Shut Down the Nincompoop Commission!
TRY TO imagine a political party with the following manifesto: more rights for gipsies, giving prisoners the vote, being soft on anti-capitalism protesters and making it easier for trade unions to strike.
Readers, I can sense your snouts tingling.
I just know you would relish having such a party on the ballot paper -- if only to avoid it. Our imaginary political party -- perhaps we can call it the Party of Loon -- believes terrorism-related offences should carry no higher constraints on the freedom of suspects than other alleged crimes.
Shoplifting and the planting of bombs on the London Underground, in other words, shall be approached equally.
The Loonies (as we will call followers of this Party of Loon) are against prohibiting terrorist organisations because that might infringe their egalitarian rights, poor darlings.
The Loonies argue against the detention of asylum-seekers. They also, rather gratuitously, repeat unsubstantiated slurs about the mistreatment of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers.
Oh, and they happily spend millions of pounds of public money -- your money, taken from your wages -- on propaganda officers specialising in race relations, militant secularism and transgender rights outreach. Quite a manifesto, is it not? How many votes do you think the Party of Loon would receive? Fewer, I suspect, than the Lib Dems or UKIP. It might even do worse than the British National Party, whose uncongenial grunts are usually held to be beyond the pale of the body politic.
Expensive A party which stood on the policies I have listed would probably lose its deposit in every constituency throughout the kingdom, save perhaps in trendy Islington.
So why does the current Government, like its Labour predecessor, tolerate just such a platform of Left-wing madness from an expensive state body? And why are we paying at least [pounds sterling]70 million a year for the privilege? The organisation is the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC,) which yesterday presented those damaging proposals -- and more -- in its loftysounding 'human rights review'. Confronted by that jumble of letters, EHRC, your eyes perhaps glaze. The same letters, in a slightly different order, stand for the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Confusion is to be sympathised with, for both organisations are remote organs of the anti-democratic Left.
The EHRC is the outfit which is led by suave Trevor Phillips, that Labour-leaning friend of Peter Mandelson.
It was set up only in 2007 and it exists to enforce, promote and clarify the egalitarian agenda and equality laws which were pushed through by Harriet Harman in the New Labour years. In short, it is a thorough menace which we can no longer afford. When will the politicians admit as much? Despite the fancy title, its 'human rights review' yesterday was, in many ways, a statement of the obvious. The EHRC, whose officers are paid fat wages to campaign for more equality and human rights, thinks that more must be done to achieve 'equality'.
Blow me down with a peashooter.
Public sector staff engaged in a spot of job justification? You don't say!
The review was the result of more than two years' 'work' and cost a reported [pounds sterling]150,000. That sum, like so much else produced by the EHRC, appears to be disingenuous because it does not include labour costs.
It certainly did not include the [pounds sterling]252,000 annual pay of the EHRC's 'director of engagement and intelligence', Richard Emmott.
All human beings are equal, but Comrade Emmott -- whose intelligence must be open to question, given the guff he produces -- is more equal than others.
Fanfare A true analysis of the cost of this chin-stroking 'human rights review', which was launched with as little press fanfare as possible, would include the price of the thousands of bureaucrats made necessary by the attendant rules and regulations. …