This is off-topic, but good God, look how far they've descended. Was George Orwell perceptive, or what?
http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/osul28.html
In case of crime, round up the usual racists
March 28, 2000
BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN
My attention was caught by a small item in the British press: Police in Gloucester are cracking down on racism by entering restaurants in disguise to listen for racist conversation.
In the first week of "Operation Napkin," one man was arrested for racially aggravated harassment. Another was overheard mimicking an Indian waiter, but the police decided that his behavior did not warrant prosecution.
"Goodness me," said a friend. "Isn't Fawlty Towers near Gloucester?"
One imagines the scene in court as Detective Inspector Plod gives evidence: "M'Lud, Constable Snoop and I entered Mr. Basil Fawlty's establishment at precisely 01.00 hours in deep cover. It was almost empty and, after waiting 20 minutes, we were shown to a table. While perusing the menu, Constable Snoop observed the waiter mimicking a Spanish person in a stereotypical fashion, jabbering in broken English and behaving excitably.
Upon further investigation, it was determined that said waiter, one Manuel, was in fact Spanish and that, in the words of the Race Relations Handbook, `He was expressing his cultural authenticity.'
"We then caught Mr. Fawlty's eye with the intention of ordering lunch. We had assumed the personae of German tourists and were clad in Tyrolean leather briefs, embroidered suspenders and feathered trilbys.
I am happy to report, however, that Mr. Fawlty put us entirely at our ease by repeatedly assuring us that he would not mention the Second World War. Thus far an absence of racism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia of which Gloucester can be proud.
But we decided on a final test. Observing that one couple had been unable to obtain any food or drink despite frantic signaling, I sought to establish whether they were members of a minority suffering discrimination by asking if they were pure-bred Anglo-Saxons.
The gentleman seemed to take offense at this and left muttering about Nazis. He returned some minutes later in the company of Police Constable Bumble and accused me of racist conversation, contrary to Section 3, Clause 2 of the Act.
"Constable Bumble failed to pierce our Tyrolean disguise, and he tried to arrest us in German--a language neither Constable Snoop nor I speak. In the ensuing fracas harsh words were exchanged--but in a commendably multicultural context.
In light of the extenuating circumstance that the Gloucester police force has agreed to pay full compensation for any assault or damage, I plead not guilty or, alternatively, guilty of conducting an official investigation while the balance of mind was disturbed."
Heigh-ho. But is there not something sinister as well as comic in the idea of Constables Snoop and Bumble going about in plain clothes to listen in on private conversations? The British used to have a lively sense that such practices had no place in a free society.
George Orwell was less certain. In 1984 he foresaw an England in which the most serious crimes would not be rape or robbery but "thought-crimes." And the evidence for thought-crimes has to be sought in the nearest equivalent to thoughts: private conversations.
Such intrusive policing in America as well as England is commonly justified by two arguments: First, that bad thoughts, like ethnic stereotyping, lead to criminal acts; and second, that certain bad thoughts--notably racism but also sexism and homophobia--are dispersed throughout the community and must be vigilantly repressed if we are not to return to Jim Crow.
Neither argument holds water. Stereotypes tell broad truths about a group; comic stereotypes provide harmless amusement, and if hostile stereotypes sometimes stimulate a crime, the remedy is to punish the crime--not the thought. Besides, survey evidence shows that most Americans are tolerant traditionalists who believe that there are such things as group qualities, that not everyone in a group shares them, and hey, that it's their life anyway.
Why then do the intellectual and political classes cling so firmly to the superstition that the American people are racist, sexist, homophobic and a danger to one another?
As Paul Gottfried points out in his brilliant new book, After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State, it serves to justify increasing their power. If the people are corrupt, then they have the right and duty to reshape them psychologically for democracy, to pry into their souls, and to eradicate political sin. Last year, an official British report even proposed criminalizing racist remarks made in the family home.
Politicians and intellectuals also wield an even more significant power--that of defining racism. In recent years it has been defined very broadly to cover such ideas as meritocracy, individual rather than group rights, and even lower taxes. Where might this end?
"Mr. Plod, my boy tells me that the father of a school friend does a very passable imitation of Eddie Murphy. Sounds to me like a case for Scotland Yard."
