A scandal has raged this past week in England involving racially insensitive Tweets that landed the racially insensitive Tweeter behind bars. Liam Stacey was targeted and caged because they knew that almost nobody would want to defend him.
Like any white person who does anything that is deemed “racist,” Stacey stands in Himmler’s shadow and elicits a similar amount of public sympathy. In the modern multicultural society, being a “racist” is put on a par with pregnancy. It’s not a question of degree; it’s all or nothing. Unlike pregnancy, you can’t even have an abortion, just a slow, painful course of liberal chemotherapy, with the constant fear that the self-appointed doctors of moral hygiene will say you’re still not cured. Pin the “R” word on somebody and you can forget all that legal crap about the Magna Carta and freedom of speech.
This is what has happened to Stacey, a young man sent to jail for 56 days for making jeering comments on Twitter about the heart attack suffered during a match by black football player Fabrice Muamba.
Mocking a man at death’s door on Twitter is terrible. Adding racial epithets obviously doesn’t help, either:
Liam Stacey’s real crime was being in charge of a Twitter account while under the influence of alcohol. His contrarian stance to the great tabloid-driven outpouring of national sympathy following the incident certainly did not go down well with Judge John Charles. Channeling the media mob’s mood, Charles said, ‘‘I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done.” If public outrage determines prison sentences, why isn’t Tony Blair currently serving life?
But what is the correct, calm, and proportionate response to this kind of stupid behavior? This would depend on what kind of person you are, what kind of person you thought Mr. Stacey was, and the intervening social strata.
Ignoring him may have been in the best interests of the commissariat that is increasingly trying to impose political correctness on the UK, because cases such as this can quickly become polarizing. Bringing Twitter to the legal bench in this way is the equivalent of sifting through the conversations, correspondence, and thoughts of a large proportion of our racially divided society’s population. Is that likely to increase racial harmony?
After Stacey made his comments he was taken to task by other Twitter users, a bit like someone turning round in a pub and saying, “Shut up, you idiot!”
But instead of leaving it there—exactly where it should have been left—it came to the attention of the UK’s increasingly plugged-in PC Stasi. The itch, which had already been scratched enough, was then officially cut open with a legal scalpel and probed for signs of moral cancer and ideological heresy.
Back in 1967 William Rees-Mogg, the editor of the Times newspaper, wrote an influential editorial entitled “Who Breaks a Butterfly Upon a Wheel?” regarding the prison sentence passed on The Rolling Stones’ Mick Jagger and Keith Richards for drug possession. Mogg’s main point was that conservatives in the judiciary who disapproved of the Stones’ lifestyle singled them out to set an example.
“There must remain a suspicion in this case that Mr. Jagger received a more severe sentence than would have been thought proper for any purely anonymous young man,” Mogg wrote. Jagger’s sentence was later quashed and he got off with a lecture.
Stacey is such a “purely anonymous young man,” but that doesn’t mean he can’t be used as an example. The multiculturalist establishment knows that its immigration and refugee policies have created a society where race is on people’s minds all the time—in effect a racist society.
The costs of this are enormous, as we see in America’s Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case. In such societies whenever there is a minor incident where different races are involved the problem is instantly magnified and becomes insoluble.
In the same way that the 1960s’ Tory judiciary feared marijuana smoke wafting down Carnaby Street turning the nation’s youth into an army of freely copulating hopheads, so today’s multicultural establishment fears the spread of increasing racial consciousness powered by social media on the simmering contradictions of the society they have created.
The Romans knew much more about handling their underclass. They gave them hate-filled arenas, stained with the blood of beasts and men, in which they could jeer and sneer and vent their aggressive passions. In this way peace was maintained among the non-military populations of their vast polyglot empire.
Football used to serve a similar function in working-class British culture by diverting intense tribalist passions away from the nation’s political bloodstream. But as the PC Stasi increasingly polices even football—with chants, songs, and animal noises banned—so we have seen the growth of more politically charged alternatives such as the English Defence League. Is that what they want? I wonder.
I have no wish to defend Stacey. The fact that I called him a “cockroach” in the title should make that abundantly clear. For all I know, he may be a perfectly normal working-class kid who said the wrong thing at the wrong time, or he might be a creep. We have already become better acquainted with him than any of us deserves.
Defending him, however, would simply have narrowed the focus down to the cockroach. People should be looking at the wheel and wondering why so much pressure is being brought to crush someone for such a trivial incident.
Copyright 2013 TakiMag.com and the author. This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order reprints for distribution by contacting us at email@example.com.