Tag Archives: Sexism

Twelve Pakistani immigrant men get 143 years in jail for gang-raping 13-year-old girl

Muslim populations in Europe
Muslim populations in Europe

This story is from the UK Daily Mail, and I think it shows the problem with the compassionate “open borders” view of immigration advocated by some people on the religious left.

WARNING: This story is for mature readers, reader discretion is advised.

It says:

[…]12 men were jailed for gang-raping a 13-year-old white girl in West Yorkshire.

The gang of men from Pakistani origin were jailed for a total of 143 years at Bradford Crown Court today, for 13 months of horrendous abuse of the British white girl in 2011 and 2012.

[…]Eleven of the men were today jailed for rape and a twelfth man was jailed for sexual activity with a child under 16 today at Bradford Crown Court, but the ringleader has fled to Bangladesh.

West Yorkshire Police confirmed that the men jailed were of Pakistani origin. 

[…]Arif Chowdhury, 20, allegedly left for Bangladesh during the investigation after he was arrested in 2012 in connection to the raping of the schoolgirl, Bradford crown court heard last year.

He is also accused of pimping her out to his contacts in Keighley when he was just 15.

Louise Blackwell QC described Chowdhury, a convicted drug dealer, as being ‘evil’ and violent.

A jury heard how Chowdhury first raped the girl, who cannot be named, behind a church when he was 15.

He had previously got to know her when she was 13 after persuading her to do drug runs in Keighley.

She had attempted to stop helping the drugdealer, revealing to police how he had racially abused her and then raped her.

Chowdhury subjected her to regular beatings and made her have sex with other men in a year-long ordeal.

The judge’s comments are interesting:

During the case, the Recorder of Bradford, Judge Roger Thomas QC, said their behaviour throughout the trial was the worst he had seen in 40 years of legal practice.

Judge Roger Thomas QC condemned the ‘insolent and disrespectful behaviour’ the accused showed in court which he said reflected their treatment of their victim.

He told them: ‘The attitudes of the majority of you have so clearly demonstrated to these proceedings has been contemptuous, disrespectful and arrogant on a scale that I have hardly seen before in many years of practice in criminal law.

‘Exactly the same attitude to the 13/14 year old girl who you all sexually abused and exploited for your own selfish gratification.’

He added: ‘None of these defendants had any concern for the victim.

‘They were totally uninterested in her welfare and what damage they were causing her.

‘The victim clearly demanded pity and understanding but their view of her was heartless and demeaning.

‘They saw her as a pathetic figure who had no worth and who served no purpose than to be an object that they could sexually misuse and cast aside.

‘They showed her no shred of decency or humanity when as a vulnerable child she so needed care and understanding.’

The court heard their victim now has post-traumatic stress disorder and clinical depression.

Now, this crime is not like these fake rape accusations that you see on college campuses, where the alleged victim never goes to the police and never goes to the hospital. This crime really happened. And it was investigated by the police. And the facts were determined in a real criminal trial In my view, the offenders got off too lightly – they should all have received the death penalty. That would have sent a message to others not to do such things to children. Yes, a 13-year-old girl is a child, and she ought to be protected and nurtured, not abused and degraded. If a girl is fatherless and has no protector, that is all the more reason for good men to be more protective of her innocence and dignity – not less protective. We have to have a vision for what a girl’s life should be like – education, work, marriage, a loving faithful husband, children, a home of her own. Dignity and value.

Christianity is different

That girl was known by God and made by God in order to reach out to him and to know him as he really is. Nothing about her origins, finances, family situation is relevant to the purpose for which she was made, which is the same purpose that we are all made for – to know God in Christ. On the Christian view, there is no room for looking at other people in distress and taking advantage of them. We should always be looking to others as equal in dignity and value, and made to know God. The Muslim men convicted of raping her were not doing what they were designed to do, because they followed a false religion, with false moral values. Christianity is true, and it rationally grounds the duty to love and serve others, and even to give up our lives to save others. That is the example of the founder that Christians are to emulate. Where was that example in the conduct of these Muslim men towards this little girl?

Russell Moore

One last thing I want to say is about Christian leaders who are very generous about welcoming in refugees from Muslim countries. Well, I mean they are generous with using taxpayer money to do this, not with their own money. One of these people  is Russell Moore, who was interviewed by the radically left-wing BuzzFeed.

BuzzFeed was very sympathetic with Russell Moore’s left-of-center view on this issue, and excited to be able to bash conservatives by using Moore as the club.

Excerpt:

Moore was also critical of candidates like Ted Cruz who are now arguing that the U.S. should only accept Christian refugees from Syria, not Muslims.

“I don’t think we ought to have a religious test for our refugee policy,” Moore said, adding that a rigorous vetting process could still make room for innocent Muslims. “We really don’t want to penalize innocent women and children who are fleeing from murderous barbarians simply because they’re not Christians,” he said, though he added that persecuted Christians in the region haven’t received enough attention from the U.S.

Moore wants to give interviews to leftist publications, where they will publicly praise him for his generosity and compassion, while shaming conservatives politicians who have a duty to protect the public. My priority is to protect that little girl from harm, not hand out goodies to grown-ups at taxpayer expense. The UK didn’t have to take in refugees and unskilled immigrants willy nilly, but they did it because they were more motivated by the desire to appear generous with other people’s money than by the desire to protect innocent victims from harm. As long as it’s not their money being spent, and their daughter being raped, people who talk for a living can seem very generous. What happened to this little girl is clearly horrendous, and it’s not the first or last event of its kind. People like Moore who feel we need to be more compassionate and less cautious are effectively turning a blind eye to the reality of the concern.

I support a legal immigration process that has some sort of requirement for some period of following the laws or learning Western customs, e.g. – legal immigration for those who come here to do college degrees and/or get work permits. But Moore wants take in refugees who have no education, no work history, and no idea what our Western values are. Immigrants from Muslim countries who apply to attend school and/or work legally, and go through a process where they follow the law, pay their taxes, and so on, are much safer to allow in than refugees. We need legal immigrants to prove over a long period of time that they can survive without resorting to criminal activity (drug-dealing, sex-trafficking, etc.) or collecting welfare. But refugees are not like that. And we don’t have adequate security screening. We can be generous, but prudent about protecting innocence, too. I don’t want to be responsible for letting in people who rape little kids.

Disclaimer: Half my family is Muslim, and my parents immigrated legally via college degrees and work permits. Legal immigration process. Law abiding. Continuous work history. No collecting welfare. None of us has ever been charged with anything worse than a speeding ticket or parking ticket.

Huffington Post leftist credits black Republican woman’s election win to “white privilege”

Republican Congresswoman Mia Love
Republican Congresswoman Mia Love

The Daily Caller reports.

Excerpt:

Mia Love, the former mayor of Saratoga Spring, Utah, won her race for Utah’s 4th congressional district Tuesday and will now be the first black Republican woman (and first Haitian-American) to sit in the United States Congress.

The heads of leftists have been exploding ever since Love’s victory as they attempt to come to grips with how a black woman could champion bedrock conservative principles such as fiscal discipline, limited government and personal responsibility.

The most fascinating treatise about Love — thus far —comes via The Huffington Post where Darron Smith, a desperately confused blogger with a Ph.D. in education, accuses Love of benefitting from a form of “white privilege.”

Education departments are an excellent place to go if you want to learn nothing at all of practical value, but borrow a lot of money to do it. It’s maybe not as useless as English, but it’s pretty useless.

More:

[…][Smith] can’t understand, though, how Love doesn’t agree with his own political ideology. Because she disagrees with him, he declares that the principles she espouses go against her interests — because of the color of her skin and the sexual organs she possesses.

