Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Aggressive Multiculturalist murders little kid who annoyed him

THE accused Brooklyn Ripper, charged with butchering two young children in an elevator, is now terrifying hardened staffers on the psych ward where he is being held.

Daniel St Hubert has been threatening to beat up police and hospital workers since being taken in for evaluation last week, sources told The New York Post .

“Any hospital staff that have to deal with him are very nervous around him,” said a Bellevue source. “They are on high alert.

“He is extremely hostile and accepts no responsibility for anything,” the source said, adding that his colleagues describe the alleged killer as a “menacing brute” with “a bad look in his eyes.”

A law enforcement source said of St Hubert: “He’s eating a lot of meatballs and spaghetti and chicken cutlets — and threatening to kick officer’s asses.”

St. Hubert — arrested in the June 1 rampage that killed Prince Joshua “PJ” Avitto, 6, and badly wounded Mikayla Capers, 7, days after being paroled for trying to kill his own mother — has shown no remorse, the sources said.

The hospital worker said that when St Hubert isn’t lashing out at the staff, he’s lounging around the ward, eating and sleeping “like he doesn’t have a care in the world”.

“All he wants to do is sleep, like it will all go away if he isn’t awake for it,” the source said. “He is like a big baby in a man’s body.”

St Hubert will likely remain at Bellevue (the facility he is being held) for some time because correction officials are nervous about moving him to Rikers Island, where there are already multiple threats against him, sources said.

PJ, who was laid to rest Friday, and Mikayla, who continues a long road to recovery at New York ­Presbyterian Hospital, were on their way out when St. Hubert entered the elevator with them and allegedly hacked them with a knife for refusing to quiet down.


Secret British court jails gran who hugged her granddaughter: Pensioner sentenced to three months after disobeying order she should not see the teenager

A grandmother has been sentenced to three months in prison after she was filmed giving her granddaughter a hug.

Kathleen Danby, 72, was jailed by the secretive Court of Protection, which decided she had disobeyed its order that she should not see the teenager.

Under a draconian judgment kept secret from the public, Mrs Danby had been banned from making contact with the girl, who is 18 but has learning difficulties.

She was told she could only speak to her on the phone once a month at a set time, with social workers listening in. Mrs Danby was ordered back to court when social workers heard that she had met the girl at a model railway exhibition. Police also presented CCTV footage of her hugging her granddaughter outside a pub.

Mrs Danby was not at the hearing in Birmingham in April to give her version of events but Judge Martin Cardinal said the CCTV showed she was in contempt. He ordered that she be jailed for three months and issued a warrant for her arrest.

However Mrs Danby, who lives in Orkney, said yesterday that no police officers had arrived to execute the warrant. ‘I haven’t been jailed simply because I refused to go down there to court,’ she said, adding that she would refuse to go to prison simply for making contact with her granddaughter.

‘She is 18 and can decide for herself what she wants to do, she is being denied her human rights,’ Mrs Danby said. ‘She has the educational standards of somebody half her age, and behaves like a much younger child, but she is completely lucid in what she wants.’

Mrs Danby said the girl was moved into care in Derbyshire in 2007, when she was 11, a year after being removed from her father in Orkney.  He was banned from seeing her after he was convicted for ill-treatment for restraining her from running into a busy road while she was having a temper tantrum, Mrs Danby said.

She said it was a ‘spurious excuse’, adding: ‘Social services completely cut off contact which was of course cruel to her in the extreme.’ The girl’s father has been jailed twice for trying to contact her – once for waving at her taxi as she travelled to school – she said.

The teenager was in the care home against her will and had run away 175 times, Mrs Danby said.

Judge Cardinal is the judge who sent Wanda Maddocks to jail in secret for trying to free her 80-year-old father from a care home where she feared his life was at risk.

Judge Cardinal jailed Miss Maddocks without publishing her name or making any details of her contempt public. She served six weeks in jail. The case came to light more than six months later and led to new rules so that no one may ever again be imprisoned without their name being published.

In Mrs Danby’s case, Judge Cardinal said that the teenager, named only as B, finds it hard to control her anger, has self-harmed and frequently runs away. Social workers believe her distress increases when she is contacted by her father or grandmother, he said.

Derbyshire County Council said Mrs Danby broke the injunction banning contact by meeting her granddaughter at 5.27pm on February 28 outside the pub next to the care home.

Four days earlier, the teenager escaped from her minder and took a circuitous route to the town of Chapel-en-le-Frith. Judge Cardinal said the girl knew that for the last three years her grandmother has attended a model railway show there in February. She told a care worker that her grandmother had come from Scotland to see her.

‘I am sure this grandmother needs restraint,’ he said.

Last night lawyers were debating whether, by failing to give any information about why Mrs Danby is banned from seeing her granddaughter, Judge Cardinal had met the full requirements brought in after the Maddocks case.


No End to a Self-Inflicted Tragedy

Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah/Palestinian Authority has just cemented a reconciliation agreement with Hamas, the terrorist movement that seized Gaza from Fatah in 2007 and whose charter calls for the murder of Jews.  U.S.-brokered Israeli/Palestinian negotiations have foundered in a predictable round of recriminations.  But events commemorated in recent weeks provide the clue to understanding why such talks invariably lead to an impasse.  On May 15, Palestinians marked what they call the naqba (Arabic for "catastrophe") – the day Israel came into existence upon the expiry of British rule under a League of Nations mandate.

That juxtaposition of Israeli independence and naqba is not accidental.  We are meant to understand that Israel’s creation caused the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs.

But the truth is different.  A British document from early 1948, declassified last year, tells the story: “the Arabs have suffered ... overwhelming defeats[.] ... Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands.”

In other words, Jew and Arabs, including irregular foreign militias from neighboring states, were already at war, and Arabs fleeing, even before Israel came into sovereign existence on 15 May 1948.

Thus, what is now called the naqba consisted not of Israeli forcible displacement of Arabs, but of neighboring Arab armies and internal Palestinian militias responding to Israel’s declaration of independence and Britain’s departure with full-scale hostilities.  Tel Aviv was bombed from the air, and the head of Israel’s provisional government, David Ben Gurion, delivered his first radio address to the nation from an air-raid shelter.

Israel successfully resisted invasion and dismemberment – the universally affirmed objective of the Arab belligerents – and Palestinians came off worst of all from the whole venture.  At war’s end, over 600,000 Palestinians were living as refugees under neighboring Arab regimes.  As Abdulateef Al-Mulhim, writing in Arab News, put it the other week, “[i]t was a defeat but the Arabs chose to call it a catastrophe.”

Accordingly, the term naqba is misleading.  Indeed, it smacks of falsehood, inasmuch as it implies a tragedy inflicted by others.  The tragedy, of course, was self-inflicted.

As Israel’s U.N. ambassador Abba Eban was to put it some years later, “[o]nce you determine the responsibility for that war, you have determined the responsibility for the refugee problem. Nothing in the history of our generation is clearer or less controversial than the initiative of Arab governments for the conflict out of which the refugee tragedy emerged.”

However, the Palestinians do not mourn today the ill-conceived choice of going to war to abort Israel.  They mourn only that they failed.

This is contrary to historical experience of disastrous defeat.  The Germans today mourn their losses in the Second World War – but not by lauding their invasion of Poland and justifying their attempt to subjugate Europe.  They do not glorify Nazi aggression.

The Japanese today mourn their losses in the Second World War – but not by lauding their assault on Pearl Harbor and their attempt to subjugate southeast Asia.  They do not glorify Japanese imperialism.

The very existence of naqba commemorations is therefore instructive in a way few realize.  It informs us that Palestinians have not admitted or assimilated the fact – as Germans and Japanese have done – that they became victims as a direct result of their efforts to be perpetrators.

It informs us that Palestinians would still like to succeed today at what they miserably failed to achieve then.

And it informs us that they take no responsibility for their own predicament, which is uniquely maintained to this day at their own insistence.

If readers doubt this, consider the following vignette: in January 2001, John Manley, then-foreign minister in Jean Chretien’s Canadian government, offered to welcome Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Canada.  The Palestinian response?  Mr. Manley was burned in effigy by Palestinian rioters in Nablus, and Palestinian legislator Hussam Khader of Fatah – not Hamas or another of the Islamist groups –declared, “If Canada is serious about resettlement, you could expect military attacks in Ottawa or Montreal.”  A similar offer by then-Australian Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock also received a threatening Palestinian rejoinder.

Why this astounding response by a government official to an offer of refugee relief?  Because establishing a Palestinian state and resettling the refugees and their descendants inside it or abroad would remove any internationally accepted grounds for conflict.  That’s why helping to solve the Palestinian refugee problem is regarded as a hostile act – by Palestinians.

Naqba commemorations disclose that the conflict is about Israel’s existence – not about territory, borders, holy places, refugees or any other bill of particulars.

When Palestinians accept that Israel is here to stay, the possibility of the conflict’s end will come into view.  In the meantime, responsible governments can discourage and repudiate naqba commemorations – rather than treat them as benign expressions of national loss or grief – as a small but important step toward bringing that day closer.


Pope pisses into the wind: Tells Muslims that  People Have 'Freedom to Choose Religion One Judges to be True'

During his first official visit to the Middle East, Pope Francis repeatedly told Muslim audiences that religious freedom is “a fundamental human right” and that governments must allow people to choose their own faith.

“Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right and I cannot fail to express my hope that it will be upheld throughout the Middle East and the entire world,” the pope said in a May 24th address to King Abdullah II, ruler of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Queen Rania at the Al Husseini Royal Palace in Amman.

The Hashemites are direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.

Quoting from his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI’s apostolic exhortation, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, which called religious freedom “the pinnacle of other freedoms,” Pope Francis continued: “The right to religious freedom ‘includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship….[it also includes] the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public.’”

Pope Francis repeated the same message the next day in his meeting with President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials in Bethlehem.

While expressing his “profound hope” that “peace will be pursued with tireless determination and tenacity,” the pontiff once again stressed the need for religious freedom.

“Respect for this fundamental human right is, in fact, one of the essential conditions for peace, fraternity and harmony,” he said.

On May 26, the final day of his three-day pilgrimage, Pope Francis met with Sheikh Mohammed Hussein, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, and the president of the Islamic Supreme Council at the Dome of the Rock to mark the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s historic visit to the Holy Land.

The Temple Mount site is holy to both Muslims, who believe it is where the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven, and Jews, who believe it is where God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, and where their First and Second Temples were built.

“Dear brothers, dear friends, from this holy place I make a heartfelt plea to all people and to all communities who look to Abraham: may we respect and love one another as brothers and sisters! May we learn to understand the sufferings of others!” the pope said.

“May no one abuse the name of God through violence!” Pope Francis told the Muslim religious leaders.



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


No comments: