Tuesday 9 February 2010

The Macphearson Report: Guilty as Charged - By Dr Frank Ellis

The Macpherson Report: Guilty as Charged

I am a racist. I must be because Sir William Macpherson of Cluny said that I am; the Home Secretary said that I am; countless members of the public at the Stephen Lawrence inquiry hearings said that I am; and I have found inside myself evidence of subtle prejudice, preconception and indirect discrimination. It is for others to decide about their own racism. I am for change inside myself and in the behaviour of myself and others.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is an institutionally racist organisation. It must be because Sir William said that it is; the Home Secretary said that it is; and countless members of the public at the inquiry hearings said that it is.

John Grieve, ‘The evidence against me is compelling. I am a policeman guilty of racism’, The Daily Telegraph, 10th May 2000, p.15.

© Frank Ellis 2010

If there is one thing that symbolizes the treachery and the self-loathing of the Conservative/Labour political class and which characterizes the general contempt for our country and people it is The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny (1999). Now widely and infamously known as the Macpherson Report, this document was never exclusively designed, or ever intended, to be what the sub-title promised. From the very outset Macpherson and what are referred to as his advisors – Tom Cook, John Sentamu and Richard Stone – used the circumstances of Stephen Lawrence’s murder as an opportunity to declare war on white Britain, her institutions, her culture, language and her people. Such was the near total grovelling acceptance of the report and its recommendations that any criticism was immediately denounced as racism. The atmosphere towards dissenters can only be described as Stalinist. Having read the Macpherson Report - I suspect that I remain one of the very few people in the UK who actually took the time and trouble to read it – I felt compelled to attack this vicious, racist attack on my country and people.

As I pointed out in my essay, The Macpherson Report: “Anti-Racist” Hysteria and the Sovietization of the United Kingdom (2001), one of the major consequences of the Macpherson Report has been the climate of fear and intimidation it has induced such that it was almost impossible to address black crime, educational failure and other manifestations of black anti-social and pathological behaviour without being denounced as a racist. On the public sector, especially universities and police forces up and down the country the consequences of the Macpherson Report have been insidious and profoundly corrupting.

For example, in 2000, Leeds University tried to prevent me from delivering a lecture on the Macpherson ReportAmerican Renaissance conference. I circumvented this ugly and despicable attack on my intellectual freedom, travelling to, and returning from, the conference over a weekend. It goes without saying that I was never forgiven for attacking Macpherson’s conclusions, certainly not by the university, and my promotion prospects, based on an objective measure of my teaching and research, which were excellent, were permanently damaged. at the biennial

In my essay I predicted that Macpherson’s recommendations would have serious consequences for education and universities. So it proved. The Race Relations Act was amended in order to impose an obligation on universities and other public sector bodies to promote good relations between different racial groups. This clause was used against me in March 2006 when Leeds University under pressure from the Commission for Racial Equality suspended me and then sought to dismiss me through an internal hearing because, once again, I had highlighted the failures of multiculturalism. That attempt failed, and failed badly, but it should never have been made in the first place. I know that I was not the sole objector to the way in which the Macpherson Report and multiculturalism were being exploited by neo-Marxists and their useful idiots to undermine this country. But those in universities who agreed with me remained silent (with some worthy exceptions). Immigration, multiculturalism and Islamic terrorism are not benign: they are deadly threats to the survival of the United Kingdom and it must be possible for academics and others to speak out without their being vilified, harassed and suspended. Leeds University had serious problems with Islamic extremists when I taught there and I saw little evidence that they were being addressed. In fact, the government has drawn up a list of universities in which Islamic extremism is a serious problem. The government refuses to publish the list but I venture that Leeds University would be one of the universities on that list.

The full effects of the Macpherson Report on the police, especially in London, are now fully revealed in the aftermath of the trial and conviction of Ali Dizaei, the criminal in uniform. He escaped prosecution in 1999 because, in the hysteria induced by publication of the Macpherson Report, the will and determination of senior officials to pursue the case collapsed. Regarding the institutional cowardice and loss of will of the Metropolitan Police Service the response of John Grieve, then director of the Metropolitan Police’s Racial Task Force, to the Macpherson Report, cited above, speaks for itself in all its self-incriminating and Orwellian gruesomeness. A malign influence on the whole process, serving to blacken and to poison the waters and ever ready to emit squeals of racism when it suits its selfish and destructive purposes, has undoubtedly been the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association. This clique can insist on evolutionary and genetic origins as criteria for membership while insisting that race is a social and political construct. I have no objection to black-only organisations but how in the atmosphere of the self-righteous Macphersonism that has polluted and corrupted the police since 1999 has it ever been possible to justify and to tolerate the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association? Is the right of association a right that only blacks and other non-whites can enjoy? And what public confidence can repose in an organization whose members are police officers yet are solely concerned to push the black agenda? The fact that Ali Dizaei, the criminal in uniform, was treated as if he was a protected species and got away with his disgraceful behaviour for so long illustrates what happens when the black agenda is put before sound, operational principles of policing.

That the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association puts the black agenda before sound policing and the safety of the public (black and white) was in evidence when John Humphrys interviewed Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police and Alfred John, a representative of the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association on the Today programme (after the 0800 hrs news bulletin, 9th February 2010). In the preamble to the interview and in the course of the interview Humphrys asked whether political correctness had gone too far. As usual Paddick dissembled, psychologically unable to face up to the obvious that the doublethink induced by multiculturalism and political correctness had indeed made it possible for Ali Dizaei to avoid being exposed and punished for so long. Let us recall that this is the same Paddick who after the Islamic terrorist attacks of 7th July 2005 said that: ‘As far as I’m concerned Islamic and terrorist are two words that do not go together’. The truth of the matter is that the criminal in uniform got away with it because senior police officers failed to discharge their duty. What does it tell us about Paddick who knew and worked with Ali Dizaei when, in response to Humphrys, he told listeners that Ali Dizaei was ‘a likeable rogue’ and ‘a useful flag bearer for the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association’?

Both Paddick and John hold the view that the Police are still ‘institutionally racist’. To justify this assertion they pointed out that blacks were 7 or more times likely to be stopped and searched than others (Paddick) and the fact that there were not many ‘senior officers of colour’ was also cited as evidence (John). Both Paddick and John succumbed to the disparity ratio fallacy. Statistical data may well show that blacks are underrepresented in the upper echelons of the police or that blacks are stopped and searched more often than whites but this does not mean that there is some white racist agenda to deny blacks promotion or to stop and search blacks for no apparent cause. Logically, one would have to concede the possibility that there are whites who are racist and utterly determined to thwart the promotion of able blacks. Unfortunately for the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association the well documented cowardice and failure of senior police officers to resist accusations of racism, when baited by black and white hate groups, the BBC and the Guardian-reading classes, militates against such an ego-stroking and self-serving explanation.

Citing under representation of blacks is misleading since it suggests some unknown, malevolent factor is responsible for stopping blacks from occupying senior positions. Of course, as far as the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association is concerned this factor is racism in all its protean forms: institutional; unwitting; covert; overt; and any other still-to-be-invented forms. A suitable response to Paddick and John is to argue that blacks are not underrepresented but that they are represented at all levels of the police commensurate with their ability and aptitudes. In other words, the mean ability of blacks lags behind the mean ability of whites (a finding that would also be consistent with low mean black IQ when compared with mean white IQ). The outcome is fewer blacks in senior positions. The other possibility and one that is credible and probable in view of Macphersonism is that blacks are over represented commensurate with any ability since white superiors will recommend promotion in order to avoid any accusations of racism. That this procedure must inevitably damage the career prospects of able white officers is of no consequence to frightened senior ranks. Nor does it follow that if blacks are stopped far more often than whites that the police are racist. All the evidence shows that blacks are far more likely to be arrested and incarcerated because they do indeed commit more violent crime. The wave of knife and gun crime which afflicts many British cities is largely a black problem. Arrest data from the US support the same conclusion. It is therefore right and proper that blacks be stopped and searched more than other groups. Racial profiling is efficient, saves money and lives. It should be a standard and well publicised police technique in the fight against street crime and terrorism.

The conviction of Ali Dizaei is an opportunity for the government to acknowledge the catastrophic influence of the Macpherson Report and to try to make good some of the damage done. Naturally, I hold no hope that this will happen. The Macpherson Report should be formally and publicly denounced for the slipshod, anti-white and dangerously sentimental work it indisputably is. Many of its recommendations should be urgently reviewed and where necessary revoked. It should also serve as an opportunity to make it crystal clear to non-white, special-interest groups and their white supporters that they shall not receive any special benefits or favours because they are black. Merit alone shall be the decisive factor in career advancement. If that means that there are fewer blacks in senior positions throughout the public sector, then that is the way things should be. The white indigenous population is neither responsible nor liable for black failure and should not be made to feel that it is. Blacks should cease using racism as an excuse for their failure and take a long, hard look at themselves not whites. Naturally, if they find life in Britain so intolerable, a warm welcome awaits them at Heathrow.


misterfox said...

I am very pleased to see this on Sarah's blog. I read Frank's book on The Macpherson Report and its part in Sovietising the UK. This needs to be publicised to get it more widely understood by the public.

alanorei said...

Thank you for this voice of reason, Sarah

Here is the case of Dr. Arthur Jensen, who was treated the same way that Dr. Ellis was by his institution.

This is from The Dispossessed Majority by American author, Wilmot Robertson, published in 1981, p 294.

Dr Arthur R. Jensen is director of the Institute of Human Learning at the University of California and vice-president of the American Educational Research Association. The Harvard Educational Review (Winter, 1969) was largely devoted to Jensen's statistics-studded examination of the inability of education to correct genetic differences in Negro and white intelligence. After publication, Jensen received an unprecedented amount of hate mail, including a few death threats.

In Berkeley, the Students for a Democratic Society engaged a sound truck to demand Jensen's dismissal, later invading his classroom and forcing him to hold his classes in secret. He finally had to call on the police to protect his files and had to keep the lights on in his office all night to discourage looters.

A number of his liberal colleagues brought him before a specially organised investigators board with all the trappings of a medieval witch trial - the first time in American academic history that a professor has had to defend a scholarly paper before an inquisitorial proceeeding that included videotape cameras. New York Times Magazine, Aug. 31, p. 11.

In 1970 a group of Harvad students called on the Harvad Educational Review to turn over to the Black Panther legal fund all revenues from the sale or distribution of the Jensen article. They further demanded that all copies and reprints in circulation be destroyed and no further reproduction and distribution be permitted.

In addition to the heresy of racism, the fundamental charge against Jensen was that I.Q. tests were culturally biased against nonwhites, although Orientals sometimes obtained higher scores than "whites" (a category that often included Hispanics) and American Indians did better than blacks.

Jensen demolished these allegations in his book, Bias in Mental Testing, The Free Press, New York, 1980.

In the meantime, a federal court judge in San Francisco ruled that I.Q. tests were biased, and another federal judge in Chicago ruled they were not.

Another case of trying to shoot the messenger, to pander to the race Gestapo.