Thursday, April 14, 2016
Multicultural pervert, 35, sexually abused a teenager with learning difficulties and photographed her bound and gagged
A teenager with severe learning difficulties was bound, gagged and sexually abused by a 35-year-old man after he watched the film Fifty Shades of Grey.
Joseph Maxwell Spencer took photos of the girl in a red and black basque and made film clips that showed her crying out in distress, Bradford Crown Court heard.
He was jailed for seven years after a judge said he ruthlessly exploited the girl to gratify his own pleasures.
Following a trial, Spencer was convicted by a jury of causing or inciting the girl to engage in sexual activity and eight charges of making indecent photos of her.
He was cleared of three allegations of having sex with the girl when she was 15.
Judge Peter Benson said the girl's learning difficulties meant she behaved like a child of seven or eight when she was 15.
He told Spencer: 'You exploited her vulnerability in a ruthless way and acquired a bondage kit based on the film Fifty Shades of Grey, and she was forced to dress up in it. 'It consisted of a gag, handcuffs, a red and black basque and a whip.'
During his trial at Bradford Crown Court, West Yorkshire, the jury was shown photos Spencer had taken of the bound and gagged girl posing indecently in the red and black basque.
Two film clips showed him having sex with her as she cried out in distress.
He tormented her on video while having sex with her when she was bound and gagged, the judge said.
'It was a most disgusting picture and you were acting with a degree of brutality which I am sure the jury found quite shocking,' added Judge Benson.
During the trial, the court heard that Spencer ordered the Fifty Shades of Grey bondage kit on the internet after watching the film.
He was arrested after one of the girl's schoolteachers saw him walking hand-in-hand with her and police found the photos and film clips on his computer.
Spencer's barrister, Nicholas Barker, said he was previously of good character and had suffered trauma and tragedy fighting as a child soldier in Liberia.
Detective Constable Donna Hector, of the Bradford District Safeguarding Unit, said: 'Spencer befriended his victim and her family then took advantage of her vulnerabilities to sexually exploit and degrade her'.
The images of the girl dressed in bondage gear were all taken on one day after she had turned 16.
Judge Benson made a Sexual Harm Prevention Order banning Spencer from approaching or contacting the girl and from having unsupervised contact with children. He must register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
'I hope the sentence he has received today will be of some comfort to her and help her to move forward with her life.
'We would also like to thank our partners in education who first brought Spencer's inappropriate behaviour to our attention.
'Police in Bradford District are committed to protecting the vulnerable and would urge anyone with concerns about exploitation to report them to our specialist officers, who will investigate every report with the aim of bringing perpetrators to justice.'
Spencer, who had been held in Leeds Prison for a year, wept loudly as he was led down to the cells at Bradford Crown Court.
Why Do LGBT Radicals Want to Cleanse the Counseling Profession of Christians?
You can always count on the Huffington Post to get hysterical. Last night — under a blaring headline that simply read “Hatewave” — it took aim at one of the more common-sense pieces of religious-liberty legislation ever proposed. The Tennessee legislature has passed a bill protecting from liability “counselors and therapists who refuse to counsel a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of the counselor or therapist.”
In other words, Tennessee wants to protect counselors from being drafted into facilitating behaviors they find morally repugnant such as, for example, adulterous affairs, sexual promiscuity, or — yes — same-sex relationships.
At first glance the bill seems superfluous. After all, who would want to be counseled by a therapist or counselor who believes your lifestyle is immoral? To paraphrase John Kasich, do we have to “write laws” for everything? Won’t the market sort this all out?
Well, no — not when the Left is intent on cleansing orthodox Christianity from the so-called helping professions. Two legal cases I worked on immediately come to mind. The first involved a young woman named Emily Brooker, a social-work student at Missouri State University. Emily’s academic “crime” was refusing a professor’s demand that she sign her name to a letter to the state legislature advocating gay adoption.
Rather than recognizing that teachers can’t compel students to engage in political advocacy, the professor accused her of a “Level 3” grievance (the university’s most serious academic offense). The department then subjected Emily to a Star Chamber–style political inquiry, where a panel of professors demanded to know whether she was a “sinner” and kept her from having a lawyer, an advocate, or even her own mother in the room.
The panel convicted her of the offense and required her to change her beliefs as a condition of graduation. One university official actually held it against Ward that she ‘communicated an attempt to maintain [her] belief system.’
In the second case, I represented Julea Ward against Eastern Michigan University. Julea was in the final stages of her graduate counseling program when she was asked to counsel a gay man about his same-sex relationship. She declined and referred the file to another counselor who had no moral objections. The client was counseled without incident. Indeed, he didn’t even know his file had been referred.
The university, however, found her referral intolerable and subjected Julea to a “formal review,” accusing her of “imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals” and of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Once again, a student was summoned to the Star Chamber, and once again public officials probed a private citizen’s religious beliefs. She was expelled from the program just weeks before graduation.
While I was litigating those cases, my colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom and I were contacted by social workers and counselors from across the country. Some were students, some were in private practice, and all of them were facing actual or potential complaints because they were not willing to facilitate relationships they found immoral.
In some instances, it was clear that the requests for help were the result of attempts to “troll” counselors — where activists would seek counseling for the purpose of filing a complaint. To be clear, these students and counselors weren’t engaged in sexual-orientation discrimination. They’d happily counsel an LGBT person through a work conflict, bankruptcy, or personal loss, for example, but they would not counsel any person — gay or straight — in a manner that facilitated immoral actions.
Indeed, there is a longstanding professional ethical practice of referral when a client’s values conflict with their counselor’s. Otherwise, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Julea’s case, absurdities result: Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion +
(1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and
(2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.
Yes, tolerance is a “two-way street.” But for the Left, these cases were about anything but tolerance. Instead, the goals were clear — establish absolute ideological uniformity in sexual morality and purge dissenters.
If counselors are required to facilitate immoral relationships, could a Christian lawyer be disbarred for refusing to sue a church that won’t perform gay weddings? Where is the line? And if you think the First Amendment adequately draws that line, think again.
Emily and Julea prevailed in their lawsuits, but judges have bowed to the Left in similar cases. Why should we not fight for effective state laws that can preempt the need for costly and lengthy federal litigation?
Liberals’ Double Standard on Bathrooms, Boycotts, and Religious Freedom
If it wasn’t for double standards, some liberals would have none at all. That seems to be the lesson from the past few weeks, where liberals have displayed three distinct forms of hypocrisy.
Liberal governors and mayors signed travel bans to North Carolina and Mississippi, CEOs of major corporations pledged boycotts and relocations, and Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams have canceled scheduled concerts in those states.
At issue are a Mississippi law that narrowly and carefully protects the rights of religious charities, small businesses, and select public servants and a North Carolina law that reasonably protects privacy and safety in public restrooms, while leaving private institutions free to set their own bathroom policies. These laws, apparently, are now unacceptable to some voices on the left.
But are they really? The hypocrisy in their opposition suggests otherwise.
Liberals decry the influence of big business and big money in politics. They denounce, as a direct threat to democracy, the ability of corporations to engage in issue advocacy. They argue that politicians must answer to the people, not the highest corporate bidder.
Or at least that’s what they used to say. Liberals are now cheering Apple, PayPal, Salesforce, and countless other giant corporations threatening legislators and governors with boycotts if they pass popular laws that the left disapproves of.
These corporate elites didn’t win an argument about good public policy. Instead, they threatened to boycott and transfer jobs out of states if the politicians didn’t do as they insisted.
This economic coercion is a form of cronyism—cultural cronyism. Big businesses use their outsized market share to pressure government to do their bidding at the expense of the will of the people and the common good. And, hypocritically, the left cheers it on.
Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams Get to Follow Their Consciences, but the Baker and Florist Don’t?
Many of us think that what these corporate giants are doing is bad for representative democracy and self-government. But they have a right to do it. And yet, they want to deny the rights of bakers, florists, photographers, adoption agencies, and marriage counselors who only want the same liberty to follow their conscience.
Big business is using its market freedom to deny small businesses and charities their religious freedom. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Take the cases of Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams. They said their consciences require them to deny their artistic gifts and talents to citizens of states that have enacted policy they disagreed with. And, of course, they have that right.
Adams wrote: “I cannot in good conscience perform in a state where certain people are being denied their civil rights.”
He’s wrong about the laws —they don’t deny anyone civil rights. Instead, they protect civil rights. They protect religious freedom, which, as the liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) once acknowledged, is a civil liberty.
So Springsteen and Adams are exercising their freedom of conscience by boycotting states that sought to protect the consciences of adoption agencies, religious schools, bakers, and florists. Do they not see the hypocrisy?
Finally, if these boycotts are really a matter of principle—and not just grandstanding—then why do so many of these same companies do business in foreign countries with terrible records on human rights in general, and for LGBT people in particular?
The governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, pointed out this hypocrisy. After New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a travel ban for state employees to North Carolina, Gov. McCrory asked how it was consistent with Gov. Cuomo’s trip to Cuba—with state business leaders—to promote trade with that country.
Is Cuba better on human rights than North Carolina? Or is Cuomo being a bit hypocritical?
Others have pointed out the hypocrisy of PayPal. The CEO of PayPal announced that the company wouldn’t expand in North Carolina because of “PayPal’s deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect.”
Really? Then PayPal might want to explain why its international headquarters are in Singapore, where people engaged in private consensual same-sex acts can face two years in jail. It might also want to explain why it announced in 2012 that it would open offices in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While North Carolina placed some commonsense limits on public bathrooms, the UAE reportedly jails gay and transgender people.
The left knows it can’t win on the merits in the debate about religious freedom and bathroom privacy. These bills enjoy strong public support—that’s why elected representatives are voting to pass them. And it’s why corporate elites have to target governors to veto them.
Missouri is likely the next state to move a religious freedom bill, and we can expect the same cast of characters to come out in opposition. But this time, the left and big business are entering the debate with one big disadvantage—they’ve been beaten. Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi and Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina have stood up to the bullies and shattered their aura of invincibility.
Islam is Colonialism, Palestine is Colonialism
At Israeli Apartheid Week, campus haters claim to be fighting "colonialism" by fighting Jews. Columbia University's Center for Palestine Studies, dedicated to a country that doesn't exist and which has produced nothing worth studying except terrorism, features diatribes such as Palestine Re-Covered: Reading a Settler Colonial Landscape". This word salad is a toxic stew of historical revisionism being used to justify the Muslim settler colonization of the indigenous Jewish population.
You can't colonize Palestine because you can't colonize colonizers. The Muslim population in Israel is a foreign colonist population. The indigenous Jewish population can resettle its own country, but it can't colonize it.
Muslims invaded, conquered and settled Israel. They forced their language and laws on the population. That's the definition of colonialism. You can't colonize and then complain that you're being colonized when the natives take back the power that you stole from them.
There are Muslims in Israel for the same reason that there are Muslims in India. They are the remnants of a Muslim colonial regime that displaced and oppressed the indigenous non-Muslim population.
There are no serious historical arguments to be made against any of this.
The Muslim conquests and invasions are well-documented. The Muslim settlements fit every historical template of colonialism complete with importing a foreign population and social system that was imposed on the native population. Until they began losing wars to the indigenous Jewish population, the Muslim settlers were not ashamed of their colonial past, they gloried in it. Their historical legacy was based on seizing indigenous sites, appropriating them and renaming them after the new conquerors.
The only reason there's a debate about the Temple Mount is because Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem and ordered a mosque built on a holy Jewish site. The only reason there's a debate about East Jerusalem is because invading Muslim armies seized half the city in 1948, bombed synagogues and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population to achieve an artificial Muslim settler majority.
The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.
Israel is littered with Omar mosques, including one built in the courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, because Islam is a colonial entity whose mosques testify to their invasive origins by celebrating colonialism as their true religion. The faith of Islam is the sworn religion of the sword.
Islam is a religion of colonialism that spread through invasion, settlement and conquest. Its caliphs, from the original invaders, including Omar, to the current Caliph of ISIS, wielded and wield religious authority in the service of the Islamic colonial enterprise.
Allah is the patron deity of colonialism. Jihad is just colonialism in Arabic. Islamic theology is nothing but the manifest destiny of the Muslim conquest of the world, colonial settler enterprises dressed up in the filmy trappings of religion appropriated from the culture of conquered Jewish and Christian minorities. Muslim terrorism is a reactionary colonial response to the liberation movements of the indigenous Jewish population.
Even "Allahu Akbar" did not originate as a religious sentiment. It does not mean "God is Great", as it is often mistranslated. It was Mohammed's taunt to the Jews he was ethnically cleansing. His purge of a minority group proved that "Allah was Greater". Islamic colonialism is used to demonstrate the existence of Allah. And the best way to worship Allah is through the colonialism of the Jihad.
Islam would not have existed without colonialism. It still can't exist without it. That is why the violence continues. The only way to end the violence is for Muslims to reject their theology of colonialism.
But instead of taking ownership of their real history, the Muslim settler population evades its guilt through propaganda by claiming to be the victims of colonialism by the indigenous Jewish population. This twisted historical revisionism is backed by bizarre nonsense such as claiming that Jesus was a Palestinian or that the Arabs are descended from the Philistines. The Muslim settlers insist on continuing to celebrate colonialism while claiming to be an indigenous population that was always living in Israel.
You can have one or the other. You can have your mosques celebrating the conquest and suppression of the indigenous population or your claims of being the indigenous population. But you can't switch from being the indigenous population to being its conquerors whenever it suits your pseudo-historical narrative. You can't claim to be the Philistines, the Jews and their Islamic conquerors at the same time.
From its Roman origins, Palestine has always been a colonial fantasy of remaking Israel by erasing its original Jewish identity. The Arab mercenaries who were deployed by the Romans in that original colonial enterprise continued it by becoming self-employed conquerors for their own colonial empire. The name Palestine remains a linguistic settlement for reimagining a country without a people and a past as a blank slate on which the colonial identity of the invaders can be written anew. That is still the role that the Palestine myth and mythology serves.
Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh complains about "linguistic colonialism". When Muslims rename the Spring of Elisha, a Jewish biblical figure, Ein as-Sultan in honor of an Islamic colonial ruler, that's linguistic colonialism. When Jews restore the original indigenous names that Jewish sites held before Muslim colonialism, that's not colonization. It's the exact opposite. It's decolonization.
Promoting mythical claims of a Palestinian state isn't decolonization, it's colonization. Or recolonization. Advocates for "Palestine" are not fighting colonialism, but promoting it. They are advocating for a discredited Muslim settler fantasy and against the indigenous Jewish population of Israel.
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.