Monday, 31 March 2014
Egyptian Actor Mohamed Sobhi Deeply Believes In Whatever He Can Find About Jews On The Internet
clear

You can see his antisemitic conspiracy-theorizing, and vivid Oriental imagination, here.

As for Benjamin Franklin, that quoted prophecy was an invention of William Dudley Pelley, the head of the fascistic Silver Shirts  in the U.S. in the 1930s. You can find out more about Pelley, and other of Hitler's admirers, such as Fritz Kuhn of the Bund, in John Roy Carlson's "Under Cover."

Here is a comment to a piece posted last July by Christina about Muslim attempts to describe Shaw as an admirer of Islam, the very opposite of the truth:

11 Jul 2013
Hugh Fitzgerald
'

The repeated attempts by Muslims to make up, and disseminate, supposed quotations from well-known non-Muslims expressing their admiration for Islam, as here, goes hand-in-hand to hell with the use, by Arab and Muslim propagandists, of antisemitic material lifted from the rich profusion of such stuff in the West. For example, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" for years was passed out by Saudi King Fahd to visiting Westerners, and the same forgery has been used as the basis of many articles, and a celebrated Egyptian television series broadcast within the last decade).

Another favorite is the quote, never uttered by but attributed to Benjamin Franklin, supposedly including his warning about the nefarious influence of Jews. The quote appears to have been made up by William Dudley Pelley, he of the Silver Shirts, during the 1930s (see John Roy Carlson's "Under Cover" for more).

Here's a bit more about the Franklin "Prophecy" which I found at Wikipedia:

"The Franklin Prophecy", sometimes called "The Franklin Forgery", is an antisemitic speech falsely attributed to Benjamin Franklin, warning of the supposed dangers of admitting Jews to the nascent United States. The speech was purportedly transcribed by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but was unknown before its appearance in 1934 in the pages of William Dudley Pelley's Silver Legion pro-Nazi weekly magazine Liberation. (Pinckney wrote that he had kept a journal of the Convention, but it has never been found, and Pelley's claims that it was printed privately, and that the Franklin Institute has a manuscript copy, are unsubstantiated.)

Despite having been repeatedly discredited since its first appearance, the "prophecy" has proved a remarkably durable antisemitic canard. It has appeared most recently as a popular internet hoax promulgated on Usenet groups and antisemitic websites, where it is presented as authentic. On February 18, 1998, a member of the Fatah Central Committee revived this myth and mistakenly referred to Franklin as a former President of the United States.[1] Osama Bin Laden used this canard briefly in his October 2002 "Letter to the American People".[2] While its author is not known, many who have investigated the "prophecy" suspect Pelley of having penned it himself.[and it is from Osama Bin Laden, or perhaps from Fatah, that Mohamed Sobhi picked up his dreamy misinformation about Benjamin Franklin]

The U.S. Congress report Anti-Semitism in Europe: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations (2004) states:

The Franklin "Prophecy" is a classic anti-Semitic canard that falsely claims that American statesman Benjamin Franklin made anti-Jewish statements during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It has found widening acceptance in Muslim and Arab media, where it has been used to criticize Israel and Jews...[3]

Franklin was a friend to the Jews of 18th-century America,[4] and contributed toward the building of Philadelphia's first permanent synagogue.[5]

Similar false antisemitic quotations have been attributed to George Washington and have been debunked.[6] In 1790, in a marked sign of religious tolerance, Washington sent a letter to the Jewish community in Rhode Island, writing "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."[7]

Use of 19th- and 20th-century antisemitic terminology shows that the supposed "Franklin Prophecy" is a forgery, as Benjamin Franklin died in 1790.

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Fitzgerald: Defining The "Moderate Muslim"
clear

Mar 28, 2006  

The phrase “moderate Muslim” should not be used unless it is clearly defined. I suggest that any Muslim who misleads non-Muslims about the central tenets of Islam — whether or not he agrees with them — is objectively furthering the Jihad by rendering non-Muslims unwary and keeping them in a state of naive trustingness that can only cause them harm. So that even if one does not oneself subscribe fully to orthodox Islam, if a “moderate Muslim” does not tell the truth about Islam, he furthers the Jihad. And in any case, his mere presence in the dar al-Harb swells the perceived political power of Muslims and increases security needs (which cost taxpayers mightily).

Also, there is always the possibility that a “moderate Muslim” who has not become an open enemy of traditional Islam — in the manner, say, of Ibn Warraq — will have children who, for whatever reason, may revert to Islam in its traditional, mainstream, highly dangerous-to-Infidels form. We have no way of detecting those who are the true believers in Islam, from those who are not. As such, we have no duty to continue to foster the growth of Muslim populations in the Infidel lands — if, that is, we care about our own safety, and that of our own civilization. We are under no obligation to commit civilizational or other kinds of suicide.

There are many in Western Europe today who are now realizing that they have been misled by their own elites into permitting the large-scale entry of Muslims who are bearers of an ideology that requires them to be implacably hostile to the un-Believers, to regard the lands of dar al-Harb as Muslim by right, and to work, through the seemingly unopposed instruments of Da’wa and demography, to turn dar al-Harb into dar al-Islam.

The whole business of “moderate Muslims” comes up against three problems that need to be kept constantly in mind:

1. What is a “moderate Muslim”? What would constitute “moderation?” Would mere abstention from, or disapproval of, terrorism constitute enough “moderation” for you? It wouldn’t for me.

2. Assuming that such “moderate” Muslims exist — that is, those to whom we think we can give that label, how do we determine, with what instruments, which Muslims are truly “moderate” and which ones are “immoderate” but pretending to be “moderate” so as to remain within our countries? How many are attempting to achieve their ends by manipulating and propagandizing among unwary, or willfully trusting, Infidels, especially some of those ministers and rabbis hellbent on interfaith “understanding” that is always and everywhere an exercise not in understanding but in moral equivalence, and in the end, helps to justify Islam, not to analyze it?

3. Even assuming that there are “moderates” with whom we can work, and assuming further that we can, somehow, detect them, distinguish them even from the “immoderates” who feign, there is still the problem of defensiveness by so many Muslims. Even those who claim to be entirely laic, perhaps even to be non-believers, still call themselves “Muslims” in most cases, and still are quick to defend Islam at a certain level. Take the otherwise seemingly rational, seemingly Western man, seemingly on-our-wave-length Kanan Makiya, who cannot bring himself to read Bat Ye”or. Doesn’t he have any interest in learning about the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam — even to find out what evidence she has accumulated? None? And on television he came across, Fouad-Ajami-like, as one of those “good” Arabs who does not in oily fashion cover us with lies, each more slippery than the next. But the minute he felt Islam was under discussion or the mildest of attacks, having announced that he was not a believer in god “but a Muslim,” he did not join in the analysis, did not become a milder version of Ibn Warraq or Ali Sina, but rather began to talk of his “pious grandmother” with such evident devotion, as a way of demonstrating that “Islam” could not be attacked. A kind of Muslim Barbara Fretchie, presumably. Well, Islam can be analyzed, its doctrines and their effects on many hundreds of millions of people, over time and space, can be dissected — but not, apparently, by Muslims.

That is why having something called “Islamic law” taught by Muslims in law schools is such a bad idea. Will they treat of the legal status of non-Muslims? Will they assign Antoine Fattal or Joseph Schacht, or will they, “scholarofthehouse” Khaled Abu El Fadl style, be guides to nothing, carefully listing as “Not to Be Read” all the most scholarly and truthful books about Islam, and instead list “To Be Read” their own exercises in soft propaganda? Yes, I know the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has just awarded a bunch of Bright Young Muslim Grant-Getters and Reformers a lot of money, with Khaled Abou El Fadl”s name among them, and each of their proposals more transparent than the last, or more akin to Rashid Rida”s hopeless attempts. See Gairdner, for example, on the lexical attempts of Rida to help “reform” the texts. We have been there before, and the “reformers” of the last century got nowhere, and so will these grants-getters and tenure-pushers. The canonical texts are immutable, the single interpretive principle of naskh (abrogation) unhelpful, Believers implacable, so that there is essentially nowhere to turn, nothing to do, except constrain, constrain, whittle away at, demoralize, divide, constrain. That’s it.

