A physician/social critic is worried about England

Physician and social critic Theodore Dalrymple returned to his native England recently. He found there:

a strange inversion of proper priorities, important matters are taken lightly and trivial ones taken seriously.

Dalrymple offers many examples to illustrate his point.

Here's an example of a serious matter taken lightly:

(A) 42-year-old barrister, Peter Wareing, (was) attacked in the street while walking home from a barbecue with two friends, a man and a woman. They passed a group of seven teenagers who had been drinking heavily, one of whom, a girl, complained that the barrister and his friends were “staring” at them. Nowadays, English youth of aggressive disposition and porcelain-fragile ego regard such alleged staring as a justified casus belli.

The girl attacked the woman in the other party. When Wareing and his male friend tried to separate them, two of the youths, aged 18 and 16, in turn attacked them. They hit the barrister’s friend into some bushes, injuring him slightly, and then knocked the barrister to the ground, knocking him down a second time after he had struggled to his feet.

This second time, his head hit the ground, injuring his brain severely. He was unconscious and on life support for two months afterward. At first, his face was so disfigured that his three children were not allowed to see him.
The doctors told his wife, a nurse, that he was unlikely to survive, and she prepared the children for their father’s death. …

Nevertheless, (Wareing) made an unexpected, though partial, recovery. His memory remains impaired, as does his speech; he may never be able to resume his legal career fully. It is possible that his income will be much lower for the rest of his life than it would otherwise have been, to the great disadvantage of his wife and children.

One of the two assailants, Daniel Hayward, demonstrated that he had learned nothing—at least, nothing of any comfort to the public—after he had ruined the barrister’s life. While awaiting trial on bail, he attacked the landlord of a pub and punched him in the face, for which he received a sentence of 21 days in prison.

Dalrymple reports that when sentencing the violent criminals, the judge spoke stern words.

On learning that, you many be thinking: “In America, “stern words” from a judge are often followed by a soft sentence. Is it the same in England?”

It was in this case:

Both received sentences of 18 months, with an automatic nine-month remission, more or less as of right.

In other words, they would serve nine months in prison for having destroyed the health and career of a completely innocent man, caused his wife untold suffering, and deprived three young children of a normal father.

One of the perpetrators, too, had shown a complete lack of remorse for what he had done and an inclination to repeat it.

It’s all terrible, isn’t it?

But American’s shouldn’t be surprised. Such things and much worse happen every day on our streets and in our courtrooms.

Here's an example Dalrymple provides of something trivial in England that authorities there took very, very seriously:

The newspapers reported the case of an Oxford student who, slightly drunk after celebrating the end of his exams, approached a mounted policeman. “Excuse me,” said the young man to the policeman, “do you realize your horse is gay?”

This was not a very witty remark, but it was hardly filled with deep malice either. It was, perhaps, a manifestation of the youthful silliness of which most of us have been guilty in our time….

The policeman did not think the student’s remark was innocent, however.

He called two squad cars to his aid, and, in a city in which it is notoriously difficult to interest the police in so trivial a matter as robbery or burglary, they arrived almost at once.

Apparently, the mounted policeman thought—if thought is quite the word I seek—that the young man’s remark was likely to “cause harassment, alarm or distress.” He was arrested and charged under the Public Order Act for having made a “homophobic remark.”
The young man spent a night in jail.

Brought before the magistrates the following day, he was fined $140, which he refused to pay.

The police then sent the case to the equivalent of the district attorney, who brought the student before the courts again but had to admit that there was not enough evidence to prove that his conduct had been disorderly.

The degree to which political correctness has addled British consciousness, like a computer virus, and destroyed all our traditional attachment to liberty, is illustrated by the words of one of the student’s friends who witnessed the incident. “[His] comments were . . . in jest,” he said. “It was very clear that they were not homophobic.” (bold added - JinC)

In other words, the friend accepted the premise that certain remarks, well short of incitement to commit violence or any actual crime—words that merely expressed an unpopular or intolerant point of view—would have constituted reasonable grounds for arrest.

I can't help but wonder what would've been the reaction in England or here if Mr. Hayward was gay and said his attackers called him "gay" just before attacking him.

"HATE CRIME" headlines? Mass protest vigils? A statement from the Prime Minister saying such "hate" has no place in Britain?

And the sentence? Nine months? That would have been OK?

The PC crowd is mostly interested in special treatment for it selected favorites.

You want a safe society with equal justice for all? You don't believe there should be selective outrage and punishment when a heinous crime is committed?

If you do, get ready: The PC crowd is going to call you a "conservative."

Dalrymple's article is in City Journal. It's lengthy but well worth your time.

Hat Tip: Newmark's Door