Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Feminists. Got To Love 'Em

The loveable Penny Red reports a shocking case of miscarriage of justice concerning a gang-rape in England.

Bizarrely, the rapists were acquitted.

In a true miscarriage of justice, the BBC reports on how five British men were set free on the grounds that the victim had had group-sex fantasies.

According to Judge Robert Brown,

Not to put too fine a point on it, her credibility was shot to pieces

So, because she had expressed an interest in group sex, she was fair game to be raped? That is what the judgment seems to sugggest. Once again we get to hear how the victim "asked for it".

Miss Red chooses as her title: Strike One for Patriarchy. So I and many of our readers ought to feel ashamed of our half of the species, as these brutes were allowed to walk free. Of course this is a gender issue, isn't it?

Aren't we men all on the side of the perpetrator on this, by virtue of our being men? I don't know a single man who wouldn't be enraged by this crime and it's subsequent brush-off by a lenient court.

Oh, and the perpetrators? The five violent, male, British men-brutes, what were their names again?

Kelvin Chinakwe
Olatunji Owolabi

Afolabi Sanyaolu

Senthil Venkatachalam

Funsho Bello

notice anything?

15 Opinion(s):

Penny Red said...

This is factually incorrect. The victim went to the perpetrator's house expecting to find ONE man she might or might not want to have sex with. On being greeted by six guys, she immediately refused to have sex with them, but was raped anyway. From the BBC:

'The woman said she had agreed to visit Mr Owolabi after meeting him on MSN.

She alleged she wanted to just have sex with him, but was then raped by the others. '

Is it your opinion, then, that if a woman says she might like to have sex with a man, or imagines having sex with a man, that man is entitled to rape her? Even if, as in this case, she has said 'no, I don't want sex'? Christ, that's a brutal, twisted interpretation of 'consent'.

I don't notice anything in particular about that list of names, apart from the fact that none of them are traditional English names, but you wouldn't be implying that that had anything to do with them committing a rape, would you? That would be phenomenally fucking racist, and you wouldn't want that.

Christ, you're a frightening fucking moron, you.

Viking said...

What I resent the most, is the assumption that this is a "male" crime. There is no doubt that the assailants were male, but there are infinitely more men that don't commit these crimes, particularly in Western societies where rapists are harshly dealt with - although not harshly enough one might say.

There is a massive difference between a society that encourages abuse of women and one that does not. We are the latter.

The ethnicity of the attackers FUCKING MATTERS. They are not English, not British, and whoever imported this criminal filth is complicit in the attack, I don't care what anyone says.

The fact that these rapists were foreigners is less important than what cultures they ARE from, likely ones that subjugate woman. There is at least one Nigerian in there, and one Indian.

Does their ethnicity/cultural origin matter? hell, yeh. Particularly when you don't mention it.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps I'm wading into something here. I read the BBC report, as well as the Penny Red article. I am ardently against the extremes of feminism, but to be honest, this is a blatant miscarriage of justice.

How can the mere expressing of one's desires, even if online, be construed as being "evidence" of lower moral standards? And even if the victim did have lower moral standards, that is no right to rape her.

It is a shocking verdict; something any right thinking person should be outraged with.

As for Penny's racist remark. That is unfortunate, and suggests that she isn't all that well informed. The alleged perpetrators are obviously black, and it is well documented that black societies have a much higher prevalence of rape. Moreover, the black-on-white rape statistics are startling. To tell the truth isn't racism. Penny just displays a bizarre level of ignorance. It is probably more a case of entertaining truth when it supports he agenda, otherwise reject it outright, and brand the naysayer a racist at the same time.

Viking said...

Incidentally, and for the record, although I'm pretty damn sure I made this clear in the post, I absolutely condemn the judgement, the fuckers should be IN JAIL, and preferably castrated, irrespective of their ethnicity.

Politicising a crime like this is fucking sick.

Anonymous said...

Penny Red...
They are, surprisingly enough, a bunch of fucking coons. Again.
You just didn't notice it because you don't expect anything else anymore.

Bet you would've noticed it if it had been a bunch of white guys and a sheboon. But then again, I'll bet you've never heard of that happening. Ever.

Viking said...

Anon, that cracked me up. thanks!


Guard your thought -
they become words.
guard your words -
they become deeds.

FishEagle said...

Penny Red said, "Is it your opinion.........."

Don't ask and then make assumptions without hearing the answer first. Isn't that what women always say after they've been raped"

Penny Red said, "Christ, you're a frightening fucking moron, you."

Why not throw in some abuse there too?

Penny Red, you would make any rapist proud.

FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Thanks VI for your post and comments. Penny needs to catch a wake-up and join the real, racist world. Funny that she didn't mention the races. Bet if it were caucasian men, the story would have had another headline; opinion and outcome. Another Lib that needs to be jailed and the key thrown away. They are the worlds true enemy.

Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to the cautionary tale of Little Red Riding Hood? Don't little girls read this anymore?

What a moron, "meeting" someone on the internet and agreeing to meet him somewhere in private "maybe, or maybe not, for sex".

Anonymous said...

Well I hope this stupid bitch learnt her lesson. If you sleep with dogs, expect the flees to bite you. What was she thinking?

Anonymous said...

It would have served her right if she'd been served with a letter of demand for fees for services duly rendered. If you order a rare steak in a restaurant you shouldn't complain about it afterwards if you found it too bloody for your taste.

What a brazen two-faced tart. No wonder Islam is utterly appalled by what Western mores have sunk to.

If white women behave like utter twats then the burqa and chastity belt become viable methods of restraint.

Viking said...

I also wondered why a feminist writer would not want to name-and-shame the perpetrators, as the BBC does. Rather, she names one of them only. Surely naming them serves justice? unless a larger agenda is being served?

The focus of her article was to abuse "the system", and the judgment, even though the burden of proof was not met in this case.

Ironically, it may have been PC-multiculturalism that influenced the judges on this one; the 'aw, they're only black, they don't know any better' attitude that drives the Multicult.

The judge may well have been too scared to convict because of liberal bullies who think that being hard on crime is "racist".

It's the name liberals who want it this way who bitch about the system when it bites them in the ass.

FishEagle said...

I LOVED the comment by Jared on the original post:

You write: "When she refused, five of the men raped her in succession."

This is an allegation made by the defendant and refuted by the accused, it is not, as you have presented it, a fact. Your language shows an unforgivable bias, especially in the light of a not guilty verdict.

As well you know rape is a crime difficult to prosecute due to the fact that in the absence of a violent physical assault it will often leaves no evidence to distinguish it from consensual sex.

This often leads to cases built on circumstantial evidence which attempt to show that the alleged victim would not have consented. In this instance evidence has come to light to suggest that the alleged victim would have consented. It does not show that she did consent, but the burden of proof remains on the prosecution who are now unable to suggest that consent would have been unlikely.

This doesn't mean that the courts consider raping a woman by performing a sex act on her that she has previously fantasised about is not rape. It means that "beyond reasonable doubt" could not possibly be reached.

It is a "he said/she said" and in treating the men as obviously guilty you are treating a woman's word as so above contradiction as to allow conviction even in the absence of evidence. At the same time you are discarding the testimony of the men as worthless.

We have trials and investigations for a reason. Neither a woman nor a man's word is ever enough.