A senior judge has ruled a child molester was rightly given a tougher than normal sentence because his victims were Asian and so suffered more from his crimes.
So an “Asian” (read Pakistani Muslim) man in England raping “Asian” children is apparently a more serious crime than if he had raped native born white English children. This is literally what they’re saying.
Jamal Muhammed Raheem-ul-Nasir was jailed for seven years at Leeds Crown Court last year for sex attacks on two girls, aged nine and 14.
But the paedophile took the case to appeal, with his lawyers complaining that his sentence was unfairly inflated and ‘excessive’.
He’s literally claiming that getting a seven year sentence for raping a 9 year old and a 14 year old is excessive. This is what we’re actually supposed to believe. As far as I’m concerned, if we lived in a sane society, he would have been fucking executed for it.
Senior judge Mr Justice Walker has now thrown out those arguments after hearing that the victims’ families feared they would struggle to find future husbands because of the abuse.
So because of their primitive and barbaric culture, which has logic like that, they should get special treatment, over little white girls who come from a more understanding culture? Here’s a thought, why the fuck is that different culture even in Britain. What is the benefit of having them there? And no, saying diversity doesn’t count, unless someone explains why diversity is a good thing (which never ever happens).
The move has been criticised by children’s charity the NSPCC, who insist justice should be blind to the race of victims.
Makes sense to me.
Nasir, 32, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault on a child under 13 and four counts of sexual activity with a child and handed the prison term in December last year.
The judge who jailed him, Sally Cahill QC, specifically said that the fact the victims were Asian had been factored in as an ‘aggravating feature’ when passing sentence.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
She stated that the victims and their families had suffered particular ‘shame’ in their communities because of what had happened to them.
Additionally there were cultural concerns that the girls’ future prospects of being regarded as a good catch for arranged marriages might be damaged.
Lawyers for Nasir, of Liversedge, West Yorkshire, argued at London’s Criminal Appeal Court that his sentence had been unfairly inflated.
I actually think that’s incredible. So 7 years is an “inflated sentence” for raping children. If that’s the case, what is the standard sentence length? I’m actually finding this story hard to comprehend. This is complete insanity.
But their complaints were rejected by Mr Justice Walker, who said: ‘The victims’ fathers were concerned about the future marriage prospects for their daughters.
‘Judge Cahill was having particular regard to the harm caused to the victims by this offending.
‘That harm was aggravated by the impact on the victims and their families within this particular community.’
So because their families and their community aren’t as loving and as understanding as the native white English, they deserve special treatment?
The argument that Ul Nasir was given a longer sentence due to his own ‘ethnic and religious origin’ was based on ‘a misconception’, he added.
Literally trying to claim that his sentence was based on his race, even though his victim was a member of the same race, and when other members of his race, rape children from the indigenous white English race, they get a more lenient sentence. What a shameless chancer this prick is.
‘The judge who tried the case was in the best position to determine the correct sentence.’
Mr Justice Walker, sitting with Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Mitting, at London’s Royal Courts of Justice,, concluded: ‘There is no basis for saying that Judge Cahill adopted an incorrect starting point. This application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused.’
I think she fucked up royally, not because she gave him a harsh (well in comparison to the incredibly lenient standard) sentence, but because her motivation for doing so was based on the race of the victims.
But an NSPCC spokesman said: ‘British justice should operate on a level playing field and children need to be protected irrespective of cultural differences.
‘Regardless of race, religion, or gender, every child deserves the right to be safe and protected from sexual abuse, and the courts must reflect this. It is vital that those who commit these hideous crimes are punished to the full limit of the law.’
This summarises the problem quite well. The problem isn’t that he got a more severe sentence because for having non-white victims. The problem is that people just like him are getting lesser sentences for having white ones. What should be done is to give harsh and draconian sentences across the board for these types of crimes, regardless of the race of the victims.
I can always rely on The Guardian to make me lose faith in the idea that this world is even worth saving. Check out this headline from last week.
