Thoughtcrime in England

Well, we haven’t talked too much about Britain lately. Partly because we have an election coming up, and I agree it may be the most important midterm in our lifetimes, and so we are thinking a good bit about it. But Britain offers us a glimpse of what’s in store for us if we lose, and it ain’t pretty. Jonathan Turley, who is no one’s idea of a conservative, wrote a few days ago:

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech. Now the South Yorkshire police department is making it clear that it does not just want citizens to report crimes but “incidents” involving offensive or insulting comments. This follows an effort to make wolf whistles a crime in England.

His words are true, and they are important, but what struck me on reading this is the sheer number of links on the loss of free speech in Britain. I count it as eleven that he considered important enough to write about. That is shocking and shameful, especially in a country that once led the world in freedom.

Professor Turley wrote this time about the South Yorkshire Police, the very same bunch that covered up the organized mass rape, drugging, prostitution, and sex trafficking of white, underage, Christian girls by (mostly) Muslim gangs. I refuse to use the word grooming because I consider it nothing but a politically correct euphemism to hide the horrendous nature of the practice.

Now, we are informed, they want us to:

“In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing. Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it.”

Which is, of course, arrant nonsense, and merely designed to make people afraid to voice their opinions or even facts that are verified, for fear of being reported to the police. And yes, the BBC, and almost all other media, print and electronic, are complicit.

It is not a new practice, it was most famously practiced by the East German government agency known as the Stasi. It is reliably reported that 1 in 5 East Germans was a Stasi informer. Sounds like the South Yorkshire Police (and other police agencies in Britain) want to contest that record.

Gavin Ashenden, the former Chaplain to the Queen, also has some thoughts on the matter, and they are very worthwhile.

He [George Orwell in 1984] warned of how a state setting out to control its citizens would do it by manipulating language. He called it doublethink. And the media would follow the same pattern with what he called ‘Newspeak.’  Slowly but surely the reality of things would be hidden by language that covered the truth with a fog.

Each week the news brings more of what we experience as doublespeak in the media. Hate crimes are one of the most corrupting and dangerous ones.

At first sight, it seems almost beyond belief that a police force could decide that thought crime was more important than actual crime.

But in England, that’s what’s happening.

Take for example South Yorkshire police. They have a particularly poor record of dealing with real crime. It was that force that decided to humiliate Cliff Richard by calling in the press helicopter to cover their break in on his house, even though he was innocent. It was they who covered up over the true record of the Hillsborough disaster. And currently, it was they who ignored the mass rape of the Rotherham teenage white girls, by predatory groups of men from one distinctive faith community (known amongst some commentators as the ‘Voldemort community’ – the faith that the media dare not or will not name.)

Heckova a record isn’t it? Anything goes when the authorities want to repress free expression and especially Christianity, which is Cliff Richards real crime.

It’s not as if it’s just happening in S. Yorkshire.

The police get to make it up as it goes along now it seems. Manchester police claim: “Greater Manchester Police now recognises alternative sub-culture hate incidents. These are incidents based on someone’s appearance and include Goths, Emos, Punks and other similar groups. This means they will also record any such incidents as a hate incident. “Other similar groups” What does that mean? Anything the police want it to mean.

One of the practical problems  with pursuing issues of private hate is that you can’t get inside someone’s head to test if it really is hate you are dealing with. What if it’s just dislike, antipathy, fear, distaste, misunderstanding or shyness?

What we are developing, with some speed is the idea and practice of ‘thought crime’ where the police set out to criminalise your feelings and your thoughts. Actually, it’s not even that. It’s what other people feel your feelings and thoughts and opinions are.

Which is where Orwell comes in again. Because hate doesn’t mean hate. It means attitudes the state doesn’t want you to have or express. Hate crime is thought-crime; and thought-crime is state censorship of thought and the expression of thought, which in other places is called ‘free speech.’

Do read the entire article which is valuable. But he is entirely correct, it is nothing less than the government telling you how you are allowed to think, and telling you that you shall be punished if you don’t toe the line. Not to mention that many people will tell them about your heresy. For that is the operative term. It has become a new secular religion and is insanely jealous of its prerogatives.

And do not make the mistake of thinking it is a British or European problem. Do you really think the left in the United States is not exactly like this, as well? How many conservatives have been shouted down, deplatformed, essentially shut up?

Yeah, I’ve lost count, as well.

Advertisements

Second City Blues

Most of you know, I grew up around Chicago, and of all the big cities, it is by far my favorite. It’s always been a rough, can-do sort of place, not exactly incorrupt, but a place where needful things got done. Well, that’s nostalgia for you. It’s not like that anymore, it’s become a war zone. Why? Here’s Jack Dunphy to tell you.

It is an accepted but lamented fact of life among police officers that in order to rise on the promotional ladder, one must endorse the political fashions currently in favor among the city’s politicians. And the higher one ascends on that ladder, the more convincingly one must do so. As a consequence, reflecting the governing principles of almost any city you can name, most police chiefs are liberals, or at least pretend to be with a passing level of feigned sincerity.

As a result of this, the upper levels of most police departments, most certainly those in large cities, become clogged with men and women who can recite leftist pieties as confidently as any MSNBC host, the better to curry favor with politicians whose sponsorship is essential to further promotion. All of these men and women believe themselves qualified to be the next police chief, but the one selected will have proved himself to be the most proficient panderer.

But this creates a problem within a police department, to wit, a division in the rank structure between those at or near the top who adopt the leftist nostrums of the politicians, and those at the bottom who must go out onto the streets each day and confront the very real problems engendered by those very same leftist nostrums.

There exists no more vivid example of this than the city of Chicago, where Hillary Clinton received 84 percent of the 2016 presidential vote, and where there hasn’t been a Republican mayor since 1931. Between Friday afternoon and Monday morning, 74 people were shot in the city,12 of them fatally. In one seven-hour span, from about midnight Saturday to about 7:00 a.m. Sunday, 41 people were shot, five of whom died.

These spasms of violence are sadly characteristic of Chicago, or at least parts of it. And equally as routine as the weekend violence are the Monday press conferences at which Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson put on their angry (or sad) faces and denounce the perpetrators and talk about how the mayhem is “unacceptable.” “What happened this weekend did not happen in every neighborhood in Chicago,” said Emanuel, “but it is unacceptable [that] it happened in any neighborhood in Chicago.”

A question for the mayor: If it really is unacceptable, why do you continue to accept it?

Read the whole thing at The Real Reasons for Chicago’s Deadly Crime Wave, with a hat tip to Second City Copwhose comments are as always critically important.

After years of reading Second City Cop and other blogs about the Chicago police, I say Jack is completely on point here, especially in this paragraph:

But  If you were somehow to identify and arrest every single one of the shooters involved in the weekend violence, you would no doubt discover that nearly all of them came from homes with absent fathers, and that nearly all of them had been previously arrested for violent crime. (They won’t come close to arresting all of the shooters, or even a quarter of them; the website Heyjackass.com reports Chicago P.D.’s murder clearance rate for 2018 so far is 14.6 percent.)

It’s come to head faster and harder in Chicago, but it’s not a Chicago problem. Baltimore, St Louis, San Francisco, and yes, London, and many others as well all face the same problem, for the same reason and are showing the same lack of courage in addressing it. So are a large part of the national (and state) governments.

Daily, I read about kids who have murdered gang rivals (or often, innocent bystanders) whose rap sheets are dozens of pages long, and then a day or two later, I’m reading about how they are out on bond, sometimes with the joke of an ankle bracelet, which supposedly will require them to stay home.

Unless the people vote for real leadership, and unless some is offered to them, it will never change. These cities will become at least as bad as any third world country, and essentially no-go zones for ordinary decent citizens.

I’m reminded of whatever movie it was a few years (or maybe decades) ago that took as it’s premise that Manhattan Island itself had been declared a maximum security prison. It was dystopian then, now it is beginning to appear to be a viable solution.

The first steps are simple, the courts must be reformed so that they give meaningful custodial sentences for serious (especially violent) crime, the police need real leadership, not Democratic politicians, especially not the corrupt ones they have now. After a few years, perhaps one can start to address the reasons (and they are obvious) why so many young men are fatherless.

See, the solution is simple. Sadly implementing it, unless the population itself decides to; is somewhere between unlikely and impossible.

