Politically Correct Drivel    
    Rafer Janders asks: Haven't Councillors anything better to do?    

How 'anti-racism' has rushed ahead of 'racism' in a Northern English town.

It is amazing what libraries can turn up. On rummaging through my local one in Stockport recently, I laid my hands on a copy of the borough's 'Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy from 1999 to 2002'. It is issued via the Town Hall, and leafing through the statistics for youth, car and domestic crimes I eventually located some astonishing material.

Here is an extract from page 61 of the report. It concerns what is called 'Strategy Development for Combating Intimidation and Harassment Issues' within the area, and I quote:-

"Racial harassment, harassment of gays and lesbians and harassment of people supporting law enforcement all share certain features, and in some cases the same perpetrators, and all work directly against the Partnership...'

What a bland and meaningless statement this is! It is like saying that the Royal Ballet, general elections and cricket matches share certain features, and in some cases common participants - which they do, but in many and varied capacities.

Not only is the section outlining 'Witness Intimidation' in the Stockport area being co-opted with anti-homosexual and 'racist' incidents, but also these three-in-a-bed are quietly tucked away towards the document's rear. The section makes an allusion that these three categories of crime share similar characteristics and perpetrators, but it does not explain how. Nor does it cite any hard evidence to substantiate the suggestion. This is irresponsible.

If taken at face value, this report says, in effect, that anyone who voices disapproval of homosexuality (e.g. Catholics) or inter-racial mixing (e.g. Hebrews) would at times be likely to intimidate witnesses to any type of crime as well! You can see how these arbitrary examples show the document's assertion to be quite ridiculous. I suspect the allusion hides a desire to dissuade people from speaking out on any issue for fear of being smothered with a pick-and-mix blanket assumption of 'prejudice'.

Imagine the scenario: "Waiter, this ham sandwich tastes a little off today. May I please have another?" Waiter: "Help, help! I'm at the mercy of an anti-minimum-wage, emotionally abusive, anti-pork-farming, anti-flour-manufacturing supporter of pig-murder and grain-silo mouse killing. Help, police. He thinks I'm not heterosexual!"

Ridiculous? Think again! This mentality is being positively embraced today, and it is very real. And the paranoia thus created appears essential for what follows. Ready?

The figures reported under 'Racist Incidents' in Section 2(14) make interesting reading. You will note the use of the term 'racist' here instead of 'racial' or 'inter-racial'. Already the material is being given a slant before the reader has even got into the small print. The language is, of course, chosen typically to convey the idea of intentional 'persecution'. See definition:-

Racism: (1) Discriminatory, oppressive, abusive or aggressive behaviour towards people because they belong to a different race; (2) The belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority.

Now that is a big label to attach to someone who laughingly shouts: "Hey, Whitey maan..." It is totally ridiculous. Most inter-racial incidents, ranging from expletives and gesturing to actual physical interaction, are typically incidental or spontaneous. Being familiar with the Stockport area for over thirty years, I can honestly say that I personally have never witnessed, seen nor heard of a single 'racist' incident provoked by any member of the indigenous population. The same is true of my friends, acquaintances and working colleagues. The only inter-racial scuffle of which I have been aware was when an oriental staff member at Elvis's Palace Restaurant in Hazel Grove attacked some customers when he thought they had not paid. In fact, they had! See local press for details.

Yet in the year 1997-98 there were reportedly 33 'racial incidents' within the area. Then in the first six months of 1998-99 there were a reported 22 'incidents' - suggesting perhaps an upward trend in such crimes or perhaps only in the frequency of reporting them. Nobody actually knows, as the report makes clear. So why even mention the figures?

Strange statistics

Before continuing, it makes good sense to check the mathematics part of the document and further terminology. The figures totted up just do not make sense. For instance:-

"Of the reported offences, ten occurred in the street, three at the victims' home addresses, one in a part and one in a car park."

So, 10 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 15 incidents. If this relates to 1998-99, where did the other seven occur? Or if it was the total for both periods, what of the forty missing incidents? Why are these other incidents not mentioned?

Also, it must be remembered that the term 'reported' incidents does not automatically mean that: (a) they actually did occur; or that (b) if they did, they were found proven as offences in the courts. The term merely lists allegations, otherwise it would read: "... reported offences resulting in conviction."

Then let's look at the next quote:-

"Three of the victims were Asian, one was Bangladeshi, three were Indian, six were Pakistani and two were white."

You will notice that not one black victim was listed. Weren't there any? However, lets look at the numbers again: 3 + 1 + 3 + 6 + 2 = 15. What about all the others?

And there is a further question. Here we have, reportedly, 15 incidents and 15 victims. Yet under further analysis it all seems a bit too neat. Taking 'incidents', as officialdom now interprets them, to mean any occurrence that causes people upset, such an incident can, and often does, have more than one casualty. If a drunk staggered out of a pub and began to urinate on the pavement in front of a stationary coach-load of pensioners, one incident of indecent exposure would be reported, but a potential 30 or so victims could be logged down as requiring counselling! Hence the 15-for-15 figures do not look credible.

The report carries on:-

"The ethnicity of the offender/suspects was as follows: Two black, 19 white and three not known."

Well, first things first. The terms 'offender' and 'suspect' are dangerously blended together here like oil and water. They do not mix for a very simple reason. The term 'offender' is used to describe a convicted miscreant. Even the civil rights group Liberty agrees that a person's character should be assessed on truth (i.e. criminal/civil convictions), not mere supposition or allegation. A suspect is an innocent party until proven guilty. So straightaway this set of figures is worthless.

To return to the ethnicity figures, we do the mathematics again. 2 + 19 + 3 = 24 alleged perpetrators. You will notice that 21 individuals are racially identified and three are not known by any such identification. You will also notice that Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis are wholly excluded. By the sheer balance of probabilities, knowing the Stockport area and being aware of trends in not-so-far-away Oldham, all this seems extremely unlikely. However, on viewing the jumbled sets of figures here, errors would be unsurprising.

Whites the main victims

It should be borne in mind that that no less an 'anti-racist' body than the Commission for Racial Equality has admitted that the majority of racial incidents are against white people. Adding to the strangeness is how the ethnicity list of suspects is gladly revealed within the report. yet when offences are reported in the local media the supposed miscreants' ethnicity is usually very conveniently omitted. This in itself hampers police investigations of many incidents, when potential public witnesses are told only that the police are "... hunting three young men" and so on. Appalling, isn't it? The interests of 'racial harmony' are given priority over the requirements of fighting crime.

A further extract from the 'Racist Incidents, Section 2(14) states that:_

"... it is widely recognised nationally that a large proportion of such incidents go unreported."

In the 'Rationale and Baseline Position', Section 4(7,1) it also states that:-

"The extent of under-reporting is not known, and one of the objectives will therefore be to establish a more reliable baseline."

So where are the national or local databases from which these assumptions are drawn? The very term "more reliable baseline" is an admission of the unreliable nature of this section of the document, even by its own compilers. Does it ever cross the dizzy minds of the writers of such reports that there may not actually any substantial problem of racial incidents in Stockport at all?

People need not worry for much longer though. For with the report's scare-mongering approach and encouragement, if there isn't an existing problem you can be sure that the Council will manufacture one! It is as though Council officials have a perverse desire to have a bolt-on fashion accessory: a 'racism' problem. Just like jealous infants wanting the latest toy of their peers, they will do anything to get it! And if they do, I too would like to add my objections to being called 'Brit', 'Pommie', 'Sassenach', 'Limey' and even 'Whitey'. Pathetic, isn't it?

But I hear these 'racist' terms on TV all the time, and on the street. Why shouldn't you or I object, as the report urges? If you cannot beat the hysteria, join it! It's good to be a part of something special!

Objective no. 3 within Section 4(7,2) of the report urges a requirement:-

(3) "To increase the number of racist incidents reported by 50 per cent by 2002."

So, it seems as if Council officials are not satisfied with the amount of race trouble in Stockport; they want more of it! But this is only part of the nonsense. A clump of suggestions is offered up from Section 4(7) entitled 'Strategy Development: Intimidation and Harassment Issues'. The cover-sheet includes the following statement:-

"The McPherson Report on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry requires action to improve the response of partner agencies to racism and adopt and promote an ethos which positively values diversity."

Are the compilers of this report ignorant of the fact that we already have world-wide diversity? Each race has a different culture, heritage and country of origin. Why that mutual uniqueness should be exposed to the damaging social dabbling of western élite's defies belief. Does it not occur to these people that the 'diversity' they value so highly will be destroyed if their schemes for multi-racialism are carried to their conclusion?

The term 'diversity' is described in the English language as:-

Diversity: (1) The quality of being different or varied; (2) A point of difference.

Surely, if we are all lumped together into one melting pot the logical progression is the loss of diversity! All groups curdle into a universal mice-mash. How this is beneficial, righteous or enriching to anyone defies sense.

Who decides who is welcome?

Returning to the report recommendations, they go on to say in Aim 1 of Section 4(7,1) that:-

"... the Partnership is determined to effectively address (note split infinitive) racist incidents and work towards achieving a borough which welcomes and benefits from cultural diversity."

Well, just where the 'welcome' comes from I do not know. The indigenous inhabitants of Stockport have not been informed of a ballot to express whether we welcome genetic changes, whether through immigration or not. There are no posters, flyers, TV programmes or public notices in the local press of any enquiry to ascertain local views; nor have our controlling LibDem councillors been around to ask us.

As for benefits, if neighbouring Levenshulme (two miles away) is any guide, I would suggest that life in Stockport would rapidly deteriorate, as Levenshulme's has, from 'diversity' - leaving unbeneficial decline for all concerned. This is irrefutable; read the local history of that area and then pay it a visit today. A picture speaks a thousand words - and not politically correct ones at that!

But to return to the report, let's look at a few more extracts:-

  • (1) "22 racial incidents... While this number is low compared to other parts of Greater Manchester (Stockport is not in Greater Manchester. RJ), this may simply be a factor of the small ethnic minority population, rather than meaning that Stockport is a safer place for ethnic minority people."
  • (2) "The 1991 census (in Stockport) established the majority ethnic category as white at 97.6 per cent, meaning that only 2.4 per cent of residents are of non-white minority ethnic groups. More recent studies have suggested that there is a growing Asian population, notably in the Cale Green and Edgeley areas. The growing ethnic diversity in Stockport will enrich the borough, and the Partnership is determined to prevent racists from attacking and harassing ethnic minority members of our community and damaging the reputation of Stockport as a welcome and attractive place to live."
  • (3) "Feeling uncomfortable in parts of Stockport was reported as a concern, and fear of racial incidents was strong."
  • (4) "Currently, there is not an organised racial action group in Stockport, and consequently there is limited communication with authorities."

We can see that Extract (1) is a tentative toe-dipping into breaking waters. It merely speculates, guesses and theorises, but is short on facts. You will note that the census figures in Extract (2) are now eight years out of date, and therefore worthless. Even so, the language which says "... only 2.4 per cent of residents are of non-white minority groups" conjures up such a massive furore of racial protectionism as to warrant psychiatric treatment. The operative word is of course 'only'. The suggestion here seems to be that everything possible must be done to make that percentage bigger!

Incidents in perspective

According to the report, the census figures for Stockport in 1991 showed the town's population to be 284,395. So 2.4 percent of the report's figure for non-Whites even then would be 6,826. Yet all these many years later, during which the ethnic minority population is certain to have grown, a mere thirteen non-Whites are reported as falling victim to alleged racial incidents!

This amounts to less than a fifth of one per cent (0.19 per cent) of ethnics in Stockport being the victims of incidents involving a racial element. This is probably equivalent to the number of 'chain-mail' victims of all races for the same period. If only violent and indecent assaults were as rare!

And what about 'feeling uncomfortable' and 'fear', as in Extract (3), this seems to be making a big fuss about things which may never happen. This apart, feeling discomfort and fear is mutual; white inhabitants can experience such feelings too, with hordes of Indians, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis now influxing North Area and Stockport Colleges.

As for what is stated in Extract (4), did anyone bother to mention that the BNP is present in Stockport, and any constructive dialogue or advice sought regarding 'racial action' would be freely and gladly given.

As a White, I can honestly say that the unsolicited racial harassment I have personally experienced in the local area, and even in a law school on the periphery, I did not report. I did not enjoy it, incite it or know why it was happening to me. But I did nothing. From now on, I shall ensure to report any piece of unpleasantness, from jostling to intimidatory staring. And I would wholeheartedly encourage any other white person to do the same. If the report's Objectives Section wish a 50 per cent increase in racial incident reporting over the next two years, I for one will be happy to help!

At this very moment we have an ideal opportunity to give the Stockport Council's Partnership its "more reliable baseline" for future policy-making. We should not have to suffer in silence, whether it is from racial harassment or uninvited changes to our locality. It's time to get reporting and help your local Council meet its targets. The councillors are there to serve you. And you have a basic human right to be listened to just the same as anyone else. The time is now!

    Spearhead Online