Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami » UK

UK: We will regret ignoring Asian thugs who target white girls

sheikyermami — Fri, 17 May 2013 14:20:55 +0000

How Paki pimps use “racism” to terrorise their underage victims:

Nothing to do with Islam, as always, they’re just “Asian thugs”, not soldiers of allah emulating Muhammad:

In a particularly warped twist, the pimp will teach his victim that her parents are racist towards Asians, which is why they disapprove of their relationship – absolutely nothing, of course, to do with him being a violent, controlling thug….. (Telegraph/Allison Pearson)

Over at the rabid Islamo-promo site “Islamophobia Watch” a pervert who calls himself Eddie Truman sees a different evil: Allison Pearson uses sex crimes to stir Islamophobia

Update:

A Paki turd from Karachi by the name of Bina Shah hastens to deflect from the crime in stereotypical Mohammedan fashion:

Yes, these men have been taught that white girls have no value, but this attitude is neither representative of all Pakistani Muslim culture, nor exclusive to it….

Oxford sex abuse: ‘Victorian’ misogyny is evident in all cultures which emphasise female purity

Good grief! Paki Muslim “culture?” WTF is that? Victorian misogyny? In Pokistan? Heavens!

Oxford grooming gang: We will regret ignoring Asian thugs who target white girls

What a god-awful mess this country has got itself into over multiculturalism, and once again our fear of racism will lead to the betrayal of hundreds of young girls

Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby, Oxford. The towns change, but the pattern is always the same. Gangs of men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim heritage, lure white girls as young as 10 with gifts and displays of affection. Next, the girl is raped as a way of “breaking her in”. Once the child’s spirit is subdued, and her mind fogged with drugs, she is sold for sex to multiple men at £200 a time. If the girl tries to break away, a gang member might threaten to behead her or firebomb her home. Mohammed Karrar, who was found guilty in the Oxford sex-grooming case this week, took a scalding hairpin and branded one girl so she would know she was his property. Later, the gang gave the same girl a DIY abortion. She was 12 years old. And this, all this, is happening in Britain now.

UK Muslim leader says that imams promote sex slavery rings

In a particularly warped twist, the pimp will teach his victim that her parents are racist towards Asians, which is why they disapprove of their relationship – absolutely nothing, of course, to do with him being a violent, controlling thug. Gang members have grown wise to the wimpy ways of Western society. They exploit the fact that police, newly trained in “cultural sensitivity”, are terrified of being accused of racism. So the pimps operate with impunity until, years later, the slave girls find the courage to testify in court against their masters.

We all know what happens next, don’t we? Leaders of the Pakistani Muslim community – essentially a Victorian society that has landed like Doctor Who’s Tardis on a liberal, permissive planet it despises – are at pains to deny that the grooming gang’s behaviour has anything to do with ethnic origin or contemptible attitudes towards women.

Then Sue Berelowitz, the lamentably foolish deputy children’s commissioner, trots out her lame line that Asian men targeting white girls is “just one of a number of models”, even though such “models” account for an improbably large proportion of all gang sexual abuse. Did Berelowitz not hear Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor for North West England, when he blamed “imported cultural baggage” for appalling crimes by members of his own community? “The men think that women are some lesser being,” he said.

The chief constable who was in charge while all that torture and rape was going on in Oxford appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday and said that she took “full responsibility” for shocking police failures. But, no, Sara Thornton, head of Thames Valley Police, would not be resigning. Why ever not?

Because saying you take responsibility is the new not taking responsibility, stupid. All that remains is for the panel on tonight’sQuestion Time to do a little gentle hand-wringing about the Oxford horrors before it concludes that no particular group is implicated in these vile, misogynistic crimes. And, once again, the fear of racism will have trumped sexism, and hundreds of young girls – or the “hollow shells” of girls, as one tearful copper called them – will be betrayed. Then we can all sit back comfortably and wait till the next hideous court case comes along, probably in Bradford, where at least 30 men have been arrested in the past few months over child sex-grooming allegations. Sue Berelowitz may believe the perpetrators could turn out to be Buddhist podiatrists. But I wouldn’t count on it.

At least some good has come from this spate of incredibly distressing cases. Those brutalised young women have not testified against their tormentors in vain. Courageous Muslim writers and community workers have spoken out with repugnance and great moral clarity. Kris Hopkins, the MP for Keighley and Ilkley, believes the police crackdown in Bradford reveals that the political correctness that made the authorities reluctant to act in the past is gone.

Maybe. But what remains is a political class still far too timid to challenge growing and alarming separatism in Muslim education and law. It is 30 years since I first taught English to Bangladeshi women in their flats in Tower Hamlets, and I still remember how those smiley, interested ladies shrank and cowered when their husbands came home. Only one thing can permanently change the misogynist behaviour of certain Pakistani men and that is the education and empowerment of their daughters. Female emancipation drags societies with even the darkest attitudes towards the light. But what hope is there of those girls getting the education and status they need to take their men to task?

Back in January, there was a profoundly disturbing case at Nottingham Crown Court. Adil Rashid, who had “raped” an underage girl, was spared a prison term after the judge heard that the naïve 18-year-old attended an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Rashid told psychologists he had no idea that having sex with a willing 13-year-old was against the law; besides, his education had taught him to believe that “women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground”.

If the fresh-faced Rashid had picked up that view in a madrassa in Karachi it would be profoundly depressing, though not surprising. But the school he attended was in Birmingham, for heaven’s sake! Although it cannot be named for “legal reasons”, the school is voluntary-aided – mainly funded by the taxpayer. At this hugely popular Islamic school, where a majority of pupils are from a Pakistani background, boys and girls are taught in separate classes; a segregation policy no normal comprehensive could get away with.

