Weinstein Is a Model of Liberal Values

Image credit: Evan Agostini/Getty Images

Of all the sordid details to emerge thus far from the burgeoning Harvey Weinstein scandal, there’s one that creeps me out above all else.
No, I don’t mean the potted plant jerk-off scene, or the shower jerk-off scenes or the scene where he sits jerking off to some rare nude footage of Meg Ryan…

I mean the one right near the beginning of the scandal, where he announced how he was going to make everything better:

“I am going to need a place to channel my anger so I’ve decided I’m going to give the NRA my full attention.”

Let us pause awhile to relish that moment, because I don’t think history will ever provide us with a better example of what’s wrong not just with Hollywood in particular, but with liberalism in general. Let us bathe in the truly Augean disgustingness, the moral bankruptcy of Wankstain’s message to a world which he has personally done so much to deprave, demean and debase.

What Weinstein is saying, basically is this:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Judy Finnigan – and Why the ‘War on Women’ Is Really a War on Freedom of Expression

Daytime TV presenter Judy Finnigan has been forced to apologise after claiming on ITV’s debate programme Loose Women that an act of rape committed by a footballer was “not violent” and “didn’t cause any bodily harm” to his victim who “had far much to drink.” Why?

I don’t mean “Why did some viewers feel sufficiently moved to vent their half-baked insights on Twitter?” That one’s a given: we live in a culture of licensed offence-taking.

Rather what I mean is: “Why was Judy Finnigan compelled to surrender to the social media Social Justice Warrior bully mob?”

“RAPE IS RAPE, JUDY. Moron,” observed one Twitter user, employing the popular “‘Shut up!’ she explained” technique beloved by social media campaigners.

No it isn’t. And this was the point – however clumsily – that Judy Finnigan was trying to make: as befits the role of a panellist in what is supposed to be a free and open debate programme in which strong, contentious opinions are expressed.

If all “rape” were the same, judges’ jobs would be a lot easier. All they’d have to do once the crime had been established to the satisfaction of the court would be to hand out the one-size-fits-all, standard rape sentence.

Does anyone – even the most rabid, #waronwomen crusader – think that such a state of affairs would be just or appropriate?

Well I’d hope not. There’s a world of difference between being raped at knifepoint by a stranger on a beach – as once happened to a beloved relative of mine – and, say, a messy student fumbling that went badly awry after the girl decided the next day once she recovered from her hangover and read an article by Lena Dunham that at no stage in the procedings had she announced her full consent, then signed it in triplicate in unicorn blood.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. On Gamergate – and why Grand Theft Auto V is the Helm’s Deep of freedom of expression
  2. Luvvies for hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty and lazy groupthink
  3. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one
  4. Freedom of speech is dead in Australia


Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism

Q: When is the sexual abuse of children culturally, socially and politically acceptable?

A: When it’s committed with industrial efficiency by organised gangs of mainly Pakistani men in English Northern towns like Burnley, Oldham and Rotherham, of course.

But obviously you’re not allowed to admit this or you might sound racist. That’s why, for example, in today’s BBC report into the fact that at least 1400 children were subjected to “appalling” sexual abuse in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, you have to wade 20 paragraphs in before finally you discover the ethnic identity of the perpetrators.

And even then, the embarrassing fact slips out only with the most blushing mealy-mouthedness:

By far the majority of perpetrators of abuse were described as “Asian” by victims.

Well hang on, a second. What this phrase seems to be hinting at is the possibility that the men involved weren’t “Asian” (note to US readers: Asian is UK PC-speak for Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, not orientals) but that the victims mistakenly took them to be so. Is that actually the case or not?

Let’s have a look at the names of the Rotherham men found guilty by Sheffield Crown Court in 2010 of raping or sexually abusing girls as young as 12 shall we. Maybe that’ll help.

  • Zafran Ramzan
  • Razwan Razaq
  • Umar Razaq
  • Adil Hussain
  • Mohsin Khan

Nope. Absolutely no clues there, then…

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. What the BBC didn’t want you to know about the Belfast ‘Romanians’
  2. Why I’m cancelling my kids’ subscription to The Beano
  3. Build-a-bear: the sinister green plot to turn our kids into eco-fascist Manchurian candidates
  4. There was nothing ‘illiberal’ about David Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism

One thought on “Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism”

  1. Crystyn says:27th August 2014 at 1:21 pmQuite frankly, I don’t believe this explanation. It makes the people look more stupid – as if they’re not already. Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong shouldn’t be working in the positions they are. They’re being paid to do a job they’re not doing. Time to boot them out so that those who do know the difference between right and wrong can take over.I’m glad to see that Roger Stone has now handed in his resignation. At least I know he’s truly sorry for having turned a blind eye. Shaun Wright, the Chief Inspector and now the Police and Crime Commissioner, should be the next to resign. He’s paid a lot of money to do his job, which clearly in this case he failed to do. Saying sorry is simply not good enough. In a case like this, it’s meaningless.AND FINALLY, Barnardos’ Chief Executive, Khan, should lose his job as well because he gives a bad name to Barnados. On his interview with Eamonn Holmes he came across as rather robotic in his replies, giving well rehearsed replies such as “we must ensure this never happens again” and “there are lessons to be learned”. None of his replies came from his heart or even spontaneous. I’ll never ever support Barnardos.

Comments are closed.

Why Ken Clarke Should Stay

Soft on crime but . . .

Rape is a very complex issue

Rape is a very complex issue

No I’m not happy, either, that Ken Clarke is our Justice Minister. He’s soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime. He doesn’t believe that prison works whereas all the evidence suggests it does – if only through the simple expedient of keeping off the streets habitual criminals who would otherwise be out there doing the rest of us a mischief. He is there not because he is any good or because he has anything useful to offer the country (let alone his party) but as a cynical expedient on Cameron’s part to suck up to his Lib Dem Coalition partners by appointing to cabinet positions “Tories” so irredeemably left-wing they make Simon Hughes look like Augusto Pinochet.

If Clarke were sacked tomorrow no one would be more delighted than me. But I’d like it to be for the right reasons: because of what he stands for politically rather than for an ill-phrased remark made in the heat of the moment in a radio interview.

Yesterday I watched Clarke trying to explain away his unfortunate remarks on rape in an interview with Nick Robinson – and only digging himself a deeper hole. And what I felt for him was huge empathy. Had Robinson been viciously skewering him on the disastrous consequences which are certain to result from Clarke’s liberal sentencing policies I would have rejoiced and revelled in the Justice Secretary’s every last sweaty, blubbery squirm. Instead, Clarke was being steered to the brink of political suicide for a slip so venial it doesn’t even count as thought crime – because I’m quite sure Clarke doesn’t even “think” the thing he’s supposed to have meant.

Much has been made of Clarke’s chuckle as he defended his position. Well wouldn’t you have laughed nervously had you been in his shoes? Here you are: a career politician, of such long service you saw action under Margaret Thatcher, so skilled in the art of political swordsmanship that no interviewer, however experienced, can bypass your guard to prick your pachydermal hide. And suddenly, you find yourself placed in a position where you’re trying to argue that there are two kinds of rape – “good” rape and “bad” rape – and saying to yourself: “Hang on. How on earth did I end up here?”

If we weren’t so worked up in our fit of righteous moral rage, most of us would concede that the point Clarke was trying to make was perfectly unexceptionable. Of course the kind of violent rape committed against a woman by a predatory stranger is of a different order to the kind of rape which a hungover woman decides the day after may have been committed against her during a night’s heavy drinking with a friend she’s not sure whether or not she fancies. The fact that both extremities of crime embrace the terribly emotive “r” word represents a big problem for judges, juries and police prosecutors. Clarke – I suspect – was doing no more than try to reflect these complexities in an honest way.

Many of Clarke’s many enemies must be thinking rather they are of Chris Huhne: who cares why he gets booted out – just so long as he’s booted out, that’s the important thing. But I’m not so sure about this. I think it goes to the heart of what has gone wrong with our relationship with the political class: we’re obsessed with presentation at the expense of substance, with how well they come across on Any Questions or how effectively they parry Jeremy Paxman, rather than with their core values and with the policies they are trying to impose on us.

Sometimes, of course, the two are connected. For example, you could argue that Chris Huhne’s alleged lack of probity concerning his speeding ticket – not to mention the brazenness with which he is trying to ride out these allegations now – has a direct bearing on his probity as a politician. If (allegedly) he’s capable of lying about a driving offence, how can we be sure he’s not lying about, say, the cost and efficacy of “renewable” energy?

But in Clarke’s case the connection is not so clear. The man is a bleeding heart liberal not some DSK lothario who thinks all women are secretly gagging for it. The fact that he is now being pilloried for being otherwise reflects on nothing more than (uncharacteristically) poor presentational skills.

Is this really how we want to judge our politicians? On how smoothly and effectively they lie to us? On how cleverly they sneak under our radar policies that are going to ruin our lives? If it is, we deserve the appalling governments we have had for the last 13 years. It was presentational skills that kept Blair in power so long; it’s this same obsession with appearances (eg doling out £8 billion of foreign aid because it looks nice, not because it works) which tells you everything you need to know about Cameron and his dismal Coalition.

We deserve better than this. A man like Ken Clarke should be sacked not because he looks like an idiot but because he is an idiot. And there is a difference, you know.

Related posts:

  1. Kenneth Clarke is right about Europe
  2. A rude shock for fake Tories
  3. Is Edward McMillan-Scott the most tedious, annoying and ghastly member in the entire Euro parliament?
  4. Why would anyone want to vote Tory? (pt II)