UPDATED: MUSLIM TERRORISTS ATTACK MAGAZINE OFFICE IN PARIS, KILL 12; AL-QAEDA IN YEMEN?

At least 12 people were reportedly killed when Islamic terrorists with AK-47 assault rifles attacked the Paris offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo today:

One of the men was captured on video shouting “Allah!” as four shots rang out. . . .
“This is a terrorist attack, there is no doubt about it,” President Francois Hollande told reporters after rushing to the scene of the attack. . . .
Sirens could be heard across Paris as Prime Minister Manuel Valls said security would be ramped up at transport hubs, religious sites, media offices and department stores. . . .
Late last year, a man shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“God is greatest”) injured 13 by ramming a vehicle into a crowd in the eastern city of Dijon. French officials say several attacks were prevented in recent weeks and Valls has said France had “never before faced such a high threat linked to terrorism.”

This is the same magazine whose offices were fire-bombed in 2011 for publishing cartoons about the Prophet Mohammad. The terrorist gunmen are reportedly still at large.

UPDATE: “We are all Charlie now.”

If only the National Rifle Association hadn’t stopped France from closing the “gun show loophole” . . .

UPDATE II: An interesting claim:

Two terrorists shouted that they were from al Qaeda in the Yemen before they launched the brutal attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
Cédric Le Béchec, a 33-year-old estate agent who witnessed the attack on the satirical magazine, said the men told bystanders to inform the media that they were from the terror group.
He said that the men arrived in a black car, stopping in the middle of the street. One of them was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade. They were dressed in black military-style clothing.
Mr Le Béchec said that before launching the assault, the attackers approached another man in the street saying, “Tell the media that this is al-Qaeda in the Yemen.”

It is never wise to jump to conclusions based on early reports in a breaking news situation like this. But if this report is accurate, why do Yemeni Muslims hate French journalists?

That is to say, of all the places in the world where these terrorists could have struck, why Paris? Was this simply a target of convenience, some place nearby where these Muslims lived? I have no idea what the French policy is vis-a-vis Yemen, but this attack would seem to invite the question of whether Islamic terrorists give a damn about any nation’s policy. Muslims want to kill us all and destroy our civilization, and we should never make the mistake of thinking that our government policy is to blame for Islam’s murderous hostility toward us.

UPDATE III: OFFICIALS IDENTIFY THREE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS IN FRENCH ATTACK




 

Your Future (or Lack Thereof)

“Male and female created he them” (Genesis 5:2) seems obvious enough. “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) is not a difficult commandment to understand or obey. However, in the modern world, so many people actually think they’re smarter than God that they manage to persuade themselves that extinction is “progress”:

A survey by the Japan Family Planning Association reported that over a quarter of men aged 16–24 “were not interested in or despised sexual contact.” For women, it was 45 percent…
Forty-nine percent of women under 34 are not in any kind of romantic relationship, and nor are 61 percent of single men. A third of Japanese adults under 30 have never dated. Anyone. Ever. It’s not that they’ve stopped “having sex”… It’s bigger than that: It’s a flight from human intimacy. . . .
The Japan Times . . . quotes the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research as saying that the country’s population is expected to decline between 26% and 38% by 2060.

That information comes from Mark Steyn, whose ancestors were on a first-name basis with the author of the commandments previously cited, and here’s more of the same:

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)

It’s really simple, but some folks think they’re smarter than God.