Rashid’s barrister said: “The school he attended, it is not going too far to say, can be described as a closed community.” So, the defence against a rape charge by a young Muslim living in 21st-century Britain was not just ignorance of the law (which should be no defence at all). It was that the law and, indeed, the values of the wider country, were irrelevant in his Islamic school, even though it was a state institution funded by citizens who would go straight to jail if, for instance, they tried to have sex with a child.

The fact that the judge accepted Rashid’s defence shows what a god-awful mess this country has got itself into over multiculturalism.

I reckon Britons in a hundred years’ time will look back at us in outraged astonishment for allowing Islamic schools to flout the laws of the land and teach boys that women are worthless. All Islamic schools should be obliged to introduce mixed-sex classes, so boys can learn at first hand that girls are their equals, or those schools should be closed.

If you teach boys that a female is no better than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground, eventually you produce a pimp who thinks that you break a girl’s spirit as though she were a horse, before branding her with your initial. That man and those attitudes have no place, no place at all, in Britain now.

It’s sexual atrocities, it’s torture.

Esmerelda Weatherwax

The BBC and the nationals are suddenly starting to take an interest in the Oxford grooming (Bullfinch) trial.

They ran it like an organised business. Men who made money from abusing young girls while satisfying their own sexual gratification. In their police interviews, they said little or nothing – even when pressed.

But despite their silence, officers pieced together a harrowing picture of disturbing abuse, which was presented to the jury at the Old Bailey.

Young girls were groomed, raped, abused and sold for sex by the gang of Oxford men, who have now been convicted of a catalogue of sex offences.

Det Insp Simon Morton, of Thames Valley Police, said: “They start out at 11 or 12 as ordinary girls, in our case, and by the time they’re finished they’re hollow. They are shells of what they should be and the little girl in there is gone

“It’s sexual atrocities, it’s torture.

“You can’t report it, you can’t put it on TV, you can’t write it down. We have had members of the press in tears in court. It’s been horrendous.”

I said when it started that I feared it would prove to be one of the nastier grooming trials so far.

Mohammed Karrar was the most prolific offender in the case. The 38-year-old’s family is thought to originate from Eritrea, in East Africa, but he grew up in his parents’ house on the Cowley Road.

The brothers separately and together subjected victims three and four to a string of violent and sadistic rapes, often leaving them injured.

After grooming them for about a year, they took them to other places around the county to be sold and raped in hotels and “brothels for young girls”. Other men paid them to play out sadistic sexual fantasies and gang rape victim four. Mohammed Karrar forced victim four to have an illegal backroom abortion when she became pregnant. She was 12 years old.

The BBC is still omitting to mention these details.

The ’extreme physical and sexual violence on the girls’ using knives, meat cleavers and baseball bats. They were ‘humiliated and degraded’ bitten, scratched suffocated, tied up beaten and burnt.

The CUSTOMERS who ” would pay up to £600 to have sex with a 12-year-old girl because of her ”soft baby skin“,

The branding to show that the slave was his property: Mohammed Karrar, 38, allegedly pushed a metal hair clip he had shaped into an ‘M’ and heated with a cigarette lighter onto her buttock. Prosecutor Noel Lucas QC said: “He told her he wanted people to know she belonged to him.”

A CHILD was gagged, whipped, and tied up while she was made to act out “sexual fantasies” for groups of men, the Old Bailey heard this morning. Known as Girl 4 as she cannot be named, she said: “I have been horse-whipped, I have been cuffed, and I have been tied with a shirt tie.”

Witness describes how Mohammed Karrar assaulted her aged 12 with “toys”. “I said please don’t, it really hurts.” Karrar told the child: “This will help you take more.”

There is at least one other man charged recently and the police have appealed for any other girls abusedby the men to come forward.

UK: local yokel arrested for “racism” because “Muslims are welcome and well established part of our community.”

sheikyermami — Thu, 16 May 2013 09:06:47 +0000

But Islam is not a race. That, my friends, is sharia applied and enforced by infidel dhimmies. So why is the ugliest, most violent ideology on earth and their fanatical followers treated with kids gloves?

Man held over “racist” comments on Muslim prayer centre

A man in his 20s has been arrested in connection with alleged racist comments made on the internet about the planned Muslim prayer centre in Shrewsbury, police revealed this afternoon.

But struggling Ahmed gets his excuses tailor-made: “man-made law” doesn’t apply to him:

Conservative councillor, Ahmed, stood before Redditch magistrates today, charged with two counts of driving while disqualified on May 14 in Mill Street and Baxter Avenue in Kidderminster. When he was pulled over by police, “he admitted he had driven twice that day and knew he was disqualified”, she went on.

John Rogers, defending, said Ahmed, who owns the Indian Style restaurant in Comberton Place, had been “struggling” with his business recently and was at risk of losing his house.

“Offensive material” on his Facebook page forces Councillor from the UK Independence Party to resign

Mumshad Ahmed, a Muslim and a former county councillor said: “I am sickened and disgusted by this, I cannot believe the hatred he is creating.”

Yes, that’s the same Ahmed!

Eric Kitson is in full retreat publicly, but to some extent he believes the things that he posted and in some respects he is correct. In particular, elements of Islam are causing crisis in British society and around the world, and need to be addressed in a very firm way. Some of his postings starkly illustrate that. But UKIP is wary of being labeled as racially or religiously intolerant, taking care to distance themselves from extreme groups like the BNP and English Democrats. (PC rules, Islam kills)

Sheer Coincidence

sheikyermami — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:22:10 +0000

Three ~~British Islamic extremists~~ devout Muslims including a Muslim convert and a former police community support officer have been jailed for terrorism.

It happens too often for Islam to be a coincidence– Andrew Bolt
Trio ‘seduced by dangerous ideology’ (good grief, what could it be, this ideology?)

“I don’t wish to stand up, I believe ruling and judging is only for Allah.”– Richard Dart (left)

‘For Allah’-- The judge said that they were all “committed fundamentalists” who would have been prepared to kill.

UK: Somali Pedophile back on the streets; deporting him or locking him up is a ‘breach of his human rights’

sheikyermami — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:19:38 +0000

UK Government ordered to pay more than £7,000 in damages and legal costs

A Somali paedophile has been given thousands of pounds by a human rights court – and released on to the streets. Ministers have spent more than a decade trying and failing to deport Mustafa Abdi, who is thought to have cost taxpayers more than £600,000 in jail costs and legal aid.

But yesterday Strasbourg judges ordered the British government to pay the convicted child rapist thousands of pounds in damages and legal costs.

The court said Abdi was ‘wrongfully detained’ for two and a half years, breaching his right to liberty.

Ministers had decided he should remain in jail while awaiting deportation because he presented a ‘high risk’ to the public. But it emerged he was released from prison in January this year because there was no prospect of him being deported any time soon.

UK: Labour betrayed the working class over immigration

sheikyermami — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:42:40 +0000

Trouble is that the David Cameron’s phoney “conservatives” are doing exactly the same. There is no end to this:

Labour betrayed the working class over immigration, by Leo McKinstry

THROUGHOUT the Labour Party’s long, destructive period in office the party’s immigration policy represented a savage betrayal of the British people. 80 per cent of migrants vote Labour so the party hugely expanded its client base by demolishing our borders.

Gordon Brown insulted Gillian Duffy when she raised the topic

As the floodgates opened to new arrivals the very fabric of our country was transformed. Vast swathes of urban Britain became like a foreign land. Social cohesion collapsed. British workers were thrown on the economic scrapheap. No occupying foreign invader could have done more damage to Britain than the treacherous, unpatriotic governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. There is now growing public fury and despair over what has happened to our once well-ordered nation.

For the Muslims the hijra, (immigration) is a religious duty to bring the unbelievers under the rule of Islam.

Opinion polls show that immigration has become the most important issue for the electorate, while the dramatic rise of the UK Independence Party has been partly fuelled by anger over the unceasing influx.

In a cynical bid to capitalise on this public backlash Labour leader Ed Miliband now pretends that his party has adopted a new approach to immigration. The old days of supporting open borders have gone, he promises. In comes a supposedly tougher strategy that puts the interests of the British people first. It would be hard to conceive of a more shameless exercise in political deceit than this last farrago of drivel from Miliband. Labour has not changed from the dark days of Brown and Blair.

An ideological attachment to mass immigration and multi-culturalism is written into the party’s DNA. What Miliband is really trying to do is not proclaim a new policy but to mislead the public. A ll his traits of hypocrisy, duplicity and opportunism were on full display in his party political broadcast last night. He said with phoney candour that Labour “got it wrong on immigration”.

What a grotesque understatement.

In truth Labour almost wrecked our nation with their aggressive social revolution, in which the rate of immigration was deliberately cranked up to almost 600,000 new arrivals every year.

Our democracy has been subverted by tribalism at the ballot box, our justice system by sharia law. Vicious misogyny is rampant, reflected in the appalling incidence of honour killings and forced marriages. Incredibly the Home Office estimates that 24,000 girls in this country are at risk every year from the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation. Miliband’s blatherings last night would have been laughable were they not so offensive. He proclaimed in his broadcast that it is “not prejudiced” to worry about immigration yet Labour always painted critics of its open-door policy as xenophobes and racists.

“A bigoted woman,” was Gordon Brown’s notorious description of Rochdale voter Gillian Duffy when she dared to express her concerns about immigration. Only a few months ago Labour-run Rotherham council removed a child from the care of a couple who happened to be Ukip voters and were therefore deemed by the municipal race commissars to be unfit for the role of foster parents.

Miliband’s party has spectacularly betrayed the very people it is meant to support.

That is the climate of institutionalised bullying that Labour created right across the civic bureaucracy, with their endless equality programmes and propaganda. Miliband concluded his broadcast by spouting the predictable cliché, “ diversity makes us a successful country”. That is patently nonsense. Britain was a far more successful country when we had a settled population.The era of mass immigration has led to an almost permanent economic crisis and falling living standards, not least because of the intolerable strain on our public infrastructure and the welfare state.Indeed Miliband blithely ignored the reality that our lax benefits system has acted as a magnet for huge numbers of immigrants, especially in terms of housing and child allowances. What is remarkable is that Labour was founded at the beginning of the last century to represent the British working class.

But Miliband’s party has spectacularly betrayed the very people it is meant to support. Miliband was Gordon Brown’s key ally yet the economic model they devised was expensive lunacy: importing millions of people, most of them from Asia and Africa, to provide cheap labour while keeping five million Britons of working-age on the dole. It might have been economic insanity but Labour had their own narrow political reason for pushing ahead with mass immigration.

The fact is that 80 per cent of migrants vote Labour so the party hugely expanded its client base by demolishing our borders. In addition there was the ideological impulse. Contemptuous of Britain’s heritage, riddled with guilt about our past, filled with Marxist notions about victimhood and discrimination they were determined to refashion our society along the lines of their ideology. So the twin forces of mass immigration and multi-culturalism were used as weapons to create “a new social order” to quote the chilling words of Labour’s Deputy

Leader Harriet Harman. Miliband was one of the architects of Labour’s immigration disaster. His broadcast should be treated with the same scorn that his party showed in office towards Britain’s national integrity.

‘Women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground’.

sheikyermami — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:10:12 +0000

“Muslim abuser who ‘didn’t know’ that sex with a girl of 13 was illegal is spared jail”

Meanwhile Tommy Robinson has languished in prison in inhuman conditions for a far less serious offense — and people still deny that he is a political prisoner.

Update:

Child-sex attacker can’t be deported because his African tribe is ‘persecuted’

Daily Mail

A muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless.

Picture this:

The Islamic school that teaches this cannot be named “for legal reasons.”
The court heard Rashid had ‘little experience of women’ (this was a 12-year old girl!) due to his education.
Rashid met the girl on Facebook and booked a hotel room before meeting her.
They stayed at the hotel for two hours and had sex after Rashid went to the bathroom and emerged wearing a condom.
Rashid then returned home and went straight to a mosque to pray.
After his arrest, he told a psychologist that he did not know having sex with a 13-year-old was against the law.’
Judge says: ‘sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

Ignorant: Adil Rashid (pictured) did not know it was illegal to have sex with a 13-year-old girl

‘It is not too far to say that he may not have known that having sex with a 13-year-old girl was illegal.’ Judge Stokes sentenced Rashid to nine months youth custody, suspended for two years, along with a two-year probation supervision order.

Whatever happened to ‘Ignorance of the law is no defence?’

Yesterday Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence, saying: ‘Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.’

Earlier Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

Rashid, from Birmingham, admitted he had sex with the girl, saying he had been ‘tempted by her’ after they met online.

Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.

Earlier Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

Rashid, from Birmingham, admitted he had sex with the girl, saying he had been ‘tempted by her’ after they met online.

They initially exchanged messages on Facebook before sending texts and chatting on the phone over a two-month period.

They then met up in Nottingham, where Rashid had booked a room at a Premier Inn.

The girl told police they stayed at the hotel for two hours and had sex after Rashid went to the bathroom and emerged wearing a condom.

More…

Rashid then returned home and went straight to a mosque to pray. He was arrested the following week after the girl confessed what had happened to a school friend, who informed one of her teachers.

He told police he knew the girl was 13 but said he was initially reluctant to have sex before relenting after being seduced.

Encounter: Rashid and the girl had met randomly on Facebook and had also communicated by phone and text messages for two months before they met

Earlier the court heard how Rashid had ‘little experience of women’ due to his education at an Islamic school in the UK, which cannot be named for legal reasons.

After his arrest, he told a psychologist that he did not know having sex with a 13-year-old was against the law. The court heard he found it was illegal only when he was informed by a family member.

In other interviews with psychologists, Rashid claimed he had been taught in his school that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground’.

When Judge Stokes said Rashid ‘must have known it was illegal, unless he was going round with his eyes shut’, defence lawyer Laban Leake said reports suggested Rashid had a ‘degree of sexual naivety’.

‘The school he attended, it is not going too far to say, can be described as a closed community and on this occasion this was perpetuated by his home life.

Rashid had pre-booked a family room at the Premier Hotel in Goldsmith Street, Nottingham where he took his victim

Sentenced: Rashid admitted at Nottingham Crown Court (pictured) that he had sex with a 13-year-old after she ‘tempted’ him

Describing Rashid, the judge said: ‘He’s had an unusual education, certainly in terms of the sexual education provided. Comparing women to lollipops is a very curious way of teaching young men about sex.’

But he said that Rashid knew what he was doing was wrong.

‘It was made clear to you at the school you attended that having sexual relations with a woman before marriage was contrary to the precepts of Islam,’ he said.

Addressing Rashid, the judge said: ‘I accept this was a case where the girl was quite willing to have sexual activity with you. But the law is there to protect young girls, even though they are perfectly happy to engage in sexual activity.’

Steyn: In Britain, defending your property can get you life.

sheikyermami — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:03:53 +0000

In the Absence of Guns

Mark Steyn wrote what you’re reading here way back in June 2000. As we can see below from another article jammed in between, nothing has changed, things have only got worse, much worse:

In Britain, criminals, police, and magistrates are united in regarding any resistance by the victim as bad.

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.

Celebrity news from the United Kingdom: In April, Germaine Greer, the Australian feminist and author of The Female Eunuch, was leaving her house in East Anglia, when a young woman accosted her, forced her back inside, tied her up, smashed her glasses, and then set about demolishing her ornaments with a poker.

A couple of weeks before that, the 85-year-old mother of Phil Collins, the well-known rock star, was punched in the ribs, the back, and the head on a West London street, before her companion was robbed. “That’s what you have to expect these days,” she said, philosophically.

Anarcho-Tyranny in the UK

After the law-abiding public has been disarmed, criminals can loot houses pretty much at will, not even having to wait until they are unoccupied. But there is still a small chance that they could be apprehended by police and subjected to the indignity and inconvenience of prison. No worries, moonbats; Britain is again guiding the way toward our bleeding heart utopian future: Moonbattery has more.

Anthea Turner, the host of Britain’s top-rated National Lottery TV show, went to see the West End revival of Grease with a friend. They were spotted at the theatre by a young man who followed them out and, while their car was stuck in traffic, forced his way in and wrenched a diamond-encrusted Rolex off the friend’s wrist.

A week before that, the 94-year-old mother of Ridley Scott, the director of Alien and other Hollywood hits, was beaten and robbed by two men who broke into her home and threatened to kill her.

Former Bond girl Britt Ekland had her jewelry torn from her arms outside a shop in Chelsea; Formula One Grand Prix racing tycoon and Tony Blair confidante Bernie Ecclestone was punched and kicked by his assailants as they stole his wife’s ring; network TV chief Michael Green was slashed in the face by thugs outside his Mayfair home; gourmet chef to the stars Anton Mosimann was punched in the head outside his house in Kensington….

Rita Simmonds isn’t a celebrity but, fortunately, she happened to be living next door to one when a gang broke into her home in upscale Cumberland Terrace, a private road near Regent’s Park. Tom Cruise heard her screams and bounded to the rescue, chasing off the attackers for 300 yards, though failing to prevent them from reaching their getaway car and escaping with two jewelry items worth around $140,000.

