Cancel Culture Justice

 So a Bristol jury have decided ...

Taking The Law Into Your Own Hands Is Vigilante Justice

... that a bunch of white Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters were not guilty of criminal damage, when they toppled over a public statue of a long dead white man, of whom they suddenly disapproved. 

Its strange how its left-wing whites, who always seem to be at the forefront of the BLM movement in the UK, and I would like to bet that few if any, of the blacks in the Bristol crowd had even heard of Edward Colston before his statue was pointed out to them at the event.

In fact of course the BLM movement in the UK was almost certainly started on some university campus by students ... its mission statement used to include the idea that the 'Black Lives Matter Movement UK is for revolutionary change' ... they seem to have removed that now and toned down the wording (if not necessarily the idea).

BLM Originally Calls For 'Revolutionary Change'

But its even possible that it was started in a pub, with some tiny hard-line socialist or anarchist party, that supports anything and any cause, where there is likely to be a crowd, and a chance to take direct action i.e attack property or the police, or both.

Their justification for their now non criminal actions were that others were "whitewashing history" by calling Colston a "virtuous man". One added that "We didn't change history, we rectified it." Edward Colston of course was a participant in the African slave trade, but was generous to his home town of Bristol, endowing huge sums of money to charitable causes in Bristol (which was why the grateful local burghers put up a statue to him in the 17th century).

However despite them admitting to participating in the toppling and destruction of the statue, the jury perversely found them not guilty of criminal damage. I can only assume that they felt that they had to agree with thuggish actions, or be accused of racism .... but they have now opened up a can of worms.

The Left, now emboldened, will be able to select other targets and topple their statues .... Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher are obvious targets. Churchill for suggesting that a social Darwinian hierarchy existed across the globe, in which black people were then at the bottom of. However in 1906, Churchill stated that "We will endeavour ... to advance the principle of equal rights of civilized men irrespective of colour," which was an enlightened view at the time.

And Mrs Thatcher because, well principally because she's Thatcher and they just hate her, but also because she had declared the African National Congress to be a "terrorist" organisation (although she also gave these very same "terrorists" diplomatic protection in London). She also had opposed sanctions on white minority ruled South Africa as being counter-productive to social changes.

Of course this toxic cancel culture movement is maybe OK if you agree with their targets, but of course that ends soon enough, and the next targets chosen by the movement will get evermore wide ranging ... and as its a minority group who run it, democratic argument is not part of the process. Right is Might in this scenario, and the attempts edit history will just cast an ever wider web.

As we have seen in the Labour Party in the last few years, many on the far left (and not so far left if truth be told), are anti-semitic and happily tolerate these views (justified as being support for the Palestinians). So once you have cancelled any white men with whose views you disagree, then by logic, the Jews (who by suppressing the Arabs are obviously by definition "racists"), could well be the next target for statue toppling and cancelling.

Or maybe you go the other way and hunt down the statues of those who are now declared 'anti-semites' (admittedly very unlikely given recent left-wing views on this subject) .... Nancy Astor, the first female MP to sit in the UK Parliament was also anti-Semitic in some of her views, and has a statue in London.

This sort of non democratic, one subject movement, always ends the same way in pogroms .... as the the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller once famously wrote (about the rise of the Nazi's).

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist.
 

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me ....

Once a jury gives the green light to a small non democratic group, to carry out selective attacks on those who they disagree with, it opens the doors to more such actions .... we all know how that then ends ... Capitol Hill.