Article by John Derbyshire |
||||
|
|
|||
| You
Heard It Here First It
is a melancholy satisfaction to be proved right on matters where I would
rather be proved wrong, but I did tell you so. Derb,
“Unpleasant Truths” (8/2/02):
Their morale destroyed by “brutality” and “profiling”
hysteria, police forces will sink into corruption and paper-pushing.
Ambitious public prosecutors will concentrate on framing up
law-abiding citizens with “hate crime,” “corporate corruption,”
“dangerous product” (guns, fast food) or “child abuse” charges.
Actual crime — murder, rape, robbery, burglary and assault —
will skyrocket, but it will be illegal to talk about it. At
least 15 detectives were involved in the raid on Pete Townshend’s London
house. Townshend, who created
the rock group The Who, is accused of having subscribed to kiddie-porn web
sites. When a reporter asked
why a raid against an unresisting suspect who is not known to have harmed
anyone’s property or person needed 15 detectives, the police replied:
“It’s a very big house.” Here
is a picture of Pete Townshend’s “very big house.”
Other
members of the British constabulary are busying themselves with rounding
up people who say rude things about groups they don’t like, or even
people who merely draw attention to the favors lavished on “protected”
groups, without expressing an opinion about whether they like them or not.
A correspondent for the London Daily
Telegraph (and refugee from the set of Lord of the
Rings, to judge from his photograph) was arrested and jailed last
November for suggesting, at a public rally in support of fox hunting, that
hunters should be accorded the same rights as blacks, Muslims and
homosexuals. In that same
month, the Crown Prosecution Service, which sets guidelines for the
British police, announced that prosecution of “homophobic and
transphobic” crimes is to be a priority.
(“Transphobic”? Don’t
ask.) Scores of police fanned
out in a sweep of “haters” — people who have publicly expressed such
opinions as that Muslim Britons are not very patriotic, that Britain is
letting in too many immigrants, or that homosexuality is unhealthy.
Numerous arrests were made. Meanwhile,
in the same country where all this is happening, crime is rising at 9 per
cent a year, relatives tell me that if you report a stolen car to the
police (and supposing you are lucky enough to actually get a call through
to the station house in between all those citizens calling in “hate
crimes”) they shrug and tell you to deal with it through your insurance
company, a friend admiring my wife’s jewelry sighs that there is no use
having jewelry in London as it will only get stolen by burglars, and an
absolute, total, no-exceptions-whatsoever ban on ownership of handguns has
had the prefectly predictable result that every self-respecting criminal
now owns a handgun, and deaths from handgun violence are going through the
roof. In
a different country, Gerald
Amirault is in his 17th year of imprisonment on bogus
“child abuse” charges trumped up by an ambitious DA with the
assistance of anti-family cranks, moronic jurors and chicken-livered
politicians. In this same
country, a man who hacked his wife and her friend to death but was found
innocent on grounds of skin color, prepares himself for another day on the
golf course. And in this same
country, the governor of an important state has granted clemency to 150
murderers, declaring that the justice system is broken.
No poop, Sherlock — hey, let’s break it some more! Derb,
“The U.S. Will Not Go To War Against Iraq” (5/20/02). ...if
our leaders believe that “the desire to avoid further slaughter”
trumps the desire to take down our enemy;
if they believe that Crown Prince Abdullah or Hosni Mubarak will
lift one jewelled pinkie to assist our war aims;
if they believe that we need the permission of crooks and despots
before we act in our own interests; if
they believe that Europe is militarily significant;
if they believe that the U.N. Security Council is worth anything
more than a thimbleful of rat’s piss;
if they believe that our fighting men and women cannot carry out
their duties without a year and a half of preparation;
if they believe all these things, then it would be best if we did
not start a war at all. They
do: we won’t. The
U.S. will not go to war against Iraq.
All those dramatic troop movements you read about are just part of
the administration’s bold new policy of “speak at the top of your
voice, carry a really big stick, but on no account use it without the
countersigned approval of Syria, Burkina Faso, Gerhard ‘there will be no
intervention or participation by Germany in any way against Iraq’ Schröder,
the Chinese Communist Party, and the British Foreign Secretary [an
ex-Marxist himself,
by the way].” The U.N.
“weapons inspectors” want another year to complete their tasks of
whitewashing Saddam Hussein and padding their expense accounts.
Do you think the Security Council will give it to them? The suspense is killing me. Derb,
“The Anglosphere Goes To War” (10/8/01). A lot of these people [i.e.
Tony Blair’s Labour Party] were choking on their tea and crumpets
listening to Blair’s speeches in support of the war.
Those not actually pacifist are generally anti-military and
anti-American. ...
Things are not quite as bad as in the Vietnam War, when Prime
Minister Harold Wilson made all the right noises on behalf of Lyndon
Johnson but dared not commit any troops for fear of an uprising by his
Labour Party rank and file. Still,
Blair can only take his party so far on this one, and we do not yet know
how far that will be. The
Daily Telegraph recently surveyed 74 constituency Labour Party
chairmen. [Note:
For electoral purposes, the U.K. is divided into 659 districts,
called “constituencies.” Each
district returns a member to the House of Commons.
Of these 659 members, 410 currently belong to Blair’s Labour
Party.] Of these constituency
party bosses:
Three members of Blair’s own cabinet have publicly warned him that his war policy is in deep trouble. A TV poll turned up 80 per cent of the British public opposed to war without a U.N. resolution. Blair’s Foreign Secretary last week said he thought the chances of a war were “60-40 against.” Another cabinet minister declared on Sunday that it was Britain’s “duty” to act as a restraining influence on Washington. The chairman of Blair’s party has said that a way must be found between the two “extremes” of rushing into war and refusing to accept that military action might be necessary. Even Blair’s chiefs of staff are unenthusiastic about a war. The Telegraph reports one saying that: “The country doesn’t have the stomach for a war in Iraq at the moment and frankly neither do many senior officers.” You get the picture. And this is our most willing ally! |
||||