The Red Racist under the Bed

This is one of those stories which really does leave one speechless:

Toddlers should be taught about racism and singled out for criticism if they have racist attitudes, a Government-funded advisory group said yesterday.

It told nursery teachers, playgroup leaders and childminders to record and report every racist incident involving children as young as three.

These could include saying 'Yuk' about unfamiliar food.

Even babies should not be ignored in the hunt for racism because they can 'recognise different people in their lives', a new guide for nurseries and child care centres said.

The instructions for staff in charge of pre-school children in day care have been produced by the National Children's Bureau, which receives £12million a year, mostly through taxpayer-funded organisations.

[...]

The new 366-page guide, Young Children and Racial Justice, warned that 'racist incidents among children in early years settings-tend to be around name-calling-casual thoughtless comments, and peer group relationships'.

It said such incidents could include children using words like 'blackie', 'Pakis', 'those people' or 'they smell'.

Children might also 'react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying "yuk".'

Nursery staff are told: 'No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist intent, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action.'

If children 'reveal negative attitudes the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes'.

Nurseries are encouraged to report as many racist incidents as possible to local councils.

'Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution,' it said. 'In fact, the opposite is the case.'

The assertion that it reflects well on an institution to report large numbers of "racist incidents" implies that those institutions which report few or no such incidents are covering something up. The people who drafted this advice must actually believe that "racism" is almost endemic among the tiny tots.

The guidance said that anyone who disagrees is racist themselves.

Well, that attitude is pretty much par for the course with these "anti-racist" types. They're so tolerant and good, you see, that anyone who doesn't share their views must, by definition, be pure evil!

It also suggests cultivating the home languages of new immigrants - despite Government anxiety to promote the learning of English.

It said: 'English is now viewed as the major language of the world but this is not because it has any innate linguistic advantages - it is because English is the language of power in a world dominated by English-speaking peoples.'

Possibly. More pertinently, English is also the native and majority language of the UK, and you probably won't get very far in Britain without being able to speak at least passable English (John Prescott being an obvious exception to this rule). That is why it's considered important that children learn English: astonishingly enough, it's not all about perpetuating post-colonial power structures, or anything like that.

Critics of the race programme for pre- school children labelled it 'totalitarian'.

They would say that - they are, by definition, "racist".

Author and researcher on family life Patricia Morgan said: 'Stepping in to stop severe bullying is one thing, but this is interference in the lives of children. It smacks of totalitarianism.

'It is regulation of private speech and thought. They intend nursery staff to step into children's playground squabbles and then report them to the local council as race incidents. Who would ever have thought that the anti-racism crusade would go so far?'

Well, if you look at the past record of the "anti-racist" movement, and particularly its lengthy record of witch hunts against those who have displeased it (including schoolchildren), then this latest proposal appears, if not predictable, then at least in keeping with its noble traditions.

The very notion that babies or toddlers are capable of being "racist" in any meaningful sense is, I think, ridiculous. I find it very unlikely that children that young are actually able to develop ingrained negative generalisations about groups of people, and suspect that if nursery staff follow this advice too closely, then we may well see large numbers of children being labelled as dangerous racists, for utterly trivial instances of misbehaviour. Certainly, the notion that one can identify actual or prospective racists by their culinary habits is too deranged for words. Still, it does have one benefit: in common with pretty much anyone who dares to express any negative views regarding immigration, multiculturalism, or Islam, I have on occasion been accused of "racism". However, since I like curry, I can now prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that I am not guilty of the charge!

Today's Witch Hunt

As many readers will have noticed, the latest Evil Racist to be hounded out of his job is Boris Johnson's former adviser James McGrath, who has been sacked after saying that all darkies should leave Britain. Except that, of course, he didn't really say that. What he actually did was respond to whining race hustler (and Labour activist) Marc Wadsworth - who had quoted whining race hustler Darcus Howe's hysterical suggestion that Johnson's victory would lead to "a mass exodus of older Caribbean migrants back to our homelands" - by saying "well, let them go if they don't like it here". A couple of thoughts suggest themselves:

First, to quote Ed Balls, so what? It's not as if he said that all blacks should be rounded up at gunpoint and forced to leave. He simply said that, if some people find the thought of living in a Johnson-controlled London so terrible that they want to leave, then they should not be prevented from doing so, and the rest of us should not beat ourselves up about it. And what, exactly, is so appalling about that? Is the Mayor of London supposed to base his entire policy around the wishes of a handful of paranoiacs? Was Mr McGrath supposed to fall on his knees before Wadsworth, imploring him to prevent the postulated "mass exodus"?

Second, what McGrath said is pretty mild compared to certain remarks made by Ken Livingstone while he was in office:

Today at one of his regular press conferences, Ken Livingstone was discussing plans to regenerate Stratford in east London. He said the following about Simon and David Reuben, well-known property developers who are involved in the project:

Perhaps if they're not happy they can always go back [to their own country] and see if they can do better under the ayatollahs.

Asked to clarify his remarks he added:

If they're not happy here, they can go back to Iran and try their luck with the ayatollahs, if they don't like the planning regime or my approach.

The Reuben brothers are from India and are of Iraqi Jewish descent.

As readers may have noticed, Livingstone did not resign after saying this.

Third, I agree with Steve at Pub Philosopher that Boris Johnson's response to this incident demonstrates the spinelessness of the Cameron Tories. Johnson's decision to sack McGrath, which has been endorsed by Cameron himself, was a display of supreme moral and political cowardice. The screams of "racism" emanating from a race-baiting Labour activist, and echoed by sympathetic elements of the media (for example, the BBC initially said that McGrath had made "an apparently racist remark", and in other ways misrepresented the incident to show him in a negative light), achieved their desired effect: the sacking of a man who had done nothing wrong. To put it more succinctly, the left said "jump", and the Tories paused only to ask "how high?".
The justification given for McGrath's sacking, by Johnson and others, is that, while McGrath's comments were not racist, they might have given rise to a public perception that the man who made them was. However, this is a public perception (or perhaps only an illusion of one) that is formed and driven by the left, and which will only be given credence by the Tories caving in as easily as they have done. In order to ensure that "anti-racist" witch hunts like this one do not achieve a 100% success rate, no matter how lacking in substance the accusations of "racism" might be, and to ensure that we can actually speak openly about important issues like race and immigration, it is necessary to stand up to the witchfinders. The Tories have utterly failed to do this, and, as such, one has to question whether, even if they have the desire to change anything in this country (which I rather doubt), they also have the guts. As Steve puts it:

If this episode is anything to go by, all any noisy, self-righteous pressure group will need to do is say "BOO!" and the Tory government will roll over and die.

The last refuge of a (black) scoundrel

Dr Johnson famously remarked that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". He was, of course, referring to ostentatious displays of false patriotism, and the enduring truth of his statement is evident in the "Britishness" agenda of the present government. However, if you are a scoundrel who happens not to be white, then you have available to you a far more effective last refuge: the groundless accusation of racism. This is demonstrated in the recent remarks of two disgraced "celebrities":

Naomi Campbell last night blamed racism for her outburst on a British Airways jet, claiming she had been called 'a golliwog supermodel'.

In an interview with Sky News, Miss Campbell said she was not going to apologise to BA as they were "disgusting."

She said: 'I was called a racial name on that flight. And that was part of my reaction. Again, nothing to do with the police but yes from British Airways.'

'I was called a golliwog supermodel, I don’t think that’s really fair do you?'

The supermodel did not say exactly who had called her the name only that it was not one of the passengers.

When asked who called her the name, she replied: 'Someone on the flight, not the passenger.'

[...]

Miss Campbell avoided jail yesterday despite admitting kicking, hitting and spitting at police officers on board the jet at Heathrow.

Extraordinary details of the supermodel's vicious assault on two officers emerged in court as she was sentenced to a 200 hour unpaid community service order.

Magistrates told the model that the community service was part of a 12-month order.
They also ordered her to pay compensation of £200 each to the two police officers she assaulted, and £150 compensation to the aircraft captain, Miles Sutherland.

In addition she was ordered to pay fines for committing a public order offences totalling £2,300 and a £15 surcharge.

[...]

In court, Melanie Parrish, prosecuting, told how flight crew said initially that Campbell was very friendly and professional.

But after she discovered a bag of hers had gone astray, Campbell became upset and demanded to know where her bag was. Meanwhile the captain began to go through her options with her.

Miss Parrish said: 'To say that this process was difficult would be something of an understatement. Miss Campbell made no attempt to listen to him and talked over him, stating: "I don't want to hear".'

The court heard Campbell continued to shout at Capt Sutherland, saying: 'I can't believe you have lost my f***ing bag. Bring me my f***ing bags now.'

Miss Parrish said: 'She instructed him to personally get off the aircraft and get her bag and show it to her.

'The captain explained this wasn't going to happen. He repeatedly tried to take control of the situation and asked if he could get a word in.'

The magistrates were told that when Capt Sutherland tried to explain her options, Campbell snapped: 'How dare you tell me what my options are? You are not leaving until you find my f***ing bags.'

As the captain walked away Campbell shouted after him: 'You are a racist, you wouldn't be doing this if I was white.'

[...]

The court heard that police were called and three officers arrived.

The officers made no attempt to touch her but Campbell seemed to 'completely lose control', screaming 'You can't f***ing touch me' and shouting down her phone to 'make sure the press know'.

'She said: "You can't arrest me, my cousin is in Scotland Yard."

'When PC John Eastick moved towards her, she went berserk, striking PC Eastick on the arm with her mobile phone.'

Campbell continued to struggle violently and she was described as throwing her right leg back and thrusting forward, striking another male officer, PC Campling, on the thigh.

Miss Parrish added: 'At the time she was wearing formidable platform boots with stiletto-style heels.'

The court also heard how Campbell kicked PC Eastick and PC Charles Campling both in the groin area with her heeled shoes.

'Then she spat and hit PC Eastick on his arm,' said Ms Parrish.

As the continued to kick out indiscriminately, she caught PC Eastick on the right shin and left thigh before slumping down in her seat.

The court heard she continued to shout and swear and then pulled her head back and threw it forward, spitting at PC Eastick.

As they tried to remove the model from the aircraft she continued to be abusive and became increasingly violent, shouting at the officers: 'Don't touch me.'

Campbell then shouted at the officers: 'It is because I am a black woman, you are all racists. I am going to sue you. I am going to f*** you,' and continued to kick out as they tried to remove her.

Is it cos I is black? No, it's cos you is a violent thug.

Still, it is quite impressive that Campbell - who may now face libel action from the BA cabin crew whose reputations she has impugned - was able to eke three entirely separate accusations of racism out of this one incident. Although, according to some reports, the shoe was rather on the other foot:

While Naomi Campbell claimed racism was the cause of her arrest after pitching a hissy at London's Heathrow Airport last week, it was she who allegedly hurled the epithets. Cops claim the patience-challenged supermodel screamed, "F-ing white honkies!" at them and called a female officer a "white bitch".

And let's not forget this:

Naomi Campbell's former maid is suing the battling supermodel over claims that she called her a "dumb Romanian", the New York Times reports.

Gaby Gibson, 40, filed papers on Tuesday in a New York court which allege Campbell subjected her to "repeated discriminatory assaults based on national origin". Specifically, Gibson claims Campbell asked her: "Romanians are not usually as dumb as you?"