Well, I”ve used up a perfectly good half-hour or so that I could have spent trying to understand what Christoph Luxenberg has written about the Dome of the Rock as a non-Islamic structure. But perhaps the result has helped some to be  aswary of the “moderate,” as of the “immoderate,” Muslim.

.

  1. Fitzgerald’s arguement sits on a fallacy. Just because we can not identify a moderate instantly without extensive investigation is not grounds for dicriminating against all Muslims. So if in a sitiuation where you could not figure out which suspect out of 10 committed the crime you should jail them all and then claim its for security? Our constitution does not support such arbitrary judgement. Should we allow whoever wishes to come here to just come? No. However, we should not exclude a whole religion because some 5% (hypothetical) may hold extremist views that are a threat to our welfare. Moreover, we must simply work harder on background checks. Is this going to stop all such incidents as the one the university campus from occuring? No. But back to my example of the criminal, does that mean we should jail or deport all families with serious crime in their history just because statistics show that their children are significantly more likely to commit crime? I do not think that people would agree to that even if it may benefit their security to some degree. Remember there should never be absolutes when comes to judgement of race, religion, or anything else.
    Fitzgerald seems to take issue with any kind of defense of Islam. My question is why does it matter what the think? Unless what they think actually turns into something that harms people. In fact, I don’t give a damn about anyone’s views as long as they do not harm me. They can even sympathize with terrorists, if they want, as long as they do not materially support them terrorists or become terrorists themselves. The statistics for those two factors are low. Low enough that I am willing to take a chance with my security in interest of upholding the values of this country. Benjamin Franklin once said “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”


  2. No, it is you who have it wrong, in two ways.

    First, you ignore what I was talking about — which is the seemingly self-inflicted requirement that in our immigration policies we place on ourselves the burden of figuring out who is, and who is not, a “moderate” Muslim. The very phrase “moderate” Muslim implies that too much “Muslim-ness” is a bad thing, but without explicitly recognizing that clear implication. You yourself admit, remarkably, that “just because we can not identify a moderate instantly without extensive investigation is not grounds for dicriminating [sic] against all Muslims.” If by “discriminating” you mean choosing, when we selectively admit people to our country and even allow them to become citizens — which is not a right but a great privilege, and people all over the world are constantly clamoring to receive such a privilege — then if, as you yourself say, we would require “extensive investigation” to determine who is the one who not only now do not pose any kind of threat to the Infidels and institutions of our nation-state, its laws, customs, understandings so flatly contradicted by the Shari’a, but that we can also be certain — how, exactly? — that they will at no time in the future “revert” to the full-bodied Islam that worries us. And further, how can we be certain that their children, or grandchildren, if the family continues to identify itself as “Muslim,” will not simply start studying with great intensity the texts of Islam, and therefore acquire the beliefs and attitudes that naturally — not unnaturally, but naturally — flow from those texts, and have for 1350 years.

    Why should we take that chance? To whom do we owe the taking of that chance?

    Your second assumption is equally baseless. You pull out of a hat the figure “5%” for the number of Muslims whom we must worry about. But evey opinion poll in the Muslim countries, and among Muslim communities in the Western world, show a very high number of people who support the spread of Islam and regard Infidel attempts to preserve their own rights (such as the right of free speech) as illegitimate, and in some caese the figures are truly startling –the 40% of Muslims in England who admit (how much higher is the real figure?) to pollsters that they support the imposition of the Sharia, or the huge support for suicidbe bombers, and so on? Where do you get your “5%” figure? I, with equal aplomb, and much more evidence, suggest a figure closer to “80%.” But let’s assume the figure really is low — let’s assume it is a “mere 10%” or so.