“Love’s political convictions show a strong support for values that do not necessarily represent her interests as a member in any of these oppressed groups,” Smith writes. “For example, blacks are not doing well with respect to education, economics and health outcomes, while women still trail behind in salary and significant positions of power, and conservative politics are not typically known to aid these groups in such key issues. These actualities of Mia’s existence seem to be diametrically opposed to her values that are grounded in a white, male, Christian context.”

Smith then lays down his blogger coup de grâce:

“She appears publicly unhampered by the daily grind of white racism that affects other racial minorities within the United States,” he proclaims. “Unlike most of them, Mia gets to walk through the hallowed doorways of white institutions controlled by elite, powerful men. She is allowed to pass through in her black, female body with the understanding that she must not see, speak or openly advocate for anything related to race or gender — an unholy compromise. Hence, she might look black, but her politics are red. This is one way white privilege is reproduced at the legislative level of government.”

“Mia and others like her are seemingly out of touch with the political realities of African Americans and what remains at stake for them,” the blogger concludes, hastening to add that “[i]t would be a mistake to assume that all black people are monolithic and share the same political inclinations.”

I think I know why Democrats are losing elections. They are so focused on learning how to recognize racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. in university that they forget how to advocate for policies that actual work for normal people. People who work for a living instead of doing PhDs in Education, for example. So then, when a Republican talks about economic growth, stronger families, school choice, national security, lower health care costs, developing energy resources, reducing the national debt, etc., and wins an election, it really confuses the left. They think that people should  win elections by focusing on “important things” like race divisions, class divisions, sex divisions, and most important – FREE BIRTH CONTROL! That’s what they think are the important things – that’s what they learned in university. They are so focused on ideology that they can’t understand that elections are about right-sizing government so that working people’s lives improve. Mia Love won her election on the merits. But the secular left can’t make any sense of it.

Republicans get increased support from non-whites in mid-term elections

This is from the Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt:

National House exit polls (summarized by CNN here and here) complicate the Democratic narrative of the “emerging electorate” set against Republican appeal limited to old white men. There was a “gender gap,” but this time in Republicans’ favor: Democrats outpolled Republicans among women, 52% to 47%, but Republicans’ advantage among men was 56% to 42%. Republicans did better among voters over 45 and Democrats among those under 45, but Republicans still managed 43% of the under-30 vote.

Republicans attracted 10% of blacks, 35% of Latinos and 49% of Asian-Americans. The comparable figures in the 2012 presidential race, according to the New York Times, were 6%, 27% and 26%.

I’m pretty impressed that the Republicans only lost women by 5%, and I bet they won married women by a landslide, as usual. It’s nice to see that women were not unduly tricked by the “war on women” rhetoric.

Life News profiled some of the newly Republicans – all of them pro-life:

Not only did pro-life candidates win huge election victories across the board last night, but black pro-life candidates won as well and helped undermine false criticism from the other side that somehow the pro-life issue is not one that resonates with African-Americans.

In the deep South, South Carolina voters sent pro-life Republican Tim Scott back to the U.S. Senate, making him the first black candidate to win a statewide race there since just after the Civil War. Scott is also the first African-American senator from the South since Reconstruction.

Scott’s victory was so certain that his race was called moments after polls officially closed.

[…]Meanwhile, in Utah, Mia Love won her congressional race to become the first black Republican woman in Congress. Love is a proudly pro-life candidate who had strong support from pro-life groups.

[…]And in Texas, pro-life congressional candidate Will Hurd won his race, unseating Rep. Pete Gallego.

Hurd is a former undercover CIA operative. He specializes in cybersecurity and counterterrorism.

Republican Saira Blair
Republican Saira Blair

And if all that were not enough, an eighteen-year-old college student was elected to the West Virginia state legislature.

Excerpt:

A West Virginia University freshman who did most of her campaigning out of her dorm room became the youngest state lawmaker in the nation Tuesday.

