Is rape becoming politically correct?

In California it seems to be. What sort of sentence would expect someone who participated in a gang rape to receive? In Australia recently some gang rapists got 55 years -- much to public acclaim. In California last Tuesday, another gang rapist got only "time served" -- two months in jail. Political corredctness is always trying to reverse customary values but surely this is beyond the pale. Because the guy was aged only 15 at the time of the offence, we are not allowed to know his name but the case was reported in the Sacramento Bee of Wednesday just past. One hopes there will be an appeal against such a derisory verdict.

The only extenuating circumstances appear to be that the guy held the girl down while others did the actual intercourse and that his mother has died recently. It seems that anything will do to excuse rape in California. Excerpt:

"A 15-year-old boy who witnessed his mother's slaying five weeks ago was sentenced Tuesday in Sacramento Juvenile Court for his role in last year's gang rape of a 13-year-old girl. "It is your duty to monitor your son," Sacramento Superior Court Judge Kenneth G. Peterson told the boy's father, who assumed custody of his son after the slaying. The boy was sentenced to time served. He has spent two months behind bars in juvenile hall and seven months of home detention on electronic monitoring. He faced three years at the California Youth Authority.

The teen was convicted of vandalism, grand theft and false imprisonment arising from the Oct. 28 gang rape. Although the boy was present during the assault, and at one time prevented the girl's escape, the judge said the teenager had no "legal duty" to stop the others from gang raping the girl".

More here



AN AMAZING DEFEAT FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

But it's not quite over yet

On the 27th July 2005 history was made in Britain. For the first time in modern history the Race Relations Acts were held to cover the racial rights of White people who are members of the British National Party. This now means that any organisations or companies that discriminate against a member of the British National Party are guilty of anti-white racism. This includes the Police and the Government.

In the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the Embankment, London before the President of the Appeals Tribunals in Britain Mr.Justice Burton the case of Arthur Redfearn v Serco was heard and history was made.

After suffering the debacle of an incompetent preliminary tribunal who initially ruled against him, Mr.Redfearn took his case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Arthur, a sitting councillor for the BNP and a driver for disabled children who is disabled himself, was sacked from his job by minions of the organisation Serco who employ 25,000 people across the country, under the duplicitous pretext of ' Health and Safety ', as far-left thugs linked to the Trade Union Council and Unison trade union, had threatened to throw bricks at his van as he was driving the children to work.

The Serco company then dismissed him from his employment. This set a very dangerous precedent. If this ruling had been allowed to stand it would have allowed companies with a white work force to dismiss ethnic minority people from employment if members of that white work force had threatened to cause violence at work or attack the property of the company itself if they did not dismiss the ethnic minority employees. White employers who did not want to employ ethnic minority people could then dismiss from employment ethnic minority employees from their companies on the grounds of Health and Safety and thereby bypass thirty years of the Race Relations Acts. This ruling could have been used by Muslim employers forced by law to hire white people to sack all white employees on the grounds that other Muslim employees had threatened to attack them. White employers could have said that a threat to them or their company justified sacking all black and Asian workers from the company.....

The decision of this tribunal was that the initial tribunal were incompetent in their deliberation of the case, that the case must go before a new tribunal who are competent to hear it, and that the legal rules and reasoning within the Appeal Tribunal decision must be adhered to by the new tribunal....

More here