PCphobia

In Rotherham more than 1400 children were systematically raped. The authorities knew about this, but did not step in. The reason? Because the perpetrators were all of Pakistani origin, and because all were Muslims, the people in charge preferred to look away, lest they be called ‘racist’. Politically correctness run amok.

Yesterday, Nazir Afzal, the Crown Prosecution Service’s lead on child sexual abuse and violence against women and girls, tried to politically correct the situation. It is an ill-advised attempt at saving something that shouldn’t be saved.

So I know that the vast majority of [sex] offenders are British white male

That’s not the point. In this case they weren’t. It is exactly this attempt at relativism that has angered the public. The children don’t really care if they have fallen prey to a statistical anomaly – they still were raped. The ethnicity and religion of the perpetrators is not in dispute. What has caused the anger was that the perpetrators were untouchable for exactly that reason. But the real scandal wasn’t their ethnicity, it was that the authorities ignored the girls.

A few weeks after the Rochdale case, we dealt with a case of 10 white men in North Yorkshire who had been abusing young girls, and they were all convicted and they got long sentences. It didn’t get the level of coverage

And neither got as much attention as Jimmy Savile who abused hundreds of children. It’s not the media’s job to attribute attention justly. It’s the authorities’ job.

He argues that evidence suggests that victims were not targeted because they were white but because they were vulnerable and their vulnerability caused them to seek out “warmth, love, transport, mind-numbing substances, drugs, alcohol and food”.

Except that the girls were all white, and did not represent the demographical average. Why argue against facts?

Afzal was disturbed at the way that some responded by muddling the actions of those prosecuted with their religious backgrounds. […] Someone called the Radio 4 Any Answers programme. “He said the Qu’ran supports paedophilia. I’m not paraphrasing, that is what he said. He wasn’t cut off”

That is probably because the Qu’ran does support paedophilia: As the Hadith narrates, Aisha was married to Mohammed at age 6, raped (Mohammed ‘consummated’ the marriage) at age 10 (Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64). Again, this is not in dispute. Why argue the facts?

if there are lessons to be learned from the Rotherham tragedy, they are less to do with the dangers of political correctness, and more with the need for a radical shift in the way that victims of this kind of crime are treated.

This is a surprising conclusion, given the fact that the problem stemmed entirely from too much politically correctness – the authorities didn’t act because they were afraid that they would be called racist.

Nazir’s attempt at downplaying this is entirely misguided. At issue isn’t as much the suspicion that ‘Religion’ (Islam) and ‘Asian’ (Pakistani) origins are the cause for the rapes. The issue is with the authorities who did not help the children because they feared for their own reputation. The whole Guardian interview is a textbook example of what went wrong: diversions, misattribution and red herrings are everywhere, and to blame is no-one but the nebulous community. A pity, since Nazir seems to be a decent chap who actually wants to help. But the first step is to acknowledge that this issue is much simpler than people make it out: Islamists are very quick to use the words ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Racist’, which has become an effective weapon because politically correct people fear being labelled that.

This will only improve once we understand that ‘Islamophobia’ is a BS term, and that religion is not a race.

And, perhaps, that it’s always a good idea to stop rapists.

Duck Brain

On the subject of ISIS’ barbaric murders, the bearded studio guest raises his hand, the index finger extended:

God said: “All who hate me, love death”

and

Either convert them or kill them, one or the other.

When you think that wacko was a fundamental islamist, you wouldn’t be too far off. It was Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, interviewed by FOX’s Sean Hannity, and he was talking about ISIS. That it’s difficult to discern a lunatic Islamist from a crazy Christian is no surprise; after all, the difference in their beliefs is semantic at best, their god is the same one. And both are blood-soaked, barbaric ideologies.

Ducky Brain then went on to say that he’d much prefer to convert the murderous thugs to christianity than to kill them. Oh, great. Then we’ll have lunatic, wide-eyed, heavily armed murderers for Jesus instead of Allah. What could possibly go wrong?

Now, as I remarked before, from the outside the loony bin is just a big building. I find it remarkable that the inmates are at each other’s throat while reciting exactly the same hate-filled stupidities.

And very, very, frightening.

A Diabolic God

There is a conundrum that many believers wrestle with: the existence of evil in the face of a benevolent god. When looked at from a different perspective findphonebase.ca , though, it’s not a conundrum at all.

Let us for a moment assume that believers have it right – a god exists. How then can we reconcile the evil that we see in the world with the assertion that god is benevolent?

We can’t. Does that mean that God doesn’t exist? Almost – but not necessarily. Another possibility remains, one that makes a whole lot more sense than what is commonly believed. Again, we are working under the assumption that God does exist. Now let us extend this assumption to Satan. Called the ‘Prince of Lies’, his character is described as evil, craving worship, and eternally envious of God’s glory.

Behold: Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, IS(IS), Taliban and all the other barbaric murderers in the name of god, including the christian murderous savages called Lord’s Resistance Army. It is inconceivable that they are fighting for a benevolent supreme being. Yet they would have you believe that they are fighting for the ‘religion of peace’ or spreading the ‘gospel of love’.

Now let us turn our gaze to North Korea. Here we have a whole people living under the harshest of conditions, who are forced to worship a hateful, self-centered egomaniac who craves the adulation of the people he tortures and enslaves. He has his country believe that he is their savior, that all the countries around them are the enemy, and that everyone but himself is evil.

In light of this example we have undeniable proof that you can make people believe anything if you are brutal and ruthless enough. This allows for a far more likely explanation for the evil we see in religion every day, one that makes sense:

If Satan exist today, it is far more likely that the religious people in truth are worshipping him; Satan, who like North Korea’s Kim, has you believe he is the benevolent supreme being.

But if this were true, why wouldn’t the benevolent God intervene? Because, like in Korea, Satan is the only supreme being. There is no benevolent god.

Just Satan. They are the same – he is God.

Now, it all makes sense. Scripture and organized religion are a tool to force people to worship him. Intense worship of this God, due to his nature, allows evil to spread. Evil in this world goes unchecked not because it is ‘natural’, but because it is part of the decidedly un-benevolent God, who occasionally hides his true face because he wants to be adored, and who sends his brutal savages to force you into his religion.

So, if you truly want to reconcile all the evil in this world with an existing God, it leaves this depressing conclusion as the most likely one.

And that’s probably one of the biggest complaints I have with faith: I think it says a lot about religion when a crazy conspiracy theory is more sane than what people actually believe.

Pope hope

Yesterday the Pope prayed for peace in the middle east. No one expects this to change anything.

Now, if even God’s best friend on earth can’t effect a change, wouldn’t it be high time that we agreed to the following:

  • God doesn’t give a damn about you
  • therefore praying to him doesn’t work

If the pope can’t get God to stop the war in Gaza – in God’s promised land, no less – perhaps everyone should stop praying and start doing something. Is there anyone who doesn’t think that religion is part of the problem in Gaza? Maybe we should try and remove that barrel of gasoline from the fire? There are still enough problems without religion.

Stop taking your god so serious; start being serious about not killing each other.

Moral Midget

Turkish deputy PM Bülent Arınç has shown that the qualifications for his current job do not include intelligence. In a public speech during an Eid el-Fitr celebration, he said:

Chastity is of critical importance.

Why? No reason, except that Arınç thinks chastity is an ornament. Why are ornaments of critical importance? Apparently, they just are.

Then he goes completely off the rails

[A woman] will know what is haram and not haram. She will not laugh in public.

Am I the only one who thinks that it does not bode well for your country if your own Number Two Official thinks that half of your country should not be laughing in public? This guy really needs to lighten up.

Now cue the world’s tiniest violin as Arınç continues

Where are our girls, who slightly blush, lower their heads and turn their eyes away when we look at their face, becoming the symbol of chastity

They never existed except in your backward, misogynistic fantasy, Number Two. If women flinch when you look at them it is because they are afraid you’ll hurt them. If that’s what gets your juices flowing, book the next professional submissive who is willing to take you; let women express their joy in any way they damn well please, and expect them to meet your gaze levelly. Anything else is a sign that something is wrong.

Another sign that morals are decaying is, according to moral expert Arinç the fact that

Women give each other meal recipes while speaking on the mobile phone.

Well, I agree that I feel inconvenienced when someone in a tram next to me exchanges a recipe. Truth be told, though, I much prefer that to the average guy who gives a point-by-point account of his latest (and completely made up) conquest. Yet Arınç seems to be OK with that – it’s women who should shut up in public.

When do moral ignoramuses get it that sex, appearance, public expression, and, of all things, open displays of happiness have nothing to do with morals? What is wrong with you?

And this guy was elected?

Good God…?

Trojan Hoax

A great brouhaha has erupted about the fact that faith-based schools are teaching outrageous lies to children.

Really?

I mean – come on! What else do you expect? Did anyone really think that the lies would be limited to scripture? What kind of hypocrite thinks that one lie is different from another? What mental contortions do you have to make to think ‘God hates homosexuals’ and ‘you are lucky to be Muslims and not ignorant like Christians and Jews’ are somehow different?

This is no ‘Trojan Horse‘. Read the Odyssey. If you are morally backward or stupid enough to support faith based schools, don’t feign surprise when the teachers lie to your children. That’s what you pay them for.

Thor’s Redoubt

As part of a regular review, the UN looked at how Norway complies with Human Rights.

Before we look at the results, we must look at the Jury. The team that investigated Norway includes Saudi Arabia (whose King is on record – in front of the UN – stating that Human Rights are alien to him). Unsurprisingly, the UN’s decision to include the Saudis (along with Russia and China) in the UNHR panel has come to bite it in the behind:

As the Independent reports, Saudi Arabia accused Norway of endangering the religious rights of their muslim citizens. They

called for all criticism of religion and of prophet Mohammed to be made illegal in Norway.

This happens when the Jury doesn’t understand the Law they are supposed to uphold. If you don’t know jack about Human Rights you should not preside over its implementation. Making criticism of Religion illegal infringes on the Human Right of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. Freedom of Religion includes the the right of Freedom from religion. If you suddenly have to observe a particular religion’s rule of blasphemy, you are forced into that religion’s rule set. After all, the Vikings once believed in Odin and Thor. Implementing the idiotic Saudi recommendation would mean banning blockbuster movies like ‘Thor’ or ‘The Avengers’ for blasphemy in Norway.

It is now official that the Saudis do not understand basic Human Rights.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Børge Brende remarked before the hearing that

It is a paradox that countries which do not support fundamental human rights have influence on the council

It’s not paradox. It’s downright stupid.

Allah’s Sex Slaves

In 2005, a newspaper published 12 cartoons that depicted Mohammed (the Prophet) in various vaguely satirical ways. As a result, fanatical Muslims around the world became so enraged that their riots left some 200 people dead, embassies burnt down, and churches destroyed.

In 2014, Islamist Fundamentalist group Boko Haram (which roughly translates to ‘the western ways are sinful’) kidnapped 230 Nigerian school girls to sell them as sex slaves. Their justification? Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram’s Leader said in a video message: “Allah commands me [to sell the girls]”.

No riots.

Why not?

This is no idle question.

It certainly seems that fanatical Muslims believe it is a worse crime to draw a a caricature of a mythical person than raping 230 children. Now, I don’t want these people to go out, riot, and kill another 200 humans just to set the record straight – but can’t the fundamentalists at least show some indignation at this terrible crime? And if not at the crime itself, then at least at the (hopefully) blasphemous claim that Allah condones sex slavery?

Ah.

Muslim Mars

As Time reports, the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments (GAIAE) in the United Arab Emirates have issued a fatwa against traveling to Mars. Their reasoning:

It is not permissible to travel to Mars and never to return if there is no life on Mars. The chances of dying are higher than living.

GAIAE concludes that the trip is akin to suicide, and not permissible.

Well, I guess that’s why they are called explorers, guys! Does GAIAE really want to supply the western world with legitimate reason to call muslims ‘Sissies’? After all, there are dirty, morally degenerate unbelievers who are perfectly willing to take the plunge.

Mars One – the Organization that funds the one-way trip to Mars – was able to dig up a perfect reply: They compare the first Martian settlers with Muslim explorers like Ibn Battuta, and include a Quranic verse that encourages Muslims to go out and see ‘the signs of God’s creation in the heavens and the earth’.

Well played, Mars One! At least it’s better played than Swiss Comedians Viktor Giacobbo and Mike Müller who merely commented that it’s certainly important to distinguish suicide by exploration from one in a crowded market.

So, after the ‘Red Moon’ scare in the 50s and 60s, we can sleep easy knowing that there will be no ‘Muslim Mars’ threat.

Of Swastikas and Burqas

Swiss fundamental Islamist Nora Illi says that there is nothing wrong with wearing a Burqa.

Technically, that is perhaps correct. Just like, technically, there is nothing wrong with wearing a Swastika, a more than 6000 years old symbol that represents a wide variety of meanings.

In the western world, however, the Swastika has become synonymous with Nazi Germany and the atrocities committed by Hitler and his henchmen.

Although I have never heard about them, the Burqa may have some real, practical advantages over other forms of clothing. Still, it is used for but one purpose: to convert women into property, to curtail their freedom, and to remove all individuality. The Burqa (and Niqab and – to a lesser extent – Hijab) are irrevocably linked to the institutionalized, systematic subjugation of women. It has come to represent misogyny as much as the Swastika has become a symbol for racism.

That is why it is not smart to openly defend women wearing that kind of garment. Supporting the Burqa as as viable clothing for women is about as smart as advocating wearing swastikas in Europe.

Context matters.