One of my favorite traditional English songs mentions ‘Rotherham, in Yorkshire’ in the lyrics. Today the name ‘Rotherham’ calls up very sinister and unpleasant connotations, at least for those seeming few Americans who are paying attention.
If you read my piece which touches on this situation on the other blog you know my opinions about this, about how Americans disparage the English or the British for their lack of action.
But read the piece from the Iconconlast/New English Review to see what the situation is like there: the police appear complicit.
“Rotherham police chief: we ignored sex abuse of children’. With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out.“
This is so distasteful, this whole situation, that I think a lot of us shy away from it, avoid discussing it except maybe in private conversations with people we know well, and people who are not going to throw tantrums if they are hearing things that violate their ‘snowflake’ preconceptions, or their politically correct religion.
I’m not an exception; I don’t like discussing these things, but even less do I like the fact that these things are happening. And what was Edmund Burke’s famous saying? “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Actually if we want to be pedantic Burke didn’t say that. According to this website, J.S. Mill said something like it before Burke made his statement.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Attributed to Edmund Burke, including by John F Kennedy in a speech in 1961. Burke didn’t say it, and its earliest form was by John Stuart Mill, who said in 1867: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Thanks to Andrew Marshall.
[Bolding at the end of the quote is mine.]
But to return to the point here, the bad men who are carrying out this systematic Rotherham atrocity (and I call it that purposely) are finding that the ‘good men’ seem to be ”looking on and doing nothing.” That’s at least the belief of the Rotherham perpetrators, and seemingly of many Americans who post comments online. People seem to have decided that Britain is essentially a lost cause, an island of people who don’t love their children and don’t have any revulsion towards evil.
But is that true? The hands of the British public have been tied, where legal options are concerned, and the ‘hate speech’ laws have criminalized even telling the truth about this situation — the perpetrators are of a shielded and protected group, who are apparently being given carte blanche to carry out this demoralizing and degrading action against a lot of young people who will be damaged physically, psychically, and spiritually, as will their families and thus the whole town. And the worse thing is that this situation in Rotherham is not isolated, not a one-off situation. It’s apparently being done or has been done in various English towns.
Fathers have tried to get help from the so-called law-enforcement authorities, and have been accused and imprisoned for doing so, in some cases. This is as I said on the other piece I just wrote.
Surely we owe some sympathy rather than disdain and condemnation towards the families of these young people. What can the populace do if the authorities seem to be siding against them, rather than the criminals?
For whom do the ‘law-enforcers’ work? Are they supposed to defend their own folk, or people who are a danger to the citizenry?
And do we in America have a right to criticize or condemn, when our folk, too, have been victims of known criminals? What about Kate Steinle in San Francisco? Not the same situation, obviously, but whose side were the authorities on? Where was justice there? And what has been done to rectify it? What can we do? Nothing as long as ‘our’ leaders continue to appear to be against us.
I should not feel the need to be constrained in saying what I am saying, because our system, our Constitution supposedly guarantees us the right to free speech, and to speak truth, and to petition for our grievances, to ‘cry in the street’ our grievances. But the fact is we don’t have free speech, and others who claim to be ”offended” can silence us with just a word of complaint. Who is preferred here? Or in the UK?
As to our rights, which are now under attack everywhere it seems, the late R. Carter Pittman wrote a lot about these things, years ago. On the first Amendment:
The First Amendment doesn’t say that those rights are given to the people. It says the people never gave them away. That Amendment is based upon the proposition that freedom of religion, freedom to speak, to write and to sigh and to cry, to assemble and to pray for deliverance from grievances, are the gift of God—not governments—and that they are held by the leave of no man and no government on earth. If government can give a right it can take it away or it can license the exercise of it.”
In much of the former Western world, former Christendom, those rights were protected almost universally, except in the Eastern bloc totalitarian systems. But though we are not in the best of shape here, the UK seems to be gone further down the Orwellian path; it may be that we will follow right behind them unless things turn around. But without the right to speak freely, or to even name known wrongdoers for fear of punishment by the Powers, do they have freedom?
Do we? So far we still have a little leeway to speak or write — but it seems to be shrinking by the day. More and more we have to take care what we say, with what words we say it, and to whom or about whom we say it or write it.
But to condemn other peoples because they find themselves deprived of the ‘rights of Englishmen’ as we and they once had is misplaced. Most of us did not believe we could ever have our ‘inviolable’ rights taken away; some just can’t believe the brazenness with which it’s being done, and it’s taken many of us by surprise. We weren’t vigilant in protecting our liberties, as we were told to ‘guard’ our liberties zealously. We haven’t. Neither have our British and English cousins. We are all facing the same quandary.
In the meantime the Rotherham-style crimes go on, as the local ‘authorities’ go on protecting the perpetrators, and it seems as in Mill’s words, ”good men look on and do nothing.” But some have tried, and were thwarted.
But as I’ve said before when questioning that spurious quote from Edmund Burke, if a man looks on evil and does nothing, is he a good man? No good man can look on evil dispassionately. Only amoral, hollowed-out, demoralized people can do that. And there are such people; we see them, and the results of their lack of righteousness.
I feel the need to add that no good man looks on the misfortune and suffering of others and turns away in indifference, and no good man or woman derides others’ troubles. I see that happening in this situation.
We have our own problems to solve; our problems are not completely unlike what our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic are facing. They may differ in degree but not in kind. We can’t afford to look down on the people over there, or feel morally superior to them. Only the soulless cynics are prone to do that.