Features, Human Rights, Politics

Springtime for Demagogues

I. Rochdale, Rotherham and Cologne

Western culture is successful because it recognises individuals and treats them equally under the law. People brave seas in rickety boats because they want a piece of that.

After the Rochdale and Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) scandals there was some push back, always from people on the Left, against the idea that there was a ‘conspiracy of silence’ rather than mere inefficiency. The abnormally slow dissemination of information following the New Year’s Eve attacks in Cologne, and other events which have subsequently come to light, have helped confirm the reality of this. People are refusing to treat certain criminal events like they would others.

Such a ‘conspiracy of silence’ not only betrays the principle of equal treatment, it is ultimately counter-productive. This problem shares the same root with some of the notions of ‘diversity’ with which I have increasing difficulty accepting. Simply put, discrimination is discrimination and regardless of the quality of your motivations it poisons what it touches.

In the case of the sexual assaults, I’m not sure ‘conspiracy’ is the right word. It is a cover up, but not a conspiracy. It is much worse than a few people colluding, it is endemic. It appears that people, be they press, social services, police, decide individually that avoidance is the way to go and enough people do so for it to appear en masse. It is institutional without requiring any standing orders from an institution.

The motivation for this behaviour appears to be able to be split into three types:

The fear of fueling racism

As the then Rotherham MP, Dennis McShane put it:

I think there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat if I may put it like that

…as a true Guardian reader, and liberal leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard.

From Professor Alexis Jay’s report into Rotherham CSE:

Several councilors interviewed believed that by opening up these issues they could be ‘giving oxygen’ to racist perspectives that might in turn attract extremist political groups and threaten community cohesion.

This is the fear that presenting the facts to the hairy-arsed proles, who pay their wages and might also have daughters to protect, could create problems. It is then a ‘noble lie’, one told to prevent us idiot yokels from becoming a mob. People are stepping out from their job descriptions and moonlighting as censors.

The problem isn’t that that is completely unwarranted, it might be, it might not be. The problem is that shielding us from the truth is utterly counter-productive.

Avoiding accusations of racism

From a report on Rotherham by former Victims’ Commissioner, Louise Casey:

Interviews with staff and Members of RMBC [Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council] highlighted a pervading culture of …silencing debate. The issue of race is contentious, with staff and Members lacking the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist.

It may very well be true that acting in accordance with normal procedure and with colour-blindness invites accusations of racism. But again, this is counter-productive.

Cognitive dissonance

In this case I am referring to the reaction to evidence which causes difficulty in maintaining  a previously held or desirable narrative. This usually manifests in stupidity.

Forbes journalist Frances Coppola provided a perfect example. She writes cogently and intelligently about economics yet her initial response to the news from Cologne went thus:

unnamed

Fortunately this sort of insanity bout tends to be over fairly quickly and is perhaps of limited concern when examining long-term problems.

However, do we really think that the suppression of information and the failure to pursue prosecutions — due to the ethnicity of the perpetrators — does more or less damage to race relations? Does it do more or less damage to community cohesion than applying normal procedure?

The truth was outed. In the case of the UK grooming scandals, it was a much worse truth than it might have been had proper action been taken early. The way that truth and consequent action had to be crow-barred from institutions made it look as if they were not only working against the people they’re designed to be working for but also that there was always more troubling information to come. The attempts at silence rendered it a much greater story than ever would have been the case had arrests been more quickly made and the unalloyed truth been more forthcoming.

The strongest way in which this behaviour is counter-productive comes from the consistent unwillingness to be clear about who was responsible.

Maajid Nawaz describes something which he calls the Voldemort Effect.

The Voldemort effect in this context entails not naming Islamism, nor distinguishing it from the multifaceted religion. By highlighting the need to “tackle the Islamic State’s ideology” but refusing to name it, President Obama only increased the public’s fear and made it easier for Muslimphobes, who will naturally assume the ideology Obama refers to is “Islam,” to blame all Muslims.¹

Something similar occurs with the attempts to hide information about the perpetrators in these cases. By refusing to be clear about the identity of a gang of rapists because they are Muslims/Pakistanis/Refugees, or whatever group whose wider reputation you wish to protect, you are helping people towards the conclusion that the wider group of Muslims/Pakistanis/Refugees are to be associated with rape. People know and sense what is being hidden and thus what is being hidden is afforded importance.