I’m hoping this is just an example of Poe’s law in action, and is in fact just a parody of how ridiculous things have gotten. With The Guardian though, I just don’t buy it. This very same newspaper just a few days ago also wrote that the grandchildren of holocaust survivors need help because they have somehow inherited their grandparent’s trauma because the experience altered the DNA and breast milk of survivors. Of course, what that really means is that anyone who is actually old enough to possibly have been in a Nazi camp, are dying off now, and they need to keep the gravy train going forever.
Funny how, us Irish haven’t inherited the trauma of our own ancestors suffering. Nor, do I ever hear cases of of descendants of WW1 soldiers inheriting the trauma of trench warfare. Or the descendants of the survivors of various Communist atrocities like the Holodomor or the Cambodian Genocide, etc., inheriting that trauma. I wonder why that is?
Anyway, I digress. I didn’t mean to go off topic so much. Back to the original topic then.
“Real vampires” are people who think they must feed on the energies of others, either physically or psychically, for their own wellbeing. Feeding takes a variety of forms. Some will drink blood from consenting human donors, others will rely on physical contact. For some, being in a crowded room is enough to recharge their batteries.
Sounds like some kind of parasitic entity.
What happens when a “real vampire” needs to get counselling, or go to a social worker? A recent study explores the barriers vampires must overcome when they come into contact with members of the “helping professions” – psychology, social work and so on.
Perhaps in spite of itself, the study also illustrates the contradictory nature of our communal moral reflection when it comes to issues of identity.
The study’s authors identify two beliefs held by helping professionals that are central to a person’s reticence to “come out of the coffin” and disclose their “real vampirism”.
First, that vampires aren’t actually real.
And second, that identifying as a vampire is indicative of a deeper mental health issue.
No shit again.
To deal with the first belief, the authors argue that, to the “real vampires” themselves, their self-identity is indeed very real: “Real vampires believe that they do not choose their vampiric condition; they are born with it, somewhat akin to sexual orientation.”
Wow very much akin to sexual orientation. How could us hate filled vampirephobes be filled with such irrational hatreds, by not treating their vampire identity with the same respect we treat people’s sexual orientation? We really have so much to answer for as a society, and we should probably reassess everything we know about the world, in order to ensure we don’t accidentally upset these special snowflakes.
At first sight, the comparison seems laughable, if not deeply offensive to those who have fought – and continue to fight – to have their orientations respected and afforded equal moral, legal, and political rights. But still, I suspect many would hesitate to give public voice to their scepticism.
No, it really is laughable.
This is because our scepticism rubs up against liberal demands to tolerate a broad range of different beliefs and choices. And it’s hard to have it both ways.
Exactly, we live in a totalitarian nightmare, where so called “tolerant” people demand that everyone else be tolerant of the most ridiculous and insane bullshit imaginable. This is because political correctness is to modern times, what Christianity was to Medieval times. Back then, what the church said was law. The vast majority were blind followers, who accepted everything without question. Anyone who went against what the church said was at best ridiculed and bullied by the masses, and at worse, was executed as a heretic. Nowadays, executions might not happen, but anyone who goes against the gospel of political correctness is likely to lose friends, be verbally harassed for their views, and may even lose employment, due to pressure being directed against their employer by the purveyors of politically correct dogma.
It even has gotten to the point where those who follow the religion of political correctness, perform the same actions that they ridicule the Catholic church for doing. The church was known for ignoring scientific facts that contradicted their world view (for example, the idea of the earth revolving around the sun). Today, people ignore statistics on interracial crime or will support fake rape allegations even when they have already been proven false, because they are blinded by their ideological views, and will not accept any evidence that runs counter to this ideology. Anyone who proves their world view wrong is hunted down like the heretics of olden times, and punished for their heresy.
The reason it is hard is because we lack a coherent, objective framework that builds on an amalgamation of historical, cultural, philosophical, artistic, and scientific accounts of what it means to be a human being, and what it is to live in human community.
Instead, society determines legitimate forms of self-determination or identity on the basis of consensus. If sufficient numbers of people demand recognition, they are rewarded it, but until then, they won’t be treated legitimately. People have the right to be bigots, depending on who they’re being bigoted toward.
So does that mean that for hundreds of thousands of years, an arbitrarily chosen consensus of “normal people” have been oppressing these poor vampires that have apparently always existed and most certainly aren’t just attention seeking weirdos using the internet to get said attention? Wow, how can we sleep at night, knowing how evil we have all been?
In some sense, vampirism reveals the difficulties of human self-definition in a time of tolerance. Few are prepared to accept vampirism as an authentic mode of being, but, having done away with most traditions of objective value, it’s hard to mount a sustained critique of the pseudo-undead.
The study recommends that helping professionals step around this problem altogether; what is required is for therapists and the like “to be open, nonjudgmental, and sensitive to human diversity”.
Translation: Mollycoddle them.
I guess I can kind of understand this logic. These people are obviously mentally ill, and there’s no point unnecessarily upsetting them too much. You never know what the consequences could be.
So a social worker who cannot embrace “real vampirism” can no more support a vampire than can a bondage fetishist be supported by a puritan therapist: personal biases will cloud the ability for a “therapeutic alliance” – a trusting relationship between client and therapist – to form.
The therapeutic alliance is central to the success of mental health interventions. It is also predicated on the belief that clients do not need “fixing”, but rather need skills to be able to manage a range of different environmental, personal, and psychological factors.
This explains the study’s underlying premise. Namely, that therapists are not, nor do they want to be, responsible for correcting false beliefs about a person’s identity except in extreme cases. Doing so undermines the professional’s ability to administer care and is beyond the purview of the therapeutic alliance that informs their profession.
This makes a lot of sense. The therapy room is not the place to “enculture” someone.
Reading this, I can’t help but ask the obvious question. What happened to all these “real vampires” in less compassionate times? I mean surely, if this is a real condition and not just people seeking attention, it must have existed long before the recent vampire fad, and therapists must have had to deal with people like this just as often back in the day…right?
It’s important to note this, because there is a subtle tendency to see particularly bizarre beliefs as being pathological, as if they demanded psychological attention. All things being equal, “real vampires” might not be suffering from a psychological condition at all.
You’re probably right. For every “real vampire” who has a psychological condition, there’s probably another who just does it for attention, or think it makes them special in some way.
Nor, however, do I think that they are an ontologically and metaphysically distinct group of beings. It seems more likely to me that they are the unintended and unwitting victims of years of value-neutral education than anything else.
For instance, back in 1943 the British author CS Lewis was lamenting how a new schoolbook, ostensibly about grammar, really educated students in the view that all beliefs and attitudes were mere feelings, immune from moral evaluation.
This is ironic, he noted, because all the while his community were desperate for well-formed, virtuous citizens. Instead, Lewis wrote:
We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.
An entire intellectual system has been constructed on shaky foundations. Today, following Lewis, we might say that we are shocked to find vampires in our midst.
The shrill insistence that education not impose particular values on young people has some intellectual basis, but it tends to leave them stranded without a guide in the difficult task of self-knowledge and understanding. No surprises that it occasionally goes awry.
The genuine belief that one is a vampire – and I’m sure there are other such tendencies in the dark, strange, pseudo-enlightened places of the internet – isn’t the responsibility of psychologists to correct.
Rather, I think it’s the task of teachers, and those responsible for the education system to provide not only knowledge, but formation. At the very least the lack of formative education is likely to be a major part of how identities like “real vampirism” form in the first place.
In this case, the solution isn’t – as the authors of the study argue – to be careful not to proliferate traditional vampire mythology – garlic, stakes, coffins and all the rest – which is likely to lead to microaggressions that could traumatise “real vampires”.
Rather, it’s to recognise that the quest for self-identity and meaning is one that is best done with some guidance.
I don’t really know how to respond to the rest of that. To be honest, it actually confuses me to no end. I’ll just leave it at that.
I wonder what kind of nonsense I’m going to read next?