    Then what? If I am told that for every 100 Muslims allowed into this country, 10% now supoprt, and will continue to support, violent Jihad against me and this country, why should I admit those 100? How many cases of Mad Cow disease does it take – one? two? a dozen? — for tens of millions of heads of cattle to be quarantined? There is a statistically significant risk to Muslims being permmitted within Infidel lands. If you can’t see the evidence of this all around you, in the news of the day, then you are not paying attention, or perhaps you do not want to pay attention.

    Look at how non-Muslims are treated everywhere in the Lands of Islam? Only in a handful, where Islam itself has been subject to nearly a century of systematic constraints, as in a few of the formerly Soviet-ruled parts of Central Asia, and in Turkey with the programmatic limits on Islam imposed by Kemal Ataturk, can one find something like, and here and there, a semi-acceptable treatment of non-Muslims. But, of course, in Turkey, the non-Muslim population has been largely driven out or massacred during the last century as well. In 1914 half the population of Constantinople was non-Muslim; now the non-Muslim population is down to 1%. And the massacre of the Armenians was not the end of it; think of the 1955 attacks on the Greek community of Istanbul.

    You end with this remarkable unsupported assertion: “The statistics for those two factors are low. Low enough that I am willing to take a chance with my security in interest of upholding the values of this country.”

    Give us those statistics. Right now, and right here at this thread. Tell us what opinion polls, what observable behavior toward non-Muslims by Muslims, over 1350 years, leads you to the conclusion, student of history, that there is nothing to worry about.

    And, without waiting for your “statistics” I will assert the following, which I have asserted many times before:

    The large-scale presence of Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels, behind what Muslims themselves regard as enemy lnes, has created a situation which is far less pleasant, far more expensive (the cost of all those “investigations” mentioned above, the cost of heightened security measures and constant monitoring), and far more physically dangerous, for non-Muslims, than would otherwise be.

    That statement is true. It does not depend on my waiting for your “statistics.”

    You may be willing to put yourself at risk. Fine. I am not willing to risk the lives of other Infidels, or the laws, customs, mannerss, understandings, of which one good example are the rights enshrined in the First Amendment, and that are flatly contradicted by both the letter, and the spirit, of Islam.

    And most people, if they were fully apprised of what Islam teaches, and of what, for those who take their Qur’an and Hadith seriously (or who may not now, but can at some future date that we will not be able to predict), naturally is believed by the Believers.

    Islam rests on a division of the universe between Believer and Infidel. For Infidels to ignore that, to not take it to heart, would be an act of extreme recklessness, and in our leaders, whose duty it is to protect us, an act of criminal negligence. And those who prate about “values” should realize that had the Nazis won the war, there would have been no “values” to protect in Europe and possibly in North America. If Islam spreads, and nothing is done to halt and reverse its spread, those “values” you claim to support will also be endangered — and in danger of extinction.


  3. I notice the old chestnut, the favorite of all those who wish us to do very little, or possibly nothing, to defend ourselves, is trotted out by “sceptic” [sic] above. To wit: “Benjamin Franklin once said ‘Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.’” Plucking something from a very different time and place, out of the pages of Bartlett’s Quotations, and being well-satisfied with the result, as if it were self-evidently unanswerable, is cretinous. And credulous too — hardly the work of someone who likes to identify himself as a “sceptic” or, better, “skeptic.”

    One should top to consider, for example, just that phrase “a little security.” Do you think that when Benjamin Franklin uttered those words he could have had any idea what the year 2006 would bring? Could he have foreseen people such as the Saudi clerics, or Ahmadinejad, acquiring by an accident of geology the wherewithal to buy or develop weapons of mass destruction? Could he have foreseen that in Europe, and in America, large numbers of people would be admitted whose belief-system, whatever the degree of fanaticism with which it is held, instructed them to hate the Unbelieve, the Infidel, and to work, in ways big and little, to promote Islam, to secure the future of Islam, to prevent any widespread understanding of the permanent division of the universe between Believer and Infidel, and to aim for the ultimate goal of a world where, everywhere, “Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated.”

    Could he? We know that fourscore years and ten later(now where did I get that phrase?), Abraham Lincoln, to save the Union, was ready to temporarily infringe on certain rights. What makes you think that a Franklin redevivus (by the way, a man like Franklin, the scientist, the philosophizer, the individualist, the admirer of the French Enlightenment, would not have lasted one day in, and could never have been produced by, the world of Islam) today, seeing that it is not a question of a “little security” but of avoiding attacks against us that could lead to mass death, and avoiding attacks on our laws, customs, understandings that could lead to the death of our civilization, would not have himself taken quite a different tack, in quite a different situation.

    The parroting of a phrase from a different time and place, is not a subgstitute for thought. It is not, as you seem to think, some kind of final word that you have triumphantly produced and that should end the matter. The relevance of the quotation, and its significance, are both immediately called into question.

    And since I have mentioned things being called into question, I repeat:

    Give us those “statistics” you apparently have at hand — post them right here. You know, the ones you mention in your posting above, that will relieve all our worries about the loyalty to an Infidel nation-state, to a Constitition that flatly contradicts the Shari’a, and worries about those who, raised to believe devoutly in what the Qur’an and Hadith tell them about Infidels and about Jiahd, lead many of us to be less sanguine, and more worried, and less willing to take civilizational risks, than you are, with your Franklin quote — and those “statistics” we are all waiting eagerly for.

  4. By the way, the quote attributed to Franklin was one for which he disclaimed authorship. And it was, in any case, written somewhat differently: those who would give up “essential liberty.” That is quite different from the phrase of Skeptic: “give up a little liberty.” We are not giving up — are we? — anything remotely like “essential liberty”? And if we ever had to give up more libety to protect ourselves, that would be because we had been foolish enough, in the first place, to allow into our midst people whose belief-system teaches them to not wish us, nor our country, well — a thing of unheard foolishness, but a thing already partly done and unlikely to be undone. Staunching the flow from the self-inflicted wound would, however, be a good idea.



  5. Hugh I agree with your views on this case. I understand the dangers. I know that what you describe may indeed happen. However, how likely is it to happen? Of all the Muslims I have talked to, they have been normal people with normal appreciation for human rights. I believe that it is not the issue you make it out to be. I refute the implication that it is a common thing to become a terrorist. Once again I reiterate I do not give a damn who they sympathize with as long as it does not harm anyone. In fact, I believe that any extremist views they may harbor will become diluted rather than spread with generations. They will make ties with this country that even religion can not break.
    I, myself, am an immigrant from Lithuania. I love this country because it admits people like me. I do consider it a privelege. However, I want to see immigration continued for all peoples. It is true that Islam is a violent religion (the way some Muslims interpret it), I agree. However, there are decent people out there who, no doubt, would make this country better if they were here. Even if they are in a minority, as you claim, I feel that a risk is justified for us to bring some of those people here especially because they are probably intellectuals. They may also become the “Ibn Warraqs” of the world someday because they had a chance to be free from the brainwashing.
    I think that you are being an alarmist, Hugh. I believe that we can selectively allow people into this country without comprimising our security to a large degree. The benefits, in my mind, outweigh the risks.

    P.S. The statistics I claimed are my own hypothetical “assumptions” I should have designated that more clearly.

    Also, I am pretty sure that I “Skeptic” on the site how come you say it is “Sceptic”?

  6. Also in reply to some of the other posts…
    Muslims are human beings too. They contribute the same amount of social good that you and I do. Unless you wish to claim that all Americans are inherently more valuable than Muslims. Muslims go to work, study, and do the same things we do. I have Muslim aquaintances who I have observed intently. They make friends, they study, they work, and socialize. I have quizzed some of them on there beliefs specifically about quotes from the Koran. Not one of them believed the quotes were wrong, but many of them believe them to be simply inapplicable to the modern day or they have there own interpretations and opinions on it. They certainly do not wish for Sharia. Some of them came here to escape that type of belief. These are the Muslims I advocate in bringing to this country. They are the progressives. They are the ones that may one day drive the movement to stop fanaticism based on the Koran. In their own countries they would never be able to do that. Lastly, isolationism never works. The problem you wish to hide yourself from will come to confront another day. Likewise, Islam will come to destroy us if we do not confront in a rational manner. We need these people because they will become, if they are not already, Americans in both their values and their actions and they will promote this to their cousins left behind. It may sound idealistic but I believe it is a feasible option.

  7. “I refute the implication that it is a common thing to become a terrorist..”
    — from a posting above

    Who said every Muslim is an active terrorist? Only a fool would. But a great many see nothing wrong with what we call terrorism when its intended victims are Infidels. What does that make them? Not terrorists but supportres of terrorism. And suppose you neither are a terrorist, nor support terrorism against Infidels, but find nothing wrong with demanding a limit, in Western countries, on Western practice of the right of free speech? Or find nothing wrong with the possible death sentence that might have been meted out to Abdul Rahman, or may yet be meted out to him, through informal means? If someone believes, or tells the world he believes, in a set of principles that are unambiguous in separating, and setting against each other, Believers (to whom all loyalty is owed) and Infidels (to whom permanent hostility is owed) Infidels must act on the assumption that he means it, and that at some point, such attitudes and beliefs as the Qur’an and Hadith naturally give rise to, will give rise in him to certain activities, or positions taken, that will not be good for the continued peaceful existence of the Infidel nation-state, and its laws, customs, understandings, nor will be good for the Infidels who live in that nation-state and who, out of a failure to think things through, thought that it was perfectly appropriate to endanger their fellow citizens, if not themselves, by presuming to assume that these texts do not mean what they say, are not received by the Believers in the way that seems most natural, and that having been received, will never lead to any consequences — when if you look around the world, you see the consequences for Infidels practically everywhere, except Greenland and Iceland.

    I’m not prepared to play fast and loose with the safety of fellow Infidels, merely in order to engage in some moral preening, some holier-than-thou self-satisfaction. The last century offers many examples of those who failed to recognize what was staring them in the face — and many examples of those who, long before the rest of the world, when events made things clear, saw exactly what was up. I prefer to try to be included in the latter, not the former, class.

    Why don’t you try as well?

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Abu Omar Al-Belgiki: "Fight Jihad In The Way Of Allah"
clear

A Muslim who had been allowed to live in Belgium left that country and is now participating in violent Jihad in Syria. Four minutes of his take on the universe will be instructive for some.

Watch, and listen to him, here.

Nothing should be done to prevent others like him from leaving the countries of Western Europe, or North America, or Australia, to go to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yeme nto engage in violent Jihad, as they see it, in Dar al-Islam.

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
In Anbar, Sunnis Still Refuse To Acquiesce In Their Loss Of Power
clear

And the Shi'a refuse to share it. And that's the way it is going to be, the way it long ago was, by some, foreseen.

The latest failed "Arab peace intiative" here.

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
a Cinematic Musical Interlude: Tura Lura (Steve Martin)
clear
Watch, and listen, here.
clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
A Musical Interlude: Why Was I Born? (Libby Holman)
clear
Listen here.
clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Keith Ellison Thinks American Military Ought To Enter The Syrian Fray On The Side Of The Sunnis
clear
clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Tiger 21 (File Under: The Rackets)
clear

Here.

One more (clever?) way to separate the gullible rich from their allowance.

Read around at the site. Savor the phrasing. Imagine what Mark Twain could do with this.

I'm not even sure these con men know they are con men. That's how bad it has become.

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Gang 'exploited teenage girls'
clear

From the Press Association, via the Preston Citizen

A gang targeted vulnerable teenage girls through social networking sites before sexually exploiting and gang-raping them, prosecutors have told a court. Five men are standing trial at Cambridge Crown Court accused of trafficking and raping eight girls who were aged between 13 and 16 at the time of the allegations, which date between 2008 and 2013.

Prosecutor Patricia Lynch told jurors that the girls were vulnerable not only because of their age but also their "difficult" social backgrounds.

Opening the case against the defendants, four of whom are Pakistani, she added: "This case involves the deliberate sexual exploitation of young vulnerable white girls by a group of older Asian men. These defendants singled out these girls because of their vulnerability. Contact started and continued through Facebook, Blackberry messaging, text messaging and mobile phones."

After being "chatted up" online, the victims would be collected from near their homes in towns and villages around Peterborough, Rutland and Lincolnshire before being driven to secluded spots in Peterborough, Ms Lynch said. Which shows that nowhere is safe. Rutland is England's smallest county; it's entirely rural and very picturesque.

She added that once they had gained their confidence and plied them with alcohol, the men, all from Peterborough, "passed the girls around" and used them as "sex objects." Some of the abuse. including degrading acts, was filmed on a mobile phone and jurors will be shown this footage.

Yasir Ali, 28, of Grange Road, denies six counts of rape, two of making indecent photographs of children, one of sexual activity in the presence of a child, seven of trafficking and one of witness intimidation.

Daaim Ashraf, 19, of Almoners Lane, denies three counts of rape, one of sexual assault, one of sexual activity with a child, one of sexual activity in the presence of a child, seven of trafficking and one of witness intimidation.

James Daly, 25, of Grange Road, denies one count of rape.

Mohammed Aslam, 24, of Grange Road, denies one count of rape and one of sexual activity in the presence of a child. He couldn't be named for legal reasons before the trial; obviously that has since changed. Picture from the Daily Mail

Ms Lynch added that Ali, the oldest of the defendants, was "undoubtedly the primary offender". Known to the girls as Mr Nice or his Facebook name Sketcher Piddocks, he is accused of initiating much of the contact. "...Their (the girls) very young age, their vulnerability, the grooming process and the use of alcohol negates any consent that they may have given. .."

Describing the experience of one of the victims, who had spent time in a young offenders' institute, Ms Lynch said that the first time she was raped, the girl was so drunk on vodka that she wanted to go to sleep. Ali had sex with her despite her saying she did not want to. She added that after the first time they had sex, Ali would cease to be an "attentive, loving boyfriend" and began "farming her out" to other men.

On one occasion, Ali's friend Daly forcibly removed her clothes before having sex with her against her wishes, Ms Lynch said. Ms Lynch added that later when the girl told Ali she was pregnant with his child, he called her a "slag" and assaulted her.

A second victim said she was raped by Ali in 2008 despite him knowing she was 15 and still at school. Two other girls, aged 14 at the time, were sexually assaulted by Yasin and Ashraf on the same night despite one of them being in the early stages of pregnancy.

Ms Lynch added that after the men were questionned by police, Ashraf and Ali threatened one of the girls, telling her that if the case went to court the defendants would "make their lives hell" and that their houses may be firebombed.

The case is expected to last up to eight weeks.

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Yemeni President Demands Iran Stop Inferfering In Yemen
clear

By supporting separatists in the south and Shi'a (Houthi) rebels in the north.

Here.

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Ivan Rioufol: What The FN's Victory Means
clear
Les municipales sont un amuse-gueule : la colère des Français ne se calmera pas de sitôt. En faisant du FN le vainqueur du premier tour, dimanche dernier, les insurgés ont poussé dehors le socialisme et, plus généralement, la gauche morale. Ils n’en craignent plus ni les rappels à l’ordre, ni les sermons. Mais ils ont aussi fait savoir à la droite qu’elle n’était pas à la hauteur de leurs attentes. L’UMP sonne faux, en effet, quand elle répète ces jours-ci n’avoir "rien de commun" avec le parti de Marine Le Pen. L’opposition demeure terrorisée à l’idée d’être assimilée à cette dynamique "populiste". C’est pourtant cette heureuse réactivité, qui veut rompre avec les politiques menées cul par-dessus tête depuis plus de trente ans, qui gagne la société. Ce qui apparaît n’est pas une radicalisation de l’électorat, mais une volonté de se penser à nouveau français. Interdit ?

Une révolution est enclenchée. En envoyant paître le PS donneur de leçons et culpabilisateur, relégué en troisième position à Marseille, les Français sont en train de regagner leur liberté de penser et leur fierté. Sommés depuis des lustres de s’effacer au profit de l’Autre et de s’excuser de leur passé, ils ont entrepris de s’extraire du "complexe occidental (1) " qui a rendu possible la subversion de la nation repentante par la préférence immigrée. Quand Najat Vallaud-Belkacem explique, dimanche soir, que le FN est antirépublicain parce qu’il "fait la différence entre le Français et l’étranger", la porte-parole du gouvernement confirme le mépris que porte la gauche à l’État-nation et à la citoyenneté, vidés de leur identité. C’est cette haine de soi, imposée sous la férule de l’antiracisme, que rejette la France qui se réveille.

Le mur de la pensée décrétée s’effondre sous les assauts du peuple excédé. (La suite ici)
clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
On Seeing An Old Friend
clear

by David Asia (April 2014)


I saw and old friend yesterday,

A farmer,

Still wrapped

In his family’s stubborn land,  more>>>

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by NER
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Landscape by Stefan Zweig
clear

translated by William Ruleman (April 2014)

Night. And seeds, in slumber, breathe

Hot and sense-benumbing scents,

And silver mists arise and seethe:

Laments of an air still, sultry, tense.  more>>>

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by NER
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
The Shawl
clear

by Bibhu Padh(April 2014)


You died at the end of

winter, earlier this year,

and I didn’t even know.  more>>>

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by NER
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Crucifixion by Rainer Maria Rilke
clear

translated by Len Krisak (April 2014)


Long practiced prodding up the hill the mob

clambering Golgotha’s bare-gallows skull,

the heavy henchmen lay there in a lull,

with only now and then some beefy gob  more>>>

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by NER
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Muslim Mingle, Or, Jiihad And The Marriage Market
clear

And think of the honeymoon suites in the hotels of Raqqa.

More here.

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Cancer Kills Unemployment
clear

by Lorna Salzman (April 2014)


Detritus, Mich.—Plager Food & Chemical has released a study showing that the job potential from pollution is increasing each year and far outweighs the number of jobs that would be created by preventing pollution.

"There are now more people making a living off cancer than dying from it," said Ernest Costbenefitratio, chairman of the Plager board of directors, referring to employment in cancer research and treatment.  more>>>

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by NER
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Performance Critic
clear

by Richard Kostelanetz (April 2014)


I never wanted to be a regular book critic or theater critic or music critic, because I’d be obliged to read or observe too much lousy work, if I stayed awake at all. No, the only art I could write about regularly, if selectively, is scarcely covered in the American press. Wherever some people agree to perform for others—that’s Performance, which is my favored term for kinetic work that falls between drama and dance, but sometimes also incorporates kinetic sculpture and sport. Most of it isn’t promoted as art at all.  more>>>

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by NER
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
Someday a Prince
clear

by Moshe Dann (April 2014)


There were times when it seemed to Helen that her over-priced one-bedroom apartment - foundation of her independence and freedom - was more like a prison. In a new housing project, close to the public school where she taught 5th grade English, near a suburban shopping mall, her “home” was convenient. But it was missing what she wanted most of all.  more>>>

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by NER
clear
Monday, 31 March 2014
1769-2016 and All That Jazz
clear

by David P. Gontar (April 2014)


They say miracles are past, and we have our  
philosophical persons to make modern and familiar
things supernatural and causeless. Hence is it that we
make trifles of terrors, ensconcing ourselves into
seeming knowledge when we should submit ourselves
to an unknown fear.

                                        -  Shakespeare

At the conclusion of the Seven Year's War, Britain's global empire was firmly established. North America and India were well in hand. The first of the Hanover kings to possess English as his native tongue, George III, sat amiably atop the throne. With the signing of the Treaty of Paris, February 10, 1763, the mood of security gave way to pomp and euphoria.  more>>>

clear
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:00 AM by NER
clear
clear
Showing 1-21 of 317 [Next 20]