Faux News eh?

Liberals and conservatives

European Islamophobia?

The refusal to acknowledge that grooming gangs are Muslim has had a catastrophic effect

In her report on the shocking Rotherham child abuse scandal, Louise Casey, head of the government’s troubled families programme, threw the book at the council as “not fit for purpose”. The lessons of this story, however, surely go way beyond this one disgraced local authority.

Last summer’s Jay report found that at least 1,400 children in Rotherham, mainly white girls from troubled backgrounds, were enslaved, sexually attacked and prostituted by gangs of overwhelmingly Pakistani-heritage men. Jay found a “collective failure” by both the council and police to stop this abuse and bring the perpetrators to justice. Casey found this huge cover-up was continuing.

Council staff and members had looked the other way for fear of being seen as racist or “upsetting community cohesion”. Yet Casey found they were even now in “overwhelming denial” of what had happened on their watch.

How to explain such persistent, almost pathological denial? The answer surely lies in a wider culture gripped by a terrifying group-think. With the duty to protect children abandoned, blanket protection has been given instead to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities that have been placed beyond criticism.

There are nevertheless hierarchies of protection here, driven almost entirely by terror of the perceived power of the minority in question. Indeed, both the Casey and Jay reports themselves bow to political correctness by failing to acknowledge that the cultural factor behind the Rotherham grooming gangs is not that they are Pakistani but Muslim.

It’s not Pakistani Christians, Hindus or atheists who are involved in these crimes. Nor is it just white girls who are targeted: Sikhs have been complaining for years that their girls are attacked by Muslim men.

In Australia, gang rapes in Sydney in 2000 were committed by Lebanese Australians. In the Netherlands, it’s Moroccans and Turks who have entrapped non-Muslim girls as sex slaves. The reason is that in Muslim society women are treated as inferior people, and non-Muslims are widely regarded as trash. That’s why decent British Muslim leaders have reacted to Rotherham with horror and shame.

Muhbeen Hussain, founder of the Rotherham Muslim Youth group, said: “We need Muslim leaders to go out there and condemn this and make it clear it’s wrong.” The issue is not minority ethnicity. It’s Islam, the greatest PC unsayable of the lot.

There is, though, an even deeper level of denial beneath all this. Casey notes that Rotherham council dismissed the pioneering reports in this paper by Andrew Norfolk, which exposed the entire scandal, as a malevolent and politicised attack by “the Murdoch press”.

This is far more significant than just a cheap attack on the proprietor of the paper you are currently reading. It reflects the syllogism that drives left-wing thinking, and which goes like this: I am left-wing and virtuous because I care about the vulnerable. Right-wing people are wicked because they are the opposite of me. Anyone who is not left-wing is right-wing. Anyone who disagrees with my virtuous beliefs, such as in multiculturalism, is thus wicked and right-wing. Anything at all they may say about anything is also wicked and right-wing. It must therefore be ignored, dismissed or destroyed.

This Manichean attitude, which shapes our society, has demonised not just individuals and groups but facts, evidence and truth itself over wide swathes of public debate, from immigration to man-made global warming, from family breakdown to Islamic extremism.

Among many other contributory factors, it is the single most deadly reason why the authorities in Rotherham refused to countenance the evidence of Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs. Casey says the authorities were terrified of giving ammunition to the British National Party. But denying the grooming gangs immeasurably strengthened the BNP, enabling it to pose as the only people “telling the truth”.

What is much more likely is that these claims were denied precisely because they were being made by the far right, and therefore couldn’t possibly be true. But they were true.

Yet even now, anyone who raises concerns about immigration or Muslim misdeeds is branded and demonised as racist, Islamophobic and (always) right-wing. Whether such concerns are actually justified isn’t even considered. The truth is made toxic by the vilification of those who speak it.

Britain’s entire administrative class now genuflects to these orthodoxies. Which is why Rotherham’s grooming gangs and their cover-up are unlikely to be the end of the story, either there or elsewhere.

Best one liner of the year...

"If we can manage to convince the Chinese that Jihadists' testicles are aphrodisiacs, within ten years they'll have disappeared..."
Anon.

Police harassment, Chula Vista style

Recently, the Chula Vista, California Police Department ran an e-mail forum with the local community (a question and answer exchange) with the topic being, "Community Policing." One of the civilian e-mail participants posed the following question:


"I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to
continually harass people and get away with it?"


From the "other side" (the law enforcement side) Sgt. Bennett, obviously a cop with a sense of humor replied:


"First of all, let me tell you this...it's not easy. In Chula Vista, we average one cop for every 600 people.


Only about 60% of those cops are on general duty (or what you might refer to as "patrol") where we do most of our harassing. The rest are in non-harassing departments that do not allow them contact with the day to day innocents.


At any given moment, only one-fifth of the 60% patrollers are on duty and available for harassing people while the rest are off duty.


So roughly, one cop is responsible for harassing about 5,000 residents.


When you toss in the commercial business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 10,000 or more people a day.


Now, your average ten-hour shift runs 36,000 seconds long. This gives a cop one second to harass a person, and then only three-fourths of a second to eat a donut AND then find a new person to harass.


This is not an easy task. To be honest, most cops are not up to this challenge day in and day out. It is just too tiring.


What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down those people which we can realistically harass.


The tools available to us are as follow:


PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment.


"My neighbor is beating his wife" is a code phrase used often. This means we'll come out and give somebody some special harassment.


Another popular one: "There's a guy breaking into a house." The harassment team is then put into action.


CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars with no insurance or no driver's licenses and the like.


It's lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light.


Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, they are drunk, or have an outstanding warrant on file.


RUNNERS: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours to determine why they didn't want to talk to us.


STATUTES: When we don't have PHONES or CARS and have nothing better to do, there are actually books that give us ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called "Statutes"; Criminal Codes, Motor Vehicle Codes, etc...They all spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people.


After you read the statute, you can just drive around for a while until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them.


Just last week I saw a guy trying to steal a car. Well, there's this book we have that says that's not allowed. That meant I got permission to harass this guy. It's a really cool system that we've set up, and it works pretty well.


We seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. And we get away with it. Why? Because for the good citizens who pay the tab, we try to keep the streets safe for them, and they pay us to "harass" some people.


Next time you are in my town, give me the old "single finger wave." That's another one of those codes. It means, "You can't harass me." It's one of our favorites.


Hopefully sir, this has clarified to you a little bit better how we harass the good citizens of Chula Vista.

Something to consider if you are thinking of voting fo Warren or Sanders

How employer can beat Obamacare

Large employers must provide health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare. Some large employers would rather not do this and are looking for an out. Well I have one for them. Section 1312 (f)(3) of the ACA reads:


"Access limited to lawful residents. If an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange.“


As we all know President Obama’s executive order grants amnesty to illegal aliens so that if only illegal aliens are hired the employers are not breaking the law and if a large employer does not wish to provide coverage, all he needs to do is hire illegal aliens.


Problem solved.