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/osul28.html
In case of crime, round up the usual racists
March 28, 2000
BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN
My attention was caught by a small item in the British press: Police in Gloucester are cracking down on racism by entering restaurants in disguise to listen for racist conversation.
In the first week of "Operation Napkin," one man was arrested for racially aggravated harassment. Another was overheard mimicking an Indian waiter, but the police decided that his behavior did not warrant prosecution.
"Goodness me," said a friend. "Isn't Fawlty Towers near Gloucester?"
One imagines the scene in court as Detective Inspector Plod gives evidence: "M'Lud, Constable Snoop and I entered Mr. Basil Fawlty's establishment at precisely 01.00 hours in deep cover. It was almost empty and, after waiting 20 minutes, we were shown to a table. While perusing the menu, Constable Snoop observed the waiter mimicking a Spanish person in a stereotypical fashion, jabbering in broken English and behaving excitably.
Upon further investigation, it was determined that said waiter, one Manuel, was in fact Spanish and that, in the words of the Race Relations Handbook, `He was expressing his cultural authenticity.'
"We then caught Mr. Fawlty's eye with the intention of ordering lunch. We had assumed the personae of German tourists and were clad in Tyrolean leather briefs, embroidered suspenders and feathered trilbys.
I am happy to report, however, that Mr. Fawlty put us entirely at our ease by repeatedly assuring us that he would not mention the Second World War. Thus far an absence of racism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia of which Gloucester can be proud.
But we decided on a final test. Observing that one couple had been unable to obtain any food or drink despite frantic signaling, I sought to establish whether they were members of a minority suffering discrimination by asking if they were pure-bred Anglo-Saxons.
The gentleman seemed to take offense at this and left muttering about Nazis. He returned some minutes later in the company of Police Constable Bumble and accused me of racist conversation, contrary to Section 3, Clause 2 of the Act.
"Constable Bumble failed to pierce our Tyrolean disguise, and he tried to arrest us in German--a language neither Constable Snoop nor I speak. In the ensuing fracas harsh words were exchanged--but in a commendably multicultural context.
In light of the extenuating circumstance that the Gloucester police force has agreed to pay full compensation for any assault or damage, I plead not guilty or, alternatively, guilty of conducting an official investigation while the balance of mind was disturbed."
Heigh-ho. But is there not something sinister as well as comic in the idea of Constables Snoop and Bumble going about in plain clothes to listen in on private conversations? The British used to have a lively sense that such practices had no place in a free society.
George Orwell was less certain. In 1984 he foresaw an England in which the most serious crimes would not be rape or robbery but "thought-crimes." And the evidence for thought-crimes has to be sought in the nearest equivalent to thoughts: private conversations.
Such intrusive policing in America as well as England is commonly justified by two arguments: First, that bad thoughts, like ethnic stereotyping, lead to criminal acts; and second, that certain bad thoughts--notably racism but also sexism and homophobia--are dispersed throughout the community and must be vigilantly repressed if we are not to return to Jim Crow.
Neither argument holds water. Stereotypes tell broad truths about a group; comic stereotypes provide harmless amusement, and if hostile stereotypes sometimes stimulate a crime, the remedy is to punish the crime--not the thought. Besides, survey evidence shows that most Americans are tolerant traditionalists who believe that there are such things as group qualities, that not everyone in a group shares them, and hey, that it's their life anyway.
Why then do the intellectual and political classes cling so firmly to the superstition that the American people are racist, sexist, homophobic and a danger to one another?
As Paul Gottfried points out in his brilliant new book, After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State, it serves to justify increasing their power. If the people are corrupt, then they have the right and duty to reshape them psychologically for democracy, to pry into their souls, and to eradicate political sin. Last year, an official British report even proposed criminalizing racist remarks made in the family home.
Politicians and intellectuals also wield an even more significant power--that of defining racism. In recent years it has been defined very broadly to cover such ideas as meritocracy, individual rather than group rights, and even lower taxes. Where might this end?
"Mr. Plod, my boy tells me that the father of a school friend does a very passable imitation of Eddie Murphy. Sounds to me like a case for Scotland Yard."
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.