Monday, September 25, 2006

Which is the bigger joke? The jihad for the eternal, uncreated, and singular truth? or multiculturalism policies - Canada's gift to the world?

News from Londonistan is sometimes so strange it seems that the ideology of multiculturalism is going all out to reveal its incompatibility with responsible representative government, or democratic self rule, and with true respect for the human unity that is the basis of all real and meaningful diversity:
POLICE have agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests. Members of the panel will offer their assessment of whether information police have on a suspect is too flimsy and will also consider the consequences on community relations of a raid.

Members will be security vetted and will have to promise not to reveal any intelligence they are shown. They will not have to sign the Official Secrets Act.
So the Brits are going to tie up their police with enforced consultations with an anti-police, anti-government, anti-American, Judeophobic, pro-Iranian nuke, group and any police actions which do not meet with the Muslim watchdogs' pleasure will now presumably be officially sanctioned as victimizing the Ummah.

When governments bring such non-elected advisors/critics into consultations not only on policies, but on day-to-day policing with all its needs for timely action and control of information, we are surely seeing a prime example of how multiculturalism assumes that the various members of a nation are not fit to govern themselves. Just as the supposedly independent (from political interference) police are here implied to be incapable of governing themselves, of maintaining their own professional standards, practices, and public consultations without need of suspicious and politicized watchdogs, multiculturalism policy assumes that the disparate members of a nation do not have sufficient common interests or any unifying principles that can serve as a rational basis for governing themselves. Instead of a country in which, say, a Muslim or a Christian, a person of Xinjiangese or Basque ancestry, can aspire to the virtue of going into the public sphere and making representations that could appeal to many disparate members of his nation, the ideology of multiculturalism assumes we can only speak for our own, however defined.

What this assumption must leave unanswered is the overall basis or reason for the decisions made by the high officials of state who co-ordinate the various interest groups over which the government - which becomes an imperial hierarchy riding the winds of power - rules. Democracy requires a common purpose or reason that is the basis for the people ruling themselves through their representatives. And staying alive by keeping the system and the diversity it fosters from being ripped apart into competing, warring, camps is ultimately at the root of such common purpose or reason.

But there is no accessible rationality behind the present multicultural order in full pomp; there are only attempts to obscure the fact that a liberal order, trying to serve all the conflicting desires that it pretends to have room for, and without deferring to any unifying principles or respect for a nation's foundational events that give it a particular history of self-representation, will sooner or later fall into a tyranny of high officials negotiating differences in back rooms, without the possibility of publicly accounting for the rationality of such negotiations other than in terms of deferring to competing interests and powers.

Such a "nation" might become a place, say, where police cannot protect against terrorism, from risk of offending those with a right to restrain their investigations. Or it might become a place where dhimmi police trade their powers to Muslim leaders in return for the promise that the latter will control violent trouble makers under some kind of imperial millet system.

On the other hand, maybe it is only when all see multiculturalism reveal itself for the arational and potentially tyrannical system it is, that we will be able to see clearly that the emperor has no clothes. What fun then to read:
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A car dealership's planned radio advertisement that declared "a jihad on the automotive market" has drawn sharp criticism for its content but will not be changed, the business said Saturday.

Several stations rejected the Dennis Mitsubishi spot, which says sales representatives wearing"burqas"_ head-to-toe traditional dress for Islamic women _ will sell vehicles that can"comfortably seat 12 jihadists in the back."

"Our prices are lower than the evildoers'every day. Just ask the pope!"the ad says."Friday is fatwa Friday, with free rubber swords for the kiddies."A fatwa is a religious edict.

Dealership president Keith Dennis said the ad does not disrespect any religion or culture. He said it was"fair game"to poke"a little fun at radical extremists."

"It was our intention to craft something around some of the buzzwords of the day and give everyone a good chuckle and be a little bit of a tension reliever,"he said.

The Columbus chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations decried the ad as disrespectful.

1 comment:

truepeers said...

Melanie Phillips:

"The appeasement mentality of the British police seems to have plumbed hitherto unimaginable depths of professional imbecility. As the Sunday Telegraph reported:

Police are to alert Muslim community leaders about anti-terrorism raids against suspected Islamic terrorists in future… Outlining the reasoning behind the proposed plans, Rob Beckley, the head of faith and counter-terrorism for Acpo [Association of Chief Police Officers], said: ‘Muslims do not trust our operations at the moment. They do not wholly believe we are trying to root out Islamic extremists. To combat this, we will tell community leaders, who have been vetted by the security services, details of our operations before they take place. This will be adopted nationwide in an effort to build bridges and to help us do our job better.’ Mr Beckley said that community leaders could be briefed about police action weeks in advance of the raids taking place.

The police are prone to make a (dangerously false) comparison between the Islamic jihad and the IRA. But can anyone imagine the British Army or the Royal Ulster Constabulary, when the IRA terror campaign was at its height, making known to the Catholic or Protestant communities plans to conduct raids within those communities, and the intelligence on which it was based, before they took place? Can one imagine any police force doing such a thing anywhere in the world? What this policy implies is that Britain now has a two million-strong no-go area for the police labelled The Muslim Community, subject to quite different rules of engagement from everyone else because it is calling the shots. Step by shameful step, the police are being led by the nose into repudiating their role as our front line of defence against terrorism. Britain has simply taken leave of its senses."