Pat Condell: Hello Angry Losers

Unconscious woman “consented to rape”

Let’s get this straight:  if a drunk person consents to sex, it is not ‘rape’.  Because the decision to get drunk is in the power of the person giving the consent.

However, over the last 25-or-so years, the laws have been changed:  if a person (a female person, that is) is ‘intoxicated’, then she is ‘not competent to give informed consent’ to sexual intercourse.  Therefore, if an (equally intoxicated) male performs any sexual act (ranging from groping to actual rape), this is legally defined as ‘sexual assault’.

Not a particular fan of that law (because it is obviously misogynistic, as it states that an intoxicated female is less competent than an equally intoxicated male), but, this is the law of the land and until we can find legal ways to challenge it, it is binding on all members of our society.

Right?

Weeeeeeeell, not any more.

“It’s not rape when a Muslim does it!!!!”

 

Claire Lopez FULL SPEECH- CPAC 2017

Montreal imam calls for genocide of Jews, no problem. Send an ‘Islamophobic Tweet’ – go to jail, psychiatrist

 

Ii is important to point out that I do not thing this ought to be forbidden.  Not at all.  I think it is perfectly within his right to spew hateful garbage all he wants:  if his audience is not willing to listen, they can walk out.

What I do object to is the blatant double standard being exhibited by our rulers:

 

‘Nuff said!!!

Edit:  edited title for clarity

Tucker Carlson Judge Andrew Napolitano Discuss Trump Supreme Court Pick Neil Gorsuch

The end does not justify the means: but the means always define the end

So – a sad day yesterday, the 29th of January, 2017.

Somebody walked into a mosque in Quebec City and opened fire, killing at least  6 people and injuring many more.

That is NOT OK!

It does not matter how much you are frightened by militant Islamic supremacists, taking the law into your own hands is never OK.

No end justifies the means.  To the contrary, the means always define the end.  People who want to commit violence (or any form of extralegal action) in the name of their ideology should always keep this in mind!

So, whether the shooter was a nationalist supremacist, or a Muslim convert who thought the mosque was not devout enough – murdering people is never justified.  That way, blood baths and all kinds of very, very bad results lie.

We live in a land where we have the rule of law.

OK – ours is a highly imperfect system, with many double standards, but that is because it is a human system and humans are imperfect beings.  Still, it is our duty as citizens to strive to make the rule of law the best it can be – to work within the framework of our laws to make imperfect human beings enforce the rule of law as best as we can.

My sincere sympathies are with all the victims of this horrible shooting and their families, friends and community.

I may disagree with the teachings of Islam, but I will never condone any form of extralegal action towards those who practice it – and no action whatsoever towards those who practice it peacefully.

And I will fight to the death for everyone to practice their belief system within the bounds of our laws, no matter what my personal opinion of the merit of that belief system may be!!!

 

 

Final Statement Geert Wilders at his Trial, 23 Nov. 2016

This is an example of an opposition politician on trial for speaking up against the government’s official policy.

Which is his job!

It’s built in to the title of ‘Opposition Party Leader’ – which he is.  And if current pols are to be believed (yeah – I did say IF), he will be the next Prime Minister of the Neatherlands.