Gibson described Campbell as a "violent super-bigot" who "called her names and threatened to press charges for theft when the model was unable to find a pair of Stella McCartney jeans".

Meanwhile, via Barnsley Nationalists, I see that Linford Christie has also been playing the race card:

Former Olympic champion Linford Christie has claimed there is "institutionalised racism" in Britain.

And Christie, who won 100 metres gold at the 1992 Olympics, is adamant he should have carried the Olympic torch on its way through London in April.

"I think there's institutionalised racism in this country," Christie told BBC Radio 4. "How many black knights from British athletics do you know?

"I've achieved more single-handedly than any other sportsman in (Britain)."

Christie was banned for life by the British Olympic Association in 1999 after he failed a routine drugs test.

Is it cos I is black? No, it's cos you is a cheat.

More sowing and reaping

A union activist was branded a racist for producing a leaflet with an image of the Three Wise Monkeys proverb.

Onay Kasab, secretary of Greenwich Unison, is one of four branch officers facing a disciplinary hearing after handing out the pamphlet at last June's conference for the union, which represents more than a million public sector workers.

The four say the leaflet used the image of the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" monkeys to lampoon the committee for removing important issues from the agenda. But union bosses said the image was a "racist" slur aimed at one black committee member.

Mr Kasab, 40, from Bexley, said: "It's upsetting that I am accused of racism by my own union. We felt it was an apt image to illustrate our point that the committee were refusing to listen to members' concerns over issues such as the funding of the Labour Party, the election of full time officials and control over strike action.

"But in the conference hall the Unison president denounced it as racist and when we went to respond the microphone was switched off. We have been gagged and subjected to a witch hunt."

Now, up until this point I had some sympathy for Kasab, trade union activist though he may be. After all, the Three Wise Monkeys is well known imagery, devoid of any racial connotations, and there appears to be nothing indicating any racist intent or content in the leaflet in question. Rather, the Unison bosses just seem to be adopting the traditional leftist strategy of silencing an opponent by invoking the demonic chimera "racism".

But my sympathy rapidly diminished to the point of non-existence, when I read the next paragraph. For Kasab continued:

"I have dedicated a lot of my life to representing Unison members in Greenwich from all backgrounds. I led a 13-week strike against the civil service over the employment of a senior BNP activist. I am Turkish-Cypriot and have faced racism so to be accused of being something I despise is terrible."

It really does take a special kind of hypocrisy to be able to complain that one is the subject of a witch hunt, and then in the next breath to boast of having led a witch hunt against someone else. And a witch hunt which, if successful, would have had far more serious consequences for its victim (who would have lost his livelihood) than the alleged witch hunt against Kasab will have for him.

The three other members under investigation are Glenn Kelly, secretary of Bromley Unison, Suzanne Muna, secretary of the Housing Corporation Unison branch, and Brian Debus, chairman of Hackney Unison. All are also in the Socialist Party. Matthew Waterfall, who is not a member of the Socialist Party, was investigated but not charged.

"The fact they cleared Mr Waterfall shows that this is motivated by the New Labour supporters in Unison against the Socialist Party," said Mr Kasab.

Again, Kasab's hypocrisy is evident. He resents the fact that he may perhaps be being hounded out of his trade union because of his involvement with a far-left political party. However, he also believes that membership of a "far-right" political party should not only disqualify one from union membership, but that it should also disqualify one from the right to earn a living, full stop. Certainly, it is hard to put any other construction on his attempt to have the unidentified "senior BNP activist" dismissed.
Sadly for Kasab, hypocrites do not make very suitable objects of sympathy. Kasab has made his bed - he has willingly helped to create a situation in which "anti-racist" witch hunts are the order of the day, and in which people deemed "racist" can safely be subjected to inferior treatment - and now the time has come for him to lie in it.

White liberals know best

The following story from the Cambridge Evening News provides a rather interesting insight into the workings of the liberal mind:

ENTERTAINMENT and arts provision in Cambridge does not adequately meet the needs of the multi-cultural mix of the city's residents - according to Cambridge councillors.

But members of the black and ethnic minority groups the council say are under-served feel there is plenty of provision for them.

David Warford, a member of the Cambridge Caribbean Association, said: "I have never heard any of our group complain about a lack of provision of services. We regularly organise trips to the Arts Theatre and the Corn Exchange and proportionally there seems to be a good mix of show and plenty of Afro content."

But council bosses have now been told to look into developing a wider range of entertainment, art and shows to "better meet the interests of the black and minority ethnic communities in Cambridge" after councillors unanimously voted to review the services at a meeting.

So, black people don't actually believe that they are being discriminated against. But, hey, what do they know? The white liberals on Cambridge City Council say that blacks are being oppressed, and they must be right!

And now there will no doubt be some lengthy process of consultations, specially-contrived events aimed at showcasing "Cambridge's cultural diversity", and what not, carried out with plenty of liberal hand-wringing, not to mention the liberal application of public money - all to solve a problem no one ever knew existed!

Hat-tip: Central News

As ye sow...

Race equality council managers refused to give an employee the payrise he had been promised because he was the wrong kind of black, a tribunal has heard.

Nolan Victory, 41, claims his bosses, who were all black, ignored his complaints and even bellowed at him because he was from the wrong part of the world.

He told an employment tribunal that managers at Oxfordshire Racial Equality Council took a disliking to him because he was of Caribbean origin and they were from Africa.

"The management was made up of black Africans and they discriminated against me because I was the only black Caribbean," he told the panel sitting in Reading, Berks.

This is not the only case of race hustlers turning on one another in this manner. The chief executive of the Nottinghamshire Black Partnership is currently suing her employer, claiming that she was a victim of racist and sexist discrimination from Pakistani members of the Partnership's board. And in 2003, a former Commission for Racial Equality solicitor launched legal action against the CRE, claiming that he was discriminated against for being Asian rather than black.

I have no idea whether any of the allegations that have been made have any substance to them. But even if they don't, then the Oxfordshire Race Equality Council and the Nottinghamshire Black Partnership should not be surprised that they have been made. After all, if you run an organisation full of people whose job it is to see racism everywhere, then you shouldn't be too shocked if they eventually start to see it in you. You play with fire, you get burnt; you play with race hustlers, you get accused of racism.

Thought Policeman of the Day: PC Paul Hughes

Here is a short video which really sums up the extent to which free speech is being suppressed in Britain today. A man is arrested on suspicion of a "racially aggravated public order offence", for singing the words "I'd rather wear a turban":



The speed with which PC Hughes pounced on the man as soon as he heard the "racist" words was really rather impressive. And am I being utterly paranoid, or did a slight smirk, as of a bully exulting in his own power, briefly leap across his face as he told his victim what his "crime" was (at 14 seconds in)?

Still, I'm sure we can all agree that arresting people like the heinous (and totally unrepentant) evildoer seen in this video is a far more valuable use of police time than such petty trivialities as, for example, stopping axe wielding burglars. Thank Heavens the police have their priorities straight!

Hat-tip: John Trenchard

Lionheart arrested

Just a brief note to say that the anti-Islamic blogger Lionheart's long-anticipated arrest, on suspicion of "stirring up racial hatred", took place at the end of March, as the Luton and Dunstable on Sunday newspaper reported a fortnight ago. He has since been released on bail, and will find out later this month whether or not he is to be charged.

Hat-tip: Lionheart

Answer: he's white

The Daily Mail has the story of eighteen year-old Jamie Bauld, who recently had a charge of racially-aggravated assault against him dropped, following a seven month police investigation. So, what sort of person is Jamie Bauld? The kind of thug who goes out "Paki-bashing" at weekends, perhaps? Well, no. He's actually a Down's Syndrome sufferer, with a mental age of five.

The incident that led to the police investigation occurred last September, at the special needs department of his school, Motherwell College. Jamie had an altercation with an Asian girl, who also had special needs, during the course of which he pushed her. Hardly the most heinous of crimes in any context, you might think, and particularly not when both participants have the mental age of primary school children. However, some unknown person clearly felt otherwise. They placed an advertisement in the local paper, asking for witnesses to the "racial assault", after which the eminently sensible gentlemen of the police force decided that it was worth their while to get involved, and questioned Jamie, prior to charging him with assault. According to his mother, Jamie did not understand the questions that the police were asking him, and simply agreed with every accusation put to him, out of a desire to please his interrogators. She adds that, like many children, he does not actually notice racial differences.

A fortnight ago the prosecution was finally dropped, and Jamie's parents have received an apology from the Crown Office - Scotland's equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service. At least that's something.
But it really is astounding that matters were taken this far. Or at least, it ought to be. However, given that recent years have also seen a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl arrested for complaining that her (Asian) fellow pupils were not speaking English, and three ten-year-old boys respectively questioned by police for using the word 'gay' in an e-mail, threatened with prosecution for throwing a berry at a Slovak immigrant, and prosecuted over a playground scuffle with an Asian child (a decision that even the judge condemned as "political correctness gone mad"), my response to Jamie Bauld's case was not so much amazement, as resignation. Our country, and, particularly, it seems, our police and our public prosecution services, are infested with censorious liberal thought police, always on the lookout for new victims to persecute, harass, and vilify. What can drive any human being to seek the prosecution of someone like Jamie Bauld is totally beyond me, unless they do it for the bully's thrill that some derive from victimising someone who is utterly incapable of fighting back.

Jamie's mother asks "how can my son be racist"? A valid question, particularly given that there appears to have been no suggestion that the altercation in the classroom was accompanied by anything indicative of racist attitudes, on the part of either Jamie, or the Asian girl. The answer, of course, is that he is white. As such, he is, in "anti-racist" ideology, presumed guilty of racism, and nothing can prove him innocent. Even though there was no racial element in this incident, the fact that he had a conflict with a non-white person, while being himself guilty of being white, proves, to the "anti-racist" thought policeman, that he had a racist motive for his actions. Because those white devils are all evil racists, you know...

A Brush with the law

You would hardly put him in the risque category when it comes to entertainment.

But these days, it seems that even Basil Brush is classed as controversial.

The wisecracking puppet, who has been on children's TV since the Sixties, is being investigated by the police for racism, after his show featured a gipsy selling pegs and heather.

Members of the gipsy community complained to the Northamptonshire force, saying this was racial abuse.

And although the episode was first shown on the BBC six years ago, and has been repeated eight times since, officers now plan to study it for evidence.

Hey: that's quicker than their usual response time!

The programme features Basil's friend Mr Stephen, played by Christopher Pizzey, falling under a gipsy spell which makes him attractive to women.

Dame Rosie Fortune, who lives above the pair, tries to sell Basil pegs and heather – but he turns her down.

She then offers to tell Basil's fortune, but he says: "I went to a fortune teller once and he said I was going on a long journey."

Mr Stephen then asks him what happened, to which Basil replies "He stole my wallet and I had to walk all the way home."

The episode, also on a DVD called Basil Unleashed, was last shown on the digital channel CBBC, last month.

Critics believe that the investigation is a waste of police time.

You don't say!

But Joseph Jones, vice chairman of the Southern England Romany Gipsy and Irish Traveller Network, said: "This sort of thing happens quite regularly and we are fed up with making complaints about stereotypical comments about us in words that we find racist or offensive."

Don't do it then.

"Racist abuse of black people is quite rightly no longer deemed acceptable, but when a comedian makes a joke on TV about pikeys or gippos, there's no comeback.

"Travellers have historically sold heather and pegs, but they don't do it anymore for a living. It could be that someone thought this was a kind of stereotyping."

Possibly. Stereotyping isn't illegal, though. Inciting racial hatred is, but I doubt that any child is going to sit watching Basil Brush, and say to themselves "I hate those gypsies, they sell heather and pegs". I really can't see this unusually deranged complaint going any further, and assume that even the police will eventually be able to work out that the complainant is either a nutter, or, just possibly, someone exposing, rather effectively, the ludicrous extent to which "anti-racism" has now been taken, by the police themselves, among others.

But what this demonstrates more than anything else is the juvenilisation of modern society, and the extent to which increasing numbers of people are now willing to go running to the police every time their delicate little feelings get hurt, seeking to have the offending party punished and silenced. It's a phenomenon we also see exhibited by those individuals who contact the police to complain about shops selling golliwogs, and by Muslims on a regular basis, and in response to a variety of causes (they often bypass the police altogether, though, and attempt to silence their critics themselves). Such people - adults who have never got over the fact that they aren't at school any longer, and can't go crying to teacher demanding that other pupils be put in detention for some petty slight - have always existed, albeit only in limited numbers. It's just a shame that, so long as they can present their offence as one suffered by some "oppressed minority" generally (whether or not they actually belong to such a minority - a lot of these informers are white liberals taking offence on behalf of the designated victims), their childish whinings are increasingly given credence by those in authority, including the police.

"It never occurred to us"

Did anyone else watch "Rivers of Blood", the BBC2 documentary on Enoch Powell's famous speech, on Saturday night? I did, and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. Although I didn't agree with all of its conclusions, it was far from being the hatchet-job that I was expecting, and it certainly seemed strongly sympathetic towards Powell's critique of multiculturalism, even if it did, rather bewilderingly, imply that his speech was responsible for bringing state-sponsored multiculturalism about. It was also a pretty well put-together programme, with plenty of interesting talking-heads, balancing out the predictable ("he was a wicked racist!") contributions of a couple of race hustlers, and the execrable Roy "Tub of Lard" Hattersley. Plus, the Socialist Worker and the New Statesman both hated it, which can only count in its favour! As a regular critic of the BBC, I must say that on this occasion they've actually done rather well. Now, if only they could get it right the other 99% of the time...

If you didn't catch it, then it's been uploaded to Youtube, and the first segment can be seen here. It's all interesting, but I was particularly intrigued by some comments from Lord Lester, the left-wing barrister, and former advisor to Roy Jenkins, who as Home Secretary in the mid-1960s first articulated the leftist doctrine of multiculturalism. Speaking at the very end of the film, he said:

The model we had was, everyone would share the broad values of being British; what we did not expect, was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Sharia law should be applied in this country, or that the punishment of stoning for adultery might be looked at...It never occurred to us that there would be those kinds of unwise challenges to the broad values of a liberal democratic society.

It really is astonishing that the liberals who launched the multiculturalist agenda that has dominated (and disrupted) society for over forty years never even considered the possibility that not everyone was going to accept the "broad values of a liberal democratic society", however they might be interpreted. They never thought it possible, that encouraging people to continue living their lives as though they were still in some backwater village in Pakistan, would also have the effect of encouraging them to continue to adhere to the moral, social, and political codes prevalent in those backwater villages. Their naivety was simply astounding!
Of course, while Lord Lester, and, apparently, Roy Jenkins by the end of his life, may have realised that something is not quite right, there are still a Hell of a lot of liberals who have not achieved this realisation. They still believe, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that the increasing size and influence of the Islamic population in Britain is nothing to fear, and that, indeed, it is those of us who oppose Islamification who are the real threat to this country. I have had plenty of liberals tell me that even should Muslims eventually become a majority in Britain, it will be no problem, because they will have accepted all our values. Well, they haven't done so in the last forty years, but have rather become more extreme with each passing generation. The fact is, these liberals who decry any attack on Islam as part of some "racist" conspiracy may well find, that in thirty or forty years' time, they, like Lord Lester today, will be complaining that "it never occurred to us" that British-born Muslims would actually start executing apostates, or establishing separate Sharia jurisdictions in cities such as Birmingham or Oldham. But by then, of course, it will be too late for them to do anything about it.

Piss off and Dizaei

As Lee Jasper vanishes, at least temporarily, from public view, an equally obnoxious race hustler may be in for a bit of luck. The Telegraph reports that Metropolitan Police Chief Superintendent, and president of the National Black Police Association, Ali Dizaei, is one of several candidates for promotion to the rank of Commander.
The report also notes that Dizaei "once accused his colleagues of racism". In fact he has done so on at least four separate occasions, and, perhaps in an effort to broaden his repertoire, has also recently accused the Solicitors Regulation Authority of being "institutionally racist". He doesn't exactly have a track record of scrupulous honesty in his accusations, either: last year, he admitted to having libelled both his ex-boss, and another officer, and was obliged to pay "substantial" damages to both men.
His latest allegations against his colleagues were made almost exactly a year ago, when an earlier application for promotion to Commander was rejected. Apparently, Sir Ian Blair fears that Dizaei will cry "racism", should he once again fail to get promoted. Now, what on Earth could have given him that idea?

Even among race hustlers, Dizaei is a particularly unpleasant and dangerous specimen. Unlike the likes of Lee Jasper, he does not remain in the dank recesses of the "race relations" swamp, but slithers into the general public realm to spread his slime. As a senior police officer (his stated ambition is to rise to the rank of chief constable, and if he cries "racism" enough, he just might get there), his decisions and actions can have a direct impact upon the lives of ordinary people, in a way that Jasper's generally cannot. But, Dizaei, just as much as other race hustlers, appears to be motivated by a deep-seated grudge, bordering on hatred, against all white people; like all other race hustlers, he seems to see racist conspiracies everywhere, or at least, everywhere where white people are found. The fact that he has twice admitted to libel suggests that he is rather dishonest, as well. As I have written before, such a man is unfit to wear police uniform at all, let alone the uniform of a senior officer. It is to be hoped that the Met will reject his application for promotion, even if it does mean that he cries "racism" once again. After all, he does it so often, that I doubt anyone really bats an eyelid anymore...

Racist conspiracy fells persecuted saint

The Blessed Lee Jasper has finally fallen a martyr in the cause of lining his own pockets and those of his friends freeing the oppressed masses from the chains of post-colonial neo-hegemonic imperialism. And guess what? It's all a racist conspiracy!

The mayor of London's senior aide Lee Jasper has resigned.

Ken Livingstone's race adviser blamed the "racist nature of a relentless media campaign" for his decision.

Mr Jasper had been at the centre of allegations over the misuse of public funds and was due before the London Assembly on the matter on Wednesday.

A Greater London Authority (GLA) statement paid tribute to Mr Jasper's work and said there was no foundation for the allegations against him.

The resignation comes after the Evening Standard newspaper published claims that Mr Jasper had sent intimate e-mails to a woman involved with organisations which received money from City Hall.

In a letter to the mayor, Mr Jasper said: "It has become clear that a number of matters which are not of first importance in London are being used to distract from the crucial questions in the election campaign.

"The racist nature of a relentless media campaign and the consequent effects on myself and family have placed an intolerable strain on all of us.

"I have decided to put a stop to this by tendering my resignation."

This vile little man's departure can only be considered cause for celebration. However, I wouldn't bank on his disappearance from public life being permanent: in the world of race hustling, scum always floats back to the top...

Update: Livingstone has responded to Jasper's resignation by saying that he hopes to reappoint Jasper some day in the future. As Harry's Place suggests, this day may well be the 2nd May, 2008. If Livingstone is re-elected on the 1st May, that is...

Demonising an entire community

I have to confess that when the news that the Stephen Lawrence memorial had been vandalised broke, I didn't follow the story as attentively as I might have done. I did, however, note that Ken Livingstone had come out and claimed that it was an "outrageous act of racism", and that various race hustlers (such as the lowlife at BLINK) had made the same claim.
But while I read about the claims that evil white racists had been behind the crime, I did not see the following descriptions of the people who are really alleged to be responsible:

Officers, who have studied CCTV footage, said three suspects were seen approaching the £10 million building from a footbridge over the Dockland’s Light Railway before fleeing the scene after the attack.

Two of the suspects are described as white, between 16 and 18 years old, wearing plain dark hooded tops.

See! Evil white racists! See, Ken was right! Only:

The third is described as a light-skinned black man in his late teens or early twenties and shorter than the other two suspects. He was wearing a dark hat and had facial hair.

It's true that the police are continuing to treat this as a racist incident. But that probably says more about the cowed and politically-correct nature of the Metropolitan Police than it does about the truth. After all, one finds it difficult to imagine in what circumstances a black vandal would have an anti-black racist motive for his crime. Furthermore, as the black suspect was a few years older than the two white ones, it seems quite probable that he was, in fact, the ringleader. If this was the case, then the possibility of a racist motive would be further negated.

Regardless of one's views on the Stephen Lawrence case, and, more particularly, on the victimhood circus to which it has given rise, the fact is that vandalising a memorial to a murder victim is a particularly obscene act. Hopefully, the individuals who have done this will be swiftly brought to justice.
However, equally obscene was the speed with which Livingstone and his race hustler friends leapt up to scream "RACISM" at the tops of their voices, without bothering to produce any real evidence to back up their claim. Had they directed their false allegations against any group other than whites, they would, no doubt, have been accused of "demonising an entire community". Indeed, in those circumstances Livingstone and BLINK might well have been among the first to make the allegations of demonisation...

Persecuted saint update

Hot on the heels of his suspension as Ken Livingstone's advisor (not to mention the impending police investigation into his financial dealings), the Blessed Lee Jasper suffers another setback:

Lee Jasper has resigned from a group that advises Scotland Yard on how it tackles gun crime within the black community.

The aide to London Mayor Ken Livingstone has stepped down from his position as chairman of the Trident Independent Advisory Group.

Mr Jasper is currently fighting to clear his name after accusations that he is linked to the misuse of public funds.

Writing to members of the group, he said the media's "politically-motivated racist smear campaign" had forced his resignation.

It's a racist conspiracy, I tells ya!

Hat-tip: Battle for Britain

BBC still "hideously white" (sort of)

At ATW, JammieWearingFool links to a Daily Mail report on the ethnic make-up of BBC staff, entitled "BBC more 'hideously white' than ever as number of black executives drops to all time low". Now, leaving aside the question of whether the present figures are actually an "all time low" (and I imagine that there were probably rather fewer black executives at the BBC when it was founded, or, indeed, thirty years ago, than there are now), the main point made in the article appears to be the following:

Latest figures show not only has the BBC failed to hit targets, it has actually gone backwards, in the number of non-white senior staff.

In 2004 only 4.4 per cent of management were from minority backgrounds.

The BBC had set itself a target of 7 per cent by 2008. But latest figures show this has actually dropped to 4.3 per cent.

This equates to around just 40 ethnic executives out of almost 1,000 senior BBC posts, according to trade magazine Broadcast.

Greg Dyke, then director general, put in place the targets after branding the corporation as "hideously white" when spotting just one black face among 80 guests at the management Christmas party.

Dyke had planned for a voluntary programme to have 12.5 per cent of all staff and 7 per cent of senior management from BME groups by the start of 2008.

By the end of last year only 10.9 per cent of the corporation's total workforce came from ethnic minorities, only marginally up from 10 per cent at the end of 2003.

Now, according to the 2001 census, whites make up 92.2% of the total population, non-whites 7.8%. So, whites were already slightly under-represented when compared with the general population when Dyke first made his remarks, and since then the over-representation of non-whites has increased still further. And yet the complaint is that the number of non-whites is still too few!

To be fair, they are still under-represented among the BBC's senior management. But we can all rest assured that the BBC is taking action to change this. To be precise, the are setting up a "fast track" scheme, designed to, as a BBC spokesman put it, "give a leg-up" to non-whites. This spring, thirty staff will be chosen for the fast track programme. Of these thirty places, fifteen will be reserved for non-whites, with a further five being held for the disabled. The white, able-bodied majority will have to fight it out for the remaining ten. It all makes you proud to be a licence fee-payer, doesn't it? Still, while the BBC's discriminatory approach is unfair, I can't work up much sympathy for its disadvantaged white staff: they're just finding themselves suffering as a result of the same left-liberalism that they have themselves championed time and again.

But the ethnic make-up of its staff is hardly the main problem, one way or the other, with the BBC. Rather, it is the lack of political diversity that means that the BBC, or at least its news service, is unfit for purpose. As I wrote in a comment at ATW:

What the BBC really needs is not more (or, necessarily, fewer) non-whites, but more non-liberals. After all, regardless of the ethnic make-up of their senior staff, they still take a robustly anti-white, pro-everyone else line, whenever they report (or, in some cases, don't report) on any "racial issue".

The War against Golliwogs continues

Golly dolls - the black and white toys which many believe have offensive racist connotations - are being snapped up in NI shops.

A Belfast woman said she was "horrified" to find them in a local shopping centre.

Nicola Bailey said: "I can't believe people are making, selling or buying them."

But for the shop owner, the dolls have proved a top seller.

Nevertheless, the owner of the Mr Christmas shop in Connswater has apologised for any offence and said he would send the rest of his stock back.

The Equality Commission said the dolls were a "throwback to the 50s".

They have been stocked at the Connswater centre since September.

They are very popular, the shop said and, at one point, they were sold out. The dolls have been one of their best selling items in a number of years.

But the shop's owner said it was never his intention to offend. Once his display dolls are sold, he won't sell any more and will return the rest of the stock to the manufacturer, he said.

Chief Commissioner of the Equality Commission, Bob Collins, said the dolls were not appropriate.

"The world has moved on a great deal and everyone should move with it," he said.

Does this middle-aged man really have nothing better to do with his time than fixate over the sale of children's dolls? Apparently not.

Still, at least they didn't get the police involved this time...

On a related note, I wonder if anyone has any details regarding the number of racially-motivated crimes committed as a result of contact with golliwogs? For some inexplicable reason, I have yet to see the (no doubt very detailed and damning) figures.

Banning the BNP?

Via Conservative Home, here is the text of an early day motion that Boris Johnson - apparently working on the premise that the best way to defuse an accusation of racism made against oneself is to make a similar accusation against someone else - is in the process of initiating:

“This House notes that in May 2008 there is a possibility that at least two members of the BNP will gain a seat on the London Assembly. As things currently stand there is a grave risk of these two members of the BNP having a deciding vote on the Mayor’s budget. This is a potentially disastrous situation in which a future Mayor of any party could depend on BNP support to pass his budget. We call upon all politicians from all parties to denounce the BNP in London and ask for all politicians to work together to combat anyone who seeks to play the race card in London politics. We call upon the Government to use its powers to combat this very real threat.”

This last sentence is particularly interesting. As a number of commenters at Conservative Home have already asked, what is it, exactly, that Johnson wants the government to do with "its powers" in order to "combat this very real threat"? Is he calling for some kind of restriction to be imposed on the BNP? Or even for the party to be banned?

I would also suggest that if Johnson and his fellow MPs are really that concerned about the possibility of the BNP getting a couple of assembly members elected, then they should consider the concerns (particularly over mass immigration) that lead people to vote for the BNP, and take some proper action to deal with the problems that give rise to those concerns. But, of course, it is so much easier for our political class to engage in sanctimonious hand-wringing over the fact that some voters are daring to use their votes in a less-than-PC manner, than to actually take any steps towards undoing the damage they've done to the country.

"Say goodbye to the Britain you once knew"

Singer Morrissey has sparked controversy by claiming British identity has disappeared because the country has been "flooded" by foreigners. The 48-year-old former Smiths star, whose parents were Irish immigrants, suggested that immigration was one of the reasons he would not move back to Britain.

Morrissey, who has spent most of the last decade living in LA and Rome, told NME magazine that countries like Germany still had their own identity and complained of not hearing "British accents" on the streets.

Asked whether he would move back to Britain, he said: "Britain's a terribly negative place. And it hammers people down and it pulls you back and it prevents you.

"Also, with the issue of immigration, it's very difficult because although I don't have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears.

"So the price is enormous. If you travel to Germany, it's still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity. But travel to England and you have no idea where you are.

He added: "It matters because the British identity is very attractive. I grew up into it, and I find it quaint and very amusing. But England is a memory now."

He agreed that immigration was enriching the British identity but added "you have to say goodbye to the Britain you once knew".

In a follow-up phone interview, Morrissey told the magazine: "I just think that it could be construed that the reason I wouldn't wish to live in England is the immigration explosion.

"And that's not true at all. I am actually extremely worldly and there are other reasons why I would find England very difficult, such as the expense and the pressure."

He said: "My favourite actor is an Israeli, Lior Ashkenazi, and my favourite singer was born in Iraq and now lives in Egypt. So I'm not a part of Little Britain. And by that, I don't mean the show, obviously."

Asked about his parents moving to Britain, he said: "It's different now. Because the gates are flooded. And anybody can have access to England and join in."

Admitting that he would be "pilloried" for his comments, he added: "You can't say, 'Everybody come into my house, sit on the bed, have what you like, do what you like.' It wouldn't work."

NME wrote: "Morrissey, the son of immigrants who has lived for most of the past decade in either LA or Rome, wants others to have the freedom to travel the world like him, but implies he would shut the gates to people coming to live in the UK.

"He might once have been the voice of a generation, but given his comments in these two interviews, he's certainly not speaking for us now."

A hypocrite he may be. And perhaps he doesn't speak for the second-rate hacks at the NME. But the concerns that he voiced about immigration, and about its effects on British society, are shared by the overwhelming majority of British people.

Assuming, that is, that he did voice those concerns. He is apparently planning to sue the NME for libel over the article in question.

But really, whether a faded eighties musician did or did not criticise immigration is irrelevant when compared to the real issue here. And the real issue is, of course, immigration itself, and its impact. There can be no doubt that immigration has had a huge impact on our society and culture. Even the national language is in the process of being replaced - English is now a second language for fully 40% of primary school children in London. Whole parts of London - and many, many other towns and cities - are entirely given over to immigrants, and those of recent immigrant stock. Indeed, there are even some parts of this country into which it is simply not safe for native Britons to set foot. Thanks to Muslim immigration, we now have in this country some 600,000 people who wish to see the imposition of Sharia law across Britain - an attitude of a kind which this country has not witnessed for hundreds of years. And, perhaps worst of all, we are now experiencing the widespread active suppression of native British culture, in order to make the immigrants feel more at home. Even the indescribably vile Keith Vaz has acknowledged that British society is changing. In his Newsnight debate with Nick Griffin he said that "it is wonderful that this country has been transformed" (video link, if you can stomach it, here; he says those precise words at 4:49). And that is the heart of the matter. Not, "has the country been changed by immigration?" (it's abundantly clear that it has been), but "do we like the change, do we want to quicken the rate of change, or do we, on the other hand, want to reverse the change?". Keith Vaz would choose the former option, I (and Morrissey, according to the NME) would choose the latter.

Today's Thought Criminal

DAVID CAMERON has come under pressure to sack a Tory who praised the leadership of Ian Smith, the white minority leader of Rhodesia, who died last week.

Richard Willis, a councillor in Reading, Berkshire, who is on the list of Conservative candidates for the next general election, said on a website that Smith had been a “great and wise” leader whose rule had been “benign and successful”.

[...]

In comments on the politicalbetting.com website Willis defended Smith’s record and insisted there was nothing “inherently evil” about the all-white administration.

He wrote: “I refuse to submit to the prevalent ideology that a government that delivers stability and economic success is inherently evil just because the elite were of a racial minority. Rhodesia was the breadbasket for southern Africa under his wise leadership.” The statements, penned under the tag “Rik W”, drew a furious reaction from other users, who condemned him for supporting a “vile white supremacist”. Willis derided the criticism as “silly leftist responses”.

Sounds fair enough.

Yesterday he stood by the comments. Although apartheid was “indefensible”, Smith’s Rhodesian Front had been “infinitely” preferable to Mugabe’s regime.

He said: “You cannot judge governments of the past by 21st century standards. Ian Smith led a government that actually had people migrating to the country.”

Peter Hain, the cabinet minister who led the campaign against apartheid in the 1970s, said: “As someone who campaigned actively against Ian Smith’s racist, white minority tyranny I am disgusted by these comments. Yet again we see racism remains embedded in the Tory grassroots.”

What I really want to know is, what is a cabinet minister doing kicking up a fuss about the remarks of an obscure provincial councillor? Doesn't Peter Hain have anything better to do? Like jumping under a bus, for example?

As for Mr Willis's comments: well, if saying that Rhodesians/Zimbabweans, of whatever race, were better off under Ian Smith than they are under Robert Mugabe makes you some kind of evil white supremacist bigot, then Peter Hain had better apply that label to Paul Themba Nyathi of the Zimbabwean Movement for Democratic Change, who having fought against Smith's government in the 1970s, now says that life in his Rhodesia was "a paradise" when compared with life in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. And RW Johnson, the Sunday Times journalist who reported Mr Nyathi's comments, will also have to go down in the records as an unrepentant thought criminal, since he wrote that:

...everything then was better for Africans than it is now – education, healthcare, standard of living, life expectancy and employment.

Was Ian Smith's administration perfect in every way? No. But it was very far from being the worst government that Africa has ever seen, and it was a damn sight better than the administration that followed. Sadly, Ian Smith has, like Enoch Powell, been declared a heretic by the liberal-left, and anyone who has anything vaguely positive to say about him will receive the same designation, regardless of such irrelevancies as the facts.

And, since Peter Hain raised the issue of "racism", I would also point out that Ian Smith did not preside over an extremely successful campaign of ethnic cleansing. Robert Mugabe has done:

The last vestiges of the people that Ian Smith pledged to protect, the white Rhodesians, are being swept away. From their peak of 300,000, there are barely 20,000 whites, mostly the elderly, in Zimbabwe today...

Where, I wonder, is Peter Hain's "disgust" regarding this? Where is the condemnation of the leftists who were so quick to attack Richard Willis?

Update: In the comments, Mexicano points out that white Zimbabweans were not the first group to be ethnically cleansed in Mugabe's Zimbabawe. Mugabe also presided over the massacre of about 30,000 Matabele tribesmen in the early 1980s. Again, Ian Smith did not tend to go in for that kind of thing.