One of the most annoying things about political correctness is that it seemingly has no end in sight. It doesn’t matter how much more tolerant and open minded we as a society become, these people are always going to find some new “victim group” that needs protection, and demanding that we wrap them up in cotton wool. In a lot of prior cases (sexism, homophobia, racism etc), the victim group was being discriminated against for something they had no control over. The black guy couldn’t help that he wasn’t white. The gay guy couldn’t help that he was attracted to other guys instead of girls. The woman couldn’t help that she wasn’t a man. I can understand completely why people wanted to stand up for these groups because they were being unfairly treated for something they couldn’t change.
Although, I will say that I think social justice has gone a bit too far in certain cases (radical feminists who want to oppress men, rather than being equal, people claiming that a white cop killing black thug in self defence is racist, people demanding that we allow biological males to play on girls sports teams, because they feel like girls on the inside etc), I do at least acknowledge that these groups were genuinely disenfranchised, and that they needed and deserved to be treated better than they were.
Now however, the social justice movement has become a total parody of itself. Now, we are expected to go to ridiculous lengths to make sure we don’t offend anybody. The latest idea is to make it illegal to “discriminate” against overweight people. Now let me just make this clear. I don’t believe in bullying people and I understand that weight can be a sensitive issue. At the same time, I’m also aware of the obvious reality that excess weight can be very dangerous, and can shorten lives. In the Western world (most notably America, though other countries are catching up) obesity and the illnesses related to it, have drastically increased in the past few decades. While I don’t think being abusive is right, I do think acknowledging extremly unhealthy behaviour is important. As far as I’m concerned, encouraging someone to become healthy is more important than not upsetting them.
Dr Sarah Jackson suggested laws banning discrimination based on age, sex or race should be extended to cover people who were overweight.
Researchers behind a landmark study into weight discrimination found those who were subjected to jibes about their size were dramatically more likely to suffer from depression.
The renowned psychologist made the claim following two studies into the links between weight discrimination and quality of life.
Researchers argued that poking fun at fat people was often seen as socially acceptable, but the ‘fattist’ taunts led to a drop in quality of life.
I’m sure plenty of people would feel bad about their weight regardless. I remember that I used to be heavier than I wanted to be (I wasn’t obese, but I was definitely overweight). I didn’t get picked on for it, but I was always aware that I weighed more than I should and I felt ashamed of it. Eventually, I took the initiative and started eating better and exercising, and sure enough, I lost weight. Even then, I don’t see why jibes are a bad thing (unless it gets to the point of harassment and bullying). The point is to encourage you to take action to get healthier. It’s just like how we try to discourage smoking by forcing them to do so out in the cold, and by increasing the costs to do so through excessive taxation. Sometimes, we have to be cruel to be kind.
The study of more than 5,000 people by University College London calls for a major rethink of how fat people are treated in the UK.
In the survey, participants were asked how often they encounter discrimination in their daily lives, including being threatened or harassed.
Some said they experienced abuse almost every day, although researchers said the vast majority rarely or never experienced discrimination.
So the vast majority don’t experience discrimination? Then why are we acting as if this is a major issue then?
“In the United Kingdom, the Equality Act 2010 legally protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, disability, religion or beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, or gender reassignment; making it clear that discriminatory behaviour of this nature is not to be accepted,” said Dr Jackson, lead author of the report.
“However, our results indicate that discriminatory experiences contribute to poorer psychological wellbeing in individuals with obesity, but there are currently no laws prohibiting weight discrimination.
“This might send the message to people that weight discrimination is socially acceptable.”
So essentially what you’re saying is that people are going to discriminate against obese people unless we have explicit laws forbidding them from doing so. Any proof? I could see them not hiring an obese person for a job they wouldn’t be physically capable of doing (for example, would you hire an obese person as a personal trainer in a gym) or if they were providing a service that the size of the person made impossible to accommodate (for example, asking an obese person to buy two seats in a plane because they can’t fit into one). I don’t look at that as being discrimination. I just see that as acknowledging reality. Should we pretend that an obese person can take up the same space on a plane as an average sized person, or pretend that an obese person should be training people in the gym, just so we don’t hurt their feelings?
Experts said examples of obese people being discriminated against also included being treated disrespectfully and receiving poor service in shops.
Anecdotal evidence. For all we know, these people were just pricks who acted like assholes to the staff, and then when the staff didn’t give them great service in return, they just assumed it was because of their weight.
Earlier research into ‘fat shaming’ found making people feel bad about their weight had no impact on their ability to slim down.
In fact, those who reported experiencing weight discrimination gained more weight than those who did not.
And plenty of people who do end up losing weight do so because they feel bad about their weight. In fact, isn’t that the reason why everyone who loses weight does so? They feel bad about their weight, so they take action to change that so they won’t feel bad anymore. I really can’t think of anyone who is overweight who decides that they feel good about their weight, so they’ll take action to lose weight.
Dr Jackson concluded that other methods should be used to encourage weight loss, but the most recent study goes further in calling for recognition of fattism as a significant problem.
It is a significant problem, but not for the reason you think it is.
Professor Jane Wardle, co-author of the latest report, said: “Combined with our previous work showing that weight discrimination does not encourage weight loss, we can see that weight discrimination is part of the obesity problem and not the solution.
“Weight bias has been documented not only among the general public but also among health professionals; and many obese patients report being treated disrespectfully by doctors because of their weight.
“Everyone, including doctors, should stop blaming and shaming people for their weight, and offer support, and where appropriate, treatment.”
If you’re looking for a doctor who isn’t going to put the blame were it belongs (on you) for your obesity, then you’re not looking for a doctor at all. You’re looking for a quack. The doctor’s job is to to help you get healthy, and if that means telling you that you need to lose weight in order to do so, a proper doctor will do that, no matter how much it may hurt your ego. Accepting obesity isn’t going to solve the problem. It’s just going to result in more people seeing it as a lifestyle choice, rather than what it is, a serious medical epidemic.
But outspoken hypnotherapist Steve Miller has rejected the findings.
Speaking to Express.co.uk, he said political correctness around obesity was making people fatter.
“Of course I do not advocate bullying fat people, but letting them know they are dangerously fat and giving them some constructive fat shaming if needed is an absolute must if we are to slim people down.
“The truth hurts but it can also save lives. We need to tackle fat head on and trust me, no-one loves a fat person like I do.
“Fat people can do something about their weight, they may hide behind excuses but they’re more than capable of changing their lifestyles to shed the pounds.”
At least the article ends with someone who talks sense.
I am happy to report that in England, quick thinking teachers have managed to prevent a second holocaust from occurring, due to their proactive approach in dealing with racist school children, as can be read here.
Extracts from article
Summoned to a meeting at her seven-year-old son’s primary school, Hayley White was prepared for a quick chat about his behaviour.
But when she was told that Elliott had been at the centre of an ‘incident’ with another pupil that was so serious she would have to sign an official form admitting he was racist, she refused to believe what she was hearing.
‘When I arrived at the school and asked Elliott what had happened, he became extremely upset,’ said Ms White, who is a 32-year-old NHS worker. ‘He kept saying to me: “I was just asking a question. I didn’t mean it to be nasty”.’
It turned out that while in the playground Elliott had approached a four-year-old boy and asked him whether he was ‘brown because he was from Africa’.
As we all know, this is how the original holocaust started. A curious seven year old Hitler once asked a black schoolmate if his non-white skin pigmentation meant that he was from Africa and this put him on the path to committing genocide 45 years later. Luckily this child’s teacher knew their history and was able to foresee that this child would clearly grow up to be the next Hitler, if he wasn’t stopped now.
‘I was told I would have to sign a form acknowledging my son had made a racist remark, which would be submitted to the local education authority for further investigation,’ she said. ‘I refused to sign it, and I told the teacher that in no way did I agree the comment was racist. My son is inquisitive. He always likes to ask questions, but that doesn’t make him a racist.’
This mother is clearly a Nazi too and needs to be stopped before she also attempts a holocaust.
But the reality is that across the country each year, thousands of children as young or even younger than Elliott are being branded racists, homophobes and bigots over minor school squabbles, or even innocent questions.
There are no innocent questions unless they are pre-approved by our politically correct overlords.
An obsession with equality and diversity also appeared to be at the root of a news story this week about Ofsted inspectors who asked children aged ten at a Christian school if they knew what lesbians ‘did’. They are also said to have questioned pupils about transsexuality and asked if any of their friends felt trapped in ‘the wrong body’.
As we all know, if children aren’t confused already about their identity, we need to make them feel confused, in order to make them better people in some way that we’re obviously too uneducated to understand.
But there is something particularly toxic about allegations of racism, not least because there is a danger that the more children are branded racist, the more divisions will be sown between children of different colours and creeds where none existed before.
Impossible. Surely making every heterosexual white child out to be a racist/homophobic oppressor will bring them all closer together. If you disagree, you’re obviously a racist homophobe yourself.
Worse still, they warn that there can be serious consequences for young children, who can effectively end up being branded as bigots throughout their school career.
As we all know, children are guilty until proven innocent so the burden of proof is on them to prove that they aren’t bigots when they are accused.
In another case, at a Brighton nursery, a child aged three or four was the subject of an incident report and subjected to ‘counselling’.
This was, apparently, in response to an incident when she was ‘looking at pictures of people with different eye colours and said “yuk not black” and discarded all the black faces, then said “I want a boy”.’
Another mother wrote about how her five-year-old child had got into trouble for referring to her best friend as ‘brown’.
‘They said as this is the 2nd time she has made a “racist” remark it will be put on record and reported to the council,’ she wrote. ‘I was so upset! My daughter is NOT racist, she is five years old, she has coloured family members and family friends. Now it is down on record that my child is racist. I spoke to my daughter and she does not understand what she has done wrong . . . she said “mummy but she is brown, she has brown skin”.’
That 5 year old child is obviously racist because she noticed skin colour. You’re only allowed to notice the skin colour of white people, not non-whites.
‘The enforcers of these politically correct positions need to justify those positions: they look for evidence and find what they are looking for. It is a bit like witch-finding — they are seeking out examples to justify their position.’ With the end result, of course, that pupils find themselves being treated like criminals.
And after reading all that, how could anyone possibly think that the system is insane and overreacting to everything? Clearly, it’s saving lives, and we need to encourage these teachers to keep up the good work.
To start, let me just make this clear. I have nothing against gay marriage. If two consenting adults who love each other wish to enter into a legal union based on that love, why the fuck should I object to it? Live and let live, that’s my motto.
Recently, a bakery in Northern Ireland was asked to bake a cake featuring the Sesame Street characters, Bert and Ernie. The baker agreed to do so. However, an additional request was soon made, to include a message of “Support Gay Marriage”. The baker, a devout Christian, didn’t feel comfortable doing this, as it went against his religious beliefs and so offered the customer a refund on his order. He didn’t refuse to serve the customer because of his sexuality. He didn’t abuse him in any way. He simply declined to endorse a political message that he was uncomfortable with.
Rather than allowing the free market to take its course and simply taking his business elsewhere, the customer decided to take legal action and get the equality commission involved, because his feelings were hurt. This is absolutely pathetic and was almost certainly a set up from the get go. I find it hard to believe that the customer, a gay rights activist wasn’t already aware of the bakery owner’s beliefs. Instead of being the bigger person he has deliberately and maliciously engaged in a campaign of bullying and intimidation against a family run small business, all to draw attention to his cause and to force his own beliefs on others.
They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but this time, I’m seriously starting to wonder. I disagree with the bakers stance on gay marriage, but if the choice is between allowing him the freedom to have his stance, or living in an Orwellian nightmare in which thoughtcrime is punished, I’m damn sure going to support his right to an opinion.
I also can’t help but wonder. If this incident can cause me, a person who supports gay marriage to sympathise more with the other side in this case, what effect would it have on those who are already against it, or those who are on the fence? My guess, it will only serve to radicalise the anti-gay marriage side more, as opposed to winning support for it.
On a closing note, here’s some food for thought. Isn’t religion also protected under the equality commission (I’m just guessing now, as I’m not 100% sure on the laws up North). If so, couldn’t the bakery owner counter sue the customer for discriminating against him based on his religion?