When Islamist terrorists repurposed airliners as weapons of mass destruction and murdered almost 3,000 innocent men, women and children 16 years ago, President Bush declared a ‘War on Terror’. He destroyed the governments of two countries, demonstrating to leaders the world over what would happen to their own states if they helped in the massacre of Americans on American soil in a cataclysmic attack. To date, further Islamist violence has been restricted to more low-level assaults. People were still dying in America before Donald Trump became President, but the death tolls of the attacks were measured in the dozens, not the thousands.
Liberals sniffed at Bush’s choice of words, declaring that war could not be waged on such an abstract concept as ‘terror’. It is therefore somewhat hypocritical for the same people to state that they believe in ‘equality’, which is ‘equally’ abstract.
To believe in equality is presumably to oppose inequality. This would indicate that inequality in age should not be a bar to sexual intercourse. Indeed, forty years ago, the Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) for a number of years at the same time as some people who are Labour MPs were working there in senior positions. When the government was legislating against child pornography in the 1970s, the NCCL, now called Liberty, argued that the laws should be not as stringent as proposed.
Ah, but that is different, the liberals will say. Really? So ‘limited equality’, ‘qualified equality’, perhaps. It’s either equality or it’s not. Paedophiles use an equality agenda to campaign for the lowering of the age of consent or its abolition.
Perhaps child rape is an exception to the ‘equality agenda’. Okay. Perhaps there are others that are equally exempt.
Consider the Olympics. Only one person or team can win the gold medal in each event. An equality agenda would require the abolition of competitive sports, it would appear, or the requirement for handicaps, so no one could win. Certainly, The Guardian’s sniffy attitude to the success of Team GB at the last three Olympics might be explained as part of an equality agenda. It does not do for the liberals to show that some British people are genuinely better than some foreigners, or to applaud that fact. Perhaps the absence of silverware garnered by the England football team since 1966 may be explained by ‘equality’.
Those facing open-heart surgery generally prefer it to be performed on them by someone properly trained and qualified. An inequality in medical ability and surgical skill seems unimportant when the surgeon is through a ribcage and fiddling away with his (or her) tools. Patients might not be happy if their surgeon is there only on the basis of an equality agenda.
Ah, but that is different, the liberals will say. More ‘limited equality’. Equality does not seem to matter in cases of dire need.
Equality is not just about stating that a road-sweeper adept at keeping streets clean should be permitted to perform coronary artery bypass grafting. It also concerns a refusal to recognise differences. Jeremy Corbyn refused to recognise the difference between a Marxist South American government using violence to seize power from a lawfully elected assembly and the people who resist this illegal revolution. This is despite the fact that the government forces are better-armed and more ruthless. Corbyn and his fellow-travellers cannot tell the difference between the regime of President Assad of Syria, with its torture and death camps, and the Syrian civilians fighting against his despotic rule. They cannot tell the difference between a Russian Tupolev bomber destroying a hospital and other civilian facilities, and the people trying to keep themselves alive in the face of this onslaught.
But Corbyn’s wilful blindness is also closer to home. He cannot tell the difference between the organised gang rapes that took place in Rotherham and rapes that happen under more opportunistic circumstances, and refuses to discuss the matter, stating: ‘Child exploitation is wrong, child abuse is wrong, it’s a crime that has to be dealt with . . . you have to deal with the crime of what it is’. Corbyn does not want to state exactly what the crime is for the same reasons the politicians and officials of Rotherham, a solid Labour area, did not want to ‘deal with the crime’.
He required his shadow minister on the matter, Sarah Champion, to quit her post for merely repeating the content of public reports. While there has been investigation into the victims and the crimes perpetrated on them, there has been insufficient focus on the organisation of the rape gangs and the social and economic relationships between the groomers and the men to whom they furnished their young victims. This was organised crime. It has to be addressed as such and not treated like a series of single crimes. In the name of ‘equality’, the feminists have also been as silent as Corbyn.
Equality of cultures, or multiculturalism, has resulted in a home-grown terrorist threat that cannot be removed, and will result in the cumulative murder of thousands over the coming years. It also means that cultures that treat women as mere chattels are given the same esteem as those that don’t. This is the reason why the rape, murder, and mutilation of the daughters in families with Third World-heritage cultures are not subject to the same feminist outrage as the historic depiction of topless women on Page 3 of The Sun. In the name of ‘equality’, the sisterhood should also be outraged that the Daily Star carries on this tradition. Strangely, they are not. Richard Desmond, with a history as a publisher of pornography, has for some reason not attracted the same feminist ire as Rupert Murdoch, who does not share the same publishing history.
Equality is an unrealistic abstract. Equal rights, equal opportunities are not. But these are limited as well. A person with no A-levels would not have an ‘equal opportunity’ to go to Oxford University by way of an equal right. Examinations are discriminatory by their very nature. Some people pass, others fail. Demanding ‘equality’ despite exam failure makes a mockery of the exam process. Again, people generally prefer professionals to have ability and achievement instead of being there to fill a quota. An assumption that there is an endless supply of competent professionals in a given field available from every walk of life is an assumption too far.
Differing opinions are not given equal consideration. There is evidence that the BBC did not practise ‘equality’ over its coverage of the pro- and anti-EU arguments prior to the referendum. A similar ‘equality’ does not exist over the global warming debate or the coverage of major events. A pro-EU march in central London a few weeks back was heavily reported by the BBC. An anti-terrorism march by thousands last weekend in the same place was ignored.
So there does not seem to be much equality in equality. But this is natural. Humans are not identical machines. We are inherently not equal, to be subject to some social mathematical equation. To treat us as equal is akin to animal husbandry, where the difference between one sheep and another matters not when they are destined to produce lamb hotpot or a Pringle sweater.
People are different and want to be so. Some differences should be approved, others, not. The ‘equality’ industry refuses to acknowledge this, and people suffer as a result. There is really only one true equality and that is the equality of our inevitable mortality.