“Norwegian Women Must Take Responsibility for Rapes” [Peter Brimelow] - 04/17/05

The astonishingly industrious Modern Tribalist blog wound up a busy week by posting an anthology of recent stories of Islamic crime in Scandinavia. Reading them reveals such gems as a Norwegian social anthropology professor arguing

“‘Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes’ because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative… ‘Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.’ "

More encouragingly there are signs that blog/web site coverage is forcing the Old Media to note the issue. (Although one of the sillier blogs subsequently tied itself in knots for having to the temerity to raise it).

The difference between the Europe’s and America’s immigration problem seems to be that Hispanic immigrants focus on stealing health care, education services  and jobs from the native-born. Muslims appear to be inclined to to steal countries—violently.

Stephen Steinlight, work harder!

A couple of stories from Britain's conservative Daily Telegraph this week highlight the pernicious effects of Political Correctness in the immigration debate.

I wrote almost four years ago that

“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.)

This week Charles Moore interviewed people on the British street.

“Ten brought up immigration and 11 crime. Of these, eight had been the recent victims of crime.

“How to unpick all this? The first thing that struck me was that crime and immigration mix in people's minds, sometimes unfairly. One man, who runs a long-established chain of local baker's shops, was emphatic that the two were quite separate, with the criminals being solely the white underclass. Most, though, had personal experience of crime committed by immigrants.”

He could only find one man in favor of immigration: a psychiatric patient. Moore concluded that

“There is, at heart, a simple reason why immigration has more than doubled under Mr Blair. It is because Labour wants it. Its current policy states:

‘Controlled and managed immigration is essential to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and the health of the public services.’

This sentence sounds reassuring, but actually it is saying that mass immigration is a good thing. I do not believe that most British voters accept this. It is high time it was submitted to a clear electoral test.” [Blair believes mass immigration is good for Britain - do Britons?, By Charles Moore, April 16, 2005]

Unfortunately, for a "clear electoral test," you need to have at least one party clearly against immigration. And you need to be able to make your case to the public. The BBC and various leftists, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, have been inveighing against the "Politics of Fear" which apparently means "don't mention right-wing issues!"

If this plan could be enforced, if the pro-immigration forces can make the Conservatives back off to avoid being smeared as racist, then they can they can prevent the public from ever being able to vote on it.

Conservative elder statesman W. F. Deedes, (and I do mean elder: "Born a year before the Titanic sank") protests that "It's not racist to grumble about immigration" [April 15, 2005].

However, it may be to late for him to say that.

And who knows, next year it may be illegal to say that.