#M103

Crime in London – The Bill’s Feb 2018 snapshot isn’t pretty

3B18DFFD-6270-4B46-AAF5-6FD78180A2B6.jpeg

The Met Police in London has listed the following year on year trends in crime as at Feb 2018 as follows:

Murder: +42.4%

Robbery of personal property: +41.0%

Burglary – residential: +33.5%

Theft from Person: +32.1%

Burglary – commercial: +32.0%

Violence w/ Offensive Weapon: +32.1%

Rape: +20.3%

Motor Vehicle Interference/Tampering: +19.9%

Motor Vehicle Theft: +17.3%

Theft or Push Bike: +15.6%

Theft from Motor Vehicle: +15.4%

Fraud & Forgery: +13.7%

Common Assault: +9.4%

Sexual Assault: +8.5%

Violence causing grievous bodily harm: +7.7%

Drug Possession: -5.9%

A pretty sorry tale of crime rates in London. The trends since 2014 have been a reasonably steady upward climb. Last year, 891,507 crimes were logged by the police.

The Met has also listed a hate crime section on its website. The YoY stats vs Feb 2018 are as follows:

Anti-Semitic: -1.89% (+40.5% month on month)

Domestic Abuse: +5.8%

Faith Hate Crime: +20.1%

Gun Crime (Lethal Barrel Discharge): +14.2%

Homicide: +35.5%

Homophobic Hate Crime: +3.5%

Islamophobia: +34.4% (-39.0% month on month)

Knife Crime: +26.0%

Knife Crime (w/ injury): +11.7%

Where to avoid in London based on YoY figures?

Knife crime in the Borough of Enfield is +52.2%

Islamophobia in Westminster is +95.4%

Homicide in Southwark is +83.3%

Anti-Semitic hate crime in Harrow +228.6%

Taser Deployments year on year in Feb 2018: +8.7%

15% of the 2649 Taser deployments were in Lambeth and Tower Hamlets.

Is it a question of police being hamstrung from taking more heavy handed responses to crime by enforcing political correct responses or are they just too stretched?

From the London General Assembly:

“Since 2010-11, the Met’s general grant funding from the Government has fallen by more than £700 million, or nearly 40 per cent in real terms, on a like-for-like basis. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, will commit today to investing an additional £110million into the Metropolitan Police in the next year.

Budget cuts have led to the loss of a third of police staff posts, which are down from 14,330 to 9,985, as well as two-thirds of police community support officer (PSCO) posts, which are down from 4,607 to 1,591. In addition, there are now 114 fewer police station front counters and 120 fewer police buildings.“

There were 1146 Anti-Semitic hate crimes against a 168,000 Jewish population in London vs 1,741 Islamophobic reported hate crimes against the 607,000 Muslims living in the British capitol. So Jews, per head of population, are 2.3x more likely to face hate crimes than Muslims according to the Met’s statistics.

 

Trudeau pushes for more compelled speech

98A8538A-3D24-4B8B-9B18-B23DB06116B4

You can’t make this stuff up. The Trudeau government plans to ban front-line public service workers from saying Mr., Mrs., Mother, and Father. In what can only be seen as another push toward more compelled speech legislation,  the majority have to put up with more political correct nonsense for the benefit of peoplekind.

Seriously though, if someone is going to be so irreparably mentally damaged by the misuse of a pronoun that it requires legislation to protect he/she/xie, the victim has far bigger issues that require immediate help. How fragile can one be?

The beauty is that for the 99% of us that identity with our biological make-up must make way for the 1% of which it’s actually only 1% of that who would benefit from this legislation. Take the same sex marriage debate in Australia. The 2015 Census showed that only 0.03% of all couples identified as a traditional marriage and same sex. It isn’t questioning equal rights but most campaigners had next to no idea how many it truly impacted. Yet don’t step in the way, else be shot down as a bigot or homophobe.

To put the shoe on the other foot, shouldn’t our rights to be addressed Mr. or Mrs. be equal to that of those who don’t?  Like Bill C-16 the apparatchiks in charge of introducing these laws are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. What are civil rights if legislation only applies in favour of certain groups? Surely Canada’s social service systems can field and burn in requests on which people wish to be called what without having to blanket ban language.

The laughable fact with respect to Bill-16 (which is designed to protect gender identity and expression), is that the Trudeau government did not consult transgender people widely. The sheer fact that they clump all transgender people as “one” distinct group just shows how ignorant Trudeau’s cabinet is. There aren’t individuals within the trans community who think differently from other trans? Who’d had thought?

Yet the left see that such legislation is all about positive outcomes which judged by the complaints by the transgender community show the opposite. Many transgender people do not want to have their identity widely advertised. Yet this legislation seeks to disrupt others into compelled speech many trans people aren’t calling for.

Welcome to the slippery slope. At least one thing is for sure, if the polls are right and  Trudeau gets booted in the 2019 election, Qantas will happily put him in charge of the political correctness department so as to make sure all of the aircraft safety videos address gender equality over the more important safety aspects.

Jordan Peterson slays Trudeau’s Bill C-16

Professor Jordan Peterson articulated the reasons why Canada’s Bill C-16 (protection of gender expression and gender identity under the Human Rights Act)   is so reprehensible. Less so on grounds of ‘intent’ per se but the fact that it is grounded on unsubstantiated research with zero scientific backing and loose ideology rather than reality. Listening to the Canadian Senate ask questions, Peterson manages to make perfectly reasonable retorts to the identity politics driven nature of the bill. He even goes as far as to say that the people proposing it hadn’t even consulted those with “non-standard genders” to get their feelings on the matter. Peterson said he’d received countless letters to back this up

In typical Trudeau cabinet style, the issues surrounding the identity and gender bill were mostly assumed positions. In much the same way as Bill M-103 operates it is a law which is one way only. One can bet that if a person identifying as their biological gender (99% of us) complained that his or her feelings had been hurt by a transgender person who didn’t acknowledge their gender identity/expression it would be thrown out before it even reached a courtroom. Had the person who identified as a  “non-standard” gender complained the case in the reverse thennthe book would be thrown at the perpetrators. This is the problem. A law must have exactly the same application to everyone rather than a selective bias to protect a few.

No one is questioning a basic requirement for basic human rights. However Peterson makes the point very clear that the very people who proposed the law are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. It is a law that seeks to muzzle free speech. To curb language. Peterson labours the point that the state shouldn’t have a right to prosecute people on the basis of a law that essentially forces them to pretend to accept someone’s subjective opinion on what they happen to identify with. Ironically Peterson tells the panel that the law actually works against “non-standard” genders because when they’re not part of the process they feel misrepresented.

The biggest flaw with such laws is the idea that the argument (as Peterson refuted so well) is so weak on its own that it must be made a statute of law to defend what can’t support with rational debate. The day that diversity has to be indoctrinated is the day we know it has no basis. Much like the hypocrisy surrounding white South African farmers. Many on the left proved their own inner racism and twisted logic by suggesting their skin colour precluded them from the same basic human rights afforded to the groups it peddles constantly. That’s the beauty of identity politics. No solutions are ever sought. Perpetual grievance is the goal in order to ensure equality in misery.

Truth in advertising?

42D11E12-9013-4DA0-B678-DD09E9B1C0A3

Imagine if Delta released an ad like this today? 45 years ago it offered military personnel cheap tickets. In an era where sex, drugs and rock’n’roll ruled, such a risqué advert (torn asunder all the promiscuous women are seemingly white) was one can only guess “in step with the times” back then.  Then again the same Delta Airlines has just cut off its association with law abiding NRA members for simply flying to see the inlaws. CM noticed that National Geographic has just issued a formal apology for its racist and bigoted articles from 100 years ago. The editor wrote, “For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It.” One would imagine that all the editor did was raise an issue that a majority of its readers never thought about and hold present journalists and photographers to some sort of ‘Day One, Year Zero’ doctrine.

What is it with this “shaming” culture we live in today where corporates must make collective apologies for things that were done before people were born to people who are most likely dead on matters they had zero control over? Just spare the sanctimonious lectures and thought control. I can’t remember the last time I heard a wolf whistle but some want this made a ‘hate crime’. Not condoning it but a wolf whistle is generally viewed as a compliment not a slur. Just like those Hollywood actresses wearing three postage stamps held together by dental floss chanting #METOO all the while they kept quiet about mass sexual harassment because their careers were more important than principle. Spare us the hypocrisy.

Surely people’s sensitivities can’t be such that this should be a jailable offence? Even Qantas staff have been handed newspeak dictionaries on what they can and can’t say to customers to avoid the 0.00001% risk of offending someone. Where do we draw the line? Seems like the line is being drawn further to the point of endorsing a whole industry built on victim culture.

Instead of acknowledging humans have flaws, celebrating differences and accepting it we are being cornered into smaller and smaller ‘legal’ boxes of what is deemed ‘with the times’ and straying outside that risks an innocent person being labeled a bigot, racist, sexist or homophobe. Worse, more laws (like Canada’s M-103 or Australia’s 18-C) risk jail or massive fines for anyone that makes a factual statement. The worst part about it is that lives have been ruined based on trumped up charges willingly egged on by groups like the heavily biased Australian Human Rights Commission, a group that encourages people to lodge complaints but gladly tweets justices it self-serves on its own side  no impartiality

We can all look at the above advert from Delta 45 years later and see it doesn’t really fly (no pun intended) but most of us do not need some sort of state sanctioned manual to ensure we all are indoctrinated to know it is bad form with a law laced on top. Yet this is exactly the type of thing we are seeing day in and day out.

Channeling Chewbacca, the feminist…

Here is a video of Justin Trudeau talking complete drivel about how he’s proud to be a feminist and how we bloody minded males must stop being men. What is the perpetual bleating about identity that seems to fill his days. Then again he feels completely at home muzzling his own citizens (e.g. Bill M-103). What a shame Trudeau wasn’t able to give speaking lessons to POTUS before he gave his UN speech. Trump didn’t have to growl like Chewie. All he needed was Chewbacca socks so he could look gruff while he apologized profusely for every hurt feeling even if he had nothing to do with it.

Trudeau highlights what is wrong with world leaders today. Appearing to do things is enough. Sometimes hard measures are required. Leadership, even if decisions are unpalatable, is about doing. In a crisis could would you want to bet on him? He is a vote for virtue signaling. Ewok socks much more appropriate for the Canadian PM

76E6187C-48D6-4597-8F15-E8A51E8CCADB

Egyptian TV host defends the West’s attitudes toward Islamic terror

IMG_0716.JPG

Not many will have seen this video because the mainstream media is loathe to publish anything remotely balanced these days. Egyptian TV host Youssef Al-Husseini launched a scathing attack on Islamic terrorism post the Finsbury Park mosque attack and said “The terror attack that unfortunately took place [in London] was a vehicular attack. This time, it was near a mosque, if you follow the news. How can anyone decide to carry out a terror attack near a place of worship – near a mosque, a church, or any temple where God is worshipped? In all the previous vehicular attacks, at least in 2016 and 2017, the “heroes” were, unfortunately, Muslims. And then people wonder why they hate us. Why do they hate us?! If they didn’t, there would be something mentally wrong with them. [We] use weapons all the time, slaughter people all the time, flay people all the time, burn people alive all the time, run people over all the time, and plant explosive devices and car bombs all the time. Why do you still expect them to love you?”

As written on the day of the London mosque attack, it was an unquestionably despicable act. This tit-for-tat terrorism serves no purpose other than to trigger further escalation on both sides. No sooner had a white terrorist run down a group of worshippers outside a mosque than another depraved individual tried to detonate a suicide vest in Brussels’ Central Station supposedly yelling “Allahu Akbar“. The sad aspect of terrorism in the West today is that it is happening on such a regular basis that many people are becoming numbed to it.

However the mosque attack was the such a bad turning point. The UK government is ill equipped to deal with it now. Should they mobilize the full compliment of 80,000 British Army soldiers and 27,000 reservists to guard the 2,000-odd mosques in the UK? Is putting barricades on footpaths a real solution? Do Brits want to see tanks parked outside Westminster or Trafalgar Square? Should x-ray machines be installed at every train or bus station? Is that a sustainable solution to the problem giving birth to vigilantes? People want action, not politically correct hand-wringing. They are sick of being told to suck it up and embrace ‘stronger together’ and ‘diversity is our strength’ or ‘terrorism is a fact of any big city’ style pandering. The majority of people are tolerant but there is a tipping point of common sense where they stop believing we win acceptance from jihadis by denying our own identities. Governments prefer to take the soft approach which only offers a safe haven to the activities that end up devastating even more innocent lives.

The idea peddled by limp wristed governments that Muslims need special protection only makes it worse. ALL citizens of any denomination, race or background deserve to feel safe. Yes, everyone knows it is a radical minority that is causing the problems. There is a paramount need to work with the Muslim community to root out those that only bring more distrust. No, it isn’t a license to condone bigotry either. However unless they feel we are ‘truly’ standing behind them rather than virtue signaling from the safety of a smartphone nothing will get better. That is an absolute. The further governments repress  the freedom of people to openly express their feelings the worse it will get.

We are taught from the earliest age that two wrongs don’t make a right. The rise of vigilantism is a natural reaction to governments that stick to the politically correct dialogue and skirt around the issues by trying to gag people whether by law (Canada’s M-103) or threat. Politicians cannot win the will of the people by shutting them up. They have to listen. Because the government isn’t listening militia will spawn and do what they deem necessary for the public interest, The last thing government needs is the widespread growth of people taking the law into their own hands. There are two things that ran through the mind of truck attacker Darren Osborne – he’d either be killed or be locked up for a long time after committing his terror. That is a pretty big price to pay but one he obviously thought worth paying.

To quote Al-Husseini again,

What have the Muslims shown [the West] other than the bombing of their capital cities? What have the Muslims shown them other than vehicular attacks? What have the Muslims shown them other than shooting at them? What have the Muslims shown them other than burning them alive in cages? They burn other Muslims alive as well. They all claim to have a monopoly over Islam. What have the Muslims shown [the Westerners] to make them love them, and welcome them in their countries?…

…The Muslims are constantly whining, lamenting, and wailing: The West is conspiring against us. Fine, let’s assume that the West is conspiring against you and only sees your negative image. Where is your positive image? The Muslims of the Abbasid state presented a positive image. They exported scientific research through the so-called “Muslim” scholars, most of whom, by the way, were not from the Arabian Peninsula. None of them were from the Arabian Peninsula. They were all from North Africa, and from what are now called the former Soviet Islamic republics of central Asia…

…What have the Arab countries contributed to the world? Nothing. What have the Islamic countries contributed to the world? Nothing. What have they contributed in the field of scientific research? Two, three, four, or ten scientists in the course of 1,435 years? C’mon, man! Let’s forget about 435 years and keep just one millennium. Ten important scientists in 1,000 years?! Who invented the airplane? The missile? The space shuttle? Centrifuges? Quantum mechanics? The Theory of Relativity? Who? Where did the most important philosophers come from? Not from here. And you still expect them to love us?! And then you say: “Terror-sponsoring countries like Britain deserve…” Nonsense! People do not deserve to be killed, slaughtered, or run over by a car.”

Al-Husseini makes some very valid points yet why does the media not choose to highlight his stance? The irony of those who have seen his video clip is the social media comment section. Even those who take quite a strong stance on diversity and tolerance joked along the lines of  “is he still alive?” Doesn’t that sort of truly reveal the inner feelings of people rather than the public perception they seek to portray openly for fear of recrimination? We should applaud Al-Husseini’s bravery to speak out like this. His comments are exactly the type of bold response that throws the West’s constant rolling over into the dustbin. We can be sure Al-Husseini’s comments are heartfelt and a wish for all to climb out from behind the protection of identity politics and embrace ‘reality’.

Since Osborne’s truck attack, Tommy Robinson’s book ‘Enemy of the State’ is now the number one selling book on Kindle and paperback. So UK government, are you sure you understand the mood of the nation? They are more than likely to back Mr Al-Husseini’s views than yours.

Canada’s Bill M-103 was twisted to ensure it was discriminatory by itself

「terrance and phillip canada」の画像検索結果

Canada has passed bill M-103 in the House of Commons (201 in favour, 91 against. PM Trudeau was conveniently absent for a vote which is a surprise given he loves to appeal to his penchant for virtue signalling) which condemns “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”.   Conservative member David Anderson tabled a motion on February 16 to remove the word “Islamophobia” and asked the House of Commons to “condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities.” That the liberals rejected the equitable amendment shows Bill M-103 is in fact openly discriminatory.

The motion was proposed by Iqra Khalid, a first-time MP representing Mississauga, Ontario who went on to say,

“Our country is very diverse…I think that we need to continue to build those bridges amongst Canadians, and this is just one way that we can do this, by really understanding the issue and really listening to what Canadians have to say. I’m really looking forward to the track that the Canadian Heritage Committee takes on this.”

Put simply, free speech was sold out with the passing of this bill. If bridges are needed to be built and the government wants to “really listen to what Canadians have to say” why push legislation that effectively gags them from expressing concerns they might have. Hypothetically if a radical Islamist terrorist was to storm Canada’s Parliament (one already has) and a Canadian citizen was to calmly mention it was the result of radical Islam then that would be a violation of M-103 because it could be interpreted as an Islamophobic statement. Even if it was cold hard fact. Is mentioning fact each and every way hate speech? Certainly not. Candians would seem to agree that it M-103 takes away free speech.

Pollster Angus Reid Institute asked 1,511 Canadians, “if you were a a Member of Parliament, how would you vote on this motion (M-103)” and found that 42% would vote against it; 29% would vote in favour and 29% were not sure or would have abstained.

From a regional standpoint, a plurality of survey respondents in every province rejected M-103 though objections to M-103 were softest in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada.

As M-103 was sponsored by a Liberal MP support among those who voted for the party in the 2015 election revealed just 38% of them would support M-103 versus 33% of  who oppose it and 28% with no opinion. 68% of those who voted Conservative in 2015 rejected M-103 and  just 14% voting in favour.

There is no condoning racism or religious discrimination. Even if one argues that the majority of Canadians need not worry about it because they are tolerant, we’ve got Australia’s 18C Racial Discrimination Act as exhibit A of how the application of the law turned into state sponsored witch hunts. Secret trials conducted over years held by a biased and prejudiced Australian Human Rights Commission ended up wrongfully and unnecessarily destroying lives based on trumped up charges based on a law which promotes victimology. These people were innocent yet ‘interpretation’ becomes very dangerous and often used in completely the wrong way.

We shouldn’t be the least bit surprised when trumped up charges start hitting the headlines because honesty gets re-branded hate speech.