Saturday, October 24, 2009

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

The Bogus Figures on Trafficking

I came across this excellent article examining the UK government's own bogus statistics on sex trafficking.

The Home Office report is based on such flawed methods as to be worse than useless, most of the figures are fabricated. While the authors use an apologetic tone and many caveats to excuse the poor data and high margins of error, Ministers, MPs and prohibitionists have seized upon figures as if they’re based on reality.

It makes me wonder if Harriet can read and write. It is beyond parody. It is like “Carry on Criminology”. If it wasn’t so tragic that women’s lives and savings are raided as a result of it, the poor methods would be funny.

Female Violence on the Increase. Feminist Movement says Nothing

Drunk and baying like dogs, five women brutally attack a stranger in the street.

The women - all from the same family - targeted Matthew Campbell, 38, at random, kicking and stamping on him as he lay prone on the pavement.

Their sickening eight-minute assault was captured on CCTV and resulted in all the women being jailed for six months.

Mr Campbell, a commercial diver, told yesterday how he restrained himself from hitting back because he has never struck a woman before.


Reference

Why don't feminists have anything to say about this sort of incident? Especially on the influence of evil Patriarchal-Capitalist ideology, which prevented the victim from defending himself because he doesn't believe in hitting women? How does this square with feminist claims about male violence against women?

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Your next moral panic will be along shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Now that the sex-trafficking farce has finally been exposed as the charade that it so obviously was, I wonder what new moral panic we are going to be treated to next. My favourite has still got to be the one about the suburban paedophile rings run by gangs of devil-worshippers. That really is hard to beat for sheer absurdity.

Still, I'm sure the feminists will think of something...

Prostitution and trafficking – the anatomy of a moral panic

There is something familiar about the tide of misinformation which has swept through the subject of sex trafficking in the UK: it flows through exactly the same channels as the now notorious torrent about Saddam Hussein's weapons.

In the story of UK sex trafficking, the conclusions of academics who study the sex trade have been subjected to the same treatment as the restrained reports of intelligence analysts who studied Iraqi weapons – stripped of caution, stretched to their most alarming possible meaning and tossed into the public domain. There, they have been picked up by the media who have stretched them even further in stories which have then been treated as reliable sources by politicians, who in turn provided quotes for more misleading stories.

In both cases, the cycle has been driven by political opportunists and interest groups in pursuit of an agenda. In the case of sex trafficking, the role of the neo-conservatives and Iraqi exiles has been played by an unlikely union of evangelical Christians with feminist campaigners, who pursued the trafficking tale to secure their greater goal, not of regime change, but of legal change to abolish all prostitution. The sex trafficking story is a model of misinformation. It began to take shape in the mid 1990s, when the collapse of economies in the old Warsaw Pact countries saw the working flats of London flooded with young women from eastern Europe. Soon, there were rumours and media reports that attached a new word to these women. They had been "trafficked".

The Guardian

Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution

The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.

The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.

Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.


The Guardian

There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. I have been saying the same thing for years.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Why Ideologies hate the family

Nick Cohen, in his book What’s Left? argued that the family is always a threat to any ideology. If you come home and say “I joined the Communist Party today”, it will be your mum or your dad or your granny who will say “Don’t be daft. Your dinner’s on the table”. The family represents an alternative power bloc to the ideology, an alternative demand on one’s loyalty, an alternative source of values, an alternative, and much more psychologically compelling, source of personal identity.

It is for this reason that religious cults often demand that members break off all contact with their families. One’s family often represents a source of support, a grounding in reality, and the ideology, the Cult or Party, rightly sees this as a threat. Any ideology which demands total unquestioning obedience will soon force you to abandon your family. Firstly, on the grounds that a man cannot serve two masters. Secondly, as a test of your loyalty.

Michael Portillo recently said in an interview that in his experience, governments always exceed their powers. It is a basic fact of political science that bureaucracies will always try to extend their remit, increase their power and their budgets.

It has been said that the State has no power over honest men. The only thing that the State can do is to punish criminals. As long as you remain inside your own house, the State cannot touch you. There are always some elements within any State which do not like this fact. Private life constitutes a no-go area, off limits to State power.

When cultish ideologies manage to get themselves into power, the family is always one of their first targets. If private life represents a threat to their infinitely-ambitious quest for power, by attacking the family, they can attack and undermine private life. They generally do this by attacking the soft underbelly of the family. Children and women.

In the twentieth Century, the Nazis and the Communists both encouraged children to report their parents to the authorities for ideological thought crimes such as criticising the regime. Teachers were recruited for this purpose, to encourage the children to write diaries describing their home lives. If a child wrote down “My daddy says that Mr Hitler is wrong”, or something similar, it would be acted upon. Russia and China operated similar tactics.

Mao Tse Tung encouraged teenage ‘Red Guards’ to terrorise the population during the Cultural Revolution. I met one middle-aged former Red Guard, now resident in the USA, who described how as teenagers, a group of them would stand on street corners, surveying the passers-by. They had the power to pull anyone aside that they wanted. “If we saw a woman with a pony-tail”, he told me, “we could just take her to one side and cut it off”. He also described to me how they used to beat prisoners to death with rubber hoses.

Hard-line Maoists in China thought that their policies had failed because they had not tried hard enough. They decided to use the small neighbouring country of Cambodia as a laboratory in order to have another try. The resulting Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia had similar policies, using children to pick out individuals who looked in some way different, who would then be summarily executed or tortured to death. They also used children as prison guards, and encouraged them to incriminate their parents.

The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia used to force 12 year olds to execute their own parents as a test of loyalty to the Party.

In the West since 1965, the target of Marxist agitation in the family has not been children, but women. Feminists have exploited issues such as domestic violence, rape and child abuse in order to prise open the family. By massively exaggerating the scale of these problems, and wrongly blaming them all on men, they have exploited women’s fears in order to win converts to their cult.

The feminist movement, and the paedophile panic, are just the latest in a long series of instruments used by socialist and totalitarian political interests to attack the family. The family itself is what these political interest groups find threatening.