NEW LABOUR NEW FASCISM NEW RACISM
© by Rob Ager 2009
4) THE "DIVERSITY & EQUALITY" SMOKESCREEN
Ethnic statistics given in this chapter, unless noted otherwise, are taken from the UK Census 2001, which can be viewed at the office of national statistics.
New Labour, since its 1997 campaign and election success, has consistently promised "equality" in Britain. Economic equality, social equality, gender equality, racial equality ... they've promised equality across the board [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The apparent strive under New Labour to eliminate all prejudice and discrimination in British society has been a combined effort from the mainstream media, countless charitable organisations representing minority groups [1] [2] [3] [4] and of course the New Labour politicians. This has also created an interesting new facet in the world of business in the UK ... diversity training.
On the surface its easy to assume that business managers, politicians and charities have simultaneously seen the light and decided to create a better, more equal world for us all. But what they've delivered is something very different.
Bear in mind, while reading this chapter, that New Labour and a compliant British media have wholeheartedly supported the implementation of police state laws in Britain, the demonization of Muslims and ethnic minorities as terrorists, the deportation of Asian men to face torture and long term imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, the fabrication of WMD lies against Iraq, as well as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi people. Never forget that New Labour and their allies have a great deal of blood on their hands. They are not the promoters of equality and human rights that they claim to be.
Meta discrimination
New Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, claims "Labour is the party of equality and we’ve done more than any government to promote fairness and equality.", but the strive to give minority groups equal representation has been a selective one in that some minority groups are targeted for political / economic assistance and others are simply left to fend for themselves. I call this Meta Discrimination because it occurs at the decision making level of those who claim to promote equality. Here are some examples.
1) The pursuit of equality and social representation for Asians (which under the UK census doesn't include the Chinese or other countries of the Far East / Orient) and black people is strong, but it is very weak for those from the Far East. Asians and black people are consistently encouraged to "integrate" into British culture [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and at times this appears to be against their will, yet East Asians (especially the Chinese) are not subject to this demand. East Asians are perfectly capable of integration, but are not subject to government pressure when they choose to form their own segregated neighbourhoods, nor are the rest of the population pressurized with ideas of "inclusion" of those from the Far East. There are eight Chinatowns in British cities, one of the major ones is in my home city of Liverpool. And there is virtually never any outcry against its presence.
2) While ethnic, cultural and religious segregation is deemed intolerable for Asians, segregation according to wealth is allowed to go on as usual with less political / media attention [1] [2] [3] and with children from poor and rich families being educated separately and under different conditions [1] [2] [3].
3) Race specific publications and leisure / community / entertainment events are frequently funded around specific ethnic minority groups [1] [2] [3], but white people / white British culture are almost universally excluded from holding such events in celebration of their own culture. For example there is a UK Black Pride organisation, which is backed by dozens of corporate and media sponsors, but there is no funding for white pride organisations. Those who do wish to celebrate their white ethnicity are left only with nazi-styled fascist groups, or BNP affiliated groups to turn to [1] [2] [3] [4]. We'll return to this subject shortly.
4) Equality / representation for sufferers and ex-sufferers of mental illness is very limited. In fact for some mental illness groups the media systematically operates a demonization campaign. Sex offences, especially paedophilia, are the most extreme example of this [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. This has even contributed to a shortage of men who are willing to work with children and is depriving children of much needed male role models [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. It's also led to adults fearing interraction with other people's children in general [1] [2] [3] lest they be branded a potential sex predator. It's led to parents keeping their children indoors lest they be attacked by a paedophile [1] [2]. And it's led to false accusations / unfounded suspicions of paedophilic activity [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] against innocent members of the public, which are difficult for the accused to shake off even when they've been proven innocent. Paedophilia is a serious mental health condition that needs genuine, honest and rationale debate backed up by well funded and unbiased research. In contrast to this widespread phobia of child molestors, the media has in recent years increasingly portrayed children in an over sexualized way [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Should we not be arresting the creators of over sexualized childrens magazines and music videos on suspicion of disseminating paedophilic media content?
5) Other mental health disorders that are left behind under New Labour's equality push are schizopherenia and personality / psychotic disorders. This is a field I have a lot of experience in through my own line of work. I've seen time and time again how mentally ill people are put into flats in the community and left to fend for themselves with minimal support, all justified under labels such as "independent living" and "the tenant's choice". My own father died under these circumstances and my ongoing efforts to hold the care agencies accountable has been met with strong institutional resistance despite over-whelming evidence. The mentally ill are often isolated under lax community care programs because their mental health problems make it difficult to form friendships / relationships in the community. This frequently drives the mentally ill person to drugs or alcohol as a form of escapism and control of anxiety, which in turn leads to addiction and occasionally their premature death. [1] [2] [3]. The mentally ill are also often demonized in the media and subject to imprisonment for crimes that are a result of their illness [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [5].
6) Demonization of teenagers is another area in which equal rights don't seem to apply under New Labour's Britain [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Like with mental illness and paedophilia, antisocial behaviour from teenagers requires genuine, rational and honest debate about the true causes stemming from the overall structure of our society. In particular, white teenage males are currently losing out in Britain [1] [2] [3], apparently due to an anti-education culture that has emerged in their social group. The overwhelming identity pressure of our current celebrity culture, as opposed to worthy role models, is also harmful to teenagers [1] [2] [3] [4]. Copycat suicides are one of the most bizarre examples of the harmful power of celebrity culture. The sexual emphasis of our media induced celebrity culture may be one of the reasons for Britain having the highest rate of teenage pregnacies in Europe.
7) An area of inequality that universally gets almost no attention at all is people's level of intelligence. I've worked with the homeless for many years and have frequently met people who are socially hampered by low intelligence and poor education. They're often semi-literate, have poor concentration spans and limited control of their emotions. Many women in this respect have gotten themselves pregnant at an early age, resulting in pressures to raise children on state benefits or in some cases their children have been taken away from them by the state, leaving them and their children emotionally wrecked by the separation. A person with higher than average intelligence generally stands a much greater chance of succeeding in higher education and the workplace. We generally accept that these people are entitled to live a better life due to their career efforts, but how much of it is simple differences of intelligence? We treat people with physical disabilities and severe learning disabilities with dignity by providing them with decent lifestyles in the community, as if they were fully contributing to the economy like the average citizen. So should a person of slightly below average intelligence, who is confined to less mentally challenging forms of employment, be penalized by a lower standard of living and lower social status? It's highly debatable, but the point I'm making is that it's an area of inequality that New Labour is neither capable or willing to tackle.
All these forms of meta discrimination bring into question the motives and competencies of New Labour in presenting themselves as champions of "equality", "diversity" and "inclusion". Why do they fight tooth and nail for some minority groups and not others? It's a simple question, but the information avialable on the subject is complex.
However, one of the big giveaways about New Labour's agendas can be found in a particular area of inequality that I haven't yet mentioned.
An increase in economic inequality
The truest reflection of an equal society is on the level of economic comparisons. There's no point celebrating different cultures with glossy brochures and multicultural events if the people from those cultures are kept in the poor house. This is the bar by which we should judge New Labour's equality achievements.
Unfortunately, New Labour has not delivered its equality promises on the all important economic level [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Here are some statistics and snapshots from a powerpoint presentation by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) relating to their research document Racing Away? Income Inequality and the evolution of High Incomes.
Notice how the wealth curve fires straight up for the richest one thousandth of Britain's population, yet the income tax for this super rich class only goes up slightly. The following graph from the same powerpoint document illustrates a timeline in rises of income for the top 10%, 1% and 0.1% of Britain's earners under New Labour since 1996-7.
Here is a short 2008 press release by the (IFS) concerning the same document.
The reasoning as to why New Labour has failed to achieve its promises of economic equality is a difficult subject because it leads into areas of debate that are emotionally challenging for many people. At the most base level the answer is very simple ... their promises of equality are a deception to passify the population, while New Labour aligns itself with the agendas of the already super rich and the European Commission. That may sound like a harsh judgement, but bear with me as I further the case.
Unrealistic promises & ridiculous assumptions
The Labour party's criteria for what constitutes equality is deeply flawed. Back in 1976 Labour introduced the Race Relations Act, clause 37 of which enables companies in Britain to deliver training only to specific racial groups, while excluding others.
37. Discriminatory training by certain bodies.— (1) Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done in relation to particular work by [F153any person] in or in connection with—
(a) affording only persons of a particular racial group access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for that work; or
(b) encouraging only persons of a particular racial group to take advantage of opportunities for doing that work,
Basically the clause facilitates racist recruitment at the training level. The last sentence quoted above is interestingly vague. What kinds of "encouragement" of particular racial groups (and hence a lack of encouragement for others) are acceptable under the act? Here's how the UK Film Council interprets this law under their so-called "positive action" recruitment policies.
Special encouragement such as targeted advertising and recruitment literature, reserving places for one gender on training courses or providing taster courses in non-traditional areas.
And another training organisation, Skillset, interprets it as follows:
Clause 37, along with several other clauses in the Race Relations Act, enables direct exclusion of specific racial groups from training. It allows racism. The act doesn't allow discrimination to occur directly at the recruitment level, but shifts the racist policy to the level of training, where it will be less noticed [1] [2] [3].The scheme was delivered under clause 37 of the Race Relations Act which allows training organisations to run programmes for people from black and ethnic origin groups which have been demonstrated to be under represented in a particular industry.
A year earlier, in 1975, Labour introduced the Sex Discrimination Act, which established the same rules, but this time allowing training to be targeted at one gender, while excluding the other.
So why would Labour introduce laws to combat discrimination, yet include clauses that specifically allow discrimination at the job training level? The first thing to note in this respect is that the act has served as a stepping stone to later policies introduced by New Labour, such as the Equality Act 2006, which was criticized in its early draft form for attempted legalizing of discrimination at the employment level [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Whenever Labour is in power it implements laws to facilitate discrimination, while claiming to fighting discrimination. They may as well be saying "We have to be racist to stop racism".
The logic given within the acts is that if the racial makeup of a workplace is not equal to the ethnic makeup of the entire population then it can only be down to one thing ... racism. New Labour leaders have an absurd belief that in a discrimination free society every workplace will have a staff team that is proportionally equal to the entire division of the population in terms of race, sexuality, religion, sexual orientation and disability, but the assumption is simply untrue. People from different social groups have different workplace interests. For example, we're not going to get an equal percentage of males and females becoming makeup artists, construction workers, midwives or soldiers. White British people are less likely to work in the catering industries because our culture places less emphasis on the culinery arts. Japanese people have a much higher interest in animation than other cultures. Black men, particularly in America, have shown a much greater interest in becoming musicians. And Indian men tend to have more interest in the medical professions than white men do, hence they're vastly over-represented as doctors.
The simple fact is that workforce disproportion is not in itself evidence of discrimination. It can just as easily be attributed to the preferences of different social groups.
In case the absurdity of New Labour's equality crusade hasn't sunk in yet, I'll take my analogies a step further. In order to create a perfectly equal society that conforms to New Labour's proportional expectations, in which no one has any advantage over anyone else and nobody is left with any reason to complain that they're being discriminated against, here are some of the social changes we would have to achieve.
As an example of such ridiculous measures actually being taken, fire fighting services in Britain have now been given targets to recruit more women firefighters to combat sex discrimination [1] [2] [3]. Even the most hardcore feminist would have to admit that males have a physical constitution much more appropriate for the demanding tasks of a firefighter. Also included in this drive to remove apparent discrimination in the fire services was a series of recruitment days, which white male applicants were banned from taking part. The result of the entire scheme was that just one ethnic minority applicant was hired.
The following clip of a Margaret Thatcher speech is crude, but pinpoints that New Labour's promise cannot be achieved without the party dictating what goes on not just in the workplace, but in the family home.
New Labour's promise of universal equality is no more realistic than the utopian dream of communism. It can never be achieved.
Inequality is a part of life and in some instances is appropriate. If two people of roughly equal ability and with similar work opportunities differ in their willingness to work then one of those people should and will end up earning more than the other. Ability, motivation and reliability should always be the traits that an employer looks for in both the public and private sectors, and if one particular racial, sexual or social group displays those qualities more consistently then so be it - they should get the jobs so that we can all reap the benefits of the best service.
Another fact that New Labour policy makers are in denial of is that people naturally group together according to sameness. This is true on all levels of society. Football fans are drawn to other football fans, rather than chess enthusiasts, and generally towards those who support the same football teams. Both men and women tend to have mostly same sex friends. Alcoholics and drug addicts tend to hang out with their own. 98% of marriages in the UK are between people of the same ethnicity. Corporate bosses hang out with other corporate bosses. Even politicans are socially drawn to members of the same political parties or at least those who share the same ideologies.
This seeking out of familiarity and mutual interest is especially true culturally. We have pubs in Britain that are specifically themed to Irish people and hence draw a higher percentage of regular Irish customers. As previously mentioned there are many Chinatowns in Britain. New Labour and the British mainstream media often present such cultural hotspots as xenophobic and based upon underlying feelings of racism [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], but it's the psychological similarities and mutual interests within any given culture that create its secular cohesion. The majority of the time skin colours are incidental. Evidence of this can be found in instances of "us and them" conflicts between groups of people sharing the same ethnic ancestry. For example, in North England personal feelings of rivalry are often displayed between white British people living in Manchester and Liverpool. Each group has a geographical and social cohesion of its own, despite being visually indistinguishable. Religion is another powerful example. People who have adopted opposing beliefs systems are not drawn to eachother. They are drawn to their own places of worship where they are surrounded by people who share their beliefs. This can even be said of New Labour leaders themselves - they are drawn to each other by mutual interests and shared beliefs.
Of course, from time to time people do naturally display a healthy interest in the lifestyles and beliefs of groups they aren't familiar with, even if only to keep the peace. Its one of the core motives for holidaymakers. They like to explore and appreciate how other people live, even if they wouldn't choose to live the same way. And this isn't just done through holidays. People read both fiction and non-fiction books set in different cultures. They also watch foreign language films. This is how people naturally educate themselves about other cultures and celebrate their differences. And from time to time, people decide to make a lifestyle switch and adopt the lifestyle of a culture other than the one they're born in.
But in New Labour's fantasy reality the geographical separation of cultures must be erradicated so that every culture exists simultaneously, side-by-side, in every city, every street, every workplace and in every home. This is simply impossible. Throughout human history geographical proximity has been the key factor that bonds groups of people together. When people sharing the same land become divided into camps of incompatible belief systems they tend to reorganise themselves geographically to achieve separation and, if they're willing, then establish a neighbourly tolerance and co-operation on matters of mutual interest.
The so-called "racist" element comes into play when groups of people with opposing belief systems happen to have different ethnicity. People sometimes forget about the psychological basis of their differences and begin to assume that skin colour is what separates them. Ask any classic "racist" why they feel hostility to another race and their feedback will primarily consist of objections to opposing economic interests and opposing perceptions of morality. One of the reasons the "racist" focuses on skin colour is because of its aesthetic simplicity, which is always a temptation for people who are angry and afraid, but its not the core reason for the "racist"s hostile position.
Misrepresenting Britain
So have New Labour simply gotten the wrong ideas into their heads about how to create a fair society, in which people have equal rights? Unfortunately the evidence suggests not.
A new trend emerging in Britain is the distortion of group statistics. An example of this, which I encountered a few years ago, is that the major funding bodies of the British film and TV industry have intentionally distorted ethnic statistics to give the impression that more white people are being employed than there actually are (See this article / video for more on the subject). The UK Film Council uses the ethnic workforce statistics of London (24% ethnic minority) to determine how its worforce should be ethnically proportioned. However, London is actually the central gathering place for the majority of film and tv production staff from all over Britain, so it should be the national ethnic statistics that are used. If the UK Film Council based its statistics on the national proportions of ethnicity in the UK (92% white) then its target for ethnic minority recruiting would drop from 24% to 8%. This manipulation of statistics causes white applicants for jobs and training to be discriminated against and thus underrepresented in the workforce. Another factor in UK Film Council recruiting is that the employment of short term contractors and full time employees are not differentiated ethnically. On that basis, full time work could be favorably given to one ethnic group, while short term contracts of just a few weeks per year could be given to another group. I also discovered the same distorting use of statistics at a company called Skillset, but this time the 35% ethnic minority statistic for inner London were used instead of the national statistic of 8%.
We see a similar statistical anomoly at the BBC. On the BBC's Equality and Diversity page, workforce ethnicity targets are "12.5% for black and minority ethnic staff overall (status: 12% at 31 January 2009; 11% at 31 January 2008)". Why 12.5% if only 8% of the British population are ethnic minorities? The BBC have already over-compensated by achieving a 12% ethnic minority proportion in 2009, but are continuing with an anti-white, racist recruitment and training campaign. If they really believe in proportional representation then they should be rolling it back to 8% to avoid unfairly excluding white candidates. The London Evening Standard correctly challenges the BBC's axing of 1,800 jobs to save money, while spending £750,000 on ethnic recruiting.
Here is a case of a woman being rejected for a training progamme with the Environment Agency beacuse she was white English, as opposed to white Scottish, white Irish or white Welsh, but when pressed on the issue the Environmental Agency were unable to provide data demonstrating that the three target groups were unrepresented.
Britain's police forces have been forced by the government to engage in positive discrimination recruitment practices. Gloustershire police were specifically caught out rejecting white male applicants on principle, but not rejecting a single female or ethnic minority candidate [1].
And here is a more recent example in which "a firm advertised a £38,000-a-year job for someone 'preferably of Indian origin'."
The institutional rejection of ethnic reality in Britain stems from government to newspapers to corporate promotion. The official statistics are that 92% of British citizens are white. Nevertheless, we're bombarded daily with carefully orchestrated photos that give the impression Britain has an equal proportion of each race. Whether it's school photo shoots for newspapers or corporate promotional brochures we find glossy images in which photograped individuals have been carefully selected by skin colour. We see people of differing cultures smiling gleefully to the camera as if they're one big happy family. White people, and especially white males, are de-emphasized to give the impression that they exist in lesser numbers than they actually do. Privately owned business are not legally bound to do this, but they've been swept up in New Labour's tidal wave of positive discrimination craftily disguised as "equality". Companies now bend over backwards to give off a "diversity and equality" stance that will impress government officials and local newspaper editors. If a business wants positive newspaper coverage then their easiest option is to hold an event or campaign with the words "equality" and "diversity" in bold print.
Another point I'd like to add here, something the New Labour government and British media virtually never talk about, is that white people are actually a minority on a global scale and a proportionally decreasing minority at that [1]. Finding specific worldwide racial statistics is difficult, but a glance through this page at nationmaster.com and this page at cia.gov gives a clue as to just how small an ethnic group white people are. Of the world's 6.8 billion people, China and India are populated by a combined 2.5 billion people, Indonesia / Brazil / Pakistan / Bangladesh / Nigeria comprise just under a billion, and Japan / Mexico / Phillipines / Vietnam / Ethiopia / Egypt comprise over half a billion. These 13 countries account for around 60% (4 billion) of total world population and have very few white people (well below 1% per country). The highest concentrations of white ethnicity are the United States (307 million, 77% white), Russia (140 million, 80% white), Germany (82 million, 91% white), France (64 million, no ethnic statistics available as they are illegal in that country) and United Kingdom (61 million, 92% white). So the five most highly populated, white ethnicity countries account for not much over half a billion - less than 10% of world population.
My aim with the above statistics is not to alarm you of a great threat against white culture. My point is that white people are a global minority and thus should not be discriminated against under the current spate of anti-white policies disseminated by New Labour. The irony is that the above countries comprising a non-white ethnicity equalling 60% of the world's population (4 billion) are not running racial equality programmes to integrate large numbers of white people into their cultures. So why is New Labour doing it the other way here in Britain?
Double standards
Several of the statistics listed above indicate a double standard in New Labour's equality laws, but the following example establishes the point even more firmly.
Recently I stumbled across a new local newspaper in my city called Liverpool Life. It's a free newspaper that covers the usual combination of multiculturalism and save the environment stories that are spouted relentlessly by newspapers across the country. The first edition of the paper featured a bold front page caption "New Lodge Lane Cultural Quarter". I had a glance through this paper as I'm usually interested in new media. On flicking to page 2 (scroll down in the above pdf link) I found a list of the paper's editorial staff. They are listed as follows:
Editor - Belayet Hossain Ahmed
Contributors - Sarfarez Ali, Judi Woolley, Farhad ahmed, Abdul Aziz, Imam Amzad, Dr Abdul Hamid, John Gregory, Dr Mohammed Haris
Business Advisors - Dr Adel Ahmed, Peter Wensley
Arts and Music - John Lau, Professor Steven Small (University of California), David Jack, Midhat Khan
Marketing and Sales - Hossain
Marketing assistant (Distribution) - Noor Islam
Being that the person listed for marketing and sales (Hossain) is lacking in a last name, its likely that Belayet Hossain Ahmed (the editor) is doubling up as the marketing and sales contact. That makes a total of sixteen people comprising the editorial team. The really strange thing here is that ten of these sixteen staff members, including the main editor, have Asian names. Yet the newspaper itself isn't marketed at Asian people. For argument's sake let's assume that Judy Woolley, John Gregory, Peter Wensley, John Lau and David Jack are white people. 63% of the editorial team have Asian names, yet only 4% of British people are Asian. Where is the proportional representation at Liverpool Life's editorial team for the white 92% of Britain's population?
New Labour's equality laws are used to exclude white people from training, funding and jobs when workforce ethnicity statistics proportionally justify it (or when they can be manipulated to justify it), but when it's white people who are left underrepresented the laws are not applied.
There is disproportion in other fields of work (for example over representation of Asians among taxi drivers and under-representation of white men in medical schools), but its very rare that we hear of "positive action" training and recruitment in those fields being targeted at white people to address the balance.
Another example of these double standards is the British media's selective coverage of race related violence. The two most prominent examples in recent years are the murders of black teenagers (in unrelated incidents) Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker. In the case of Stephen Lawrence the murderers have never been found, but the media widely began to announce the attack as mosty likely race motivated. The officers conducting the investigation were accused of racism themselves in handling the case. The racial aspects of the case became the central theme of media coverage [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. In the Anthony Walker case a black teenager was killed by two white teenagers. Again, the racial aspects of the case became the central theme of media coverage [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
In comparison I'd like to refer you to a lesser known incident that for me was much closer to home. First, take a look at the only piece of news coverage related to the incident. The title is unusually lacking in emotional intensity: "Knife attacker is facing prison for Aigburth attack." The attack was actually much more viscious than the news article suggests. It occurred while I was at work on a night shift. I came home in the morning to find police officers guarding the building where I lived. Upon entering I saw a deep pool of blood near a flat entrance on the ground floor and blood smeared on the door and surrounding walls. The officers explained that the attack actually occurred inside the flat, where there was a much greater amount of blood. In the following days I spoke to my neighbours who had overheard the incident, my landlord who had received further information form the police and relatives of the two victims. The story was consistent all around. Welsey McKenzie had stabbed the girl through the forearm, which caused her to lose so much blood she almost died and almost lost her arm. Wesley also attacked the male and stabbed him nearly thirty times. Luckily the male victim survived as well. Various people in my neighbourhood, who had been drinking in local pubs, said that they had seen Wesley on the same night, not long before the attack. He had apparently taken a lot of cocaine, had threatened various people in a pub because he was so severely under the influence of drugs and / or alcohol, and was already carrying the knife in his pocket.
The Wesley McKenzie knife attack incident was brimming with details suitable for a commercial newspaper to latch onto and publicize. Not only was it an incredibly violent incident involving the hot topics of knife-crime and drugs, but the incident also had potential racial overtones being that the identities of perpetrator and victims crossed racial boundaries. Notice that the very toned down article comes from a local newspaper, the Liverpool Echo. The news didn't even make the national press. There is no mugshot of the perpetrator in the article as is often the case with knife attack convictions. The article doesn't explain the physical extent and severity of the attack, or mention the drug factor. Why was the coverage limited to just one, toned-down article and why was the case not covered until after the court case was closed?
We could just assume the Liverpool Echo wanted to conduct mature and objective coverage of the McKenzie case, but have a read of these Liverpool Echo article titles relating to the murder of Anthony Walker (incidentally both the McKenzie and Walker attacks occurred in Liverpool). The article titles are listed chronologically according to the dates they were published.
(note: if the above article links cease to function try this link or visit the Liverpool Echo website and search their archives for 'Anthony Walker')
The above list is less than a third of all the coverage that the Liverpool Echo gave to the Anthony Walker case (the coverage is still going on after nearly five years). There are around 200 Anthony Walker related articles in the Echo website archives, yet the barely known Wesley McKenzie case received just one watered down article. Why have the Liverpool Echo taken a deliberate stance of maximum coverage of one murder case and minimal coverage of a drug fuelled knife attack that almost killed two people? We could partially attribute it to the fact that Anthony Walker died and that the two victims in the McKenzie case barely survived. However, there is an element that makes the McKenzie case more shocking and worthy of news coverage. Anthony Walker was murdered at age 18 by two men aged 17 and 20, but Wesley McKenzie was aged 33 and his victims were in their late teens, he was almost fifteen years their senior. Notice that the Echo article mentions Wesley's age, but doesn't give the age of his victims, Anthony Howard and Sarah Stanley.
Possible clues as to the motives of the Liverpool Echo in covering one case and not the other can be found in the way that they covered the Anthony Walker case. Their emphasis is consistently on the topic of racism. Anthony Walker's murderers apparently shouted racist abuse at their victim before killing him and in many instances the Liverpool Echo emphasize the name calling as being even more shocking than the murder itself. The Echo's position on the subject was firmly established far before the trial even took place - it was a racist attack, racism is evil, Liverpool is racist and must shed its evil. This tunnel vision coverage doesn't take into account that the murderers were individuals with their own personal and social problems. The Liverpool Echo has decided to act as judge and jury in the case, branding the killers as "evil yobs" and accusing Liverpool's predominantly white population of sharing responsibility for the murder by being inherently racist. The coverage is sickeningly immature and comes from trained journalists and editors who should know better.
Last, but not least, there are two details I've not yet mentioned about the Wesley McKenzie attack. 33 year old McKenzie was black and he was from London, not Liverpool. His two teenage victims were from Liverpool and they were white. Once again, this is something the Liverpool Echo didn't mention ... and I'd put money on it that it's the same reason why no mugshot of Wesley was shown, as it usually is with news coverage of convictions for violent crimes [1] [2].
This kind of emphasis on racial conflict, with a preference for cases involving white males as the perpetrators of violence or abuse, is now a common theme in British media [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Here is one of the few exceptions I could find, in which a white male was the victim of an ethnic minority gang in a racially motived attack and was beaten so badly he ended up with brain damage [1] [2] [3]. Notice that the BBC avoids reporting the racism element of the case in which the white man was attacked [1], yet emphasizes the racism element in the Anthony Walker case, where the white men were the attackers [2].
Here is a case of an MP speaking out about attacks on white people being ignored in his consituency and consequently being accused of helping the BNP party, and here is an article in which an ethnic minority journalist saw fit to write an article about excessive media coverage of murders involving white perpetrators against ethnic minority victims.
Below is a selection of children and teenagers who have been murdered in Britain in recent years, several of whom have received only a fraction of the coverage that is given to that of the Anthony Walker case.
And there are plenty more murdered teenagers out there.
So why did the Liverpool Echo latch onto the Anthony Walker case and emphasize its "racial attack" element as being more important than even the murder itself, while de-emphasizing other, equally tragic murders of teenagers? Are murdered teenagers who are not victims of white racism less important?
Political correctness - more meta discrimination
Under New Labour Britain has been swept by a tidal wave of political correctness. This has been in the areas of race [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], religion [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], gender [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and, with less frequency, sexual orientation [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], physical disabilities [1] [2] [3] [4], and age [1] [2] [3] [4].
The New Labour government, in combination with a strangely compliant mainstream media, has everybody treading on eggshells as to what they say in public and in the workplace, lest they offend someone from one of the above groups. Jokes about race, religion, gender and sexual orientation are responded to with "zero tolerance". A person can lose their job or face a harsh fine just for uttering a statement that can be perceived offensively [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. The old "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" motto is apparently now out of fashion.
Political correctness has overtaken efficiency as the key target in the workplace. An employee can do their job badly or consistently turn up late ... and when challenged on their performance can quickly claim themselves to be a victim of discrimination. All they have to do is claim that a colleague of a different colour, sex or religious disposition has said something that they found offensive and bingo ... they can attribute their poor work performance to discrimination induced emotional stress. I've personally witnessed this in my own work environments.
This looming tension and fear of "racism" accusations has even infected tv programming, such as Big Brother, Strictly come Dancing, and Kilroy. However, there is little complaint when derogatory comments are made about white people [1] [2] [3]. Movie releases such as White Men Can't Jump and White chicks are rife with white bashing content. Personally I can watch and enjoy those films without taking personal offence, but if we're going to allow race humour against whites then it should be allowed against all. Under New Labour a film title such as Black Men Can't Jump or Black Chicks would be ferociously attacked. Then there's the book Stupid White Men, in which phoney activist / author Michael Moore openly blames every social problem on white men, but sources hardly any of his claims. He even openly calls for anti-white recruiting by employers.
As a point of interest Michael Moore seems to have very little problem getting corporate funding for release of his not-so-well-researched DVDs and books, yet more controversial and well researched or entertaining activists like Antony C. Sutton, Alex Jones, Brian Gerrish and Noam Chomsky are given barely a fraction of Moore's coverage - depsite booming underground sales of their DVDs and books mainly by word of mouth. Moore gets the media coverage and funds because his messages are in line with the desires of his big business sponsors.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission
A key institution that plays a major role in New Labour's "equality and diversity" agenda is the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The EHRC may have a morally upstanding name, but New Labour is very fond of using moral sounding rhetoric to implement immoral policies, just as the fascist US news channel FOX NEWS boldly displays its trademarked slogan "FAIR & BALANCED" repeatedly during its broadcasts. Let's examine the EHRC in detail.
The home page of the EHRC website uses a massive font to emphasize its claimed agenda: "Our job is to promote equality and human rights, and to create a fairer Britain. We do this by providing advice and guidance, working to implement an effective legislative framework and raising awareness of your rights."
A simple test as to whether the EHRC put its money where its mouth is, is to examine the proportional makeup of its central management team. At the time of writing the EHRC has fifteen commissioners, each selected by New Labour's Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman. Here is a list of the commissioners:
The names I've highlighted in yellow are the male commissioners, of which there are only five. Of the five male commissioners, three are black and two are white. Black men represent approx 1% of the British population, but makeup 20% of the EHRC commission. White men makeup approx 46% of the British population, but makeup 13% of the EHRC commission. There are no ethnic minority females at the EHRC and not a single Asian or East Asian of either sex. The commission is 67% white females.
