Sunday, August 24, 2014
How Muslim Repatriation Could Work
Those of us who contemplate the problems Muslim immigration and proliferation are causing in Europe sooner or later realise that the only possible way of preserving European civilisation is for the Muslims to leave. But how could that come about? Below I present a sketch of a possible repatriation policy that could be implemented by a future government that is interested in preserving the well-being of its people instead of waging war on them.
Stage One: Registration
First of all, all Muslims will be required to register as such with the government. There should be a deadline for doing this. After the deadline, it becomes a criminal offence to be an unregistered Muslim in the country. New converts to Islam are given a grace period in which they must register. There will need to be some form of tribunal able to judge whether a person is a Muslim or not even if they have not registered as such. The standard of proof should be the civil one of "more likely than not" rather than the criminal one of "beyond a reasonable doubt", even though criminal penalties will apply. The penalties for failure to register as a Muslim should be forfeiture of all worldly goods (even the clothes they are wearing) of the Muslim and all family members up to a certain degree of separation, following by expulsion from the country.
Stage Two: Voluntary Departure
After the initial registration process is complete, all Muslims should be told that they are required to leave the country within 6 months. They can go wherever they like, as long as it's away from Britain. They can take all of their goods and assets with them. During this period, all registered Muslims leaving the country for good, giving up their British passports, will be paid a certain amount, say £10,000 to help with their resettlement costs. This will be per head and will apply even to children so a Pakistani family of man and wife with 5 children could be going home with £70,000 in their pockets. That is a lot of money in Pakistan and should allow them to buy a nice, big house and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle there. There can be no complaints that they are not being generously treated.
The money will only be paid if the Muslims are leaving not only Britain but the European Union. Many Muslims would seek to use their EU passports to move elsewhere in Europe. Offloading the Muslims to another European country would not be responsible, however, as all west European countries share the same predicament.
During the voluntary departure period, all Muslims in public employment should be dismissed from their jobs and all Muslims should lose their eligibility for benefits. The public practice of the Muslim faith should be prohibited. Mosques should be confiscated by the state and demolished. These measures are necessary to incentivise the departure of the Muslims.
Stage Three: Involuntary Departure
After 6 months, the involuntary expulsion phase begins. In this phase, no compensation is paid to the Muslims who are leaving and they have no choice about their final destination. The Muslims are removed by force and the money is instead paid to the governments of whichever country agrees to take them. There are dirt-poor countries in the third world that would probably be happy to take the Muslims off our hands for £10,000 per head or so. If necessary, we should pay more, perhaps throwing in some military training/equipment or foreign aid to sweeten the deal. If it proves difficult to find countries willing to accept the Muslims, we should consider alternatives. These would include simply occupying parts of countries which have no effectively functioning government, such as Somalia, and offloading the Muslims there.
Another alternative is to recognise a separatist movement somewhere, where there may be a militia in conflict with a central government, acknowledging it as a separate country in return for a promise to take the Muslims off our hands. Of course we could also supply money and equipment in this case too.
Consideration should also be given to creating a completely new country and using it as a sink for undesirables (mainly the Muslims due to be expelled, but it could also prove useful for dealing with others such as illegal immigrants or asylum seekers). Africa would be the most obvious choice for creating a new country. Governments there are poor and the borders are largely artificial anyway, having been drawn up by European imperialists rather than evolving over the course of centuries according to the natural contours of geography, ethnicity and popular feeling.
Britain could offer to purchase territory from an existing African state or, in extremis, could simply occupy land and create a new state there without the agreement of the government which is formally in control of it. For the first few years, deportees could be given assistance in the form of money, food and agricultural equipment in order to establish themselves there.
Britain would need to maintain some degree of imperial military control of the new country until the process of deportation was complete. If it is desired to maintain the newly created country as an outlet for illegal immigrants, imperial control would have to be maintained indefinitely. Imperial control could take the form of either maintaining a military presence at the points of ingress to the country (for example ports or airports) or, if it was thought desirable, Britain could attempt to play a shaping role in forming the government of the new country.
As an alternative to Africa, the Arctic could also be considered. Although generally inhospitable to human habitation, parts of the Arctic are capable of sustaining some forms of agriculture.
In this way it should be possible to get rid of the entire Muslim population in Britain (or any other European country) in a reasonably humane way within a few years. Pursuing a policy like this is the only way to prevent civil wars breaking out in Western Europe within a few decades. Many people have strong moral inhibitions about implementing a repatriation programme. Those inhibitions must be overcome. It is, quite simply, the only way to preserve our way of life.
Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.
Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.
He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”
While the Obama administration, Hollywood, and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as normal, said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”
“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”
The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh.
This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said.
The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”
“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.
The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”
Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”
Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”
“’Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”
Poll: 57% of Americans Believe Only Winning Kids Should Receive Trophies
Support for participation trophies is strongly linked to political beliefs, according to an August Reason-Rupe poll. Fifty-seven percent of Americans believe that only winning players should receive trophies, while 40% believe every kid on the team should receive a trophy for participating - but support for participation trophies drops with income, education and age.
Two-thirds (67%) of college graduates think only winners should get trophies, whereas those with high school degrees are evenly divided in their support for participation trophies.
Likewise, 66% of Republicans believe only the kids who win should receive trophies, while Democrats are evenly divided: 48% say all kids should receive a trophy, and 48% say only winners.
The competitive desire for winners to be rewarded correlates with fiscal conservatism. Among those who only think winners should get a trophy, 64 percent have a favorable view of capitalism, 64 percent thinks markets better solve problems than government, and 63 percent favor smaller government providing fewer services. In contrast, among those who think all kids should get a trophy, a plurality (49%) have an unfavorable view of capitalism, 50 percent thinks a strong government better solves problems than the free market, and 54 percent favor larger government providing more services.
The NSPCC: enemy of justice
The group’s latest hysterical campaign could seriously damage the law.
During the UK parliamentary recess, and the legal vacation, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) has kicked off another hysterical and misleading campaign, called ‘Order in Court’, this time designed to manipulate the public into thinking that our criminal justice system fails children.
It cites two cases on its website. One is an audio soundbite of 35 seconds featuring an anonymous woman named ‘Erica’. She complains that ‘the questioning of the barristers… did not bring justice for the children’, and that ‘perpetrators walk free because the barrister did a very good job of slaying the children’. Another is an account by a grandmother aggrieved because, after a four-day trial, her five-year-old grandson’s father was acquitted on charges of sexually abusing the boy.
The extreme hyperbole of accusing defence counsel of child-killing (‘slaying the children’) is not, I suggest, accidental. It is an attempt to smear the legal profession which undertakes defence work by exaggerating to the point of untruth. This was not some emotional outburst by the parent concerned: it was a pre-planned interview.
In both these cases, we are invited to assume that a terrible injustice has occurred, because two men were acquitted. This is irrational. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is necessarily high because of the drastic consequences for a defendant’s liberty and reputation if he is convicted, particularly if accused of offences against children. Therefore, the Crown must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence has the right to challenge the prosecution’s case, and this includes cross-examining witnesses, robustly if need be.
Indeed, the cornerstone of our justice system is the principle that it is better that 10 guilty men should go free than that one innocent person should be convicted. Eminent jurists from Blackstone to Maimonides have reiterated this core principle, which ultimately dates back to the Bible: in Genesis, God tells Abraham that he will not consume the righteous with the wicked.
The statue of Justice on the Old Bailey is depicted blindfolded for a good reason. Justice does not take sides. However, the NSPCC, a pressure group whose campaigning on child abuse has become increasingly dictatorial, thinks that our system of criminal justice should be engineered to make it easier to convict. It demands that no child accuser should ever have to come to court; that barristers and judges undergo mandatory ‘specialist training’; and that young witnesses should have a ‘trained communications expert’.
This ignores the fact that, in recent decades, the rules on evidence have been repeatedly amended in favour of complainants: for example, by abolishing the requirement that judges should warn juries of the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated evidence in sex cases; and by enabling complainants who are deemed ‘vulnerable’ to give evidence remotely by video link. Barristers and judges are regularly trained in dealing with vulnerable witnesses.
The NSPCC’s slogan is ‘No child-abuse victim should ever have to face their attacker in court’. But the case featured on its website of the five-year-old is one where the child did not face his father in court: he gave evidence from a separate room, by video link. This only goes to show how tenuous the basis for the NSPCC’s campaign is. There is a world of difference, anyway, between a very young child and a teenage complainant who is a week away from turning 18.
The key to any situation where a child is being abused is to remove the child from the abusive environment. In the absence of supportive forensic evidence, however, such as clear signs of injury whose cause can properly be said to be non-accidental, it is not always going to be possible to prove cases of suspected abuse beyond reasonable doubt. If cases fail in court, that raises the obvious question of whether they should have been tried in the first place. An uncritical approach on the part of investigators or prosecutors does no one any favours, least of all children.
By referring to ‘victim’ and ‘attacker’, the NSPCC – like the Crown Prosecution Service and the police nowadays – is continually conditioning the public to accept a presumption of guilt. It is in thrall to the dangerous and quixotic idea that complaints are all well-founded. Anyone with any experience of the criminal law knows this to be untrue. So do family lawyers.
Those concerned to maintain the integrity of the justice system have been battling such distorted thinking for some decades now. As a New Zealand academic, Dr (now Professor) Goodyear-Smith, writing in the 1990s, said:
‘This practice of advocacy for sexual-offence complainants, which has been adopted by those working in forensic roles, seriously undermines the impartiality of the investigation and trial procedures. Inherently believing all allegations are genuine means there is a presumption of guilt, and the police, doctors, counsellors and lawyers have therefore already effectively conducted the trial in their heads. The effects of confirmatory bias are well documented, and an initial belief in the guilt of the accused can colour how the police, the doctors and other professionals conduct their investigations and look for evidence which might demonstrate that the defendant is innocent.’
Professor Goodyear-Smith reported in the British Medical Journal in March this year just how bad things can get when professionals develop a shared idée fixe about the possibility of abuse. A 10-year-old immigrant from Zimbabwe was admitted to hospital unconscious, with untreated HIV. She developed sepsis and died. The treating clinicians were preoccupied with the idea that she had been anally raped and then suffocated. They failed to consider sepsis as a cause of death. Her adoptive uncle was put on trial for rape and murder, and was acquitted. The prosecution appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, which ordered a retrial. He was retried, and acquitted again. But for the dogged efforts of his defence team, he would no doubt be serving life for crimes he did not commit. An international expert review of the case concluded that her death was in fact due to toxic shock syndrome, due to advanced AIDS.
The NSPCC’s obsession with victims to the exclusion of other considerations is harmful to the justice system in other respects. Like many advocacy groups campaigning against abuse, it is indifferent to the collateral damage that is done when innocent people are wrongly accused. It encourages those complaining of abuse to think that they should be believed, when the reality is that some complaints will not stand up to scrutiny in a court. And it seeks to prevent judges and lawyers from doing their jobs as they should. Make no mistake: the NSPCC’s proposals have very little to do with justice.
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.