Tuesday, 6 January 2015

The Madness of the UK Elites

Culturally Sensitive Policing

In the United Kingdom this past year systemic abuse and extreme criminal acts over a long period of time have come to light, yet the police and local council officials have turned a blind eye and ignored them.  Some have warned darkly that what has come to light is the tip of a vast iceberg.  If you have not caught up with the explosive revelations, take a look at reports about Rotherham

The question is, how could this come to pass?  While the causes are always multi-form it would appear that a large contributing factor is the sea-change that took place in the UK police force fifteen or so years ago.  As a result of the Macpherson Report into the apparently racially motivated slaying of  Stephen Lawrence the police were officially required to become racist in their approach to community policing and crime.  We mean, of course, they were required to apply a filter of "multi-cultural sensitivities" to crime.  Race was mandated as a filter in apprehending and detecting crime.

First of all, let's define racism.  The Macpherson Report helpfully provided its definition:
A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person. [Maitland Report, p.376]
No doubt, dear reader, you have just fallen off your chair. Racist incidents take place whenever anyone perceives they have.  This bizarre claim was to become part of police and government procedures.  But worse, the police had to take race (that is, the cultures of different races) into account when policing.

A new atmosphere of mutual confidence and trust must be created. The onus to begin the process which will create that new atmosphere lies firmly and clearly with the police. The Police Services must examine every aspect of their policies and practices to assess whether the outcome of their actions creates or sustains patterns of discrimination. The provision of policing services to a diverse public must be appropriate and professional in every case. Every individual must be treated with respect. "Colour-blind" policing must be outlawed. The police must deliver a service which recognises the different experiences, perceptions and needs of a diverse society. [Maitland, s.45.24]
Colour blind policing is outlawed.  Instead the police had to recognise "the different experiences, perceptions and needs of a diverse society".  "Recognising" has to do with acknowledging in a positive light.

From that time onwards, the police were not allowed to be "colour-blind", but they had to be culturally sensitive.  Putting it baldly, since it was a long established cultural practice for Pakistani youth to prey upon young girls and boys, groom them for sex, and systematically rape them, the police clapped the proverbial telescope to the Nelsonian blind eye and saw no evil.  Its just what they do, and police needed to recognise "the different experiences, perceptions and needs of a diverse society."  Behold the mandated and required racism of the modern UK police force.

Consequently, since many of the horrendous crimes being perpetrated in our day can be linked to historical cultural practices, the Police are, therefore, expected to see no evil, hear no evil.  Crimes such as female genital mutilation, honour killings, paedophilia, compulsorily arranged marriages are all wonderful manifestations (don't you know) of a diverse rich multi-cultural society which the Police must welcome, endorse, and celebrate--along with all the vast machinery of state and its army of bureaucratic functionaries--or, if not, risk being charged with racism.  At the least, this is not the most enlightened career move one could make. 

Peter Hitchens comments:
The Macpherson Report is one of the most extraordinary documents ever to be published by any British government.  Its language, tone and style are quite unlike anything else ever printed by the austere presses of the state.  Its accusation of "institutional racism" against the police is by definition impossible to prove and therefore impossible to refute.  Yet it has highly disreputable origins.  The inventor of this idea and expression was the American black radical Stokely Carmichael, an anti-Semite who was at one time banned from this country and who proclaimed that Hitler was a genius. . . . Despite this tainted source, it has been difficult for anyone to combat the new ideology presumably for fear of being damned as institutionally racist themselves. [Peter Hitchens, The Abolition of Liberty: the Decline of Order and Justice in England (London: Atlantic Books, 2003),   p. 209f.]
When secularism overthrew the Christian faith, it did not introduce a wonderfully tolerant society.  Rather, it made room for the re-introduction of idols (secular idols, to be sure, but idols nonetheless).  As will always the case, these particular idols are ruthless, bloody, primitive and benighted as were Bel, Nebo, and Molech.  

No comments: