Sunday, May 10, 2015
A multicultural sex-pest in Britain
A private in the British Army was today sentenced to 90 days in detention after drunkenly grabbing a female round the neck and asking her for ‘a cuddle’.
Private Taaziva Mutekedza, 37, sexually assaulted the woman after waking her up by knocking on her door to tell her he ‘really liked her’.
He then placed his hands on the back of her neck and pulled her head towards him but she told him to ‘go away’.
The incident happened in the early hours of one morning in January 2014, at the New Normandy Barracks in Aldershot, Hampshire.
Mutekedza was convicted after a trial of one count of sexual assault by a board of five serviceman at Bulford Military Court Centre in Wiltshire.
Prosecutor Commander Caroline Kenyon said: “A woman heard a knock on her door and the defendant was outside and appeared drunk. “He said words to the effect ‘You know I really like you’. “He grabbed her hand and she tried to close the door but the defendant blocked her doorway and pulled his hand back when it was on the back of her head.
“He said "why are you not going to give me a cuddle?" He tried to pull her head towards him and she told him to go away. He left and again said "you know I really like you".”
He was cleared of another charge of sexual assault relating to an accusation he crept into bed with a different woman before attempting to touch her intimately as she slept.
Private Mutekedza, of 22 Field Hospital, based at New Normandy Barracks, will serve his detention order at the Military Corrective Training Centre in Colchester, Essex.
A feminist failure
Any feminist would tell this woman that men are no good and she should forget all about them
Belinda Stuckey has been on two dates every week for almost a year and a half without any resulting in a second date - but that hasn't discouraged the determined woman from continuing on her journey to find that special someone.
The stunning blonde is one of the most contacted members on the eHarmony dating website, attracting more than 4,700 matches since signing up in December 2013.
However, after going on more than 130 dates, the 35-year-old is still waiting for a mutual spark to fly before venturing into that elusive second date.
Despite the dating game becoming almost like a part-time job, the school teacher from Kellyville, in northwestern Sydney, will keep searching because there is no doubt in her mind that the ideal man is out there somewhere.
After more than three years of being single, Belinda decided to give online dating a go after her friends suggested it 18 months ago. 'I had come out of a four-year relationship and took the time to get to know myself and know what I do and don't want,' she said. 'I'm in a good place now and ready to start again.'
Belinda thinks the reason she has generated such an interest from so many men is because she is 100 per cent genuine on her dating profile.
'I don't see any point putting out there someone you are not - it's important to let people know who you are and what your ultimate goal is at the end,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
She receives as many as 10 matches a day and then sends five multiple choice questions to the men she likes the sound of and the guys can do the same.
Belinda said she has met up with about 20 per cent of the guys she was originally matched with. Although the dates haven't been disastrous, there is yet to be that reciprocal spark. 'Either they like me and I don't like them or vice versa,' she said.
So how does Belinda keep getting back on the dating horse? 'It's important to me - I really want to find a partner,' she said. 'You have got to have thick skin and take it with a grain of salt.'
However, this is not to say that she doesn't feel deflated if she is interested in her date but the feeling isn't mutual.
'If I don't hear from him again I wonder what I did to turn him off - "Did I do something wrong? Did I not show enough skin? What can I do better next time?".'
Belinda may have given up a significant part of her time going on first dates but she knows that second date will come eventually. 'I still have hope he'll be out there,' she said.
‘Wrong’ kind of hero: Why feminists diss Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be the perfect feminist hero. In theory, she fits the role on multiple levels: She’s an escapee from an abusive patriarchy. She’s an African immigrant who made her own way in a Western country, the Netherlands. She’s a fierce advocate for women’s rights.
She’s a target for deadly violence by angry men who want to shut her up. She left her religion and became a scourge of its repressive practices.
Except for the blemish on her record: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a dissident from the wrong religion. Raised a Muslim in Somalia, subjected to genital mutilation and married off to a distant cousin, she is famously a critic of Islam.
She has excoriated it at extraordinary risk to her own safety, and makes the case again in her latest book, “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now.”
When she collaborated on a film in the Netherlands in 2004 cataloging abuses against Muslim women, her fellow filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated by an Islamist who left a note threatening her pinned to van Gogh’s chest — with a knife.
But Hirsi Ali wouldn’t be silenced. She is truly a hero of our time. She is defying the jihadi censors, the misbegotten hate-speech laws and the polite conventions of Western debate that all limit what can be said about the relationship of Islam to modernity.
Our society, and especially the left, tends to reflexively celebrate dissenters. But some heretics are more welcome than others.
In the case of Islam, the pieties of multiculturalism clash with what should be an imperative of feminism (i.e., forcefully standing up for the basic rights of women in Muslim societies), and feminism tends to lose out.
“The concern,” as one feminist wrote of Hirsi Ali, “is that her intervention into the issue of gender equality in Muslim societies will strengthen racism rather than weaken sexism.”
In the fashionable neologism designed to be a conversation-stopper, she is “an Islamophobe.” Brandeis University notoriously rescinded a planned honorary degree for her last year.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has more confidence in Western civilization and its values than people who have never had to live outside it, or face down the enemies who want to destroy it.
If Hirsi Ali had had a strict Baptist upbringing and left to tell the story of its hypocrisies and closed-mindedness, she would be celebrated in such precincts as Brandeis, without anyone uttering a peep of protest.
This is the “Book of Mormon” effect — no one cares about offending the inoffensive. It’s only debate over a religion that is home to dangerous fanatics that must be carefully policed.
Even people not otherwise known for their solicitude for religious sensibilities are uncomfortable with her criticisms of Islam.
In his interview with her this week, “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart worried that “people single out Islam,” when Christianity underwent its own difficult reconciliation with modernity.
True enough, but the horrific intra-Christian bloodletting of the Thirty Years’ War was 400 years ago.
If Islam is on the same trajectory, it is badly trailing the pace. Hirsi Ali’s prescriptions are hardly unassailable. Her notion of religious reform bears an atheistic stamp.
If change in Islam depends on getting Muslims to admit that Muhammad was not The Prophet, as she writes in “Heretic,” the cause is indeed hopeless. The ummah is not going to dissolve itself into a gooey Unitarian Universalism.
Hirsi Ali recalls the dissidents from communism in the 20th century like the great Whittaker Chambers. Their personal experience redoubled their commitment to the fight for freedom and human dignity.
They, too, were often dismissed as fanatics and as embarrassments to polite opinion. But their intellectual contributions, and the examples of their own bravery, were indispensable in the long ideological struggle.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not just a heretic; she also is a believer. She has more confidence in Western civilization and its values than people who have never had to live outside it, or face down the enemies who want to destroy it.
If she doesn’t get the recognition she deserves, so much the worse for her detractors.
A crazed campaign about sexual misconduct in the military
Much like Rolling Stone, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) refuses to the let the facts — or lack thereof — get in the way of her preferred feminist narrative. In her case, it’s the claim that the military has it in for women. Instead of university administrators and fraternity members, she accuses Department of Defense officials of lies and cover-ups and implies that any female living near a base is at risk from sexual predators in uniform.
In the past, she’s used questionable survey results to generate support for legislation that would have stripped military commanders of their authority in sexual assault cases. Although the measure was universally opposed by DOD leaders and didn’t pass, she recently renewed her attack. Gillibrand was undeterred by the fact that the same category of responses she previously used to create the perception of a crisis showed an improvement of over 25% in the latest survey, or that victims have shown a greater willingness to report the incidents that do occur.
She deserves a little credit (very little…) for creativity. With the data working against her original line of “reasoning,” she was at least smart enough to chose a different — if even more flawed — metric to focus on this time around: sexual assaults on military spouses and civilian women who live near bases. She chooses a few isolated anecdotes to try and make the case that the military is incapable of treating women fairly. She also cites the Pentagon’s exclusion of these women in its surveys as evidence its hiding something. But as a Pentagon spokesman explained, “The department does not have standing authority to survey non-DOD civilian populations. However, federal surveys have found that the prevalence of sexual assault for non-DOD civilian women is statistically the same for military women and female spouses of military members.”
Translation: The Pentagon can’t do what Gillibrand wants it to, but it’s unnecessary anyway because there is already a pretty good idea what the numbers would say — and they don’t support Gillibrand’s argument.
Gillibrand bemoans that cases pursued in the military legal system are plagued by witnesses who decide to not cooperate, victims whose testimony is not considered credible, and inconsistent punishments. While those may (or may not) be valid observations, they aren’t unique to the military and could just as easily be used to describe similar cases tried in civilian courts.
One of her examples cites the case of a service member who allegedly assaulted a civilian female. The investigating officer identified too many inconsistencies in the victim’s story to pursue a sexual assault case, but ended up securing convictions on several lesser charges. Gillibrand puts officials like this in a no-win situation: She’ll bash them and question their integrity if they try to prosecute on the more serious charge and lose, and she’ll bash them and question their integrity if they get a conviction on charges that aren’t suitably severe for her.
Meanwhile, she ignores an interesting aspect of the report: No improvement was noted in the 20% of sexual assault incidents with male victims.
Sexual assault offenders should indeed be punished. That said, not everyone accused is actually guilty, though it appears the only way to make Gillibrand happy is for every male accused of any type of sexual assault to be convicted, regardless of what the evidence says.
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.