Would baby Charlie have gotten his death sentence were he not a white boy? It may seem an odd question, but there’s a good reason to pose it.
The poor child at issue is Charlie Gard, a British infant thus far denied medical treatment by the U.K. government — even though his parents can pay for it themselves. So much for death panels being a myth.
Charlie has a serious genetic condition called mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. The details of it aren’t important here, however. What’s significant is that the boy’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have raised $1.7 million via crowd-funding and can pay for travel and treatment themselves; this would allow them to bring Charlie to the U.S. for a novel therapy offered by a Dr. Michio Hirano.
“Would” is the operative word because the British medical establishment, bureaucracy and courts have, again, thus far said “No, you may not seek further treatment for your son. It doesn’t matter that you’re paying the piper; we’re calling the tune and say he must be allowed to die with ‘dignity’” (as if these statists have even the foggiest idea what that is).
And we’ll have to wait to see if it matters that, according to Dr. Hirano, the new therapy would give Charlie an 11 to 56 percent chance of meaningful improvement, which, even under Common Core math, is far better than the zero percent chance offered by Oceania. (Note: British authorities just recently granted Charlie an 11-day “stay of execution,” so to speak, so that Hirano can travel to the U.K. to evaluate him.) But on to my opening, eyebrow-and-doubts-raising question.
To illustrate why I ask it, here’s a little background. It was revealed in 2014 that British authorities had ignored Pakistani Muslim child sex-trafficking rings for 16 years — even though the perpetrators were responsible for the abuse (and sometimes torture) of at least 1400 girls, some as young as 12. In fact, when complaints were made, the girls were often dismissed as tramps to justify the inaction.
Of course, they were only white girls.
And this abuse is still occurring, we hear.
The reason for turning this blind eye has been absolutely established: The authorities, from police to bureaucrats to social workers, were afraid that pursuing Muslim criminals would get them branded “racist.”
In fact, some of the girls who went to the police “were told they were being racist,” reported The Federalist. And a Home Office researcher attempting to blow the whistle was warned by a colleague that she “must never [again] refer to Asian men” (“Asian” references Muslims in the U.K.). She also was forced into diversity indoctrination to raise her “awareness of ethnic issues.”
You see, better to allow young girls to be raped and brutalized than to, as one British politician put it, “rock the multicultural community boat.”
That is, in today’s (formerly) Great Britain — one of the more politically correct places on Earth.
Now back to poor Charlie. Would the powers-that-be have denied the opportunity for life if he were, let’s say, a Muslim female?
I believe the likely answer is no. They’d be too afraid of accusations of racism (yes, I know “Muslim” isn’t a race, but leftists use “racism” as synonymous with “bigotry”); they’d be worried about their reputations and careers. Their whole mindset would be different. Remember, again, the U.K. is a place where the rape of little white girls is preferable to the implicating of swarthy men.
Yet it’s not just fears of labeling, but also something far darker. In today’s world of identity politics — where we hear about mythical “white privilege,” “dead white males,” “the problem of whiteness” college courses, and prohibitions against whites expressing opinions — white males are lowest on the totem pole. They get the most grief and blame and the least consideration and charity — and compassion. Hey, given group voting patterns, Charlie could grow up to be a Tory or, perish the thought, even a Brexit supporter.
To be clear, I’m not saying the biases in question here are generally conscious. They are mainly, if not completely, those unconscious biases (you know, those things you leftists ever warn about but always get wrong). Man has a great capacity for rationalization, and Charlie’s grim-reaper judges have no doubt convinced themselves they’re acting in the “best interests of the child.” And were the baby a Muslim female, I suspect they would’ve rendered the opposite decision and deferred to the parents without prodding, again convincing themselves of their righteousness.
To those taking offense at my speculation, realize it’s similar to when activists respond to the shooting of a black criminal by claiming it wouldn’t have happened had the miscreant been white. The only difference is that they’re wrong — police are actually more likely to shoot white criminals than black ones — while my suspicion has a basis in today’s social reality.
And this reality is that with the current group spoils system, race and sex can determine one’s chance of enjoying college scholarships, good jobs, justice in court and, perhaps even, life itself.