Why to blacken India on rape do they have to omit the facts?

Racist Feminism has gone global. feminism is the enforcer of white supremacy

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11472416/Why-to-blacken-India-on-rape-do-they-have-to-omit-the-facts.html

 

A huge row has erupted in India over India’s Daughter, a film made by the BBC on the gang-rape and murder of a young medical student on a Delhi bus in November 2012. What aroused particular anger was how the film, designed to be shown in seven countries to mark International Women’s Day, seemed to want to portray India as the rape capital of the world, with its headline claim that the country has “a rape every 22 minutes”.

But what has also come to light is that when the film was privately previewed in Delhi, its original version included evidence that in many countries in the West the incidence of rape is actually much greater. In Britain, the official Crime Survey for England and Wales 2014 estimated that there are 85,000 rapes every year, or one every six minutes. Equivalent US figures suggest that 1 per cent of all women are sexually assaulted each year, one every 25 seconds.

 

Those who saw the preview of India’s Daughter in Delhi have testified that the original version did make comparisons with the rest of the world. One, Anna Vetticad, praised it as a “balanced documentary”, because it ended with “worldwide statistics highlighting violence against women from Australia to the US”. But when the final version emerged, all this had been cut out. India was shown standing alone, as a country where rape is an exceptional problem.

What also led the Indian courts to ban showing the film was its portrayal of a country where violence towards women is part of its national culture. Particularly controversial was its prison cell interview with the bus driver, waiting on death row for the outcome of his appeal to India’s Supreme Court. He showed no remorse for the woman he had helped to rape and murder. He suggested that she had brought this on herself by travelling on a bus late at night. But again this picture of India as having a peculiar cultural problem over its acceptance of gang-rape is belied by the statistics. According to UK and US figures, 14 per cent of rapes are by strangers. In India the figure is less than 1 per cent.

Back in 2012, when that Delhi crime first attracted worldwide coverage, I looked into many horrific stories of gang-rape reported in Britain. According to the Metropolitan Police, more than 15 per cent of rapes reported in London each year involve three or more attackers. In one Essex case, the rapists of a 16-year-old girl poured acid over her in an attempt to destroy the evidence of their crime. We scarcely need reminding of recent revelations about what was going on in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and elsewhere.

 

If there is a cultural problem here, it is the longstanding desire of the Western media to stereotype Indian males as somehow, to a special degree, sexual predators. Back in 1984, Western screens showed the TV series Jewel in the Crown and the film A Passage to India, both featuring rapes by Indian men of white women (although one was imaginary). More recently no films about India have been more popular in the West than Slumdog Millionaire and Monsoon Wedding, again featuring rapes, although this time by Indian men of Indian women.

As for the BBC’s latest effort at reinforcing this stereotype, there is already evidence that it has done damage to the image of India in the West, such as the much-publicised case of the Leipzig professor who barred an Indian student from an internship on the grounds that “we hear a lot about the rape problem in India, which I cannot support”. Female professors in Germany are reported as refusing to teach Indian male students for similar reasons. But the question the BBC has to answer is why did it so deliberately omit the evidence from the final version of that film, which might have given its worldwide audience such a different picture? It seems that, across the board, it now takes its right to distort evidence so much for granted that it no longer has the ability to recognise what damage this is doing.

suspected false rape accuser Alexandra Brodsky: “campus sexual assault cases should not be turned over to the police”.

This cunt cares more for “equality” than putting real rapists behind bars. the cunt claim she was sexuality assaulted at Yale in an article at the feminazi anti-male U.K Guardian but failed to report it to the police. now if the assault actually happened other women are potentially in danger. this cunt advocating putting women in danger from potential rapists by telling victims not to report them to the police.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/campus-activist-sometimes-people-need-to-reflect-before-realizing-they-are-victims/article/2561497

When asked by the Washington Examiner why these cases shouldn’t be turned over to the police, given the fact that they already have the training to handle them and that activists could spend their time fixing the problems with the current system rather than creating a whole new system, Brodsky responded:

“The point of school decision-making is not to be a sort of local police, you know, criminal justice equivalent, but to ensure that a student can continue to learn despite facing gender-based violence. And because of that, I think that if we were to pass this along to the police we would lose all of these equality concerns and all of these protections. And I think that, again, we would also just end up with an environment where no one feels like they can – where students feel like they can talk to no one.”

But not passing these cases to the police means we lose basic due process in cases that are actually felonies. I’ve written before about how schools and activists can help accusers go through the difficult criminal justice system. Instead of creating an entirely different court system led by people with minimal training – and no law enforcement background – it would be better to try and make the criminal justice system more friendly to accusers.

One surprising statement from Brodsky was her aversion to putting permanent marks on the transcript of a student who was expelled or suspended for sexual misconduct.

“I worry about that because it treats sexual misconduct differently. I also worry about that because I think that people can change. And my public defender hat says that we need to give people the opportunity to learn from this experience.”

