Femiloons are enraged... actually, that's pretty much goes without saying. This time, they're specifically enraged! by coalition moves towards sexual equality.
What? Of course that's a fair summary. Hey, if the local council paying someone who does manual labour out in all weathers more than someone who does clerical work in a climate controlled office is The Sexism! (more women work inside than men, see), it surely is discriminatory for the courts to extend privileges to a mostly female demographic while denying them to a mostly male one.
Even back on Earth, it's hard to see what their problem is... Well, actually, it's perfectly easy to see what their problem is. As befits a bunch of bigoted nutcases, they truly believe that one of the lower orders offending a female in and off itself should be actionable. Unfortunately, that's proving to be a tough sale, so instead they claim they're really concerned about rape, and since all men are rapists, well, work it out for yourself....
Or get a man to do it, then claim you totally could have done it yourself if you weren't so oppressed.
The thing is though, if they really opposed rape, they'd be concentrating at least some of their fire on a demographic that really do commit a lot of rapes, namely rapists, but that never seems to happen.
This case is interesting for two reasons, firstly the sighting of the rare, but increasingly common, Victims of No Appearance. I guess it's further evidence for my Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy theory that knowledge of the offender automatically precludes knowledge of the victim and vice versa.
The other thing that's remarkable though is the sentence, or lack thereof:
Except, in the Bizarro world of the courts, indefinite turns out to be kind of definite, after all:
Just what do they think's going to happen in the next nine years to make this scumbag a worthwhile member of society? A visit from the Sociopathy Fairy? Or is it just another case of a headline-grabbing tough sentence that turns out to be pure leftist spin (meanwhile, apparently it's the right that's 'politicising the courts').
Here's a guy who's the worst of the worst. If femiloons were really opposed to rape, they'd want to make sure guys like this got meaningful sentences. Instead, a degenerate predator has got a slap on the wrist and providing he can face the terrible ordeal of a tribunal made up of the self-same type of liberal snivellers who refused to give him a proper sentence in the first place, he'll soon be back on the streets with years of active raping ahead of him. And the femiloons?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......
It's all too yawnerooney for them. They want the right to ruin the life of the boy next door on a whim, but their fellow liberals can all but fit a revolving door on the courts with nary a word.
What? Of course that's a fair summary. Hey, if the local council paying someone who does manual labour out in all weathers more than someone who does clerical work in a climate controlled office is The Sexism! (more women work inside than men, see), it surely is discriminatory for the courts to extend privileges to a mostly female demographic while denying them to a mostly male one.
Even back on Earth, it's hard to see what their problem is... Well, actually, it's perfectly easy to see what their problem is. As befits a bunch of bigoted nutcases, they truly believe that one of the lower orders offending a female in and off itself should be actionable. Unfortunately, that's proving to be a tough sale, so instead they claim they're really concerned about rape, and since all men are rapists, well, work it out for yourself....
Or get a man to do it, then claim you totally could have done it yourself if you weren't so oppressed.
The thing is though, if they really opposed rape, they'd be concentrating at least some of their fire on a demographic that really do commit a lot of rapes, namely rapists, but that never seems to happen.
This case is interesting for two reasons, firstly the sighting of the rare, but increasingly common, Victims of No Appearance. I guess it's further evidence for my Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy theory that knowledge of the offender automatically precludes knowledge of the victim and vice versa.
The other thing that's remarkable though is the sentence, or lack thereof:
A 'barbaric' robber who took part in the rape and torture of a young couple in their own home was jailed indefinitely today.I know what you're thinking: indefinite, huh? Sounds about right, throw the key away.
Gavin Gordon, 31, a drug addict who has a string of convictions for violence dating back more than ten years, was part of a gang that raped a 26-year-old woman in her home in Clapham, south London, while her boyfriend screamed as he was tortured in the next room.
Except, in the Bizarro world of the courts, indefinite turns out to be kind of definite, after all:
[Gordon] must serve a minimum of nine years.What are the odds, hey?
Just what do they think's going to happen in the next nine years to make this scumbag a worthwhile member of society? A visit from the Sociopathy Fairy? Or is it just another case of a headline-grabbing tough sentence that turns out to be pure leftist spin (meanwhile, apparently it's the right that's 'politicising the courts').
Here's a guy who's the worst of the worst. If femiloons were really opposed to rape, they'd want to make sure guys like this got meaningful sentences. Instead, a degenerate predator has got a slap on the wrist and providing he can face the terrible ordeal of a tribunal made up of the self-same type of liberal snivellers who refused to give him a proper sentence in the first place, he'll soon be back on the streets with years of active raping ahead of him. And the femiloons?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......
It's all too yawnerooney for them. They want the right to ruin the life of the boy next door on a whim, but their fellow liberals can all but fit a revolving door on the courts with nary a word.
3 comments:
"..if the local council paying someone who does manual labour out in all weathers more than someone who does clerical work in a climate controlled office is The Sexism! (more women work inside than men, see), it surely is discriminatory for the courts to extend privileges to a mostly female demographic while denying them to a mostly male one."
Not only that, it's potentially dangerous too.
Where's H&S when you really need them?
If you want to truly understand the progressive mindset here's a link about rape. (originally a comment on Julia's page.)
Sample quote:
Not once did I envision myself becoming a receptacle for a Black man’s rage at the white world, but that is what I became.
A black man rapes a white women and it's still the white man's fault.
Anon,
I had a look at your link. Saints preserve us man. Liberalism really is a mental disorder
Post a Comment