These groups with fragile reputations are not homogeneous and we shouldn’t act to make them appear so. They are a collection of individuals. In the case of Rochdale the abandoned prosecutions were reopened when a Muslim man of Pakistani origin, Nazir Afzal, ordered them so. And the hero in this harrowing Rotherham tale is also a Pakistani man.  Even if a cultural aspect is considered to be a contingent element in the nature of the crime, not all members of that group share that cultural aspect. And yet they are forcibly associated with it by the noble attempts to spare their blushes. Does this not make it more difficult for them to assist in addressing it? We should be able to discuss cultural proclivities and attitudes openly if we are to mitigate harm.

This is springtime for demagogues. Not only can they scapegoat whole peoples but they can point to a corrupted ‘establishment’ as protecting them. It is giving credence to a fusion of victimhood, grievance, and supremacy and this is the lifeblood of the populist Right. It is both toxic and a highly effective way in which to “rock the multicultural community boat”.

Highlighting the three motivations does nothing to prevent the phenomena. The root problem needs to be addressed. It is to be found in the the language of ‘diversity’ and ‘identity politics’. It is a problem within the Left and it comes from the tendency to see people as, and by, their demographic groupings.

Attempts to help an entire group, either by giving an individual member of that group a job because of that membership, or by covering up their crimes because of that membership, come from the same fallacious thinking. The public lauding of the former is bound to aid the institutionalising of the latter.

II. Protected Groups and Cover-Ups

Perhaps I should have called this essay “How praising the Canadian Prime Minister For Having a 50/50 Gender Spread in His Cabinet Leads to Covering Up Child Gang-Rape.” If I had done so I would probably have lost you at the start and perhaps this is now the moment that I do. But I hold that they are both part of the same problem. And it is a problem.

With this thinking a rapist becomes not just a rapist but a member of a protected ‘community’ and thus exposing him as a rapist becomes a danger to the reputation of that community as a whole. Treating him as an individual is not just right and fair and how immigrants coming to Western countries should expect to be treated, it leaves the work of lumping them into the group to the demagogues and racists. But identity politics prevents that from happening and does the bigot’s work for them. Anti-discrimination efforts should not be perpetuating discrimination. Unfortunately however, they often are.

The only diversity that should count is diversity of opinion. Sometimes, the justification for selection via demographic groupings helps the process of ‘othering’ by conflating opinion with identity.

The charity Creative Access offers internships, with the hope of leading to permanent positions, to non-whites only. In their ‘About Us‘ they say:

[E]thnic minority representation across the creative industries has fallen in recent years to just 5.4% of the total workforce. At senior levels the numbers are far lower. The absence of diversity in the creative sector is not only bad for our society but is also bad for business, which thrives on having a diversity of ideas and opinions.

This implies that different race means different ideas and opinions. It implies a validity to an essentialist view of ethnicities.

Following the financial crises of 2008 the idea was oft expressed that increasing the number of women on boards and specifically at banks might decrease risk due to the inherent nature of women. This again suggested an essentialist difference between demographic groupings.

Perhaps it happens to be true, perhaps it doesn’t. But what is good for the goose… if this attitude is considered acceptable it means it’s entirely valid for a business owner to say ‘I want more risk takers therefore we shall promote no women’. If we can attribute different views to different races, and say that’s fine, then we can say ‘I want white views for the white market and will employ only white people’. I’m really not sure how this is expected to work just one way.

When people talk of requiring diversity in Parliament they also seem to expect it to work one way. It is said that ethnic minorities, women, and others need to have their demographic grouping represented in Parliament. This week the following complaint was made by the MP for Brent Central, Dawn Butler:

The Tories are making a conscious effort to put women or African-Caribbean and Asian people into safe seats so they get represented [but] they don’t represent those people in parliament…

An MP is not meant to represent the people they share skin tone or/and genital composition with. They are meant to represent constituents. If a black, working-class, woman is not represented adequately in parliament by a white, middle class, man simply because he is those things, it also implies that a white, middle class, man, cannot be represented by a woman, a BME, a working class person or anything that represents something he is not.

I vote for principles and ideas. That’s because I’m not a racist. And if I were, I still would vote that way because I’d accept that even within races there are exceptions to my bigoted generalisations. How many sexists of the sort who considered women weaker and worse at making tough decisions voted for Thatcher? Most of them, I’d expect.

People do not conform to the assumptions of their views, opinions, and priorities that the anti-racists racistly insist on making. Nazir Afzal is a Muslim man and yet it was his elevation to the rank of Chief Crown Prosecutor of North West England that finally meant that those Muslim men of Rochdale got to have their collars felt by the law and the white, female, children, whom he couldn’t possibly ‘represent’, got a respite from their systematic, organised, rape.

In the search for cosmic justice based on end-result demographic statistics, people who claim to be anti-discrimination are justifying why discrimination should exist. Like the urge to avoid drawing attention to mass-rapes, it’s noble only in intention.

The reason I don’t have much optimism for my argument is that those under the spell of identity politics are not seeking to end the fallacious thinking that causes racism, sexism or any other such thing. They merely seek to adopt it themselves to affect power dynamics. Upon dividing people into groups they then seek to achieve equality of outcome across them without realising that if there is a problem of discrimination in society, the principle of grouping people in such ways tends to be the cause.

The single grains of nonsense extrapolate outwards into gigantic boulders of bullshit. Some of the discrimination is applauded as anti-discrimination and some is condemned as discrimination. And all of it is regressive and helps to perpetuate discrimination.

There is an anti-enlightenment strand in both the far Left and far Right. Both embrace a world view which sees people in terms of identity groups and collective forces and it is why they both share a totalitarian impulse.

Treat people as individuals and equals or don’t. But people come here to be treated as representatives of themselves and have their efforts judged accordingly. If you decide they are better off treated as representatives of a group, try not to be too surprised when your political enemies start doing so too.

 

David Paxton is a writer and a MENA Security Consultant. Follow him on Twitter @CanYouFlyBobby

 

References

  1. Nawaz, M., Harris, S. (2015-10-06). Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue. Harvard University Press.

29 Comments

  1. Mark Fabian says

    Renee Adams at UNSW has some interesting papers on the matter of women on boards. Once you take fixed effects (or even just control for firm size), the gender effect on board profitability disappears. This suggests that there is a limited supply of potential female board members and the good ones are snapped up by the biggest (generally best) firms. Unfortunately we can’t pursue this much further because we don’t have data on the pipeline.

    Funnily enough, Adams has found that female board members at banks are actually more risk-loving than there male counterparts. Female board members aren’t the same as you’re average female citizen.

    Adams has another paper or two about the actual differences between male and female board members, which are really interesting but somewhat embryonic. She finds that female board members hold different values, have different attendance records and tend to sit on different sub-committees. There’s more but I can’t remember it off the top of my head. If you’re interested all her papers are on her staff page.

  2. Name withheld says

    This a thoughtful and well-written piece that makes many excellent points. Thank you for writing it.

    However:

    – Official sources described coordination and organisation. In other words, a group. There is no need to hurry to attach religious, ethnic and/or social labels to this group. Yet we can’t hope to understand the group by making a priori exclusions of descriptive terms or we come up with non sequiturs like “the group is just a collection of individuals”. The events of that night were an aberration. Find out its dynamic and dismantle it, as was done with far right demonstrators in the following days. But don’t decide up-front that people never coordinate or organise around issues and ideas. Otherwise you are saying that trade unions don’t exist.

    – Crusaders is a really unhelpful term. It plays into the hands of ill-meaning commentators who seek to bury the evils of groups like IS under an ambiguous historical moral relativism. The Crusades were specific in time, location and religious ideology. They were also predated by Jihadist violence. Islam was established by conquest and the Levant was Christian at the time of that conquest. Calling people incensed about Cologne Crusaders misrepresents their motivations, the non-violent nature of their complaining, based in modern non-Christian concepts of acceptable social behaviour and uses a group label which contradicts your own main argument.

    – History is littered with examples of people that conquer other people and they do it covertly as well as overtly. Not everyone shares your idealism regarding the West. Many, including prominent journalists and politicians, paint the West as an invading, bombing hypocrite and divest it of any moral or organisational value. People who share that analysis have every reason to want to destroy the West and take its land and money. These are not fringe voices. They are on Question Time and in The Guardian etc. In their minds, Sweden does not have ideas of social organisation ideas that are better than those of Somalia, it is simply where the gold is.

  3. Pingback: Springtime for Demagogues – David Paxton

  4. I agree with what I regard as the key message of this piece. It is essential to treat people as individuals when making decisions about them, whether to hire, promote or prosecute for example.

    I also agree with rejecting the idea that you have to be represented by people like you. This is a flawed idea that the Conservative Party has never fallen for. Many Conservative MPs from ethnic minorities represent seats which are overwhelmingly white British. Those individuals were chosen as Conservative candidates for those seats by overwhelmingly white local Conservative constituency associations because they were considered the best candidates, not because they came from particular ethnic or religious groups.

    However I disagree with its argument that diversity does not matter. Measuring diversity within organisations is critical, as it often enables discrimination to be identified. This is explained in more detail in my piece “In praise of ethnic monitoring” at http://www.mohammedamin.com/Politics/In-praise-of-ethnic-monitoring.html

  5. Franz of Bavaria says

    some counterarguments:

    I think there’s a reasonable case to be made that

    a) even if the Rotherham coverup did not succeed from the viewpoint of minimizing backlash, it was not harmful in this regard either. Any backlash that has occurred is because almost without exception all the rapists named in these group grooming cases are of subcontinental Asian origin (I have found one case where part of the gang seems to be Kurd/Roma/Slovak). You can’t really miss it.

    b) the coverup actually worked – in a counterfactual world where the cases are reported honestly at the start, more people know about these cases, and there’s greater backlash against Asians.

    Clearly the coverup had horrible consequences for the girls, who were in many cases abused further for many years. But let’s assume a hypothetical world in which justice is done and the abuse stopped as soon as the authorities find out, but the media conduct a Pravda-esque blackout of the resulting trials. This is dishonest policy, but is it wrong? There’s a reasonable case to be made that a certain amount of rape & assault is the inevitable cost of importing large numbers of low-IQ immigrants from subcontinental Asia, Somalia, North Africa, etc (judging by UN victimization surveys, which provide reasonable estimates of national differences in rape rates http://www.unz.com/akarlin/global-rape-culture/). Having imported such migrants, what are we supposed to do except police these communities more tightly? What is the benefit of an informed public? Is it not better for them to be steered away from the conclusion that such differences may exist?

    In conclusion, there is probably a better case than this article made for the public to be kept less than fully informed of the realities of Rotherhamesque cases. On the third hand, contra my devil’s advocate, perhaps public outrage could be useful in generating a groundswell of support for fixing immigration policy moving forwards, even if at this point the mistakes of decades gone by cannot be realistically resolved.

    • Johnnydub says

      “In conclusion, there is probably a better case than this article made for the public to be kept less than fully informed of the realities of Rotherhamesque cases.”

      I.e. Never ask the people whether they’re willing to accept that immigration brings with it a significant increase in sexual and violent crimes.

      Because strangely enough, when put that way (truthfully) people tend top be enthusiastically anti-immigration.

      As for you Franz, hang your head in shame. You’re just like the Laurie Penny’s of this world, arguing for feminism, then throwing women under the bus, when the migrants go-a-groping.

    • Sarka says

      I think that your devil’s advocate argument is worth putting. Of course, as stated, the possibility of trying and sentencing masses of people for the same sort of offence in such a way that the overwhelming preponderance of perps of a certain ethnic/religious background goes unnoticed in the press and among an already sensitised population is not especially real. It’s frankly easier to not investigate adequately or prosecute because this is harder for journos etc…to dig up, while “activists” with agenda-based suspicions can always be dismissed as extremists…which is what happened in Rotherham etc…

      But still – among those who have not managed to convince themselves that such phenomena are simply in principle non-existent, the strategy of the “noble cover-up” is clearly very operative.

      It is worth adding that, as a pragmatic strategy, it relies upon an assumption, or at least guess, as to likely future developments.Viz – not only that the public needs to be handled with suspicion as of now (it would react badly to the truth – and here the prospect of communal tension getting out of control is the decisive concern), but that light (or heavy but covert) policing of the problematic “community”, will work…if not now then in the long term. Gradual integration will eventually make the problem go away….these are just the teething pains of a new kind of multicultural society that will ultimately mature and settle down provided that a combination of surreptitious efforts to “discipline” the new citizens and a very concerted attempt to repress and marginalise expressions of social and cultural political discontent among the majority population as merely “racism” and “xenophobia” are kept up long enough.

      So to some extent it is not just a matter of political ethics but of the validity of political social forecasting…in other words a gamble. It’s a gamble on the essential “manageability” of majority non-Muslim irritation and resistance, and – just as much if not more – on the ephemerality of expressions of anti-coherence (whether on the political front (Islamism) or the social front (various expressions of incompatibility with or antagonism to majority culture)) among the Muslim immigrant populations. In some ways it’s an almost Pascalian wager, because, as you imply, it doesn’t look as if the clock can in any way be turned back in the western countries most affected, so the alternative to hopeful “managerialism” (or a sort of strange counter-homeopathic strategy as embraced for a moment by Merkel…a kind of “flooding” therapy for phobics), is too dire to be contemplated. I think that view is a bit over-egged, of course…I personally think that significantly more tough-love integration measures could be applied and restrictions imposed without the forces of fascism being seriously unleashed, but I understand why many people do not think so. All the same, it is significant that in the EU trouble is already being caused by E. European states with no significant Muslim population now digging their heels in and effectively saying, “we are in a position to avoid the necessity of your gamble, and by god we are going to avoid it! Kindly stew in your own juice…”

  6. Peter Kolding says

    Unfortunately, this article offers an argument against the system of an identity group power structure that was offered, and refused, some fifty years ago. The problem today is the result of this system as the author points out, but it can no longer be changed.

    Why? Because everyone now must rely upon, or suffer from, their identity group status to participate in all social and political institutions. Millions of people will lose their undeserved, but now absolutely necessary privileges if the system is abandoned. However unjust, retrograde and dangerous the identity group power structure is, everyone will fight for it’s maintenance for desperate personal reasons. Not because they approve of the system, but because it is the only lifeboat there is and they will drown otherwise. And they will be ably-assisted by the well-paid, state-funded and power hungry identity group leadership in this endeavor.

    The eventual fate of a society that adopts an identity group power structure is territorial division. The identity groups’ leadership, separated by conflicting ambitions for the same power, always end up settling for territorial control and exclusive dominance over their membership. We imagined that the world would be transformed into equality-based, multicultural and global nirvana with the adoption of the identity group power structure. Its inevitable fate will be the opposite.

  7. This is a typically solid piece, holding up to the light a murky bit of well-intentioned but extremely harmful foolishness. But I think it is possible to condemn the way social services handled the Rotherham and Rochdale cases without also descrying the decision of Justin Trudeau to have a gender-balanced cabinet. While it is certainly true that people have made wrongheaded essentialist arguments about having more women on the boards of banks and in other positions of power, this is not the only sort of argument it is possible to mount. Having more women in positions of power (and more diversity in general in places like parliaments and boardrooms) is likely a good thing in itself. Greater diversity plausibly leads to more effective representation of a broader group, not because of something *essential* about the differences between people, but because of differences in people’s social position. A female politician may be more likely to initiate a worthwhile piece of legislation concerning say, contraception or sexual violence, not because a man is incapable of doing so, but because his lived experience has made such issues less salient to him than they would be to a woman. Greater diversity of identity reflects greater diversity of human-experience, and seems likely to lead to a broader range of political priorities. We simply don’t know what aspects of the present status quo will strike us, 100 years from now, as preposterously shortsighted and cruel. By expanding the range of identities represented in positions of power, we expand our political imagination.

  8. Group treatment is identified by statistical analysis and ideology has no effect on those. Measurement has revealed differences in the way groups are treated. Philosophy often calls directly for abuse of some people based on their membership in a group that is defined by the individual’s birth. All such philosophies need to be rejected and condemned and discarded before group differences can no longer be measurable.

  9. As you have chosen not to correct your misuse of my tweet, I am setting the record straight here. If you delete this comment, or fail to act upon it, I shall know that you are not interested in fair dealing or speaking the truth.

    The tweet you quote was part of a long conversation in which I repeatedly said that there needed to be proper investigation of the events. There was at the time no evidence to support widespread accusations that the attacks were carried out entirely by refugees (indeed there is STILL no evidence of this). What was going in amounted to a witch hunt against Syrian refugees. I pointed out that in the absence of evidence, targeting particular groups was not right, and added that other groups could equally be accused, such as ISIS itself, or those opposed to immigration.

    The tweet in which I suggested anti-immigrants could have orchestrated it was screen scraped from my timeline without my permission and maliciously circulated, mainly by the American far right, with the explicit intent of discrediting me. There was also a campaign by those who (mistakenly) thought I was employed by Forbes to have me dismissed.

    On Twitter, I repeatedly explained the point of the tweet. These explanatory tweets remain in the public domain and you are welcome to search for them: they were made over the course of several days from 7 January onwards. The whole point was the need to establish who the perpetrators really were and bring them to justice. In other words, it was about the rule of law and the need for due process. I questioned the behaviour of the German police, who seem to have tried to cover up the attacks. And although I refused to buy into “it was refugees wot did it” in the absence of evidence, I did not rule out the involvement of refugees.

    You made no attempt to contact me to find out why I said what I did. You chose to use this tweet, which you knew was out of context, to imply that I had suffered some kind of mental breakdown (you use the term “insanity”). I assure you that I have suffered no breakdown, and I must ask you now to withdraw this allegation and correct your post to reflect accurately the purpose for which I have stated the tweet was intended.

    • Daphné C. says

      As one of your follower who enjoy your economic views, I’m sorry to see you sink ever more deeply in ridiculousness. How hard is it to say “I’m sorry. In the heat of the moment, I wrote a stupid thing” and be done with it, really?
      And I’ve been reading your tweets on the 6th of January (as well as before and after that), and nothing has been taken out of context. You were just looking for a reason – any reason – to believe that Cologne didn’t exist.

    • Anonymous says

      Hah! Keep digging yourself deeper you intellectual midget.

    • ” I shall know that you are not interested in fair dealing or speaking the truth.”

      That is hilarious considering your complete denial of immigrant crime.

      “There was at the time no evidence to support widespread accusations that the attacks were carried out entirely by refugees (indeed there is STILL no evidence of this).”

      Except the Imam who confirmed it was a warfare tool and that they deserved it. Except no police report says otherwise. Is this where you hunt for some example of a European man being there at the time and bothering someone so you can claim, “See, not ALL of them were Muslim”? More dishonesty.

      “I pointed out that in the absence of evidence, targeting particular groups was not right, and added that other groups could equally be accused, such as ISIS itself, or those opposed to immigration.”

      Based on no evidence. IOW you were grasping any anything to take the blame off of those who attacked European women.

      “The tweet in which I suggested anti-immigrants could have orchestrated it was screen scraped from my timeline without my permission”

      No one needs your permission to quote your words on a public forum.

      “and maliciously circulated”

      Boo hoo, poor you. Was it as malicious as the denial of thousands of assaults? Was it as malicious as the gang rapes you are trying to excuse because they were Muslims? Seems you don’t care about these women at all.

      “mainly by the American far right, with the explicit intent of discrediting me.”

      But if you are just citing facts, how could that discredit you? You are really trying hard on damage control here, and failing BTW. The more you try to spin your obvious intent, you more you discredit yourself.

      “These explanatory tweets remain in the public domain”

      Just like the one you are crying about being taken without permission. Public domain.

      “The whole point was the need to establish who the perpetrators really were and bring them to justice.”

      Nobody believes you. We know your real intent.

      “You chose to use this tweet, which you knew was out of context”

      Ah yes, “out of context”, the go to excuse for any political figure who is caught admitting their true agenda. Nothing you have said above changes the context of your tweet. Anyone reading your reply can see it is nothing but arm waving.

      “to imply that I had suffered some kind of mental breakdown (you use the term “insanity”). I assure you that I have suffered no breakdown”

      When he says you are insane, he doesn’t mean you had a mental breakdown, he means you were always of an insane persuasion. That is what leftism is, insanity.

      “and I must ask you now to withdraw this allegation and correct your post to reflect accurately the purpose for which I have stated the tweet was intended.”

      Opinions and hyperbole are protected speech. Fuck off.

  10. Oh, and please also correct your factual error. I am a Forbes contributor, not a journalist. I am not employed by Forbes and I do not in any way represent them. Forbes contributors come from many walks of life.

  11. Nicola Duke says

    Frances Coppola was expressing the same opinions about refugees long before Cologne on twitter and publicly labels anyone who disagrees with her as a racist.
    As usual Frances is making this all about her and how she is a victim instead of the really important issues.

  12. Henry Ford says

    Frances Coppola you are discrediting yourself and damaging whatever reputation you have left.

    You seem to be ignoring the fact that David Paxton has tweeted you the archive of your infamous conversation (because you felt you had to delete your ridiculous tweet) as well as other screenshots and instead insist you are being taken out of context and that he has not read anything else. Why is that? These screenshots you ignore show the facts to be completely at odds to your protestations here.

    It’s very telling that you will not produce evidence of the tweets that somehow miraculously make your multiple ludicrous tweets seem reasonable. You may counter that the onus isn’t on you but it really is, for Paxton’s post is perfectly reasonable and your credibility in this is wanting.

    Absurdly you are choosing to ignore the rhetorical/non-literal device he uses in order to perpetuate some kind of conceit that he is asserting that you are mentally ill. You’ve put yourself in the embarrassing position of having people on twitter explain this to you repeatedly, providing dictionary definitions even, but you refuse to admit your multiple mistakes and merely pull your cloak of intemperate ignorance closer still. I hopes it’s comfy.

    In threatening libel you reveal yourself to be ignorant (again) of the law and a childish bully. In blocking him but continuing to include his handle in your obsessive tweets you show yourself to be an ill-mannered bore.

    The funniest/saddest part is that if you have accused him on twitter of being deliberately misleading it is YOU who can be sued for libel.

  13. Interesting analysis, but you naively overlook another important reason why the sexual abuse of non-Muslim girls (and it began with Sikhs, not white girls) was hushed up in the North of England. Muslim communities are now large enough that positions of power in the police and local government are occupied by Muslims. There is every reason to suspect that there was corruption, i.e. Muslim police officers and councillors protecting members of their own community. There was also a lot of money involved in the sexual exploitation of these girls.

  14. Nicola Duke says

    A very thoughtful piece
    I agree the problem is protected groups. I always believed that was the domain of the establishment but Rochdale, Rotherham and Cologne show that the left are just as enthusiastic perpetrators.
    Sex abuse by catholic priests was allowed to continue for far decades than it should have with many more perpetrators and victims because individuals were not singled out and held to account. For many the catholic church is now synonymous with paedophilia.
    Israel is another protected group where abuse of Palestinians is allowed to continue and Jews worldwide are tainted as racist fascists.
    Untold human right abuses by Saudi Arabia continue while their reputation is protected by Western Governments.

    No one wins with cover-ups

  15. Frances Coppola defamed many people on Twitter around 7-9 January 2016 January, labelling as racist those who objected to her dumbfounding series of Tweets. They can be read here:

    https://archive.is/nN00G

    In the light of this it is unwise of her to bring up the possibility of people being sued for defamation.

    You can see this promiscuous and careless Tweeting by searching for ‘@Frances_Coppola racist’ on Twitter.

    I got away lightly, merely being called a Troll and being blocked for the having the temerity to Re-Tweet her Tweet. In the process I am happy to claim that I got the ball rolling in bringing to light her insane pronouncements. (I am @BambouClub on Twitter.)

    https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/685020254553116672

  16. Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#98)

  17. Pingback: No, My Screenshot Of Your Stupid Tweet Is Not Libel – David Paxton

  18. Pingback: I am not insane - Deflation Market

  19. Truly excellent post and agree with nearly all the points.

    I am perhaps a tad more on the “blame the religion” side of things (while I do understand Majid Nawaz’ point and admire him greatly, I’m more on the Sam Harris tip), but overall I think you’ve got the big picture, particularly on the root cause of all these shenanigans being the Leftist tendency to view people first of all through the filter of class, group or gender (as those relate to “power”) instead of as individuals.

    There really can be no genuine liberalism without individualism at its foundation, and I think it’s past time liberal-minded intellectuals stopped giving the ersatz religion of Leftism (with all its hokey, mystifying analyses) the time of day – it’s been little but a net curse on humanity since the late 19th century.

  20. Pingback: Culture war games: politically-religiously tainted knowledge – Fuyoh!

  21. Pingback: Halal & Hypocrisy XV: Choads Out For Choudary! | MRDA's Inferno

Comments are closed.