Tuesday, 2 September 2014

Ignominious Multi-culturalism

Rotten Fruit

Multi-culturalism is at first glance an empty, anodyne proposition.  Because it ostensibly embraces all cultures, regarding them all as equally valid and good, it has nothing meaningful or helpful to say about any culture.  (To be fair, in reality multi-culturalists are usually marked by a deep loathing for their own culture, but that's a personal failing, not one of the ethic of multi-culuralism per se.)

Discrimination is a necessary aspect of critical and rational discourse.  Proposition A is "sound" or "unsound"; conclusion C is "invalid" or "valid".  Action D is "ethical" or "unethical".  The scale of "good", "better" and "best" is always useful for critical discernment.  But multi-culturalism requires a pre-commitment that no culture or cultural group shall be subject to such critical analysis or discrimination.  When the Apostle Paul wrote, "one of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.'  This testimony is true."  (Titus 1: 12, 13) he was violating the ethic and principles of secular multi-culturalism, which requires that we do not say anything bad or negative about any culture.  The endless, relentless positive sentiment of multi-culturalism is nothing more than a Pollyannaish anodyne gush.

But it produces, say the multi-culturalist Pharisees, peace, tolerance and harmony in society.  Everybody tolerates every other group.  Being critical of a culture is a manifestation of intolerance, discrimination and hate speech.  Actually, on the contrary, multi-culturalism foments, encourages and empowers evil.  Society X practises cliterodectomy.  No problem. Who are we to judge another culture.  It has significance and meaning, harmony and purpose in its own context, drones the card-carrying multi-culturalist.

An horrific illustration of what we are describing has come to light in the UK.  Fourteen hundred children have been sexually abused in one area because the entrenched secular ethic of multi-culturalism forbad focusing upon an ethnic group perpetrating the crimes.  This from the NZ Herald:
A new report concluded that some 1,400 children were sexually exploited in one northern England town-- a damning account of the collective failure by authorities to prevent children as young as 11 from being beaten, raped and trafficked. . . .  The independent report came after a series of convictions of sex offenders in the region and ground-breaking reports in the Times of London that prompted the local council to launch an inquiry.

"The collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant," said Jay, a former chief social work adviser to the Scottish government. "From the beginning, there was growing evidence that child sexual exploitation was a serious problem in Rotherham."  Attention first fell on Rotherham in 2010 when five men received lengthy jail terms after convictions of grooming teens for sex. Later, investigations began into why authorities failed to act even after frontline social workers suggested things were amiss.
Why were the authorities turning a blind eye to this systematic gross abuse of young people and those that preyed upon them?  Because of the ethic and dominance of multi-culturalism.  It turns out the perpetrators were all of one ethnicity, and such things shall not be identified or spoken of.  
Even more damming was the fact that victims described the perpetrators as "Asian" and yet the council failed to engage with the town's Pakistani community.  "Some councilors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away" Jay said. "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."  Jay cited examples of "children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally-violent rapes and threatened they would be next." [Emphasis, ours]
Since it was not politically correct to focus upon an ethnic group as the perpetrators of a criminal acts,  officials and politicians just hoped it would go away. 

James Delingpole describes the multi-culturalist mindset that led to this debacle:

Q: When is the sexual abuse of children culturally, socially and politically acceptable?

A: When it's committed with industrial efficiency by organised gangs of mainly Pakistani men in English Northern towns like Burnley, Oldham and Rotherham, of course.

But obviously you're not allowed to admit this or you might sound racist. That's why, for example, in today's BBC report into the fact that at least 1400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual abuse in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, you have to wade 20 paragraphs in before finally you discover the ethnic identity of the perpetrators.

And even then, the embarrassing fact slips out only with the most blushing mealy-mouthedness:
By far the majority of perpetrators of abuse were described as "Asian" by victims.
Well hang on, a second. What this phrase seems to be hinting at is the possibility that the men involved weren't "Asian" (note to US readers: Asian is UK PC-speak for Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, not orientals) but that the victims mistakenly took them to be so. Is that actually the case or not?

Let's have a look at the names of the Rotherham men found guilty by Sheffield Crown Court in 2010 of raping or sexually abusing girls as young as 12 shall we. Maybe that'll help.
  • Zafran Ramzan
  • Razwan Razaq
  • Umar Razaq
  • Adil Hussain
  • Mohsin Khan
Nope. Absolutely no clues there, then...
It turns out the authorities knew exactly what was going on--both that large numbers of children were being systematically abused, and who the perpetrators were, but they decided that a greater good would be achieved if the authorities refrained from any appearance of racism and a transgression of multi-culturalism.
The local authorities, in other words, knew exactly what was going on. Yet still they did nothing. Why?  Well we've already answered that, pretty much. It's because the kind of politically correct, left-leaning and basically rather thick people that local authorities like Rotherham Council tend to have working for them are so paralysed by modish concerns about cultural sensitivity that they have made an obscene judgement call: better to allow at least 1400 kids to be hideously abused than to be thought guilty of the far greater crimes of being thought a bit racist or accidentally offending someone.

(And this isn't an incident confined to Rotherham by the way. The same thing happened recently in Oxford, again involving men with decidedly un-Anglo-Saxon names, again over a long period of time because all the relevant authorities were scared of sounding the alarm in case they came across as racist)

Yep, these people really are that thick and warped. They've had it drilled into them - probably on courses like this one, organised by Common Purpose - that they must celebrate "diversity" at every opportunity. And if that means letting a few Pakistani men rape kids, douse them with petrol and threaten them with guns, well who are we to judge? Quite possibly it's one of those vital cultural differences that we'll be trained better to understand when we attend our next Common Purpose course with some title like Embracing The Other: Leadership Strategies For Multicultural Community Development. Till then, let's not be quick to cast the first stone, eh? After all, there may be aspects of our culture that they find equally alien and troubling. The rule of law say; respect for women; children's rights; trendy Western liberal crap like that...
The reality lies here: a finite point has no ultimate meaning unless it is seen in relation to the infinite.  Remove the infinite, eternal and unchangeable God from one's world-view, and nothing has any real significance or meaning.  Multi-culturalism is an attempt to institutionalise this vacuum, by making all cultures equally valid, equally insignificant.  But its necessary ethical accompaniment is that no culture, no ethnicity may be singled out, identified, or discussed negatively.  Better to tolerate everything, even the grossly criminal.

Multi-culturalism is a rotten fruit of the West's regnant atheism. 

No comments: