Would they get into the same kind of frenzy as
they are in now?
Would the judges be more or less lenient with
the offenders when caught and not so worried
about treading on eggshells?
The reason for this IMHO is that race is a very
sensitive issue and at the moment multicultural
attitudes and ideologies seem to be the way that
some in society want us to go. hence if you do
very harsh sentences there will be political
backlash. At least this is how I see things going
at the moment and that's why the light sentences.
The sentence of six years was deemed average, AFAIK, for this kind of crime,
given the age of the offenders. It's under appeal anyway. I have never
thought rape was ever dealt with serverly enough in this country. It's a
shame race had to be brought in to make rape seem more important though.
Chris
John D Leister wrote:
>
> How would the newspapers, the media, and the
> courts deal with matters if a group of caucasian
> youth ran around and raped a few women of middle
> eastern, or ethnic origin?
When Truganini was raped and infected with syphillis,
her sisters kidnapped and held as sex slaves, her
mother stabbed, her uncle shot, and her betrothed murdered,
no one screamed that the British were cultural barbarians
even though the persecution was FAR MORE SYSTEMIC.
More recently, when Kosovar (Muslim) women were systematically
raped by Serbians (Orthodox Christian) in an act of terrorist
intimidation.
The outrage was international and pressure was created to
have rape as a weapon treated as a war crime, a form
of torture.
The Rape of Nanking caused outrage, but little action.
Globally and historically we can state that acts against
White Europeans have generally been met with greater
outrage than any other group. It's a function of their
wealth and power.
But fortunately International courts are making it more likely
that global standards treating rape as gross abuse,
akin to torture, are emerging.
>
> Would they get into the same kind of frenzy as
> they are in now?
With one exception, Bryant was never branded a 'Christian'
mass murderer. Nor was his ethnicity confused with his crime,
nor with his nominal religion.
Muslims are frequently demonised. Your own ignorance
in posing the question as 'what would happen if *Caucasians*
did such and such' merely illustrates the confusion around
four discrete factors:
Crime, for which individuals are responsible, not a whole people.
Religion, irrelevant to the crime, what has Islam to do with rape?
Race, there is only one, the racists argue otherwise to cause division.
ethnicity, People from the Middle East do not have a greater
statistical propensity to rape.
> Would the judges be more or less lenient with
> the offenders when caught and not so worried
> about treading on eggshells?
Political leaders will not even confront the
mass rapes of indigenous australians by white settlers,
let alone apologise for the wrongs committed.
> The reason for this IMHO is that race is a very
> sensitive issue and at the moment multicultural
> attitudes and ideologies seem to be the way that
> some in society want us to go.
So by falsely putting all Muslims in a kangaroo court
the bigots seeking political division can also put
multi-culturalism on trial?
> hence if you do very harsh sentences there will be political
> backlash.
Clearly you don't have a clue, the penalty for gang
rape has been made LIFE imprisonment.
Note.. it is the CRIMINALS who will be punished,
not the whole community targeted by racist bigots! B^p
> At least this is how I see things going
> at the moment and that's why the light sentences.
Clearly you are a brain dead fuckwit.. the sentences are
the same for other offenders of that age group, ie too light.
Then comes the hard part.. looking at the causes of such
behaviour. Simplistic nonsense and demonization won't
help.. it will merely inflame the situation.
So now you know what justice would be metered out to "anglos".
John D Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3B87C06F...@senet.com.au...