Thursday, April 09, 2015
Another one of Australia's charming multiculturalists
A SERIAL cop abuser caught three times in the space of as many months hurling vile, expletive-ridden and threatening abuse at police was given only a fine yesterday.
Rakeem Ebrahim, 19, called officers dogs, c**ts and homos before taunting them about having sex with their girlfriends, mothers and even their grandmothers.
Downing Centre Local Court heard his conviction for using offensive language and resisting an officer was his third conviction for abusing and intimidating police over a three-month period last year.
Ebrahim was contrite in court after pleading guilty to swearing but the Marayong man had a wide smile as he left burdened with only a $1000 fine.
The police union said the soft penalties for serial offenders like Ebrahim sapped the morale of officers.
The unprovoked abuse started when officers spoke to a group of 30 youths in Hyde Park at 2am on September 13 last year.
Despite being warned five times to stop swearing Ebrahim was unrelenting. “If you didn’t have a badge I’d smash you…you homo c**t, I bet you suck cock... you don’t deserve my f**king respect you dog c**t,” he said. “I f**ked your misses, she was good. “You’re all fucking dead dog c**ts.”
When he was separated from the group in a bid to calm him down the abuse continued. “F**k off c**t I’m not going anywhere,” he said.
When officers tried to arrest him he swung his arms and tightened them to prevent being handcuffed. It took a short struggle before he was handcuffed.
His behaviour improved when he found himself in paddy wagon but the officers told the court he had continually ignored their instructions.
“The accused showed an absolute disregard for these actions,” court documents said. “He immediately caught the attention of the police due to the extreme use of offensive language.”
Magistrate Graeme Curran said it was “appalling” and “disgraceful” behaviour. “I’ve see some rough stuff but this is beyond the pale,” he said.
The court also heard Ebrahim had been on a good behaviour bond which had expired prior to yesterday’s conviction.
On September 25 last year he was placed on a six-month good behaviour bond and fined $500 for offensive language and resisting and intimidating a police officer at Marayong in June.
Three days before this conviction he was charged for intimidating an officer and using offensive language in George St, Sydney. He was fined $1500 on March 27.
Police Association President Scott Weber said the courts should come down harder on those who abuse police.
“This offender was showing off in front of his mates and shows a lack of respect for society,” he said. “If he is saying this to an armed officer what do you think he will do to a family walking down the street?
“The judgement handed down for ongoing offenders does not match community expectation. There should be some restriction on their behaviour as they are likely to do it again.
“Police use a lot of discretion and should not be abused for performing their role.”
UK: Criminal record checks BANNED on foreign murderers and rapists who want to be minicab drivers
Asylum seekers and refugees applying to be minicab drivers are exempt from criminal records checks, potentially allowing murderers and rapists to get behind the wheel.
Rules laid down by Transport for London (TfL) mean refugees and those applying for asylum do not have to reveal whether they have a criminal history when trying to become a cab driver.
The legal loophole in an official application document on 'private hire driver licensing' says people coming to Britain will not be required to have their criminal convictions checked.
Asylum seekers and refugees applying to be minicab drivers are exempt from criminal records checks (file picture) +2
Asylum seekers and refugees applying to be minicab drivers are exempt from criminal records checks (file picture)
The form, seen by the Daily Express, states: 'With regards to overseas criminal records checks, no such checks will be made in respect of those applicants who declare that they are in possession of or who have applied for refugee or asylum status.'
Everyone else who applies for a cab licence must undergo criminal records checks. Those from outside the EU who have spent more than three months abroad over the last three years have to provide a 'letter of good conduct' from their home country.
This usually requires their country of origin to give a reference to the Home Office, revealing whether the applicant has a criminal history. But asylum seekers and refugees are exempt from this too, according to a second document.
A TfL guide on taxi and private hire applications states: 'Any applicant who has been granted or is awaiting a decision to be granted asylum/refugee status will not be required to produce a Certificate of Good Conduct from the country he is claiming asylum from.'
Campaigners called for a change in the guidelines, calling on all minicab drivers to undergo thorough criminal checks.
Tory MP Nick de Bois said: 'They should not be offering licences to those they can't check on. They could be putting vulnerable members of the public in the hands of thieves, murderers and rapists. It beggars belief.'
Helen Chapman, manager of London taxi and private hire at TfL, said: 'All applicants for a Taxi or Private Hire drivers licence are required to undertake an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check which is carried out by the Home Office.
'Any applicant that has lived in a country other than the UK for more than three months within the last three years is also required to produce a Certificate of Good Conduct from the relevant country.
'We recognise this may not be possible if an applicant is granted asylum or refugee status and, where applicable, these applicants will be required to provide a Certificate of Good Conduct from any other country of residence within the last three years. They will also be required to provide evidence of their Certificate of Registration or a letter from the Border and Immigration Agency.'
Six-month-old baby died with cocaine in her stomach despite parents being reported to social services five times
Another example of how British social workers harass middle class people over trivialities while ignoring big problems among lower class people
A six-month-old baby died with traces of cocaine in her stomach despite her drug-user parents being reported to social services five times.
Small amounts of painkiller and anti-depressant drugs were also found in the infant, known as Mary, who died suddenly in 2013, after a lengthy stay in Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool.
Now a review released today has called for a host of lessons to be learned after several agencies fell short in sharing information that could have highlighted the baby's vulnerability.
According to a report, Mary's family, who lived in Liverpool, were well-known to social services and had been reported five times amid concerns of alcohol abuse, domestic violence and child neglect.
A school had also raised concerns about the way other children in the family were being brought up.
Mary was the youngest child in a family of four children born to a mother aged 30 and a father aged 33.
At the time of her death, her siblings were one, eight and 10.
Her parents came to the attention of social care unit Careline five times between 2008 and 2012.
Mary's siblings' school had already raised concerns that the two eldest children were overweight, staying off school and left to look after their baby brother while their parents stayed in bed.
Mary was born 12 weeks early at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in January 2013 and was diagnosed with a number of medical conditions, including a heart murmur.
She was kept in hospital for three months during which time there were 'several consecutive days' in which she had no contact with her parents.
After she was discharged from hospital and into her parents' care, a number of community nurse follow-up visits were scheduled.
But the nurse was unable to get access to the family despite visiting them three times in one week. A fourth visit was successful but later appointments were not kept.
A day before Mary died in July 2013, a health visitor went to the home but was stopped at the door.
A post-mortem revealed the presence 'at very low levels' of cocaine, tramadol and mirtazapine (an anti-depressant) in her stomach.
Police also found empty beer cans, drugs and a syringe on the premises and her mother admitted to the police that she used cocaine and cannabis in the home.
Because of a lack of evidence, a coroner ruled the cause of Mary’s death was 'unascertained' as it was ruled the traces of drugs, which could have come from the environment or through resuscitation attempts, were not considered to have directly led to her death.
The report said: 'Whilst agencies had some concerns about the older children, they generally worked to single rather than multi-agency agendas and processes.
'There was some evidence of good informal liaisons such as between the school and the education welfare officer, or the school and school nurse, but generally the level of inter-agency communication required to support a family with four children was not achieved.
'Child Mary was a vulnerable child and a discussion between health professionals may well have highlighted important information about [the mother’s] history of not engaging with health services in respect of her children and the shared information may have led to further action.'
But Liverpool Safeguarding Children Board, which compiled the independent report, said it was impossible to tell if the death of baby Mary – not her real name – could have been avoided.
Chairman Howard Cooper said: 'Predicting the likelihood of such an outcome for a vulnerable baby is difficult to achieve with any meaningful degree of accuracy.
'It cannot be inferred that child Mary’s death was preventable, but there are lessons to be learned for all the agencies involved with this family about multi-agency working.”
Mr Cooper said a number of recommendations had been made in the wake of the infant's death to improve working relationships between agencies tasked with supporting vulnerable children and their families.
The 10 findings made by the board included an assessment that the follow-up services by Mary’s hospital and community health services were “ineffective” for a vulnerable baby in the care of parents with a “very poor history of co-operation”.
The panel also criticised the lack of a multi-agency system for monitoring missed medical appointments, resulting in “potentially significant” signs of neglect being missed.
Where the right to speak is howled down
By Peter Baldwin, minister for higher education (1990-93) in the Hawke-Keating government
The University of Sydney is one of Australia’s most venerable higher education institutions. It should be a place where controversial issues are debated freely and openly with the contending sides able to present their cases without intimidation and harassment.
It should be governed by an administration that strongly affirms the importance of free debate and acts swiftly and decisively to protect it if it comes under threat. It should definitely not be a place where mob rule is allowed to prevail or where activist groups get to decide which viewpoints can be expressed.
Can that be said of Sydney University today? Based on an experience I had there recently, it would appear not.
On March 11 I attended a public meeting on the campus addressed by Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan. His talk was about the ethical dilemmas that faced military forces opposed by non-state groups.
Kemp was in Israel during the Gaza conflict in July-August last year, and he gave the Israel Defence Forces credit for their measures to minimise civilian casualties during their operations. He found it difficult to envisage what more they could have done given the need to counter attacks deliberately launched from within densely populated areas. In saying this, he did not deny there were serious errors and abuses by some IDF forces, including possible war crimes.
This, it seems, is sufficient to make him a pariah to some of Israel’s more extreme critics. Enough of a pariah to warrant silencing him wherever possible; and sad to say, today’s universities are places where this is possible.
Kemp was able to speak unimpeded for about 20 minutes, at which point 15 to 20 people pushed past a security guard and began loudly chanting “Richard Kemp you can’t hide, you support genocide”, led by a young woman with a megaphone set to maximum volume.
Kemp described the experience in these pages on March 17, so I won’t detail it all again. But at one point the lights went out, leaving some — including me — wondering what was to come next. It was a genuinely frightening experience; a systematic, planned attempt to wreck the meeting. The attempt to suppress speakers perceived as pro-Israeli on campus is part of a wider pattern at Australian universities and internationally spearheaded by supporters of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign.
The young woman with the megaphone shouting down Kemp went on to defend the speech rights of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist Islamist organisation that gained notoriety last year when its Australian spokesman pointedly and repeatedly refused during an ABC Lateline interview to condemn the tactics used by Islamic State (mass beheadings, crucifixions, selling women into slavery, and so on).
The clueless young woman with the megaphone shouted about Hibz ut-Tahrir’s opposition to US policy, but this group has a few other ideas such as the following reported in The Australian recently: “The top Australian cleric of extremist Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir has ramped up his hate speech in a rant referring to Jews as ‘the most evil creature of Allah’ who have ‘corrupted the world’ and will ‘pay for blood with blood’.”
In the latest tirade to surface, cleric Ismail al-Wahwah — representing an organisation whose stated aim is to take over the world — said recognising Jews constituted the “epitome of evil” because that would “strengthen the cancerous entity”.
The disrupters ludicrously charged Kemp with supporting genocide while they and the rest of the BDS brigade have nothing to say about the open and explicit support of genocide by Hamas, now part of a unity government with Fatah. The Hamas charter adopted in 1988 looks forward (in article seven) to exterminating every last Jew on earth and incorporating “every inch” of Palestine in an Islamic state. Hamas refuses to rescind this foul, evil document despite repeated calls to do so and, on the contrary, relentlessly promotes its genocidal goals in its propaganda and schools.
As someone affiliated with the Labor Left throughout my active political career I find this growing affinity between the far Left and the Islamists one of the strangest and most disconcerting developments of recent times.
The naivety is quite astounding. A quick Google search turned up an article by the megaphone woman on the website of the Trotskyist group Solidarity in which she extols workers’ control in, of all places, post-revolutionary Iran, where all the leftist groups instrumental in overthrowing the shah ruthlessly were crushed by the Khomeneists once they had fulfilled their “useful idiot” role. Some of the people she is defending would gladly stick her head and those of her Marxist colleagues on the end of a pike if they were ever to take over.
Two well-known pro-BDS academics were present: Jake Lynch, director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Centre; and Nick Riemer, a senior lecturer in the English department. Both denied involvement in the disruption but loudly supported it once it began.
How do they justify this stance? They have both gone on the record.
Columnist Gerard Henderson raised the following question with Lynch: “Since you support disrupting the Kemp lecture, do you also think it would be acceptable to disrupt speakers hosted by your centre such as John Pilger and Hanan Ashrawi? If not, how do you justify the double standard?”
Lynch replied: “I would dispute the parallel with John Pilger or Hanan Ashrawi. I have never heard either of them deliver a speech that was disingenuous or deceitful in the way of the remarks by Colonel Kemp.”
Riemer gives a detailed defence of the disruption in a long article in the online journal New Matilda. This piece of casuistic nonsense is worth reading in full as it says volumes about the mentality that defenders of free speech on campus have to contend with these days.
Here is a sample of his “reasoning”: “Many left-wing people, I believe, would defend the proposition that protesters have the right to disrupt any kind of public speaker, but that only disruptions of certain public speakers are right.”
Applied to the present case, this means anyone has the right to disrupt a pro or an anti-IDF speaker, but only interruptions of pro-IDF speakers are actually justified.
In the first paragraph Riemer asserts a general “right to disrupt” any speaker. This cannot be squared with any reasonable understanding of the right to free speech, the whole point and effect of disruption being to prevent the effective exercise of the latter. Bear in mind that we are not talking about the kind of interjection familiar from parliamentary debates but the systematic drowning out of a speaker with a megaphone and sustained chanting. There was specific provision in the meeting format for questions and critique, but the goal of the disrupters was to censor, not challenge, what Kemp had to say.
Note the second paragraph where Riemer, like Lynch, justifies disrupting the expression of one side of the debate. How does he rationalise this? He asserts the rightness of disrupting speech that is “extreme” or “hateful” or, in an Aristotelian touch, “fails to promote human flourishing”.
To label Kemp’s lucid and well-reasoned presentation as hateful or extreme is just bizarre. As for the stuff about failing to promote human flourishing, perhaps Riemer should consider that by turning Gaza into an armed camp, launching thousands of projectiles into Israel and pouring huge amounts of cement provided under aid programs into building a subterranean network of attack tunnels, Hamas and its supporters and apologists are failing to “promote human flourishing”.
Riemer goes on: “As such, his (Kemp’s) speech aims at the dismantling of the very democratic freedoms among Palestinians which commitment to the principle of free speech is supposed to embody.”
What “democratic freedoms” would those be? Is he familiar with the increasingly brutal crackdown on dissenters in the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority, with dissidents jailed for long periods for “extending the tongue” against the authority? Or the vicious persecution of Christians, most of whom have now fled the territories? Or the far worse situation in Gaza where dissenters can expect a bullet in the head, where the death sentence is prescribed for homosexuality?
The only country in the region where any semblance of democratic freedoms exist is Israel, where the Arab-aligned parties emerged as the third largest force in the recent elections, where people of all faiths — and none — are safe, and where homosexuals can live free from fear.
Tel Aviv was named as the most popular gay tourist destination in the world recently. This was labelled “pinkwashing” by the BDS brigade, just a cunning Israeli plot to disguise their oppression of the Palestinians.
The intellectual arrogance of the campus BDS supporters, articulated by Lynch and Riemer, is quite astounding. No postmodern questioning of objective truth here; not only is the truth “out there” but Lynch and Riemer are in possession of it and are able to distinguish it from lies and deceit. No need to allow people to actually hear the contending cases presented fully and effectively, even in contexts such as the Kemp lecture where they can be challenged. Defend Israel in any respect and you are a warmonger, callously indifferent to the fate of oppressed people. You need to be silenced.
This is a truly sinister development, and one not confined to Australian universities. Jewish students at Sydney University with whom I corresponded report feeling increasingly insecure and fearful on campus. My sense is that increasingly anti-Zionism is a mask for occulted anti-Semitism.
Will the university administration, led by vice-chancellor Michael Spence, act decisively to defend free speech on campus in response to this outrage? Time will tell, but at this stage the portents are not encouraging.
The university has engaged a firm of workplace lawyers to investigate the incident and the responsibility of individual staff and students and consider all “allegations and counter-allegations”. It is profoundly disappointing, however, that so far the vice-chancellor has not gone on the public record to say that what happened was completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated in future.
There is absolutely no reason a clear statement of principle could not have been made right away. Does the vice-chancellor really need advice from a firm of workplace lawyers before doing this much? Of course decisions about individual culpability should be handled carefully, with those accused given an opportunity to respond to allegations.
Finally, I note a certain inconsistency in the university’s attention to procedural fairness.
In October last year Barry Spurr, a distinguished academic with a long association with the university, was suspended from his position and barred from the campus within a day following the disclosure of offensive language in some hacked private emails. He was subjected to this terrible public humiliation before being given any opportunity to give his defence that he was speaking in a joking or ironic voice.
No workplace lawyers to consider all sides before taking action in that case.
The common factor in these two incidents was the presence of chanting mobs of demonstrators, in one case silencing someone with whom they disagree, in the other demanding the peremptory sacking of an academic. In one case a panicked rush to action by the vice-chancellor, in the other a drawn-out process with all involved bound by strict confidentiality provisions — a procedural black hole.
It is hard to avoid the depressing conclusion that at Sydney University today mob rule works.
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.