It occurs to me that there’s perhaps a bit of guilt on show here. You see those pregnant 11 year olds in Telford got in that state because the local authorities, in fear of being branded racist and/or islamophobic, allowed gangs of muslim men to groom and abuse white girls for decades and ignored complaints/reports etc. that this was occurring. One suspects that the distaste for this joke is more because it reminds readers of the failures of the Briitsh Nanny state than actual concern for the feelings of 11 year old sex abuse victims. If the writer actually cared about the victims and subsequent potential victims he’d be campaigning to have the perpetrators and their facilitators in the police/social services punished appropriately (personally I think being nailed to a fence by their genitals would be reasonable, but I can see that people might differ on the details. Would a bit of rebar up the bum be better? both? or how about the traditional English hanging, drawing and quartering?) so as to make clear that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable in the UK.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayMay 21st, 2018 |
 25 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
The Napieran solution may be best. It’s their “custom” for Muslim men to abuse and rape infidel girls? We also have a “custom”….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier
“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”
So is this an excuse for British Imperialism- that they treat people differently over there, so we should conquer the place, and subjugate them, so we can force them to behave like us, because we know the Western way is superior? Over here, yes, they should be forced to obey our laws, but did this give us a right to take over their homelands in the first place?
When you end up coming down on the side that says “no, we don’t burn the widow alive when her husband dies”, then, yes, exactly.
It’s always a judgment call – if you have the power to do something, should you? Sometimes the answer is obscure and difficult. Other times it’s an easy call. They’re raping and killing all of their own 13-year-olds? Let’s go. They’re subjecting their girls to circumcision? Let’s talk this over. They’re raising taxes on car mechanics? Nah.
People make fun of the phrase “situational ethics”, but there are few circumstances where ethical decisions aren’t situational.
The most astonishing thing about the whole grooming-abuse-rape thing is that men in the UK did nothing. Nothing.
Never mind the “authorities”, did these girls not have male family and friends? Why were the perpetrators not attacked, beaten, even killed?
I’m not sure it would be any better here in Canada,probably worse.
We deserve to lose.
In England? Yes, England deserves to lose. If the English men had punished the Muslim men, the British police would probably have punished the fathers, not the rapists. That is the place where a pensioner, defending his home, was jailed for stabbing a burglar with the burglar’s own screwdriver. It’s INSANE over there. I’m sorry that my father and grandfather bothered to go over there to save England.
I have to agree with Fred. Where were the men? I cannot imagine a father who would not make it his life’s work to get his daughter’s assailant behind bars for the rest of his life, and I know quite a few fathers and grandfathers who would take steps to make sure that life was a very short one. I just can’t believe that this sort of thing could have gone on for so long, and to so many people, without some form of uprising against anyone trying to keep it quiet and suppressed.
Maybe I am even more of a misfit in modern society than I had thought.
Kenneth Mitchell has wildly overstated the case about the pensioner who killed the burglar.
It is important not to do this because it allows the other side to dismiss all your arguments by focusing on just one. The one demonstrably false one will cause any listener or reader to doubt all the others even if no attention is drawn to the truth of the others.
When someone says that a man was jailed people will understand that there was a sentence of imprisonment after a legal trial.
That did not happen in the screwdriver/burglar case.
The householder was arrested and detained in custody. The process of arrest ensures a chain of events that protect innocent suspects when they are questioned. The police followed the correct process and the householder was released.
Do not go along the hysterical route of ‘Pensioner Jailed’. It only harms the argument.
I suggest public impalement, one by one, done in a fashion not immediately fatal. Followed by being set ablaze. This would be for the non-Muslim individuals.
For the Muslims, being bound and having their heads shoved one by one up the bum of a deceased pig until ass-phyxiated.
It would tend to make the message clear that both the grooming and the enabling of same were unacceptable.
We should be clear that they targeted girls without fathers. You would no doubt go to the wall for your own daughter, but for someone elses? When she appears to be acting of her own free will? (i.e. not being draged into a car at knife point.) Bearing in mind you are going up against the state which can at best destroy you economically, or at worse indirectly kill you by putting you in prison with those you have attacked?
No, the responsibility to protect those girls, especially those “in care” lies clearly with the state, and it chose not to.
We should also be aware of the law of unintended consequences. The war on paedos means that no white adult male wants to be anywhere near a fourteen year old girl. You might want to contemplate the effect this would have on such a girl and how she might react to any adult male that took an interest in her.
I think that the British people in particular but western people in general no longer think their own way of life as worth defending. The Marxists have poisoned the minds of literally everyone into believing that the “right thing” is to obey the law and mind your own business even when the law is corrupt and the business is your family. If I was on the jury for any man who tortured or murdered these animals I’d acquit without any hesitation and I’d hope that the vast majority of people would be of like mind but I fear that with their minds so poisoned against their own culture, they’d convict such a man because it’s the right thing to do.
Fred Z and others, while Roué le Jour (May 22, 2018 at 7:41 am) is partially correct – many girls targeted were in the ‘care’ of the local authorities and their parentis was in PC-style loco – there were some fathers and others who tried to act. In at least two cases I recall, fathers tried to rescue daughters from gangs who were holding them and were arrested for their ‘racism’ and effectively prevented. Under Labour and in Rotherham, it wasn’t just “You can’t say that” about muslims and rape gangs. Any counter-action was treated as racism, not just the talk that would have been needed to organise awareness and large-scale counter action.
I certainly ‘get’ the communist-themed dark humour of the OP article; you have to laugh in order not to cry. Less humorous but very much on the same theme is this tale of state-protected lawlessness on the US border (h/t instapundit).
There is also the obvious point that those fathers (and any others concerned) could have been not just detained but arrested, tried, convicted and kept in for the whole sentence (like farmer Martin) had their detainers’ search found so much as a penknife about their person. By contrast (even if they did not know specific details through some of the girls, once suitably inducted and terrified, being occasionally also exploited as gun mules), those fathers could expect those they tried to rescue the girls from to be armed as well as dangerous. So I suspect the two I heard of who tried were not cowards.
The full article is more interesting than this quote. It is a about a petition against free speech the author of the petition does not like. The joke being objected to is obviously not an attack on the victims, as the complaint suggests.
Niall,
I am aware of the cases you mention but I understood it was an insignificant number, a handful out of fourteen hundred? The overwhelming majority of girls targeted did not live with their biological father. Does anyone have the figures? Happy to be proved wrong.
Roué le Jour at May 22, 2018 at 8:50 am (and anyone else reading this thread), please feel free to read my “Roué le Jour is partially correct” above as “Roué le Jour is (AFAIK) largely / mostly / in the main correct”. It is no accident the gangs’ abuse was predominantly of girls whose only formal protector was the complicit local authority.
The exceptions I mentioned were relevant to the post of Fred and some later posts in the thread, so were worth highlighting.
If “non-Muslim individuals” is replaced by “police and social workers who failed to intervene”, no matter whether Muslim or not, then I am inclined to approve. Most of the police and perhaps even some of the social workers, though, might have intervened, had they not be subjected to constraints from above. The most cruel and unusual punishment should be reserved for the people at the top.
The first point to make is so obvious it should not need making – but, sadly, it does need making.
ISLAM IS NOT A RACE – IT IS A RELIGION AND A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
The Muslim men in Telford were not bad because they had brown skins (many followers of Islam have pink skins, or black skins, and so on – the skin colour is not relevant), they treated non Muslim girls so badly because they were taught that Muslim girls had few rights and non Muslim girls had no rights at all. Where did they get this idea from? They got it from the founder of the Islamic religion, Muhammed (or Mohammed – or whatever spelling you wish to use) – both his teachings and his personal example as an enslaver.
Are things going to get better? No they are going to get WORSE – as the wall-of-lies built by the “liberal” establishment in Western countries just gets more and more extreme.
Go into your local “Waterstones” and see if you can find any books on the shelves that tell the truth about Muhammed and Islam (Mr Ed appears at this point to remind me not to go into Waterstones – but am I supposed to just stick my head in the sand and pretend that the only book shops most people in this country see are not filled with leftist books), you will find plenty of books there LYING about Muhammed and Islam – pretending he was a peaceful and tolerant man, and that the religion he created is one of peace and friendship to non Muslims.
Turn on the television stations allowed in this country and see if you can find any programmes that tell the truth about Muhammed and Islam – you will find instead endless lies about peaceful-tolerant-Islam.
Go to the schools and universities in this country – do any of them teach the truth about Muhammed and Islam? I think you will find the same wall-of-lies that you will find in the bookshops and in the television stations.
While the wall-of-lies from the “liberal” establishment in the West continues – the situation will get worse and worse.
This afternoon there will be a Memorial Service in Manchester for the twenty two people (mostly young girls) murdered in an Islamic attack. But the truth will NOT be told – indeed if anyone told the truth about Islam and Muhammed at the service they would be shouted down, and (most likely) arrested and charged with a criminal offence. Instead there will be just more lies about “hope” and “peace” and the “religion of peace” – “we must not be divided”, “solidarity”, “unity” and so on. Indeed a Muslim Iman will be at the service. The BBC, and the rest of the media, will love the service. The lies continue, indeed the lies intensify, and the atrocities will get worse and worse.
