Thursday, February 21, 2013
BBC reveals huge scale of honour attacks in Britain, fails to mention the word ‘Islam"
All right. I’m not going to make this difficult. The families giving the orders, as well as the victims, are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, Muslim. Surprised? No, of course you’re not. Honour attacks ranging in brutality from beatings to murder are commonplace in many parts of the Muslim world.
Since Britain, like many other European countries, has imported sizeable Muslim communities, which are to a significant degree unassimilated, the cultural practices of the old country have survived the transition to the new.
Finally, the figure of 2,823 attacks is almost certainly a gross under-estimate since, apart from anything else, it is drawn from only 39 of 52 UK police forces.
Got it? In just over 150 words (including title and summary) you now know all the basic information, and as intelligent, informed citizens you can have a discussion on what to do about it. That’s what journalism is for.
Propaganda, on the other hand, is intended for something else. It is designed to present a politically charged narrative held to with a fanaticism that will allow no mention of facts that contradict it. It is thus deliberately intended to lower the quality of the discussion by erasing key pieces of information.
Enter the BBC, which reported on the matter in a lengthy, 700-plus word article and failed to mention the words “Muslim”, “Islamic” or “Islam” even once.
As I write this I am flicking back to the story itself so I can double check using the Find function. Could I be mistaken?
Here goes: “Islamic”? “No Matches”. “Muslim”? “No Matches”. “Islam”? “No Matches”.
This is how societies go down: when matters of the profoundest significance to their character, and potentially their very existence, have been rendered undiscussable by the people that set the terms of public debate.
Clearly the people who wrote and edited that story should be dismissed.
They won’t be of course because the mind-numbing, multiculturalist narrative that demanded censorship of the salient evidence is effectively institutionalised as the dominant narrative across the BBC as well as the wider liberal establishment.
So be it. Go ahead and have a conversation about deep-seated problems inside the fastest growing demographic group in Europe without mentioning what that group is. The quality of your discussion will be moronic. But you reap what you sow.
It would be nice to leave it at that on the grounds that these people are too narrow and boring to be bothered with.
Unfortunately we can’t because the BBC is the most powerful media outlet in the English speaking world and it sets the British news agenda.
I have been watching SKY News for at least three hours today and, unless I coughed when the word was mentioned, they’re not reporting that the story is about Muslims either despite multiple repetitions of the news item, and interviews.
Turning to the Daily Telegraph (the UK’s flagship, right-leaning, “quality” newspaper) its report is openly parasitic on the BBC’s, meaning that they also make no mention of Islam.
So you can see the problem. The power of the BBC is such that it is not only capable of influencing what is said, it can also influence what is not said.
And, when the whole organisation has been captured by politically correct ideology, that means that it’s not just a problem for the BBC, it’s a problem for Britain as a whole.
Unspeakable British bureaucrats get a just reward from the public
Not a glimmer of remorse over their evil deeds, apparently
Baby P social worker forced out of her home, court hears
Baby P's social worker was forced out of her home and branded a “murderer” by members of the public in the wake of the toddler’s death, a court heard.
Maria Ward was advised to wear a disguise and forced to move house as people gathered at her front door, with the public labelling her a killer, she claims.
She was one of the women charged with the care of Peter Connelly when he died in August 2007 after months of abuse, but maintains that she was unfairly sacked as a result of the “hysterical outcry” which followed the toddler’s horrific death.
Ms Ward, who was his nominated social worker at the Haringey Council from February 2007 until his death, and Gillie Christou, her team manager, took their case to the Court of Appeal today in the latest battle against their sacking.
Peter's mother Tracey Connelly, her boyfriend Steven Barker, and his brother Jason Owen were jailed in May 2009 for causing or allowing the child's death.
After the convictions "there then followed a media outcry, a hysterical outcry", said Karon Monaghan QC, representing both Ms Ward and Mrs Christou.
Ms Ward had to permanently move home and "was advised to disguise herself", she told London’s High court:
"She had members of the public and press outside her house with members of the public calling her a murderer.
"Mrs Christou was subjected to similar, albeit less severe harassment."
A Watford employment tribunal concluded in 2010 that the local authority acted reasonably in dismissing them because of serious failings in their care of the toddler.
The women then challenged that ruling at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in central London, but their appeals were dismissed in May last year.
The EAT ruled that the employment tribunal did not "err in law or come to perverse conclusions" in rejecting their claims for unfair dismissal.
Peter, who was originally known as Baby P before his name became public, was 17 months old when he died in Tottenham, north London, on August 3 2007.
He had suffered more than 50 injuries despite being on the at-risk register and receiving 60 visits from social workers, police and health professionals over eight months.
Ms Ward and Mrs Christou were sacked after an investigation which discovered there was a period in mid-2007 when they did not know where the child was.
The joys of "multiculturalism" again
A man dubbed the 'Hounslow Slasher' is facing jail today after confessing to random knife attacks on two women. Sasha Masamba, 20, grabbed the victims from behind and cut then across the neck or face as they walked in the street.
The first, 19 year-old Kaja Zablocka, was slashed across the neck in Hanworth Road, Hounslow, and ran away laughing shortly before midnight on 7 August last year.
Ten days later Masamba slashed the face of Deserilyn Aurelio, 26, after grabbing her in Whitton Road, Hounslow, at around 1.30am.
He was arrested on August 21 by a police officer on a high-visibility patrol at Hounslow train station.
Masamba, of Hounslow, west London, was charged with two counts of attempted murder.
He appeared at the Old Bailey to plead guilty to the alternative charges of grievous bodily harm with intent.
The prosecution accepted the pleas after consultation with the victims.
Masamba will be sentenced on April 9 after a psychiatric report is prepared.
Sasha Masamaba was snared after a police officer with only four weeks service spotted him at Hounslow train station on August 21. The un-named woman police constable recognised him from CCTV images she had seen and he was arrested.
DCI Amanda Hargreaves of the Homicide & Serious Crime Command said: ‘Although we do not fully understand Masamba’s motive for these senseless attacks, I have no doubt that he would have continued to pose a serious threat to women had he not been caught.
‘Masamba was not previously known to police, but he was caught through the hard work of detectives, the availability of CCTV footage and the diligence of the additional officers on patrol in Hounslow.’
When discounts are incorrect
We have all been there: a nice restaurant, a quiet evening, a companion of the opposite sex — only to have the experience shattered by loud, ill-mannered, or unruly kids.
From coast to coast, some restaurants have begun placing signs on their doors and menus saying things such as, “We love children, especially when they are tucked in chairs and well behaved,” or “Kids must use indoor voices.”
There are message boards, websites, and even petitions that promote child-free dining.
An online petition was once started in North Carolina to establish “child-free restaurants.”
One “upscale casual” establishment near Pittsburgh, McDain’s Restaurant, recently banned children under 6 strictly in response to customer complaints because the noisy children have become “too much of a bother for the other customers.”
Even the usually family-friendly Disney has a no-child policy at its Victoria and Albert’s restaurant in the Grand Floridian Resort.
And it’s not just restaurants. In 2011, Malaysia Airlines banned infants from the first-class sections of its Boeing 747 jumbo jets. Then last year it banned children under 12 from the upper-deck coach-class section of its Airbus A380s.
But one restaurant in Kingston in Washington state — an Italian restaurant named Sogno di Vino — instead of banning children, has taken to rewarding parents of well-behaved children. After a recent dinner of pizza and pasta, the King family — which includes three children ranging in age from 2 to 8 — noticed a discount of four dollars on their check for “well behaved kids.” “Our server came to our table and just really thanked us for having exceptionally behaved children,” said Mrs. King. One of the family’s friends posted an image of the receipt online where it went viral. The owner of the restaurant, Rob Scott, who said he fondly remembered the King family and its well-mannered children, said he “routinely offers complimentary desserts to customers with well-mannered children, but this was the first time he had actually typed the discount on the receipt.” He further explained, “Sogno di Vino means ‘to dream of wine’ (in Italian); it doesn’t mean Chuck E. Cheese. We love Chuck E. Cheese; they do a great job. That’s why you go to Chuck E. Cheese, so the kids can play.”
Although this is an unusual reason to receive a discount at a restaurant, other factors that result in discounts at restaurants and other places of business are quite common. Some restaurants offer senior-citizen discounts. Others allow children to eat free on certain nights. Many hotels offer discounts to members of AARP. Most companies give their employees discounts. Many bars have a ladies’ night where ladies can drink for free. Some businesses have discounts for paying in cash. By far the most prevalent type of discount is the military discount. Business establishments of all kinds — from restaurants to storage facilities to theme parks — offer discounts to active-duty military personnel. Some sporting events even offer free admission to members of the military.
So it comes as a surprise that not everyone appreciates businesses’ offering discounts — especially when the discounts concern religion.
A little more than a year ago, Prudhomme’s Lost Cajun Kitchen in Columbia, Pennsylvania, began offering a 10 percent discount to diners who presented a church bulletin on Sundays. This upset a local atheist, John Wolff, who then filed a complaint in April 2012 with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, alleging that the practice discriminates against him because he does not attend church. “I did this not out of spite, but out of a feeling against the prevailing self-righteousness that stems from religion, particularly in Lancaster County,” said Wolff, a retired electrical engineer, who said he was considering eating at the restaurant but never did. He merely saw the discount offer on the restaurant’s website.
Wolff also contacted the Freedom from Religion Foundation of Madison, Wisconsin, which sent a letter to the restaurant’s owners telling them that the church-bulletin discount was “discriminatory” and “a serious civil rights concern” that violated both the federal Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Sharon Prudhomme, one of the co-owners of the restaurant, said she created the discount program to bring more traffic into the restaurant on what was traditionally a slow day. “I thought it would be nice to do something for Sunday dinners and encourage people to come in,” said Prudhomme, who doesn’t attend church herself. The church-bulletin discount was a marketing tool, not a religious outreach. “We’re the kind of place where everybody can come,” she said of the restaurant. In the past she has offered discounts to senior citizens, early-bird diners, shoppers at local businesses, and Columbia High School students. The restaurant currently offers a free meal on Tuesday evenings to children 12 and under who order from the kids’ menu. Prudhomme has made it clear that she is not discriminating because diners don’t actually have to attend church to get a bulletin. She said area religious leaders told her that anyone can walk into a church building and obtain a bulletin. She considered the investigation of the complaint against her to be “a waste, to actually give it merit.” “I’m an American,” she added, “This is an independent restaurant. I can do as I wish and I’m going to continue to offer the church-bulletin discount.”
Well, it turns out that while Prudhomme is continuing to offer the church-bulletin discount, she can’t exactly do as she wishes.
The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission approved a Conciliation Agreement with the restaurant in September. According to the Terms of Settlement,
Respondent will continue to give a discount for any bulletin from any group oriented around the subject of religious faith including publications from the Freedom From Religion Foundation as long as they maintain the Sunday discount program.
The restaurant’s attorney commented that the complaint was “a frivolous thing.” “It was really not in keeping with the really noble purposes behind the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act,” he added. “I can’t imagine that those who passed the act contemplated that somebody would try to use it in the future for something like this.”
So what do discounts offered by restaurants have to do with a free society? Everything.
There are two sides of the coin to look at here. On the one side is what we can call moral freedom and on the other side is what we can label economic freedom.
Complaints about church-bulletin discounts have been made before. They are clearly the result of some religious bias, since no such complaints are ever made about senior-citizen discounts or military discounts. But there should be no difference in one’s attitude toward discounts targeted to religious people. Complaining to some government agency about a company’s peaceful and beneficial activity should be the last thing on anyone’s mind.
As the twentieth century’s great champion of individual liberty and a free society, Leonard Read, put it, government should not interfere with anything that’s peaceful. Not only because the costs associated with stopping peaceful activity always outweigh the benefits, but also because it is immoral for governments to prohibit anything but fraud and violence. In a free society, individual persons and businesses have the natural right to favor or not favor the members of any particular group, class, organization, race, or religion by providing or prohibiting a discount or anything else that’s peaceful.
The same principle applies when it comes to economic freedom. Contrary to popular opinion, the United States does not have a free-market or laissez-faire economic system where unbridled capitalism reigns supreme. That is a caricature of liberals and a pipe dream of conservatives. Government intervention in the economy — on both the federal and state levels — is the norm. In some sectors of the economy, government intervention is so strong and pervasive that one would think it was modeled after the central planning of the Soviet Union.
For example, about two-thirds of the milk in the United States is produced under the watchful eye of the federal government. The rest is produced under heavy state regulation. In Louisiana last month, the Department of Agriculture and Forestry forced a supermarket chain to stop its weekly promotion of “a gallon of skim, 1 percent, 2 percent or whole milk for $2.99 on Tuesdays, limiting the quantity to four per customer.” It turns out that the Dairy Stabilization Board oversees milk prices in Louisiana. Retailers must mark up milk “no less than 6 percent of the invoice cost after adding freight charges.” So, discount your milk too much and the bureaucrats from the Department of Agriculture and Forestry will send in the milk police.
But it’s not just milk. If the government determines that the price of something is too high, then a firm is charged with the non-crime of price gouging. But if the government determines that the price of something has been discounted too much, then a firm is charged with the non-crime of “predatory pricing.” But under the philosophy of “anything that’s peaceful,” what matters is not whether some government bureaucrat thinks a price is too low or too high, but whether there is a voluntary transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Offering a discount to only one party does not aggress in any way against another party.
The ability to offer discounts on any product or service, at any time, and in any amount, to the general public, or just to certain persons on the basis of their age, sex, religion, or membership in some group is essential to any free society.
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, 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.