Thursday, October 15, 2015
Another one of Britain's charming multiculturalists
A father-of-two killed his heavily pregnant wife after stabbing her 17 times to the chest, back and abdomen.
Tariq Khan launched the attack at their home in Manningham, Bradford while their two children, aged three and five, were in the house.
He fled the scene after the attack in June, leaving his children locked in the house and a knife in wife Nadia's chest.
He was today jailed for life at Bradford Crown Court and told he would spend a minimum of 24 years and 247 days behind bars before the Parole Board could consider whether he should be released.
Sentencing him, Judge Roger Thomas QC, the Recorder of Bradford, said it was a knife attack of particular ferocity. He said Khan had delivered five substantial blows stab wounds to Nadia's abdomen, destroying the child he knew she was carrying.
Khan had pleaded guilty to murder, child destruction, and an earlier assault on his wife.
Judge Thomas said: 'In any event within a very short time of the two of you beginning your whispered conversation in the kitchen you set about Nadia and your unborn son, who she was carrying, with extreme and ferocious violence, using a kitchen knife over and over again and driving it deep into her body and also into the body of your son.
'The prosecution therefore suggest, rightly in my judgement, that not only were you intent on killing Nadia but seemingly you were also specifically intent on destroying her unborn son.
'That is unhappily something that men such as you, who attack their wives, at times do. Destroying the child that she was so pleased to be carrying as some form of further punishment of her.'
Nadia, who was raised in Bradford, was 17 when she went through an arranged marriage to 19-year-old Khan.
But she had spent most of her married life in West Yorkshire while Khan remained in Pakistan.
Nadia had two children with Khan and he eventually received permission to come to this country in October last year, but on Christmas Day he assaulted her and after she reported an incident to the police a Domestic Violence Protection Order lasting a month was issued.
A month before the murder, Khan attacked Nadia again and after he was arrested and charged by police with common assault he was given bail with a condition not to contact his wife or go within 100 metres of her home.
In her police statement Nadia said Khan could be controlling towards her and prone to jealousy.
Three days before he was due to make his first appearance before the magistrates court, Khan took a teenage relative with him to Nadia's home and Judge Thomas said the defendant had been 'devious and cunning' in circumventing her fear of him.
Khan had suggested that his wife had initially picked up the knife, but Judge Thomas said that was questionable as there were no defensive injuries on Nadia and the first blow was to her back rather than her front.
After sentencing, the family said in a statement: 'Nadia was a caring daughter and sister as well as a loving mother, and it kills us that her children will grow up without a mum and dad.
'Tariq Khan has caused us a lot of pain and we hope he stays in jail for the rest of his life, as his sentence can never be enough for what he has done.
'We would like to thank everyone who has been there for us, including the police and their family liaison officers who have given us great support at this very sad time.'
Senior Investigating Officer, Detective Chief Inspector Mark McManus, said: 'Khan was clearly a very dangerous man and the community of Manningham is a safer place with him behind bars.
'Our condolences remain with Nadia's family and friends and we hope they can find some comfort in the sentence he has received today.'
Liberal Cynicism and Double Standards on Race
Fair people are disgusted with GQ columnist Drew Magary's vile denunciation of Ben Carson and his comments on the Oregon shooting, but it shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with leftist vulgarity and double standards.
Not only did GQ print the post, in which Magary wrote "f—- him," but also it titled the piece "F—- Ben Carson." So much for civility, decency, tolerance, intellectual heft and — oh, yes — racial sensitivity. GQ tweeted a link to the column, which means it wants people to read it.
Imagine the outcry if a conservative similarly described a black liberal politician in a prominent publication. Liberals would call for the heads of everyone involved — writer, editor, publisher and the publication itself — and few conservatives would defend such language.
The context of the quote is not mitigating. Magary also wrote: "You know, the only thing more alarming than Donald Trump leading the Republican presidential field is the fact that Ben Carson is the guy right behind him. ... The Good Doctor made it clear this week that he is not only willing to replicate Trump's signature brand of hot-garbage-spewing, but he'll say even DUMBER s—-."
Liberals are apoplectic over Carson's comments on the shooting not because he said anything wrong but because he doesn't toe the liberal line on gun control. More than that, it's that he is black and rejects liberal dogma. Even worse, he's running for president on a platform that expressly condemns that dogma and offers a better way. Worst of all, his campaign is resonating, and this just can't be happening.
The most troublesome aspect of this phony flap is the left's delusional double standard on race. Liberals can slander a black person with impunity — because leftist culture says liberals are incapable of racism — and no evidence, not even a smoking gun, can overcome this presumption.
But conservatives are presumed racist and have the burden of proving otherwise, even if they don't say anything at all, much less something that could be distorted into a comment unfavorable to minorities.
What's maddening is that many liberals actually believe this insanity, as I've learned in various personal encounters. Others know it's not true but cynically use it for political purposes.
In a television debate with Eric Bolling, Geraldo Rivera made my point, saying: "I think that in Dr. Ben Carson's case, the people are not reacting to him as a black man" but are reacting to "ideas like the Garden of Eden is the literal place that existed long, long ago (and) that there is no such thing as evolution. ...To run for president of the United States and believe in creationism" — as opposed to "evolution — is kind of weird."
Let's put aside Rivera's statement that it's weird to believe that God created the universe and mankind, though it is duly noted, and focus on his casual assertion that people aren't being, rude, crude or demeaning toward Carson because he is black.
Ordinarily, I'd accept that statement because I believe that liberals who insult Carson mainly can't stand him because he's conservative, not because he's black. But seeing as they've established the standard, let's hold them to it.
It particularly galls them when minorities reject liberalism. It's reasonable to infer there's a bit of condescension at play here because to believe blacks must be liberal is to suggest that they are — or should be — monolithic creatures and that those who deviate are somehow inferior. Many leftists apparently believe that conservative blacks have forfeited any right to be insulted, including on racial terms.
You need look no further than leftist cartoonists depicting Condoleezza Rice as a parrot on President George W. Bush's arm and, as one commentator described, "as a semi-literate mammy" with "big lips and bucked teeth" or liberal talk show hosts calling her "Aunt Jemima." But if you want to look further, you may recall Joe Biden's reference to Barack Obama as "clean," "bright" and "articulate."
I am not a Geraldo Rivera hater and even like some things about him, but I was appalled at his comments. No, not that he assumed liberals aren't attacking Carson because he's black but his obvious implication that Republicans, in criticizing Obama, are racially motivated. Indeed, many liberals have insisted that conservatives criticize Obama because he's black, not because he is orchestrating the wholesale destruction of America.
In my view, there is no question that Rivera sincerely believes that many conservatives, by virtue of their conservatism, are racist, both toward blacks and toward Hispanics. But his sincerity doesn't make his wrongheaded beliefs true.
I have long believed that if Republicans could make inroads into the pernicious liberal lie that their principled opposition to Democratic statism is based on race, the entire political landscape would change overnight. That is why many liberals who know better will keep fanning these flames of hatred and continue slandering black conservatives, especially those they deem a threat to their hold on power.
Sorry, but DMV Closures in Alabama Ain't Jim Crow
If you’ve paid attention to the Leftmedia recently, you probably heard its cries of the return of Jim Crow in Alabama. The Left thinks that, because the state is shuttering many of its part-time Department of Motor Vehicle branch offices, the state that requires a photo ID to vote has restricted its citizens' civil rights. It’s a systematic effort to prevent the poor from voting, the Left cries.
Not so, says Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky. Alabama is closing the offices because it needs to trim its budget, and the part-time DMV branch offices distributed only 5% of the drivers licenses issued — kind of an easy line item to trim.
So where’s a voter to go? Every county in the state issues voter IDs for free, and those offices are often in the same location as the former DMV offices. Von Spakovsky writes, “So individuals who would have used one of the part-time satellite DMV offices to get an ID will be able to simply walk to another office — in the same building — to get the ID they need for voting.
And that is supposed to be the reimposition of Jim Crow?” Leave it to the Left to equate getting licensed to drive — a regulated activity not guaranteed by the Constitution — with the right to vote. Fortunately, exercising the right to vote in Alabama does not mean braving the line at the DMV.
The Case of Former Atlanta Fire Chief Fired Over Marriage Views Goes to Court
Former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran lived the American dream. That is, until he was fired from his childhood dream job for writing a book during his own private time.
Cochran’s book, published in 2013 and called “Who Told You That You Were Naked?,” expresses a biblical view on marriage and addresses homosexuality from his Christian perspective.
An active member in his church, he led a men’s small group Bible study and, after discussion with his group on Adam’s sin in the Book of Genesis, researched the words “naked” and “clothed” from the perspective of what the Bible says. He decided to write 162 pages about the topic in a men’s devotional book.
Cochran was reported to have asked the city’s ethics officer for permission before publishing the book and gave a copy of the book to Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed in January of 2014.
Fast-forward a few months, and Cochran received a 30-day suspension without pay, after an LGBT activist group started to protest the book.
“LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their beliefs regarding sexual orientation, and deserve to be respected for their positions without hate and discrimination,” Cochran said, according to a January article from The Atlanta-Journal Constitution. “But Christians also have the right to express their beliefs regarding sexual orientation and be respected for their position without hate and without discrimination.”
After 34 years as a firefighter, Cochran’s fairy-tale career came to a halt in January due to his personal views on gay marriage.
“I profoundly disagree with and am deeply disturbed by the sentiments expressed in the paperback regarding the LGBT community,” Mayor Reed said in a statement. “I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration.”
Cochran had worked his way up, and out from the poverty he grew up in, to be named Atlanta fire chief in 2008. In 2009, he was appointed administrator of the United States Fire Administration under President Barack Obama. Less than a year later, he was back to his position as chief in Atlanta.
Cochran believes he was unjustly terminated by Reed and in February filed a lawsuit against the city of Atlanta.
Cochran’s case is slated to go to court Wednesday, Oct. 14, in Atlanta. There will be a hearing on Reed’s motion to dismiss the case.
“I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran’s book is not representative of my personal beliefs and is inconsistent with the administration’s work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens,” Reed stated after he had given Cochran a suspension.
Investigation into Cochran found that he did not show discrimination against anyone during employment, yet he was terminated anyway.
“In America, a religious or ideological test cannot be used to fire a public servant, but that’s precisely what the city did,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel and Cochran’s lawyer David Cortman. “That endangers everyone who works for the city who may hold to a belief that the city doesn’t like. Furthermore, the First Amendment fully protects the freedom of any public employee to distribute religious materials at work to those willing to receive them, and no city rule—written or unwritten—can override that freedom.”
“First off, do we want the government deciding that anyone that holds views that are in conflict with the government’s views can’t work—can’t make a living?” Cortman told The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness in a previous interview.
Cochran gave copies of the book in controversy to colleagues that he had previously established a relationship with as “believers,” he said.
“The part that got me in trouble was the fact that in the book I dealt with sexual challenges that Christian men have and spoke of biblical marriage and biblical sexuality,” Cochran said in August while speaking at a religious liberty rally in Iowa.
“I learned three lessons from going through what I’m going through,” Cochran said at the rally:
“God always prepares his children for suffering.”
“There are worldly consequences for standing for Christ and for standing for biblical truth.”
“There are also Kingdom consequences for standing for Christ and standing for biblical truth. And the Kingdom consequences are always greater than the worldly consequences.”
“Americans should not have to choose between living out their faith and keeping their job,” he said. “But if you’re faced with the choice of living out your faith or keeping your job, living out your faith is always the right choice.”
Wednesday’s hearing will be the first oral arguments of Cochran’s case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
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.