Category Archives: Selective enforcement

So what are the (UK) laws with regards to guns?

Posted on by

Another example of how selective enforcement is the tool of modern totalitarianism. That governments pass harsh laws meant to lull the people into a false sense of security, by seeming to trade liberty for safety, then only enforcing the laws against the majority culture.

British people, if you are not angry yet, you really should be.

From British Resistance.

Written by Green Arrow    Sunday, 31 July 2011 10:01

gun-knifeThis is a strange story from the Bury Times and it raises an interesting point that we will come to later.

According to the report that you can read here, some enricher by the name of Hassan Hussain was found lying in the street with a gunshot wound to his foot and taken to hospital for treatment.

On being questioned by the police, Hussain informed them that he had been accosted by people wearing balaclavas, one of whom then shot him. The police quickly launched a major manhunt – they usually do when one of the enrichers has been attacked – and also reassured the local (more enrichers no doubt) community that they were treating the shooting seriously. How else are you supposed to treat a shooting?

However all was not what it seemed.  Because forensic experts discovered that the gun that wounded the enricher had been fired at extremely close range and the truth was, that Hussain had deliberately shot himself in the foot – why not the head I asked myself?  But it was his choice and he chose his foot to shoot – mores the pity.

Police then charged Hussain with wasting police time.  A charge to which the enricher pleaded guilty to at the Bury Magistrates Court where he was sentenced to a paltry 18 weeks.  By the time I finish typing this article, he will probably have been released for good behaviour.

Now there are actually a couple of points to be made here.  Given that section 287 of the Criminal Justice act states that the minimum sentence for possessing illegal firearms are as follows:

  • 3 years detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 where the offender is aged 16 or 17 at the time of the offence and under 18 at the date of conviction(s 29 (3) (b) and s 29 (6)).
  • 5 years imprisonment for offenders aged 18 or over at the time of conviction. Section 29 (5) makes express provision for offenders aged 18 to 20 inclusive to receive the mandatory sentence, by requiring a reference to a sentence of imprisonment to include a sentence of detention in a young offender institute.

More here at the original news site:

 

The BBC attempts to castigate Robert Spencer for the Oslo monster’s actions

Posted on by
Spencer + BBC - BBC attempts to castigate Robert Spencer     

 

The above link shows very well how opportunistic leftist bias is in mass media, especially government controlled media such as the BBC or CBC. Robert defends himself very well where really, no defense should have been required at all.

The same BBC, and the CBC has similar if not identical policies, well carefully select out Islamic influence in the constant stream of Muslim atrocities well supported both by Islamic scripture as well as Islamic organizations who quote the Koran and other central dogma of Islam as their motive and inspiration and even more. their very instruction for these murders and acts of mass slaughter. Yet the BBC feels it necessary to accuse Spencer of being an influence in an act he could not possibly ever have known would take place.

Thanks Gates of Vienna for the file

Selective enforcement in Canadian schools

Posted on by

On July 25th, Blazing Cat Fur filmed a demonstration in Toronto against the blatantly illegal use of school cafeterias as mosques, an event which seems to be much more common than just the one school that started all this. BCF was kind enough to give me permission to isolate one segment of this video that caught my attention and I think is worthy of special notice. It is not just an abstract question anymore, but now we know. Religion in schools is all for ‘Allah’.

The big media manages to re victimize the victims in Norway.

Posted on by

The grotesque hypocrisy of so much of the largest mass media in the Western world, from the CBC to the NYT, frantically and nearly joyously waxing triumphant that the psychopath who murdered all those children and uninvolved in Norway was not, as it usually is, a Muslim doing slaughter in the name of Islam and it’s god, that they have managed to do only what Anders, the monster of Oslo himself has managed to do.

Victimize all those people and their families again.

By not dealing with this tragedy first and waiting for the facts to come in, by missing the chance to offer some kind of comfort to the hundreds to perhaps thousands of people who are profoundly effected, friends and extended families, by this tragedy, by instead using this story to try and justify their policies of not informing the public of the actual people and motives behind the more typical attacks that take place at least daily somewhere in the world, they have victimized so many Norwegians again.

A negligent and vicious act indeed.

This site has already posted quite a few videos and articles pointing out the hypocrisy of the MSM on this issue and all related ones, perhaps the best to date is Ezra’s expose on the CBC’s glaring double standard when it comes to reporting on terrorism. I suppose as long as the big media is going to change its rules when it sees fit, we, the blogosphere will have to continue to point out that they did. All the while, Norwegians have yet to even bury many of the dead.

I’ll save my rebuttals of so many MSM pieces I see out there for tomorrow.

Ezra levant on the preposterous CBC bias and shifting ethics.

Posted on by

The CBC really is disgusting. If they were a private broadcaster I would just laugh and mock. But as they take over one billion (yes a Carl Sagan Billion) dollars of tax payers hard earned money every single year, I think Canadians should revolt and shut them down. At the very least, it should be privatized with no more guarantees and the same regulations that private broadcasters have. THanks Bad Faun for sending me this clip.

Lowell Green discusses the Norwegian massacre and leftist media opportunism towards it.

Posted on by

Lowell Green does a good show     
on media reaction to the Norwegian slaughter and how various interests are using it to stifle debate on immigration or Islam and its miscibility into Western societies. Worth pouring a coffee and listening to.

Tommy Robinson mops the floor with hostile BBC host

Posted on by

This was a disgusting attempt at character assasination. Tommy held more than his ground though. I would have liked to ask the host, “I saw you at a soccer game and Bin Laden was in the bleachers. Do you deny being at a stadium with Bin Laden and why would you be at a soccer game with him if you didn’t have the same goals. Also, which of Bin Laden’s 50 years of mutterings do you disagree with?”

It was not an interview but an attempted character assassination. Tommy should have had the right to a bloody lawyer in an interview like this. And to think this is a state funded broadcaster. For shame.

Bruce Bawer: A Double Tragedy for Norway

Posted on by

From Pajamas Media:

 

A Double Tragedy for Norway

Not only has it lost almost one hundred people to a senseless rampage, but legitimate criticism of Islam has been profoundly discredited by association with a murderous lunatic. Also read: Can the Left Resist the Temptation to Exploit the Norway Attacks?

July 23, 2011 – 2:35 pm – by Bruce Bawer

Living in Oslo during the past few years, I passed the government buildings downtown almost every day. I lived right up the road from them, only a five-minute walk; they were my gateway to downtown Oslo. Very often, when I looked over at these structures in which, I knew, the prime minister and all of the cabinet ministries had their offices, I shook my head in wonder at the utter lack of visible security. Almost never did I see a single armed — or even unarmed — guard. (The only exceptions were on the rare occasion when a blizzard of foreign flags and a motorcade parked on the sidewalk indicated that some president or prime minister was visiting from abroad.)

This lack of security was certainly not unusual for Norway, where the police don’t carry guns, and where the very idea of police carrying guns is widely looked upon as some holdover from an earlier stage of human evolution. But — hello — in front of the main office buildings of a Western European government? After 9/11? It seemed sheer madness. In recent weeks, passing grim-faced soldiers with machine guns at Amsterdam airport, and then outside the New York Stock Exchange, I thought immediately of those vulnerable-looking government buildings in Oslo.

When I first heard the news of the explosions at those buildings, my first thought, of course, was that it was a jihadist attack. But it wasn’t: it was a right-wing lunatic. It wasn’t jihad. It was a meaningless killing spree by a madman, like the ones at Columbine and Virginia Tech. A headline in one Norwegian newspaper today noted that the death toll in Oslo and at Utøya yesterday was higher than at Columbine and Virginia Tech combined. The Norwegian media have always reported on mass murders by lone gunmen in the U.S. as if they were things that could never happen in Norway: rather, they were symptoms of a sick society that Norwegians could never possibly understand. In Norway, they use the term “amerikanske tilstander” — American conditions. It never means anything good. Yesterday’s nightmare, from a Norwegian perspective, was the most American of American conditions.

Those of us who thought, in the first hours after the blasts in downtown Oslo, that we were witnessing yet another act of jihad can be forgiven. In a way, it made sense. 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai — why not Oslo? Then again…Norway, although a member of NATO with troops in Afghanistan and Libya, was not exactly in the forefront of the struggle to defeat jihad. On the contrary.  Norway calls itself “the peace country.” For years, the Norwegian government and cultural establishment have striven to communicate to even the most extreme elements of international Islam that they want to be friends.  They’ve shown their good faith in a number of ways:

They’ve made a great show of treating Jews very shabbily. Jostein Gaarder, author of the international bestseller Sophie’s World, published an op-ed a few years back declaring his contempt for Israel and the Jewish people. When Gaarder came in for some criticism, many high-profile members of the Norwegian cultural elite rushed to stand shoulder to shoulder with him. If the cultural elite in Norway is more anti-Semitic than its counterparts in any other country in Europe, it has a great deal to do with the recognition that the more you like the Jews, the more you’ll antagonize the Muslims.

For the rest of this article please click through to Pajamas Media

Meanwhile, here is the video of Bruce Bawer speaking on Islam and it’s effects on Western Liberal democracy in Europe in Ottawa 2009

Thanks Snaphanen for sending me this

Fjordman, John Lennon and Che Guevara

Posted on by

I am getting rather fed up with commenters here and elsewhere, as well as articles that are appearing in the MSM and blogs accusing the historian and blogger known as ‘Fjordman’, a personal friend of mine and someone who’s thinking and character I admire very much, of being everything from a mentor to the Norwegian mass-murdering monster to actually being that Norwegian mass-murdering monster despite the fact that he is not in jail and continues to publish while the accused is at the moment, safely in jail.

A few things need to be pointed out right now which dramatically effect the complexion of this event and how Fjordman’s role is perceived in it.

For one thing, the killers manifesto shows he has been planning this event for over 9 years. This means that Anders had planned to do this atrocity or something very much like it for years before Fjordman or for that matter any of us in the counter jihad had even begin to write.

Secondly, I do not see anyone now or then accusing John Lennon of killing Sharon Tate. The Beatles wrote a rather angry sounding song called ‘Helter Skelter’ which the psychotic serial killer Charles Manson used as his inspiration to murder many people most notably Roman Polanski’s then pregnant wife Sharon Tate and write the name of the song in blood on the walls of their family home.

He wrote about how Helter Skelter was the Beatles way of letting us all know about the coming race war between blacks and whites in the USA.

No one then except for a few kooks accused the Beatles of having any real complicity in these crimes. They understood that people can take any influence they want and use it how they see fit for their purposes and this paints no guilt on the person who’s work was taken grossly out of context as the Beatles certainly never meant to inspire anything remotely like the actions in Oslo on July 22 of 2011 just as Fjordman never advised, wrote, said or for that matter thought that it might be a good idea to let bombs off all over Norway and kill a lot of indigenous Norwegian children or anyone for that matter.

However I can’t help but grimace at the thought that many who would condemn Fjordman for the fact that his writing has been twisted and abused by a monster who planned his awful deed years in advance of even reading Fjordman’s work, would likely wear Che T shirts, glorifying a mass murderer and Castro’s prison torturer, a man who used his medical skills to be a better administrator of human suffering and creator of maximum pain for Castro’s political opponents and often whole villages of people who just did not agree with his totalitarian vision.

Like so many stomach turning ironies of this day and age, we are reminded of how urgently necessary is our sense of smell.

Eeyore for Vladtepesblog

Norwegian politician charged with hate crime for stating obvious facts

Posted on by

Once again, civilized nations go galloping past Orwell to Kafka.

H/T Kitman

Remember this speech by a brave Norwegian politician?

Well here is the consequence of speaking clear, empirical truths:

(Below a machine translation of the above linked article) Continue Reading →

News of the World vs. WikiLeaks

Posted on by

Nice to see a piece that so well explains why Assange is no hero. To put it mildly.

From the Wall Street Journal:

 

How does this year’s phone hacking scandal at the now-defunct British tabloid News of the World—owned, I hardly need add, by News Corp., the Journal’s parent company—compare with last year’s contretemps over the release of classified information by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks and his partners at the New York Times, the Guardian and other newspapers?

At bottom, they’re largely the same story.

In both cases, secret information, initially obtained by illegal means, was disseminated publicly by news organizations that believed the value of the information superseded the letter of the law, as well as the personal interests of those whom it would most directly affect. In both cases, fundamental questions about the lengths to which a news organization should go in pursuit of a scoop have been raised. In both cases, a dreadful human toll has been exacted: The British parents of murdered 13-year-old Milly Dowler, led to the false hope that their child might be alive because some of her voice mails were deleted after her abduction; Afghan citizens, fearful of Taliban reprisals after being exposed by WikiLeaks as U.S. informants.

Both, in short, are despicable instances of journalistic malpractice, for which some kind of price ought to be paid. So why is one a scandal, replete with arrests, resignations and parliamentary inquests, while the other is merely a controversy, with Mr. Assange’s name mooted in some quarters for a Nobel Peace Prize?

The easy answer is that the news revealed by WikiLeaks was in the public interest, whereas what was disclosed by News of the World was merely of interest to the public. By this reckoning, if it’s a great matter of state, and especially if it’s a government secret, it’s fair game. Not so if it’s just so much tittle-tattle about essentially private affairs.

You can see the attraction of this argument—particularly if, like Mr. Assange, you are trying to fight extradition to Sweden on pending rape charges that you consider unworthy of public notice.

AFP/Getty ImagesCopies of the now-defunct British tabloid News of the World paper

gloview0719

gloview0719

You can also see its attraction to anybody who claims to know what the public interest ought to be and is in a position to do something about it. In June 2006, the New York Times revealed that the Bush administration had a secret—and highly effective—program to monitor thousands of banking transactions in an effort to stop terrorism financing. Several months later, the Times’ own public editor argued that the program was entirely legal and that the article should never have been published. The Gray Lady moved on.

But you can also see why the distinction between the Public Interest, loftily defined, and what actually happens to interest the public, not-so-loftily defined, is a piece of rhetorical legerdemain that masks a raw assertion of privilege. Was it in the higher public interest to know, as we learned from WikiLeaks, that Zimbabwe’s prime minister and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was privately urging U.S. diplomats to hold firm on sanctions even as he was saying the opposite in public? No. Did the public want to know about it? No. What did this particular WikiLeak achieve? Nothing, except to put Mr. Tsvangirai at material risk of being charged with treason and hanged.

For the rest please click over to the WSJ linked at top

 

Australian leftists demand Israel tear down the security fence while saying nothing about Egypt’s wall for the same reason around the same people.

Posted on by

The hypocrisy of the left on these issues knows no bounds. I find it interesting that comments for this video are moderated. I left the comment, “What about the Egyptian wall. That one OK?” to discover that all comments are moderated. Hypocrites.