Why are some identities valorized and others despised?<\/p>\n
Eric Kaufman wrote Sep. 19, 2023<\/a>: <\/p>\n Wokeness is about making historically marginalized groups sacred. This religion reinforces an ideology I term \u201ccultural socialism,\u201d which holds that the highest aim of society is to equalize outcomes for disadvantaged identity groups and protect them from harm, such as hearing America described as \u201ca land of opportunity.\u201d How did this ethos, which hides under innocuous labels such as \u201cdiversity\u201d or \u201cinclusivity,\u201d wind up as the pinnacle of our culture?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n English historian David Starkey said Aug. 7, 2024<\/a> about the UK riots: “You heard constantly this word ‘community.’ Now what is this wonderful community whose values we are preserving?”<\/p>\n “These are specially protected [Muslims] groups. Police handle them with kid gloves. They negotiate with them as groups, with community leaders unelected. There is only one group that is not allowed to do that — the white working class. That is why they are rebelling. They are not allowed to have a community, to have their community leaders consulted. ”<\/p>\n Fraser Myers writes for Spiked Aug. 9, 2024<\/a>: <\/p>\n Two-tier policing is not a myth<\/p>\n Identity politics is at the heart of modern British policing.<\/p>\n The widespread claims that Britain has a problem with \u2018two-tier policing\u2019 have clearly touched a nerve with the establishment. Earlier this week, when a Sky News reporter asked Mark Rowley, Britain\u2019s most-senior police officer, if he would \u2018end two-tier policing\u2019, Rowley grabbed the mic from the journalist\u2019s hand<\/a> and dropped it on the ground. He later issued a statement claiming that it is \u2018complete nonsense\u2019 that police would treat anyone differently according to their race, religion or political leanings. I dare say Sir Mark doth protest too much<\/a>.<\/p>\n The media have also declared, in unison, that there is no bias to be found in our police. Almost every major media outlet has carried an article purporting to \u2018fact-check\u2019 and \u2018debunk\u2019 the claims around two-tier policing. The Times<\/em><\/a> ran with \u2018Two-tier policing: the claims fact-checked\u2019. \u2018How has the \u201ctwo-tier policing\u201d myth become widespread?\u2019, asks the Guardian<\/em>. \u2018What is two-tier policing? Nigel Farage and Elon Musk\u2019s claims debunked\u2019, announces an Independent<\/em> headline<\/a>. That \u2018two-tier policing\u2019 is a myth, invented and spread by the far right no less, is simply taken as a given.<\/p>\n This is a bit strange, no? In some cases, the very same outlets that, until now, have been running near weekly articles on how the police are institutionally<\/a> or structurally<\/a> racist, riddled with some \u2018-ism<\/a>\u2019 or \u2018-phobia<\/a>\u2019, proclaim that any suggestion of unfairness in policing is preposterous. Apparently, if you dare to use the words \u2018two-tier policing\u2019, or \u2018two-tier Keir\u2019, then you have probably fallen under the malign sway of Tommy Robinson…<\/p>\n What the deniers of two-tier policing miss is that differential treatment for different ethnic groups is an unseemly, but inevitable outgrowth of the system of multiculturalism<\/a>. From the late 1980s onwards<\/a>, the British state has increasingly related to its ethnic-minority subjects via self-appointed \u2018community leaders\u2019 who, in turn, can have a great deal of influence over police and local-authority decision-making. Perhaps the most egregious examples of two-tier policing relate to the \u2018pro-Palestine\u2019 marches that have been held almost weekly since 7 October last year. The Metropolitan Police \u2013 usually keen to bundle Londoners into a van<\/a> for using offensive language \u2013 haven\u2019t just been turning a blind eye to much of the rank anti-Semitism on the streets. No, they have also actively tried to appease and excuse the most hateful Islamist elements of these marches.<\/p>\n Back in October, members of Hizb ut-Tahrir \u2013 now a proscribed terror organisation \u2013 gathered outside the Turkish Embassy in London screaming \u2018jihad, jihad, jihad\u2019 and calling for \u2018Muslim armies\u2019 to invade Israel<\/a>. In response, the Met put out an extraordinary tweet trying to reassure the public that jihad \u2018has multiple meanings\u2019, while chiding those who associate it \u2018with terrorism\u2019. In this instance, the police didn\u2019t just turn a blind eye to this call for terroristic violence and war, they were effectively doing the Islamists\u2019 PR for them. <\/p>\n Meanwhile, the Met seem to have a zero-tolerance approach towards anything that might cause offence to Islamists and anti-Semites. Niyak Ghorbani<\/a>, an exiled Iranian dissident, has been arrested on multiple occasions for holding up a sign that accurately describes Hamas \u2013 the anti-Semitic terror group behind the 7 October massacre \u2013 as \u2018terrorists\u2019. Clearly, the police are aware that opposing Hamas is a provocation to the many anti-Semites and Islamists who attend these \u2018peace marches\u2019.<\/p>\n Similarly, last year, volunteers for the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism were threatened with arrest for a \u2018breach of the peace\u2019 over a mobile billboard displaying images of the children who had been kidnapped by Hamas. Police officers have even been photographed tearing down posters of Israeli hostages. The excuse for this anti-Semitic vandalism? To calm \u2018community tensions\u2019 \u2013 a cowardly euphemism for appeasing Islamist bigots.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n What makes for a winning narrative<\/a>? And what happens to those groups who don’t win with their narrative?<\/p>\n