Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Of Law And Men
Perhaps the UK's policy on crime might be the answer. Immigrants always start on the lower economic rungs of society, and are the least insulated from petty and major crimes. If a society does not defend the rights of the vulnerable, then inevitably a gang society develops on the street level, as different groups attempt to defend their individual members without any official assistance. Recently the UK sent a directive to its police forces:
New rules sent to police chiefs by the Home Office set out how seriously various crimes should be regarded, and when offenders who admit to them should be sent home with a caution.Imagine that you were a UK shopkeeper of Pakistani origin, and people broke into your shop with impunity. If you sleep in your shop overnight and capture a person who broke into your shop by holding the invader at bay with a knife, calling the police will be more likely to result in a charge against you than against them. That's the truth - in the UK, defending yourself against violent assault with any sort of weapon is considered a crime. Get that? If your wife or daughter is walking home from shopping and is assaulted and robbed, bystanders may respond by capturing the offenders. However, the police will probably respond by letting the offenders go with a caution, and if the capture became violent, it's as likely that the bystanders who captured the offenders will be charged as it is that the attackers will be charged.
Some serious offences - including burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine - may now be dealt with by caution if police decide that would be the best approach.
And a string of crimes including common assault, threatening behaviour, sex with an underage girl or boy, and taking a car without its owner's consent, should normally be dealt with by a caution, the circular said.
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "Yet again the Government is covertly undermining the penal system and throwing away the trust of ordinary citizens that criminals will be punished and punished properly.
So what do you do? You beat them half to death and let them go. The unemployed young men of your neighborhood form an unofficial neighborhood patrol, and you contribute money to that effort. Your community is forced to develop its own unofficial self-defense unit, and to respond to attacks upon it with secretive force and threats. Society, overall, is not your friend, and you do not respect common law, because common law does not respect you. You have contempt for UK law and society, because you see it as a society of thugs. You consider it decadent and ripe for a fall. Can there be a better recruiting ground for Islamists pushing the doctrine of violent revolution?
If you will read the whole article, you will see that the policy stated above is really a return to a policy which has dominated UK law enforcement for about three decades. UK society is becoming increasingly violent and is doomed to continue down that path until it changes its ways.
Now go read SC&A's impassioned response to Ali's post on traditionalist inadequacy and terror. SC&A:
Ali Eteraz is absolutely correct when he says, The fundamental belief of a pragmatic postmodernist is that a belief can still regulate action, can still be thought of worth dying for, by people who are quite aware that this belief is caused by nothing more than the fact that we have belief in it. That said, the pragmatic postmodernists he hopes for cannot come from the ranks of the postmoderns of today. They are morally bankrupt.The type of "postmodernism" SC&A envisions is the return to the basic propositions of English common law (now rapidly being abandoned in the UK), and Jeffersonian democracy. The Constitution of the United States is that kind of postmodern document. A society that will not concede that every individual within it has equal rights to life, liberty and self-defense (which was so unquestioned a proposition at the time our republic was formed that no one felt the need to specify it) is a feudal society that can only survive by enforcing uniformity, and to do that it must abandon the principles of freedom. Communism and Fascism both abandoned the rights of the individual to exalt the rights of the group, and look at the death toll that resulted.
In fact, those worthy pragmatic postmodernists Eteraz envisions, will emerge from the ranks of the traditionalists he so disdains. The 'postmoderns' will be outraged because their legacy of self serving ideologies will be forgotten and discarded as the new 'pragmatic postmodernists' embrace morality, social justice and promulgate the belief that freedom is liberating and not a manifestation of evil. They will be the real postmoderns.
I don't think that the Europe of this time has anything to teach the United States. I have deep contempt for their governing elite's philosophy (Ordnung Muss Sein)l and I am horrified at what their ideology has produced. To the extent that we buy into their philosophy, we contribute to the destruction of our society.