I do not know why I have bothered to type these words – nothing can be done, nothing at all. If my words were widely known they would do no good (no good at all), they would simply be used as an excuse to persecute me. It is too late – the wall of lies, created by the “liberal” establishment, is just too powerful. The lies, the blatant extreme lies (that turn the real history of Muhammed and Islam on its head), control every institution of our society.
I typed a long comment – it did not appear.
Perhaps that is just as well – as my words can do no good now. No words, of anyone, can do any good now – it is too late for our country.
The wall of lies is too strong.
The petition’s “Freedom of speech is something I believe in. Freedom of hate speech isn’t,” is a very strange statement in the circumstances. Hopkins’s tweet may be distasteful, but I’m struggling to discern any hatred. She may indeed hate the Telford rape gangs, as might we all, but that isn’t expressed in her tweet. The petitioner seems to think she hates the victims, which would be utterly bizarre, and I can only put it down to poor reading comprehension. It’s hard not to conclude, like Francis, that it simply means, “I support freedom of speech except when I don’t”.
WRT the fathers who tried to take the matter into their own hands and were stopped by the police: in the spirit of what James Strong said above, about the need not to make any false accusation that can discredit the true accusations that you make, i have thought of potential (if very unlikely) mitigating circumstances for the police.
It is conceivable that the girls whom their fathers wanted to rescue, were over 18 at the time (probably groomed when younger, but the police might not have known that); that the girls claimed not to be kept captive, and that there was no blatant evidence that the place where they were staying was a brothel. In this case (which, as i said, is unlikely) it seems to me that the police would have been justified in restraining the fathers.
Does anybody have evidence against this hypothesis?
Further to what Paul Marks wrote at 10.52am:
I heard two people, separated by perhaps an hour, speaking on the Today programme on R4 and explaining that this attack was Nothing To Do With Islam and that the perpetrator was acting wholly outside Islamic thought and theory.
The scheduling was interesting. Usually on ‘Today’ a subject is dealt with and then left. This scheduling had the effect of exposing a wider audience, people who listen at different times, to the same propaganda.
And has anyone seen or heard mention of Lee Rigby in the MSM today.
I am reminded of the judge in the trial of Lee Rigby’s killers, speaking after the conviction. He claimed that the two murderers had perverted a peaceful religion. They shouted from the dock that, on the contrary, they were carrying out fully Islamic actions.
The gangs targeted girls without involved fathers. A couple of the otherwise-uninvolved fathers found out what was going on and tried to forcibly rescue their daughters. The police prevented this — the fathers were the aggressors-at-the-moment.
Story in the telegraph
It mentions the two occasions but doesn’t say how old the girls were. It also mentions an 11-year-old found drunk in a house full of Pakistani males. She was arrested for being drunk, they were ignored.
Excerpt:
Victim arrested for being drunk
In 2008 an 11-year-old girl came to the attention of the police after she disclosed that she and another child had been sexually abused by a group of adult males.
Despite the fact she was identified as being one of a group of girls who was associating with a known sex abuser, her file was closed and she was deemed as being not at risk from sexual exploitation.
Less than a month later, she was found in a derelict house with another child, and a number of adult males.
She was arrested for being drunk and disorderly (her conviction was later set aside) and none of the males were arrested.
Thank you for the link! I might have read the article when it came up, but i don’t think so: I would have remembered at least part of the stories.
Yes James Strong.
But what can be done? What can be done to save our civilisation?
Horribly I do not believe that anything can be done to save our civilisation – as the institutions that should be there to defend our civilisation are, instead, the source of the Wall of Lies.
We must not “divide our community” “divide our society” as the Prime Minister said today in the House of Commons. Telling the truth about Muhammed and Islam must be strictly forbidden. The problem with this view (other than its total moral bankruptcy) is that the truth about Muhammed and the religion he created is not forbidden to his followers – on the contrary many of them know the truth quite well, it is in their basic texts which many of them read.
In the United States it is still (just about) possible to publically tell the truth about Muhammed and Islam – one comes under savage P.C. attack if one does so, but it is still LEGAL to publically tell the truth about Muhammed and Islam. Not so here. In Britain someone who publically expressed what Prime Minister Gladstone or Prime Minister Winston Churchill publically expressed, would die in prison.