It’s just as well Tom failed to catch up with the gang. Otherwise, the ensuing altercation might have resulted in the diminutive star being prosecuted for assault. In Britain, criminals, police, and magistrates are united in regarding any resistance by the victim as bad form. The most they’ll tolerate is “proportionate response”—and, as these thugs had been beating up a defenseless woman and posed no threat to Tom Cruise, the Metropolitan Police would have regarded Tom’s actions as highly objectionable. “Proportionate response” from the beleaguered British property owner’s point of view, is a bit like a courtly duel where the rules are set by one side: “Ah,” says the victim of a late-night break-in, “I see you have brought a blunt instrument. Forgive me for unsheathing my bread knife. My mistake, old boy. Would you mind giving me a sporting chance to retrieve my cricket bat from under the bed before clubbing me to a pulp, there’s a good chap?”

No wonder, even as they’re being pounded senseless, many British crime victims are worrying about potential liability. A few months ago, Shirley Best, owner of the Rolander Fashion boutique whose clients include the daughter of the Princess Royal, was ironing some garments when two youths broke in. They pressed the hot iron into her side and stole her watch, leaving her badly burnt. “I was frightened to defend myself,” said Miss Best. “I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.”

And who can blame her? Shortly before the attack, she’d been reading about Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer whose home had been broken into and who had responded by shooting and killing the teenage burglar. He was charged with murder. In April, he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment—for defending himself against a career criminal in an area where the police are far away and reluctant to have their sleep disturbed. In the British Commonwealth, the approach to policing is summed up by the motto of Her Majesty’s most glamorous constabulary: The Mounties always get their man—i.e., leave it to us. But these days in the British police, when they can’t get their man, they’ll get you instead: Frankly, that’s a lot easier, as poor Mr. Martin discovered.

Norfolk is a remote rural corner of England. It ought to be as peaceful and crime-free as my remote rural corner of New England. But it isn’t. Old impressions die hard: Americans still think of Britain as a low-crime country. Conversely, the British think of America as a high-crime country. But neither impression is true. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is 60 percent higher than that in the United States. True, in America you’re more likely to be shot to death. On the other hand, in England you’re more likely to be strangled to death. But in both cases, the statistical likelihood of being murdered at all is remote, especially if you steer clear of the drug trade. When it comes to anything else, though—burglary, auto theft, armed robbery, violent assault, rape—the crime rate reaches deep into British society in ways most Americans would find virtually inconceivable.

I cite those celebrity assaults not because celebrities are more prone to wind up as crime victims than anyone else, but only because the measure of a civilized society is how easily you can insulate yourself from its snarling underclass. In America, if you can make it out of some of the loonier cities, it’s a piece of cake, relatively speaking. In Britain, if even a rock star or TV supremo can’t insulate himself, nobody can. In any society, criminals prey on the weak and vulnerable. It’s the peculiar genius of government policy to have ensured that in British society everyone is weak and vulnerable —from Norfolk farmers to Tom Cruise’s neighbor.

And that’s where America is headed if those million marching moms make any headway in Washington: Less guns = more crime. And more vulnerability. And a million more moms being burgled, and assaulted, and raped. I like hunting, but if that were the only thing at stake with guns, I guess I could learn to live without it. But I’m opposed to gun control because I don’t see why my neighbors in New Hampshire should have to live the way, say, my sister-in-law does—in a comfortable manor house in a prosperous part of rural England, lying awake at night listening to yobbo gangs drive up, park their vans, and test her doors and windows before figuring out that the little old lady down the lane’s a softer touch.

Between the introduction of pistol permits in 1903 and the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Britain has had a century of incremental gun control—“sensible measures that all reasonable people can agree on.” And what’s the result? Even when you factor in America’s nutcake jurisdictions with the crackhead mayors, the overall crime rate in England and Wales is higher than in all 50 states, even though over there they have more policemen per capita than in the U.S., on vastly higher rates of pay installing more video surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the Western world. Robbery, sex crimes, and violence against the person are higher in England and Wales; property crime is twice as high; vehicle theft is higher still; the British are 2.3 times more likely than Americans to be assaulted, and three times more likely to be violently assaulted. Between 1973 and 1992, burglary rates in the U.S. fell by half. In Britain, not even the Home Office’s disreputable reporting methods (if a burglar steals from 15 different apartments in one building, it counts as a single crime) can conceal the remorseless rise: Britons are now more than twice as likely as Americans to be mugged; two-thirds will have their property broken into at some time in their lives. Even more revealing is the divergent character between U.K. and U.S. property crime: In America, just over 10 percent of all burglaries are “hot burglaries”—committed while the owners are present; in Britain, it’s over half. Because of insurance-required alarm systems, the average thief increasingly concludes that it’s easier to break in while you’re on the premises. Your home-security system may conceivably make your home more safe, but it makes you less so.

Conversely, up here in the New Hampshire second congressional district, there are few laser security systems and lots of guns. Our murder rate is much lower than Britain’s and our property crime is virtually insignificant. Anyone want to make a connection? Villains are expert calculators of risk, and the likelihood of walking away uninjured with an $80 television set is too remote. In New Hampshire, a citizen’s right to defend himself deters crime; in Britain, the state-inflicted impotence of the homeowner actively encourages it. Just as becoming a drug baron is a rational career move in Colombia, so too is becoming a violent burglar in the United Kingdom. The chances that the state will seriously impede your progress are insignificant.

Now I’m Canadian, so, as you might expect, the Second Amendment doesn’t mean much to me. I think it’s more basic than that. Privately owned firearms symbolize the essential difference between your great republic and the countries you left behind. In the U.S., power resides with “we, the people” and is leased ever more sparingly up through town, county, state, and federal government. In Britain and Canada, power resides with the Crown and is graciously devolved down in limited doses. To a north country Yankee it’s self-evident that, when a burglar breaks into your home, you should have the right to shoot him—indeed, not just the right, but the responsibility, as a freeborn citizen, to uphold the integrity of your property. But in Britain and most other parts of the Western world, the state reserves that right to itself, even though at the time the ne’er-do-well shows up in your bedroom you’re on the scene and Constable Plod isn’t: He’s some miles distant, asleep in his bed, and with his answering machine on referring you to central dispatch God knows where.

These days it’s standard to bemoan the “dependency culture” of state welfare, but Britain’s law-and-order “dependency culture” is even more enfeebling. What was it the police and courts resented about that Norfolk farmer? That he “took the law into his own hands”? But in a responsible participatory democracy, the law ought to be in our hands. The problem with Britain is that the police force is now one of the most notable surviving examples of a pre-Thatcher, bloated, incompetent, unproductive, overpaid, closed-shop state monopoly. They’re about as open to constructive suggestions as the country’s Communist mineworkers’ union was 20 years ago, and the control-freak tendencies of all British political parties ensure that the country’s bloated, expensive county and multi-county forces are inviolable.

The Conservatives’ big mistake between 1979 and 1997 was an almost willfully obtuse failure to understand that giving citizens more personal responsibility isn’t something that extends just to their income and consumer choices; it also applies to their communities and their policing arrangements. If you have one without the other, you end up with modem Britain: a materially prosperous society in which the sense of frustration and impotence is palpable, and you’re forced to live with a level of endless property crime most Americans would regard as unacceptable.

We know Bill Clinton’s latest favorite statistic—that 12 “kids” a day die from gun violence—is bunk: Five-sixths of those 11.569 grade-school moppets are aged between 15 and 19, and many of them have had the misfortune to become involved in gangs, convenience-store hold-ups, and drug deals, which, alas, have a tendency to go awry. If more crack deals passed off peacefully, that “child” death rate could be reduced by three-quarters. But away from those dark fringes of society, Americans live lives blessedly untouched by most forms of crime—at least when compared with supposedly more civilized countries like Britain. That’s something those million marching moms should consider, if only because in a gun-free America women—and the elderly and gays and all manner of other fashionable victim groups—will be bearing the brunt of a much higher proportion of violent crime than they do today. Ask Phil Collins or Ridley Scott or Germaine Greet.

UK Mustard rally: “We will not stop until the whole world is governed by Islam”

sheikyermami — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:10:06 +0000

Jihad on the dole. Its Andy Chowdryputz again:

“Our leader is the final Messenger Muhammad. He is the Messenger. He gave us glad tidings: that we will conquer, we will lead, we will spread mercy, and we will spread justice, whether you like it or whether you don’t like it. Look to your own doorstep in France – your own French women are abandoning their Christianity and donning the hijab and the burqa”

Eurabia, from MEMRI: (via EoZ)

Transcript below the fold.

Following are excerpts from a video of London Islamists protesting against the French military campaign in Mali. The demonstration, which was held outside the French Embassy, was posted on the Internet on January 12, 2013.

British Islamist Anjem Chaudary: We are here to expose the French regime and to say: Hands off Muslim land.

Crowd: Hands off Muslim land.
Anjem Chaudary: Hands off Muslim land.
Crowd: Hands off Muslim land.
Anjem Chaudary: Hands off Muslim land.
Crowd: Hands off Muslim land.
Anjem Chaudary: Hands off Muslim land.
Crowd: Hands off Muslim land.
Anjem Chaudary: Shari’a for Mali.
Crowd: Shari’a for Mali.
Anjem Chaudary: Shari’a for Mali.
Crowd: Shari’a for Mali.
Anjem Chaudary: Shari’a for Mali.
Crowd: Shari’a for Mali.
Anjem Chaudary: Jihad for Mali.
Crowd: Jihad for Mali.
Anjem Chaudary: Jihad for Mali.
Crowd: Jihad for Mali.
Anjem Chaudary: Jihad for Mali.
Crowd: Jihad for Mali.
Anjem Chaudary: What do we want?
Crowd: Jihad.
Anjem Chaudary: When do we want it?
Crowd: Now.
Anjem Chaudary: What do we want?
Crowd: Jihad.
Anjem Chaudary: When do we want it?
Crowd: Now.
Anjem Chaudary: Jihad!
Crowd: Jihad!
Anjem Chaudary: Jihad!
Crowd: Jihad!
Anjem Chaudary: Jihad!
Crowd: Jihad!
Anjem Chaudary: Jihad!
Crowd: Jihad!
Anjem Chaudary: Jihad!
Crowd: Jihad!
Anjem Chaudary: Say: “Allah Akbar.”
Crowd: Allah Akbar.
[...]
Anjem Chaudary: A caliphate for Mali, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq… The Islamic nation is boiling. We got rid of some of our dictators – Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Al-Qadhafi. Now it’s time for the dictators in Mali, in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, and all over the Muslim lands to be removed and replaced by the shari’a, by Islam.
[...]
British Islamist: There is no god but Allah.
Crowd: There is no god but Allah.
British Islamist: Jihad for the sake of Allah.
Crowd: Jihad for the sake of Allah.
[...]
British Islamist: The call for the shari’a is a global call. It is a choice that these governments in the West will have to face up to. The shari’a is an inevitability. Therefore, you had better accept the shari’a, otherwise you will find us on your own doorsteps, outside your own embassies.
[...]
British Islamist: You talk about Freedom, you talk about democracy, but there is no freedom for Muslims to practice Islam. That is because their idols of freedom and democracy are false idols. They will burn in Hell, just like you.
[...]
Our leader is the final Messenger Muhammad. He is the Messenger. He gave us glad tidings: that we will conquer, we will lead, we will spread mercy, and we will spread justice, whether you like it or whether you don’t like it. Look to your own doorstep in France – your own French women are abandoning their Christianity and donning the hijab and the burqa.
[...]
The Muslims reached the gates of Vienna, I don’t think [unintelligible], because our eyes are on Paris, our eyes are on Brussels, our eyes are on London. We will not stop, as Muslims, until the whole world is governed by Islam.
[...]
British Islamist: My dear Muslims, for how long will we live under oppression? Isn’t it time that we united? Isn’t it time that we returned back to Allah and His Messenger? Isn’t it time that we showed support to the Muslims? Isn’t it time we support the mujahideen, because it is them who are fighting for the religion of Allah? Because of them we are able to walk with our heads high. Because of them we have honor, because of them we have dignity. Isn’t it about time, my dear Muslims? We gather together under one banner of: “There is no god but Allah,” and we support our Muslims. So French government, let that be a warning, or a piece of advice, to you. Take it the way you want, because you will never stop the army of the Muslims. You will never stop Muslims, because this nation is far too large to be stopped. This nation is like a tidal wave – when it starts, it doesn’t stop. It will conquer the east of the East and the west of the West, because that is the prophecy of our Prophet Muhammad.

Say: Allah Akbar.”

Crowd: Allah Akbar.
British Islamist: Say: Allah Akbar.”
Crowd: Allah Akbar.
Islamist (in French): What is happening today in Mali is an act of terrorism launched by François Hollande against the Muslims. This is an act of terrorism, launched by François Hollande, against the nation of Muhammad. Allah warns us in the Koran that the Jews and the Christians will never be pleased with the Muslims until they embrace their religion. What François Hollande is doing is exporting prostitution to Muslim lands, exporting homosexuality to Mali, exporting the exploitation of women to the Muslim lands. What we are saying to François Hollande is that the Muslims throughout the world will not rest until Islam dominates France, until Islam dominates the entire world. Islam will not dominate only Mali, Afghanistan, and Africa, but also France, Paris, and England. François Hollande, you must understand a few facts of life: You are a son of Pharaoh. The blood of Pharaoh courses through your veins.
[...]
The Islamic movement will become a system of life under your nose. Your wife, French women, the people of France, will live under the Islamic movement, even if you don’t like it. We will collect the jizya poll tax.
[...]
We are telling you to remove your soldiers, the unbelievers, who are in the Muslim world. But you don’t understand, you cannot see the message.
[...]
The nation of Muhammad loves death just as you love your pork. It loves death more than you love your pigs. It loves death more than you love prostitution, more than you love wine.
[...]
Shari’a for France.
Crowd: Shari’a for France.
Islamist: Shari’a for France.
Crowd: Shari’a for Paris.
Islamist: Shari’a for the world in its entirety.
Crowd: Shari’a for Europe in its entirety.
[...]
Islamist: Most of the residents of Paris are Muslims. Allah willing, most of the French system will be according to the shari’a. Most of the residents of France will be Muslims, Allah willing.
Say: “Allah Akbar.”
Crowd: Allah Akbar.

UK: Would it be better if FGM were done by “qualified people”?

sheikyermami — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 19:07:25 +0000

Once great Britain, a shadow from the tomb:

Female genital mutilation: unreported, ignored, unpunished, and lied about

This report from the UK’s Independent never mentions FGM’s justification in Islamic law. The Independent wouldn’t dare be so “Islamophobic.” Islamic apologists in the West maintain that female genital mutilation has nothing to do with Islam, and that only greasy Islamophobes think otherwise. But eventually Muslims themselves get around to vindicating every last charge that greasy Islamophobes have ever made about Islamic belief and practice.

“Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) (by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out thebazr ’clitoris’ [this is called khufaadh 'female circumcision']).” – ‘Umdat al-Salik e4.3, translated by Mark Durie, The Third Choice, p. 64

“Islamic law permits by definition, by prophetic statement and by practice female circumcision” – Australian Imam Afroz Ali

“Special report: Female genital mutilation – unreported, ignored and unpunished,” by Brian Brady and Paul Cahalan in the Independent, January 6 (thanks to JW):

The failure to punish anyone for carrying out female genital mutilation (FGM) in almost a decade since Labour introduced a new law designed to stamp out the practice is forcing prosecutors to seek alternative methods to tackle the problem. The Government was facing growing criticism from campaigners after an Independent on Sunday investigation into the horrifying practice known as “cutting”, in which the genitals of women and girls are severed by unqualified people in the belief it will preserve the girl’s virginity.

Would it be better if it were done by “qualified people”?

Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), told The Independent on Sunday last night that he and Justice Department officials are considering plans to use child-protection legislation to prosecute those who mutilate women, girls and babies. The IoS inquiry revealed that hundreds of hospitals, councils and police forces are failing to enforce the law designed to stop the agonising procedure. Only a few authorities have reported evidence of the illegal practice in the past three years; many admitted they did not even have a policy in place to deal with cases. Three government departments said they do not collect statistics on the prevalence of the problem.The findings confirm campaigners’ fears that laws designed to stamp out FGM are failing to protect tens of thousands of British women and girls every year, and have not led to a single conviction. In contrast, France has convicted more than 100 complicit parents and FGM “practitioners” since 1988.

The DPP revealed the change in tactics yesterday as he responded to the criticism and said he will not hesitate to call for a change in the law. He said he feared it would take another quarter of a century for present anti-FGM laws on their own to produce successful prosecutions, as they ultimately depended on girls reporting their own families to the police. “The nub of the problem is that we are talking about girls of 10, 11 or even younger. We can do all we can to make clear that FGM is an offence, but it is unlikely that a girl would come forward and give evidence against her parents and be separated from them. If we hope against hope that a girl will come forward, we’ll be waiting 25 years,” he said. He added that he was actively exploring ways to use a wider offence where the authorities would not necessarily need a child to be a witness.

The DPP admitted that prosecutors were being hampered by the failure to collect statistics on the numbers of women affected. “We haven’t got the full picture. That needs to change.” He said his plan of action also included the collection of “more robust data on allegations of FGM, so the scale of the problem can be gauged”.

The lack of clear statistics contrasts starkly with Department of Health research carried out in 2007 which estimated that as many as 80,000 women in the UK – more than a quarter of them under the age of 15 – are at risk of having all or part of their external genitals removed, in line with ancient customs. The practice occurs in dozens of countries in Africa, and in some areas of the Middle East and Asia, where it is claimed FGM preserves a girl’s virginity until marriage by limiting her sexual behaviour. The ritual has been illegal in Britain since 1985, and the United Nations General Assembly last month approved a resolution to ban FMG internationally following protests over its lasting impact on the physical and mental health of victims.

However, campaigners have warned that many young girls have been taken out of UK primary schools by their parents to be cut overseas, often with razors, knives or broken glass, usually without anaesthetic.

Ann Clwyd, a Labour MP whose 2003 FGM Act bans girls being taken abroad to have the procedure, said teachers, doctors and police had shown “a lack of sufficient will to confront minority ethnic groups on such an issue”. She added: “It’s very nice to get a law through Parliament, but if it isn’t acted upon, it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”

Hull MP Karl Turner will use a debate in Parliament this week to challenge ministers to force healthcare staff, teachers and police to work more closely together to ensure anyone suspected of cutting British children is brought to book. He said: “Female genital mutilation needs to be taken as seriously as any other child-protection issue. Hundreds of thousands of voiceless victims have been denied justice and this figure rises year on year.”

Mr Starmer said he did not want to repeal existing anti-FGM laws, as that would “send the wrong message”, but he conceded “the legislation clearly isn’t nearly enough on its own”. His FGM “action plan” also pledges to “explore whether evidence to prosecute offences under other legislation is possible and may be easier to support”. He targeted the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, which creates an offence of “causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm”, as route to tougher action.

A Freedom of Information request to more than 500 hospitals and local education authorities found that fewer than 50 kept records of women and girls who were found to have suffered FGM, believed to have undergone the procedure or suspected of being at risk. Many police forces refused to release data, citing “confidentiality” and “sensitivity”.

However, of those that reported cases, the Whittington Hospital in London and St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, both recorded some 450 instances of female genital mutilation during the past three years.

Dudley council revealed that it had received reports involving three children “aged between newborn to four years of age”, and four young adults. Newport council reported that a pupil aged eight was prevented from leaving the country as it was suspected that she might be a victim of FGM while abroad. The Metropolitan Police recorded more than 200 reports in which FGM was listed as a concern, including victims who feared they may be at risk, since 2003….

UK: Muslims gang-raped and abused vulnerable under-age girls from CARE HOMES

sheikyermami — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 07:23:47 +0000

New grooming scandal: Girls in care homes ‘gang-raped’

Police investigate claims that gangs of ~~Asian men~~ Muslims abused vulnerable under-age girls in the North West

British shimmies are so afraid of the word “Muslim” that they rather close their eyes and walk past the most horrific crimes against their own people:

POLICE are investigating shocking new claims that gangs of ~~Asian men~~ Muslims gang-raped and abused vulnerable under-age girls from CARE HOMES in the North West.

The new grooming scandal emerged after a 27-year-old mum claimed she was a victim of a horrifying catalogue of sexual abuse while in care as a teen.

Her account of how care workers allegedly turned a blind eye to predatory paedophiles echoes the findings of a report into a sex ring in Rochdale, which highlighted “missed opportunities” to halt abuse. (continued below the fold)

Just like the old days:

Ottoman Turks raping Christian women who were hiding in a Serbian orthodox church:

Continued:

Claire, not her real name, says she was one of many vulnerable young girls who were treated like “pieces of meat” by men who hung around the care homes she lived in in Lancashire and Liverpool.

She says she was groomed and molested in return for alcohol, cigarettes and drugs. On one harrowing occasion when she was 14, she was drugged and gang-raped.

A farmer found her naked in a field covered in blood and bruises, but she was returned to her home without medical help. “My social worker told me I deserved what I’d got because I’d been drinking,” she says. “I hadn’t… I was drugged.” Claire says even though she told staff at Briar’s Hey Residential Home in Rainhill, Merseyside, which closed in 2005, there was no medical examination or police probe.

“I was given the morning-after pill ‘to avoid any more mess’,” she says.

Claire, who now lives with her partner and four children, claims her experience was the norm for many teens at the homes. “Sex was the going currency for girls like me,” she says. “The men would hang round the gates. If we complained to staff we were told to just ignore them.”

In May this year, when nine men from the paedophile gang in Rochdale were jailed, Claire contacted police in the hope they would finally investigate her ordeal.

She says: “They said it was highly unlikely they could prove anything after so many years. But I want social services to know how badly we were treated.”

A Lancashire County Council spokesman said: “Police are investigating these allegations. We are unable to comment further.”

Update from Robert Spencer, who, reliable as always, offers context:

UK: Muslim gangs raped underage girls in care homes

The Qur’an forbids Muslim men to have sexual relations with “wedded women, save what your right hands own.” (4:4) “Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble and from idle talk turn away and at almsgiving are active and guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hands own then being not blameworthy.” (23:1-6)

Those whom their “right hands own” are slaves, and inextricable from the concept of Islamic slavery as a whole is the concept of sex slavery, which is rooted in Islam’s devaluation of the lives of non-Muslims. The Qur’an stipulates that a man many take four wives as well as hold slave girls as sex slaves. These women are captured in wartime and are considered the spoils of war. Islam avoids the appearance of impropriety, declaring that the taking of these sex slaves does not constitute adultery if the women are already married, for their marriages are ended at the moment of their capture. A manual of Islamic law directs: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.13).

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

…Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels….Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars–there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point–there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

…A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth….I brought up (this man’s) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

“Is this forbidden by Islam?,” I asked.

“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not–she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community cravenly ignores.

“Asian” is British PC media-speak for “Muslim.” “New grooming scandal: Girls in care homes ‘gang-raped,’” by Justin Penrose in the Mirror, November 3