Monthly Archive: May 2017
What special accommodation has Brooklyn Tech made for Jewish religious observance? Christian religious observance? That’s right, Brooklyn Tech hasn’t made any such accommodation.
Notice also how in this accommodation to Muslim students, all non-Muslim students at the prom have to be inconvenienced and made to comply with Islamic religious laws. Imagine the outcry if Brooklyn Tech forced all Muslim students to change their behavior in order to accommodate some Jewish or Christian religious practice: the outcry would be immediate and vociferous. But such a thing, of course, would never happen.
“The principal also met with the Muslim Student Association Tuesday to make sure this never happens again.”
The principal knows who the new overlords are. The principal knows who can destroy careers with charges of “Islamophobia.”
FORT GREENE, Brooklyn (WABC) — Brooklyn Tech seniors will gather at Pier Sixty for the prom on June 3, but not all their classmates will be able to attend the big bash at the hot spot billed as the largest waterfront venue in Manhattan.
The party this year falls during Ramadan, a month-long time of religious fasting and prayer for observant Muslims.
“Obviously the date wasn’t the best date,” said senior Pakeza Sahbbir, who will be not attending. “You’re not suppose to listen to music during Ramadan, so that’s why it’s not really allowed.”
In an online petition, students are asking school officials to move the prom to another day so that everyone can participate. About 1,300 students go to Brooklyn Tech, but the school does not track religious affiliation.
“I know how it feels to fast,” student Saima Afrin said. “I feel very tired throughout the day, so I won’t want to go out. I’d sleep and stuff.”
In an effort to accommodate everyone, school officials said they won’t serve food at the prom until 9 p.m., after fasting ends at sundown.
The principal also met with the Muslim Student Association Tuesday to make sure this never happens again….
Willie Cory Godbolt, 35, went on a shooting spree late Saturday night in the tiny hamlet of Bogue Chitto, Mississippi. Eight people were killed in a rampage that began when a relative of Godbolt’s estranged wife called 911 to report a domestic disturbance. Godbolt’s wife had left him three weeks earlier, taking their two sons and moving in with her mother and stepfather. Godbolt shot the sheriff’s deputy who responded to the call.
“I was having a conversation with her stepdaddy and her mama and her, my wife, about me taking my children home,” Godbolt told a reporter for the Jackson Clarion-Ledger after he was arrested. “Somebody called the officer, people that didn’t even live at the house. That’s what they do. They intervene. They cost him his life. I’m sorry.”
Godbolt’s wife escaped, but he killed her mother, her aunt, her sister and three other relatives. The killer had a criminal history:
In 2005, he was arrested for armed robbery and aggravated assault after allegedly striking a man over the head with a pistol before stealing his jewelry and cash. In 2013 he was charged with simple assault. In April 2015 he was arrested for driving with a suspended license and and later that year for disorderly conduct. Most recently he was was arrested in 2016 for contempt of justice court and an additional assault charge.
With such a record of criminal violence, why wasn’t Willie Godbolt already in prison? That’s a question worth asking, in terms of public policy, because eight people including a law-enforcement officer are dead as a result of Willie Godbolt being turned loose by the system.
His niece, Kiyah Godbolt, wrote on Facebook that the killer was a good man — “a provider, a protector and a love” — but that “the devil won more this morning. The devil possessed him.”
Christians may see Willie Godbolt’s crimes as a result of satanic influence, but feminists rushed to place the blame elsewhere.
“This is Patriarchal terror,” Stephanie Lamy proclaimed on Twitter. “Man killed because of male entitlement & male violence.”
Here’s a question: If “patriarchal terror” and “male entitlement” are such a universal force of oppression, why aren’t all men everywhere going on murder rampages? Why are black people, 13% of the U.S. population, responsible for half the murders in this country? And why are black people 44% of murder victims? To ask such questions is to risk the accusation of racism, but when feminists generalize the blame for atrocities — using phrases like “male violence” which imply collective guilt — no one seems to object to this as anti-male hate propaganda.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and if the only ideology you have is feminism, every problem looks like patriarchal oppression. So guess what feminists say when an Islamic terrorist kills 22 people in a suicide bomb attack?
So, a radical Muslim slaughters innocent people, but this is “not about Islam,” declares lesbian feminist Victoria Brownworth:
The source of the violence is men. I know — we aren’t allowed to say it. But it’s the reality. Terrorism in all its forms — bombings, shootings, mass vehicular homicide — is the purview of men. . . .
Make no mistake, the victims were not random. The killers — Abedi did not work alone — wanted to kill as many young girls and women as possible. And he, they succeeded — with only a few exceptions, the dead and injured were girls and women.
Right — blame men, all men generally, males as a collective group, but radical Methodists are not the men who detonate bombs in terrorist attacks intended to inflict mass casualties on women and children. Lutheran extremists do not hijack jets and fly them into skyscrapers.
Targeting an event that would be predominantly full of girls and young women — and a not insignificant number of gay men — was no accident. Abedi could have chosen any event at that venue, or elsewhere, so we need to look at what happened to make it a Grande concert that he decided upon. We have to acknowledge the misogyny behind his decision, his goal of punishing women purely for having a good time, and tackle the idea that men can or should control women’s lives. . . .
As with nearly every mass attack, the perpetrator of this crime was a man. This is far more prevalent than mass killers (including those attacking pupils in American schools) being Muslims, but it is rarely addressed in the mainstream media analysis of huge killings like that in Manchester.
Let’s notice the either/or binary thinking involved in such claims. Apparently, it has never occurred to feminists that these three factors — male violence, misogyny and Islam — are closely related. We need not make any assertion about which factors are causes and which are effects to say that this correlation deserves scrutiny. However, feminists are so busy blaming men (as if all 3.5 billion male human beings on the planet are equally complicit in “patriarchal terror”) that they must dismiss or minimize the influence of Islam in the Manchester attacks, in the same way that they ignore the fact that nearly half the homicides in America involve black perpetrators killing black victims.
In Chicago, seven people were killed and another 45 were wounded during Memorial Day weekend. So far this year, 231 people have been shot to death in Chicago, but have any feminists cited Chicago as a symbol of “male violence” in American society? No, because it does not fit the feminist agenda to call attention to the failures of liberal policy in a Democrat-controlled city. The same warped political ideology that allows feminists to ignore the incessant violence in Chicago (where 21 women have been murdered and more than 100 wounded so far this year) also allows them to pretend that Islam poses no distinct danger to women.
Damion Daniels has an excellent article debunking the liberal claim that “right-wing extremists” are more dangerous than Islamic terrorists, but when the facts don’t fit the Left’s agenda, the Left will either (a) ignore the facts, or (b) cling to convenient lies. However, if you point out that liberals aren’t telling the truth, this makes you a “right-wing extremist,” and therefore dangerous. One of these days, liberals may tell the truth about something, but today is not that day.