New Nuremburg laws, by another name?
That's the question this post will seek to address in respect of the post immediately below it about the disenfranchisement of Muslims.
To be more specific, how would disenfranchisement not be akin to the Nuremburg laws?
Well, for a start, it would be determined by a your belief-system and we're already in the habit of policing those: as a man who recently took silk at the Bar told me, "In my interview, they asked me what understanding I had about the importance of diversity in the workplace". In other words, his beliefs determined his fitness to advance professionally. This is not uncommon, as academics with links to Israel or civil servant members of the BNP have found out to their cost.
In other areas, you can be actively punished for holding the wrong views, like the pensioner who was arrested and prosecuted for, if memory serves, demonstrating against the Euro, or thugs who are deemed to have committed a worse offence if their violent behaviour is motivated by racism (apparently those beaten up by non-racists are entitled to see less punishment meted out by the courts to their assailants).
None of which is to say that policing thought is acceptable. Personally I find it odious. But before the suggestion of disenfranchisement is jumped on from a great height by those who are happy latterday Torquemadas in everything else, let us appreciate that disenfranchising someone because of their beliefs already happens and is widely approved of.
So that is the first key difference: the point about disenfranchising someone for their beliefs is to make it too costly to continue holding those beliefs, it is to put that belief system back in its box. Moreover, you can choose your beliefs, you can't choose your race; so where Nuremburg marginalised and punished German jews, it did so on their basis of something over which they had no control.
Second, whatever Goebbels' caricatures of the cunning, rapacious Jew who was bleeding Germany dry in the early 30s, even he - so far as I know - was not able to adduce evidence of Jewish mass murder plots, successful and otherwise, against the German populace. And Goebbels and his fellow travellers had to fabricate evidence of the worldwise zionist conspiracy for global control.
By contrast, savvy British muslim icons like Ansam (sic?) Choudhury, a lawyer, talk glibly and freely about the black flag of Islam flying above Downing street in a new caliphate, while opinion polls consistenly suggest majority British muslim support for sharia in this country, and for jihad. These are the views of British muslims in their own words, without a propaganda minister to filter them or warp them.
In other words, there are many - and who knows how many - British muslims who are in their own words a direct and explicit threat to the English rule of law and our established constitution.
Third, while unpalatable as an option, disenfranchisement may be, as I wrote below, the least worst option: the majority population having abased itself before immigrants for so long now it is hardly surprising that we have welcomed to our national bosom not so much a viper as mewling, spoilt brat and, as with all immature beings who have never been taught discipline and self-control, the longer is it left, the tougher the measures needed to instil these characteristics.
To that extent, disenfrachisement might actually do the muslim population some good - no, seriously, hear me out - by forestalling the pogroms that otherwise must be likely in the not too distant future.
Indeed, if The Independent is to be believed, we are already witnessing a constant kristallnacht of anti-muslim reprisals, so the wind needs to be taken out of the sails of those who wish to beat up on our mohamedan breathren while showing them that something practical is being done to limit the impact of those same mohamedan fifth columnists: where my disenfranchisement proposal touches upon the holding of public office, I have in mind people like 'Britain's senior muslim police officer' who publicly fretted that the anti-terror laws discriminate against muslims. Well I should bloody well hope they do. The problem is not that that should be the case, but that a man charged with enforcing such law has a vested interest in not upholding it.
Finally, Catholic disenfranchisement was of course ultimately repealed (albeit with a fight), after it had put the truculent minority back in their box, after it had successfully assimilated them. That took about 200 years. But, unlike Nuremburg, it was never a prelude to deliberate and systematic genocide.
Discuss.
To be more specific, how would disenfranchisement not be akin to the Nuremburg laws?
Well, for a start, it would be determined by a your belief-system and we're already in the habit of policing those: as a man who recently took silk at the Bar told me, "In my interview, they asked me what understanding I had about the importance of diversity in the workplace". In other words, his beliefs determined his fitness to advance professionally. This is not uncommon, as academics with links to Israel or civil servant members of the BNP have found out to their cost.
In other areas, you can be actively punished for holding the wrong views, like the pensioner who was arrested and prosecuted for, if memory serves, demonstrating against the Euro, or thugs who are deemed to have committed a worse offence if their violent behaviour is motivated by racism (apparently those beaten up by non-racists are entitled to see less punishment meted out by the courts to their assailants).
None of which is to say that policing thought is acceptable. Personally I find it odious. But before the suggestion of disenfranchisement is jumped on from a great height by those who are happy latterday Torquemadas in everything else, let us appreciate that disenfranchising someone because of their beliefs already happens and is widely approved of.
So that is the first key difference: the point about disenfranchising someone for their beliefs is to make it too costly to continue holding those beliefs, it is to put that belief system back in its box. Moreover, you can choose your beliefs, you can't choose your race; so where Nuremburg marginalised and punished German jews, it did so on their basis of something over which they had no control.
Second, whatever Goebbels' caricatures of the cunning, rapacious Jew who was bleeding Germany dry in the early 30s, even he - so far as I know - was not able to adduce evidence of Jewish mass murder plots, successful and otherwise, against the German populace. And Goebbels and his fellow travellers had to fabricate evidence of the worldwise zionist conspiracy for global control.
By contrast, savvy British muslim icons like Ansam (sic?) Choudhury, a lawyer, talk glibly and freely about the black flag of Islam flying above Downing street in a new caliphate, while opinion polls consistenly suggest majority British muslim support for sharia in this country, and for jihad. These are the views of British muslims in their own words, without a propaganda minister to filter them or warp them.
In other words, there are many - and who knows how many - British muslims who are in their own words a direct and explicit threat to the English rule of law and our established constitution.
Third, while unpalatable as an option, disenfranchisement may be, as I wrote below, the least worst option: the majority population having abased itself before immigrants for so long now it is hardly surprising that we have welcomed to our national bosom not so much a viper as mewling, spoilt brat and, as with all immature beings who have never been taught discipline and self-control, the longer is it left, the tougher the measures needed to instil these characteristics.
To that extent, disenfrachisement might actually do the muslim population some good - no, seriously, hear me out - by forestalling the pogroms that otherwise must be likely in the not too distant future.
Indeed, if The Independent is to be believed, we are already witnessing a constant kristallnacht of anti-muslim reprisals, so the wind needs to be taken out of the sails of those who wish to beat up on our mohamedan breathren while showing them that something practical is being done to limit the impact of those same mohamedan fifth columnists: where my disenfranchisement proposal touches upon the holding of public office, I have in mind people like 'Britain's senior muslim police officer' who publicly fretted that the anti-terror laws discriminate against muslims. Well I should bloody well hope they do. The problem is not that that should be the case, but that a man charged with enforcing such law has a vested interest in not upholding it.
Finally, Catholic disenfranchisement was of course ultimately repealed (albeit with a fight), after it had put the truculent minority back in their box, after it had successfully assimilated them. That took about 200 years. But, unlike Nuremburg, it was never a prelude to deliberate and systematic genocide.
Discuss.
posted by Edward Lud at 3:44 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home