We don’t just report off-beat news, breaking news and digest the best and worst of the news media analysis and commentary. We give an original take on what happened and why. We add lols, satire, news photos and original content.
Lovers of free speech love Charlie Hebdo. But do any of us want to be Charlie Hebdo? The US media is gutless.
Only the big nosed Jew stays in the picture:
But in Germany, it’s different.
The German satirical magazine Titanic has announced a press conference:
TERRORIST ALERT: At 16 o’clock, a press conference is scheduled in the TITANIC editorial offices, with [commercial TV station] RTL, [public broadcaster] Hessischer Rundfunk, [German daily newspaper] Frankfurter Rundschau, and all other private and public media present. This is an opportunity for terrorists to not only execute satire editors, but also the entire lying German press. There will be sandwiches afterwards!
Titanic editor Tim Wolff adds:
“Of course, on the personal level, we are scared when we hear about such violence. However, as a satirist, we are beholden to the principle that every human being has the right to be parodied. This should not stop just because of some idiots who go around shooting… If it is indeed Islamists, I still don’t see any reason for alarm. We have published very critical jokes about Islam in the past and we have found that Muslims, at least in Germany, are quite capable of dealing with this kind of humor.”
Yesterday, men screaming ‘“Allahu akbar” murdered 12 people in Paris when they attacked the Charlie Hendo magazine offices. Like you, we know who did it. Yeah. The Jews. Always the Jews.
Writing on the grandly titled International Business Times, Gopi Chandra Kharel explains all:
Charlie Hebdo Attack and Mossad Link: Is Israel Venting Its Fury For France’s Recognition of Palestine State?
Headlines ending with a question mark can always be answered ‘no’. But a Jew told me that. So. We should read on…
There is no clarity on which organisation is behind the attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on Wednesday and therefore, conspiracy theories are gaining traction in internet forums.
Piss Christ! Can we all say that in unison? Piss Christ!
Anyone shoot you in the face? Anyone threaten to murder you? Go on. Say it again. Louder. PISS CHRIST!
The Associated Press thinks nutters and victims of Christianophobia might be listening and driven to murder by hearing or seeing Piss Christ. To spare its clients the death threats and being murdered by Christianists, this bastion of free speech has removed Andres Serrano’s 1987 photograph Immersion (Piss Christ) from its image library.
Piss Christ (no exclamation mark) is a photograph of a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine. It is not to be mistaken for Christ Piss, which is used to describe the wine served at my niece’s Holy Communion.
Now that 12 people are dead the liberals can return to the view that free speech is free with no ‘buts’? The Twitter narks that call the police on anyone saying things they don’t like, police persecuting people for saying the unsayable online and a State-approved license for journalists are all horrific assaults on our free thinking.
Shame it took a massacre in France to remind liberals that freedom to think is also freedom to offend.
Take Buzzfeed’s Siraj Datoo. In 2012, he wrote on Charlie Hebdo and those Mohammed cartoons:
Charlie Hebdo did, and always should, have the right to publish such images. The freedom of the expression is fundamental in a democratic liberal society and each individual must be allowed to express their opinions in a peaceful and democratic way.
In 2006, Christopher Hitchens spoke about the Kurt Westergaard, the Danish caricaturist came under attack from Islamists after he had drawn a 2005 caricature of the Prophet Mohamed with a bomb hidden in his Turban. The cartoon was one of 12 similar cartoons on Mohamed published Jyllands-Posten newspapers.
Westergaard was forced into an life on the run. Hardline Muslims wanted him dead.
One day, a 28-year-old man broke into Westergaard’s home. He was armed with an axe and a knife. Westergaard was home looking after his five-year-old granddaughter, Stephanie. Westergaard ran into his “panic room”. Stephanie was outside in the living room.
After the massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, the liberal turns to Islamophobia. It’s not the murderous bigots we should be uniting against, standing on the front line in this horrendous assult on free thinking and free speech. No. It’s about making a stand against Islamophobia.
What good is legal freedom of speech if violent enforcers of a different, older, and foreign set of laws take it upon themselves to punish you extrajudicially?
Richard Seymour writes:
The murder of Charlie Hebdo journalists is appalling. But we should fear the coming Islamophobic backlash.
If your first thought on seeing cartoonists murdered by Islamic racists was to wonder about non-Islamic racism against the racists, you’re not alone.
Now, I think there’s a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow “legitimate targets,” and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication.
The perfect response to the attack on free speech and Enlightenment. Vive la liberte!
The murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo will not quiet us:
Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.
This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.
Twelve ‘stupid’ people wer murdered because the intelligent offeded didn’t like their artwork.
You crying? You feel the prick of tears? You angry? You should be. You should be furious. The cold-blooded attack on the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo claimed 12 lives. You should weep for the lives of the murdered. They were champions of free speech and free thinking. And you should be angry that all we must hold dear is under attack.
The 12 dead are victims of a slaughter by violent, Islamic racists. The magazine’s “controversial” cartoons and editorials – always billed as “controversial” in the mainstream press, as if it were a bad thing – were meant to trigger a battle of ideas. The sane could debate the rights and wrongs. People would talk. No-one would get hurt – not by voices and debate. Charlie Hebdo would be the polemicists, fomenting a new view and changing the dialogue. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to buy it. You can criticise it. You can vote with your feet at the offence and blasphemy. But the Islamists took up guns.
The 12 victims were murdered for taking the piss out of Muhammad, for showing their comic liberty.
Is Islam so weak it cannot counter a French magazine? Is it so fearful it kills all debate, unable to confront ideas with sanity and reason?
And what now? Do we look to ourselves, the free thinking and censor our views so as not to offend the gun-toting nutters? Do we strive to understand the mindset of two men who see a picture and murder a dozen people? Hey, everyone’s a critic, right? Or do we skewer the censorious bastards with wit?
How brave are we in the West?
We banned the Jesus and Mohammed T-shirts. Police demand we tell on anyone saying something unsayable on Twitter, turning us into police narks.
You know what. Screw them. Say what you think. Don’t be gratutious. Don’t seek to offend. Just say what you think and believe. Be prepared to debate that view. Be open to ideas and people. If the other person disagrees, then your argument has failed. Don’t pick up a gun and shoot them dead. Don’t put them in prison. Mock them.
Free speech used to be a right in countries where it was allowed. It’s spread. Online, we enjoy speaking out, sharing our views, prejudices, stupidity and relishing our right to cause offence. These Islamists want to smah that. In doing so they have placed us all on the front line in the war on free speech. We must fight them.
Our police and protectors we need to uphold freedoms hard won are seeking to licence journalist with a poxy Royal Charter and spy on us with the horrendous RIPA law.
Fight it. Appeasement has its limits.
Charb, one of the caricaturists killed today, said:
“I am not afraid of retaliation. I have no kids, no wife, no car, no credit. It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I prefer to die standing than living on my knees.”
Stand up to tyranny.
In Paris, France, ten people have been murdered Islamic terrorists:
At least 10 [it’s 12] people have been killed by gunmen armed with Kalashnikovs and a rocket-launcher, after they opened fire in the offices of French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, Paris prosecutors say …
The French president Francois Hollande headed to the scene of the attack and the government said it was raising France’s security level to the highest notch.
“This is a terrorist attack, there is no doubt about it,” Mr Hollande said.
Sky News says the two attackers yelled “Allahu Akbar” and “we have avenged the prophet” as they slaughed the innocent.
— Agnes Poirier (@AgnesCPoirier) January 7, 2015
Bloody hell! This looks like war.
To Derbyshire, where Nazi hunting police are investigating a “hate crime”. A swastika was drawn in snow.
Alan Stoob is on it.
Overnight between December 26 and 27 a racially offensive word and a swastika were drawn in the snow on the bonnet of a car parked in New Mills.
The British police are examining your heads for thought crimes:
Terrifying stuff. But not to worry. The police will only persecute you for thinking unthinkable things and saying unsayable things if you are not on message*.
*Being on message is liable to change with the times, political and moral agenda. What the police don’t prosecute you for saying or thinking now they can hold on file until such a time when they will arrest you.
Bernard Jordan has died. He was 90. Mr Jordan was famous for playing truant from his nursing home to attend the 70th anniversary D-Day commemorations in France.
Mr Jordan told media after the manhunt and the service:
“My thoughts were with my mates who had been killed. I was going across to pay my respects. I was a bit off course but I got there.”
And if that doesn’t touch your heart, nothing will…
Don’t panic, people, the police have it covered.
A Kentucky police officer is recovering from injuries after accidentally shooting himself in an elevator, authorities said over the weekend. Cincinnati police told WCPO that Erlanger Officer Darryl Jouett was heading back to his car after having dinner with his wife when the incident occurred on Saturday.
In the video, Mr Jouett is not with his wife. And, no, no white police officers were in the area.
Stephen Fry is to marry Elliott Spencer.
How do the paper report this joyous occassion between two consenting adults?
The Sun focuses on the age gap:
The Daily Mail goes for the age gap, too:
‘It looks like a certain cat is out of a certain bag': Stephen Fry, 57, to marry toyboy lover 30 years his junior following whirlwind romance and says he’s ‘very, very happy’
The Prince Andrew sex scandal continues to entertain.
The Sun leads with the story of Randy Andy and fragrant Virginia Roberts, who claims the prince shagged her when she was 17.
The age of consent in Florida is 18.
But the really grim news is that Sarah Ferguson is back!
Westminster peadophiles: a look at news and views on the story of ‘VIP paedos’ in the 1970s and 1980s:
Breitbart: “THE BRITISH PEOPLE MUST NOW TAKE CONTROL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT PAEDOPHILE SCANDAL”
Ben Harris-Quinne, Chairman of the Bow Group and Director of Conservative Grassroots, writes:
As Prince Andrew becomes the latest figure to be named in an establishment paedophile scandal, the British nation has woken up today to face, yet again, the uncomfortable possibility that they are governed by an elite political and media establishment that has, for at least the past 50 years, engaged in, covered up, and ignored institutionalised paedophilia.
THE Ched Evans case has been an incredibly emotive case, where people have tried to defend the convicted rapist and, horrifyingly, chased after the victim, presumably believing that she’s stitched an honest lad up.
Model, Nicola McLean, defended Evans and his potential move to Oldham Athletic (which has fallen through) on Twitter, saying: “OK let me get this right! After you leave prison are you not allowed to get a job? Or is that rule reserved only if you kick a ball?”
“Mike Tyson 3 years for rape went straight back to boxing and a movie star rolemodel ? and he maintains his innocence.” “Luke McCormick killed two brothers while drink driving and was later appointed captain of Plymouth argyle so is he ok to be a role model?” she added.
In opposition, there’s a petition, signed by over 20,000 and counting, addressed to Oldham Athletic, which reads: “We do believe he [Ched Evans] has the right to work. We believe that it does not have to be in a role where he influences views about sexual violence, and his presence on your pitch will do this.”
It is all incredibly messy, so what’s needed are some cold, non-shrieking facts about this, to help you make your mind up and nix some of the misconceptions about the whole case.
HE’S INNOCENT! SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT!
Factually speaking, Ched Evans is not innocent, regardless of what you think. A court and jury found him guilty of raping a woman. Evans is appealing against the decision, but that doesn’t mean he’s innocent. The outcome of the appeal may be more damaging to him.
The issue of consent is a hugely emotive thing. As far as the law was concerned, the victim in this was not able to give consent. She’d had a lot to drink, which still doesn’t equate to saying ‘yes’. More to the point, the court heard about what happened, which paints a grim picture.
On 30th May 2011, Evans received a text from Clayton McDonald who said he’d “got a bird”. Now, the woman in question, according to the courts, doesn’t remember getting to the hotel. Evans is on record as saying that he got a taxi to the hotel, let himself in to watch his friend have sex with the woman and then “got involved” while his brother and another friend spied on them through a window and tried to film it on their mobiles.
The fact remains that a jury found these actions to be that of a rapist. Ched Evans remains a rapist until the law says otherwise.
HOW CAN CHED HAVE BEEN A RAPIST BUT THE OTHER GUY WASN’T? SHE MUST’VE KNOWN!
Okay, look at this as a scenario, unrelated to this case. A girl gets incredibly drunk and goes back to a hotel, willingly, with a guy, and has sex. She falls asleep and wakes up with a second person having sex with her. With regards to the second man, he did not get consent so he raped her.
In another case, a woman willingly goes back to a hotel with a man to carry on drinking, however, date-rape drugs are used and the man has sex with her, and then invites his friends to do the same. The victim will wake up with no memory of the assault, but again, it doesn’t mean that she wasn’t raped.
Of course, we’re not implying that the examples above are what happened on that night, but rape cases aren’t ever as simple as simply saying “she was asking for it.”
Clayton McDonald, the other man accused, according to a jury was deemed to have been in a situation where he was likely to think he had consent. Legally, he’s not a rapist. Legally, what happened after that with Ched Evans, makes him a convicted rapist.
HE’S PAID BACK TO SOCIETY BY SERVING HIS TIME!
Legally speaking, Ched Evans has not served his time. Evans has been released from prison under license, which means that his sentence isn’t actually finished. Only the custodial element of his punishment has been served. So if you think that Ched Evans should go back to work because ‘he’s served his time’, technically, you’re wrong.
JUST BECAUSE HE’S DONE SOMETHING WRONG, DOESN’T MEAN HE SHOULDN’T WORK AGAIN!
No-one is saying Ched Evans shouldn’t work again. However, whether he should be a footballer again is another matter. While Evans keeps a toe in the public eye, he’s an exceptional case.
If Evans doesn’t play professional football again, he can still live a relatively normal life, like anyone who has a criminal record. However, in this instance, the victim has had to move home five times under new identities because of people ‘outing’ her. For this reason alone, Evans’ continued presence in the limelight is making the victim – the person the law is protecting – suffer further.
On the employment front, shrieking “HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK AGAIN!” isn’t strictly true. Convicted rapists are prevented from doing a number of jobs, such as being a doctor, a teacher or a police officer. As a footballer who is a convicted rapist, would parents be happy to see the children who are mascots on the same pitch as someone the law has decreed a rapist? Football clubs do a lot of work in the community, so would any club that pays a wage to a rapist be able to do that with a clear conscience? Would any club who has fans who have been subject to sexual assaults be able to have a player who is guilty, by law, of exactly that? It is for these reasons that Ched Evans isn’t a normal case and shouldn’t be treated as one. That said, it is a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of law.
WELL! OTHER SPORTS STARS HAVE DONE BAD THINGS! WHY SINGLE CHED EVANS OUT?
Of course, there have been other convicted criminals doing high profile jobs. However, those decisions may have been wrong, which means that the bad decision of yesterday don’t give a green light to do them now. Again, if Evans’ appeal is successful, then there’s a different conversation to be had.
EITHER WAY! I BELIEVE IN REHABILITATING CRIMINALS – DON’T YOU?
Ched Evans has consistently not shown any remorse for what has happened. There’s a website that is hounding the victim, which Evans has failed to condemn. Rehabilitation starts with the criminal realising what they’ve done and/or admitting guilt. Let us assume Ched Evans didn’t think he’d done anything wrong and then realises that, actually, he did. That’s when rehabilitation starts. You don’t just do a course and get to be a professional footballer again.
The fact is, the law found him guilty and he need to take some responsibility for what he’s done and, for some of the things his fans have done. He’s shown zero understanding of the situation and, until he does, then we can start looking at what he can do with his life next. More to the point, rehabilitation doesn’t mean that you get to carry on as normal, like you did before. Evans could be rehabilitated and never play professional football again, because rehabilitation isn’t about getting you back into your old job. Until he’s been rehabilitated, there’s a chance he could re-offend. So, until he’s learned about consent, the weight of his actions and what he’s actually been charged of by a court and a jury, only then can he start thinking about what job he’d like to do.
Saying sorry isn’t enough.
THE LAW IS AN ASS!
The jury found Ched Evans guilty of rape. That’s all we have. Whether or not you agree with the British legal system is a different debate to the one regarding Ched Evans playing professional football again. A jury heard the full details of what happened and the verdict was that Ched Evans raped a woman. If you have reached a different verdict, that is irrelevant. Many people defending him have an axe to grind, when the fact is, they inevitably wouldn’t be happy working with a convicted rapist or if a convicted rapist worked with one of their loved-ones. Concerning the latter, that is what is being debated here.
When he came to pass sentence the judge said: “…. [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you [Evans], when you arrived, must have realised that.”
The court papers say: “That accurately reflected the way in which the verdict should be interpreted. No force had been used on the complainant and no injury had been caused in the course of the rape. But the long-term psychological consequences to her could not be ignored. The judge took the view that they were not lessened by the fact that she had no direct recollection of the events.”
University of Virginia men yet to prove innocence over false rape story: the Scottsboro Boys sequel is go
The story about a gang rape on the University of Virginia campus was horrendous. It was a lie designed to prove a point and further an agenda. And it’s not stopped:
Declared “the worst journalism of 2014” by the Columbia Journalism Review, Rolling Stone magazine’s account of a gang rape at a fraternity house nonetheless continues to cloud collegiate life at the University of Virginia.
U.Va. President Teresa Sullivan did not lift the suspension of fraternal organizations after The Washington Post found discrepancies in the story that forced the magazine to back away from the allegations.
Instead, Sullivan said, the university will use the harsh national spotlight it is under as an opportunity to lead efforts to combat sexual assault on campus.
Brendan O’Neill harks:
“Automatic belief of rape accusations was a central principle of the KKK’s war on rape, too. This was one of the things that most shocked Ida B Wells, the early twentieth-century African-American journalist and civil-rights activist. ‘The word of the accuser is held to be true’, she said, which means that ‘the rule of law [is] reversed, and instead of proving the accused to be guilty, the [accused] must prove himself innocent’. Wells and others were startled by the level of belief in the accusers of black men, and by the damning of anyone who dared to question such accusations, which was taken as an attack on the accuser’s ‘virtue’.”
Photo: Pickets, representing the National Association of Colored Women, march at the White House, Washington, July 30, 1946, carrying posters protesting lynching. Placards bear names of Missouri, Michigan, Massachusetts, Louisiana and Kentucky delegations. (AP Photo)
The story of Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts, the woman who alleges he shagged her when she was underage, rumbles on.
Today Her Majesty the Queen is the star turn in the dock of public opinion.
Poor old Queeny, getting dragged into her feckless son’s mess. And it would be Randy Andy, wouldn’t it, the Prince Harry prototype, the spare-to-the-heir’s war veteran and shagger. If Pricne Charles were getting an ‘erotic massage’ from a teenager, as the fragrant Roberts alleges, he’d still be checking the oils for ethical sources and apologising to the grass for stealing its essentials. Prince Edward would have kept his vest, Y-fronts and brogues on.
So. It’s Andy.
To Yorkshire in search of an idiot:
Police have arrested a 19-year-old teenager for allegedly videoing himself chewing and burning a Qur’an. According to the Yorkshire Standard, the video shows a man ripping apart an english translation of the holy Islamic text using his teeth before throwing it into a toilet and setting it alight.
The suspect, who has not been named, was arrested by police on suspicion of a racially or religiously aggravated public order offence.
Superintendent Mabs Hussain, Leeds District Police, tells media:
“The arrested man has been released on bail to an alternative location. We are aware of strong feelings expressed by a number of people in response to this video. We would again urge people to allow this investigation to run its course and remind members of the public that we will take robust action against anyone who acts outside of the law.”
One question: did anyone actually see it?
The police were contacted by the Yorkshire Standard for a clarification on whether the man did rip the Koran, put it in a toilet and burn it. The police refused to confirm or go into detail. The video was deemed as an offensive video.
Was it his toilet? Was it his bin? Was it his koran? It was his teeth, we presume. If it was all in private, then what has this private idiocy to do with the State?
Is the thinking that if the police don’t stamp out a man’s right to free expression, however stupid it is, others will think it a good idea and burn copies of the koran? Will jihadis use an idiot and his idiocy to further their own bloodthirtsty idiocy?
When did the idiots take over?
The story of Prince Andrew and the allegedly underage “sex slave” Virginia Roberts is back in the news.
The front pages are full of lurid allegations against the Duke of York, formerly known as Randy Andy.
The story can be summed up simply. The BBC does a decent job:
Buckingham Palace has denied “any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors” by Prince Andrew, after he was named in US court papers. A woman named him in documents she filed in a Florida court over how prosecutors handled a case against financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The woman is 30-year-old Virginia Roberts. The story is not new.
She claims that between 1999 and 2002 she was forced by Epstein to have sex with the prince when she was a minor.
“The Associated Press reports that Crystal Mangum, whose accusations of gang rape against Duke University lacrosse players were revealed to be fake, has appealed her conviction in the stabbing death of her boyfriend: Attorney Ann Petersen asks that Mangum get a new trial. Petersen says the jury shouldn’t have been allowed to hear evidence about an attack on another man in February 2010.”
Back when Magnum made her claims, the media embarked on a feeding frenzy.
Travel back to 2006. Syracuse University early on got into the act when it decided not to accept as transfers any students from the Duke lacrosse team—not just the three accused chaps, mind you, but anyone contaminated by having played lacrosse for Duke. “I think it would be inappropriate,” sniffed Syracuse athletic director Daryl Gross. (Where is he now? Llama farming in Peru? Nope. Still athletic director at Syracuse.)
But there are at least two other aspects of the case that deserve comment. One is the role of the media, which pounced on the story with unseemly delight. Oh, how The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and countless other bastions of liberal self-satisfaction loved it! Race. Class. Sex. Victimhood. It was the perfect morality tale. Those white jocks at “the Harvard of the South” just had to be guilty. And what a good time we were all going to have lacerating the malefactors while at the same time preening ourselves on our own superior virtue!
The editorials, the op-eds, the comments, the analyses poured forth non-stop, demonstrating that one of the deepest human passions is the urge to self-righteous pontification. The novelist Allan Gurganus epitomized the tone in an op-ed for the Times in April 2006: “The children of privilege,” he thundered, “feel vividly alive only while victimizing, even torturing.” You don’t say? Even sports writers got into the act. Selena Roberts located Duke University “at the intersection of entitlement and enablement, . . . virtuous on the outside, debauched on the inside.” By August 2006, as District Attorney Michael Nifong’s case was betraying worrisome fissures, the Times published a 6,000-word article arguing—“praying” might be a more apposite term—that, whatever weaknesses there might be in the prosecution’s case, “there is also a body of evidence to support [taking] the matter to a jury.” As the Times columnist David Brooks ruefully noted after the tide had begun to turn, the campaign against the athletes had the lineaments of a “witch hunt.”
Indeed. Richard Brodhead, Duke’s president, got out his broomstick and suspended the accused students, fired the lacrosse coach, cancelled the rest of the team’s season, and pandered to every possible PC interest, but especially to those baying for the heads of the accused. (One commentator estimated that only 3 percent of Brodhead’s statements could be construed as supporting the accused students.)
And then there was the Duke faculty. As Vincent Carroll, writing in the Rocky Mountain News, noted, “the most astonishing fact, hands down, was and remains the squalid behavior of the community of scholars at Duke itself. For months nearly the entire faculty fell into one of two camps: those who demanded the verdict first and the trial later, and those whose silence enabled their vigilante colleagues to set the tone.”
Particularly egregious was the behavior of the “Group of 88,” a congeries of faculty activists and fellow-travelers who signed “What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?,” a full-page manifesto published in April 2006 in the Duke student newspaper. The statement, which purported to be “listening” to students on campus, mingled anonymous student comments with racialist agitprop. “Regardless of the results of the police investigation,” ran part of the introductory comment, “what is apparent every day now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism.” There followed a mosaic of histrionic proclamations: “We want the absence of terror,” one student is supposed to have said. “But we don’t really know what that means.” “This is not a different experience for us here at Duke University. We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists . . .”
Sounds like an agenda:
When Crystal Mangum falsely accused several Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006, there were 160 major television news stories in the first five days after the players were arrested, but in 2013, when Mangum was convicted of murder and sentenced to 14 years in prison, there were only 3 major television news stories, a difference in coverage of 5,233%.
The knowing knew. Amanda Marcotte knew:
“I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN
blaring throughout the waiting area and
good f–king god is that channel pure evil.
For awhile, I had to listen to how the
poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being
persecuted just because they held someone down
and f–ked her against her will — not rape,
of course, because the charges have been
thrown out. Can’t a few white boys
sexually assault a black woman anymore without
people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
You can read Marcotte’s bon mots at the Guardian.
English Professor Houston Baker publicly condemned the University’s “moral response to abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us.” In a letter to University Provost Peter Lange, he wrote:
The lacrosse team – 15 of whom have faced misdemeanor charges for drunken misbehavior in the past three years – may well feel they can claim innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under the cover of silent whiteness. But where is the black woman who their violence and raucous witness injured for life? Will she ever sleep well again?
It’s a journalistic travesty that Rolling Stone’s discredited and disgraceful University of Virginia rape story ever made it into print.
What’s more shameful is how so many people actually hoped the gory – and phony – tale of the fraternity gang-rape was true.
It’s as if many activists and politicians wanted a freshman named Jackie to have been brutally assaulted in September 2012 by seven men at the Phi Kappa Psi frat house. It’s as if they hoped she had gone through a three-hour ordeal that ended in her fleeing the house party in a blood-stained dress.
Because as horrific as all that would have been, it would have helped their agenda.
Photo: Crystal Mangum, the alleged victim in the Duke lacrosse rape case, addresses the media during a press conference on the release of Mangum’s forthcoming book “The Last Dance for Grace: The Crystal Mangum Story,” while her publisher and co-author Vincent Clark advises her in Durham, N.C., on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2008. The woman who North Carolina prosecutors determined falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players of raping her at a team party maintains in her new memoir that she was attacked. (AP Photo/Sara D. Davis)