That was in response to an Examiner question about allowing supposedly dangerous rapists to go jail free. Since campus courts can at most expel a student, that leaves these alleged monsters free to prey on non-students or apply to another school and prey on students there. The fear of that situation alone, I think, should make activists want these cases taken to the criminal system.

 

Women in Finland use Tax Office to check the income of their dates

In Finland anyone can find out how much you earn and how much you pay taxes by using the data in Tax Office. Most of people wouldn’t even imagine that their annual income may be an interest of some people. Local news tabloid Helsingin Uutiset has interviewed a person in company that helps people to find tax information from the public tax data, and he tells that women use this service to find out the income of their boyfriends or dates, sometimes even before the first date.

So they basically check how much they can suck on you and get value for their vagina.

http://www.goingyourownway.com/mgtow-lounge-main-forum/women-finland-tax-office-check-4938/#post48330

 

 

 

When state trumps church

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/14/when-state-trumps-church

 

“Ignorant” has got to be one of the most misused words today. An ignorant person is someone who is uninformed, missing some key information.

Not someone who holds an opinion that you don’t share.

Are the people who support banning the niqab during citizenship oaths ignorant? For some, sure. It could be a knee-jerk position they’ve latched onto without much reflection. But – memo to the politically correct! – it’s also possible to oppose the niqab from an informed and educated position.

I’ve read the Qur’an multiple times. I’ve done the crash course in Islamic history and jurisprudence. I routinely chat with Muslims, both supremacists and liberal. Heck, I even watched Lawrence of Arabia as a kid.

So when I argue that wearing the niqab is a pretty bad choice to make and that the government is completely right to insist women remove it during citizenship oaths, I’m not saying that out of ignorance.

It’s actually the sad faux-feminists out there aligning themselves with a religion that has misogyny bred in the bone who are the ignorant ones.

The more I study religion, the more I don’t like it. This goes particularly for Islam, the religion that demands absolute submission (hey, that’s more or less what the name means).

We heathens can’t tell you how the universe was created or what the meaning of life is. But that doesn’t in turn mean the many dodgy claims made by religions are automatically correct.

I highly doubt a god actually told ancestors of my Jewish friends to take a knife to their genitals. I don’t believe Jesus’ mom never had sex nor do I believe it’s possible to turn water into wine. (Although if that last one does turn out to be true, I’ll return to the Roman Catholic Church in a heartbeat, jaw open, head tilted back.)

And I most certainly don’t believe that Muhammad was visited by an angel – while alone in the desert without any witnesses! How convenient! – and received the final revelation of god.

That over a billion people disagree is immaterial. Truth is not determined by mob rule.

The above is simply to illustrate that it’s permissible to view religion with knitted eyebrows. It’s okay to have disdain for one or all of them.

If we can passionately bicker over which hockey team sucks more, we certainly can and should do it for something of greater geopolitical consequence as religion.

Yet too many politically correct posers in the West think this shouldn’t be the case. In a speech last week, Justin Trudeau put the vice grip on free thought by accusing critics of Islam of “stoking anxiety and fomenting fear.”

Western society routinely makes degrading jokes about Christians. Anti-Semitism abounds (with friends like these…). Nobody gets too freaked out about this.

But somehow Islam – the one lacking a critical culture, the least self-reflecting, least humorous and therefore most troublesome monotheism – is treated like a victim when exposed to legitimate criticism.

It’s pathetic to see the social media misfits hash-tagging away their #dresscodePM antics – facetiously acting like the prime minister wants to approve all public female clothing choices because he doesn’t want the niqab worn during citizenship oaths.

Okay, we get it. You don’t like Harper. But do you have to embarrass yourself by deliberately misunderstanding the issue and, in turn, siding with the theocrats?

This is not about how women dress at all. It’s about how some people destructively believe random religious edicts should be able to dictate civic procedure in a non-theocracy.

The niqab conversation is a sectarian issue. It’s a religious choice – a choice one should be free to make when out and about in a free society. It’s dictatorial to tell people how to dress in public and outright burqa bans are wrong.

But the rules change when you go from walking about on the street to interacting with the state in an important civic matter. Your primary identity in these interactions is not, for example, as a Muslim woman. It’s as a citizen.

It would be lovely if religious and civic responsibility never came into conflict. But evidently they sometimes do. And in the civic sphere, civic duties come first.

It’s deeply troubling that an aspiring citizen would attempt to assert the superiority of her religion over the state while fulfilling her first civic responsibility.

Why is Harper the one being called intolerant? It’s these new Canadians who are being intolerant of a country gracious enough to extend them citizenship.

Any serious country must assert that a citizen’s religious duties come second to their civic responsibilities. If not, it’s not a country anymore. It’s just a land of appeasement begging to be walked all over.

And what happens when two groups with equally earnest but contradictory claims to special treatment come into conflict? That’s when we realize what a joke accommodation has become.

It’s not ignorant to argue this. It’s not sexist. It’s about understanding the sanctity of civic life.