Republican Saira Blair, a fiscally conservative 18-year-old, will represent a small district in West Virginia’s eastern panhandle, about 1½ hours outside Washington, D.C., after defeating her Democratic opponent 63% to 30%, according to the Associated Press. A third candidate got 7% of the vote.

In a statement, Ms. Blair thanked her supporters and family, as well as her opponents for running a positive campaign. “History has been made tonight in West Virginia, and while I am proud of all that we have accomplished together, it is the future of this state that is now my singular focus,” she said.

Ms. Blair campaigned on a pledge to work to reduce certain taxes on businesses, and she also holds pro-life and pro-gun positions.

Wouldn’t it be great if conservative families were making a generation of young conservatives like her?

Marine Captain explains her opposition to allowing women to serve in the infantry

Dennis Prager mentioned this must-read article on his radio show on Monday. It is written by a female United States Marine named Katie Petronio, who has served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Marines are above average troops, with much stricter requirements to get in than the Army, Navy and Air Force.

In her article, Captain Petronio explains what serving in the infantry during combat operations did to her body.

Excerpt:

As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

This article is a must-read, and it contains an audio interview and a video clip from CNN. Thank goodness that she spoke out about this, because right now it seems like the Democrats are passing a lot of legislation with a complete disregard to the long-term consequences and the incentives they are introducing. This issue is related to so many of the other issues being pushed by the left. They want to eradicate the differences between men and women – that’s what they mean by feminism. Abortion is there way of making women equal to men, with respect to recreational sex. And pushing women into combat roles is their way of making women equal to men, with respect to war. No one is stopping to ask what women really want, or what men and children need from women.

Democrats push for school quotas and speech codes in defense bill amendment

Washington D.C. lawyer Hans Bader explains at College Insurrection blog.

Excerpt:

Suing schools and colleges has nothing to do with supporting our troops.

But that didn’t stop Senators from seeking to add an amendment, SA 3215, to the 2013 Defense Authorization bill on Thursday, containing provisions that would overturn two Supreme Court rulings in order to promote such lawsuits. The amendment, proposed by Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), would dramatically expand the reach of two federal statutes, Title VI and Title IX, to allow colleges, schools, and recipients of federal funds to be sued for “disparate impact.”

Disparate impact is what people call school policies that have no motive to discriminate, but end up affecting some groups more than others. For example, standardized tests for mathematics have nothing to do with race, but some racial groups perform better than others. The Democrats think that this is grounds for a lawsuit, apparently.

More:

The amendment, backed by trial lawyers, would also allow colleges, schools, and other institutions to be sued for unlimited punitive damages.

[…]The specter of liability for disparate impact could make schools get rid of standardized tests designed to ensure that students are really learning, and detect failing schools, since all but the easiest standardized tests arguably have a racially “disparate impact.”

It could also result in racial quotas in school discipline. The Obama Administration has alreadypressured some school districts to adopt de facto racial quotas in school discipline (school districts are reluctant to defy the Administration’s legally-dubious demands lest it cut off their federal funds), requiring even liberal school districts that already bend over backwards not to suspend disruptive black students to cut their suspension rates, and spend millions of dollars to comply with bureaucratic dictates imposed by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, where I used to work.

[…]Expanding Title VI liability and punitive damages could also lead to more campus speech codes, as colleges, terrified of racial harassment liability under Title VI, clamp down on any speech that might conceivably contribute to what is perceived as a racially hostile learning environment.

Hans explains why these laws cause schools and universities to create “speech codes”:

But schools persist in imposing overbroad harassment policies, both because they would rather be sued for First Amendment violations than for racial or sexual harassment… and because private colleges are not directly subject to the First Amendment at all, but can be sued for racial and sexual harassment.

[…][T]o avoid liability, private colleges in particular may clamp down on campus speech about racial and sexual issues like affirmative action and feminism, lest such speech provide potential “building blocks” of a hostile environment claim under the “totality of circumstances” test.

Trial lawyers are one of the groups that donate a lot of money to Democrats, so naturally they will be happy with any law that makes more business for them.