The Lion Awakens

We touched yesterday on the whole Tommy Robinson thing, and there is more to say, best said from America, although many of my British readers will, I think, quietly agree.

You may have heard, and I referred to, the demonstrations Whitehall, just outside the fenced off Downing Street, itself a reminder of the problems that Muslim immigration has brought. The British are possibly the most polite amongst us (except of course at football matches) 🙂 But they have their limits.

Joshuapundit writing on Watcher of Weasels has more and some videos.

Tens of thousands of Brits attended a demonstration in London to free Tommy Robinson yesterday and it was not your typical demonstration. These people were energized and angry. Here’s is Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who addressed the crowd:

Here’s what the crowd looked like outside Number 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister’s residence. The ‘Tommy Tommy’ chant will be familiar to those familiar with Brit football chants:

When the London Police tried to suppress things, the crowd actually attacked them and a number of the police simply ran from the crowd.

Now, we’ve seen the British police run from Muslim mobs before. But this is the first time they’ve ever had to run from the British people. And high time too. They’re going to have to decide whose side they’re on.

The cops finally regrouped to block the demonstrators as they approached Buckingham Palace while the royal family was present inside.

British media is covering this as ‘a small demonstration of far right groups’ if they’re covering it at all. You take a look at these videos and tell me this was a small demonstration!

Emphasis mine.

Which is, of course, Fake News, the BBC, in particular, is every bit as adept at it as their buddies at CNN. But the truth stands on its own. Here are the videos:

 

And

 

Joshuapundit makes another point as well.

This whole scenario was so obviously reminiscent of the way Stalin used to handle this sort of thing that even a number of people on the Left who are not Tommy Robinson fans in the least are upset by it.

My original thought was that Robinson’s fate was a warning to others that you too can disappear and the papers won’t even write about it. They wanted to make an example out of him. They were probably going to wait a few months for the furor to die down and then have Tommy Robinson conveniently murdered in prison.

That plan seems to have failed miserably. Instead, they have made Tommy Robinson far more popular and a symbol of how the UK  is no longer a free country. If they keep him locked up or if they free him, he will remain a popular hero. And I don’t doubt they realize that murdering him in prison would make him a martyr as well.

Much as I hate to say it, I agree with him. This was an attempt to ‘disappear Tommy Robinson’. But thanks to the internet and some intrepid Britons not only are demonstrations happening in Whitehall but in San Francisco, in Sydney, in fact, wherever free men gather.

I think the elite in Britain have gotten so far from their roots, that they have forgotten the ancient wisdom of the people, who led us all to freedom. Rudyard Kipling put it best.

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

#Free Tommy

ps: Yes, the summit. I haven’t enough information yet to have a valid opinion, maybe tomorrow.

Why Freedom of Speech Matters (And Why ‘Hate Speech’ Is Protected, Too)

“Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself . . . [Truth] is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson

From The Other McCain: The Background:

When news of Tommy Robinson’s arrest in England made headlines, Americans were shocked. A judge had sentenced Robinson to 13 months in prison for attempting to publicize the trial of men accused of operation a criminal sex ring that trafficked underage girls in Leeds.

The case involved one of several so-called “grooming” gangs that have been exposed in England in recent years, the most notorious of which was The Rotherham Horror. Basically, lower-class white English girls are seduced (“groomed”) by young Muslim men, mostly the sons of Pakitani immigrants, and then gang-raped and/or pimped out as prostitutes. The racial aspect of this phenomenon obviously has the potential to inflame public opinion, especially since investigations have shown officials failed to act promptly in many cases because of political correctness.

Why was Robinson arrested?

