Mandatory diversity in Australian Rugby

Mandatory diversity in Australian Rugby, by Jeremy Sammut.

Rugby Australia announced that Folau — its star player who is coming out of contract — would face no sanctions (this time at least) over his theologically-based comments on social media about homosexuality and hell.

However, to appease sponsors lead as Qantas, RA CEO Raleane Castles sent a memo to all Australian Super Rugby players warning of their contractual obligations under RA’s Inclusion Policy and to use social media in a respectful manner.

The implication is that any further expression of his religious views by Folau, or any other player, that contradicts the corporate inclusiveness mantras of RA and its sponsors will be treated as grounds for banishment from the code.

This is the same place that the National Rugby League seems to have landed on this issue — given CEO Todd Greenberg’s statement that Folau’s public statements about his religious beliefs would not be acceptable in rugby league.

The failure by both codes to respect the rights of players to express genuinely held religious beliefs is alarming since religious freedom is meaningless without the right to affirm one’s religion in the public square. …

Do we want to live in a country where sporting bodies and corporations mandate ideological conformity and force us all to think, speak, and act the same in the name of ‘diversity’?

The new rule: Receiving a paycheck from nearly any government or corporate means you are not allowed to say anything un-PC in public. Conform, or else!

hat-tip Stephen Neil

The CDC Study The Anti-Gun Lobby Doesn’t Want You To Know About Stephanie Hamill

The CDC Study The Anti-Gun Lobby Doesn’t Want You To Know About, by Stephanie Hamill.

Did you know that defensive gun use is happening more regularly in the United States than gun crimes?! Probably not!

Why? Because the Centers for Disease Control never publicized it.

The agency sat on this information for years. The unpublished CDC Study confirms there are nearly 2.5 million defensive gun use situations per year. A lot higher than 100,000, which is the low-ball number leftists have been throwing around recently.

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

Is Political Diversity on the Op-Ed Page Worth Defending?

Is Political Diversity on the Op-Ed Page Worth Defending? By Nick Phillips.

Of … those who are skeptical of the need for media outlets to pursue political diversity — the ablest pen currently belongs to Osita Nwanevu, who laid out his argument in a piece for Slate entitled “It’s Time to Stop Yammering About Liberal Bias.” There are two layers to his critique: firstly, the media actually has plenty of political diversity, but secondly, this diversity isn’t a particularly important value for publications like the Atlantic to pursue.

Nwanevu argues that in our nation’s three most important ‘big tent’ publications — what we might call media’s elite gatekeeper institutions — there are already more than enough conservatives and libertarians. At the New York Times, Washington Post, and Atlantic, Nwanevu counts 18 such people who contribute regularly …

It’s an odd list, for a few reasons. Firstly, the only thing these writers really have in common (besides great talent) is that each of them holds views that depart from progressive orthodoxy in some way. … But if the standard for political diversity is ‘anyone who departs from orthodoxy in any way,’ it only shows us how powerful that orthodoxy really is. …

Indeed, one couldn’t build a more moderate list of dissenters. Of this crew, only one — Ed Rogers — could reasonably be described as a Trump supporter. The rest are prominent Trump opponents, and more than a few are widely despised by the country’s conservative establishment for their heterodoxies on policy. They represent the mildest encroachment on the political Left, certainly relative to the views of the country as a whole. A stiff dose of doctrinaire conservatism this is not. …

Perhaps the most curious thing about this list is how readers are expected to take it on faith that 19 non-progressives is plenty. Between the three publications, I count 105 regular opinion writers. That means a full 18 percent of this group identify as anything other than left-of-center. …

Conservatives have been forced out of the mainstream, so they form media outlets that appeal only to conservatives.

Last year, centrist writer and psychiatrist Scott Alexander offered a framework to rebut this critique on his SlateStarCodex blog:

[There is] a widespread norm, well-understood by both liberals and conservatives, that we have a category of space we call “neutral” and “depoliticized”. These sorts of spaces include institutions as diverse as colleges, newspapers, workplaces, and conferences. And within these spaces, overt liberalism is tolerated but overt conservatism is banned. In a few of these cases, conservatives grew angry enough that they started their own spaces — which began as noble attempts to avoid bias, and ended as wretched hives of offensive troglodytes who couldn’t get by anywhere else. This justifies further purges in the mainstream liberal spaces, and the cycle goes on forever.

Stanford historian Robert Conquest once declared it a law of politics that “any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” I have no idea why this should be true, and yet I’ve seen this happen again and again. Taken to its extreme, it suggests we’ll end up with a bunch of neutral organizations that have become left-wing, plus a few explicitly right-wing organizations. Given that Conquest was writing in the 1960s, he seems to have predicted the current situation remarkably well.

Understood this way, Alexander helps us see the central flaw in Nwanevu’s argument. Conservatives form partisan institutions because they keep being excluded from the ‘neutral’ ones. From the conservative perspective, forming more neutral institutions will just replicate the same problem, because the default setting in these spaces will eventually move to the left, just as Conquest predicted. If you’re a conservative and you want to ensure that your voice will be heard, placing your faith in the goodwill of the liberal colleagues who will soon outnumber you can prove challenging.

If liberals want to minimize the growth of highly partisan institutions like Fox News and Liberty University, the solution is simple — stop making it so difficult for conservatives to exist in neutral spaces. …

The central premise behind the drive for viewpoint diversity in media is that, as much as possible, we should prevent people from self-siloing. Big-tent publications with broad readerships advance this goal by featuring diverse views on their opinion pages, guaranteeing that readers will encounter ideas they disagree with. …

When we accept the mutation of neutral institutions into echo chambers, we poison the entire political environment. The conservatives who get excluded seek their revenge in the form of heightened partisan nastiness, uncut by any obligation to make a wide appeal or opportunity to persuade fence-sitters. Liberals see this as proof of inherent conservative derangement, and feel even more empowered to keep excluding them. Everyone self-silos, and everyone polarizes.

As William F. Buckley wrote nearly 60 years ago, “Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.”

Obama jets off to legitimize South Africa’s Zimbabwifying regime

Obama jets off to legitimize South Africa’s Zimbabwifying regime, by Monica Showalter.

South Africa is busy Zimbabwifying itself, ready to expropriate white-owned farms without compensation. At this point, it should be a pariah state. But in goes President Obama, likely to egg them on.

The gushy New York Times piece about it pretty well calls Obama’s planned trip to play community organizer abroad in South Africa a wonderful thing. …

Now, Mr. Obama is inaugurating his most significant international project as an ex-president, with an announcement on Monday that the Obama Foundation plans to convene 200 young people this July in Johannesburg for five days of meetings, workshops and technical training. …

Cyril Ramaphosa, South African President

I’ve been to places where expropriations in the name of “the people” (led by comrades acting as community organizers) happened – namely, Venezuela. While I was there in late 2005, I specifically asked farmers in the rural Yaracuy and Cojedes states to take me to places where land was expropriated in the name of correcting “injustice” and empowering “the people.” The places I was taken were fallow hellholes, gone to seed by their unmotivated leftist comrade masters and their unwilling indigent tenant farmers supposedly benefiting from it in the name of “the collective.” I remember a ragged red Chavista flag fluttering in the breeze on a hill to mark the shambling weed-filled disaster as miserable-looking people sat huddled by a tent, doing nothing, which stood in stark contrast to the neatly maintained farm across the road that had yet to be expropriated. I have heard since that they all have been expropriated in the name of “social justice” now, so I can only imagine what a garbage- and weed-strewn fallow wasteland it now must be.

South Africa has launched itself into the same fate now, and there will be weeds, and there will be hunger. You’d think the Zimbabwean example would terrify them, but their rulers are so left-wing that it actually excites them.

Commodities are flashing a once-in-a-generation buy signal

Commodities are flashing a once-in-a-generation buy signal, by Frank Holmes. The ratio of commodity prices (copper, oil, wheat, gold, soybeans,…) to equity prices (the stock market indices) is plumbing historical lows, and conditions are ripe for a reversal. This could be because stock markets are too high, or real stuff is too cheap, or both.

Since the commodities supercycle unwound nearly 10 years ago, many investors have been waiting for the right conditions to trigger mean reversion and lift prices. I believe those conditions are either firmly in place right now or, at the very least, in their early stages. Among them are factors I’ve discussed at length elsewhere—a weaker U.S. dollar, a steadily flattening yield curve, heightened market volatility, overvalued stocks, expectations of higher inflation, trade war jitters, geopolitical risks and more.

In addition, nearly 60 percent of money managers surveyed by Bank of America Merrill Lynch believe 2018 could be the peak year for stocks. A recent J.P. Morgan survey found that three quarters of ultra-high net worth individuals forecast a U.S. recession in the next two years. …

In a note this week, analysts at Goldman Sachs write that “the strategic case for owning commodities has rarely been stronger.” The bank recommends an overweight position, estimating that commodities will yield at least 10 percent over the next 12 months, with most of the gains being made by crude oil and aluminum. …

Also bolstering the commodities investment story is China’s massive ongoing “Belt and Road” megaproject, also known as the Silk Road Economic Belt. In a note this week, CLSA reminds us that the infrastructure initiative is still in its infancy, expected to be completed by 2049. It will cut through as many as 68 countries across Asia and Europe, affecting an estimated 62 percent of the world’s population. China has already spent approximately $180 billion to complete various projects, but many billions more will go toward building roads, ports, dams, high-speed rail, airports and more — all to “enhance regional connectivity,” as President Xi Jinping put it, and strengthen China’s economic clout.

Conservatives made a terrible mistake when they mostly abandoned the web in favor of Facebook, Twitter and other social media

Conservatives made a terrible mistake when they mostly abandoned the web in favor of Facebook, Twitter and other social media. By John Hinderaker.

On the internet, of course, we are still somewhat subject to the whims of Google, but Facebook and Twitter have acquired a dangerous ability to suppress conservative speech.

This blog is on the open Web, uncensored by Twitter or Facebook.

Media and tech, two of the most powerful groupings on opinion and policy forming, are dominated almost completely by the left. Staffed, owned, and run by leftists. Non-PC thought is struggling, and blatantly unreal PC fantasies are widely believed. It is not, to use their favorite word, “sustainable.”

Antifa Members Arrested for Refusing to Remove Masks

Antifa Members Arrested for Refusing to Remove Masks, by Tom Knighton.

On Saturday, an Antifa contingent showed up in Newnan, Georgia, to protest a neo-Nazi gathering. …

As usual, Antifa ran afoul of the police. In Georgia, it’s illegal to wear a mask in public with a few exceptions. As this wasn’t Halloween and they weren’t part of a theatrical production, law enforcement told the protestors to remove them. Antifa, being Antifa, refused to comply.

As Huffington Post’s Christopher Mathias reports, in an article sympathetic to Antifa’s brand of fascism: “Police officers arrived before the rally began and approached a group of about 50 anti-fascist protesters. They demanded the protesters remove their masks or face arrest. The officers — who wore bulletproof vests and helmets, and carried semi-automatic rifles — cornered the anti-fascist protesters, then grabbed those who were still masked, tossing them to the ground and handcuffing them.”

He continues: “The lead officer in the arrests said the counterprotesters were breaking a state law regarding masks, likely referring to a seldom-enforced 1951 law originally aimed at combating hooded Ku Klux Klan members.” …

Antifa, at another event

History rhymes:

The Klan was the radical left wing of the Democratic Party. And this particular group of new-Nazis called themselves the National Socialist Movement, so … more lefties.

The Thirty Years War and Why It Matters Today

The Thirty Years War and Why It Matters Today, by Philip Jenkins.

The Thirty Years’ War is just a blank for most nonspecialists in the English-speaking world. …

That oblivion is not hard to explain, as the kingdom of England was never formally involved in the war. Despite early efforts to entangle England, her King James I staunchly favored peace. In the event, all four nations of the British Isles supplied many thousands of mercenaries and volunteers to the fighting, and if they had served under a common flag, England would have been a key political and diplomatic player in European affairs. As it was, James showed wisdom. Tragically, his efforts failed in the long term, as European divisions spilled over into the British Isles and did much to spark the devastating civil wars that ruined Britain and Ireland in the 1640’s. For whatever reason, those wars are rarely placed in their proper international context, so that Anglo-Americans regard the Thirty Years’ conflict as some strange European squabble that had nothing to do with them. …

The course of the war:

The essential context of the war was the fundamental rivalry between Catholics and Protestants, which had detonated so many conflicts since the 1520’s. …

The war now began in earnest [in 1618]. Catholic forces won dramatic early victories… When Ferdinand actually did become emperor in 1619, he undermined Protestantism as systematically as his enemies feared, advancing his policy of spiritual reconquest in the newly acquired territories. Over the next decade, the war expanded steadily in scope and scale, involving the Netherlands, Spain, and multiple German states, as well as the [Holy Roman] Empire itself. Catholic military power triumphed repeatedly, under generals like Counts Tilly and Wallenstein. By 1630, Catholic battle standards advanced to the Baltic, raising the question of where, if anywhere, might still be considered safe Protestant territory.

It was this very overreach that prevented a Habsburg triumph. Tilly’s successes provoked a counterstroke by the Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus, who smashed Catholic forces at Breitenfeld in 1631 …

By 1641, it was clear that neither side could win outright victory, and that only diplomacy could resolve the bloody stalemate. Several years of intense fighting ensued before the powers signed their comprehensive peace in Westphalia, in 1648.

The outcome:

The war’s most immediate results were straightforward, and of defining significance for later Western history. Although neither side emerged as a clear victor, it was no longer possible to contemplate total victory for either Catholics or Protestants, nor the extirpation of either side, as had seemed all too possible in 1618. …

Not only was the war so unspeakably prolonged, but it was fought in ways that raised real concerns for the survival of European civilization. The year 1640 has a fair claim to rank as the worst year in European history before 1940.

States of the time were utterly incapable of paying or supplying armies, who had to live off the land — in other words, they seized food and treasure from every community through which they passed. …

Armies faced no legal constraints in terms of their treatment of civilians, especially when religious fanatics on both sides were calling for the annihilation of rival believers as infidels. Massacres and sacks were commonplace, the most notorious being the Catholic destruction of Magdeburg in 1631. Some 25,000 perished in “Magdeburg’s Sacrifice.”

Sack of Magdeburg, 1631

A 17th-century landscape of war was a nightmare theater of plunder and rape, famine and cannibalism, in which civilization all but ceased to function. German lands especially suffered horrific damage, from which they took decades to recover. In all, Germany probably lost a third of her population, a level of destruction we today associate with nuclear warfare. Inevitably, ordinary people sought scapegoats for the disasters of the age, making the post-1625 decade one of the bloodiest eras ever in European witch-hunting.

Much of European history over the following two centuries can be understood only in light of this horrific experience, and the overwhelming need to prevent a recurrence. At the international level, this meant the so-called Westphalian system, in which nation-states were paramount, and they had recognized boundaries. …

Domestically, the chaos of the Thirty Years’ War era led directly to absolutism, which remained the dominant political order in Europe until 1789. So dreadful was the violence of the radical years that elites were willing to suspend or abolish their representative institutions, their parliaments or estates, to place all power in a royal court. Again, this development marked a vital contrast between parliamentary England and the absolutist Continental powers, although even England came close to losing her parliament later in the 17th century. …

Much of what we think of as the origins of the modern West can be traced to this era. These writers had witnessed a generation of bloodshed, massacre, and assassination, when the boundaries separating states from bandit gangs seemed hard to draw. When so many moral assumptions were collapsing, what were the foundations on which society could and should be reconstructed? What were the core elements of the European Christian tradition, which separated it from pagan barbarism? What were the rights of individuals? …

So who won the Thirty Years’ War? Not the people who started it.

In the last two decades, the globalist bureaucrats have tried to introduce a doctrine of “right to protect (RTP)” to replace the older Westphalian ideal from 1648 of non-interference in another country’s internal affairs. RTP was used as an excuse for the West to become involved military in Libya and Syria.

Ten dead, 15 injured as van ploughs into Toronto pedestrians

Ten dead, 15 injured as van ploughs into Toronto pedestrians, by Cameron Stewart.

A rented van ploughed down a crowded Toronto sidewalk Monday, killing 10 people and injuring 15 before the driver fled and was quickly arrested in a confrontation with police, Canadian authorities said. Witnesses said the driver was moving fast and appeared to be acting deliberately, but police officials would not comment on the cause or any possible motive. …

More mental illness by someone with a Middle-Eastern name? Here we go:

Saunders identified the man detained after the incident as Alek Minassian, 25, a resident of the Toronto suburb of Richmond Hill. He said the suspect had not been known to police previously.

Eyewitness:

An eyewitness told CNN: “He was just hitting people one by one, he hit every single person on the sidewalk, holy God I never seen anything like this in my life … you see it in a war zone..

“He is going 60 to 70 kms on the sidewalk … this person was intentional, doing this he was killing everybody … this is terrorism stuff here.”

When are our governing class going to admit there is a problem? Which leads quickly to the conclusion they made a disastrous mistake on immigration … so perhaps hell will freeze over first.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Malcolm Turnbull defends tough border protection policies

Malcolm Turnbull defends tough border protection policies, by Dennis Shanahan.

Malcolm Turnbull has delivered an impassioned defence in Germany of Australia’s tough border protection policies, declaring it is “absolutely essential” that governments protect their sovereign borders to gain the trust of the public to allow immigration and have a successful multicultural society.

Malcolm Turnbull November 2015

Almost directly echoing the famous words of John Howard that Australia “will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come,” the Prime Minister told an elite audience in Berlin of academics and diplomats that the public needed to be able to trust that the government “ is determining who comes into the country”.

“You have to be able to assert your sovereign right to control your own borders,” Mr Turnbull said. …

Mr Turnbull’s strident defence of the hard line approach to turning back boats of asylum seekers and offshore processing of potential refugees came after weeks of debate about cutting the immigration levels in Australia and a Newspoll survey showing most people thought immigration levels were too high.

Well said Mr Turnbull.

Germans: A Minority in Germany By 2060

Germans: A Minority in Germany By 2060, by Robert Ossenblok.

Germany has the highest percentage of immigrants of all the 27 EU members. Over 10 million people living in Germany today were born outside of Germany. That is about 12% of the German population, on a total of just over 82 million.

Most of these immigrants come from other European countries. The biggest immigrant groups are from Turkey, Russia, Poland and Italy. …

Islam is the second largest religion in Germany, with an estimated 6.1% of the population according to a 2017 Pew Research Survey. Germany has the second largest Muslim population in Europe, at nearly 5 million. …

The percentage of Muslims in Germany is expected to rise to nearly 20% by 2050, assuming a high immigration scenario. …

Germany’s fertility rate is 1.45. The average woman is already 29 years old when she has her first child. Unsurprisingly, for many older mothers, the second child never comes. This extremely low fertility rate is the reason Germany’s population is bound to shrink. Despite the waves of immigrants entering Germany, it still shrinks. Moreover, it ages. Germany’s median age is the second oldest in the world, at 47.1 years old. …

Around 45% of women with a degree is childless. A focus on career likely made these women lose interest in having children, or they were too old by the time they started trying. The childlessness rate for German women on a whole is 30%. The highest rate in the world. …

Already, 44% of Germans say there are so many foreigners in their country that it does not feel like home anymore.

1945 was bad for Germans, but feminism and immigration may prove fatal.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Last Chance for the US Republican Party

Last Chance for the US Republican Party, by Brent Bozell.

At this point they will certainly lose the House and quite possibly the Senate too. …

The $1.3 trillion Omnibus Bill — their omnibus bill — was not just the most reckless spending bill in history, it was an abject surrender on every single political and policy pledge made to those who put them in office, save helping the military.

It’s been this way from the start. First, they asked for control of the House and its appropriations authority to right the fiscal ship, and as importantly, end Obamacare. In 2010, they got it — and immediately stated they could do nothing without the Senate. In 2014, they were awarded that too — and just as quickly declared they could do nothing without the White House. So, in 2016 they were handed that, and with it complete control of the legislative process, but now with no more excuses available.

And what have they done? They surrendered without a fight. Any real advance, be it Gorsuch, regulatory relief, minimal border security, minimal tax cuts, or minimal changes in Obamacare — it’s all being driven by the White House. Congress has done nothing.

Here’s the difference between the two parties. For the past eight years, the GOP has been the party that begins each conversation with, “This is why we can’t do it.” The Democrats begin theirs with, “This is how we’ll get it done.” …

It’s so obvious, really. At this point the GOP faithful are set to make a devastating declaration in seven months: “We gave you complete control, and you not only accomplished nothing, you broke your word on virtually everything. Good-bye.”

It’s the same in all the main Western countries. The big left party is truly the party of big government and “progressives”, and it is the first choice of the deep state/PC crowd/bureaucracy-media alliance — “team A” if you will.

But, being a democracy, the right party gets in power about half the time. So the right party has been trained to be team B, the second choice. The media only gives a non-PC politician air time if either they say something PC (sympathetic coverage) or they say something stupid or radically non-PC (outrage, made to look like fools). Additionally, when in government, the bureaucracy are in their ear all the time to be more progressive — and it gets unpleasant if they aren’t.

The right wing dog does as it’s trained by the media/bureaucracy/PC-mob.

So the solution the “conservative” politicians come up with is to talk conservative to get elected, then act like the team B of PC when in power — doing the same as team A, only slower. Notice that whenever and wherever the right has been in power for the last twenty years, they have not reversed PC or the growth of government — merely slowed it down a bit. The public are noticing. Looks like the right party in the US has completely run out of excuses.

Reagan and Thatcher are but distant memories now.

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

The Best Countries to Be Born as a Female Are in the West and Capitalist

The Best Countries to Be Born as a Female Are in the West and Capitalist, by Daniel Fernandez.

Third-wave feminism tries to link patriarchy with capitalism, and patriarchy with Western society. … If this were true, we should expect capitalist countries to be the ones that oppress the female gender the most, either through discriminatory laws or restrictions of different kinds. To examine whether this is true, let’s look at how women’s situation differs depending on how capitalist a country is.

The higher the Index of Economic Freedom, the higher the Women’s Welfare Index. It seems that as capitalism advances, so do women’s rights. …

In sum, when countries are more capitalist, the situation of social inclusion for women improves, discriminatory laws disappear, and women’s safety increases. It seems that the relationship between capitalism and patriarchy that is claimed by feminist groups does not occur in reality. …

Of the 20 countries with the greatest welfare for women, 19 are Western countries (Singapore, a capitalist country par excellence, is the only non-Western country). The Muslim country with the greatest women welfare is the United Arab Emirates. It ranks 43 in the world, with an almost identical score to the second to last Western country on the list (Hungary). Of the 20 worst countries with the lowest welfare for women, 15 are Muslim and 5 are African.

hat-tip Matthew

Candace Owens’ Moment: I’m Not Far Right, I’m Free

Candace Owens’ Moment: I’m Not Far Right, I’m Free. By John Hinderaker.

Candace Owens is a young African-American woman who works through Turning Point USA, among others, to bring a message of empowerment to the black community. I believe this video first made her famous:

… Yesterday morning, Kanye West tweeted his approval of Candace:

That caused the Left to go insane. Most of our readers (like me) probably know little about West, but he is highly influential among a broad segment of African-Americans and young people generally. His apostasy could not go unpunished. Reportedly, Adidas is contemplating canceling West’s shoe contract. But to his credit, West hasn’t backed down.

Freedom of speech supports Israel Folau’s love of God

Freedom of speech supports Israel Folau’s love of God, by Jennifer Oriel.

Criticisms of Folau as prejudiced or too outspoken fail the test of reason. He didn’t stop play and shout out “hell to gays” in the middle of a match. He responded to an explicit question about the word of God on the question of homosexuality. And he responded by referring to the Bible. If you ask what God’s plan is, be prepared for the answer.

Those who oppose Folau’s right to cite scripture are advocating censorship of the Bible.

It’s not quite as dramatic as book burning, but the principle is the same.

Rotherham Council And Police Want Powers To Ban Anti-Child Rape Protests

Rotherham Council And Police Want Powers To Ban Anti-Child Rape Protests, by Oliver Lane.

Officials in the Pakistani child rape gang scandal town of Rotherham are moving to ban protests against their own incompetence. They have appealed to the home secretary for emergency special powers under the Public Order Act 1986.

Shut up, they explained.

Rotherham Council Ordered to Apologise to Whistleblower Who Exposed Grooming Scandal

Rotherham Council Ordered to Apologise to Whistleblower Who Exposed Grooming Scandal, by Jack Montgomery.

Rotherham Council has been ordered to apologise to a whistleblower who helped expose the mass exploitation of underage white girls by mostly Muslim men.

Jayne Senior, who has worked with grooming victims since 1999 and was made a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2016 for services to child protection, helped to blow the lid off a long-running grooming gang scandal in the town.

She revealed how council officials, social services, and police — paralysed by fears of racism accusations — failed to act while at least 1,400 girls were abused.

But just months after she received her award and published her memoirs, Broken and Betrayed, the council orchestrated a raid on the charity she runs, Swinton Lock, as part of an investigation which has now been slammed by the local government ombudsman.

Robert Spencer:

Not only did Rotherham Council officials do nothing about the Muslim rape gangs for fear of “racism,” but then they “orchestrated a raid” on the whistleblower’s charity “as part of an investigation which has now been slammed by the local government ombudsman.”

What on earth were Rotherham Council officials thinking? What good could they possibly have thought would come from their ignoring criminal activity because it was committed by Muslims, and persecuting those who called attention to it? Did they think their Muslim constituents would be gratified by their solicitude, and stop the criminal activity committed by members of their community as a result? Or were the Council members simply resigned to the idea that soon Britain would be under Sharia rule, such that it would be a good career move for them to have built up a record of appeasement and accommodation?

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Belgium: First Islamic State in Europe?

Belgium: First Islamic State in Europe? By Guilio Meotti.

The French acronym of Belgium’s ISLAM Party stands for “Integrity, Solidarity, Liberty, Authenticity, Morality”. The leaders of the ISLAM Party apparently want to turn Belgium into an Islamic State. They call it “Islamist democracy” and have set a target date: 2030.

According to the French magazine Causeur, “the program is confusingly simple: replace all the civil and penal codes with sharia law. Period“. Created on the eve of the 2012 municipal ballot, the ISLAM Party immediately received impressive results. Its numbers are alarming.

The effect of this new party, according to Michaël Privot, an expert on Islam, and Sebastien Boussois, a political scientist, could be the “implosion of the social body”. Some Belgian politicians, such as Richard Miller, are now advocating banning the ISLAM Party. …

The ISLAM Party knows that demography is on its side. Ahrouch has said, “in 12 years, Brussels will principally be composed of Muslims”.

If the supporters of the ISLAM Party are Belgian citizens, then they should be able to speak their mind like anyone else. But they want to apply Sharia law, which will shut up contrary views forever.

No, no, no. Nothing to worry about here at all.

What was it about this that was so hard to predict?

Western leaders have made a terrible mistake over the last few decades. What will it take for them to admit it, accept reality, and reverse course?

hat-tip Philip Barton