Rotherham and the Cowardly Act of Offering Up Young Girls to the Dragon of Misogyny

367274

It’s an old myth, the story of villagers who sacrifice a virgin to the neighboring dragon in order to keep the dragon from annihilating them. Unfortunately, like most myths, it has its base in terrible fact.

British police, due to what we are told was a kind of politically correct paralysis, essentially collaborated over a long period of time with local Pakistani gangs who repeatedly gang-raped British girls as young as 12 or 13 and then used them as forced prostitutes in their home-grown sex-trafficking rings.

In the clear hallmark of discriminatory police everywhere, these British cops blamed the victims and refused them the police protection that was their right as human beings. Here in America, we would say that the Rotherham police denied an entire class of their citizens — the young girls of their city — their civil rights. By any standard of human rights on this planet, they also denied these young girls their human rights.

What the report of this massive, on-going, police-enforced gang rape and selling of young girls by local Pakistani men amounts to is a violation of the civil and human rights of the girls of Rotherham by the officials of that city.

We are being told that the local police and the rest of the community were so fearful of being called out by the forces of political correctness that they offered up their city’s young girls to avoid it. This echoes tales of heretofore mythical villagers, offering up their daughters to appease the dragon. Only this is real life.

Is anyone believing this? Were these cops so afraid of being called Islamaphobes that they allowed young girls to be repeatedly gang raped and sold to avoid doing their jobs?

Is that what Britain has devolved down to?

Frankly, my first thought was that the Rotherham police were probably getting paid off. I can’t imagine that the police — the police — were so cowed by the politically correct whatevers that are evidently running Britain that they not only allowed, but enabled this to go on for decades. So, I thought of corruption and bribery, and to be honest, I thought it almost hopefully.

Because if the Rotherham police were not being bribed to look the other way and the story really truly is that they allowed these young girls to be raped because they were afraid of violating some sicko idea of political correctness, then our good friends the British have gone insane and suicidal.

 Evidently, a woman who tried to blow the whistle on the rapes was sentenced to “sensitivity training” for doing it. Maybe the cops really were afraid of being denounced and sentenced to re-programming if they did their jobs. Whatever the reason, they are filthy misogynist rapist enablers and claims of cowardice in the face of politically correct sensitivity training don’t excuse them. That much is sure.

We’ve gone a long way down the road of politically correct bullying here in America and it’s getting worse. But I don’t think our cops — at least not Okie cops — would be afraid to prosecute crimes of this nature just because the perpetrators were Muslims. In fact, I’m sure they wouldn’t be.

I don’t know British law, but my first — entirely American, totally Okie — take is that the police in Rotherham ought to go to prison along with the rapists. The rapists should spend the rest of their lives in jail. When they leave prison, it should be in a box. The police who allowed this to happen should take a perp walk in front of television cameras so the whole world can see what useless cowards and traitors to their duty and their community look like.

Koran Graffiti Indiana

Meanwhile, on this side of the pond, Kathy Schiffer wrote a post yesterday about three churches in Columbus, IN that had been graffiti’d with a verse from the Koran threatening physical violence. The word “infidels” was spray painted alongside it. And I watched a video last night of another helpless American being beheaded by ISIS. That, added to Rotherham, seems like a lot.

The Anchoress looked at the rapes in Rotherham and saw the actions of conquest. I look at it and see patterns.

Bring back our girls

I’ve been reading for months about ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, kidnapping Christian girls, and raping them and selling them into sex trafficking. Boko Haram kidnapped almost 300 school girls for the express purpose of selling them into sex slavery.

In other news, we have the Sidney gang rapes of Australian girls by Australian nationals of Lebanese Muslim descent, and the gang rapes in Holland by men of Turkish and Moroccan descent.

Does anybody see a pattern here?

The politically correct crowd can yak about “racism” and “Islamaphobia” all they want. What we are dealing with is violent and vile misogyny of almost mind-boggling proportions. And it’s not just the rapists who are misogynists. Whole countries — entire nations — are willing to sacrifice their girls to the dragon of politically-correct lies.

The Rotherham police can now join the cops of Juarez who allowed young women to be kidnapped, raped and tortured to death and would not lift a finger.

Their response was the same as the police in Rotherham. They made fun of the families who tried to get their help and said the girls were “prostitutes.”

Spineless and misogynist British cops who allow savage violence against young girls, and the gangs of Pakistani rapists/pimps in Rotherham who are supported and enabled by politically correct bullies, are certainly bad enough. But they’re just the little finger on the left hand of the whole truth.

We also have a pattern of one particular group of people — of whom the Rotherham rapists are a part — engaging in terror tactics against helpless civilians in a number of places around the world. Not only do they kidnap/rape/enslave and sell young girls, they burn, behead and annihilate whole populations.

In the West, they respond to criticism just as the rapists of Rotherham have responded; by running to their politically correct protectors and claiming that they are the victims. In the Middle East, they respond by making videos of themselves as they murder helpless people to use to recruit more murderers from places like Rotherham and, presumably, Columbus.

Truththenewhatespeechcorrectspellinig

If it raises your politically correct hackles for me to say that, I put before you the kidnapped, raped and sold girls in Nigeria; the kidnapped, raped and sold girls in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, et al; the raped and sold girls in Rotherham. Alongside the kidnappers/rapists/slavers, I put before you the police who colluded with the kidnappers and rapists. And alongside the police I put the political correctness enforcers who attack anyone who says the truth.

Then I turn your attention to the burned out churches and piles of beheaded bodies in the Middle East.

We have created a lethal brew of enforced helplessness and passivity in the face of violence and evil. We are binding this together with cords of misogyny that places the value of young girls at zero.

Political correctness voltaire

We justify it with self-righteous claims that anyone who speaks against it is a racist who hates Muslims. The obvious response to that is Who is the racist here? Who is raping whom?

I, for one, do not hate Muslims. I believe that there are a lot of Muslims who feel trapped between these rapists and the larger society. But we do those people no good by allowing the savages among them to run free and terrorize all of us, including them.

The perpetrators of these crimes — and I include the murderer of James Foley and Steven Sotloff — must be brought to justice. Their collaborators in government who deny citizens their human and civil rights by refusal to do their jobs need to be brought to justice alongside them. The purveyors of political correctness who enable rape/slavery/murder/genocide must — for our own survival, and common decency — be ignored and dismissed as the blithering fools they are.

Are we, on both sides of the Atlantic, going to stop being enthralled by lethal politically-correct lies and put down these atrocities and those who commit them in a way that stops them cold? Or, are we going to try to avoid a fight by giving our children to the dragon?

Oh Good Grief

RUNAWAY zpsd80d30c3

I stand corrected.

I wrote yesterday that the trustees of Marymount Loyola University — a Jesuit-run, Catholic university — voted that the school would not provide abortion coverage as part of their employee insurance plans.

I read today that while they had indeed voted to not provide abortion coverage in their employee insurance plans, they also voted to provide aide in helping employees find coverage that will pay for their abortions. I don’t know if this is in response to the threats of at least one faculty member to “consider legal action” or not.

But I do know it’s a faux following of Church teachings.

What is so almighty tough about taking a stand? Hobby Lobby did it. Organizations and institutions, both Catholic and non-Catholic, all over this country are doing it.

What makes this Catholic university so precious that it can’t stand for the sanctity of human life?

The trustees’ logic in handing down this decision says a lot:

“We acknowledge that the issue of abortion is extremely complicated and encompasses varied and competing values that often leave no one happy,” Burcham and Aikenhead stated. “Nonetheless, we believe that the right to life and dignity for every human being is a fundamental part of Catholic beliefs (all other rights flow from this primary right to life and dignity) and that this vision needs to be evidenced in LMU’s policies and procedures.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/lmu-board-splits-the-baby-on-abortion-coverage?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-10-9%2006:36:01#ixzz2hFDWmTGB

I know — and I mean I know full-well and from hard personal experience — just how tough it can be to take a stand for life. When people claim for themselves the right to kill other people, it does something to them. They become ruthless, focused on their ends with no regard to the means. They will do anything they can get away with to anyone who opposes them. I’ve been on the receiving end of this hate, and I can tell you, it scalds.

That is no doubt what this Catholic university faced.

It is what pro life people face all over this country.

But this Mr Wishy Meet Ms Washy decision still stinks.

It’s one of those I-don’t-believe-in-abortion-personally-but-I-won’t-impose-that-on-anyone-else politically correct word salad decisions. When a politician does it, they are pilloried. But when a Jesuit (priests) school does it, then, it’s …. what???

If this is our leadership, how can anyone expect those of us who are just pew-sitting Catholics to follow the Church? If Church institutions tuck tail and run, then who is going to stand?

Are we supposed to lead from the pews?

There are days when I feel that the Church is asking the laity to step forward and lead the charge for Christ while we also have to step around the Catholic leaders in Catholic institutions as they run past us, heading for the rear.

Telling people that you won’t directly pay for an abortion, but that you’ll be happy to call around and find someone else who will pay for it, is not taking a pro life stand.

Catholics have a right to expect greater integrity and authenticity than this from Catholic institutions and Catholics in official and quasi official Church leadership positions.

From the National Catholic Register:

The board of trustees at Loyola Marymount University has handed down a Solomonic decision in the controversy over the university’s abortion coverage that may end up leaving few happy. Although the board confirmed LMU will no longer provide health plans that cover elective abortion, the Jesuit university will help employees find alternative plans that do.

The board held an Oct. 7 meeting to discuss the decision to drop elective abortion coverage from all LMU health plans starting Jan. 1, 2014.  Board chairman Kathleen Aikenhead and LMU’s president, David Burcham, revealed that the board had ratified that decision, but stated that it would not affect coverage for “therapeutic abortions, contraception and other forms of reproductive care mandated by the state of California.”

The board also added that LMU would select a “Third Party Administrator (TPA)-managed plan” for employees seeking abortion coverage.

“The employee will be responsible for the entirety of the cost associated with this additional coverage and, thus, no LMU dollars will be used in paying for this additional coverage,” the letter from Aikenhead and Burcham stated.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/lmu-board-splits-the-baby-on-abortion-coverage?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-10-9%2006:36:01#ixzz2hFAYxqtk

Is There Free Speech for Christians in Britain?

 

NoPreaching

Another street preacher has been arrested in Britain.

This is the third preacher to be arrested since July.

Put that together with people being fired from their jobs for following their faith, and the question Is there free speech for Christians in Britain? rises to the top.

Is there? Or is Britain becoming too politically correct for freedom of speech?

From TheWay.

Another street preacher arrested

Another street preacher arrested

A Christian street preacher was arrested in Perth, Edinburgh last Wednesday for ‘disturbing the peace.’

This is the third Christian street preacher that has been arrested since July, the Christian public have become concerned that Christianity is losing the right to freedom of speech. Reverend Josh Williamson, pastor of Craigie Reformed Baptist Church was arrested on Wednesday last week, he said that the trend point to “an increasingly hostility towards Christianity.”

Mr Williamson is known in the area and regularly does open air preaching in the streets of Perth, he argued that he was not using any amplication and enquired of the arresting officer what an acceptable noise level would be?

The officer informed Rev Williamson that the noise level was not the issue but that a complaint had been made against him, the officer informed him that he was breaking the law by being a “breach of the peace.”

The officer went on to warn Rev Williamson that if he continued preaching he would be arrested. Rev Williamson replied that he would not comply because he was not breaking the law.

A second man intervened and defended Rev Williamson’s right to preach but he was arrested by the police officer as well.

YouTube Preview Image

Is There Christian Persecution in India?

Persecution is an ugly word. According to my online dictionary, it means “hostility or maltreatment, esp because of race or political or religious beliefs.”

That sounds simple enough. But, as usual, when you add politics and questions of power to the discussion, simplicity flies away. Political definitions, especially when they are trying to obscure reality, quickly become something too complicated for ordinary mortals to either understand or take action against.

Persecution, in the hands of politicians, becomes a tiny target that almost no one except the few that the politicians have decided (usually for reasons other than the persecution itself) they want to help. The reason for this is that slippery words like persecution are problems for politicians who hold the responsibility for nations and organizations in their hands.

If the definition of persecution is too easy, then they will find themselves faced with a moral responsibility to act, and actions from political units always mean committing the resources, and sometimes the lives, of their citizenry. Any good government takes care of its own people first. No head of state, either secular or religious, wants his or her options for governance directed by open-ended definitions of words like “persecution.”

This isn’t hubris. It’s necessity. Heads of state have been entrusted with the lives and well-being of their citizens. They cannot commit them wily-nily to the righting of every wrong there is. In the first place, righting every wrong is a practical impossibility. There too many wrongs for any one entity to right, even if that entity is a government. Also,  evil and cruelty are hydra-headed. Chop off one evil and two more grow in its place.

Governments are very careful about what they chose to call persecution because persecution is a loaded word that demands a morale response and moral responses lead to demands for action. Actions by government, any government, are big moves that result in endless ripples of effect that can not be either controlled or predicted.

Governments shy away from easy access to their power through words like “persecution.” They create nuances and artificial qualifications in their definitions of the word that force almost all the people who suffer real-life persecution, sometimes even to the death, outside of its meaning.

In this way, they can excuse themselves from becoming ensnared in demands for action against the hydra-headed monster of persecution of innocent people that flares continuously around the globe.

What becomes problematic in this is that they also can try to stop the rest of us from acknowledging the truth of what’s happening, as well. A lot of governments are more afraid of their own people than anything else. The more oppressive a government is, the more this is true.

They do not want their citizens going off and naming persecution as what it is because they fear what might happen if this catches on in the popular imagination. They are afraid of having to act and they fear that people who call things for what they are might involve enough other citizens in their concerns that the demands for action will get out of hand.

This critical balance between necessary government conservatism about committing itself and its citizens to causes, fights, wars and troubles that are not its own, and the clear-cut facts of merciless situations leads to almost laughable twisting and turning of language. People use the tools at their disposal, and government has legal definitions of things at its disposal.

Government can create any definition of any thing that it wants. It can call the mass murder of millions a “final solution.” It can define medical murder as “death with dignity.” It can write definitions with such pinpoint specificity that no one except those it wants to let in will fall under those definitions.

I believe that is what has happened to the word “persecution.” So many people are suffering and dying all around the globe that no government, no entity, can hope to respond to it. If any one government tries, it will end up exhausting its resources and accomplishing nothing.

This is not evil. It is necessity. It is responsible care-taking of the people whose lives are in a specific government’s hands.

However, that does not oblige you and me to go along with these pin-point definitions of persecution which defy common sense and rational thought. We are free to look at reality as it is, without the varnish of legalese. We do not have to accede our personal vision to the blinders that government wears. We can look at things as they are.

Is there Christian persecution in India? Unless a lot of sources from a lot of places are all colluding in a massive confabulation, the answer is yes.

Here are two videos I found on YouTube. The second one is an actual video of an attack on Christians which resulted in their deaths. So be warned, it’s hard to watch and not for everyone, especially children.

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X