As anyone who hasn't been living in a cave will have noticed, the police and Crown Prosecution Service are very keen to prosecute "racist" crimes. Indeed, the CPS has boasted of its success in doing so. You can go to jail for revving your car engine in a "racist" manner, or for suggesting that there might be anti-white racism in Pollokshields (remember - only those evil white people can be racist, and suggesting otherwise is itself racist), but saying "bloody foreigners" will only get you community service. Jade Goody and fellow contestants in the televised freak-show Celebrity Big Brother were investigated by police for calling an Indian contestant "the Indian", while Nick Griffin went on trial twice for telling the truth about Islam, and the government now wishes to expand the scope of the law to ensure that next time he'll be convicted. There are no doubt many, many, more examples.
Given all this, it was interesting to read in the Telegraph that fewer than 10% of anti-Semitic incidents are prosecuted. Indeed, some police forces, while being ever-so-keen to keep track of anything that causes the slightest upset to favoured groups (a category including, but not limited to, blacks, Muslims, and homosexuals), don't even bother to keep records of the number of attacks on Jews.
Why is this, I wonder? The answer relates to the preferential treatment that some groups receive, and that others don't. Blacks or Muslims, for example, are, in the mindset of the ruling PC liberals, always victims. White people, and Jews, whether white or not, are always perpetrators. This means that attacks by the 'perpetrator' groups on the 'victim' groups are exaggerated and severely punished, while the more frequent attacks by the 'victims' on the 'perpetrators' are denied and brushed under the carpet. And this means that a white person can go to jail for revving their car engine, but a Muslim can call for murder, and be left in peace.
The trust’s report was carried by quite a few national newspapers; but the curious thing is not one dared to mention why these attacks had increased nor speculated as to what group of people might be responsible for them. The impression one was left with was that any of us might have been out kicking Jews at night, perhaps because there was nothing good on the box. This was despite one or two strongish clues: the war in Lebanon and the graffiti that accompanied the desecration of Jewish graves in north London. The words spray-painted read “Hitler” and “Kill All Jews” and “Allah”. Now, call me Inspector Barnaby, but that last one is a bit of a giveaway.
A spokesman for the trust, Mark Gardner, said the usual suspects, white right-wing extremists, were not responsible — yet conceded, almost as an afterthought, that Muslims were “overrepresented” in identifiable attacks. That’s overrepresented in the same way that elderly middle-class white men are overrepresented in the Long Room at Lord’s, I’d guess.
So - it was, not just a 'victim' group, but the ultimate 'victim' group. A group who, we are given to believe, are subjected to an unbearable barrage of unprecedented persecution, 24 hours a day. In the minds of the PC liberals, who, sadly, seem to be gaining increasing influence over the police, as they have over the rest of our public services, even arresting a Muslim for something they've done is bordering on racism. So the Jews will just to have to get used to getting beaten up by Muslims. It's all about Israel anyway, isn't it?
Incidentally, it would be interesting to see figures for the percentage of racist attacks that are prosecuted, arranged by race of victim. I imagine we'd see plenty more discrepancies.