So if we apply the EHRC's own proportional representation logic we instantly find that Harriet Harman, a white woman, has shown favoritism to her own gender group in her selection of the EHRC management team. It cannot be argued that Harman didn't have enough white male candidates to select from because the site states that the commissioners "were chosen from more than 600 applicants".
On the Our Job page the EHRC states " For the first time, a statutory body has the responsibility to protect, enforce and promote equality across the seven "protected" grounds - age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment." This reinforces my earlier comments about meta-discrimination. Mental health sufferers and those of below average intelligence are ignored by the EHRC.
The Our Job page concludes with a link to a PDF file called Two Years Making Changes, which explains the EHRC's perception of its own achievements since being founded in 2006. The document begins with a typical diversity propaganda based selection of photos of people from different social groups, including those who aren't represented among the commissioners themselves. Notice also the deliberate de-emphasis of white males.
The content of the document reveals the broad influence of the EHRC's activities.
"We have extensive legal powers, including powers to conduct formal investigations, to take judicial reviews, and to assess how effectively public bodies are upholding the equality duties. In addition, we are charged with promoting and enforcing the Human Rights Act. We also seek to influence policy and use our power of our voice to make the case for change."
"This autumn, parliament votes on a new equality bill, which will bring together and build upon existing equality legislation. It addresses both multiple discrimination and the underlying causes of much disadvantage: poverty and absence of aspiration. The Commission has worked hard to shape the bill, and we believe it will give us a sound legal basis on which to tackle the deep-rooted structural causes of inequality."
"10 million distributed through our grants programme to 285 different groups delivering frontline services across the country"
"35,000 people received Equality News, our monthly e-bulletin"
"136,000 small and medium-sized businesses received our guidance on managing equality obligations during the downturn"
"3,500 stakeholders from across the country have been regularly involved in our work"
"Over 400 enforcement or pre-enforcement actions taken, of which over 80 per cent were resolved without the need to go to court."
"Clock is a small digital agency employing 32 people, most of them men." Note the double standard regarding the EHRCs emphasis on women commissioners in its own management team.
"The rise of the BNP to prominence in the 2009 European elections has been another area of concern to the Commission." BNP did not rise to prominence. They won just two seats. The political party that the EHRC are really concerned about is UKIP (UK Independence Party), a non-racist party calling for a complete withdrawal of Britain from the EU. UKIP came second in the British 2009 European elections, winning 13 seats, and knocked New Labour into third place. Remember that the EHRC commission is appointed by a New Labour politician. We'll return to the subject of UKIP soon.
"Using new powers, the Commission demanded that the party address potential breaches of the Race Relations Act. In August 2009 county court proceedings were issued against the party by the Commission in respect of BNP’s constitution and membership criteria. The case will be heard at Central London County Court on 15 October 2009." Yet New Labour laws allow people to be denied the right to training, and hence jobs, on the basis of their ethnicity or gender.
"The launch of the second year of funding in May 2009 generated an unprecedented response, with more than 2,000 organisations applying for funding." These financial incentives are New Labour's way of bribing companies into their questionable equality laws.
"70% of people would be happy for their son or daughter to marry someone of a different race or faith", yet only 2% of British mariages are interracial. This demonstrates that people can have a preference for being socially integrated with their own race without being racists. That's a message New Labour doesn't want the public to hear.
"We believe in empowering the individual. Nobody wants assumptions made about them because of their background or identity, be they a white man looking to retrain, a black woman who needs support for her business, a gay undergraduate, a young child from a run-down estate, a mother who wants to work or a disabled person looking for the right support." Yet New Labour and EHRC are all for discrimination against white men for training, and their laws allow for it.
"As part of our commitment to creating a tolerant, fair society we work extensively with young people, aiming to create a ‘generation without prejudice’." Again, this is the utopian dream that has no more basis in reality than Communism.
"We have received United Nations accreditation as an ‘A’ status National Human Rights Institution, giving the Commission international recognition and status as the independent body charged with promoting human rights in Britain." This backing of the EHRC by a powerful globalist institution will become more significant later.
"1/3 of working Muslim women see themselves as future chief executives". This seemingly random quote appears at the top of a page which outlines the EHRC's Muslim Women Power List. There is a push for ethnic minority managers and female managers under New Labour, but the reasons for this are not about equality, as we shall discover shortly.
On the EHRC's Race in Britain page is another example of a diversity propaganda photo, falsely depicting Britain as being more multiracial than it actually is. I've captured the picture and posted it below in case the original page is altered or deleted. Notice how white people are pushed into the background, especially the males.
Considering the above photo, it's ironic that the EHRC has published a pdf file called Talent Not Tokenism. The document itself includes more diversity propaganda photos that are not proportionally representative of Britain's population.
Another giveaway sign that the EHRC wants to manipulate statistics rather than present honest information is that it refuses to fund academic research. To fund research by external bodies would run the risk of information and statistics being published that go against the EHRC agenda of manipulating public opinion.
Even though the EHRC has only been up and running for three years, internal disagreements over policy direction have already led to the resignation of a handful of commissioners [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Some of this is over chairman Trevor Phillips [1], whose leadership was described by resigned commissioner Kay Hampton as "better suited to a political organisation rather than a human rights one". Equally important is that the National Audit Office refused to sign off the EHRC accounts in 2009 due to irregularities, which was also the case at the Commission for Racial Equality (the forerunner of the EHRC) which was also chaired by Trevor Phillips.
