An Indian student Anuj Bidve was shot dead in Salford (Greater Manchester) on 26 December 2011. The attacker is described as white. The police have admitted that they have no grounds for believing that the crime was racially motivated, but have nonethless classified it as a “hate crime”, viz: ‘Chief Superintendent Kevin Mulligan, divisional commander for Salford, said: “We have not established a clear motive for the senseless murder of Anuj, and there is no definitive evidence pointing to it being racially motivated. However, we are treating this as a hate crime based on the growing perceptions within the community it was motivated by hate.”’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/29/anul-bidve-shooting-treated-hate-crime).
The decision to define it as a “hate crime” without any evidence that it was motivated by such feelings simply because the “community” think it is a “hate crime” moves the British elite’s pandering to ethnic minorities bar quite a few notches higher. The Macpherson report (1999) into the death of Stephen Lawrence defined a racist incident very broadly:
“DEFINITION OF RACIST INCIDENT
12. That the definition should be:
“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
13. That the term “racist incident” must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.
14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the Police, local Government and other relevant agencies. “ (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/sli-47.htm). This definition has not only been adopted by the British police (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/427/42703.htm) but by a supra-national body the Council of Europe (http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2011/10/macpherson-reports-definition-of-racist.html).
But dangerously broad as is Macpherson’s definition of the perception of racial motivation, I do not think that even he intended it to be extended to minority groups derived from one ethnic or racial background, people who will not have witnessed the crime, but who who are simply the same race or ethnicity as the victim. This is what has happened here.
The failure by the police to stipulate what type of “hate crime” is very odd and may also be a police first. The circumstances – white killer, Asian victim – suggest in the strongest way that the police mean the “hate crime” is one motivated by racism for what else could they be referring to if it was not race? As the killer was white it is unlikely he would have killed out of religious hatred. The only possibility other than racism, and it is a very slim one, is that the police are suggesting homophobia.
I also wonder exactly which “community” the Manchester police have in mind. The dead man is an Indian who was in England for the purposes of study according to the media reports. To which British, or even better, English “community” would he belong? Surely it could not be a “community” based solely on race in oh-so-pc Britain? Silly me, of course it could. If you are a member of an ethnic minority race can be waved as your identifying banner as vigorously as you wish for the white liberal elite and their ethnic minority auxiliaries are not going to be pouncing on you shouting “racist”. Rather, they will be cheering you on. But if it is a matter of race in this case it certainly cannot be the population of the area in which the shooting took place which are the concerned “community” because there are few sub-continental Asians there , the 2001 census showing the population of Salford to be 1.2% Muslim, 0.3% Hindu and 0.1% Sikh (http://tinyurl.com/7s9h4j4).
The police, quite exceptionally, have already offered a £50,000 reward for information leading to a conviction because “Det Ch Supt Mary Doyle, who is leading the murder inquiry, said: “It is an extremely unusual, savage and motiveless attack, an absolutely horrific crime, which is why we are taking the step of issuing [the reward] a bit earlier than we normally would “(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-16367931).
An “ absolutely horrific crime “ it may be, but it is sadly by no means rare these days to encounter such killings. The inhabitants of London are positively jaded with news reports of street shootings and knifings (which overwhelmingly involve blacks) . The Greater Manchester area is also notorious for gun crime, so much so it earned the nickname of Gunchester. In September 2011 in Salford a man was shot whilst drinking in at the bar in a pub. Doesn’t ring any bells? Well, no great surprise because this was the shooting of a white man Lee Erdmann and consequently the story made little headway in the national mainstream media. No surprise there because that media routinely under-report crimes against whites compared with similar crimes against ethnic minorities (http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/376f78149e885cfb8025796800604b2b.htm). His murder was also without apparent motive: “It is believed Lee had been standing at the bar, in the lounge of the pub, when another customer he had been talking to calmly shot him in the chest and then left. There had been no argument between the two men or anyone else.” The killer is still to be identified.
As for Anuj Bidve murder being a “motiveless attack”, no such attack is motiveless. All that can be said is that there is no known motive. Nor would the motive necessarily reflect well on the victim. It does seem odd to say the least that anyone would simply pull a gun and shoot a stranger on the spur of the moment (coolly according to reports) and then calmly melt away. It would be wise to wait to see if there was any connection between the killer and victim. It is worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of what might be described as “hitman killings “ in Britain are linked to drug turf wars.
More generally, the response of the police to this white on Asian killing demonstrates the vast difference in the behaviour of the police when faced with crimes involving white culprits and non-white victims (an almost automatic assumption of racial motive) and crimes involving non-white culprits and white victims (no assumption of racial motivation) . There is also a distinct reluctance in the police to describe crimes by one ethnic minority on another as being racially motivated.
The double standards operated by the police also extend to the justice system. Take the case of Somali Muslim girls – Ambaro and Hibo Maxamed, both 24, their sister Ayan, 28, and cousin Ifrah Nur 28 who recently appeared in court. They viciously attacked a white girl Rhea Page, 22, an attack in which part of Miss Page’s scalp was torn away, she was knocked to the ground and repeatedly kicked, including kicks to the head . Miss Page was left traumatised and lost her job as a result of the lasting effect the attack had on her. The attack was recorded and can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgIN4kBsNRg.
This attack resulted in charges of Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) when the assault could easily have resulted in the more serious charge of Grievous Bodily Harm. Despite the fact that they were screaming “white bitch” and “white slag ” at Miss Page, the attack was not treated as a racially motivated and hence aggravated crime. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1flw8TY6p). The four did not go to jail and received only 150 hours community work.
Another good example of the double standards in the British legal system occurred when white Christopher Yates was murdered by an Asian gang who were heard to make racist comments such as “That will teach the white man for interfering in Paki business.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4416988.stm). The Judge Martin Stephens bizarrely did not say the crime was racially aggravated because “Between you that morning, you attacked people of all races, white, black and Asian”, this being based on the evidence that “They racially abused a black resident and then moved on to a curry house where they assaulted an Asian waiter”.
Apart from the disparity in the treatment of white Britons and ethnic minorities by the law, there is the striking difference in the behaviour of politicians and the mainstream media in reporting allegations of white and allegations of ethnic minority racism. An attack by a white assailant on a black or Asian is routinely accepted as racist without any meaningful proof, the simple fact of it being a white assailant and a black victim being taken as proof enough. The reverse is the case where the assailant in black or Asian and the victim is white. There is also a massive difference in the elite response to white on black and black on white assaults or verbal racial abuse. Politicians and the media remain very quiet when the alleged racist is black, but are incontinent in their eagerness to condemn the alleged white malefactor. The never ending Stephen Lawrence saga is the prime example of the latter behaviour.