Sunday, September 27, 2015
Another multicultural sex offender in Britain
A convicted sex offender cruises the streets in his car looking for his next victim - and locates a six-year-old girl riding her bicycle.
Imran Khan, 34, from Accrington, already had a conviction for a sexual offence involving a 12-year-old girl in 2008 and was on the sex offenders' register. He was jailed for nine years, but was released in 2013.
But despite being under supervision, the paedophile was able to re-offend in this sickening incident.
At around 4pm on March 26 this year, the little girl was playing on Nairne Street in Burnley when she was snatched by Khan and bundled into the boot of his black Vauxhall Astra car.
She was driven four miles to Scarth Lane, Hapton where Khan exposed himself and tried to force her to commit a sexual act.
He then dumped the girl in a wheelie bin and she was found in a traumatised state by some children playing nearby.
Khan now faces another lengthy prison sentence after he pleaded guilty at Preston crown court to charges of kidnap, kidnap with intent to commit a sexual offence and breach of a sexual offences prevention order. He was remanded in custody to be sentenced on October 23.
Detective Inspector Jim Elston said: 'This was a horrendous offence which would have been terrifying for any adult, let alone a young child.
'Imran Khan was a registered sex offender living in the community after he was convicted in 2008 of a sexual offence involving a 12-year-old girl.
'While we have rigorous systems in place to manage sex offenders who have served a sentence and been released into the community, this cannot happen 24 hours a day and unfortunately on occasion an offender may go on to commit a further offence as happened in this case. 'Thankfully that is relatively rare.'
He added: 'There is currently a review on going into this particular case and we will clearly look carefully at the results of that to see if there are any lessons we can learn.'
Houston nightclub accused of racial discrimination declares: ‘We’re not racist, we’re just a**holes’
“WE’RE not racist, we’re just a bunch of a**holes.” That’s the takeaway quote from the lawyer for a Houston nightclub accused of racism after turning black patrons away at the door.
In a particularly frank video posted to YouTube, Gaslamp nightclub lawyer Tim Sutherland said the venue does not discriminate based on skin colour, but does discriminate based on class, gender and whether or not a customer is “a smoking hot babe”.
“We are not willing to be a business that is too timid to speak, that’s too eager to accommodate for fear of offending someone and too willing to throw out our private property rights and our freedom of association so that everyone has it their way,” Sutherland said.
“We are willing to hurt your feelings by telling you that you don’t fit the dress code. We will tell you that you need some girls and that this isn’t ‘bro’s night out’ because we don’t want you creeping out the girls that we already have inside.
The Houston nightclub making news around the world.
The Houston nightclub making news around the world.Source:Facebook
“We will tell you that you’re too cheap for our nightclub if you don’t want to pay a cover, because we know that if you won’t pay a cover, you’re probably not going to buy any drinks. This isn’t market square free bingo night, we’ve gotta make a profit.”
Gaslamp was accused of discriminating against Brandon Ball, a 32-year-old black man who tried to get in to the club on September 11.
On Facebook, Ball wrote he and two other African American friends were told to pay a cover charge when “white folks” were let in for free.
“When we walked up the guy at the door told us $20 each. We didn’t want to pay that amount so we decided to go to the next bar down, The Dogwood, which was free,” Ball wrote. “After about 30 minutes we left The Dogwood and were walking back. As we passed the Gaslamp we noticed folks walking in without having to pay. Those folks who didn’t have to pay were white.”
Ball’s post was shared more than 11,000 times and local newspapers including the Houston Chronicle picked up the story.
As a response, Gaslamp employed a new policy. Management decided to post the dress code outside the front door so there was no confusion about why people were being refused entry.
A dress code that patrons can’t see, Sutherland said, “can blur the lines between whether someone is being mistreated because of their race or just because we’re a bunch of a**holes. We prefer it to be the latter.”
Sutherland says there’s a difference between being morally questionable and acting illegally.
“For those of you that are outraged, I say there is something you can do, because it’s not illegal until you, the voter, make it illegal. Do your job, get educated and make it so there’s common ground between your beliefs and the world you live in.”
He said Ball was asked to pay a cover because he was in a group of guys with no girls and he wanted to go to the rooftop terrace “where we charge everyone a cover”.
He admitted there was a problem with discrimination against black people generally that Gaslamp would do its best to address.
“If the Gaslamp has made any mistakes it’s a failure to take the time to consider what the customer is coming to the door with. Some customers may bring with them a lifetime of race based issues they’ve experienced and we certainly understand if somebody receives poor treatment it can be perceived at its worst as racism.”
The video may have missed the mark. Of those who had responded on Thursday, 978 gave it a thumbs down and only 139 gave it a thumbs up.
5 Judges: Forcing Contraception Reg on Nuns Like Providing 'Only Non-Kosher Food' to Jewish Prisoner
Five appeals court judges have joined in a dissenting opinion stating that the type of argument being used to justify the government's efforts to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to comply with an Obamacare regulation that requires their health-care plan to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs could also be used to force a Christian to work on Dec. 25 because the court had determined that “sources show that Jesus was actually born in March.”
Or, the judges said, the same type of reasoning could be used to justify providing a Jewish prisoner with “only non-Kosher food.”
The judges were objecting to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, on which they sit, which ruled that the Obama administration can force the nuns to comply with the regulation even though doing so compels the sisters to act against their Catholic faith.
The Little Sisters have asked the Supreme Court to take up their case, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued an amicus brief supporting the Little Sisters. So, too, has a group of Orthodox Jewish Rabbis.
The mission of the Little Sisters is to maintain homes for the elderly poor, one of which--the Jeanne Jugan Residence--is located a few blocks from the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.
In the petition they filed asking the Supreme Court to take up the case, the lawyers for the Little Sisters summarized their argument in defense of the sisters' religious liberty.
“The Little Sisters of the Poor are Catholic nuns who devote their lives to caring for the elderly poor,” said their petition. “The government has put them to the impossible choice of either violating the law or violating the faith upon which their lives and ministry are based.
“HHS insists that the Little Sisters must comply with a mandate that their employee healthcare plans ‘provide coverage’ for free contraceptives,” says their petition. “Although there is no dispute that the Little Sisters sincerely believe that all the available compliance methods would make them morally complicit in grave sin, HHS refuses to give them the exemption it has given other religious employers, and instead requires them to comply, either directly or by executing documents that authorize and obligate others to use the Little Sisters’ healthcare plans to accomplish the ‘seamless’ provision of contraceptive coverage.
“HHS does not dispute that the Little Sisters sincerely believe that their religion no more allows them to comply with the mandate via this regulatory mechanism than to do so directly,” says the petition. “But HHS disagrees with the Little Sisters’ moral analysis. In its view, the Little Sisters are ‘fighting an invisible dragon’ that can be vanquished with the ‘stroke of their own pen.’
If the Little Sisters follow their own moral compass instead of HHS’s, they face millions of dollars in penalties.”
In July, a three-judge panel of appeals judges ruled two-to-one against the sisters. Rather than ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to review the case, the sisters appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the full appeals court held a vote on whether to take up the case, and a majority of the twelve active judges on the court voted no.
Judge Harris Hartz wrote an opinion dissenting from this decision, and he was joined by four other judges on the court. “The opinion of the panel majority is clearly and gravely wrong,” said the dissenting judges.
“When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion,” said the judges.
“All the plaintiffs in this case sincerely believe they will be violating God’s law if they execute the documents required by the government,” said the judges. “And the penalty for refusal to execute the documents may be in the millions of dollars. How can it be any clearer that the law substantially burdens the plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion?”
The five judges argue that the court’s majority seems to have second-guessed the Little Sisters’ interpretation of Catholic moral teaching and what it requires of them.
“This is a dangerous approach to religious liberty,” the judges said.
“Could we really tolerate letting courts examine the reasoning behind a religious practice or belief and decide what is core and what is derivative,” the judges said. “A Christian could be required to work on December 25 because, according to a court, his core belief is that he should not work on the anniversary of the birth of Jesus but a history of the calendar and other sources show that Jesus was actually born in March; a December 25 work requirement therefore does not substantially burden his core belief.
“Or a Jewish prisoner,” they said, “could be provided only non-kosher food because the real purpose of biblical dietary laws is health, so as long as the pork is well-cooked, etc., the prisoner’s religious beliefs are not substantially burdened.”
UN cancels Australia visit over Border Force laws
Well-done! Keeping creepy Crepeau out is a big win, judging by his absurd condemnations of the UK. There is no doubt about what his judgment of Australia would be. He compared Britain to Nazi Germany -- JR
The United Nations has postponed a planned visit to Australia because the federal government cannot guarantee legal immunity to detention centre workers who discuss asylum seekers and migrants.
The United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Canada's Francois Crepeau, was due to visit Australia on Sunday for about two weeks to investigate the plight of migrants and asylum seekers in offshore detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island, following an invitation from the federal government.
But Mr Crepeau said in a statement that the Border Force Act, which makes it a crime for immigration and border protection workers to disclose information about offshore detention centres, "serves to discourage people from fully disclosing information relevant to my mandate".
Under the law, such people face up to two years in prison for recording or disclosing information they obtain from their work.
"This threat of reprisals with persons who would want to cooperate with me on the occasion of this official visit is unacceptable," he said. "The Act prevents me from fully and freely carrying out my duties during the visit, as required by the UN guidelines for independent experts carrying out their country visits."
It was impossible for Mr Crepeau to carry out his visit as an independent expert for the UN because the Australian government "was not prepared" to meet his request for a written guarantee that anyone he met during his visit would not risk being intimidated or face imprisonment under the law.
A spokesman for Immigration Minister Peter Dutton described the postponement as "disappointing and unfortunate".
"The government accommodated to the fullest extent possible the requests of the office of the Special Rapporteur as it has with past visits."
The spokesman declined to say whether the government would consider offering exemptions to the secrecy provisions of the Australian Border Force Act, saying: "The Special Rapporteur was briefed on the responsibilities and obligations of personnel under relevant Australian law.
"Australia remains ready to arrange a future visit by the Special Rapporteur."
Mr Crepeau said Australia had also denied his repeated requests for full access to offshore detention centres since March. "I was also extremely disappointed that I was unable to secure the cooperation needed to visit any offshore centre, given the international human rights and humanitarian law concerns regarding them, plus the Australian Senate Inquiries on the offshore detention centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, which raised concerns and recommendations concerning these centres," he said.
The Special Rapporteur said he had been planning the visit with the Australian government since January.
Mr Dutton's spokesman said the Department of Immigration had worked closely with Mr Crepeau's office to organise a programme for his visit, which was to include visits to detention centres, and meetings with key government officials and service providers.
But he said the government had no role in organising access to offshore detention centres: "Access to Regional Processing Centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru is the responsibility of these sovereign nations and needs to be addressed with their governments."
Organisations including the Australian Human Rights Commission, UNHCR and Commonwealth Ombudsman, had visited both on and offshore detention centres "without the need to respond in this way," he said.
The Human Rights Law Centre's executive director, Hugh de Kretser, said the cancelled visit was "unprecedented for a western liberal democracy".
"This is extremely damaging for Australia's reputation – particularly when our human rights record will be reviewed at the UN in November and we're seeking election to the UN Human Rights Council in 2018. It's extremely damaging to our ability to advance our national interest on the world stage," said Mr de Kretser.
It was also a "huge missed opportunity" for newly-appointed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to pursue a "more constructive relationship with the UN".
"We urge the Australian Government to urgently provide the necessary assurances to the Special Rapporteur to enable the official visit to take place at a future date."
Doctors, and humanitarian workers have previously criticised the Border Force Act which was passed earlier this year with the support of Labor, saying it prevents proper public scrutiny of detention centres in line with their duty of care to asylum seekers.
The government has dismissed such claims, saying a separate federal law ensured officials were protected in making "public interest disclosures". But it is unclear which health or medical professionals would be required to comply with the new secrecy provisions.
Under the law, workers can only release such information legally if they have permission from the secretary of the department, if they are authorised by law, or if a court or tribunal orders or directs them to do so. The secretary would have to be satisfied that the information would help the person to perform their duties or powers to give them permission to release it.
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.