It’s a sign of the times that, whenever a major public holiday or event rolls around, I open the newspapers dreading to find what the swivel-eyed followers of the Prophet have done to mark the occasion. This ‘holiday season’, as the Americans say, the beardy-bombers outdid themselves. First, a ‘vehicular attack’ on a Christmas market in Germany, then a New Year’s Eve attack in New Orleans.
On the first, it should be noted, the official story is that the attacker, Saudi doctor Taleb al-Abdulmohsen, was not only ‘mentally ill’ (aren’t they always? Perhaps they should cut out the middle man and have mosques double as psychiatric centres), but supposedly an apostate turned ‘anti-Islam, far-right’ extremist. The fact that the supposed apostate had apparently lived for years without trouble amongst his fellow German Muslims (which is fast becoming a tautology) has only raised suspicions about the bizarre official story, given Islam’s generally fatal intolerance of apostacy.
The swiftness with which authorities apparently identified the attacker’s motives also stands in stark contrast to the wall of official silence around the motives of Liverpool child-murdering terrorist, Axel Rudakubana. Despite having found, within hours of the attack, that the killer possessed not only a stock of the poison ricin (used in multiple terror plots and attacks) but an al-Qaeda training manual, authorities suppressed the information for months and viciously denounced (and not infrequently arrested) anyone who suggested an Islamic motive as ‘far-right extremists’.
The attack in New Orleans and an (apparently non-Islamic) car bombing in New York both featured US military personnel (one ex, one serving), raised alarms in some circles of ‘sleeper agents’ being activated. Surely, just another conspiracy theory? Possibly, although another, less-remarked-upon, link is just as alarming.
In 2021, the Biden administration embarked on a thorough purge-and-re-education campaign of the US military. Using the 6 Jan unrest as its Reichstag Fire moment and employing the Maoist-like slogan, “Countering Domestic Violent Extremism”, Biden Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered officers and commanders at all levels to attend intensive re-education, oops ‘training’, in looking for ‘signs of extremism’ in the ranks. Austin also issued new definitions of ‘extremism’, which included opposition to a laundry list of ‘progressive’ -isms.
At the same time, the Biden military adopted Critical Race Theory into its (re-)education programs. Biden also appointed as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Charles Q Brown, Jr, who had a history of prioritising diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. These included hiring a drag queen as the new face of navy recruitment. Brown stated that diversity was now at the forefront of recruiting and promotions. Brown also promoted the BLM movement. Meanwhile, Lloyd Austin also mandated Covid vaccinations and fired over 8,000 acting servicemen who refused.
As a result of Biden policies, the US military has shrunk dramatically, plummeting to its lowest level since the end of the 1930s. All branches of service have consistently fallen short of recruitment targets by nearly 100,000.
It’s this woke, weak, ideologically purged military that gave America the Trump Tower bomber. The New Orleans truck attacker, who quit the military in 2016 (the year of the Trump election, notably), a black and lifelong-Muslim, would have been the ‘diverse’ Biden military’s poster boy (or girl, had he had the career-smarts to develop an interest in lady’s underwear).
So much for ‘Countering Domestic Violent Extremism’.
As events in New Zealand showed, though, it’s not only Muslims who can wreak grim horror on public festivities.
In the early hours of New Year’s Day, a man murdered policewoman Lyn Fleming when he rammed his car into a group of officers trying to restrain another man in a crowd of New Year revellers. Two other officers were critically injured. In another NYE incident, a child was murdered in a domestic violence incident in Hamilton.
While for legal reasons and otherwise, I can’t state definitively, I’ll lay good money that both perpetrators have a drearily predictable history of offending followed by community orders and similarly light sentences.
Which brings me to something I’ve long pondered: why don’t we have judicial and bureaucratic manslaughter laws?
After all, most Australian states now have industrial manslaughter rules, courtesy of Labor governments. The UK does, as well.
Under these laws, instead of merely fining business owners or company CEOs if a death occurs in their workplace, a “person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) or officer of a PCBU” can be jailed for up to 25 years. The boss can be convicted whether a death occurs as a result of their direct action, or simply by omission. Even if they didn’t actually know that a safety breach had occurred.
The presumption of the law is that they should have known that their actions or omissions would create a substantial risk of serious harm.
If we can have such laws for bosses, why not judges and bureaucrats?
Stories of judges giving lenient sentences to criminals who then go on to re-offend are legion. Indeed, in ‘Australia’s Wokest State’, Victoria, it recently emerged that judges were advised to give lenient sentences. In the case of foreign-born criminals, judges are told to give sentences which would fall below the threshold for deportation. This included, in the guidelines, the hypothetical case of a foreign student who sexually assaulted an eight-year-old child multiple times. Non-jail sentences are also advised for drug-trafficking convictions.
Whether such is the rule or not is irrelevant, as is the debate over whether light sentencing reduces recidivism: the fact is that judges have given light sentences to offenders who have gone on to commit worse crimes.
For instance, Afghan ‘asylum seeker’ Ali Jaffari was arrested multiple times for trying to sexually assault children, including attempting to abduct a four-year-old girl in front of her family. Judges either sentenced Jaffari to community services, or dismissed charges altogether, citing ‘cultural differences’. After several more incidents involving pestering children, Jaffari mercifully removed himself from society via self-immolation.
When the Australian High Court ordered the immediate release of hundreds of foreign-born criminals, including murderers, contract killers, rapists and paedophiles, their sole concern appeared to be the ‘human rights’ of the criminals. The safety of the Australian community didn’t rate a mention. Dozens of these criminals went on to re-offend in the subsequent days and weeks. Despite this, the court later ruled that even monitoring the criminals by ankle bracelets breached their ‘human rights’.
The human rights of their victims, again, merited no mention.
Bureaucrats are too often guilty of the same over-concern for criminals, rather than the people and communities they prey on. In Australia, former Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs repeatedly advocated for foreign-born criminals. In the most infamous case, she recommended $350,000 compensation for a man who murdered his pregnant partner by bashing her to death with a child’s tricycle. Australian bureaucrats also repeatedly fail to protect children, especially Aboriginal children, from predatory, violent adults, all in the name of ‘culture’.
In easily the most infamous case in perhaps Western legal history, dozens, if not hundreds of British police, social workers, and politicians, knowingly turned a blind eye while gangs of Muslim men systematically raped and tortured white British girls for decades. There’s no doubt: the authorities knew what was happening: they chose not to do anything about it. Decades later, at least some (but certainly not all) of the perpetrators are eventually being arrested and convicted – predictably, often with distressingly light sentences.
The presumption of the law is that they should have known that their actions or omissions would create a substantial risk of serious harm.
But those officials who let the reigns of rape and terror proceed, untouched by the law, for decades? At worst, some have been moved sideways, in echoes of the past ignominious conduct of churches that shunted paedophile priests from parish to parish. Most, though, have suffered little to no consequence for their deliberate lack of action. Indeed, some academics continue to deny the existence of Muslim rape gangs at all, sneering at it as a far-right conspiracy theory.
At the same time, British activist Tommy Robinson has been repeatedly arrested and jailed, for drawing attention to the paedophile rapists. Indeed, Robinson is relentlessly demonised by the same media that continues to avoid reporting the crimes of Muslim rape gangs.
How can those responsible for such negligence go unpunished?
In the name of judicial independence, judges are all but immune to punishment or sanction for what many of us would hold to be grossly inadequate sentencing. Bureaucracies, as we’ve also seen, too often seem to close ranks around colleagues whose actions (or inactions) result in even the most abhorrent crimes against the wholly innocent. Such conduct was excoriated when it was discovered in the churches – so why it is left un-sanctioned in civil bureaucracy?
It is hard to imagine, as Thomas Sowell says, “a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong”.
This is the reason bosses can be jailed for even unknowingly allowing a death to occur in their workplaces.
So, why not make judges and bureaucrats subject to similar punishments?
For instance, when a judge is sentencing a criminal whose record and attitudes make re-offending all-too predictable, perhaps the threat of sharing a cell with the object of their compassion might sharpen their wits somewhat.
