Sunday, February 02, 2014
More multiculturalism as Muslim gangs wage war in London
A gang who stabbed and hacked a schoolboy to death with knives, swords and a meat cleaver because he lived on the wrong side of the street was yesterday jailed for a total of 131 years.
Hani Hicham Abou El Kheir, 16, died after being knifed 30 times when the hooded gang of up to ten people pounced on him wielding a ‘fearsome armoury’ in a ‘calculated and savage’ attack yards from multi-million pound homes.
He was hunted down and shot with a Taser stun gun before being stabbed through the heart and left for dead.
Arber Barbatovci, 20, Ahmed Mikhaimar, 20, Tarquai Joseph, 19, and a fourth man, aged 20, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum of 26 years each.
A fifth member of the gang, Craig Boyce, 26, was told he would spend at least 27 years behind bars. The Old Bailey heard that the ‘chilling’ murder, which happened on a Sunday in Pimlico, an affluent area of Central London where Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has a home, was the result of a bitter rivalry between two street gangs in a ‘turf war’ over drugs.
Police blamed Hani’s slaughter on ‘the casual acceptance of knives among young people’ in London. But his broken-hearted mother insisted her son had nothing to do with gangs and died simply because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
On January 27 last year, Hani was walking home with his girlfriend through an estate in Pimlico at the centre of the turf war when he was spotted by the gang, who were wearing balaclavas, hats and scarves.
They chased him into an alleyway where he was ‘butchered’ in such a frenzied ambush that two of the killers suffered cuts as they rained down blows on the helpless schoolboy. The mob then scattered and dumped their weapons in a drain. Hani died later in hospital.
Prosecutor Aftab Jafferjee QC said: ‘An agenda of murderous proportion was at play that evening by way of simply which side of a street they lived on. His murder was the produce of brazen lawlessness on the streets of Central London on a Sunday evening.’
Hani’s mother, Pauline Hickey, said he was a recluse who suffered from anxiety attacks and had only just started venturing out on his own and making friends in the last few weeks of his life.
In a moving statement, she said: ‘Hani was my only child. I pine for him every day and I cannot come to terms with the fact that I will never again see his warm, beautiful smile or his awkward walk or hear his childish voice and explosive laugh, the way he said “Mum” constantly and told me he loved me every day, the mess he left his bedroom and his heavy hugs.
‘Hani was a gentle and loving giant. Every day I expect him to come through the front door. I cannot face the truth of Hani’s death and I cannot get over the devastating image of my son lying dead in the hospital.’
She said she would have given her life to save her son. ‘It has left me feeling so much guilt for not being there to help him when he was butchered by that gang as he tried to run home to me,’ she added. ‘Hani was not involved with any gangs and had never been arrested or involved with the police in any way. ‘It could have been anyone who was murdered that night; Hani was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.’
The court heard that his killers had a catalogue of previous convictions.
Judge Charles Wide QC, told them: ‘The murder by you of Hani Hicham Abou El Kheir was as calculated as it was savage. ‘The horror of what you did is demonstrated and compounded by the degree of planning and organisation.
‘You had a fearsome armoury of long knives and meat cleavers and then a co-ordinated meet after which you moved together through the streets to find your victim, hunt him down and kill him. He must have been utterly terrified as he was chased by you and utterly terrified when, outnumbered, the blows rained down.’
A sixth man, Yassine Sidi-Ammi, 20, was cleared of perverting the course of justice, while another man, Dilwar Hussein, has fled to Bangladesh.
Donjeta Gashi, 20, of Kentish Town, North-West London, was found guilty of perverting the course of justice. She will be sentenced later.
Police are offering a £20,000 reward for information about others involved in the murder.
Detective Chief Inspector Neil Attewell said: ‘It is the casual acceptance of knives amongst young people that has led to the needless loss of yet another young person in London.’
Feminists will always be a disgruntled minority of harpies huddled in a corner moaning to one-another
Most women will acknowledge some feminist sympathies -- equal pay for equal work etc. But I am not talking about those women. I am talking about the feminists you encounter at universities and writing in the papers. They are often quite good at changing official policies (generally set by men) but their influence on the behaviour of other women is minimal.
The big and unsurmountable problem for feminists is that young women are intensely interested in young men. They are more interested in young men than young men are interested in them. As a result, young women tend to PANDER to young men. There! I've said it. The word that sends feminists molten. A women pandering to a man deserves the lowest depths of hell and damnation from a feminist perspective.
I am moved to those thoughts by something I saw this morning as I was having a cup of tea with Anne at the seaside (Wynnum). It was a classical example of the pandering I just mentioned.
What was happening was that two young men -- perhaps around age 20 -- were fishing without much success. But fishing they were and they stuck at it despite catching only the occasional tiddler. And they had a girl with them, a rather aspirational girl of about 18, about 5'5" tall with fair skin, blue eyes and blonde hair. And she was in great shape wearing tight short denim shorts.
So what was she doing? She was just there for the company. She did have her own fishing rod and cast it in a few times but mostly she just pottered around or sat in a nearby shelter watching. She was there because the men were there and for no other reason. They paid their fishing much more attention than they paid her but she was nonetheless in great good humor, full of smiles. She was happy just to be there with the men.
And that is how it goes in the teenage years. And as the years progress it gets even worse from a feminist perspective. Young women enter into intimate relationships with men -- not even requiring a wedding ring first these days. But a wedding is still the vision for most women.
So feminists are up against human nature just as much as other Leftists before them. Leftists once thought that they could mould a "new Soviet man" but were thwarted by human nature. They simply drove Soviet man to drink. A new feminist man is just as remote. Feminized men tend in fact to be rather despised by most women. Most women like men to be men. Look at all the women who "wait" for husbands and boyfriends in the armed forces who are "away" on deployment. Such a relationship looks a very bad deal from a certain point of view. But men in the forces tend to be real men -- and women will put up with a lot to have such a man. Where it matters, feminism is an abject failure -- JR
Three cheers for Scarlett Johansson's stand against the ugly, illiberal Boycott Israel movement
As if her otherworldly beauty and screen presence were not enough, here is another reason to love Scarlett Johansson: Oxfam, of which she was an ambassador, hinted that she should cut her ties with SodaStream on the basis that it maintains factories in Israeli settlements and she responded by cutting her ties with Oxfam!
What’s not to love about this story? A worthy charity shakes its big head in disapproval at a celeb who has dared to do things for a company that works in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, no doubt expecting the celeb to freak out, issue a tear-drenched apology and promise never again to rub shoulders, or anything else, with these evil Israelis. But instead the celeb basically tells the worthy charity to get stuffed and says she will carry on working with and promoting the Israeli company.
Ever since she was signed up as the face of SodaStream, Ms Johansson has had a tsunami of flak from campaigners who think that buying Israeli stuff, working with Israeli academics or attending Israeli theatre performances is the very worst thing a human being could ever do. You know the kind: they stand outside Marks & Spencer’s on Oxford Street warning all whom enter that this evil shop sells blood-stained products (ie, stuff made in Israel), and they screech and wail, these philistines for Palestine, when an Israeli violinist starts playing at the Proms. I mean, can you imagine it – a musician from Israel inside the Royal Albert Hall? *Shudder*.
And so it was that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which calls for decent-minded Westerners to refuse to contaminate their body, souls or minds with any grub or books from Israel, called on Oxfam to “immediately sever ties” with Ms Johansson. Oxfam expressed its concern at Ms Johansson’s lack of guilt over advertising SodaStream, asking her to “[consider] the implications”, and said it was thinking about what this all means “for Ms Johansson’s role as Oxfam global ambassador”. And then, brilliantly, totally stealing Oxfam’s puffed-up thunder, Ms Johansson’s people issued a statement saying: “Scarlett Johansson has respectfully decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years.” Sassy Actress 1, Self-Important Moaners About Israel 0.
Ms Johansson broke her links with Oxfam over what she calls “a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement”. That is, Oxfam thinks this movement is hunky dory; Ms Johansson thinks it isn’t. In taking this stance, Ms Johansson is being pretty rebellious. There is enormous pressure on the well-known and the well-connected to boycott Israel. Any pop singer who dares to perform there is bombarded with letters, emails and tweets telling them to rethink. Any Western shop that stocks Israeli produce can expect despressed-looking middle-class white people in Arafat-style keffiyehs to turn up on a Saturday morning waving banners saying “Stop supporting Zionism!” Various academic unions boycott Israeli universities, turning that nation’s professors into the lepers of modern intellectual life, as if their words – on stuff as innocent as physics or philosophy – are wont to poison and corrupt those who hear them.
As for Israeli theatre troupes or dance groups that come to Western European nations to perform – they will find themselves hollered at and complained about by our right-on arts world. When Habima, Israel’s national theatre company, came to Britain in 2012 to take part in an international Shakespeare festival at the Globe, luvvies wrote open letters expressing their “dismay” and claiming that by including Habima the Globe was “associating itself with the policies of exclusion practised by the Israeli state”. Notably, the presence at the Globe of theatre companies from authoritarian regimes, including Zimbabwe and China, was not complained about. Nope, just Israel. Because Israel is different, you see. It’s really horrible. We hate it. And we love to hate it.
There is nothing remotely progressive in this campaign to boycott everything Israeli, with its double standards about various nations’ behaviour and its shrill rhetoric about everything that comes from Israel being covered in Palestinian blood. This movement is not designed to have any kind of positive impact in the Middle East but rather is about making certain Western activists feel righteous and pure through allowing them to advertise how Israeli-free their lives are.
It’s illiberal, because it effectively demands the censoring of Israeli academics and performers; it’s hypocritical, because it is led by people who are only too happy to use iPhones made in undemocratic China and to vote for the Labour Party, which, er, bombed the hell out of Middle Eastern countries for the best part of 10 years; and it has unfortunate ugly echoes of earlier campaigns to boycott Jewish shops and produce.
So three cheers for Ms Johansson for taking a very public stand against this right-on pressure to treat Israel as the most evil nation on Earth.
Australian PM threatens to deport asylum seekers if they 'are irritating, spit or swear in public'
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been accused of abusing his power after drafting a code of behaviour for asylum seekers that threatens to deport them for ‘irritating people, disturbing someone or spitting or swearing in public’.
Australia’s tough stance over asylum seekers from Indonesia has soured relations between the two countries in recent months and this document is not likely to improve matters.
The number of asylum seekers from Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar and elsewhere reaching Australia in Indonesian fishing boats has soared in recent years and Australia has occasionally used its Navy to tow boats back to Indonesian waters.
Now those who manage to make it to Australia’s shores will have to sign a new code of behaviour, currently in draft form, which sets out how they’re expected to behave.
The document, which applies to those arriving by boat - or 'illegal maritime arrivals' - was leaked to The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.
It states that they are banned from ‘irritating people’, ‘disturbing people’, ‘damaging property, spitting or swearing in public’ and ‘other actions that other people might find offensive’. ‘Spreading rumours’ at work or ‘excluding someone from a group or place on purpose’ are also banned.
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre said punishment for code of behaviour infringements could vary.
It said: 'It could start with just a warning, you may have your Red Cross payments reduced or stopped all together or you may be placed in detention in Australia or offshore on Nauru and Manus Island.'
Kon Karapanagiotidis, a spokesman for organisation, told The Telegraph: ‘No other industrialised nation criminalises everyday behaviour. The idea that spitting in public or getting a parking fine is enough to get you sent to an off shore detention centre is extraordinary. It is an abuse of power and creates a climate of terror for asylum seekers.’
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 and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.