Sunday, September 09, 2012
What's with the Left's conspiracy of silence over the ANC's brutal massacre of miners in Marikana?
Eyes must be averted as a prized example of multiculturalism shows its naked face
By Brendan O'Neill, who doesn't even mention Sharpeville and its reverberations
Try to imagine the global outrage there would be if the police in Russia or China shot and killed 34 protesting workers. And just think what follow-up fury there would be if those Russian or Chinese police then arrested and charged the workers lucky enough to survive the massacre with the "murder" of their fallen colleagues. World leaders would hold press conferences so that they could be photographed solemnly shaking their heads and wringing their hands over those nasty, brutal coppers Over There. Amnesty International would have to hire extra part-time staff just to have enough people to stand sad-faced outside every Tube station in London while wearing t-shirts saying "Protect the Human" and pressing anti-Chinese or anti-Russian leaflets into commuters' hands. Twitter would go mental.
And yet when those very things happened in South Africa – first the massacre of 34 miners in Marikana on 16 August and then the arrest of the surviving miners under a warped Orwellian law of the apartheid era that allows protesters to be charged with murder if the state kills some of their fellow protesters – the global gatekeepers of the human-rights culture said barely a peep.
Amnesty issued a feeble statement, hidden deep on its website, about the need for the ANC government to institute a judge-led inquiry into the killings. And then it went straight back to organising global protests to have Pussy Riot released from their Russian jail. For Amnesty, three pretty white chicks are clearly way more important than 34 dead black blokes. Britain’s liberal broadsheets, which pride themselves on speaking truth to power, have published no thundering editorials about the massacre, no stinging critiques of the ANC. World leaders are also keeping schtum.
Of course, the West’s self-styled defenders of human rights are infamous for their double standards. They are always far more agitated by Chinese police brutality than by any other nation’s police brutality, for example, because they think the Chinese are especially evil. They always describe wars fought in Africa – whisper it: by black people – as “genocides”, whereas the wars fought by Washington or London are always just “wars”.
And they lose far more sleep over Russia’s imprisonment of Pussy Riot for two years on trumped-up charges of blasphemy than they do over Britain’s imprisonment of a tweeter for two months, or our imprisonment for four years of two blokes who wrote nonsense about rioting on their Facebook pages, because they think Eastern rulers are, unlike us, naturally mafia-esque and inherently authoritarian. So it isn’t a massive shock to find them downplaying one major massacre in favour of focusing on other, less pressing human-rights problems.
But there is more to the conspiracy of silence over the Marikana massacre than double standards. More fundamentally, the reason there is so little fuss about this act of state terror is because Western leaders and their mates in the human-rights lobby have for years been telling us that the New South Africa, this post-apartheid “Rainbow Nation”, is a living, breathing testament to the values of truth and reconciliation over political conflict and to the elevation of respect for cultural diversity and human rights to the top of the political agenda.
And this massacre shoots that myth down. It calls into question, in the most dramatic fashion imaginable, the idea that the New South Africa is a paragon of virtue and an advert for making “human rights” the lingua franca of political life, as the ANC has done. What this massacre reveals is that, in truth, there are deep, seriously unresolved divisions in South Africa, continuing and profound inequality, and rising disgruntlement among black workers with their black rulers. None of that reality is palatable to politicians or commentators over here, who for years have been behaving as if every problem in South Africa was fixed by the reforms that followed the unbanning of the ANC and the institutionalisation of a new kind of PC politics, and so they just ignore it – they ignore the massacre and they ignore the divisions that nurtured it.
Anti-apartheid activists used to argue that those Western leaders who refused to condemn the apartheid regime were cynically putting their own interests, usually their business interests in South Africa, above the lives and liberties of black South Africans. By the same token, the human-rights lobby that has said barely a word about the Marikana massacre is now promoting its own interests, its investment of so much overblown hope and hype in the New South Africa, above the lives and liberties of the black workers who live there.
Feminists will weep, but I turn on the tears to get my own way
By Angela Epstein
My supermarket trolley was piled high with shopping in anticipation of the birthday dinner party I was throwing for my husband that evening, and time was ticking away fast. So when I opened my purse to pay for my goods and discovered I’d left my credit card at home, I could have cried.
Only I didn’t. Well, not at first. Smiling sweetly at the customer services assistant, I explained my predicament and asked if I could pay by cheque. Her response was an unapologetic ‘no’.
Could I leave my name and phone number and pop back later with the cash? Another ‘no’. So I began to beg. Take my engagement ring, I said. My Wimbledon tickets? Anything so I can get out of here and back to my oven. But nothing worked.
When a woman cries she's on her way to getting what she wants, says Angela Epstein
What women want... When a woman cries she's on her way to getting what she wants, says Angela Epstein
Clearly relishing her power, the assistant remained inflexible. Angry, irritated and almost expiring with frustration, I demanded to see the manager. A few minutes later, a nice man with flaxen-coloured hair and kindly eyes appeared beside me.
It was at that moment that I realised the only thing that would work was a radical change of tactic. My voice wobbled, my posture crumpled and heavy tears formed as I made my soulful appeal.
‘Please,’ I begged. ‘I’m a regular customer here. I’ve left my children with a baby-sitter. I have to get home, I haven’t got time to come back. I’m preparing a special birthday dinner for my mum.’ (I thought this would inspire more sympathy than the truth that I was merely cooking for him indoors.)
‘Surely a cheque is good enough, even without a bank card?’ I pleaded, employing an Oscar-worthy vibrato quiver in my voice.
The manager’s face visibly softened as he told me he’d let me pay by cheque just this once.
‘Oh, thank you! You don’t know what this means to me,’ I sobbed, pressing a sodden ball of Kleenex into his hand.
Many feminists will cringe at such blatant emotional manipulation. As for me, I’m happy to douse the embers of those burning bras with my unapologetically girlie tears.
The fact is that when a woman cries — either by default or design — she’s on her way to getting what she wants, especially if her emotional display is directed at a man.
Only last week, celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman was quoted as saying women are easier to defend than men because they are more inclined to cry. Once a female suspect is at a police station facing a charge of drink driving, he argued, she may be crying so hard that her powers of comprehension are shattered — and this emotional distraction can be used as a defence in court.
‘When it comes to a defence, they can be an unwitting beneficiary of that emotional state,’ Freeman says.
I take his point, having once had my own collar felt at the roadside. Driving home from work, I’d made a dash through some traffic lights as they changed to red.
Celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman has been quoted as saying women are easier to defend as they are more likely to cry
Even in court: Celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman (pictured) has been quoted as saying women are easier to defend as they are more likely to cry
Moments later, I saw the dazzling flash of a police light in my rear-view mirror. ‘Oh, officer,’ I stuttered after he’d pulled me over. ‘I didn’t mean to. I was late picking up my little girl and I was so upset at the thought of her being the last one left in school.’
A lump formed in my throat, and the tears started to fall. ‘I know, it was such a stupid thing to do. . .’ I said.
‘It was,’ the gentleman police officer replied as I continued to release a flood of watery apologies. Then he let me off with a caution. I drove off slowly, mascara dribbling down my chin, feeling glad that, once again, my tears had come to my rescue.
I’ve always been a cry-baby. Perhaps it’s because I’m a volatile red-head, so my emotions are difficult to keep in check. Maybe it’s because I’m the youngest by some years, and as a child only had to whimper before someone came scuttling to my aid. Whatever the reason, I’ve always found turning on the tears is the most effective means of getting my own way.
Only last week, I sobbed bitterly when the washing machine engineer said he wouldn’t be able to come back for a few days with the part he needed because he was so busy. My tears worked: he managed to rejig things so he could fit me in the following day.
I wasn’t always a tactical tear-monger. In fact there was a time when I castigated myself for this affliction: for bursting into sobs at the first breath of conflict.
I particularly loathed it when my tears were provoked by any professional criticism. Early in my career as a junior reporter, I remember getting a dressing-down from the editor for failing to unearth a vital part of a story about the local agricultural show.
I stood in his office, my throat burning, telling myself: ‘Don’t cry, don’t cry.’ I managed not to, but back at my desk I buried my head in my hands then fled to the loo, my face soaked with tears.
So much for what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger; at that stage in my career, I was as weak as a kitten.
Yet in recent years, having faced the emotional issues that really matter — getting married, having children, the maturity of age, the strength of professional advancement — I’ve actually come to appreciate how useful it is to turn on the waterworks, and I no longer battle to stem the flow.
A few months ago, a male friend and colleague misunderstood a remark I made when we were at a public function. Under his breath, he let me have the full blast of his displeasure.
The next day, I called to see him at his office to apologise, and as I told him how much our friendship meant to me, the scalding tears started to flow.
I felt the hot flush of shame, but part of me also realised that a watery appeal could demonstrate genuine remorse.
My friend seemed almost embarrassed by my tears, making a feeble joke about my being a pathetic woman, and the matter was swiftly settled with a hug. We’ve never mentioned it since.
Angela last week sobbed bitterly to convince an engineer to complete work on her washing machine (posed by models)
Tear factor: Angela last week sobbed bitterly to convince an engineer to complete work on her washing machine (posed by models)
Of course, the impact of tactical tears depends very much on who is on the receiving end of them. Some people, women in particular, despise it, feeling it smacks of an innate weakness which undermines the sisterhood.
No wonder Facebook boss Sheryl Sandberg was recently criticised for encouraging women to cry at work, revealing that she regards her tears as part of her success.
Speaking to some aspiring entrepreneurs, she said: ‘I’ve cried at work. I’ve told people I’ve cried at work. I try to be myself.’
Men, on the other hand, perhaps feel stung by the fact that they have reduced a woman to tears. It makes them feel like the playground bully, causing them to recalibrate and rescue the damsel they have plunged into distress.
Or maybe they’re simply embarrassed by the whole emotional dog-and-pony show, and want it to go away.
To them a weeping woman is hormonal and emotionally unstable, and that’s not a scenario they wish to be a part of.
Ultimately, being a cry baby means you’re target practice for those who despise such emotional manipulation. No doubt I’ll be in for same scalding criticism for admitting my position. It may even make me cry.
False rape accuser Cathy Tretola and two white knights
The lady put on a sexy dress and turned on the waterworks. Only photography thwarted her. Most likely a blackmail attempt
Two days ago a video was posted to YouTube showing a chaotic scene where Catherine Tratola, owner of the Brookside Manor, a hotel in in Quincy, MA, barged into the room of one of her tenants, assaulted him repeatedly and screamed rape several times.
Tretola was accompanied by two unidentified men and the incident was recorded on video by the victim of the attack. It clearly showed that there was no attempt to rape or otherwise assault Tratola.
The video went viral on Youtube, but was removed this morning with a message informing viewers: “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten.”
This is likely because the name of Tratola’s business was posted in several comments and resulted in the assault by Tratola making its way to customer review sites like Yelp.
But the video clearly shows that the actions to harass, bully and threaten were from Tratola and her accomplices, not from their victim and not from the YouTuber who posted the video. YouTube got this one wrong.
This video shows a business owner that is clearly a threat to her customers and to public safety. We are putting it on record here, along with the particulars on Brookside Manor, as a public service to anyone who may research this establishment on the internet before deciding to stay there.
More HERE (Including video link)
Will PC Peter Pans and Tinker Bells ever grow up?
The world of political correctness is a fantasyland in which mature-appearing adult human beings insist on pretending that words and the realities to which they refer are the same thing so they can remain cloistered little children forever.
To those who suffer from this defect, if something "looks like" a thing it "is" that thing.
When children, half asleep in their bedrooms, "see" a boogeyman standing by the window they react as if what they see "is" a boogeyman.
But they're children. They haven't learned the difference.
When some adults, half asleep in their social cocoons, "see" a gun drawn in crayon on a piece of paper by a child they react as if what they see "is" a gun.
But they're adults. They haven't learned the difference.
Instead, they have learned "political correctness" and "zero tolerance" where other adults have learned "reality."
In popular psychology this is called the Peter Pan Syndrome for men who have never grown up, and is reflected in a parallel affliction for women known as the Tinkerbell Effect.
Here is one case study from the mainstream news on these concomitant disorders.
When a deaf boy in Nebraska named Hunter signs his name using S.E.E., or "Signed Exact English," he uses his hands and fingers in such a way that, at least to some school officials, seems to vaguely have the appearance of a "gun."
Since they believe in the magical thinking known as Political Correctness they saw a real gun and threatened to expel him unless he changes his name or changes his "hand signature."
Fortunately, an outpouring of protest from actual adult people in the community made them back off.
But now their Zero Tolerance stance may require him to disavow S.E.E and start using "American Sign Language" (ASL) since it is apparently gun-free.
Other examples of Anal Retentiveness, also known in scholarly circles as "Hardcore Control-Freak Complex," can be identified simply by reading news headlines:
* Father arrested, strip-searched after 4-year-old draws 'man with gun'
* TSA airport screeners stop teen with handgun design on pocketbook
* Atlanta Symphony rejects two HS choruses owing to lack of 'diversity'
* Rhode Island high school removes married couple from student's mural
* NJ boy suspended from school because Muslim girl overheard him say "Taliban"
* 11-year-old saves baby bird’s life, gets fined $535 (Update)
Libertarians, like other rational people, are hopeful that a cure can be found soon.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.