Monday, August 07, 2017

Multiculturalism comes to Northern England

Derrick Mutambuka assaulted a woman in the street after becoming 'sexually aroused' in a Sunderland nightclub.

He then grabbed another woman and raped her in an alleyway giving her 34 injuries as she screamed for help. He paused only to kick and spit blood at passers-by who tried to stop him.

Defending him at Newcastle Crown Court, Mr Ekwall Tiwana said of his crime: 'Although it is very serious, it is not in fact the most serious.' 

His comments have outraged women's rights activists who say they play down the horrendous crime of rape.

Women's activist Aisha Ali-Khan told MailOnline: 'This is a sickening case - the defending counsel’s stance beggars belief.

'This was an appalling, premeditated attack that has left two women with life-long psychological scars. For the defence to downplay the impact and seriousness of the attacks shows a complete lack of empathy and compassion for what the victims had to endure.

'It also goes a long way in explaining why so many women would rather suffer in silence than report their sexual assaults to the authorities.'

She added: 'I am dismayed at the system that allows defence lawyers to make such irresponsible comments without any challenge'.

Mutambuka, originally from Rwanda, left the bar in Sunderland on 20 December 2015 and began talking to a woman on the street.

After she appeared disinterested in him, he pushed her against some shop shutters and proceeded to force his hand down her trousers.

The terrifying sexual assault came to an end when a passer-by intervened and walked the woman home.

But Mutambuka, who was 17 at the time, followed them back to her address and peered through her letterbox.

Newcastle Crown Court heard how just a short while later, the defendant then saw another woman in the street and dragged her into an alleyway before raping her.

A member of the public attempted to stop the rape after hearing the victim's terrified screams, but was forced to back off after Mutambuka kicked him.

The assault carried on for minutes - only to come to an end when a second man came to her rescue.

Prosecutor Andrew Espley said: 'This was a prolonged and sustained attack. 'There was a significant degree of planning. He wanted it to happen and took steps to make sure that it did.

'He was a man that would not be deterred. Others were present and witnessed the victim's ordeal. The victims were alone and vulnerable.'

Mutambuka, now 18, of Gateshead, was found guilty of rape and sexual assault following a trial - with what a judge described as 'overwhelming evidence.'

He was also found guilty of counts of assault, relating to the first man who he kicked and the second who he spat on, with spittle containing blood on 20 December 2015.

Mr Ekwall Tiwana, defending, said that his client was very drunk at the time of the offence and had only been drunk once before in his life.

He said: 'The general nature of this case is that it is a very serious offence. Although it is very serious, it is not in fact the most serious.  'This defendant was 17 at the time and had no previous convictions.

'This young man was passed from pillar to post and country to country essentially. He has been subject to a very unsatisfactory life until he moved to Newcastle and studied in Gateshead.

'He has admitted that what he did was disgraceful and disgusting. He has recognised what he did.'

The court heard how the defendant studied English, Maths and IT at Gateshead College. The rape victim suffered 34 injuries during the attack, including reddening, abrasion and tenderness on her head, face, neck, legs and chest as well as on her genitals.

She was also punched and 'manhandled' during the attack. Sentencing him to nine year and nine months imprisonment, Judge Robert Adams said: 'This was a persistent course of conduct.

'You were sexually aroused dancing in the club and that continued when you were going home until you committed the offence. 'You were determined to have sex with a woman regardless of her views or who she was or whatever her circumstance. 'You used violence, judging by the numerous injuries that the victim sustained.

'It is a start that you are experiencing some remorse although it is now too late in the day. Only a lengthy custodial sentence is appropriate.'


What Happens When an Imam Calls for Killing Jews

How the Left covered up Muslim anti-Semitism in California.

On Friday July 21st, Imam Ammar Shahin delivered a sermon at the Islamic Center of Davis calling for the extermination of the Jews.  He quoted an infamous Islamic Hadith which claims that Judgement Day won’t come around until the Muslims hunt down and exterminate the Jews.

“Oh Allah, liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews,” he prayed. “Annihilate them down to the very last one,” he added.

Next Friday, after the video went viral, the Imam appeared at a press conference to apologize to the filthy Jews. “I said things that were hurtful to Jews.”

The whole thing was sanctified by Rabbi Seth Castleman, a former Buddhist monk married to the Rev. Elizabeth Griswold, the pastor of Parkside Community Church. Castleman leads Buddhist meditation sessions at his current house of worship.  When bacon was dumped on the Islamic Center, Castleman appeared and declared that, “Attacks such as this one are a strike against all of us.”

"Look, the Old and New Testaments have horrible things in them,” Castleman had opined in response to the imam’s anti-Semitic rant. “You can always find horrible things.”

The Islamic Center of Davis had tried to claim that the Imam’s rant had been taken out of context. “If the sermon was misconstrued, we sincerely apologize to anyone offended,” it offered.

"It's unfair when I have spoken about nonviolence, and here is some two minutes. My record is very clear, I have always been against violence," Imam Shahin told the Washington Post.

At the press conference, he conceded that his words might have encouraged violent acts. The farce finally came to an end with a halting apology delivered from a written statement in broken English.

Then he committed to fighting for “social justice” and against “hate speech and violence”.

Imam Shahin’s apology was preceded by an address from a senior minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church who denounced “the language that we hear coming from the highest office in our country.”

When an Imam spews hate at Jews, the left will go right back to attacking President Trump.

The diverse clergy and community leaders at the event were more than happy to give Shahin a pass. And Shahin blamed the whole thing on his “emotions”. It went without saying that a Christian leader calling for Muslim genocide would not have been allowed to use his overwrought “feelings” as an excuse.

While the media had rushed to cover the Islamic Center of Davis’ bacon scandal, the same outlets had far less interest in the Center’s anti-Semitism problem. At first the story could only be found in Jewish and conservative outlets. When the media was finally forced to cover the viral video, it made excuses.

MEMRI, the monitoring organization that found, translated and uploaded the video, was smeared. Since Shahin’s remarks had been translated, challenging the translation was the easiest way to shoot the messenger. The Islamic Center accused MEMRI of having mistranslated “destroy” as “annihilate”.

And it attacked MEMRI for not having featured the ”countless lectures and sermons he has given regarding treating all people, especially non-Muslims, with kindness.”

Why indeed didn’t MEMRI highlight all the lectures in which he didn’t call for genocide?

The Muslim Public Affairs Council put out a statement complaining that, “Groups like MEMRI exacerbate political divisions on the Middle East conflict rather than aim to reconcile differences.”  And who better to bring us together than MPAC whose boss had accused Israel of being behind the 9/11 attacks.

Salam al-Marayati had also defended Hamas and Hezbollah. Despite that, or perhaps because of it, the JTA built its story around the MPAC press release without bothering to quote anyone from MEMRI.

The Washington Post tried bringing in its own translator, who accused MEMRI of Islamophobia, and tried to claim that the Imam had only been referring to those Jews involved in the fighting in Jerusalem. Whether this was limited to the Israeli authorities or the millions of Jews in Israel was left open to interpretation. There have been plenty of Islamist fatwas authorizing the extermination of Israeli Jews.

Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi, of Tunisia’s Islamist Ennahda, had stated, “There are no civilians in Israel. The population—males, females and children—are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.”

Ghannouchi had been hosted by MPAC. The Islamist group had called him, “One of the most important figures in modern Islamic political thought and theory.”

The Washington Post had run an interview with Ghannouchi and stories and editorials in the paper had repeatedly praised him and his movement. One article describes him as “visionary”.

Genocide is visionary indeed.

All the quibbling over the exact translation misses the point. The real horror of Shahin’s rant wasn’t his reference to the “filth of the Jews”.  It was the Hadith of the rock and the tree.

The genocidal Hadith is widely quoted by Muslim preachers. Hamas invoked it in its covenant. There was nothing unusual about Shahin’s rant.

That’s the horrifying part.

“The hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. A Jew will hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will call upon the Muslim: ‘O Muslim, O slave of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’

That’s the Hadith that Shahin referenced.

"Judgment Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews hide behind stones and trees, and the stones and the trees say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah,” he quotes.

But then he begins offering his own elaboration on what Muslims should do about it.

To Shahin, the genocidal text represents a call for Muslim unity that transcends national differences. "They will not say: Oh Egyptian, oh Palestinian, oh Jordanian, oh Syrian, oh Afghan, oh Pakistani."

Nor does the massacre have to be limited to Israel. “The Last Hour will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews. We don't say if it is in Palestine or another place,” he conjectures.

So much for the Washington Post’s attempt at limiting the scope of his genocide to Israel.

There was nothing new about Shahin’s message. It’s a call for Muslims to unify and kill the Jews.

“Let us play a part in this. Oh Allah, let us support them in words and in deeds,” Shahin prays.

What does he mean by “deeds”?

“The last thing I would do is intentionally hurt anyone,” Shahin insisted in his apology. His denunciations of violence however ring rather hollow. Not when he quoted a genocidal Hadith which calls for hunting down and killing the Jews. And not necessarily just in Israel, but potentially everywhere.

Some time ago, David Horowitz called on Islamic organizations to repudiate the Hadith in the Declaration Against Genocide. Not a single Muslim group, including MPAC, agreed to do it.

73% of Muslims in ’67 Israel agree with it.

That’s what is at stake in Jerusalem and in Davis and everywhere else. It comes down to genocide.

The left is eager to talk about anti-Semitism on the right, but unwilling to discuss it on the left. Muslims are supposed to be part of one great coalition. It’s a coalition in which Seth Castleman signs on for Muslim migrants and Islamic groups show up for interfaith events. And then Imam Shahin spoiled it.

The apology lets everyone on the left go back to pretending that there isn’t a problem. But there is a problem. And it’s not going anywhere. It’s only getting worse.

The left has whitewashed and justified Muslim attacks on Jewish synagogues. It justifies and defends violence against Jews. Shahin’s murderous sermon was inconvenient, but quickly swept under the rug.

After all the spin and excuses, Imam Shahin never disavowed the genocidal Hadith. Instead he apologized for the hurt feelings. The mosque apologized to anyone who was offended.

But the feelings aren’t the point. The killing is.

Long before the State of Israel was reborn, the Six Day War or the latest terrorist tantrum, an ancient Islamic text ordered Muslims to wipe out the Jews to bring on Judgement Day.

Muslim anti-Semitic violence is not a momentary reaction to metal detectors. Just as Imam Shahin’s sermon was not an emotional slip. It’s the violent bigotry of over a thousand years.

It’s in Davis. And it’s in America. And it must be addressed.


A truth-teller posted a 10-page treatise about bias at Google and people are outraged

Google employees and Silicon Valley pundits are reacting with outrage to a 10-page document reportedly written by a Google engineer that criticizes the company's "left leaning" culture, taking aim at company policies meant to foster a more diverse workplace.

The document, which was first reported by Motherboard and published in full by Gizmodo, was said to be written by a Google engineer, going "viral" inside the company on Friday.

It argued that differences in pay between men and women in the technology sector are not entirely related to bias against women, but are partly attributable to biological differences between the genders.

It also called on Google to "stop alienating conservatives" and calls into question practices like "unconscious bias" training for committees that promote employees.

The identity of the writer has not been publicly revealed. Google parent company Alphabet did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Several Google employees expressed their outrage about the post on Friday:

Outside commentators have also criticized the company—for instance, Slack engineer Erica Joy. She called attention to alleged unequal pay for women when she worked at Google, and has been an outspoken critic of systematic bias in the tech industry.

Joy wrote that Google execs should ask themselves, "why is the environment at Google such that racists and sexists feel supported and safe in sharing these views in the company?"

Google recently hired a VP of diversity, Danielle Brown, who wrote a memo on Saturday responding to the document, Recode reports. She wrote that the document "advanced incorrect assumptions about gender" and that "it's not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages."

The document comes as the company is under investigation by the Department of Labor for paying women less than men.

It also fits into a broader story unfolding in Silicon Valley tech companies this year. Company executives and investors have often claimed tech companies are "meritocracies," where hard work and skill are valued and race and gender are ignored. Yet an increasing number of workers in the industry are coming forward with concrete and specific stories of discrimination and harassment.


Australian Medical Association misleading on gay marriage

A former senior Australian Medical Association official has lashed out at the peak medical body’s campaign for same-sex marriage, accusing it of using false and misleading information in claiming the reform was a public health issue.

Dr Chris Middleton, a former president of the Tasmanian AMA, has joined with five AMA members in penning a 15-page report savaging the credibility of the national body’s Position Statement on Marriage Equality.

Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, renounced his life membership of the body and was critical of its process to adopt a position in favour of gay marriage, saying the membership was not consulted.

The gastroenterologist, who does not support same-sex marriage, expects hundreds of doctors to join the renegade group in opposing the AMA’s position. Dr Middleton’s report will be sent to federal MPs this weekend.

“The position statement has very little to say about medicine and was little more than a politically motivated, ideologically-driven opinion piece which is dressed up as evidence-based health policy,” Dr Middleton said.

“The AMA speaks with great authority and because of that I am so disappointed. “In other position statements they have gone into it in a detailed way, there has been a rigorous dispassionate, careful, sober and professional analysis of all of the arguments for and against and usually what you get is a very thoughtful outcome.”

Dr Middleton’s report was scathing of the AMA for its “demonstrably false” claim that children raised by gay parents do not suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

The report also said the AMA defended this claim by refusing to acknowledge peer-reviewed research which countered its position.

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

“By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.”

Dr Middleton said yesterday the AMA “suppressed evidence” that didn’t suit its position.

“You would never be able to get away with this is medical literature, leaving out critical references because those references don’t suit your narrative,” he said.

Dr Middleton said the AMA also provided “feeble” evidence for its assertion that legalising same-sex marriage would improve the health of gay people and give them better access to healthcare.

“The evidence quoted in their statement is far too weak to support the claims. One of these claims used the Sydney Morning Herald (as its evidence). This is a medical body making a serious politically persuasive claim based on an article in a newspaper,” he said.

AMA national president Michael Gannon said that doctors had “overwhelmingly” supported the body’s change in policy. He said the AMA had not suppressed any information.

“There is no lack of diligence by individuals federal councillors in deciding how we arrived at the position statement,” he said.



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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: