George Zimmerman was today acquitted of all charges relating to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Did the jury make the right decision? Yes and no.
(Update: it's been revealed that one of the six jurors believed Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder and two thought him guilty of manslaughter. For what it's worth, I think manslaughter would have been the correct verdict... but I don't live in Florida.)
With the information presented to them, within the context of the legal system of Florida, and the US more broadly, perhaps they made the only decision they could make. That is not the same, however, as justice being served. Zimmerman appears to have acted in a way that is fully in accordance with Florida law. So the real question is: What the hell is wrong with a state, or a country, that deems this to be legal?
While the exact details are disputed, here's what most of us can agree on in the case:
Zimmerman sees Martin walking through his neighbourhood, and believing his behaviour to be suspicious, follows him. Zimmerman is armed. Martin becomes aware he is being followed, quite understandably freaks out, and probably attacks him. Zimmerman shoots Martin as he feels (justifiably or otherwise) that his life is being threatened.
Of course, the same logic could be used to apply to Martin; if he attacked Zimmerman, it was because he felt threatened, as a teen, by an older man following him down the street. In other words, we have two people defending themselves against each other. I don't know if that is an actual thing.
Guilty or not, this incident could not happen without two highly problematic pre-existing conditions: the assumption that a young black man is by definition suspicious and threatening, and the right for a person to bear a deadly weapon and use it whenever they feel threatened.
It has been pushed by certain sections of conservative America that Trayvon Martin was indeed a dangerous thug, who probably was looking to rob a house in that neighbourhood, and whose attack on Zimmerman was in line with his thuggish personality. These are things we cannot know.
Likewise, some on the left have pushed the idea that Zimmerman had a racist grudge against black people. Again, I don't think that's something we can really know.
But let's ask this question: if a white male teenager was walking through that neighbourhood, stopping occasionally to look at houses, would Zimmerman have deemed it sufficiently threatening to "tool up" and pursue him?
That's debatable of course. But the big question for me is this:
If Zimmerman was not armed, or does not live in a nation under the sway of the gun lobby, does he even confront Trayvon Martin at all?
I say no. The gun George Zimmerman carried played a larger role that merely defending its holder. It defines the whole episode.
The gun gives the courage to play big-game hunter, and stalk the young man who he deemed to be threatening. The gun means that Zimmerman is more brazen about his pursuit than he would have otherwise been; he is indiscreet enough for Martin to spot him and confront him. And the gun means that when Martin confronts or attacks Zimmerman, Zimmerman does not feel the need to defuse the situation, or turn and flee.
Unfortunately, both lived in a place that gives legal justification for vigilantism, in a way that other Western nations do not. In any other Western country, someone worried that there is potentially dangerous teenager - so scary as to put you in fear of your life - roaming through the neighbourhood does not go confront that teenager, alone.
George Zimmerman instigated a situation which he had no business being in, then resorting to deadly force as soon as the situation looked bad for him.
Florida allows this kind of thing. Below is Florida's self-defence statute (emphasis mine):
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
No duty to retreat. That passage makes it different from most other self-defence statutes around the world, which tend to treat violence as a last resort, to be used only after all other reasonable options have been exhausted or impossible.
Just say I'm in Florida, I'm armed, and I have the confidence that comes with carrying a gun, knowing that I can pull it out if I ever feel threatened. Where is the disincentive for me to avoid conflict with anyone I could potentially have a disagreement or altercation with?
This is an extremely dangerous legal precedent, especially now that this case has acquired so much publicity.
If you don't think there's something sick about the US justice system, have a look at these recent cases:
Jury acquits Texas man for murder of escort who refused sex
Florida mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Monday, 15 July 2013
Saturday, 15 December 2012
Gun control: When will someone say "Enough's enough"?
20 children and 7 adults dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the second worst school shooting ever in modern US history. Is it too soon to talk about gun control? Absolutely not.
"Guns don't kill people - people do."
Yes, with guns. And here are several statistics that make crystal clear the relationship between guns and high murder rates:
* The US has the world's highest rate of private gun ownership, around double that of the second highest, Yemen. It's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world. Predictably, it also has the highest murder rate in the developed world.
* Compare Japan, a nation of 127 million people, to the USA's 311 million. In 2008, the USA had over 12,000 firearm related homicides; Japan had 11. The difference is that there is no widespread belief in a "right" to own a gun in Japan, and thus their ownership is extremely limited and restricted.
* If you are thinking that perhaps in other countries people still commit murder, only using things other than firearms, consider this. This week, China experienced its own school attack, when a man wounded 22 children and 1 adult with a knife. Wounded is the operative word here. Had he a gun, we would be looking at some quite different statistics.
Yet gun culture is so deeply embedded in the psyche of a huge swathe of the US population that it is likely that nothing substantive will happen any time soon.
An example: former Governor of Arkansas and a man who was almost a Republican presidential nominee, Mike Huckabee, said today that:
Huckabee might be interested to know that around 65% of Japanese people identify themselves as not believing in God. Whereas "atheist" is virtually a dirty word in the US.
Huckabee, it should be noted, is both staunchly "pro-life" and staunchly pro-gun ownership. If you can't see the flaw in that logic, you are likely to be an American right-winger; these are people who view the lives of fetuses to be paramount, yet think their country is safer with more and more guns, which are expressly designed to kill people who have actually been born.
Huckabee again:
Sure. Except there is no amendment in the US constitution that stipulates a right to bear bombs. You can't buy a bomb over the counter at Walmart.
Why not? What's the difference? A bomb is just a tool, right, just like a gun or a car... bombs don't kill people, people do...
The underlying reason for the USA's out-of-control gun culture is of course the constitution, specifically the second amendment stating the right to bear arms. And for many Americans, particularly on the conservative side, their slavish belief in whatever the constitution says would put religious fundamentalists to shame. (The same people usually tend to be religious fundamentalists, coincidentally.)
But the men who drew up the US constitution were living in different time and place - a more rural, frontier society, with guns that did not have the same lethal potential as today's semi-automatics. I can't imagine they would still support the universal right to bear arms if they could understand the damage they are causing today.
Conservative- and libertarian-minded people continually beat the drum about the need to stop governments from telling the people what they can and can't do. And to a point, they are right. But if there's anything a government should be able to strictly regulate, it is the possession of a high-powered killing machine.
Barack Obama clearly knows that gun ownership is the root cause of the problem. But is he the right person to lead the charge to tighten gun laws? There is already a strong correlation between passion for the right to bear arms, and believing that Obama is a Satanic Muslim Socialist Manchurian Candidate who is intent on destroying America. He has not yet taken a single step in either of his terms to tighten gun ownership, yet the gun lobby are rapidly opposed to him. If he does take action, he will face a massive backlash from the far right, and probably an assassination attempt or two. Yet in his final term with no need to seek reelection, and with the Republican Party in relative disarray, he may in fact be the perfect person to take this decisive step.
"Guns don't kill people - people do."
Yes, with guns. And here are several statistics that make crystal clear the relationship between guns and high murder rates:
* The US has the world's highest rate of private gun ownership, around double that of the second highest, Yemen. It's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world. Predictably, it also has the highest murder rate in the developed world.
* Compare Japan, a nation of 127 million people, to the USA's 311 million. In 2008, the USA had over 12,000 firearm related homicides; Japan had 11. The difference is that there is no widespread belief in a "right" to own a gun in Japan, and thus their ownership is extremely limited and restricted.
* If you are thinking that perhaps in other countries people still commit murder, only using things other than firearms, consider this. This week, China experienced its own school attack, when a man wounded 22 children and 1 adult with a knife. Wounded is the operative word here. Had he a gun, we would be looking at some quite different statistics.
Yet gun culture is so deeply embedded in the psyche of a huge swathe of the US population that it is likely that nothing substantive will happen any time soon.
An example: former Governor of Arkansas and a man who was almost a Republican presidential nominee, Mike Huckabee, said today that:
"...stricter gun laws would not have prevented the shooting that killed 20 children and seven adults.
'We ask why there's violence in our schools, but we've systematically removed God from our schools.'"
Huckabee might be interested to know that around 65% of Japanese people identify themselves as not believing in God. Whereas "atheist" is virtually a dirty word in the US.
Huckabee, it should be noted, is both staunchly "pro-life" and staunchly pro-gun ownership. If you can't see the flaw in that logic, you are likely to be an American right-winger; these are people who view the lives of fetuses to be paramount, yet think their country is safer with more and more guns, which are expressly designed to kill people who have actually been born.
Huckabee again:
"Ultimately, you can take away every gun in America and somebody will use a bomb," he said. "When somebody has an intent to do incredible damage, they’re going to find a way to do it."
Sure. Except there is no amendment in the US constitution that stipulates a right to bear bombs. You can't buy a bomb over the counter at Walmart.
Why not? What's the difference? A bomb is just a tool, right, just like a gun or a car... bombs don't kill people, people do...
The underlying reason for the USA's out-of-control gun culture is of course the constitution, specifically the second amendment stating the right to bear arms. And for many Americans, particularly on the conservative side, their slavish belief in whatever the constitution says would put religious fundamentalists to shame. (The same people usually tend to be religious fundamentalists, coincidentally.)
But the men who drew up the US constitution were living in different time and place - a more rural, frontier society, with guns that did not have the same lethal potential as today's semi-automatics. I can't imagine they would still support the universal right to bear arms if they could understand the damage they are causing today.
Conservative- and libertarian-minded people continually beat the drum about the need to stop governments from telling the people what they can and can't do. And to a point, they are right. But if there's anything a government should be able to strictly regulate, it is the possession of a high-powered killing machine.
Barack Obama clearly knows that gun ownership is the root cause of the problem. But is he the right person to lead the charge to tighten gun laws? There is already a strong correlation between passion for the right to bear arms, and believing that Obama is a Satanic Muslim Socialist Manchurian Candidate who is intent on destroying America. He has not yet taken a single step in either of his terms to tighten gun ownership, yet the gun lobby are rapidly opposed to him. If he does take action, he will face a massive backlash from the far right, and probably an assassination attempt or two. Yet in his final term with no need to seek reelection, and with the Republican Party in relative disarray, he may in fact be the perfect person to take this decisive step.
Tuesday, 11 December 2012
Racist violence and social class in Australia (@ Peril Magazine)
My latest post for Peril Magazine questions whether racist abuse and aggression is strictly a lower-class phenomenon in this country.
It is common, and not illegitimate, to look at racist incidents as part of a broader spectrum of attitudes towards race and culture in Australia. So you could, for example, find commonalities between an aggressive incident on a bus, and our history of dispossessing Aboriginal people, and our previously discriminatory immigration policies, and the current consternation over asylum seekers. But by the same token, incidents of racist aggression can also be viewed as part of a broader spectrum of anti-social behaviour, be it drug-related crimes, drunken brawls, and other kinds of domestic or street violence. And while there will always be plenty of exceptions, these occurrences are far more likely to be perpetrated by people from a certain strata of society. The reasons primarily stem from living or growing up in an environment with lack of opportunities and role models for success.Check the full post here.
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Racist rage on a Melbourne bus
Welcome to the world of Melbourne's underclass.
This video has gone viral, revealing the ugly racist underbelly that exists in Melbourne, which generally prides itself on being a multicultural and cosmopolitan city.
It occurred on the bus from Mordialloc to Caulfield a couple of weekends ago, on a warm day when a lot of folks had been out having a good time. Some French backpackers at the back of the bus, probably after a few beverages, were singing a song in French. While this is something that most people consider at worst mildly annoying, clearly some people saw it differently.
The man who filmed this on his phone is Mike Nayna, a local comedian. Nayna is of Mauritian heritage, which explains the racist tirade about black people.
You can listen to a radio interview with Nayna about the incident here; there is also some entended footage, although there are so many bleeps it's hard to hear what is going on.
Some comments have popped up around the place saying that the French woman instigated the whole thing by singing in French. To which I would argue that the proper response if you don't like someone singing on the bus is to politely ask them to keep it down. Making sexually violent threats involving a knife and smashing the bus window is probably not the standard way to deal with that situation.
Particularly not when you are pushing a pram and your young son is right behind you. Perhaps those children are the biggest victims here.
Just to show that this sort of mentality is hardly restricted to Australia, check out the parallels with this case in Britain.
This video has gone viral, revealing the ugly racist underbelly that exists in Melbourne, which generally prides itself on being a multicultural and cosmopolitan city.
It occurred on the bus from Mordialloc to Caulfield a couple of weekends ago, on a warm day when a lot of folks had been out having a good time. Some French backpackers at the back of the bus, probably after a few beverages, were singing a song in French. While this is something that most people consider at worst mildly annoying, clearly some people saw it differently.
The man who filmed this on his phone is Mike Nayna, a local comedian. Nayna is of Mauritian heritage, which explains the racist tirade about black people.
You can listen to a radio interview with Nayna about the incident here; there is also some entended footage, although there are so many bleeps it's hard to hear what is going on.
Some comments have popped up around the place saying that the French woman instigated the whole thing by singing in French. To which I would argue that the proper response if you don't like someone singing on the bus is to politely ask them to keep it down. Making sexually violent threats involving a knife and smashing the bus window is probably not the standard way to deal with that situation.
Particularly not when you are pushing a pram and your young son is right behind you. Perhaps those children are the biggest victims here.
Just to show that this sort of mentality is hardly restricted to Australia, check out the parallels with this case in Britain.
Monday, 18 June 2012
Gang attacks on taxi drivers in Melbourne's West.
Will this incident threaten to re-ignite tensions between Australia and India again, after the "curry-bashing" attacks of a few years ago?
Welcome to Melbourne's "Wild" West. Interestingly, despite the "go back to your country" taunts, it appears that the suspects are a gang of Pacific Islanders. I guess violent thugs are not known for their sense of irony.
When attacks on Indians in Australia dominated the headlines a few years ago, one of the big debates was whether they were racially motivated or merely opportunistic. In truth, the diverse nature of the attacks meant that it was difficult to generalise. But this case shows an example of an attack in which racism plays a part yet was probably not the motivation. The gang appears clearly to have robbery as its primary motive, and was probably not committing robbery out of any racial motive. The taunts are part of the attack but probably not the reason for it - they are just the sort of thing that spews out of the mouth of a stupid thug as he beats someone up.
That said, it is possible that the driver got such a heavy beating due to his race. You wonder why the attackers were so brutal, when they could have just taken his money and left. Would they have been quite as violent to a taxi driver who was white? African? East Asian? Pacific Islander? Probably... I'm not seriously advancing this theory, but nonetheless I think it's something worth pondering when we consider what exactly constitutes racially-motivated crime.
See also:
Addressing the myths and misconceptions about anti-Indian violence in Australia (from 2010)
"Curry-bashing" on the rise in Melbourne - Indian students targeted (from 2009)
A cab driver was racially abused as he was viciously beaten by a gang of thugs who ambushed and robbed five taxis in separate incidents in Melbourne's west overnight. Up to six men wearing balaclavas and armed with baseball bats pulled up in two stolen cars and attacked the drivers at Sunshine, Brooklyn and Laverton North between midnight and 1:00am this morning. One victim suffered serious head injuries. The owner of the taxi the man was driving says the driver was taunted as he was beaten with baseball bats. "They hit very badly you know, abusing him, you know, saying you're Indian, go back to your country," owner Sunny Singh told Fairfax radio.
Welcome to Melbourne's "Wild" West. Interestingly, despite the "go back to your country" taunts, it appears that the suspects are a gang of Pacific Islanders. I guess violent thugs are not known for their sense of irony.
When attacks on Indians in Australia dominated the headlines a few years ago, one of the big debates was whether they were racially motivated or merely opportunistic. In truth, the diverse nature of the attacks meant that it was difficult to generalise. But this case shows an example of an attack in which racism plays a part yet was probably not the motivation. The gang appears clearly to have robbery as its primary motive, and was probably not committing robbery out of any racial motive. The taunts are part of the attack but probably not the reason for it - they are just the sort of thing that spews out of the mouth of a stupid thug as he beats someone up.
That said, it is possible that the driver got such a heavy beating due to his race. You wonder why the attackers were so brutal, when they could have just taken his money and left. Would they have been quite as violent to a taxi driver who was white? African? East Asian? Pacific Islander? Probably... I'm not seriously advancing this theory, but nonetheless I think it's something worth pondering when we consider what exactly constitutes racially-motivated crime.
See also:
Addressing the myths and misconceptions about anti-Indian violence in Australia (from 2010)
"Curry-bashing" on the rise in Melbourne - Indian students targeted (from 2009)
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Thanks Newt, but no thanks
What a shame Newt Gingrich's chances of being the US Presidential candidate have dwindled so much. From the LA Times:
And some of you would claim that Americans don't pay much heed to the rest of the world... here is a clear example of a guy who knows what we need so desperately.
He's obviously quoting the bit from Genesis where it says, "And the Lord so loved man that he gave him the right to carry a machine gun around everywhere, knowing that man was responsible enough to use it solely for good purposes."
Seriously though. There are lots of things about the US of A that I'm more than happy for them to export. Gun culture is not one of them. And I think I speak for most of us rest-of-the-worlders when I say that the "universal" right to bear arms is not something we particularly want or need.
As an example, allow me to make a quick comparison of my own country, Australia, to the USA. I think it's a fair comparison since they are demographically similar in many ways (despite Australia's much smaller population).
GUNS PER 100 RESIDENTS
United States = 88.8 (#1 in the world)
Australia = 15 (#19 in the world)
FIREARM HOMICIDE RATE PER 100,000 POPULATION
United States = 3.6 (#8 in the world)
Australia = 0.3 (#26 in the world)
Of course, some of you might argue, "But maybe in countries with lots of guns, people are killed in other ways, like stabbing."
So to save you the trouble of bothering to argue that, read this first:
MURDERS PER 100,000 POPULATION
United States = 5.9 (#63 in the world)
Australia = 1.5 (#108 in the world)
Of course, in the murder rate and the firearm homicide rate, there are other countries that rate worse than the US - in some cases, far worse - but none of them could really be described as a first-world country.
So yes, murders still take place in countries with low rates of gun ownership, but having a gun makes it far easier for the potential killer. Anders Breivik could not have killed 69 of his fellow Norwegians with a knife.
Of course, the US is a sort of special case - it has so many guns already (not to mention a creepy obsession with them) that gun control becomes extremely complicated. But most other developed countries don't have that problem. So we'd appreciate it, USians, if you didn't try and extend your "freedoms" to us. I prefer the freedom from being shot at.
See also:
Guns, courts and white supremacy
... displaying the outsized thinking for which he is known, he said he would work to get the United Nations to recognize the right to bear arms as a universal right.
"The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not from our government,” he said, to cheers. “It is one of the inalienable rights alluded to in our Declaration of Independence. ... Far fewer women would be raped, far fewer children would be killed ... and far fewer dictators would survive if people had the right to bear arms everywhere on the planet.”
And some of you would claim that Americans don't pay much heed to the rest of the world... here is a clear example of a guy who knows what we need so desperately.
He's obviously quoting the bit from Genesis where it says, "And the Lord so loved man that he gave him the right to carry a machine gun around everywhere, knowing that man was responsible enough to use it solely for good purposes."
Seriously though. There are lots of things about the US of A that I'm more than happy for them to export. Gun culture is not one of them. And I think I speak for most of us rest-of-the-worlders when I say that the "universal" right to bear arms is not something we particularly want or need.
As an example, allow me to make a quick comparison of my own country, Australia, to the USA. I think it's a fair comparison since they are demographically similar in many ways (despite Australia's much smaller population).
GUNS PER 100 RESIDENTS
United States = 88.8 (#1 in the world)
Australia = 15 (#19 in the world)
FIREARM HOMICIDE RATE PER 100,000 POPULATION
United States = 3.6 (#8 in the world)
Australia = 0.3 (#26 in the world)
Of course, some of you might argue, "But maybe in countries with lots of guns, people are killed in other ways, like stabbing."
So to save you the trouble of bothering to argue that, read this first:
MURDERS PER 100,000 POPULATION
United States = 5.9 (#63 in the world)
Australia = 1.5 (#108 in the world)
Of course, in the murder rate and the firearm homicide rate, there are other countries that rate worse than the US - in some cases, far worse - but none of them could really be described as a first-world country.
So yes, murders still take place in countries with low rates of gun ownership, but having a gun makes it far easier for the potential killer. Anders Breivik could not have killed 69 of his fellow Norwegians with a knife.
Of course, the US is a sort of special case - it has so many guns already (not to mention a creepy obsession with them) that gun control becomes extremely complicated. But most other developed countries don't have that problem. So we'd appreciate it, USians, if you didn't try and extend your "freedoms" to us. I prefer the freedom from being shot at.
See also:
Guns, courts and white supremacy
Sunday, 20 November 2011
Surely someone's singing wasn't that bad...
Bats and poles used in karaoke brawl
Baseball bats and metal poles were used in a brawl outside a karaoke bar early this morning with six men taken to hospital for treatment.
Police received reports of a large fight in front of the bar in Railway Parade North, Glen Waverley around 3am when it's believed 10 men attacked a large group of patrons leaving the premises.
Acting Sergeant Alex Goodman said the attackers fled quickly and that police were unable to determine whether the attack was gang related or what the motive might have been.
"This is a particularly disturbing and brutal attack carried out in the main street in Glen Waverley. This group were all wearing hoodies and had their faces covered at the time," acting Sergeant Goodman said.
WTF Asian people? Ok so I don't know for a fact yet that the assailants were Asian, but I'd bet a small sum of money on it. The victims were certainly Asian.
Come on people, this is messed up. How is possible that the words "karaoke" and "disturbing and brutal attack" can be used in the same article? (Well actually...)
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
It's not The Revolution
Civilization is, as always, only a thin veneer.
Now that the streets of Britain have turned into a remake of 28 Days Later, it's interesting to contrast it with the other "popular uprisings" that the world has witnessed this year, across the Arab world. There will undoubtedly be a minority on the radical Left who will make this all about The State and The Pigs versus The People or whatever, but that's mostly bullshit really. While there are certainly some legitimate resentments fueling the rampant destruction that began in Tottenham and overtook the country, ultimately the majority of it is little more than young men giving themselves license to unleash their anti-social sides on the world around them.
While there has also been an ugly side to the protests that occurred in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, those were people who actually lived in conditions of oppression and poverty, who rose up against the power structure in a relatively peaceful fashion. While the rioters in England are largely from the underclass, and are poor and disenfranchised by the standards of the UK, I imagine most people in North Africa would consider them to be immensely privileged. As with the anarchists who decided to cause havoc in London in March this year, it seems that there will always be a barbaric element in society that even relative affluence cannot silence. People all over the world living in genuinely appalling conditions can frequently stage uprisings that don't devolve into randomly stealing and breaking stuff.
I wonder what people in Burma would think of all this business.
This person knows the deal:
Now that the streets of Britain have turned into a remake of 28 Days Later, it's interesting to contrast it with the other "popular uprisings" that the world has witnessed this year, across the Arab world. There will undoubtedly be a minority on the radical Left who will make this all about The State and The Pigs versus The People or whatever, but that's mostly bullshit really. While there are certainly some legitimate resentments fueling the rampant destruction that began in Tottenham and overtook the country, ultimately the majority of it is little more than young men giving themselves license to unleash their anti-social sides on the world around them.
While there has also been an ugly side to the protests that occurred in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, those were people who actually lived in conditions of oppression and poverty, who rose up against the power structure in a relatively peaceful fashion. While the rioters in England are largely from the underclass, and are poor and disenfranchised by the standards of the UK, I imagine most people in North Africa would consider them to be immensely privileged. As with the anarchists who decided to cause havoc in London in March this year, it seems that there will always be a barbaric element in society that even relative affluence cannot silence. People all over the world living in genuinely appalling conditions can frequently stage uprisings that don't devolve into randomly stealing and breaking stuff.
I wonder what people in Burma would think of all this business.
This person knows the deal:
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Why women are the cause of all the world’s problems – Malay edition
(Cross - posted at Brown Pundits)
There is Islamic misogyny, and non-Islamic misogyny, but the Islamic variety seems far better at convincing otherwise intelligent women to buy into this nonsense.
A Happy Man, A Happy Home
There is Islamic misogyny, and non-Islamic misogyny, but the Islamic variety seems far better at convincing otherwise intelligent women to buy into this nonsense.
A Happy Man, A Happy Home
“You just need to open the newspaper or watch the news on TV: there are so many sex-related social problems rape, incest, prostitution and sex trafficking.”
Men will not be committing these crimes if they are sexually satisfied at home, she [Fauziah Ariffin] stresses. “The key to make a man gentle and loving is a first-class loving wife an obedient wife. When the wife is obedient, the husband will be happy and gentle. They will not look elsewhere for the loving they need.”
And like simple economics, cutting off the “demand” for the illegal “sex” will cut the supply. “The authorities have come up with a lot of solutions and conducted various raids or operations to nip these social problems, but they still exist. The solution we are proposing is one that is guaranteed to work, as it is backed by the Quran,” she explains.
Committee member Siti Maznah Mohamed Taufik tries another argument to demonstrate how a sexually frustrated man can cause violence in society.
“Just yesterday, there was a story about a man who hit his wife with a lesung (pounding stone) because she refused to have lunch with him. Do you believe that? It does not make sense. Just because of lunch, a man would hit his wife until she is hospitalised? I’m sure it is because she did not give him any the night before. That’s why he was furious with her.”
I wonder if it occurs to them that perhaps the reason this wife didn’t want to have lunch or sex with her husband is because he is the type of asshole who likes to hit women with pounding stones.
There are plenty more facepalm moments in the full article. A common thread in these kinds of worldviews is their extremely low expectations of men, who apparently can’t stop themselves from raping en masse unless they get a regular diet of sex at home. So it’s heartening that a Facebook group that has sprung up to denounce the "Obedient Wives Club" was started by a Malaysian male, 22 year-old Matthew Tard Ong.
I personally don’t think this is a mainstream view among Malay women – this group appears to have some extremist associations. But how widespread is this? And is it a Muslim thing, a Malay thing, a Malaysian thing, or a human thing?
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Guns, courts and white supremacy
Okay this story raises a few interesting issues. Keep in mind that this is Australia, not the US.
Having extreme anti-Semitic views clearly indicates that someone is, for want of a better term, a f*ckwit. However, strictly speaking, being a f*ckwit is not illegal. Does possession of such views clearly mark someone out as being dangerous? From a purely objective point of view, that's questionable, although you'd have to guess that an angry man with rabidly anti-Semitic views is probably more dangerous than an angry man without such views. The fact that in talking to police about an incident which apparently has nothing to do with Jews, Potts cannot stop himself blurting out bizarre Zionist conspiracy theories, indicates that his mental state is highly questionable.
The suggestion of domestic violence in this case does not appear to be quite concrete enough for the court to conclude that he is a threat. But put together, the possible violent and controlling tendencies combined with paranoid racist conspiracy theories might seem to be enough to disqualify Potts from gun ownership. But it seems that legal decisions don't work that way.
I for one am no supporter of gun rights. I don't believe that anyone has an inalienable right to bear arms, unless they need it for a specifically defined purpose (ie. police, soldiers, farmers). I am eternally grateful that Australia never went down the American route of enshrining gun rights in the constitution. It means that firearm-related deaths are kept to a minimum. Sure, criminals can get them if they really want, but they are still more difficult to obtain. But the other crucial aspect of reducing guns in the community is to keep them out of reach of people who are not yet criminals, but psychologically may be dangerous given the right circumstances.
I noted with interest that Jared Lee Loughner (whose shooting spree in Arizona recently killed 6 and injured 14 including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords) was known to police due to arrests for vandalism and possession of drug paraphenalia. In addition, his mental stability was of concern to his former educators, who perceived him as potentially dangerous and capable of a school shooting, and he had several run-ins with campus police.
Despite all that, Loughner had little trouble purchasing a Glock pistol, and later its ammunition.
This is not to suggest that Darryl Potts is about to go on a shooting spree. But given his extreme views combined with anger at the world and possible violent and controlling tendencies, it's not far-fetched to say that he is a prime candidate for some kind of violent incident.
If we are going to accept that the law allows for the average person to possess a firearm, shouldn't we at least be ensuring that only the sane and well-adjusted members of society can keep them? Link the records of those who have guns and gun licenses to police records; any criminal conviction leads to an immediate suspension and possible cancellation of the license, accompanied by a seizure of the weapons.
This may sound like Big Brother to some, but I'm less afraid of Big Brother than I am a gun-toting madman.
Even if the policies I mentioned were in place, Darryl Potts might still keep his weapons. Inevitably some slip through the net, but it would nonetheless minimise the risks considerably.
Individual rights are important, obviously. But one of the most important of those is the right not to be shot at by murderous angry loners.
Here's a sample of some of the angry rantings Potts left at an anti-fascist anarchist blog.
Jew hater Darryl Potts given okay for gunSo, at what point does someone cease to remain eligible to own a gun?
by Joe Hildebrand in The Daily Telegraph
A MAN declared a white supremacist by police and ruled a possible risk to public safety by a psychiatrist has been granted the right to possess a handgun.
Darryl Potts, who believes there is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy other races, had his AB firearms and probationary pistol licences revoked by police after he expressed "white supremacy views" to officers during an incident involving domestic violence. But, in a landmark case, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal has ruled that, even though Mr Potts might hold extreme and offensive views, that does not mean he is mentally impaired and he is legally entitled to a firearm licence (read the Tribunal's ruling in full).
The decision was at odds with the opinion of police, the Firearms Registry and a psychiatrist's clinical assessment that Mr Potts had the potential "to put public safety at risk".
Mr Potts, an elevator technician at Federal Parliament, pursued the case because he believed having a revoked firearm licence could affect his security clearance to work in government buildings.
He said he wanted to take a stand against the trend of removing people's firearms.
Both during the case and in extensive interviews with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Potts made a series of bizarre claims about Jewish people.
He told the tribunal he did not believe six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
"I say the six million is a load of hogwash," he said.
After having his licences reinstated, he said he believed Jews were plotting to dilute other races by encouraging mixed-race children and he had unwittingly played into their hands by having children with his Korean-born wife - from whom he has separated.
"If I had've known this information I would not have participated in mixed-race marriage," he said.
He also said Jewish spies, posing as "Israeli art peddlers" were visiting his house because he was "a person of interest" to them.
After the 2009 domestic dispute at his estranged wife's house, the Firearms Registry referred Mr Potts to a psychiatrist on the basis that he "has expressed white supremacy [sic] ... views that have raised concerns regarding his mental health".
After Mr Potts stated, "I am a very angry man", the psychiatrist diagnosed him as having a personality disorder.
ADT member Peter Molony rejected the psychiatrist's opinion and ruled, "Mr Potts is an intelligent, manipulative and calculating man".
"The fact that he holds political and religious views and opinions that are offensive is not, in my opinion, sufficient to find that the public interest requires that he no longer hold a firearms licence," Mr Molony found.
"To do so would be to embark on a slippery slope ... to totalitarianism."
Having extreme anti-Semitic views clearly indicates that someone is, for want of a better term, a f*ckwit. However, strictly speaking, being a f*ckwit is not illegal. Does possession of such views clearly mark someone out as being dangerous? From a purely objective point of view, that's questionable, although you'd have to guess that an angry man with rabidly anti-Semitic views is probably more dangerous than an angry man without such views. The fact that in talking to police about an incident which apparently has nothing to do with Jews, Potts cannot stop himself blurting out bizarre Zionist conspiracy theories, indicates that his mental state is highly questionable.
The suggestion of domestic violence in this case does not appear to be quite concrete enough for the court to conclude that he is a threat. But put together, the possible violent and controlling tendencies combined with paranoid racist conspiracy theories might seem to be enough to disqualify Potts from gun ownership. But it seems that legal decisions don't work that way.
I for one am no supporter of gun rights. I don't believe that anyone has an inalienable right to bear arms, unless they need it for a specifically defined purpose (ie. police, soldiers, farmers). I am eternally grateful that Australia never went down the American route of enshrining gun rights in the constitution. It means that firearm-related deaths are kept to a minimum. Sure, criminals can get them if they really want, but they are still more difficult to obtain. But the other crucial aspect of reducing guns in the community is to keep them out of reach of people who are not yet criminals, but psychologically may be dangerous given the right circumstances.
I noted with interest that Jared Lee Loughner (whose shooting spree in Arizona recently killed 6 and injured 14 including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords) was known to police due to arrests for vandalism and possession of drug paraphenalia. In addition, his mental stability was of concern to his former educators, who perceived him as potentially dangerous and capable of a school shooting, and he had several run-ins with campus police.
Despite all that, Loughner had little trouble purchasing a Glock pistol, and later its ammunition.
This is not to suggest that Darryl Potts is about to go on a shooting spree. But given his extreme views combined with anger at the world and possible violent and controlling tendencies, it's not far-fetched to say that he is a prime candidate for some kind of violent incident.
If we are going to accept that the law allows for the average person to possess a firearm, shouldn't we at least be ensuring that only the sane and well-adjusted members of society can keep them? Link the records of those who have guns and gun licenses to police records; any criminal conviction leads to an immediate suspension and possible cancellation of the license, accompanied by a seizure of the weapons.
This may sound like Big Brother to some, but I'm less afraid of Big Brother than I am a gun-toting madman.
Even if the policies I mentioned were in place, Darryl Potts might still keep his weapons. Inevitably some slip through the net, but it would nonetheless minimise the risks considerably.
Individual rights are important, obviously. But one of the most important of those is the right not to be shot at by murderous angry loners.
Here's a sample of some of the angry rantings Potts left at an anti-fascist anarchist blog.
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
The thorny question of Muslim youth and rape
British former Home Secretary Jack Straw courted controversy this week when he commented on a case of a gang of young men, primarily of Pakistani background, who sexually assaulted a number of white British girls in Derby. He said:
The convicted men were ringleaders Mohammed Liaqat and Abid Saddique (pictured below), as well as Graham Blackham, Mohammad Rehman, Faisal Mehmood, Akshay Kumar, Naweed Liaqat and Farooq Ahmed. They groomed vulnerable teenage girls with drugs and alcohol, then sexually assaulted them. There were 27 victims in all.
Straw's statement predictably met with a flurry of criticism from some quarters, yet also agreement from others. What do you think? Do the South Asian and/or Muslim communities have a problem with rape, particularly towards white women? Is it a racist statement to make? Or is it a serious issue that the cultural Left are too scared to touch?
It's important not to be simplistic here. I have quite a few views on this, not only as the child of a Muslim Asian migrant but also as someone who has worked with many clients who have offended against women, and heard the full spectrum of young men's views about sex and relationships.
You could note that in Cornwall, another gang was very recently convicted of preying on mostly white girls as well. The details were very similar... yet these guys were white. Clearly the primary problem here is of gang culture, and possibly young male culture, rather than Pakistani culture.
However... as an Australian, the case sounds all too familiar. It is chillingly similar to two gang rape cases that shocked Sydney in the early part of the last decade. One was a group of 4 Pakistani brothers ("The K Brothers") and one Nepali who sexually assaulted as many as 18 teenage girls. Another was the 14 young men of Lebanese background led by Bilal Skaf (pictured below) who gang-raped teenage girls at train stations. In the Skaf case, all the girls were "Aussie" (ie. white), and this was specifically mentioned as justification for their treatment. I'm unsure of the ethnicity of the girls in the K brothers case, but there is clear implication that they were not Pakistani.
Why white girls? In the Skaf case, there was clear racism at play. The gang members told one victim "You deserve it because you are Australian." Another was called an "Aussie pig", asked her if "Leb cock tasted better than Aussie cock" and explained to her that she would now be raped "Leb-style". In the case of the Asian gang recently convicted in Derby, there is some evidence of racial abuse. It should be pointed out that while the gang may well have had a prejudiced view of white girls that led to targeting them, I would guess it is largely due to opportunity and availability. White teenage girls, I would assume, are on the whole less conservative than Asian teenage girls and thus more vulnerable to grooming with drugs and alcohol. And with Asian girls there would be a greater chance of retribution from vengeful relatives.
Of course, it is important not to conflate the actions of a twisted few with an entire religion or culture. All three gangs I've discussed here are predominantly made up of Muslims; but are they actually Muslims in anything other than name only? Certainly they came out of a Muslim culture, yet when a sex offender is white, is his religion or ethnicity ever deemed relevant? It's probably safe to say they weren't devout religious people. It must be said that nowhere in Islam does it condone rape, and indeed the Islamic punishment for rape is severe. And I'm quite certain that the incidence of rape in Pakistan is nowhere near as high as that in places like the UK and US.
Yet... culture can give mixed messages. For example: Western male culture, in the main, abhors rape and views rapists as scum. But simultaneously, it promulgates the very attitudes that perpetuate a culture in which rape can thrive. For example, the idea that a promiscuous woman is a slut and thus less worthy of respect; the idea that a man's ability to "score" is reflective of his manhood; the idea that a man should be dominant when it comes to sex and relationships. These attitudes are not taught explicitly, yet most men unconsciously absorb them to some extent.
Those same values are present in all societies, to various degrees. It is worth noting that one of the victims of the K brothers claimed the police didn't take her seriously because she had been drunk, and had implied she was a slut. In South Asia and the Middle East, arguably the most sexually conservative regions in the world, the disdain for promiscuous women is taken to the highest degree, and links in with the so-called "honour killings" that sometimes happen there. (Note: while honour killings do correlate strongly with Islamic cultures, they are absent from much of the Islamic world, such as West Africa and SE Asia. They also occur among Indian Sikhs and Hindus.)
When a man commits a sexual crime, he normally has certain beliefs about himself, the world, and the victim. Foremost among these is that the victim somehow deserves it, and that the perpetrator has some kind of entitlement to do so.
Religious conservatives love to blame the permissiveness and so-called immorality of modern Western culture for the incidence of rape. And while they may have a point, conservative morality can also fuel this kind of behaviour. It is a worldview that sees a sexually free woman as a slut, a whore, and thus someone of degraded morals and worthy of scorn. Such a person is often seen as "deserving" of what fate befalls her. You can see it discussions of rape and in rape trials, when the revealing nature of a victim's clothing is called into question, or likewise their sexual history.
It is generally accepted that Western society is more sexually free than most others; at least to the extent of being more open about it. Australia has a female PM living in a de facto relationship and no one bats an eyelid. Celebrities sexual exploits are popular tabloid fodder, and magazines dispense sexual advice to male and female alike. You could say that there is plenty of pre-marital sex happening in various non-Western societies, but the difference is that there still remains an "official" cultural stance that such behaviour is frowned upon.
When migrants come to the West, they are almost always more conservative than the mainstream society around them. This often changes, of course. But among many, particularly the more conservative older generation, there remains a prejudice about the young Westerners, particularly Western women. The more emphasis a culture places on chaste behaviour for its young women, the more it tends to view those who step outside these boundaries with distaste.
This is not a universal view among migrants by any means, but it is nonetheless a common phenomenon in virtually every ethnic group. Stick to "our" girls, because "their" girls are a bit, well, slutty.
This sort of attitude can be found to some degree amongst any migrant group, be they Korean, Kenyan or Kazakh. But it must be said that Islamic cultures take it a step further. Islam, with its rigid disapproval of premarital sex, places great emphasis on the tempting nature of women. Thus the need for hijab, covering up women to prevent men harassing them and being led into temptation. Now this might work in a sense, but it also has the effect of giving some men a very juvenile mindset when it comes to temptation. By primarily giving women the responsibility for not encouraging sin, it is easy for men to abdicate their own responsibilities. The idea that male sexuality is so powerful that men themselves cannot control it is common in many cultures, including in the Anglo-Saxon world, but it has achieved greatest currency in the Islamic world.
The distinction between a "good" woman and an "impure" one is made even more clear by clothing and behaviour. A good woman is one who covers her body and behaves properly. One that goes out partying, wears make-up, reveals a bit too much skin, or is perceived to be promiscious - she is impure and immoral, and thus not deserving of the same respect as the "good woman".
Now, in conservative countries where women cover themselves up and behave conservatively, this might work; yet it is still easy for women to be disgraced for relatively innocuous things, such as being seen with a boy. Consider then, the culture clash when someone from these countries arrives in the West and sees women in crop-tops and miniskirts. Most adjust to the new social norms they are faced with, but some cannot shake the view they have grown up with, which divides women up according to their level of moral correctness. And the girls who show off all that skin and go out drinking at bars, in this worldview, do not gain much high regard.
It is widely acknowledged that one of the most shocking incidents of racist violence in Australia's recent history, the Cronulla Riots in late 2005, was a reaction to the behaviour of a group of Lebanese men who routinely harassed blonde women at the beach and frequently called them "Aussie sluts".
Bilal Skaf's father once said that if the girls had been wearing hijab, they wouldn't have been raped.
The excellent British-Pakistani journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, speaking about the current case in Derby, says in this article:
The sort of young men of Muslim backgrounds who commit this sort of crime are certainly not acting out any religious or cultural imperative. Rather, they are cherry-picking whatever cultural influences serve their purposes in the worst way. The rebellious sociopathy of the gang lifestyle; the lure of easy sex and cheap titillation that abounds in Western countries. These things of course are totally at odds with the culture of Pakistan, Lebanon or any other traditional country. Yet by channelling that traditional perspective of female morality, and victimising only those they view as degraded and cheap, it becomes that much easier to justify.
So back to the original comment by Jack Straw. He seems to generalise about Pakistani men, but given the overall context of his statement, I think it's clear he doesn't wish to tar the whole British Pakistani community with the same brush. I actually think he's spot on, and the British Asian community, and certain migrant communities elsewhere in the world, do need to do some soul-searching on this matter. It's one of the nastier consequences of a sadly too-common tendency among some migrant groups: to live in the West, yet view Western culture with distaste. This sort of thinking surely has no bright future.
See also:
Knobhead of the week: Samir Abu Hamza
Was Islamophobia a factor in the wrongful conviction of Farah Jama?
Define "race-based attack"
"Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders.
"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.
"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."
Mr Straw added: "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.
"So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care... who they think are easy meat.
The convicted men were ringleaders Mohammed Liaqat and Abid Saddique (pictured below), as well as Graham Blackham, Mohammad Rehman, Faisal Mehmood, Akshay Kumar, Naweed Liaqat and Farooq Ahmed. They groomed vulnerable teenage girls with drugs and alcohol, then sexually assaulted them. There were 27 victims in all.
Straw's statement predictably met with a flurry of criticism from some quarters, yet also agreement from others. What do you think? Do the South Asian and/or Muslim communities have a problem with rape, particularly towards white women? Is it a racist statement to make? Or is it a serious issue that the cultural Left are too scared to touch?
It's important not to be simplistic here. I have quite a few views on this, not only as the child of a Muslim Asian migrant but also as someone who has worked with many clients who have offended against women, and heard the full spectrum of young men's views about sex and relationships.
You could note that in Cornwall, another gang was very recently convicted of preying on mostly white girls as well. The details were very similar... yet these guys were white. Clearly the primary problem here is of gang culture, and possibly young male culture, rather than Pakistani culture.
However... as an Australian, the case sounds all too familiar. It is chillingly similar to two gang rape cases that shocked Sydney in the early part of the last decade. One was a group of 4 Pakistani brothers ("The K Brothers") and one Nepali who sexually assaulted as many as 18 teenage girls. Another was the 14 young men of Lebanese background led by Bilal Skaf (pictured below) who gang-raped teenage girls at train stations. In the Skaf case, all the girls were "Aussie" (ie. white), and this was specifically mentioned as justification for their treatment. I'm unsure of the ethnicity of the girls in the K brothers case, but there is clear implication that they were not Pakistani.
Why white girls? In the Skaf case, there was clear racism at play. The gang members told one victim "You deserve it because you are Australian." Another was called an "Aussie pig", asked her if "Leb cock tasted better than Aussie cock" and explained to her that she would now be raped "Leb-style". In the case of the Asian gang recently convicted in Derby, there is some evidence of racial abuse. It should be pointed out that while the gang may well have had a prejudiced view of white girls that led to targeting them, I would guess it is largely due to opportunity and availability. White teenage girls, I would assume, are on the whole less conservative than Asian teenage girls and thus more vulnerable to grooming with drugs and alcohol. And with Asian girls there would be a greater chance of retribution from vengeful relatives.
Of course, it is important not to conflate the actions of a twisted few with an entire religion or culture. All three gangs I've discussed here are predominantly made up of Muslims; but are they actually Muslims in anything other than name only? Certainly they came out of a Muslim culture, yet when a sex offender is white, is his religion or ethnicity ever deemed relevant? It's probably safe to say they weren't devout religious people. It must be said that nowhere in Islam does it condone rape, and indeed the Islamic punishment for rape is severe. And I'm quite certain that the incidence of rape in Pakistan is nowhere near as high as that in places like the UK and US.
Yet... culture can give mixed messages. For example: Western male culture, in the main, abhors rape and views rapists as scum. But simultaneously, it promulgates the very attitudes that perpetuate a culture in which rape can thrive. For example, the idea that a promiscuous woman is a slut and thus less worthy of respect; the idea that a man's ability to "score" is reflective of his manhood; the idea that a man should be dominant when it comes to sex and relationships. These attitudes are not taught explicitly, yet most men unconsciously absorb them to some extent.
Those same values are present in all societies, to various degrees. It is worth noting that one of the victims of the K brothers claimed the police didn't take her seriously because she had been drunk, and had implied she was a slut. In South Asia and the Middle East, arguably the most sexually conservative regions in the world, the disdain for promiscuous women is taken to the highest degree, and links in with the so-called "honour killings" that sometimes happen there. (Note: while honour killings do correlate strongly with Islamic cultures, they are absent from much of the Islamic world, such as West Africa and SE Asia. They also occur among Indian Sikhs and Hindus.)
When a man commits a sexual crime, he normally has certain beliefs about himself, the world, and the victim. Foremost among these is that the victim somehow deserves it, and that the perpetrator has some kind of entitlement to do so.
Religious conservatives love to blame the permissiveness and so-called immorality of modern Western culture for the incidence of rape. And while they may have a point, conservative morality can also fuel this kind of behaviour. It is a worldview that sees a sexually free woman as a slut, a whore, and thus someone of degraded morals and worthy of scorn. Such a person is often seen as "deserving" of what fate befalls her. You can see it discussions of rape and in rape trials, when the revealing nature of a victim's clothing is called into question, or likewise their sexual history.
It is generally accepted that Western society is more sexually free than most others; at least to the extent of being more open about it. Australia has a female PM living in a de facto relationship and no one bats an eyelid. Celebrities sexual exploits are popular tabloid fodder, and magazines dispense sexual advice to male and female alike. You could say that there is plenty of pre-marital sex happening in various non-Western societies, but the difference is that there still remains an "official" cultural stance that such behaviour is frowned upon.
When migrants come to the West, they are almost always more conservative than the mainstream society around them. This often changes, of course. But among many, particularly the more conservative older generation, there remains a prejudice about the young Westerners, particularly Western women. The more emphasis a culture places on chaste behaviour for its young women, the more it tends to view those who step outside these boundaries with distaste.
This is not a universal view among migrants by any means, but it is nonetheless a common phenomenon in virtually every ethnic group. Stick to "our" girls, because "their" girls are a bit, well, slutty.
This sort of attitude can be found to some degree amongst any migrant group, be they Korean, Kenyan or Kazakh. But it must be said that Islamic cultures take it a step further. Islam, with its rigid disapproval of premarital sex, places great emphasis on the tempting nature of women. Thus the need for hijab, covering up women to prevent men harassing them and being led into temptation. Now this might work in a sense, but it also has the effect of giving some men a very juvenile mindset when it comes to temptation. By primarily giving women the responsibility for not encouraging sin, it is easy for men to abdicate their own responsibilities. The idea that male sexuality is so powerful that men themselves cannot control it is common in many cultures, including in the Anglo-Saxon world, but it has achieved greatest currency in the Islamic world.
The distinction between a "good" woman and an "impure" one is made even more clear by clothing and behaviour. A good woman is one who covers her body and behaves properly. One that goes out partying, wears make-up, reveals a bit too much skin, or is perceived to be promiscious - she is impure and immoral, and thus not deserving of the same respect as the "good woman".
Now, in conservative countries where women cover themselves up and behave conservatively, this might work; yet it is still easy for women to be disgraced for relatively innocuous things, such as being seen with a boy. Consider then, the culture clash when someone from these countries arrives in the West and sees women in crop-tops and miniskirts. Most adjust to the new social norms they are faced with, but some cannot shake the view they have grown up with, which divides women up according to their level of moral correctness. And the girls who show off all that skin and go out drinking at bars, in this worldview, do not gain much high regard.
It is widely acknowledged that one of the most shocking incidents of racist violence in Australia's recent history, the Cronulla Riots in late 2005, was a reaction to the behaviour of a group of Lebanese men who routinely harassed blonde women at the beach and frequently called them "Aussie sluts".
Bilal Skaf's father once said that if the girls had been wearing hijab, they wouldn't have been raped.
The excellent British-Pakistani journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, speaking about the current case in Derby, says in this article:
Most Asian men do not go around raping young white girls and women; many have happy and equal relationships with white partners. However, an alarming number of Asian individuals, families and communities do believe that white females have no morals, are free and available, deserving of no respect or protection.
Up in Bradford a few years back, I met Muslim pimps, some wearing mini Koran pendants on heavy, gold chains. "Not our girls," they reassured me, "just them white girls from the estates, cheap girls. They love it man, all the money they make! What else will they do with their lives? We're helping them make a career."
Much laughter, until I asked them what they would do if a white pimp groomed their daughters. They would kill the pimp and the girls too, they said. They would too.
The sort of young men of Muslim backgrounds who commit this sort of crime are certainly not acting out any religious or cultural imperative. Rather, they are cherry-picking whatever cultural influences serve their purposes in the worst way. The rebellious sociopathy of the gang lifestyle; the lure of easy sex and cheap titillation that abounds in Western countries. These things of course are totally at odds with the culture of Pakistan, Lebanon or any other traditional country. Yet by channelling that traditional perspective of female morality, and victimising only those they view as degraded and cheap, it becomes that much easier to justify.
So back to the original comment by Jack Straw. He seems to generalise about Pakistani men, but given the overall context of his statement, I think it's clear he doesn't wish to tar the whole British Pakistani community with the same brush. I actually think he's spot on, and the British Asian community, and certain migrant communities elsewhere in the world, do need to do some soul-searching on this matter. It's one of the nastier consequences of a sadly too-common tendency among some migrant groups: to live in the West, yet view Western culture with distaste. This sort of thinking surely has no bright future.
See also:
Knobhead of the week: Samir Abu Hamza
Was Islamophobia a factor in the wrongful conviction of Farah Jama?
Define "race-based attack"
Friday, 10 December 2010
"My brother's coming home one day."
When you live in one of the world's most advanced countries with one of the highest standards of living, it is reasonable to expect that your fellow citizens uphold a basic level of civilisation. Yet clearly some people's mentalities remain mired in barbarity.
Now it's not uncommon for people to get stabbed and beaten in Melbourne, unfortunately. But once in a while a case emerges that exposes the culture of macho insanity that lies behind it.
This from a year ago:
And this week:
Having your friend's back is an essential part of the male code. Yet at some point it has become warped beyond recognition. You'd think that a true friend would have the sense to dissuade these people he allegedly cares about from committing an act that would land them in prison for a long time. But no. For a certain class of people, friendship is seemingly about willingness to commit murder of a complete stranger, just over some macho bullshit that is entirely someone else's business.
And the incident outside court this week - a brother of one of the sentenced men taunting the grieving family - shows that little has been learned from this horrible mistake. It's a throwback to the most primitive form of tribalism; murder is not instrinsically wrong, it's only wrong when it happens to one of my group. The way of thinking that propagates this cycle of violence lives on.
There's video of the incident outside court here.
The other bewildering aspect of this kind of behaviour is that undoubtedly the convicted men believed that what they were doing was the manly thing to do. Yes, the courageous, masculine course of action was to get a large mob of people armed with deadly weapons to attack a smaller group of people who had believed it was only going to be a fist fight, and who were trying to avoid the fight once they realised what they had got themselves into. Guys in their early 20s taking on guys in their mid-teens.
If this is what manliness has turned into, the world has officially turned upside down.
Now it's not uncommon for people to get stabbed and beaten in Melbourne, unfortunately. But once in a while a case emerges that exposes the culture of macho insanity that lies behind it.
This from a year ago:
A brawl in which a man was fatally stabbed at a suburban football oval was payback for a party fight among teenagers, a Melbourne court has heard. Nathan Roberts-Nunan, 20, died after being stabbed at Diggers Rest in February this year, and his mate Stephen Thorneycroft was critically injured.
Six men are facing committal proceedings charged with murder and attempted murder.
Those charged are: Ante Vucak, 18, of Cairnlea, Jovan Ogrizovic, 18, of Caroline Springs, Mladen Mrnjaus (Mladen Mrnjaus), 21, of St Albans, Tomislav Panic, 18, of Hillside, Tomislav Stevanja, 19, of Sunbury, Nikola Andreevski, 21, of Avondale Heights.
Nathan Smith, 18, of St Albans, pleaded guilty to murder on Monday.
Ryan Downes, 15, told the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Thursday that he had punched three youths at a birthday party the month before the stabbing after they took an interest in his sister.
Subsequently, Mr Downes' 16-year-old mate Kyle Nunan received a message on the MSN website asking him to take part in a fist fight the following Sunday at the Diggers Rest skate park in Melbourne's outer north.
Mr Nunan told the court the person messaging him said he was 16 years old and they agreed no weapons would be used. The person said he had heard about Mr Nunan picking on his mates.
In a statement to the court, Mr Nunan said he had heard rumours at school on the Friday before the fight that there would be baseball bats and knives at the fight. Under cross-examination, he said he took a knife to the fight because he did not know what to expect, but he did not use it. In his witness statement, Mr Downes said he saw a group of about 15 people walking across the oval. "They had their wog hair cuts, and I could see that they were carrying machetes and poles," he said. As they got near, the group started to sprint towards them, he said. One of the men yelled "St Albans", before the attack began, Mr Downes said.
"Then Nathan goes: `No trouble, no trouble," he said. "By this he meant that he didn't want to fight. Nathan didn't get a chance to run."
And this week:
The family of a man killed in a gang brawl at a suburban Melbourne football oval has clashed with supporters of three people jailed for their role in his death.Is this what they call "backing up your mates"?
Nathan Roberts-Nunan's family said the jail terms handed out to the three - the last of a dozen people sentenced over his death - were disgusting and a joke.
Mr Roberts-Nunan, 20, was struck with a baseball bat and then stabbed during the brawl at Diggers Rest in Melbourne's northwestern outskirts in February 2009 and died in hospital a few hours later.
He had gone to the skate park at the Diggers Rest Recreational Reserve with a friend - who was stabbed but survived - to support his younger brother who had been challenged to a fight.
On Thursday, Nikola Andreevski, 22, John Ray Garcia, 22, and a 17-year-old youth were jailed for a total of between five and six years for charges including manslaughter and affray.
Andreevski will serve at least three years before being eligible for parole, Garcia three years and nine months and the youth was given a non-parole period of three-and-a-half years.
The sentences angered both the accused's supporters and the victim's family, with many from both sides storming out of the Victorian Supreme Court.
One of the victim's sisters had to be restrained by a relative as she reached for the accused as they were led past. The confrontation continued outside the court, with both sides yelling abuse and the sister labelling the sentencing as disgusting.
"My brother's coming home one day. My brother's coming home," a brother of one of the accused yelled to Mr Roberts-Nunan's family.
Mr Roberts-Nunan's aunt Carmel Nunan hit out at the sentencing of all those involved and the behaviour of their supporters.
"What do I say here, 18 years of age, sob story, yet again, we're so sick of it," she told reporters.
"The thing is kids of this age, young men of this age, are over fighting wars in Afghanistan and are considered brave young men. But in courts like this they're considered immature and therefore their sentences are reduced. It's just double standards, and it's an absolute joke when you consider the severity of the crime and the brutality of the crime."
Justice Paul Coghlan said while the three did not inflict injury or cause death, everyone in the group was responsible at least to some degree for what happened.
He said the incident and the crime of affray involved an "unremitting senselessness and cowardly display of mob violence at its most extreme".
"I reiterate that this event at Diggers Rest was one of the worst examples of an affray which could be imagined," Justice Coghlan said. "I emphasise that you all chose to be part of it."
The court heard that Andreevski, of Avondale Heights in Melbourne's northwest, was towards the rear of the group that went across the oval and stopped when the attack began. Garcia, of nearby St Albans, was close to the victim's car during the attack but was unarmed, while the youth, 15 at the time, was one of those who attacked the vehicle.
In April, Nathan Smith, 19, of St Albans, was jailed for 22 years after pleading guilty to charges including murder and affray. He is appealing the severity of the sentence.
So it starts with the typical piece of young male stupidity that happens pretty regularly all over Melbourne. Teenagers throw a few punches in a dispute relating to a girl. That's dumb, but common. And it could have ended there.
It didn't. A subsequent challenge went out, a fight organised. Again, that's not all that uncommon these days. That said, there once was a time when people punched each other's lights out and then that was it.
What I find remarkable about this case is that it appears that most of the machete-wielding thugs did not even know the person they were attacking, or barely at all. The initial beef was between Kyle Nunan and Ante Vucak. Andreevski, Smith, Garcia, Mrjnaus and the others came armed to the teeth with molotov cocktails, poles, knives and machetes, to murder someone they had apparently never met. Just because their friend asked them to.
Having your friend's back is an essential part of the male code. Yet at some point it has become warped beyond recognition. You'd think that a true friend would have the sense to dissuade these people he allegedly cares about from committing an act that would land them in prison for a long time. But no. For a certain class of people, friendship is seemingly about willingness to commit murder of a complete stranger, just over some macho bullshit that is entirely someone else's business.
And the incident outside court this week - a brother of one of the sentenced men taunting the grieving family - shows that little has been learned from this horrible mistake. It's a throwback to the most primitive form of tribalism; murder is not instrinsically wrong, it's only wrong when it happens to one of my group. The way of thinking that propagates this cycle of violence lives on.
There's video of the incident outside court here.
The other bewildering aspect of this kind of behaviour is that undoubtedly the convicted men believed that what they were doing was the manly thing to do. Yes, the courageous, masculine course of action was to get a large mob of people armed with deadly weapons to attack a smaller group of people who had believed it was only going to be a fist fight, and who were trying to avoid the fight once they realised what they had got themselves into. Guys in their early 20s taking on guys in their mid-teens.
If this is what manliness has turned into, the world has officially turned upside down.
Friday, 12 November 2010
This time, it's a Islamist WOMAN who condones marital rape
In the UK, TV broadcaster Islam Channel has caught some heat this week for various comments that justified domestic violence. Most notably, one by a female host that seemed to think it's ok for a husband to force himself on his wife.
From The Guardian:
Now I'm down with multiculturalism, but as far as I'm concerned women's rights are more important than anyone's right to perpetuate or promote practices that oppress women.
And this brings me back to the issue of the burqa, which some countries are trying to ban. While I appreciate that this is a very complicated issue, I have previously expressed my sympathy for the moves to ban it. Because while banning a woman's right to wear a burqa is an oppressive act, the burqa itself is oppressive. Much is said about the burqa being a woman's choice, yet Nawaz is an example of how indoctrination to extremist versions of any religion can make women incapable of making sane choices in their own best interest. When a woman can proudly say on television that wives must not refuse their husband's advances, and that marital rape does not really exist, this is evidence that she lacks the real-life perspective to make a rational decision on this matter. A choice to accept oppression - be it a burqa or a husband's unwanted sexual advances - is not really a choice at all.
From The Guardian:
In a programme first broadcast in April last year, Ofcom ruled that the Islam Channel host Nazreen Nawaz condoned marital rape when she said: "And really the idea that a woman cannot refuse her husband's relations this is not strange to a Muslim because it is part of maintaining that strong marriage. But it shouldn't be such a big problem where the man feels he has to force himself upon the woman."Now, I'm not against Muslims, but I am strongly anti-extremist and anti-f*cking-idiot. And Nazreen Nawaz falls firmly into both categories. Despite being a clearly intelligent person - she's very articulate and is a qualified dentist - she constantly supports a outdated and misogynist view of the role of women. She's also previously suggested that women should not be in charge of Islamic countries. Nawaz is the UK's female representative of Hizb Ut-Tahrir, a group that has previously been banned in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Turkey, because they consider it too extremist.
The channel also broke the broadcasting code by encouraging violence against women, in a Q&A session on marital violence, and for labelling women who wore perfume "prostitutes".
The broadcaster, which was fined £30,000 by Ofcom in 2007 for a series of breaches, also broke impartiality regulations for broadcasting one-sided coverage of international affairs and the Middle East conflict.
Now I'm down with multiculturalism, but as far as I'm concerned women's rights are more important than anyone's right to perpetuate or promote practices that oppress women.
And this brings me back to the issue of the burqa, which some countries are trying to ban. While I appreciate that this is a very complicated issue, I have previously expressed my sympathy for the moves to ban it. Because while banning a woman's right to wear a burqa is an oppressive act, the burqa itself is oppressive. Much is said about the burqa being a woman's choice, yet Nawaz is an example of how indoctrination to extremist versions of any religion can make women incapable of making sane choices in their own best interest. When a woman can proudly say on television that wives must not refuse their husband's advances, and that marital rape does not really exist, this is evidence that she lacks the real-life perspective to make a rational decision on this matter. A choice to accept oppression - be it a burqa or a husband's unwanted sexual advances - is not really a choice at all.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
"The suspect is of Indian appearance..." Oh wait, no he's not.
I have written in the past here and here about some of the problems with ethnic descriptors of criminals. A news story this week raises more of these issues.
I was listening to the radio the other day and heard the report about a man who was suspected to have committed several sexual assaults at several Melbourne train stations. The most recent one involved him inappropriately touching a 13 year-old girl from behind while on an escalator at Flinders Street Station.
The description of him given on ABC774 was being "of Indian appearance."
Is this based on the police description? I'm not sure. They describe him here as "about 175 centimetres tall, of average build with black hair, tanned skin and was wearing a blue top". So did the radio station see the picture and make their own conclusions about his ethnic appearance?
Here's a photo of the man. You decide whether he is "of Indian appearance".
If you thought, "Nah, he doesn't really look Indian,", you'd be right. If I had to guess, I would pick him as someone from Northern Africa, of mixed African and Arabic ancestry.
Indeed, the man has been caught and has been found to be a 27 year-old Libyan student, Almahde Atagore. He has only been in Melbourne 41 days and has indecently assaulted at least 3 people.
Now for a member of the public in a position to help the police with their inquiries, would the description of him as "of Indian appearance" be helpful or not? I would guess not. This man only looks Indian if you don't really know what an Indian looks like. If I had seen Atagore walking around, and was then asked if I'd seen a man of Indian appearance, I don't know if I would make the connection. Fortunately they did catch him, and it was probably based on the visual footage rather than the radio's description.
The other issue is that radio reports like that are not particularly good PR for the Indian-Australian community. Recently I have heard of a number of widely-reported sexual assaults in Melbourne committed by men described as Indian (who were indeed either Indian or at least South Asian). My first reaction upon hearing this latest one was "Damn, another Indian?"
Perhaps that says something about the way I see the world. But I do not doubt that there will be many people who hear descriptions like that and use it to reinforce certain prejudices and stereotypes they have about Indians. I remember this case in which a Malaysian man was brutally bashed to death in Sydney by two men described as having olive skin and curly hair. Straight away a lot of people assumed the assailants must have been Lebanese or Pacific Islanders (two groups highly represented in cases of violent crime in Sydney). It turns out the men were Indonesian; but that initial reaction tells you a lot about preconceptions.
Describing someone as looking Indian can be useful, certainly. Everyone knows roughly what an Indian looks like, whereas using the more accurate term "South Asian", which is not all that commonly used in Australia, might actually confuse people - they might confuse it with merely "Asian", which in Australia is usually taken to mean someone of East Asian appearance.
Yet it is problematic at the same time. Yes, there are lots of Indians in Australia, but they are not the only South Asians. Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis also fall into this category. You will also find people from Mauritius, Nepal, Afghanistan, Iran and Burma who could accurately be described as "South Asian in appearance". Indeed, so could many people from the Middle East (and apparently, if this case is any guide, Afro-Arabs as well).
Indians, as the most prominent nationality of this bunch, end up carrying the can. We don't describe suspects as being "of Chinese appearance". So why Indian?
I was listening to the radio the other day and heard the report about a man who was suspected to have committed several sexual assaults at several Melbourne train stations. The most recent one involved him inappropriately touching a 13 year-old girl from behind while on an escalator at Flinders Street Station.
The description of him given on ABC774 was being "of Indian appearance."
Is this based on the police description? I'm not sure. They describe him here as "about 175 centimetres tall, of average build with black hair, tanned skin and was wearing a blue top". So did the radio station see the picture and make their own conclusions about his ethnic appearance?
Here's a photo of the man. You decide whether he is "of Indian appearance".
If you thought, "Nah, he doesn't really look Indian,", you'd be right. If I had to guess, I would pick him as someone from Northern Africa, of mixed African and Arabic ancestry.
Indeed, the man has been caught and has been found to be a 27 year-old Libyan student, Almahde Atagore. He has only been in Melbourne 41 days and has indecently assaulted at least 3 people.
Now for a member of the public in a position to help the police with their inquiries, would the description of him as "of Indian appearance" be helpful or not? I would guess not. This man only looks Indian if you don't really know what an Indian looks like. If I had seen Atagore walking around, and was then asked if I'd seen a man of Indian appearance, I don't know if I would make the connection. Fortunately they did catch him, and it was probably based on the visual footage rather than the radio's description.
The other issue is that radio reports like that are not particularly good PR for the Indian-Australian community. Recently I have heard of a number of widely-reported sexual assaults in Melbourne committed by men described as Indian (who were indeed either Indian or at least South Asian). My first reaction upon hearing this latest one was "Damn, another Indian?"
Perhaps that says something about the way I see the world. But I do not doubt that there will be many people who hear descriptions like that and use it to reinforce certain prejudices and stereotypes they have about Indians. I remember this case in which a Malaysian man was brutally bashed to death in Sydney by two men described as having olive skin and curly hair. Straight away a lot of people assumed the assailants must have been Lebanese or Pacific Islanders (two groups highly represented in cases of violent crime in Sydney). It turns out the men were Indonesian; but that initial reaction tells you a lot about preconceptions.
Describing someone as looking Indian can be useful, certainly. Everyone knows roughly what an Indian looks like, whereas using the more accurate term "South Asian", which is not all that commonly used in Australia, might actually confuse people - they might confuse it with merely "Asian", which in Australia is usually taken to mean someone of East Asian appearance.
Yet it is problematic at the same time. Yes, there are lots of Indians in Australia, but they are not the only South Asians. Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis also fall into this category. You will also find people from Mauritius, Nepal, Afghanistan, Iran and Burma who could accurately be described as "South Asian in appearance". Indeed, so could many people from the Middle East (and apparently, if this case is any guide, Afro-Arabs as well).
Indians, as the most prominent nationality of this bunch, end up carrying the can. We don't describe suspects as being "of Chinese appearance". So why Indian?
Monday, 2 August 2010
"Rape by deception" - for pretending to be Jewish?
Hear about this story? A woman in Israel shags a guy who she thinks is Jewish. Turns out he's actually an Arab. She goes to the police. Arab guy gets jailed for rape.
What do you reckon? The verdict sounds like a complete load of horsesh!t to me, but maybe I'm missing something here. Read it for yourself:
The original article is here. The man claims he never even told her he was Jewish, and she just assumed. I dunno... let's assume he did actually lie about it.
Now, let's be honest. People lie all the time to get sex. Mostly it is the men who do so. Is that wrong? Of course. Is that rape? Er...
I mean, fellas, let's be real. If you are about to get it on with someone who may be hot but you're not in love with, and he/she asks, "Do you love me?" what are you gonna say?
Further up the bullsh!t scale, some guys might go all out and lie their asses off to get some ass. You know, pretend they're single when they're not, or pretend they really do want a relationship when they are just out to hit it and quit it. Such guys are douchebags, no doubt. But not rapists, surely?
It sounds like Shabbar Kashur falls into this category. From the sounds of it, maybe he deserves to have the Jewish woman's brother kick his ass. But 18 months in jail, following 2 years of house arrest?
In the past, men have been charged with fraud for this kind of thing, according to this article. And I can maybe accept that. Because while he may have deceived her, she still entered the sexual act of her own free choice, right?
But where do you draw the line on this stuff? Because rape by deception certainly does and should exist as a legitimate and serious charge. For example, if someone knows they have HIV but tells you otherwise and has unprotected sex with you; or if someone who is 19 pretends to be 15 in order to have sex with someone underage. Those are two examples. But those are two pretty heinous things to happen. Finding out the guy was actually an Arab? That's in a totally different class, no matter whether you like Arabs or not.
And that's what I find quite repugnant about this. It seems based on the assumption that Shabbar Kashur's Arab-ness is a horrible trait akin to having a disease or taking advantage of young girls. You'd have to regard this as a racist decision, which is a reflection of the entitled attitude of a dominant majority population (in this case, Jews in Israel).
Rape is primarily about power and dominance. I just don't see that as a factor in the sex act here.
Perhaps the woman involved might realise that some of the old-fashioned values - like not sleeping with someone until you know them pretty well - actually have some basis in common sense. Not that I'm justifying his deception, but that's the risk you take when you are over-eager to jump in the sack with total strangers.
And don't for a minute think that I'm trying to minimise rape or its impact. I'm not at all. Indeed, I think cases like this are insulting to the many real victims of rape who need the help of a justice system which is being tied up by frivolous cases like this.
But I may well be wrong about all this, and I'm open to persuasion. Feel free to share your thoughts.
Interesting clip below about the case and the context in which it occurs.
What do you reckon? The verdict sounds like a complete load of horsesh!t to me, but maybe I'm missing something here. Read it for yourself:
A Palestinian man was convicted of rape in Jerusalem after he had consensual sex with a woman who he had tricked into thinking he was also Jewish. Shabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months behind bars after he accepted a plea bargain for the charge “rape by deception.”
Kashur first met the woman in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008. At the time, he had told her that he was a single Jewish man who was looking for a long term relationship. They talked for a minute, and then went to a nearby building and had sex, according to the complaint.
The woman later found out that the man was not Jewish at all, and was an Arab from East Jerusalem. She filed a criminal complaint for indecent assault and rape. Because he took the plea that was offered to him, the charges were lessened to rape by deception.
Arabs currently make up over 20 percent of the population in Israel, but relationships between the two cultures are rare amid the ongoing violence in the region. There are very few integrated neighborhoods in Israel, and even fewer relationships.
One judge said that even though the two of them had had consensual sex, the woman never would have said yes if she had realized that the man was not Jewish.
“If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she never would have cooperated,” the judges said.
The original article is here. The man claims he never even told her he was Jewish, and she just assumed. I dunno... let's assume he did actually lie about it.
Now, let's be honest. People lie all the time to get sex. Mostly it is the men who do so. Is that wrong? Of course. Is that rape? Er...
I mean, fellas, let's be real. If you are about to get it on with someone who may be hot but you're not in love with, and he/she asks, "Do you love me?" what are you gonna say?
Further up the bullsh!t scale, some guys might go all out and lie their asses off to get some ass. You know, pretend they're single when they're not, or pretend they really do want a relationship when they are just out to hit it and quit it. Such guys are douchebags, no doubt. But not rapists, surely?
It sounds like Shabbar Kashur falls into this category. From the sounds of it, maybe he deserves to have the Jewish woman's brother kick his ass. But 18 months in jail, following 2 years of house arrest?
In the past, men have been charged with fraud for this kind of thing, according to this article. And I can maybe accept that. Because while he may have deceived her, she still entered the sexual act of her own free choice, right?
But where do you draw the line on this stuff? Because rape by deception certainly does and should exist as a legitimate and serious charge. For example, if someone knows they have HIV but tells you otherwise and has unprotected sex with you; or if someone who is 19 pretends to be 15 in order to have sex with someone underage. Those are two examples. But those are two pretty heinous things to happen. Finding out the guy was actually an Arab? That's in a totally different class, no matter whether you like Arabs or not.
And that's what I find quite repugnant about this. It seems based on the assumption that Shabbar Kashur's Arab-ness is a horrible trait akin to having a disease or taking advantage of young girls. You'd have to regard this as a racist decision, which is a reflection of the entitled attitude of a dominant majority population (in this case, Jews in Israel).
Rape is primarily about power and dominance. I just don't see that as a factor in the sex act here.
Perhaps the woman involved might realise that some of the old-fashioned values - like not sleeping with someone until you know them pretty well - actually have some basis in common sense. Not that I'm justifying his deception, but that's the risk you take when you are over-eager to jump in the sack with total strangers.
And don't for a minute think that I'm trying to minimise rape or its impact. I'm not at all. Indeed, I think cases like this are insulting to the many real victims of rape who need the help of a justice system which is being tied up by frivolous cases like this.
But I may well be wrong about all this, and I'm open to persuasion. Feel free to share your thoughts.
Interesting clip below about the case and the context in which it occurs.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Attack on Indian man leads to Victoria's first race-hate charges
The state of Victoria has had in place racial vilification laws in place for almost a decade now, but only now will we see them in action. Three men have faced court in Frankston after allegedly physically assaulting and verbally abusing an Indian student.
22-year-old Graphics student Rajan Kumar Katkam was travelling on a bus from Frankston to Rye on February 6th this year when he was subjected to a 45 minute ordeal of punching, kicking and racial taunts by the young men.
He said that no one on the bus did anything about it, except for one old lady who tried to intervene, but was then herself threatened by the men.
Interestingly, the article at the Herald-Sun about this incident has a considerable number of comments that seem to blame the Indian student for the crime of being brown and riding a bus. They display hostility to the concept of a racial vilification law, which also spills over into hostility towards Indians and non-white people in general. Observe a selection:
And so on. "Mark of Knox" wants to know the ethnicity of the attackers and seems to think white Aussies couldn't have done this; although given the location of the attack, its unlikely to be anyone else other than a white Aussie. (Edit: it has been later revealed the three attackers are all in their mid-20s and named Jason Ritchie, Adam Baxter and David Potter.) "Brian Wood of Sunbury" seems to think the real victims of vilification are the upstanding young men who attacked Rajan Kumar Katkam and are now having their good names sullied by the accusation of racism. It's such an outrage that it makes him dislike Indians, as well as making him write all in capitals. Go figure. Meanwhile "James Stuart of Melbourne" seems to think these three violent offenders are political prisoners, heroes for the right to free speech. Hmmm...
Now, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for questioning the need for a racial vilification law; for example, you could argue that any harmful act would probably be covered under our penal code, and thus not require another charge on top of that. But the anger of those commenters is sorely misplaced in this case. They should direct it toward the actual villains, a trio of thugs who drunkenly assault people for looking foreign. Given the constant crowing by Herald-Sun readers for tougher sentencing, they should remember that a charge of racial hate may mean the offenders actually do some meaningful time behind bars.
22-year-old Graphics student Rajan Kumar Katkam was travelling on a bus from Frankston to Rye on February 6th this year when he was subjected to a 45 minute ordeal of punching, kicking and racial taunts by the young men.
He said that no one on the bus did anything about it, except for one old lady who tried to intervene, but was then herself threatened by the men.
Interestingly, the article at the Herald-Sun about this incident has a considerable number of comments that seem to blame the Indian student for the crime of being brown and riding a bus. They display hostility to the concept of a racial vilification law, which also spills over into hostility towards Indians and non-white people in general. Observe a selection:
Mark of Knox Posted at 10:11 AM July 28, 2010
OK,so you name the nationality of the Indians,lets be fair and name the nationality of the accused.Quiet often these offences are done by other ethnic groups as i have witnessed in this city on numerous occasions
Comment 2 of 52
Sid of Geelong Posted at 10:12 AM July 28, 2010
What about all the racial taunts issued by Indians against Australians in our own country. What goes around comes around.
Comment 3 of 52
JIMMY PO of South Melbourne Posted at 10:28 AM July 28, 2010
WHAT A JOKE AND WASTE OF TIME!
Comment 8 of 52
brian wood of sunbury Posted at 10:47 AM July 28, 2010
ITS ABUSIVE LANGUAGE NOT RACE, TO VILIFY AUSTRALIANS OR OTHERS OVER COMMENTS TO INDIANS WILL CREATE BIGGER RACE DIVIDES. NO SPECIAL LAWS FOR RACE OR INDIANS ARE REQUIRED, OLD LAWS COVER THIS ADEQUATLY. THIS ARTICLE EVEN NOW INCITES ME TO DISLIKE INDIANS, AND SIMMILAR WAS LIKELY THE CAUSE OF WHY THEY ABUSED HIM. TREAT PEOPLE AS PEOPLE NOT RACE.
Comment 12 of 52
Nathan of Melb Posted at 12:06 PM July 28, 2010
Why are we bending over backwards and creating new laws for immigrants . You can't even read shop signs in some areas now as they are all in other languages. Australia takes more care of immigrants and listens more to them than people who have lived here all their lives. White Australians will soon be the most disadvantaged in our society.
Comment 25 of 52
NJS of Melb Posted at 12:11 PM July 28, 2010
I bet if the victim was white this wouldn't be going to court.
Comment 26 of 52
James Stuart of Melbourne Posted at 12:52 PM July 28, 2010
Why is expressing an opinion that you want your country to remain white a crime? Sure they allegedly assaulted him, and should be brought to account, however, the scary thing is they are ALSO being dragged into court for expressing a political, racial and deeply held opinion. Now THATS the scary thing.. Victoria..Welcome to the Gulag state. Where voicing a dissenting opinion is now a CRIMINAL offence!! Imaging YOU being arrested for being a Liberal voter when a Labour government was in power. Or vice versa. Holding an opinion NO MATTER HOW REPREHENSIBLE is NOT and must NEVER be a crime!!! Lets hope the courts throw those charges out as being unconstitutional and a breach of International Human rights laws. On the assault charges, lets hope they receive a fair and impartial trial and are NOT held to account simply because of their political beliefs!!!
Comment 33 of 52
And so on. "Mark of Knox" wants to know the ethnicity of the attackers and seems to think white Aussies couldn't have done this; although given the location of the attack, its unlikely to be anyone else other than a white Aussie. (Edit: it has been later revealed the three attackers are all in their mid-20s and named Jason Ritchie, Adam Baxter and David Potter.) "Brian Wood of Sunbury" seems to think the real victims of vilification are the upstanding young men who attacked Rajan Kumar Katkam and are now having their good names sullied by the accusation of racism. It's such an outrage that it makes him dislike Indians, as well as making him write all in capitals. Go figure. Meanwhile "James Stuart of Melbourne" seems to think these three violent offenders are political prisoners, heroes for the right to free speech. Hmmm...
Now, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for questioning the need for a racial vilification law; for example, you could argue that any harmful act would probably be covered under our penal code, and thus not require another charge on top of that. But the anger of those commenters is sorely misplaced in this case. They should direct it toward the actual villains, a trio of thugs who drunkenly assault people for looking foreign. Given the constant crowing by Herald-Sun readers for tougher sentencing, they should remember that a charge of racial hate may mean the offenders actually do some meaningful time behind bars.
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Melbourne thugs face court for Indian-bashing
Two groups of young men have been in court these last few weeks over unrelated incidents of assault on Indian students last year in the Western suburbs Melbourne.
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
From this story we can see a pattern that is becoming all too common. If they wanted money, they could have threatened Singh and he would have given it to them. But instead, clearly the motivation was the rush of inflicting their violence and dominance on another individual. And while not all the assaults on Indians in Melbourne have been racist in nature, only a fool (or a defence barrister) would deny the spectre of racism here. Racism, to my mind, not only motivated their choice to target Lucky Singh, but influenced their decision to severely beat him rather than just rob and scare him.
Also from Melbourne, this time the Herald-Sun:
Obviously there has been an angry reaction to this soft sentence; however it is important to remember that Ngor apparently did not take part in the actual beating, but was merely part of the group that did so. In any case, the real injustice seems to be that the other youths involved, who presumably did actively attack Kharbanda, could not be given any meaningful punishment because of their young age. Considering that Melbourne is currently experiencing an upsurge of violence by teenagers, the toothlessness of the legal system when sentencing them is no doubt a contributing factor.
Want another example? Try this one from Adelaide:
Predictably, the police are claiming there is no evidence of racism, and the Indian media are describing it as a racial attack. Whether it is racial or not, one can't help but get the feeling that the police would downplay racism every time, and the Indian media would see racism every time. In this instance I suspect the Indian media might have it right though.
UPDATE:
Just came across this at The Australian, dated July 15:
See also: Addressing the myths and misconceptions about violence against Indians in Australia
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Three young men drove around searching for an Indian to rob before setting on a student in a phone booth and bashing him unconscious, a court has heard.
The Victorian County Court heard Aleksander Trifunovic drove his friends Shayne Comensoli and Lennon Metaxas around Melbourne's west, looking for an Indian person to rob on the night of October 15, 2009.
Comensoli and Metaxas, who had been drinking at a local hotel, spotted Indian student Lucky Singh, 23, in a phone booth in Sunshine.
The 20-year-olds got out of the car and attacked him about 1.30am.
Prosecutor Amelia Macknay said the pair believed a person of Indian ethnicity was most likely to have cash on them.
During the assault, Metaxas punched Mr Singh in the face so hard he fell to the ground.
Comensoli held him while Metaxas punched him repeatedly as Mr Singh screamed in pain and fear.
Comensoli repeatedly said, "Shut up, you Indian mother******," and then said, "Now it's my turn".
He swapped places with Metaxas and delivered more blows.
Mr Singh was hit up to 20 times to his head and face and curled up on the ground covering his head with his arms.
But the pair picked him up, dumped him on a park bench and continued the attack.
Mr Singh was left bleeding and unconscious on the footpath, suffering bone fractures, severe swelling and bruising.
The pair stole $80 in cash from his wallet and split it between them, then called for Trifunovic, 20, to collect them.
Mr Singh, who had been living in Victoria for eight months, said in his victim statement the attack had shattered his confidence and he suffered flashbacks. "I'm too scared to walk at night," he said. "My life has completely changed. I feel scared to go outside."
Mr Singh said he had thought Australians were welcoming and friendly but had changed his mind.
Police arrested the trio soon after the assault.
Trifunovic told police the pair had offered him $10 for his role but he refused the money. He said the trio had driven around Sunshine looking for an Indian for "10 minutes, tops".
Comensoli pleaded guilty to intentionally causing serious injury and robbery, while Trifunovic pleaded guilty to aiding a robbery.
Defence barrister Ron Tait denied there was a racial aspect to Trifunovic's crimes.
He said the crime was shocking but his client was still young with a clean record, and asked that he be spared jail.
The crown called for jail terms for Comensoli and Trifunovic. County Court Judge Meryl Sexton said she would need to consider what part racism played in the attack. Comensoli's pre-sentencing hearing was adjourned pending a psychology and youth justice report. Metaxas was sentenced in March to three years in a youth justice centre, after pleading guilty to intentionally causing serious injury and robbery.
From this story we can see a pattern that is becoming all too common. If they wanted money, they could have threatened Singh and he would have given it to them. But instead, clearly the motivation was the rush of inflicting their violence and dominance on another individual. And while not all the assaults on Indians in Melbourne have been racist in nature, only a fool (or a defence barrister) would deny the spectre of racism here. Racism, to my mind, not only motivated their choice to target Lucky Singh, but influenced their decision to severely beat him rather than just rob and scare him.
Also from Melbourne, this time the Herald-Sun:
A GANG of youths whose bashing of an Indian man blinded him in one eye have all avoided jail.
Majang Ngor, 20, the last of the gang to face court, was yesterday given an eight-month suspended jail term for the unprovoked attack on Kanan Kharbanda (pictured below). Prosecutors had wanted him jailed for four years.
But Judge Susan Cohen said this would be unjust, given the penalties imposed on gang members who were more culpable. Ngor hadn't been an instigator or a ringleader.
At least three other youths - who can't be named because of their age - were given nine-month youth supervision orders in the Children's Court. The Director of Public Prosecutions is appealing against those sentences. Ngor pleaded guilty in the County Court to recklessly causing serious injury, intentionally causing injury, robbery, and attempted robbery over the March 2008 bashing. Mr Kharbanda, an accounting student, had been walking a friend to Sunshine station. One of Ngor's group demanded a dollar before hitting Mr Kharbanda in the face. Others joined in, kicking and punching; his friend was also hit and kicked to the ground. Mr Kharbanda suffered a fractured eye socket and broken nose. He has lost the sight in his right eye.
Crime Victims Support Association president Noel McNamara said it was beyond belief that the youths had been let off "scot free". "It's disgraceful. The Indian community has the right - all citizens have the right - to be up in arms about it," he said.
Ngor told police they'd been drinking at a party and one of the group had suggested they go "hustling".
He admitted joining the pack, but denied striking either victim.
Judge Cohen said the Sudanese refugee had since worked hard to reform himself. To his credit he'd finished year 12, got a stable job, and had stopped binge-drinking. She said he hadn't caused the worst injuries, but had helped those who did. Violence at railway stations was of major public concern, but the matter was "less serious" than if weapons had been used. The judge suspended the jail term for 15 months and ordered Ngor to do 40 hours of community work, saying the greatest public benefit would come from his rehabilitation.
Shadow attorney-general Robert Clark said it was extraordinary that none would spend time behind bars and said it is weak sentencing laws that allowed the gang members to walk free.
"The victim of this crime will suffer a lifetime sentence with his injuries while the offenders are being let off with just a few hours of community service," he said.
"Imposing suspended sentences does nothing to build respect for the law, yet under John Brumby's weak sentencing laws vicious crimes like this bashing will continue to qualify for suspended sentences. In contrast, a Baillieu Government will abolish suspended sentences for all crimes so that jail will mean jail," he said.
Obviously there has been an angry reaction to this soft sentence; however it is important to remember that Ngor apparently did not take part in the actual beating, but was merely part of the group that did so. In any case, the real injustice seems to be that the other youths involved, who presumably did actively attack Kharbanda, could not be given any meaningful punishment because of their young age. Considering that Melbourne is currently experiencing an upsurge of violence by teenagers, the toothlessness of the legal system when sentencing them is no doubt a contributing factor.
Want another example? Try this one from Adelaide:
A group of international students, mostly Indians, in the Australian city of Adelaide are living in constant fear after a gang fire-bombed three of their cars Tuesday, the latest incident in a series of continuing attacks that have damaged 12 cars in three months.
The students, who live in a block of 13 South Australian Student Housing Association units in Greenacres, say the early morning fire-bomb attack has left the residents very worried. Adelaide Now quoted Yasif Multani, 28, as saying that a group of up to 15 local teenagers were believed to be responsible for the string of attacks. Two vehicles owned by Multani were torched in the early hours of Tuesday.
He said the attacks had led to more than 12 cars being damaged in the past three months, mail being stolen from letter boxes, racist graffiti being painted and garbage bins being emptied on the streets. Car windscreens have also been smashed in the complex and one night a couch on a veranda was set ablaze. Multani said a friend of his saw a teenager on a bicycle throw a petrol bomb through the windscreen of a car early Tuesday.
"These people know when we are here and when we are working. They watch us. They know everything we do. They know which cars are ours and they have not damaged the cars of non-international students parked in this area. People are scared. At night time (the offenders) are banging on the doors and running away," Multani said.
Predictably, the police are claiming there is no evidence of racism, and the Indian media are describing it as a racial attack. Whether it is racial or not, one can't help but get the feeling that the police would downplay racism every time, and the Indian media would see racism every time. In this instance I suspect the Indian media might have it right though.
UPDATE:
Just came across this at The Australian, dated July 15:
BRISBANE's Indian community fears it could fall prey to the same outbreaks of racial violence that have gripped Sydney and Melbourne.
There have been two attacks on their students at the same suburban railway station in two months.
In the most recent assault, 23-year-old Sukdeb was stabbed in the neck and chest, and beaten with a tree branch by two young white men, who are still at large. One of the knife wounds penetrated his chest, missing his heart by just 5cm. "They attacked us straight away . . . I tried to speak to him, but he stabbed me," Sukdeb told the Nine Network yesterday. "They were totally drunk. They don't know what they were doing." Sukdeb has been recovering at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, and could be released today.
Coopers Plains station, which is just 1km from Griffith University's Nathan campus, was also the scene of an attack last month, in which an Indian student was attacked and robbed.
Griffith University Indian Students Association president Parth Raval said the student was attacked from behind, his attackers banging his head against a pillar.
See also: Addressing the myths and misconceptions about violence against Indians in Australia
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Another reason for racists to stay off the internet
In the age of Facebook, Myspace and their other less popular cousins (Bebo, Tagged, Friendster, etc) all kinds of information about an individual is out there in the public domain for all to see. And while some of that information might be fine for your circle of like-minded compadres, you may not necessarily want prospective employers finding out what you REALLY think about those stinking immigrants. Likewise, when you get busted for drunkenly assaulting and abusing several non-white people and are trying to convince the judge you are not a racist, posting your hateful views on a social networking site may not be the smartest thing you have ever done, in hindsight...
The two brothers seem like pretty troubled individuals, as you can see from this story; their father was killed while drunkenly confronting someone with an axe, which probably tells you quite a bit about their upbringing. But you could also point out that having a Myspace page with images like these (left) are pretty clear signs of a troubled persona also. I won't claim to know the minds of these two men, but perhaps it is evidence of how hatred can be an easy refuge for those who are dealt a sh*tty hand in life.
RACISTS, THUGS AND COWARDS
TWO Hobart brothers are behind bars after admitting to a series of shocking racist attacks on strangers.
Samuel Craig Bigwood, 20, and Benjamin Nigel Bigwood, 18, both from Claremont, yesterday admitted punching and kicking two young university students in North Hobart last September 26.
Samuel also admitted bashing an African refugee on the same night after telling him he was a "black dog" and "not a human being".
The Supreme Court in Hobart was shown printouts from Samuel's MySpace page, which is full of white supremacist slogans and racist images.
The court heard the brothers got drunk at the Mustard Pot in Moonah before catching a taxi to North Hobart.
Samuel Bigwood later said he had consumed between 15 and 25 "Bundy and Cokes".
As taxi driver Fayia Isaiah Lahai drove the brothers and a third man towards the city, Samuel said to him: "You're a black dog animal and not a human being."
Mr Lahai said: "I am a human being, just like you", to which Samuel replied: "You are not."
He punched the driver twice to the face and three times to his ear.
The men then got out of the cab without paying the fare, but not before Samuel poured the contents of his beer into the car.
The three men got cash from the Commonwealth Bank ATM on the busy Elizabeth St restaurant strip in North Hobart, just as university students Ryan Brown and Andrew Farquhar were approaching.
The Bigwoods made comments to Mr Brown, whose mother is Indonesian, to the effect of: "You'd better watch yourself" and "He's just a f...ing Asian."
They also called him a "Chink".
Crown prosecutor Tony Jacobs said Mr Brown, 21, gave the thumbs-up sign and tried to walk on, but was attacked by the trio.
He was punched in the head a number of times, knocked down and repeatedly kicked.
When Mr Farquhar tried to intervene he too was punched and kicked repeatedly to the head and body.
Police were called and the three were arrested as they tried to flee.
Mr Brown suffered a fractured eye socket and still experiences reduced sight and nightmares.
Mr Jacobs condemned the attack on Mr Lahai, who he said was vulnerable as a taxi driver working at night.
The refugee from Sierra Leone had worked long hours to support his wife and four children while he finished his university studies, but had since given up the job out of fear, Mr Jacobs said.
Samuel Bigwood's lawyer Kim Baumeler argued the attacks were not racially motivated and her client had in fact enjoyed spending time with people of various races.
"He's mortified that these incidents are being portrayed as ... racist attacks," Ms Baumeler said.
That assertion was rejected after Mr Jacobs produced images from Samuel's MySpace page, which is full of racist slogans such as "100% white, 100% proud" and "f..k off we're full" on a map of Australia.
Justice Peter Evans said it was clear Samuel was "contemptuous of people of a different race" and prone to drunken violence against those he considered "his inferiors".
Benjamin Bigwood's lawyer Garth Stevens said his client was an industrious young man with an excellent future ahead of him.
"This was an aberration, as bad as it was, that won't be repeated," Mr Stevens said.
"He doesn't go out at all or very rarely since the events of this night."
The court heard the men's father Nigel Bigwood was murdered after a bar-room brawl in Zeehan in 2004 and both were terrified of running into their father's killer in prison.
Samuel pleaded guilty to three counts of assault and Benjamin pleaded guilty to two counts.
They were remanded in custody and will be sentenced on Monday. Their mother broke down in tears as they were taken into custody.
The two brothers seem like pretty troubled individuals, as you can see from this story; their father was killed while drunkenly confronting someone with an axe, which probably tells you quite a bit about their upbringing. But you could also point out that having a Myspace page with images like these (left) are pretty clear signs of a troubled persona also. I won't claim to know the minds of these two men, but perhaps it is evidence of how hatred can be an easy refuge for those who are dealt a sh*tty hand in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