EHRC chairman Trevor Phillips has also been criticized for taking highly paid consultancy work, in which he guided Channel 4 in their handling of a (possibly staged) race scandal concerning its tv program Big Brother [1] [2] [3]. It also seems that Phillips wanted to use entertainment programming like Big Brother to manipulate public opinion. The consultancy work was done through Phillips' own private company The Equate Organisation and represented a conflict of interest with his highly paid (£110k) EHRC job. Apparently he has since resigned from Equate, but he is still the chairman for Pepper Productions, a company which "focuses on popular multi-cultural programming and documentaries".
So is Trevor Phillips in it for human rights or for the money or for some alternative political agenda? The website for his Equate company is currently "closed for recontruction". However, Rubensteinpublishing explains
"Its website, http://www.equate.org.uk, prominently features a picture of Mr Phillips on every page and identifies him as chair of the EHRC, as well as 'one of the leading experts on equality and diversity policy in Europe'."
"It is not all that uncommon for those in senior positions in regulatory bodies to profit from this by going into consultancy once their term of office has finished. To act for part of the time as the regulator, and also to run a profit-making business advising the regulated, is very different."
"Trevor Phillips, as I understand, is not only chair of the Commission, but also acts as chair of its legal sub-committee. This committee has the responsibility for making the ultimate decision as to which organisations are investigated by the Commission to determine whether or not they have committed an unlawful act. It decides which individual claims the Commission will support and in which tribunal and court cases it will seek to intervene. Some of the organisations under consideration may be clients of Mr Phillips' consultancy. How will this affect the views of EHRC staffers who have to propose priorities for action?"
"The Commission also has the important power of assessing the extent to which an organisation has complied with the public sector race, disability and gender equality duties, and of issuing a compliance notice for failure to comply. A key part of the public sector duty is the equality impact assessment. The EHRC has the job of vetting these, yet the Commission's chair is now a principal of an organisation that markets carrying out equality impact assessments."
"As chair of the EHRC, Mr Phillips is privy to a great deal of confidential information, both about the activities of the Commission itself and about Government plans. How will he manage to wall this knowledge off from the advice he gives as a consultant, or even from the contents of his 'confidential' client newsletter?"
"Mr Phillips should decide whether he wishes to be a management consultant or whether he wants to chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission."
Despite all this evidence of corruption and self-interest on the part of Trevor Phillips, he was reappointed for an additional three year term as EHRC chairman by Harriet Harman (again). It seems that Phillips fits right in there with the corrupt New Labour top brass because he peddles "equality" lies for them. Incidentally, Trevor Phillips' own promotional website, has a .eu extension rather than a .com or .co.uk. Keep that in mind as we will soon be exploring the EU's role in Britain's tidal wave of "equality and diversity" hypocrisy.
A similar story to that of Trevor Phillips is that of Lord Ouseley - he was chief exec of the Racial Equalities Commission (now merged into the EHRC) from 1993-2000. Then in 2000 he became director of Focus Consultancy Ltd and managing director of Different Realities Partnership Ltd (both profit-making consultancies specialising in equality, diversity and people management strategies) and chair of the Policy Research Institute on Ageing and Ethnicity (PRIAE). It seems that the promotion of racism paranoia by leaders of "diversity and equality" institutions leads to lucrative business opportunities on the side, but unlike Trevor Phillps, at least Lord Ouseley had the decency to wait until after his position at the REC before pursuing such business ventures.
In a nutshell the EHRC is a diversity propaganda front for New Labour, with Trevor Phillips calling the shots on behalf of New Labour bureaucrat Harriet Harman.
New Labour Cheap Labour
An area in which the British media has done its job more effectively - as in present multiple views on a given issue - is the subject of immigration. As mentioned in chapter two, Britain is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe and is becoming more so due to an open door immigration policy imposed by our EU membership.
Media coverage has bounced back and forth between accusations of racism against opposition to open door immigration and accusations of New Labour engaging in a smear campaign to label such opposition as racists [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
A key factor is that mass immigration and its corresponding increase in competition for UK jobs allows British companies to get away with paying lower wages both to British people and to immigrants (legal and illegal) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. The population increase also drives house price up both for both British people and immigrants.
So it's entirely possible that New Labour's grand-scale push for "equality and diversity" is underpinned by an agenda of winning support from influential British corporations seeking to profit from widely available cheap labour. This is a very similar situation to the United States' corresponding "equality and diversity" media tidal wave being underpinned by corporations profiting from cheap labour imported from Mexico.
If the cheap labour motive is true here in Britain then isn't this akin to sweatshops .... the corporate practice of setting up factories in poor countries to exploit cheap ethnic minority labour for profit (basically watered down, debt driven slavery)? The only real difference is that under New Labour the cheap workers are imported rather than the factories being exported. On this basis the racist accusational finger should be firmly pointed at New Labour and their corporate allies. It can also be pointed at the EU itself, which has repeatedly allowed workers from new EU member states to be paid lower wages than the populations of other EU countries in which they work [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
When we're told that mass immigration is good for the economy the part that is usually left out is that the beneficiaries are the employers who get to pay lower wages. Employees (the majority of the population) lose out due to increased workplace competition.