England was fined
200 pounds for stepping on the US flag.

The reason? It was a “hate
crime.” You see, Americans
are a racial minority in England
.

A peeress in what`s left of the
House of Lords complained
that since flag burning was legal in the U. S., it
should be legal in Great Britain. This is
inconsistent. Would she suggest that Britons should
have all the
Constitutional rights that Americans do? The right to
keep and bear arms, actual free speech, even the right
to practice medicine?

They used
to
have these rights, and in a sense invented
them
. But they`re gone, and have been for years.

Scene
Two
:
In fact, Britain`s official political
culture has become increasingly hostile to freedom of
speech with regard to race relations. While Post-WWII immigration
has led to increased crime,
including the kind of street crime associated with New
York and Detroit, people aren`t allowed to complain
about it.

In the last British election,
Britain`s state funded Commission
for Racial Equality
imposed what amounted to a Loyalty
Oath

on all parties, requesting them to sign a pledge not
to discuss the “National Question,” or advocate
restricting immigration. (Just as the US Civil Rights
Commission is controlled by vicious, bloodthirsty
Democrats, the CRE is pro-Labor.)

The text
of the Commission for Racial Equality`s “Election
Compact” states:

Elected politicians
must represent everyone, not pitch one group against
another for short-term political or personal gain.

Which suggests that they haven`t grasped the basic idea of democracy,
let alone the corollary, which is that an attempt to “dissolve
the people and elect a new one”
will face some
resistance.

Under party leader William
Hague, the Conservative Party imitated the Republican
Party in rolling over and playing dead for the race
relations industry. It hasn`t done them any
good
, of course, because the other side always
wants more.

Scene
Three
:
In spite of the
“Election Compact” there was a lot of rioting
during the election. During this rioting there was not
only violence by Indians but, to the horror of the
press, by white people as well.

The British authorities have a plan to deal with that, at least. They`re
going to deny
bail
to whites accused of racial violence.

(As with American legal practice, blacks are not
charged with hate
crimes
.)

The rationale behind this last act is significant.

A
Home Office source said:  "With a racist attack,
if someone is given bail it is not just the person who
may have been attacked that is put in fear."

"Such
a person might attack any black or Asian person. They
can affect a whole area with a climate of fear by
their very presence on the street."

This is ridiculous, especially
when you consider that it logically applies with more
force to suspected armed robbers, or rapists, who don`t
discriminate. However, in recent moves to deny
bail to repeat offenders, the Home Office has been
unable to have armed robbery and street mugging
included in the non-bailable offences. The European
Convention on Human Rights
includes a presumption
that everyone is presumptively entitled to bail. This
is the same Convention that leads people to pass Race
Relations
laws.

Of course, if the U.K.
authorities did manage to hold armed robbers without
bail, they`d no doubt face complaints that this had
a “disparate impact” on minorities.

Thus in Great Britain 17 years
after 1984, the following serious
dangers exist:

  1. There
    is a large criminal class, much of it imported,
    and a lot of crime.
  1. Murder
    is not punishable by death. Sometimes not even by
    imprisonment.
  1. You
    are not allowed the means of self-defense.
  1. If
    you do defend yourself, you can expect to be
    punished.
  1. You
    aren`t allowed to complain
    about this.
  2.  

The worst aspect of this problem
is that it`s all very non-partisan.
Gun control laws, abolition of the death penalty, Race
Relations laws, and immigration policy are all things
that all the
parties seem to agree on.

Furthermore, even if these things
could be changed by legislation, the European Union
would never agree to any kind of effective crime
control measures.

There may not be a solution to
the problems of Great Britain, but for some, there`s
a personal solution:

Emigration.

There`s
a lot of prejudice
against British immigrants, some of it vicious.
But people like John
Derbyshire
, the Brimelows, and John
O`Sullivan
have somehow managed to muddle
through.

It is unfortunate that people who
aren`t prejudiced against any other immigrants
should hate
them so much, when you consider their low crime rate,
fluency in English, and general all-around niceness.
But these things can be overcome with perseverance.

And America is a nation of
immigrants. Isn`t it?

June 27, 2001