 

 

Canadian Terrorist: Crazy Muslim

We learn that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the terrorist killed in his attack Thursday on the Canadian Parliament building in Ottawa, was both mentally ill and a convert to Islam:

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the slain 32-year-old suspected killer of a Canadian Forces soldier near Parliament Hill, was a labourer and small-time criminal — a man who had had a religious awakening and seemed to have become mentally unstable.
Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau was born in 1982 and was the son of Bulgasem Zehaf, a Quebec businessman who appears to have fought in 2011 in Libya, and Susan Bibeau, the deputy chairperson of a division of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board. The two were divorced in 1999. . . .
Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau grew up in Eastern Canada, including Ottawa and Montreal, and had spent time in Libya before moving to Western Canada to become a miner and labourer, according to friend Dave Bathurst.
Mr. Bathurst said he met Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau in a Burnaby, B.C., mosque about three years ago. He said his friend did not at first appear to have extremist views or inclinations toward violence — but at times exhibited a disturbing side.
“We were having a conversation in a kitchen, and I don’t know how he worded it: He said the devil is after him,” Mr. Bathurst said in an interview. He said his friend frequently talked about the presence of Shaytan in the world — an Arabic term for devils and demons. “I think he must have been mentally ill.”
Mr. Bathurst last saw Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau praying in a Vancouver-area mosque six weeks ago. He spoke of wanting to go to the Middle East soon. . . .
At the Burnaby mosque, Mr. Bathurst said his friend’s “erratic” behaviour — he did not elaborate — caused frictions with the elders at the house of worship, who asked him to stop attending prayers. At that time, Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau was living in a barely furnished single-room apartment.
Mr. Bathurst said he recalls his friend being arrested at the mosque a few years ago after bizarrely calling police to tell them about a crime he had committed many years before.

We can expect more information about the terrorist to be reported over the next few days, but I think we already have the basic picture. Next question: Is there a direct connection to ISIS or another international Islamic terrorist conspiracy?

Authorities haven’t disclosed any connection between the gunman, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, and ISIS. . . .
This summer, ISIS released a video featuring a Canadian reportedly named Andre Poulin making a pitch for recruits. The video showed the group’s intensified efforts to bait international recruits. It also highlights a message that a normal Westerner gave up a good life of comfort to join jihad — and so can others. Poulin’s speech is interspersed with beauty shots of Canada.
And last month, ISIS released a 42-minute recording in which it asked Canadians to kill civilians and military members.
“Rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict,” the recording said.

There are unconfirmed reports of evidence of a direct ISIS connection to Zehaf-Bibeau, but we will wait and see.

As I said Thursday, the “leaderless cell” model of underground terrorist organization can make it difficult to connect the dots and prove that Killer X is part of Group Z. Furthermore, in the Internet age, radicals can broadcast their messages and any “lone wolf” can respond to those messages and, unless the “lone wolf” terrorist makes a statement or leaves behind a bread-crumb trail of electronic evidence, you can’t really say that Radical Message A directly led to Terrorist Act B.

So we don’t know, and may never know, exactly how it was that Zehaf-Bibeau went from crazy Muslim to terrorist. Rather than focus on the details of that, however, let’s look at the general pattern in the context of history. What you find about killers like this is that the misfit or mental case has both real-life problems and an extremist ideology. Think about Lee Harvey Oswald who, like Zehaf-Bibeau, was the product of a broken home and, like Zehaf-Bibeau, adopted the ideology of a foreign enemy. Whereas the Canadian-born Zehaf-Bibeau became a Muslim in the 21st century, the American-born Oswald became a Marxist at a time when the Soviet Union was America’s greatest enemy.

What causes some people to adopt the ideology of hostile foreign powers? They are misfits and malcontents who are alienated from their own national society, hostile to the dominant culture. By identifying with an extremist ideology, this type of warped personality seeks a kind of empowerment that enables them to enact their fantasy of revenge on the society that rejects the misfit.

And you know what? That describes the typical feminist.

Think about that.

 

The Liberation Theology Pope Proves Conquest’s Second Law

Here are two sentences that caught my attention:

When word that [Cardinal Raymond Leo] Burke was on his way out [from the Apostolic Signatura] began circulating last month, it signaled that Francis would take major steps to reshape the church. It coincided with the selection of a new archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cupich, who Catholic progressives celebrated for positions like breaking with the American church hierarchy when it withheld its support for President Obama’s health reform law over questions of abortion and contraception.

The word you’re looking for is “schism.”

Papal infallibility relies on a pope being in full solidarity with the bishops of the church, and this week solidarity is not easy to find.

Decades of growing leftist influence within the Catholic Church, which John Paul II and Benedict XVI had temporarily suppressed, but could not ultimately stop, has now elevated an Argentine leftist to the papal throne. Catholic conservatives are and will continue to be purged from positions of influence. Conquest’s Second Law: “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”  Catholics are seeing it confirmed.

This is now the Catholic church of the Berrigan Brothers, “Nuns on the Bus” and Dignity USA. Because conservative Catholics would not excommunicate the heretics when they had the chance, now the heretics are in control. The attempt to paint a smiley face on this disaster includes, e.g., an editorial about “how gay Catholics can lead the rest of the Church to a greater understanding of God’s truth.”

Ri-iiight. Your next pedophile priest scandal in 3, 2, 1 . . .

As a conservative Protestant, I have for years resisted the “road to Rome” solicitations of my conservative Catholic friends, mainly because of ancestral prejudice — coming from a long line of stubbornly independent-minded Calvinist types — but also because I knew something like this would happen to the Catholic church sooner or later. As far as I’m concerned Rerum Novarum is ample refutation of “papal infallibility.” It’s just bad economics and Quadragesimo Anno is arguably worse. If “Catholic social teaching” is divinely inspired, why is its fundamental economic theory so laughably wrong?

Seriously, my conservative Catholic friends, why do you think you now have a socialist Pope? And don’t deny try to deny the obvious truth: Francis is somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders. You have a socialist Pope because, when you had a conservative Pope, nobody thought to hand him a copy of Human Action or The Mirage of Social Justice and say, “Here, learn something about how the economy really works.” Then get together a confab to produce a revision of “Catholic social teaching” that reflects actual facts.

Also, if you ever get another conservative Pope, excommunicate some heretics. Maybe burn a few of them at the stake, just to get the point across. But definitely excommunicate them. What’s the point of having a Pope, if he’s not excommunicating heretics?

 


 

They Want to Kill Us All

People need to understand what this means:

Islamic State militants have released a video depicting the murder of British aid convoy volunteer Alan Henning, three weeks after warning that he would be the next to die.
Henning is the fourth western hostage to have been killed by the group, following the filmed beheadings of US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and Scottish aid worker David Haines.
A further hostage, Hervé Gourdel, from Nice in France, was murdered by Jund al-Khalifa, a group with links to Isis, on 24 September.

Aid workers and journalists are non-combatants. When the Islamic “militants” (a euphemism that our decadent media prefer to “terrorists”) are publicly murdering Western non-combatants, what is the intended message? What do these killers intend to convey to us, in the West, as well as to their audience in the Islamic world?

It should be apparent that these Muslims, by their deliberate and premeditated killings of helpless civilians — including people who had come to provide humanitarian aid to Syrians suffering in the civil war there — are saying to their fellow Muslims:

“KILL THEM ALL! Death to all the Americans!
Death to all the British! Death to everyone
everywhere who does not join the worldwide
Islamic caliphate! Kill the women! Kill the children!
Spare no one! KILL THEM ALL!”

What the ISIS “militants” are doing, in other words, is exhibiting the attitude of murderous ruthlessness they consider necessary to their success, and which they wish other Muslims to emulate.

After 9/11, a lot of liberal hand-wringers kept asking, “Why do they hate us?” What have we done, liberals asked, that has inspired the kind of hatred that would cause people to hijack jetliners and crash them into skyscrapers? Implicit in such questions was the naïve idea that, if our policy was to blame for their hatred of us, then by changing our policy — choosing a policy of peace — we could end their hate. This was the meaning of the question, “Why do they hate us?”

BECAUSE THEY HATE, answered Brigitte Gabriel in her 2006 book.

This is not about us, this is about them — the people who hate us, the people who want to kill us all. It is a narcissistic delusion for liberals to believe that somehow we have caused Muslims to hate us when, in point of fact, the Koran and other Islamic scriptures command them to hate us. The texts that Muslims consider sacred order them to kill us all, and promise the greatest blessings for those martyred Muslim warriors who die while pursuing Mohammed’s murderous commandments.

We cannot negotiate with this hate. We cannot compromise with this hate. No policy of ours will permit us to co-exist in peace with this hate. We cannot choose peace when Islam chooses war, and we cannot hope that “tactical air strikes” will suffice to defeat their deadly hatred. The only option left to us is to give them war without limits, war without mercy, a determined, relentless and unceasing war that will not be satisfied with anything less than complete victory over these murdering Muslim monsters who want to kill us all.

 

Don’t Do It, Ben Affleck!

Don’t make me take sides with Bill Maher!

Bill Maher and author and neuroscientist Sam Harris battled actor/director Ben Affleck on Real Time on Friday concerning Maher’s recent remarks criticizing Islam.
“Why are you so hostile about this?” Maher asked Affleck.
“It’s gross, it’s racist,” Affleck replied.
“It’s so not,” Maher insisted, though Affleck compared it to using the term, “Shifty Jew.”
“You’re not listening to what we are saying,” Maher insisted.
“You guys are saying, if you want to be liberal, believe in liberal principles,” Affleck said, referencing Maher’s monologue last week. “Like, we are endowed by our forefathers with inalienable rights, all men are created equal.”
Harris, who had complained about criticism of the Muslim religion being dismissed as Islamophobic, countered that liberals should be allowed to criticize bad ideas.
“Islam is the motherload of bad ideas,” Harris argued.
“Jesus,” Affleck said in frustration.
“That’s just a fact,” Maher said, backing Harris up. . . .
“It’s the only religion that acts like the mafia,” Maher said. “They will f*cking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”

Bill Maher is one of the worst human beings on the planet. He is vile, despicable, loathsome. But is Ben Affleck worse?

What’s going on here, I think, is a generation gap between liberals. Affleck (42) is younger than Maher (58), and that totally explains the difference in their worldviews. Affleck is one of these young fools who, with no useful memory of Cold War history, has no real concept of what an existential threat to civilization really means. Maher, wretched amoral swine though he is, at least is old enough to look back at the 1970s and ’80s and say, “Thank God for the Gipper.”

 

MUSLIM CONVERT BEHEADS WOMAN IN OKLAHOMA TERROR ATROCITY

The Islamic jihad in America continues:

MOORE, Okla. – Officials with the Moore Police Department say the FBI is now involved in the investigation related to a brutal attack of workers at a food distribution plant.
Sgt. Jeremy Lewis says the alleged suspect, 30-year-old Alton Nolen had just been fired when he drove to the front of the business, hit a vehicle and walked inside.
He walked into the front office area where he met 54-year-old Colleen Hufford and began attacking her with a knife. . . .
Lewis confirms that Hufford was stabbed several times and that Nolen “severed her head.”
At that point, Lewis claims Nolen met 43-year-old Traci Johnson and began attacking her with the same knife.
Officials say at that point, Mark Vaughan, an Oklahoma County reserve deputy and a former CEO of the business, shot him as he was actively stabbing Johnson. . . .
The FBI is now looking into Nolen’s background after his former co-workers said he tried to convert them to Islam after recently converting himself.
Lewis says the FBI is working in conjunction with the Moore Police Department, especially when it comes to the religious aspect of the case.
At this time, it is not known if the suspect’s beliefs played a role in the attack.

You think so, maybe? Donald Douglas has more at American Power.

 

Emma Jackson, Victim of #Rotherham Rape Gangs: ‘They Like Us Naive’

Julie Bindel (@bindelj) was the first to report on The Rotherham Horror — the vicious sex-trafficking gangs of Muslim men who preyed on English girls, an atrocity officials ignored for fear of “racism” — and I want to begin this by giving her full credit for her work.

One of the things that most shocked me about this story was a simple question: Where were the feminists? Here you have girls as young as 11 being raped and pimped out, and you might think that there would be daily outpourings of feminist rage about it, yet this problem has been allowed to fester for years without decisive official action? Something is clearly wrong in British culture, if political correctness could keep feminists quiet about this savagery. But Julie Bindel was not silent — she wrote a lengthy article for the Sunday Times of London about Rotherham in September 2007 — and her courage deserves recognition.

Emma Jackson’s courage also deserves recognition:

Emma Jackson has a way of referring to her younger self that makes her teen years sound as though they were decades ago. “My mum is my best friend,” she reflects at one point as we are talking. “Now I’m older I’m really happy with that, but when I was 13, I saw things differently. I was much younger and I didn’t want my mum at all. I just wanted my friends.”
The past sounds so far away that I have to keep reminding myself that Emma is still only 20. . . . [T]hose friends she sought out so assiduously at 13 in the local shopping centre near her home in Yorkshire turned out not to be friends at all, but a well-organised gang of criminals, using teenage boys as bait to enable them to groom young, naïve girls like Emma for a life of prostitution. ‘
From the distant vantage point of adulthood, she can now discern a disturbing pattern in how they treated her, but at the time it all felt spontaneous – and, at first, exciting. She was initially befriended by courteous, good- looking lads a few years older than she was. Through them, she was introduced to their older friends, and finally, slowly and imperceptibly as she tells it, into the arms of what seemed a glamorous suitor called Tarik. . . .
“Yes, there probably are a lot of girls who get involved because they come from broken homes, or are in care, but when you look at the whole situation, as I have, there are plenty who don’t. The gangs know that if they take a girl from a nice family, she will probably be more naïve, not as streetwise as kids who have been in care. And because you are naïve, you are more trusting, easier to impress. They like that. It makes you easier to control. . . . .”

That’s from an interview Emma did with Peter Jackson of the Independent in January 2010 — more than four years ago — and if you do the math, you realize that Emma’s exploitation began in 2002-2003. The failure of British officials to crack down on this horrible trafficking of young girls is inexplicable and inexcusable.

England is a country about the size of the state of Alabama; most of the problem was concentrated in a few districts of northern England. Rotherham has a population of about 250,000, of which about 8% are non-white minorities. The traffickers were a very distinct group — Pakistani Muslim men in their 20s and 30s — and the girls who were victimized were also a distinct group: white, ages 11-17, predominantly from lower-class households, many of them already under supervision by social-service and child-welfare agencies because of family or school problems. The basic outlines of this problem were clearly in evidence by the late 1990s. Let any American imagine, therefore, what the reaction would have been if something like this were happening in Huntsville, Alabama. Would we expect local law enforcement and child-welfare agencies to do nothing? If there were a problem so specific and so localized, involving the sexual exploitation of young girls, wouldn’t we expect a joint federal/state/local task force to target the perpetrators? The FBI would be swarming all over these vicious creeps.

EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN ROTHERHAM!

That’s the astonishing thing, as you read Professor Alexis Jay’s investigative report: Case after case came to the attention of authorities, and yet the systematic exploitation of girls continued. The families of victims were terrorized, and the failure of police to act convinced many people in Rotherham that the Pakistani pimps had political protection through local Labour Party officials. Emma Jackson’s assertion that victims could come from any kind of background is certainly true, but most of the girls came from poor families, broken homes and trouble backgrounds:

Anybody who knows anything about how pimps operate understands this: Street hustlers have a keen eye for vulnerable girls, those with “a desperate need for attention and affection,” and they know how to impress young fools with the ostentatious display of symbols of wealth. Nice car, flashy clothes, jewelry — never mind how this stuff is obtained, whether by theft or fraud or drug dealing, all that counts is creating the superficial impression of wealth and status, and vulnerable girls are seduced by the glamour.

The modus operandi of pimps is well-known, and certainly no social worker or police officer can be ignorant of this. But carefully read these accounts of two victimized Rotherham girls from pages 44-45 of Professor Jay’s investigative report:

This is insanity. As early as 2000 (i.e., two years before Emma Jackson’s exploitation began), social workers and the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) were aware of the case of Child A, who had been “associating with a group of older Asian men” and had already had sexual intercourse with five adult men by age 12! Yet a criminal investigator argued against treating her case as criminal abuse because it was “100% consensual”? Insanity, I tell you!

What is incredible is that, after one such case was clearly identified, the repetition of similar cases (like Child C, apparently exploited from the time she was 11) did not result in a law enforcement response to the pattern. Remember, this was occurring in a community of about 250,000 people — a medium-sized city, not a vast metropolis — and the sex-traffickers fit a very definite “profile.” In a city that size with an 8% minority population, once it became known that girls were being exploited by Pakistani men in their 20s or 30s, does anyone really think that it would have been difficult for police investigators to identify the chief suspects? But this kept happening year after year after year:

Even though this pattern was evident in the 2000-2002 time frame, the inexplicable laxity of law enforcement — who didn’t seem to place a high priority in stopping this abominable exploitation — seems to have emboldened the traffickers, so that in 2008, a pimp was driving around Rotherham with a drunk 12-year-old whore in his car and “indecent photos of her on his phone.” Insanity!

Decades ago, in the late  1970s, U.S. law enforcement became aware of what was known as the “Minnesota Pipeline.” East Coast pimps figured out there was a market demand for blue-eyed blonde teenagers, and so you had runaway girls from the upper Midwest showing up as prostitutes in New York City. Public awareness resulted in a crackdown and, although the problem has not been entirely eliminated, the FBI is very much involved in prosecuting interstate sex trafficking rings:

  • COLUMBIA, SC — United States Attorney Bill Nettles stated today that George McLeod, III, a/k/a “Pimpstick Quezzy,” age 30, of Columbia, pled guilty today in federal court in Columbia, to interstate transportation for the purpose of prostitution, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2421, and aggravated identity theft, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A. . .
  • PORTLAND, ME — United States Attorney Thomas E. Delahanty, II announced today that Samuel C. Gravely, 27, of Portland, pled guilty yesterday in U.S. District Court to interstate travel to promote prostitution. Court records reveal that on March 28, 2013, the defendant drove three women from Portland, Maine, to Boston, Massachusetts, for the purpose of having them engage in prostitution services. . . .
  • NEWARK, NJ — A Colorado man today admitted his role in a conspiracy to transport women across state lines for prostitution in New Jersey and other states, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced. James Roy Smith, 36, a/k/a “Mister Smith,” of Lakewood, Colorado, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler to a superseding information charging him with conspiracy to transport women across state lines to work as prostitutes and transportation of a victim across state lines with the intent that the victim work as a prostitute. . . .

These investigations and prosecutions go on day after day, year after year. If the FBI can be expected to do this work in a nation of 300 million people, do you expect anyone to believe that police can’t bust pimps in Rotherham, with a population of 250,000? Insanity!

Independent Inquiry CSE in Rotherham by Unity_MoT

Part of the problem, however, is made clear both in Professor Jay’s report and in the testimony of Emma Jackson: The girls involved in this are often simply so deluded — so emotionally broken, so confused by peer pressure, so dominated by pimps — that they don’t realize they’re being exploited, and refuse to cooperate with investigators. Here is Emma Jackson’s 2013 testimony to a committee of Parliament:

Emma Jackson: I am 23 now. I was groomed at the age of 12, and that started in Meadowhall, which is a local shopping centre. I used to go on the weekends with my friends. Back then that was the place where children went on a weekend and they hung out. They have the children’s arcade, and we used to go in there. I got targeted by young boys who were a couple of years older than me, so they were not grown men.
Chair: How old would they have been?
Emma Jackson: They would have been 13, 14, and I would have been 12. This went on where I would see them every Saturday for about a year and this fellow started to introduce older brothers or cousins or friends who were about 16, 17, 18. Some of them had cars. At that age-I was coming up to 13 then-I was a teenage girl, and I quite liked the idea that some of them were a bit older and that they had cars, because that is teenage girls. You start wanting a bit more freedom. Your parents start to give you a little bit more freedom, and you do things that you should not do or that your parents tell you not to do. You still do, and that is kids.
Chair: I have a 15-year-old daughter. I know exactly what you mean.
Emma Jackson: You tell them not to do something and they will do it. . . . Then it started where they introduced older people to us and we started to go into Rotherham town centre to hang around instead of Meadowhall. I had turned 13 at this point. Then when we started hanging around in Rotherham town centre and we were there, we were seeing these men every day, and by now they were men. The younger boys had disappeared, and it was men.
Chair: Men of what age?
Emma Jackson: In their 20s. They started to get older as time went on; some were in their 30s. . . .

You can and should read the whole terrifying thing. The point is this: Emma Jackson and the committee chairman agreed that youthful rebellion is normal, that when “teenage girls . . . start wanting a bit more freedom,” they can be expected to “do things that you should not do or that your parents tell you not to do.” That’s simply what kids do, we are assured — but is this really true? Of course, every parent must confront the fact that children reach a certain age where they begin to assert their independence and establish their own identity. It is not true, however, that parents must simply surrender to the willfulness of their children and let them do whatever they want to do.

“But mom, all the other kids are hanging out at the mall!”

Yeah, give into that childish argument, and next thing you know, your 13-year-old daughter is being pimped out as a prostitute.

Three things would seem necessary to prevent this:

  1. Girls must be warned about the dangers of exploitation. It is easy to see, in hindsight, how girls like Emma Jackson were lured into prostitution. She was 12, getting attention from boys 13 or 14 she knew from school. Then these boys introduced her to older teens and young adult men who had cars and money. By the time a pimp raped her at 13, this world seemed “normal” to her, and Emma was then pimped out to other men without realizing that she was a victim or that her “boyfriend” the pimp was a criminal. It is unfortunate to think girls so young must be warned about something so horrible, but it is obvious that naivete makes girls vulnerable.
  2. Parents must be empowered to protect their children. Reading the accounts of what went on in Rotherham, you get the sense that the safety of young girls was entrusted to social workers and police — government bureaucrats, really — who were in some cases shockingly indifferent to the plight of the victims. It is as if the right of parents to protect their own children has been so co-opted by the government that no mother or father felt the right to take action on their own. One wishes these pimps would have had to fear a vengeful Liam Neeson-type father coming after them with a pistol.
  3. Police must take seriously the exploitation of youth. This is the biggest takeaway from Rotherham. It is blindingly obvious that officials were not serious about enforcing age-of-consent laws. Girls under 16 have statutory protection in England, but police and social workers seem to have the idea that it is normal for underage girls to be screwing around, even with adult men.

Don’t take my word for this. Listen to Emma Jackson:

The Asian community in Rotherham know this is happening, and they are absolutely appalled by it. They want these people out of their community like anybody else would. They do not want their children around these people. But I think also what has happened — and not just with the Asian community but with everybody in Rotherham who is a young person or in their early 20s — is it is spoken about and it is almost accepted in a way because it has been going on that long. It is just normal. It has been going on that long, and been left to go on, that we have normalised it. That is just part of growing up; that is what happens.

A society that is willing to tolerate such things will soon learn to accept such things — “just part of growing up” — and it doesn’t take too many years of toleration before pimps and perverts figure out they can get away with such things. This horror story  in Rotherham should be a wake-up call for parents not just in England, but everywhere.

Evil works 24/7 and never takes a holiday. You think your kids are safe from evil in your town? So did Emma Jackson’s parents.

“But mom, all the other kids are hanging out at the mall!”

 

 

ELSEWHERE: