Who Voted For A Two-Tier Society?

Facts are stubborn things, so said the venerable John Adams. They're ugly things, on occasion. If you’re British, you were probably raised to believe our justice system is, and of a right ought to be, blind, impartial, and applicable to everyone equally — regardless of colour, creed, caste, class, or connections. But look closely at how certain crimes are policed, prosecuted, and punished in 21st century Britain, and you’ll see a very different reality thrust in your face: an unfamiliar country where some groups are socially divided along sociological lines so they can be treated with kid gloves, while others are made examples of. This theory has emerged from cheap, discredited sociology degrees.

The naivety of our politicians is a national security risk. The equality religion is an economic and cultural disaster. Holding public office means you are bound to seeing the world as it is, in reality at all costs, not how you want it to be. The seat of government is not a temple of your wishful desires. The world can be beautiful, but it is counter-balanced by what is ugly.

Since 2000, Islamist extremists have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of terror-related deaths in the UK. MI5’s own assessments make clear where the largest portion of their watchlist focus lies. Yet, despite this, the political establishment treads on eggshells — so desperate not to be accused of “Islamophobia” that they often avoid confronting the full scope of the threat.

The same double standard is seen in the rape gang scandals — industrial-scale child sexual exploitation in towns and cities across England and Wales. We were told these were “historic” offences. They weren’t. Many were happening under the noses of police and social workers who admitted — sometimes openly — they were afraid of being called "racist." Worse still, a disturbing number of police officers have apparently been involved. When was the last time fear stopped them from kicking down a door in a white working-class estate?

Then there’s female genital mutilation (FGM). We know it’s happening — NHS data alone records thousands of cases every year. Yet after decades of legislation, how many successful prosecutions have we had? Exactly. If this barbaric practice were being carried out by another group, the knock-on-the-door would have happened long ago.

Add in the higher-than-average prison representation, stubbornly low employment participation, over-representation in social housing, and stark health outcomes — and the question becomes unavoidable: why are the institutions which demand our trust refusing to confront problems when they involve certain communities?

Yes, not all Muslims. But what exactly is the threshold when it becomes the "significant percentage," "critical level," or "median demographic average"? What is that specific number? How many does it take? 2%? 40%? If a political revolution only needs 3.5%, what is the acceptable number of raped children before our politicians are allowed to point to a segment of the country and lay the blame at its door? How many Pakistani Home Secretaries have to say it?

How many years does it have to be 100% every time before it's no longer acceptable to cite small exceptions and claim the rule isn't true? Does a sunny day in winter mean it's not winter?

It’s not "racist" to ask these questions. It’s responsible. Because if we carry on with one set of laws for some and another for everyone else, we will tear apart the very fabric of our country.

The British people deserve equal protection under the law — and equal accountability to it. Anything else isn’t “diversity” or “tolerance” — it’s surrender. And it’s dangerous.