Here you go, I thought this topic deserved it's own thread at last.
To start it off here's a rather grim story on racially motivated murders (nearly half of the victims are white):
Racial murders: nearly half the victims are white
Home Office release official figures as police claim that political correctness is stifling the debate.
The Observer
Nearly half of all victims of racially motivated murders in the last decade have been white, according to official figures released by the Home Office.
The data, released under Freedom of Information legislation, shows that between 1995 and 2004 there have been 58 murders where the police consider a racial element played a key part. Out of these, 24 have been where the murder victim was white.
The disclosure will add to the intense debate over multiculturalism in British society. The figures also overturn the assumption that almost all racial murders are committed against ethnic minority victims.
(hat tip Spiked)
6 comments:
Not nearly as serious as the story that began this thread, but I thought what follows belonged here. (I had intended to write a longer post, but I feel it's so self-evidently stupid that little further comment is necessary)
Guy Fawkes dropped for bonfire night
02.11.06
Consigned to history? Guy Fawkes will not feature at a bonfire celebration in Hackney
Guy Fawkes has been banned by council bosses in east London - and replaced with a Bengali folk tale. Tower Hamlets said it wanted to provide an "alternative" theme to celebrate November 5 and the attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
The council has commissioned a £75,000 fireworks display entitled the Emperor and the Tiger, which tells the story of the "Moghul Emperor, the Wise Man and the Guardian of the Jungle". As a mock Bengal tiger paces a giant catwalk, fire will light up a "forest" to the sound of Bangla drummers and dancers.
Around 20,000 people are expected to pack into Hackney's Victoria Park for Sunday night's display - but there will be no mention of the date's enormous significance in British history. The move came under fire from George Galloway and campaigners. Mr Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow said: "It beggars belief that this council should organise a Bonfire Night without a bonfire or a Guy."
Read on...
How loopy does your multi-cultural policy have to be, if it is even condemned by the cat's pyjamas himself, George Galloway. (Indeed seeing his name made me re-read the story, as I instinctively assume that whatever he's for I'm against and vice versa. But on this occasion it appears I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Gorgeous one.)
Maybe they were worried about glorifying terrorism;)
(...And come to think of it Galloway might be supporting old Guy Fawkes to do just that!)
Interesting. Research shows that there is significant bias against a certain racial group in our legal system, and I hereby call for compensatory positive discrimination to re-level the playing field.
Jurors 'lenient' to minority groups
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Metro
Jurors of all races show leniency to ethnic minorities in court, new Government research shows. The Ministry of Justice studied 27 simulated trials where the racial make-up of the defendant, victim and jurors was varied.
They found that: "People serving on racially mixed juries appear to be particularly sensitive to the position of a black person in a criminal court, either as a defendant or victim." Jurors were "significantly less likely" to convict a black or Asian defendant than a white defendant in certain types of case.
Researchers said this so-called "same race leniency" appeared to reflect a belief among black and Asian jurors that the courts treat defendants more harshly if they are from an ethnic minority.
Jurors attempted to compensate for this perceived bias in the criminal justice system in a bid to provide a "level playing field", the report suggested.
Such bias took place largely in cases where race was not a factor in the prosecution, it added.
Your call for positive dicrimination to re-level the playing field may be misplaced. a) same-race-bias was detected in both black and white jurors. b) the study showed no effect on the verdicts in the test trials.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1923647.ece
Mmm, and ethnic minorities get such a good deal from the crimial justice system, as a rule...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/6609587.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/celldeaths/article/0,,2082663,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,2074412,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,2096562,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6733591.stm
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newshamhigh&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshamhigh&itemid=WeED18%20May%202007%2010%3A54%3A55%3A913
Peter Hitchens comments on political correctness, racism, and Bernard Manning (and also demonstrates that he doesn't think everything was better in the past):
'On Bernard Manning and political correctness, this is my consistent position. Many people, who had otherwise excellent manners 30 or 40 years ago, suspended them when they used derogatory words for various groups of people. These words were not specially funny (you know the ones I mean) and had the power to hurt, and hurt badly, many good and valuable members of our society.
Political Correctness, in its early form, did much to stop this. Just because someone is your opponent, you shouldn't assume that everything he does and says is wrong. The revolution in language in the 1960s was partly right, not least because it relied on custom and habit far more than on law. You may continue to be a patriot, to believe in Christian marriage, to oppose mass immigration, without using hurtful expressions about black people or homosexuals.
By refusing to acknowledge this, Bernard Manning partisans place themselves on the wrong side in an argument they cannot win. They also find themselves defending a person who, whatever his talents may have been, was often deeply unpleasant, personally, to harmless and defenceless individuals. I think here of the lone black policeman whom he taunted before a large audience, and of the women journalists who interviewed him, and who he deliberately sought to embarrass and upset by meeting them in his underclothes. Do the late Mr Manning's defenders really approve of this bullying, cruelty and coarseness? By siding with such a person, they lose any possibility of communicating with, or influencing large numbers of people. By acknowledging that Mr Manning behaved badly, and that PC did some good, I am able to argue that other parts of the liberal language revolution were wrong, in a way that wrongfoots opponents who are only too anxious to pigeonhole me as a bigot and so ignore anything else that I say.
This isn't just a matter of tactics with me. Though it seems good sense to argue in such a way that people listen to you. I am, as I have always made clear and as my opponents ceaselessly remind me in the vain hope of upsetting me, a former Leftist myself. I have, through reason and experience, come to abandon and reject almost all the things I used to believe when I was on the Left. But I have also retained some of the things I espoused then, because they seem to me to be good in themselves. The Left's opposition ( as it then was) to racial discrimination in the 1960s and early 1970s was the best thing about it. Its subsequent switch to a more or less racialist policy (see the chapter on the MacPherson report in my book 'The Abolition of Liberty') is a straightforward betrayal of this. Its pretence that opposition to mass immigration is motivated by racialism is, equally, an abuse of truth and a departure from principle. In fact, its move from genuine tolerance to a prescriptive and intolerant support of group rights, coupled with an attempt to stifle speech and thought, are along the main reasons why I do not regret parting company. These are important matters. Do I really want or need to obscure and confuse them by endorsing Bernard Manning, even if I wanted to?'
Post a Comment