Monday, June 26, 2006

Your Government And You

It says a lot about Liberalism’s death grip on the justice system that the first measure John Reid took to crack down on paedophiles was to ban them being sent to hostels right next to schools and playgrounds. Well, yeah. At least paedophiles will now have to pay for a bus ticket if they want to stalk their prey, but the symbolism is there for all to see. The government is committed to waging war on pederasts, but no one thought that housing perverts right next to their prey might be a bad idea. Apparently, this is the one time in a thousand when Liberals aren’t obsessing about ‘sending the right message’.

Reid’s other brilliant idea is to send a junior minister to the US to see how their ‘Megan’s Law’ provisions work out. Let me save him the effort. ‘Megan’s Law’ means that the local community is informed of the location of paedophiles. That’s it. We’re not talking cold fusion here. Hey, you don’t think Reid’s trying to dodge the issue do you ?

As far as ‘Megan’s Law’ goes, the issue is simply whether or not you think the public has a right to know the location of paedophiles in their community or, as I like to think of it, whether public servants should conspire to enable perverts to stalk their prey in peace. Not that that sort of language goes down well with the Liberals. Au contraire, one of the defining features of the debate is the totally different attitude the Left adopts when it’s talking about perverts, as compared with the public.

Consider the two main Liberal objections to a British Megan’s Law, namely the idea that Joe Public is just itching to form a lynch mob, and the belief that many of the perverts who face exposure have been rehabilitated. So, we can’t trust Joe Public with the truth, but we can trust a guy with 25 convictions not to strike again. Uh huh. I guess we’re seeing why the government keeps getting skinned on those IT contracts.

Liberals think that the tidal wave of cases where supposedly rehabilitated offenders have struck again is mere anecdotal evidence. On the other hand, the few isolated cases of violence six years ago when a tabloid revealed that the government was secretly placing known perverts bang in the middle of areas full of kids are proof positive of the dangers of disclosure. You can tell how serious this violence was by the fact Liberals feel the need to lie about it. Take the most notorious case where a doctor was forced to flee her home by a rampaging mob too stupid to distinguish a paediatrician from a paedophile. Back in the day, Liberals didn’t realise they’d need this case as the centrepiece of their ‘keeping the public in the dark’ campaign, so they told the truth about it. Would that the Right had to lie about the dangers of paedophiles, but the truth is quite horrible enough.

Perhaps sensing that the public is not necessarily horrified by local communities demonstrating against having perverts foisted on them, Liberals’ fall back position is to claim that allowing predators to stalk their prey behind a veil of secrecy is actually the best way to control them. Libs claim that if perverts’ identities were widely known, they’d go underground. Actually, about six foot under would suit me fine, but as the Rotty Pup points out, isn’t that what we have now ? At least we’d no longer be paying taxes to help them stalk their prey in peace.

See, this is why I call these people ‘Liberals’. Nye Bevin might have had some stupid ideas, but you can’t imagine him and Clement Atlee burning the midnight oil discussing a Safety At Work Act for Ian Huntley. Indeed, it is Labour’s traditional supporter’s who are most disgusted with the Party’s de facto embrace of perverts.

Not that Conservative Party members have anything to feel proud about. Here’s Nu Lab getting hammered on precisely the issue the right of the Party always claimed was their weak link, and all the front bench has managed is David Davis raising the spectre of ‘mob law’(zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!).

Needless to say, political parties conspiring to block a law that’s supported by the vast majority of the public is the very essence of democracy. Gosh, I can’t see why the public is so disengaged from politics.

So why are these people so determined to prevent passage of a law that’s almost universally supported ? Well, actually, that’s kind of it. This BBC report reads almost like parody, so apparently certain is the author that invoking the name of a tabloid constitutes an actual argument. Our political classes has spun themselves so far down the rabbit hole of cynical, spin-doctored, post-modernist lunacy that they’re now incapable of adopting any actual positions other than sneering contempt for anybody who takes a moral position on anything. Oppose paedophilia ? Like some tabloid-reading prole ? Think of the cocktail party invitations they’d lose!

Not to go off at a tangent, but have you ever heard of a mob demonstrating against mobile phone masts ? Well, no. Not to say that there aren’t demonstrations, but they’re carried out by ‘protestors’. So, the ‘mobs’ are the people protesting against known killers, the ‘protestors’ are the people who think mobile phones are damaging their sonic resonances or whatever. Try explaining that to a man from Mars. Personally, I’m just happy we don’t have a class system in this country any more.

This is why this issue matters, not just because protecting kids from perverts is intrinsically worthwhile (doh!), or because it’s a winning issue politically (though it is), but because it is a perfect litmus test. A politician who takes a hard line on nonces is announcing that he’s there to represent his constituents, not the chattering classes.

No comments: