Thursday, January 21, 2016

Multicultural NHS scientist granted asylum in Britain performed fake medical examinations on girl, 11, to abuse and then rape her

A scientist who worked for the NHS after being granted asylum in Britain abused and rape a young girl while pretending to carry out a medical examination.

Andong Ashu faces jail after he was convicted of repeatedly attacking his victim, starting from when she was just 11 years old.

A court heard that he paid her to try and stop her speaking out, and said that no one would believe her if she revealed what he had done.

Ashu, 45, was originally from Cameroon and travelled to Britain in 2002 before he settled in Manchester.

Hull Crown Court heard that he obtained a university degree and started working in NHS laboratories as a scientist.

He then abused his position in the health service to carry out bogus medical examinations on his 11-year-old victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Ashu attacked the girl in Hull and told her that if she told anyone what had happened they would not believe her because she was 'only a child'.

He also paid her an occasional £10 or £20 in a further bid to ensure her silence.

However, the victim eventually plucked up the courage to go to the police and expose Ashu as a sex attacker.

After he pleaded not guilty, the young girl had to give evidence in court herself to ensure that her tormenter was convicted.

Ashu was found guilty of four counts of rape and seven counts of sexual assault following a trial which lasted five days.

He collapsed against the front of the dock as the jury verdicts were read out and was assisted by a custody officer.

The shamed scientist was remanded in custody ahead of sentencing, when he will face a lengthy prison term.

Judge Jeremy Richardson QC thanked the jury for sitting through the 'very unpleasant' sex abuse trial.

The reliance of the NHS on staff recruited from overseas has been controversial thanks to high-profile cases such as that of Victorino Chua, a Filipino nurse who murdered two patients at Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport.

Recent figures state that 11 per cent of all workers in the health service are foreign, with over a quarter of doctors coming from outside Britain.


After Cologne: let's 'dare to say how things really are'

The furore about those sexual assaults says more about 'our' culture than 'theirs'.

In the fallout from the New Year's Eve crime spree in Cologne, when numerous women were allegedly robbed and molested by men recently arrived from Syria and other Arab countries, most of the political focus and media fury have been aimed at 'their culture'. At the problem of Muslim men's allegedly ingrained disrespect for women. At the fundamental conflict between their Koran-derived way of thinking and Europe's women-friendly, gay-friendly, largely liberal outlook. As one observer put it, Cologne shows that the culture of these men is simply 'not compatible with European norms'.

All this handwringing over 'their culture' is strange. Not because we shouldn't criticise other cultures - I'm all in favour of that - or because we shouldn't chastise and punish the men accused of committing crimes in Cologne. No, it's weird because what the Cologne fallout most graphically exposes is the rot and disarray and dishonesty of our culture. Of 21st-century Europe. Of nations, like Germany, which claim to be liberal and enlightened but which in fact now exist under a creed of sheepish, silencing multiculturalism which puts more store by lies that might help to pacify mass society than by truths that might open up real and, yes, difficult debate.

The Cologne controversy shines a harsh light on the corrosion of the Enlightenment values Europe claims to hold to, on the decay of freedom and openness at the very heart of Europe; and we're obsessing over the cultural habits of gangs of Arab blokes?

There were two alarming things about what happened in Cologne. The first was the attacks themselves, which, going by the women's accounts, were awful. The second was the way the authorities, like rulers in some fictional dystopia, sought to cover up the nature of the attacks lest the revelations rattle the populace and provoke inter-communal tension. The police chief of Cologne consciously hid info about the backgrounds of the attackers. He told the media it was hard to know who carried out the assaults, a claim later contradicted by officers who were on the ground on the night in question, who say 'the majority' of those arrested had asylum-seeker IDs.

Like something out of Orwell, the police chief preferred to promote a lie of omission than allow the truth of the situation to start a discussion about Germany's recent intake of immigrants from Syria and elsewhere. He appears to have tailored the facts, rewritten reality, in the name of keeping in check the passions of what he seems to view as the swirling German populace, better kept passive with untruths than made rowdy with uncomfortable facts.

And he isn't alone. Post-Cologne it has been revealed that a similar censorious dynamic has held in Sweden over the past year. There, police and officials have recently noted a 'modus operandi that we had never seen before. large groups of young men who surround girls and molest them', and yet they, too, have chosen not to speak too openly about these attacks or reveal the origins of the perpetrators, many of whom are from Afghanistan. Why? Because, in the words of a police chief in Stockholm, 'Sometimes we do not dare to say how things really are because we believe it will play into the hands of the Sweden Democrats [the right-wing anti-immigration party]'.

Refusing to say 'how things really are' - that, right there, speaks to the relativistic, self-silencing, fundamentally dishonest political culture that dominates Europe in the 21st century. This is not a new phenomenon. From race think-tanks in the 1990s inventing the idea of 'Islamophobia' in order to, in their words, challenge and chastise the notion that Islamic culture is 'inferior to the West', to the dishonesty of police in Rotherham in northern England who refused to speak openly about Muslim men's exploitation of white working-class girls lest such crimes stir up the populace's dangerous passions, for the past 20 years or more multicultural Europe has discouraged or demonised public debate about criminal incidents, immigration and values themselves, fearing such debate might disrupt the fragile social and moral order and unleash undesirable sentiments.

Partly this unwillingness to 'dare to say how things really are' is driven by a fear of populist far-right parties - like the Sweden Democrats - and of the plebs who vote for them. That is, it is motored by its own prejudices. This self-silencing presents itself as a good, progressive urge to protect immigrants from the prejudicial views and behaviour of the natives, yet underpinning it is an even darker prejudice which views Germany's or Sweden's or Britain's own masses as so volatile, so hateful, that they cannot possibly be allowed to know 'how things really are'. Officials lie, or at least hide the truth, in order to keep in check the tempers of the populace: a species of tyranny that echoes the self-aggrandising lies told in Maoist China about food production to a population that didn't have enough to eat.

But more fundamentally, the moral silencing wrought by multiculturalism is about suppressing politics itself, in politics' truest sense of being a free, frank, conflictual discussion about values and the future. Multiculturalism is best understood as the sacralisation of moral and cultural relativism. It makes a virtue of the vacuum in the heart of the modern West, through dressing up the West's inability to articulate what it is for and its failure to stand up for the values of Enlightenment by instead saying, 'All cultures are equally valid'. Multiculturalism is the PC sexing-up of modern Western society's profound alienation from its own culture, from its 300-year-old traditions of democracy, reason, growth and an aspiration, at least, to freedom, though that has been frequently thwarted. As such, the core instinct of multiculturalism, its driving force in fact, is to shush and stifle, to elevate self-censorship and denial of difficult reality over the volatility of allowing open discussion and, worse, a judgement of and between values.

The end result is a new Kafkaesque Europe. A Europe where the police disguise reality. A Europe where elevating European values over other values is branded a 'phobia'. A Europe where to refuse to speak the truth is considered virtuous, and where saying 'how things really are' is seen as bad. And then we're surprised when migrants from afar who arrive in this Europe do not buy into our values. What values? We are barely allowed to articulate them, far less judge them superior to other people's, far less proselytise about them to newcomers.

And there's the rub. The true problem today is not migrants, but the societies they are coming to. These are societies that cannot even create a sense of shared values within their own communities, never mind among new communities of people coming from thousands of miles away. And migrants pick up on this. They can feel the vacuum that they've arrived in. They know that discussion of their values and behaviour is discouraged. They sense that their new countries have no serious value system of their own. And so some of them - some - behave in an offensive and opportunistic fashion, either cleaving to their own foreign values or taking the piss out of the empty society in which they are making a new home. Our refusal to elevate European values or simply to discuss the truth about crime and instability acts as a green light to opportunists within the new migrant ranks. The American experience in the early 20th century shows it is entirely possible to build nations of people from many different backgrounds when there is a bigger, aspirational project to assimilate these people into; the European experience today confirms that in the absence of such a project, society can seem further fractured by new arrivals, who have little incentive to integrate, or little to integrate into.

The migrants who committed crimes in Cologne are wholly responsible for what they did and should be punished. But those of us who consider ourselves genuinely liberal and progressive have a responsibility too: to force Europe to confront itself, to ask itself what it is for in the 21st century. Bringing about that self-confrontation, that open, frank debate about 'how things really are', and more importantly how they should be, is the thing spiked is devoting itself to in 2016. The first step? To demand no censorship, no hiding of inconvenient facts, no avoidance of debate about migration, crime, Islam, beliefs, values or anything else.


The Myth of Islamophobia, The Truth About Those Who Invented It

Muslims across America are demanding Islamophobia be stopped by creating a false rise in what they consider anti-Muslim rhetoric.  Islamophobia is a word manufactured by the Muslim Brotherhood in an effort to invent a false sense of victimhood. Islamophobia is defined by Muslims as those who hold an irrational fear of Islam, and is seen as a mental deficiency.

The word itself means a fear of Islam, but the word has morphed into meaning a hatred of Muslims, racism, or bigotry. It encompasses negative words that cause discomfort and embarrassment, thereby causing people to think twice about speaking negatively about Islam and Muslims.  Being labelled a hater or racist (though Islam is not a race) can get you fired, lose family and friends, or lose business.  All fears of the American people.

Islamic organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have created a sense of urgency in hopes the government will step in by criminalizing what they consider hate speech. Incidents have been fabricated to make it appear there is a spike in anti-Muslim sentiment which in turn they say promotes violence, vandalism and hate.

Aside from the fear of being labeled an islamophobe, people are shying away from anything that may be construed as islamophobic and instead flooding to hear Muslims preach about Islam, its peaceful and loving nature, its tolerance of all things sinful, and how compatible sharia law is to the constitution (all untrue)

HOWEVER, the most important point is not about Islamophobia but rather how it is being used by Muslims. Their efforts to end Islamophobia have instead created a national security risk.

Law enforcement and our military have become so delicate to Muslim communities for fear of losing federal funding or their pensions they are cooperating with Muslim communities conducting business in a way that doesn't offend the Muslims. Because of the demands by Muslims to further their agenda and our political correctness, some of the outcomes of these implications are:

The purging of relevant, factual training that includes who terrorist organizations and their supporters are within the United States

The termination of surveillance in mosques

The end of profiling

The ceasing of   standard search procedures, such as canines to detect explosives

The barring of our military being able to identify the enemy and annihilate them

The altering of rules of engagement replaced with recall and retreat

The cessation of interrogation tools that are effective but are seen as offensive and demeaning

All because Muslims label these Islamophobic.

All of these things we have viewed as small incremental changes, are now the result of our law enforcement agencies calling Islamic terrorism acts of domestic extremism. Terrorists are referred to as killers or fanatics.

By not immediately designating the horrific murders that occurred in San Bernardino, Chattanooga, or Fort Hood, and the attempted assassinations in Garland TX as Islamic terrorism, they are falling into criminal categories rather than terrorist ones. We are becoming desensitized to the reality of an enemy who is fighting in the name of Islam that has an ideology that is dismantling and destroying America.

It isn't Islamophobia that is dangerous, it is those calling for its demise who are.


Claim: One in 10 Australians ’highly Islamophobic’ and have a fear of Muslims

A phobia is an irrational fear.  There are daily reports of Muslims killing other people -- mostly other Muslims but also Westerners -- so what is irrational in fearing attacks from them?  Many Australians have already died at their hands and their attacks are often random and unpredictable.  Are we supposed to look forward to that?  I am surprised that so few Australians fear Muslims. 

One in 10 Australians are “highly Islamophobic” and have a fear or dread of Muslims, a University of South Australia study has found.

The University’s International Centre for Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding has surveyed 1000 Australians, finding 10 per cent of people had negative or ­hostile attitudes towards Muslims, with the elderly, less educated and those with a poor attitude towards migrants more likely to hold such views.

The level of worry about terrorism in Australia had a strong influence on their views, the report, provided to The Australian, said.

Riaz Hassan said the survey was the first “pulse” taken of ­Australians’ perceptions towards one of the country’s most diverse religious communities and he hoped more research would be done to gauge shifts in attitudes.

The findings indicated most Australians were not Islamophobic, with 70 per cent surveyed ­comfortable having a Muslim as a family member or close friend, ­although more felt social distance from Muslims than from other ­religious groups, Professor Hassan said. A further 20 per cent were ­undecided on the issue.

The centre’s work examines the basis of tensions between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds and the role governments, local communities and the media play within a social and cultural rather than purely religious context.

“There are pockets of prejudice and anxiety directed towards Muslims, for example among the aged and those facing financial ­insecurity, but the great majority of Australians in all states and ­regions are comfortable to live alongside Australian Muslims,’’ the report, based on a survey taken in September, said.

About 60 per cent of the 500,000 Muslims living here came from 183 countries, making them the most ethnically and nationally heterogeneous religious communities, the report said.

By 2050, Muslims would grow from 2.2 per cent to 5 per cent of the Australian population, making Islam the second largest religion.

Professor Hassan said Australians’ tolerance towards immigrants strongly influenced their Islamophobia score while higher proportions of older Australians, aged 65 to 74, people who had not completed Year 12, and those not in the labour force showed higher rates of negative views.

The report authors said it was surprising that political affiliations had a strong correlation with ­Islamophobia.

Australians aligned with the Liberal and Nationals parties have significantly higher levels of ­Islamophobia than those aligned with the Labor Party while Greens voters tended to have the lowest Islamophobia score, the ­report said.  [So supporters of the less realistic political parties were also more optimistic about Muslims!  It figures!]



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


No comments: