One. A gang of Muslim girls kick a white girl, who is lying on the ground, repeatedly in the head and pull her hair out, leaving a bald patch, while shouting "kill the white slag" and "white bitch". As the court deems the attacks out of character because the girls were "not used to drinking", they are given suspended sentences. The attack, which was caught on CCTV, was not held to be racially-aggravated. The victim has since had to give up her job due to panic attacks and flashbacks.
Two. A white woman on a tram delivers a foul-mouthed and ignorant tirade against "blacks" and "Polish", which is captured on video by another passenger and out on YouTube. Although her remarks were hostile and unpleasant, no-one was physically harmed during her outburst. She is currently being held on remand until 3 January - effectively already serving a sentence of over a month's imprisonment- and has had her child taken away from her. She is being held in a prison with the highest security rating, along with the most serious female criminals.
I'm trying to make sense of this. It would seem, in the words of Dr Sean Gabb in an excellent summary of the situation here, to be an example of "grotesque double standards". The perpetrators in both cases were young and female, so there are no 'gender issues' to take into account. Both cases involved racist attitudes, expressed openly - one as the justification for the attack and one as the basis of a verbal tirade.
There are only two differences between the cases to justify such disparate treatment, as far as can see. One is that the first case involved physical violence, whereas the second was merely a verbal rant. In any sane society, the violence would be punished far more severely than the verbal attack, but this appears to be reversed in these cases. The second is that one set of perpetrators were Somali Muslims and the other was a white working-class woman. Apparently, your racial origin is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Which is racist, but never mind that.
We're in a looking-glass world, folks.
XX She is being held in a prison with the highest security rating, along with the most serious female criminals.XX
ReplyDeleteThe greater majority of whom are....black and Polish?
"Although her remarks were hostile and unpleasant"
ReplyDeleteHostile maybe, but unpleasant they were not, well, not to me anyway. If these were her opinions, she has every right to voice them and I support that right even though I may not personally agree with what she said. The concept is called free speech.
She is a political prisoner who has committed no crime.
OK, the tone was pretty hostile and I found her remarks unpleasant. I think we'd agree on the free speech thing, though. She had the right to say what she did, and everyone else on the bus had the right to tell her she was a nasty bigot. Time was, that would have been the end of it, sticks and stones, and all that.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that she is in prison awaiting (charge? trial? not sure) is an outrage, bearing in mind that she harmed no-one, even if she made people uncomfortable. Apparently, kicking someone in the head is much less reprehensible these days.
she should sue when she gets out !!
ReplyDelete"The fact that she is in prison awaiting (charge? trial? not sure) is an outrage, bearing in mind that she harmed no-one, even if she made people uncomfortable."
ReplyDeleteYes - the truth often hurts.
As far as I know she is on remand awaiting trial. She was refused bail "for her own protection". Also, as far as I have read about it, witnesses at the court confirmed that what started it off was one of the other passengers spitting on the floor at her feet. I've watched the video, and she appears to be the only white person in the tram car (I could be wrong on that).
Maverick - I doubt it. A month in with some of the nastiest people, and the threat of having her children put into care should be enough to make her very humble and apologetic by the time she gets to trial. I wish I was wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - 'nasty bigot' was the (possible) response of those on the tram. I suppose 'bigot' does include the idea of 'nasty', although Gordon Brown was careful just to say 'bigot'. As to the four Muslim girls, well yes, 'nasty' is a pretty good description, and their behaviour could well be described as 'savage'. Deporting them? Probably not, or we would have to start deporting a lot of UK natives as well. I think a bit of decent justice would take care of it for me. Violent crime, bodily harm, severe sentence, whoever you are. That'll do.
Ripper - I know she is on remand, but not sure if she has been charged yet, or with what. The spitting business is just rumour as yet, but it would provide an explanation for what was otherwise an unusually straight-speaking episode in these politically-correct times.
It'd provide an explanation for why we don't see the start of the incident on tape, too....
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that this would be explained by the delay in getting the camera out (or the phone set to video record) when the person realised there was something worth recording (and posting on the internet). But it would be interesting to see what led up to this incident. It could hardly have happened out of the blue. In the world of Alf Garnett, perhaps, but not today. I suspect some provocation, at the very least.
ReplyDelete