The Madness of Political Correctness

Britain has decided to become an absolute parody of the malign consequences of political correctness and multiculturalims. Abandoning any pretense of common sense and self-preservation, Britain's intellectual elite and government leadership have steered the nation straight toward the shoals of ethnic and societal disintegration, which, of course, is the logical outcome of multiculturalism. Even school children aren't safe - in fact, they are the primary targets for indocrination and suppression.

A teenage schoolgirl was arrested by police for racism after refusing to sit with a group of Asian students because some of them did not speak English.

Codie Stott's family claim she was forced to spend three-and-a-half hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers.

Yes, you read that correctly. And, no, the story isn't from The Onion.

The 14-year-old - who was released without charge - said it had been a simple matter of commonsense and accused the school and police of an over-the-top reaction.

The incident happened in the same local education authority where a ten-year-old boy was prosecuted earlier this year for calling a schoolfriend racist names in the playground, a move branded by a judge "political correctness gone mad."

Codie was attending a GCSE science class at Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester, when the incident happened.

The teenager had not been in school the day before due to a hospital appointment and had missed the start of a project, so the teacher allocated her a group to sit with.

"She said I had to sit there with five Asian pupils," said Codie yesterday.

"Only one could speak English, so she had to tell that one what to do so she could explain in their language. Then she sat me with them and said 'Discuss'."

According to Codie, the five - four boys and a girl - then began talking in a language she didn't understand, thought to be Urdu, so she went to speak to the teacher.

"I said 'I'm not being funny, but can I change groups because I can't understand them?' But she started shouting and screaming, saying 'It's racist, you're going to get done by the police'."

Codie said she went outside to calm down where another teacher found her and, after speaking to her class teacher, put her in isolation for the rest of the day.

A complaint was made to a police officer based full-time at the school, and more than a week after the incident on September 26 she was taken to Swinton police station and placed under arrest.

"They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken," said Codie. "It was awful."

After questioning on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offence, her mother Nicola says she was placed in a bare cell for three-and-a-half hours then released without charge.

This should be a Page One story on both sides of the Atlantic and Tony Blair should be called before the cameras - and Parliament - and made to explain how English law could have been twisted to produce this shocking incident. But that won't happen. And make no mistake, this isn't some accident of overzealousness on the part of police or school officials - this is exactly the outcome that the advocates of multiculturalism want. If it sounds like something out of Stalin's USSR, well, that should be no surprise, since the biggest advocates of multiculturalism hail from the hard left, the sort that still have an unabashed reverence for all things Soviet.

Yesterday Miss Stott [Codie's mother], 37, a cleaner, said: "Codie was not being racist." "The reaction from the school and police is totally over the top and I am furious my daughter had to go through this trauma when all she was saying was common sense. "

"She'd have been better off not saying anything and getting into trouble for not being able to do the work."

Ms. Stott is exactly right. It would have been better for Codie to simply go along and say nothing, but for Britain it would be disastrous. The whole point of this exercise was to frighten Codie - and anyone who objects to mass immigration to Britain - into silence. Codie was made an example in order to scare others from objecting to the wholesale annihilation of their nation and culture. Those who reported Codie to the police had exactly that in mind when they did so.

Headteacher Dr Antony Edkins said: "An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark by one student towards a group of Asian students new to the school and new to the country."

"We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards people and pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form."

George Orwell himself could not have written a more sinister response. Dr. Edkins should have just said: "We will not stand for dissent in any form and will arrest anyone who dares to disagree with us." Actually, he pretty much did.

Ask yourself, would an "Asian" student (read: Pakistani) have been arrested if he'd objected to sitting with a group of English students? Would an "Asian" student be arrested for describing English students as "white" or by any pejorative term? The answer, you can bet, is no. Of course not. Why? Because the "anti-racism" laws are not written to deal with non-whites. They exist only to forcibly suppress white Britons and to silence them. These laws are an effective means for Britain's intellectual elite to impose its radical program for racial and cultural change on England, whilst silencing any reasonable objection.

Britons have becomes slaves in their own land. Britain, within a few generations, won't be Britain anymore.

And make no mistake. The multiculturalists in the US have exactly the same designs for America.

Learning from Iraq

Ralph Peters, formerly one of the Iraq invasion's most emphatic supporters and apologist for the Bush administration's policies, moves ever closer to admitting that the occupation was doomed from the start by the administration's incompetence.

... the notion of sending more U.S. troops is strategic and practical nonsense. Had the same voices demanded another 100,000-plus troops in 2003 or even 2004, it would have made a profound, positive difference. Now it's too late.
By refusing to adequately increase active-duty numbers in the early phases of this struggle, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ground down our Army and Marines - both the flesh-and-blood troops and their gear. We must not ask the understrength forces who've carried the burden of this fight to shoulder yet more weight.

Make no mistake: Were our nation directly threatened, our ground forces would surge to respond powerfully and effectively. But as far as Iraq goes, they've given their best. They're willing to die for our country. But we should never ask them to give their lives to postpone a political embarrassment.

This doesn't mean that we can't temporarily deploy additional brigades for specific missions. But it does mean that we've got to shoot dead any nonsense about adding tens of thousands more troops on a long-term basis. It won't help. All we can do now is hold open the door for the Iraqis to go through. It's their fight.

And we have to avoid letting Iraq develop a military-welfare dependency on us. While even a successful Iraqi force would need U.S. support for years to come, the issue is: Who will take the lead in combat? The Iraqis must do this themselves - and their moment of truth can no longer be delayed.

It's absurd to brag that Iraq now has 300,000 men in uniform if all most of them do is collect paychecks and duck responsibility - while backing their own ethnic and religious factions.

And, although it pains me to write it, we can't trust the judgment of our military officers as to whether Iraqi troops and police are making sufficient progress. Clientitis happens. Our trainers inevitably cling to the success stories, insisting, Yeah, those other guys poked the pooch - but Col. Mohammed's men are doing a great job.

Peters now suggests giving the Iraqis a year to get their act together, or pull out. Of course, he doesn't yet concede the fundamental flaw in the whole Bush-Iraq scheme - the erroneous notion that an Islamic society could be successfully transformed into a functioning quasi-liberal democracy. Baghdad isn't simply a swarthier version of Minneapolis. The cultural infrastructure on which a democratic government must rest just doesn't exist in the Islamic world. Islamic culture and society - especially Arab culture and society - is based on principles and a social order inimical to the establishment of a liberal society.

What does flourish in Iraq are seething ethnic and religious hatreds that date back centuries, and which, freed from the iron-clad, merciless check of Saddam's goon squads, are now exploding in front of the world's TV cameras. Of course, the Iraqis hate the US. But they also hate each other, much more bitterly. The sooner the US gets its soldiers (and the soldiers of its allies) out of this dismal charnel house, the sooner the residents can get back to their favorite past time - slaughtering each other. If the US "stays the course", the Iraqis will still slaughter each other, but with the added bonus of several hundred Americans every year - at the cost of hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars.

The biggest lesson Americans must learn from Iraq is that the rest of the world isn't like us. All cultures aren't equal. Not all people want a civilized, liberal society, or are remotely capable of maintaining one. This hard-won knowledge should be a linchpin of both US foreign and immigration policies. We shouldn't send our soldiers in fools' errands to drain other people's swamps, and we shouldn't let the residents of those swamps immigrate to America to track mud all over our floor.