UNCONSCIOUS BIAS IS A FALSE TOTEM

Everyone knows what prejudice is.  Many of us will have enough self awareness to know that in some form or other there is a possibility, probability or certainty that on some every day topic or  subject of minor interest we are prejudiced or in the words of some psychologists who think they have all the answers, we have a conscious bias for or against said topics or interests.  My wife, for example, is biased towards purple.  Her house plants are dictated by the colour as is her car, her wardrobe and long ago the paint chosen to cover walls in the hallway. She is also biased against intellectual snobbery and doesn`t suffer fools gladly.  

However the spreading tentacles of human resources departments and their university psychology departments` academic sources have fostered the concept of "unconscious bias".  This concept has  infected the western world without challenge.  It has infiltrated the working and academic lives of millions.  It is within the legal profession that, in my opinion,  it has been the most devastating to freedom of thought and the corruption of what constitutes reality.  Politicians have been quick and eager to jump on this bandwagon for their own nefarious ends. Unconscious bias as defined by Edinburgh University is  The tendency of us as humans to act in ways that are prompted by a range of assumptions and biases that we are not aware of.   This can include decisions or actions that we are not consciously aware of, as well as hidden influences on decisions and actions that we believe are rational and based on objective un-biased evidence and experience.  Unconscious bias can be present in organisations and groups as well as influencing the behaviours and decisions made by individuals.  

Civilisation has developed from primates learning from their and others` actions and reactions which are beneficial to their survival and which are detrimental.  The most active benefit to the individual is the bond of the family.  The bias toward family is natural and rewards such affinity with longer life and happier offspring.  We learn continually who, what, when and where  love, safety, danger and misery lie.  These are conscious and  unconscious thoughts, feelings, actions and reactions to maximise our lives, loves and livelihoods and to diminish the dangers we had and have to face from sabre toothed lions to telephone scams.  

But now the lines are crossed.  Those who refuse to accept the mantra of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) as a requirement to rid themselves of unconscious bias are labelled fascist, racist or similar epithet.  And those within the legal profession who have fallen for this artificial fabrication and the politicians who empower them have failed to realise that within that mindset the need for inclusiveness also must encompass acceptance of ideologies which are the very antithesis of western civilisation and are indeed a suicidal call for what has been the Judeo Christian foundation on which our society has been built.  Nothing exemplifies this attitude more than the disgraceful and disgusting verdict on the successful appeal by David Miller against his expulsion from his tenure at Bristol University. Astoundingly an employment tribunal decided that "The claimant’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic pursuant to section 10 Equality Act 2010 at the material times."  The full 120 pages of the judgement are available here.  Building on the incessant anti "Zionist" propaganda of the past year in which clear anti semitism has been expressed using the term Zionist as a cloak the tribunal has ratified that a belief in a Jewish homeland held by a large [60%-80%] of Jews here and worldwide is not protected in law from those who would preach in a manner directly based on activities in pre war Germany.  Indeed by substituting Zionist in their diatribes in place of Jews Miller and his ilk  can continue to spew their hatred to those who are the children to his Pied Piper.  I would argue that if unconscious bias does exist it existed in the minds of that Tribunal. It has been offered as the reason for another forum to castigate a magistrate [see below].  Unfortunately but unsurprisingly it has taken a marxist orientated publication to offer a riposte to the Tribunal`s decision to which I understand an appeal is in hand.  There are those who would defend Miller and that verdict.  The professional judiciary are government paid and pensioned civil servants. There is always a significant cohort who would put their own careers and well being above the requirement to uphold the law where the two come into conflict.  In the Miller case it might be said that the Tribunal members revealed their own unconscious bias against Jews.  Now that is  paradoxical. 

Closer to home a magistrate has recently been investigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office for making antisemitic remarks in a court setting. To quote the particular paragraphs;

 "A fellow magistrate complained that during two conversations with him, Ms Killoran made remarks which displayed an unconscious bias of an antisemitic nature. He alleged that she spoke about her work in the charity sector and a correlation between Jewish charities and fraud. {my bold}

She stated that Jewish charities are believed to make use of the ‘Jewish Accounting System’, whereby money disappears without a trace and reappears later at a much higher value. The magistrate, himself Jewish, was concerned that Ms Killoran was relaying antisemitic stereotypes."

The complete report can be accessed here. 

I would opine that there was nothing "unconscious" about the prejudice that Ms Lynn Killoran JP expressed.  It was a deliberate anti Jewish slur of which she was fully aware.  The implication of the judgement is that she was not responsible because it was unconscious bias.  Just as the fashion for the gender bending of children has been demonstrated to be against all logic and laterally illegal so it will be, concerning the concept of unconscious bias. That change in perception cannot come soon enough.  Academics and pseudo psychologists have weaved their dangerous patterns for far too long. Soon reality must resurrect itself and prevail.  Unconscious bias is a false totem.