« Another Benghazi Mystery Solved | Main | Speaking Truth to Entrenched Power »

July 19, 2013

Taxi Rapes

In the UK, a BBC radio host is fired for violating the British media's self imposed blackout on acknowledging - or even mentioning - a wave of rapes committed by Muslim taxi drivers. What's really telling is that the offending mention did not happen on the air, but rather in private:

... a much acclaimed report produced by the London Metropolitan Police Service estimates that on average there are a total of 1,125 sexual assaults, including rapes, each year involving taxi drivers in just London; this works out to approximately 22 sexual assaults against women by taxi drivers each week in England's capital city alone.

... Apart from a few high-profile cases, taxi rapes are rarely reported by national newspapers in Britain, apparently because the politically incorrect crimes are not deemed to be newsworthy.

But a survey of stories buried deep inside local newspapers shows that taxi rapes are occurring in all parts of England, Wales and Scotland on an almost daily basis.


A women-only taxi service has yet to arrive in Bristol, where BBC Radio host Sam Mason was fired after she called a taxi company and requested a "non-Asian" driver to take her 14-year-old daughter to her grandparents' home. Mason, a single mother, told the operator that "a guy with a turban on would freak her daughter out," and insisted they send an English driver -- preferably a female English driver -- instead.

The operator refused to book a car and said: "We would class that as being racist. We can't just penalize the Asian drivers and just send an English one." Mason responded: "It's not your 14-year-old girl, is it?" To which the operator answered: "Yes, but that's racist to say you don't want an Asian driver."

The BBC was alerted to the conversation after it was recorded and sent to The Sun newspaper.

Mason was subsequently suspended and fired 24 hours later. A BBC spokesman said: "Although Sam Mason's remarks were not made on-air, her comments were completely unacceptable and, for that reason, she has been informed that she will no longer be working for the BBC with immediate effect."

Sadly, Mason's employers are likely completely within their legal rights to fire her, but it's hard to think of a more damning indictment of a news organization than firing an employee for the crime of inadvertently drawing attention to a major news story they are determined to sweep under the rug.

It's hard not to note the parallels to the George Zimmerman case, where the American press fulminate 24/7 about what they want us to believe is a terrible threat to young black men: that of being racially profiled and murdered by racist white vigilantes. The real threat to young black men is something we're not supposed to talk about.

The media can't afford to let the truth get out. That would give the game away. And so they keep certain news stories to themselves and turn a blind eye to the horrible cost of their complicit silence.

Posted by Cassandra at July 19, 2013 05:41 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4703

Comments

You think the news is about alerting people to danger? Silly girl. It's about expiating guilt. You can't just run any old story that's true.

Posted by: Texan99 at July 19, 2013 09:18 AM

I have been frequently struck lately by the casual cruelty of the Left (for lack of a better term); this is just one example. Being "nice" to Muslims does, in some situations, hurt women but that has never seemed to concern the Left; it's clearly more important to not hurt Muslim's feelings than to protect women from rape (beatings, forced marriages, etc.)

I don't know if this is about a rank-ordering of Left-approved groups (Muslims before women) or about hurt feelings in any group being more important than physical harm to any group. I suspect the latter: "racism" is a greater crime than rape - and probably a greater crime than anything else.

Posted by: Elise at July 19, 2013 10:21 AM

I have been frequently struck lately by the casual cruelty of the Left (for lack of a better term); this is just one example.

I've seen the same thing, but in predictably annoying fashion I have to say that I've seen some of the same tendencies on the Right, though I don't see as much of it.

I think maybe what happens is that people become invested in defending a group they perceive to be disadvantaged, discriminated against, or under attack. Once you're in that mind set, any criticism (or even implied criticisms) of that group must be vigorously rebutted. The defenders don't stop to think, "Hey, wait a minute - is there any merit to this criticism? Is it possible that the "attacker" actually cares about/wants to help this group?"

I see it on the right with any criticism of male behavior. You can't say, "Hey, that's selfish/immature/wrong/counterproductive/self-destructive!" because any criticism is perceived as yet another attack. Feminists do the same thing with selfish/immature/wrong/counterproductive/self-destructive female behavior - they defend the person against all attacks, even if their decisions are self-destructive.

Civil rights types do that with blacks or gays or transgendered Arctic Wolverines.

I think we see it less on the Right because the Right generally don't make what I like to call CareBear arguments as often, so the conflict between what we profess to believe and some of the defenses of behavior we'd ruthlessly oppose (were it anyone *else* doing X) are less apparent.

But it's still really, really annoying. And in any event, I am fundamentally opposed to basing any public policy decisions on "caring" or "feelings" (without a due consideration of the real world consequences/moral hazard aspect). :)

Posted by: Cass at July 19, 2013 02:00 PM

I think there may also be a "branding" aspect, as in (on the Left) "We're the not-Racist party", so they reflexively attack anything that even hints of racial bias, never stopping to think that maybe bias isn't the real problem. BUT IT MUST BE OPPOSED BEFORE IT KILLS US ALL!!!11!

Where I tend to see this on the Right is, "We're the anti- political correctness party", which can lead to defenses of some pretty objectionable behavior if applied too mindlessly.

Posted by: Cass at July 19, 2013 02:03 PM

Let me playing devil's advocate for a minute:

Men disproportionately commit forcible rape. Yet, when airlines refuse to seat children flying alone next to men, the Right get's mad.

OK, I'll stop there.

To some extent the issues are different as the liklihoods are different given that men makes up half the population not a small fraction (and thus the likelihood of any particular given man is low). As the population with the disparate likelihood get's smaller and smaller, the probability of any particular member committing the crime goes up.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 19, 2013 02:51 PM

Hey guys, this is not about the age old truism that men are more aggressive about sex than women,
which is true, and the reason for which is a central part of worthy civilizations' effort to channel natural male aggression into socially acceptable activities . . .

No, no moosebreath, this is about unworthy ratshit 'pretend' civilized societies (Hindu India, and Muslim India, and Muslim Pakistan) that do *not* care about the safety of women.

We're certainly not perfect here in America, but at least here any miserable cowardly prick that abuses a woman is universally regarded as a slimeball . . . and under some circumstances may be summarily pushed out of society.


Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at July 20, 2013 12:01 AM

I think maybe what happens is that people become invested in defending a group they perceive to be disadvantaged, discriminated against, or under attack. Once you're in that mind set, any criticism (or even implied criticisms) of that group must be vigorously rebutted. The defenders don't stop to think, "Hey, wait a minute - is there any merit to this criticism? Is it possible that the "attacker" actually cares about/wants to help this group?"

It seems to me that in this case what the defenders are not stopping to think is, "Hey, wait a minute - is there any merit to this criticism? Is it reasonable for this mother to look at the statistics and do her best to protect her 14-year-old from a known danger?"

A (to me) similar issue is Golden Rice. The Left (again loosely) says, "We hate GM crops so you can't use them." That there is a possibility Golden Rice could prevent blindness and save lives is not considered a sufficient reason to move off the "we hate GM crops" stance.

Another similar issue is the idea that we cannot make single mothers feel bad by pointing out that children raised in two-parent households do better than those raised in single-mother households and therefore unmarried women shouldn't deliberately have children.

These are all issues where ideology trumps human damage and where the human damage is not done to those holding the ideology. You are right that increasingly we're not supposed to pick on fathers who aren't around by pointing out that refusing to support your children and refusing to be involved in their lives hurts the kids. That feels different to me because it seems to be driven largely by self-interest. Self-interest can be reasoned with; it can be bribed or suborned; it can be acted upon by conscience. Ideology seems impervious to all those especially when neither those who are being harmed nor those who are benefiting are the ones doing the damage.

I think of this as casual cruelty because those inflicting it seem to have no conception of the actual damage being done to actual people. Their entire focus is on the hurt feelings of the group they are defending; those being harmed are just cardboard cutouts, bit parts in their morality play, collateral damage.

Posted by: Elise at July 20, 2013 10:02 AM

I think there may also be a "branding" aspect, as in (on the Left) "We're the not-Racist party", so they reflexively attack anything that even hints of racial bias, never stopping to think that maybe bias isn't the real problem. BUT IT MUST BE OPPOSED BEFORE IT KILLS US ALL!!!11!

I think this perfectly encapsulates the mindset. The idea that the US is a viciously racist society, just waiting for the slightest opportunity to begin inflicting all kinds of inhumane treatment on everyone who is not a white non-Hispanic male, does motivate a lot of this behavior. It appears the same is true in Britain.

And I also agree that the "anti-PC" reflex on the Right can lead to defending the indefensible.

Posted by: Elise at July 20, 2013 10:07 AM

Sigh. That first paragraph was a quote, needed italics. I need to remember that Preview is my friend.

Posted by: Elise at July 20, 2013 11:31 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)