First it was lawyers arguing that one rapist in a group of gang rapists should have been given a lesser sentence partly because he was a “cultural time bomb”, now this – via Australia’s Herald Sun news outlet:
POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.
Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.
Women’s groups are concerned the politically correct policing could give comfort to wife bashers and keep their victims in a cycle of violence.
The instructions come in a religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that also recommends special treatment for suspects of Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background.
Some police officers have claimed the directives hinder enforcing the law equally.
Police are told: “In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims.”
They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against “fragmenting the family unit”.
Oh sure. I’m sure that will work out very well in cases where the victim is already beaten to death.
But there’s more:
The guide also advises officers not to hold interviews with Aboriginal suspects or set court hearings during Aboriginal ceremonies involving “initiation, birth, death, burials, mourning periods, women’s meetings and cultural ceremonies in general”.
They are told to interview Baha’i suspects only after sunset in the fasting month.
And they are cautioned that when a Sikh is reading the Sikh Holy Script — a process that normally takes 50 hours — “he should not be disturbed”.
The 50,000 handbooks instruct police to take shoes off before entering Buddhist and Hindu houses and mosques, and remove hats before entering or searching churches.
They are warned that taking photos or samples from Aboriginal suspects could raise fears they could be used for sorcery and spiritual mischief.
Law enforcement-hindering ‘guidelines’ like that are in effect here, as well. In his book Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington (a book I discussed here and referenced here), Paul Sperry argues that these types of PC laws are hampering our intelligence services’ ability to track down information on suspected terrorists and their financial supporters. Yet politically correct we remain.
Hat tip: Jeff Goldstein
Related Toldjah So posts:
Click here, and scroll down for the before and after photos. The version that appeared in USA Today makes Condi look quite demonic, doesn’t it?
Check Michelle Malkin’s blog for a comprehensive list of links and reader emails that provide even more proof that this photo was obviously altered – and for what reason? Hmmm ….
I’m joining her in encouraging people who are bothered by this to email Richard Curtis (USA Today’s Graphics and Photos Managing Editor) at firstname.lastname@example.org
Update: On the USA Today page on which the photo appeared, the unaltered version is now up, along with this note at the top:
Editor’s note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY’s editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice’s face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.
But probably in keeping with the personal beliefs of some of the editorial staff, I would venture to say.
Evening update: My buddy Cal over at California Conservative has the third pic in this series (scroll down a bit in that post). Heh.
Update: Eeep! I didn’t realize this story was a little over a year old. My bad … oh well, it was news to me, anyway
Via the UK Telegraph:
The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.
The man, identified by an Italian news agency as Rocco Martino, was the subject of a Telegraph article earlier this month in which he was referred to by his intelligence codename, “Giacomo”.
His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that – by commissioning “Giacomo” to procure and circulate documents – France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.
Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade “yellowcake” uranium from Niger, France was trying to “set up” Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.
Surprise surprise. I’d love to know from who “Giacomo” got his marching orders.
Hat tip: ST reader Fat Tone
(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)
From the president of one of the (correctly labelled) axis of evil countries:
Iran’s hard-line president called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.
“There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world,” Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called “The World without Zionism.”
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world,” Ahmadinejad said.
Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.
“As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August and replaced Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who advocated international dialogue and tried to improve Iran’s relations with the West.
Perhaps he just wanted to clear up any lingering ‘confusion’ anyone in the rest of the world may have had as to where he stood on Israel.
More from Captain Ed:
The Iranians need to learn a lesson about explicit calls for terror attacks on another sovereign nation. Perhaps the Israelis will teach it to them, if the EU-3 and the US can’t find the time or the nerve to do so. We already know that terrorists such as Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, get most of their funding through the Iranian mullahs. Do we need to wait until they respond to Ahmadinejad’s overt signals to attack before we do something about it?
Yep. I predict it won’t be long before Israel takes matters into their own hands. As would be their right, considering that Ahmadinejad has just called for their extermination.
(Cross-posted at California Conservative)
With the widespread speculation that indictments in the Plamegate ‘scandal’ will be handed out this week, Tom Maguire at Just One Minute (who has been a blogging machine on this issue) does some speculating of his own as to what he thinks is going to come of Fitzgerald’s investigation in terms of the actual charges, who walks, etc. Good reading this morning.
My own speculation, which I posted in part at Blogs For Bush last night:
Widespread speculation in the blogosphere and op/ed pages is that we likely won’t see indictments handed down for any charges relating to deliberately outing a covert agent, but instead possibly perjury, obstruction of justice, or charges that administration officials were discussing classified info with people who weren’t authorized to hear it. Time will tell, but one thing for sure is that, assuming indictments are handed this week, even if they have nothing to do with charging Rove or Libby with deliberately outing a covert agent, the left will still be hopping with glee over any indictment they can get their hands on , while ignoring that all along their “big worry” was that ‘someone in the admin deliberately set out to destroy a covert agent!’ – which more and more doesn’t seem to be the case. What they really wanted was something, anything to tie to Rove or Libby – even if it didn’t have to do with a deliberate outing of Valerie Plame.
If there was any ‘crime’ here, it doesn’t appear that it was related to any discussions about Plame with reporters, but who in the admin found out what and when, and what they said when testifying about it before grand jury. With that in mind, and assuming there was some attempt at a coverup and indictments are handed out from that, I’m sure that still won’t stop the left’s steady drumbeat that Rove or Libby “deliberately” outed a covert CIA agent, which is a very serious charge – and they know it. But in some circles, perception is reality.
Michael Barone earlier this week wrote a good piece that talked about the repercussions that could come from the (possible) indictments (which I discussed briefly here). This may be a case of “be careful what you ask for, you just might get it” for the left.