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 lays down strict limitations on what can be reported in the press regarding active criminal proceedings. This is to prevent outside influences from affecting jurors, ensuring that the defendant has a fair trial based only on the evidence put before the court.
Robinson was already serving a suspended sentence for contempt of court concerning a 2017 case in Canterbury when he was arrested by police while live-streaming on Facebook outside a grooming trial in Leeds on Friday morning.
In the broadcast, played to the court, Robinson “got into a shouting match with several men who appeared to be defendants in the case”, Buzzfeed reports. He also read out the names and charges against the men, some of them inaccurate.
“No-one could possibly conclude that it would be anything other than highly prejudicial to the defendants in the trial,” said Judge Geoffrey Marson QC, presiding. . . .
A temporary order had been imposed by the court banning media coverage of Robinson’s trial and conviction while the Leeds grooming trial was ongoing over fears it could further publicise Robinson’s prejudicial broadcast.
“If the jurors in my present trial get to know of this video I will no doubt be faced with an application to discharge the jury,” Marson told Robinson on Friday, the Hull Daily Mail reports.
“If I have to do that it will mean a re-trial, costing hundreds and hundreds and thousands of pounds.”

Apparently, either (a) English courts do not have the authority to sequester the jury in high-profile trials, or (b) the courts are deliberately attempting to suppress public knowledge of the Leeds case. As an American unfamiliar with British law, I can’t say which is true, but I do know that there is a smoldering resentment among many Britons about the role of the “respectable” media in cases like these.

It’s a different way of providing a fair trial, and I think a much inferior way because it deprives the people of the knowledge of what is going on. It’s an extension beyond reasonable means of why even in America we have restrictions on cameras in courtrooms. But in any case…

 Class prejudice was clearly a factor in this. Most British journalists are from the college-educated upper classes, while the girls being raped and pimped out by these Muslim gangs were mostly from a class that Americans would call “white trash.”

It’s not as if the “grooming” gangs were a big secret, after all.

Truer words have never been spoken, I think.

 Radical feminist Julie Bindel wrote in the £ Sunday Times in 2007:

Blackburn, in common with many northern towns, is experiencing a huge upsurge in pimping, and it is an unpalatable truth for the authorities — and indeed the police — that many of the newest wave of pimps come from within the Asian community. . . .
The Mall in Blackburn is popular as a meeting place for the town’s young men and women. Set on two floors, with over 100 high-street stores, it is brightly lit and usually busy. It teems with young women with pushchairs, elderly people window-shopping, and teenagers meeting up with their friends. The crackle of security guards’ radios mingles with the cheesy piped music. […]

One security guard, asked if the men are pimps, said he neither knew nor cared. “It’s the girls,” he says, “they love the Pakis. We can’t get a look in.” Nearby, a young man takes two of the girls into a shop, where he buys them make-up and perfume. Later on, the groups of men move on to the Vue cinema complex near Blackburn station. The younger men are on bicycles, the older ones in expensive-looking cars, sound systems blaring out bhangra and gangster rap. Girls begin to approach them, and are soon driven away in cars by the older men. It is possible that they are taken to “slag houses”, where they will be sold for sex.

Right out in the open, at the freaking mall. Well, you won’t see nuthin’ if you keep your eye wide shut.

Mind, it happens here as well, it happens everywhere, it always has, but not in wholesale lots, like it does in Britain, and yes I used the present tense, it still continues.

The mostly Pakis that do this are contemptible, of course. But what can one say about a society that intentionally overlooks these girls being sold off to the highest bidder? Britain was the main driver in the end of slavery in the west in the nineteenth century, now because it is afraid to confront a few brown-skinned people, it has allowed its own daughters to be enslaved. Hell of a price to pay for political correctness, even if it is one that the ‘slags’ and their families are paying for you.

To be sure, it’s not all Britons, many are just as angry about Tommy Robinson (and what may well prove to be a death sentence) as anybody in the world. But note that he too is lower class, and the upper classes are busily denouncing him worldwide. I admire him, and yes, I admire his willingness to disobey an unjust law. Reminds me of Rev Dr. Martin Luther King’s letter from a Birmingham Jail, where he said this:

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

It’s time, and past time, for the great British majority to wrest control of their country back from this uncaring and uncontrollable elite, before it sells them all, like those poor lower class girls to the highest bidder. The left likes to say, “By any means necessary”, I’d suggest taking them at their word.

Horsepower and the Police

Things that can’t go on, don’t. We all know that, but we don’t have to like it. In my lifetime, America has had two types of car guys, normal guys that like to go fast, and cops that like to go fast – sometimes chasing the first group. When I was young, it was reasonably good natured on both sides, as long as it didn’t get too crazy.

But I come from an age when engine sizes were measured in cubic inches, and the ones you really wanted started with a 4 followed by two more numbers. 401, 409, 425, 440, and above all 426 followed by Hemi, the elephant itself, If you liked to be both comfortable and fast, you could add 472 and 500. The ones starting with 3 were ok, and you could get to the second gas station, but they weren’t the same. Note that there isn’t anything new about it, either, Packard had a 473 cubic inch V-12 in the late 30s. Yes, I still want one of those, and you can buy one for less than $200K, a bargain!

The guys with the bubble gum machines on top were not very different. America’s a big place, so are were American cars, there was a lot of ground to cover, and it needed to be done real quick.

What brought this on? Ford has announced the end of the Taurus, their last reasonable sized, rear wheel drive car, in other words: suitable for police use. That leaves the Dodge Charger, and its days are probably numbered as well. Why? Well, there is a story in that.

Back in the early seventies, civilians were driving cars with names like Camaro, Firebird, Charger, Challenger, Cutlass, Mustang, and some others. Most were pretty crude, with maybe an AM radio, but a proper gauge package, four-speed transmission, limited slip differential, and serious horsepower. The only thing they couldn’t pass was a gas station, but who really cared when we were paying 50¢ or so a gallon for gas.

But then we resupplied Israel during and after the Yom Kippur war, and the Arabs got irritated and started raising the price of crude oil, and the insurance companies decided they’d had enough of teenagers with powerful cars, and insurance became unaffordable. At that point, Uncle stepped in and mandated fuel mileage standards, and the party was over. For us and for Detroit too.

Essentially that triple whammy killed the American car industry, poor quality control didn’t help, but there wasn’t anything new about that. The knock on effects had much to do with the death of American steel as well. And so the rust belt became the rust belt. I lived there, I watched it happen. The rust belt was caused by the US government, never forget it.

So, what did we do? We soldiered on for a few years with pretenders, like Malibus with 305 2 bbl engines, but Detroit still had some marketing savvy, and soon the workaday American pickup got comfortable, and got most of the toys we had in the sixties, including the big engines, eventually things like Cummins Turbo Diesels (a transplant from an industrial engine) with anything up to somewhere around 750 horsepower. At that point most of us car guys became truck guys.

That set off the sourpusses at the EPA so they’ve been trying to rein that in as well, but they’re having trouble managing that, Americans aren’t as docile as we used to be, and the country hasn’t gotten any smaller, and our motto is still, “Real quick” just as d Tocqueville noticed way back when. And in truth when the Kabuki theater of TSA got going, driving became even more attractive.

The Police are doing the exact same thing we did, more and more they are driving SUVs and Pickups, because if anything they’re carrying more stuff around with them, and it ain’t gonna fit in a smart car, and a Prius ain’t gonna catch many bank robbers.

Unintended consequences, damned near killed America, but we’re still here, bitchin’, moanin’, and getting on with it. And that is how we got both Donald Trump, and Scot Pruitt.

More on this at The American Spectator.

Tuesday Videos, the Mostly British Edition

I think we’ll do a video round-up today.

What better way to start.

If you don’t happen to know, Speaker’s Corner is a place in London where anybody can say nearly anything, especially political. Or so it has been traditionally. This is Tommy Robinson reading a speech, that was to be given by…

this guy.

I’ve seen few things more disgusting. Yeah, we expect this crap from Iran and the NorKs, but Britain claims to be free.

Think it’s just a short detention so he couldn’t speak. Here’s a guy who taught his girlfriend’s dog to do a Hitler salute simply irritate her (yeah it’s tasteless). But do you really think he was guilty of a hate crime? Yeah really. John Paul Watson (less NSFW than usual) sums it up.

Here’s another about it.

Bookworm wrote a post the other day called: Why choose atheism? Or you’re not the boss of me.it’s a good post, worthy of your time, but this struck me as quite wonderful

Gavin Ashenden, the former Chaplain to the Queen has some thoughts on same-sex marriage.

A bit British heavy this week, but we’ve been ignoring them some lately. Let’s finish up with some engineering on that bridge collapse down in Florida the other day.

That’s why engineering is math based. 2+2 really does =4, and it does not care what you’re feelings are.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: