Why does the left excuse monsters and tyrants?
Left-wing apologists have certainly been out in force this week. The Z-List, self professed middle class bleeding heart Lily Allen has plunged to a new low this week. For a repugnant human such as herself she has certainly raised the bar for left-wing apologists everywhere when she claimed that the victims of Muslim grooming gangs would have been “raped by someone else at some point” if the gangs were not active in the UK. In a Twitter post Lily Allen wrote “Actually, there is a strong possibility that they would have been raped or abused by somebody else at some point. That’s kind of the issue.” She also went onto say that there was a type of abuser who attacks their stepdaughter and they are “British White.” When Lily Allen was questioned about the findings of a recent Quilliam report which found that 84 percent of grooming perpetrators were British South-Asian Muslim men, she tried to deflect, not wanting to acknowledge this reality. The question I ask myself is why? Why do these self-professed liberals who claim to care so much about the rights of others deny the crimes of certain types of people?
In cases of this kind, I propose my own theory as to why the left do not wish to acknowledge the crimes of certain people, while still pretending to be advocates of issues such as women’s rights. The reason why I believe the left excuse and even apologize for crimes of this kind is because of a psychotic type of logic which exists on the left. In the crazy world of the social justice warrior facts and statistics are often ignored, ironically by people who claim to be rational atheists because they worry that criticising anyone other than a white male for crimes would make them intolerant. The left often attempt to deflect the realities around cases such as grooming gangs by denying that religion or culture play any part in these crimes even when the abusers state these facts openly themselves.
Back in 2013, Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation said that race and religion were inextricably linked in cases such of this kind. He wrote in the Mail on Sunday that although the men were of different nationalities their Muslim faith bound them together in the agreement that the white girls that they targeted were “easy meat.” He also went onto say that imams across the UK helped promote this notion that the girls they were targeting were “white trash.” He said that this is done by imams using their puritanical sermons to preach about the importance of wearing the Hijab or the Burka creating an environment where the girls were viewed as lesser than Muslim women. He also said that mosques up and down the UK were preaching a message that “denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt.”
A man such as Dr Taj Hargey is a honest and brave man in my personal opinion, he took the difficult step of self-reflection and acknowledged the serious issues inside of this own faith. Muslims like this should be applauded. But on the left they are usually the victims of ridicule and worse. For example Maajid Nawaz, who started the Quilliam foundation which commissioned the grooming gang report is an outspoken critic of the issues within his own community such as the fundamentalist teaching of the Quran which can lead to extremism. Maajid Nawaz is loathed by sections of the left, so much so that he has been placed on a list of anti-Muslim extremists by the Southern Poverty Law Centre. He is currently in the process of trying to raise funds to challenge this move through legal avenues.
This apologist attitude does not only exist in the craziest far-left socialists, it also exists within the highest reaches of the Labour Party. Sarah Champion, MP for Rotherham was sacked as a shadow minister by Jeremy Corbyn for her decision to publish an article in The Sun in which she said that Britain has a problem with Pakistani men raping white girls. A week after this article was published Sarah Champion “stepped down” from her position. It is widely believed that Jeremy Corbyn sacked her. He came out afterwards and said that “Labour would not demonize any particular group.” This response by Corbyn proves my point about the fear of intolerance. It is believed by these far-left sycophants that if they criticise people of a certain background that the accusation of racism will soon follow. This kind of prevailing culture allowed 1,400 girls to be raped in Rotherham without interference from the authorities.
This fear of being called a racist is the primary cause of the lefts inability to question people who commit these types of crimes or analyse the data behind them. These people on the left who claim to be liberals betray the very liberal values they claim to hold by allowing people who hold deeply misogynistic views to terrorise and abuse young children without recourse. An overlapping of ideology seems to be the problem with many leftists. A kind of question they pose within themselves. “I know rape is not good and I support feminism, but the men who are doing it are Muslim and the victims are white. Muslims are an oppressed minority group so if I call them out am I being a racist? And you can’t oppress white people systemically so maybe it would be worse for me to call out the Muslims committing these crimes.” This is the kind of bizarre logic which goes through the head of a left-wing SJW when it comes to this type of issue.
But with the Labour Party as a whole, I believe the inability to question this is far more insidious and nefarious. I believe the reason why Jeremy Corbyn cannot call out these crimes is because it could cost him the thing he is after the most. Votes. In the election which was held last year, it was estimated that the Muslim vote was influential in 38 constituencies around the UK. It was found that in the constituencies where there were more than a 1,000 Muslim voters, Labour were defending 27 of those 38 seats. One of these constituencies is Bradford West, where Naz Shah is the current MP. Naz Shah once retweeted a message which said that the victims of Rotherham should “shut their mouths to benefit diversity.” This vile human being has not been sacked by the Corbyn government.
I know there are many good people who voted Labour in the last election and may intend to vote for Corbyn in the future. I would just like these people to look candidly in the mirror and ask themselves. “Can I reasonably vote for a man who excuses the abuse of children in order to gain votes?” The most die-hard socialist advocates of Corbyn may try to rouse some crazy logic to deny this fact, but if you people are the atheist rationalists you claim to be, the facts and data speak louder for me then any ideological position. Even if I was a socialist, which I am certainly not, this type of excusal would deter me from ever voting for this man. This excusal by the Labour government is truly disgusting. The far-left ideologues who wrestle with the questions inside themselves of tolerance vs. women’s rights I could maybe forgive if they came to their senses, but Jeremy Corbyn is a man beyond redemption when it comes to this issue.
This was not the only excusal the left has made this week in defence of monsters and tyrants. Labour’s Emily Thornberry said that the party was unable to back the protestors in Iran because they were not sure who was “wearing white hats.” She told Nick Robinson’s Political Thinking podcast that they could not back the protestors because they weren’t sure who is in the right. Now, I am going to have fun tackling this.
Yesterday I sent out a tweet about this issue when a couple of Labour sycophants came and raised this point. So I asked them to convince me why Iran should not be criticised and I would join the Labour party tomorrow. A back and forth commenced when I said: “Why can Labour criticise Israel so quickly though?” This must of triggered them something rotten because then the real reason came out. One of these people said that the reason why the protestors could not be backed is because they wanted to see the reinstatement of the Shah, who was backed by the US. This showed me the reason why the left cannot criticise a tyrannical regime such as Iran who stones women to death for adultery and hangs homosexuals. Because the west is worse. This is another illogical position that leftists hold which prevents them from calling out the wrongdoings of vile regimes such as the Mullahs in Iran. Because the west engaged in colonialism and slavery, we have no moral superiority to question people from other cultures. This “progressive” way of thinking runs right to the heart of the left in the British Labour Party and I suspect it ran through the heart of the Democrats. If you look at Barack Obama’s excusal of Iran and the terrible deal he made with them, you can see that type of logic being displayed.
The problem with the left is they are stuck between competing ideologies. On the one hand they claim to care about the rights of the LGBT community and women. But because of these competing ideological positions, if the perpetrator of crimes against these people is from an “oppressed group,” they cannot speak to that fact. It is kind of like the typical leftist is at war within his or herself. In the Iranian example, because the west has engaged in colonialism in the past, their Marxist logic tells them that they should always be supremely guilty of everything that the west and white people as a whole have done in the world so they could never be seen to support something that could speak to “western superiority,” such backing protestors who are calling for the reinstatement of the Shah. Because of these reasons I have to declare that liberal values are truly dead on the left. The way the average leftist compromises his values to fit into this strict Marxist ideology makes it impossible for them to truly adhere to the liberal positions they claim to adopt. This is why the left excuses monsters and tyrants. And because of this, they have descended into a hypocritical farce.
Picture from ibloga.blogspot.com