In 2010 of the Labour government made cuts to legal aid with deeper cuts by the coalition government in 2012. The deepest cuts coming after 2013 when LASPO (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act was passed by Parliament. The cuts meant many people facing family, civil and criminal cases were defined limits imposed on their legal rights in aid. It would be fair to say those mostly affected were from poorer households. Cuts were accentuated in a time of austerity where the coalition government imposed huge cuts to disability entitlements, which saw thousands commit suicide. Into thousand 17 the Crown Prosecution Service declared they would be cracking down on social media hate speech.
Freedom of Expression guidelines broadly define hate speech as “forms of expression which incite violence, hatred or discrimination against other persons and groups, the tick Lily by reference to vet ethnicity, religious belief, gender or sexual orientation...” The guidelines make no reference at all to disability either mental or physical. The guidelines also acknowledge there is no universally accepted definition. This leaves interpretation open and vague, which could cause more problems than solve, as interpretation could be manipulated to fit an ideology or narrative. It would therefore not take into consideration other factors such as mental health.
As mentioned in M.L. Perlin’s book: The Hidden Prejudice Mental Disability on Trial, in chapter 12 Exposing the Prejudice, Perlin touches upon the law prioritising focus groups such as feminist jurisprudence, economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies, ensuring deep research, great funding and plenty of attention. These groups have been involved in criticising freedom of speech and demanding crackdowns on hate speech over the Internet. They argue that free speech can be offensive and runs the risk of causing psychological harm to otherwise healthy people.
However, what their arguments do not consider is whether the person causing offence is doing so intentionally. It is frequently assumed that offence is often done with intent. But what if the person who has caused offence does not understand this? What if a person who was caused offence is struggling with mental illness? Perhaps the person speaking undesirable fort suffers with depression, bipolar, personality disorder? Maybe they have suffered a traumatic crime at the hands of a person belonging to a marginalised group and are speaking publicly about that event. Speaking of such an experience will inevitably be offensive to some.
Perlin, who wrote this book in 2000 notes the extensive research provided to these various focus groups regarding law in comparison to mental illness which received its last research investigation in the 1980s. A two-decade timespan. Furthermore, research has been non-existent since the year 2000 and seems only to be done in America. Perlin discusses therapeutic jurisprudence and defines it as recognising rules, legal procedures and roles with consideration of those with mental health disabilities with anti-therapeutic jurisprudence providing a negative impact on that group. The CPS crackdown could be considered reflective of anti-therapeutic jurisprudence regarding mentally ill people using social media. It is not Perlin’s intention to create a therapeutic state but instead consider mental health with regards to legislation. This is not believed to be taking place.
It is also Perlin’s concerned that research will be limited to academic circles preventing necessary changes in the legal system or within the fast-evolving society. Despite the extensive literature over the decades regarding mental illness it has continued to be ignored by the judicial system. In Europe under article 14 of the European Convention on human rights individuals have protection against discrimination. However, the freedom of speech guidelines proves this to be wrong, displaying discrimination towards disabled. Perlin provided with research almost 2 decades ago identifying very little research in Western society is provided or considered regarding mental health and the legal system.
So why is this?
Perlin identifies sanism as a dominant psychological force which distorts rational decision-making, encourages pre-textuality and teleology, and prevents focusing on questions are meaningful to therapeutic jurisprudence enquiries. Sanist decisions operate in an anti-therapeutic world. Until this system sanist biases are confronted and social science data is intelligently weighed and assessed, mental health will lack consideration in this way. Perlin has also criticised sloppily drafted law as further evidence to the problem facing therapeutic jurisprudence, which highlights the lack of care and attention legislators devote to mental disability. Also identified is the age of legislation still used in action today as sometimes decades, even centuries old. Apathy towards and disinterest in precision and accuracy in terminology reflects the sanist ways that both legislators and judges subordinate mental disability law issues. So why does this matter?
Is history repeating itself?
Mark P. Mostert wrote “useless eaters: disability as genocidal marker in Nazi Germany” in 2002. Mostert’s chilling first sentence states, “the methods used for mass extermination in the Nazi death camps originated and were perfected in earlier used against people with physical, emotional, and intellectual disabilities.” Mostert observed the focus remaining on the extermination of Jews with little attention paid to precipitating events serving as a catalyst to the Holocaust. Societal and scientific perceptions of difference extended to state policy, which was intensified and codified with the rise of national socialism and Hitler's assumption of power in 1933. Notions of difference were first expressed in state sanctioned killings of children and adults with a wide range of physical, emotional and intellectual disabilities. Mostert examines the manipulation of key variables which allowed a highly sophisticated Western society manipulate via state law and policy to sanction and eventually murdered phase with disabilities.
The outbreak of World War I caused social and economic repercussions for Germany. With the need to ration food and provide care and medicine for those injured in the war effort, facilities became overcrowded with high-levels of neglect and deprivation on such ill funded institutes. Today, in a time of austerity the consequences are noticeable on our public services including our National Health Service and the prison services. The reallocation of resources saw a divide between those who were healthy and able to contribute and those who were not. That has been notable with the Conservative government review of disability entitlements in the UK in recent years, which sadly saw many suicides as a result to austerity cuts. In Germany it was seen that extensive and expensive care could not aid Germans economic recovery.
Therefore, inappropriate or undesirable behaviour by those who were disabled were often considered a threat to public decency and social order. Today, we have seen a remarkable compassion for most people of marginalised groups, but still notably reject compassion or empathy towards those with mental illness. This acknowledges that physical differences are frequently met with compassion in today’s public sphere, but hidden illness receives less empathy. Mostert states, inappropriate public behaviour by people with disabilities was often dealt with through legal action and the criminal justice system melding disability and criminality in the public mind. Even in today's society many people go undiagnosed with mental illness due to fear of stigmatisation. Furthermore, in today's society there is huge pressure on the public to conform with social ideologies and with this huge pressure anyone who does not conform is targeted and labelled negatively. Labels such as Nazi, Islamophobic, racist homophobic are often thrown out to shame and ridicule those who do not follow the social order. However, there is currently no label for those who lack empathy for those with disability or mental illness. Why is this?
It is rarely argued in today's society that those who are not conforming to social order might be emotionally incapable of empathising or intellectually ill-equipped to understand these new social orders. Why is this not a consideration? As someone who has suffered a traumatic experience by someone of a different race, I wish to speak publicly about this and warn others. In doing so I risk offending many other people and the law, in its discriminatory, sanist way does not cover me for the trauma which I have suffered and the offence which I might cause.
As discussed in a previous blog post, in his 2014 speech “What’s in a name? Privacy and anonymous speech on the internet.” Lord Neuberger reflects on history, observing the benefits of offensive speech actioned by a political critic who wrote under the pseudonym of Junius. It is important to question whether governments are ordering these crackdowns for their own narcissistic fears of being criticised, or whether it is sincerely concerned for marginalised groups. If it is for concern for these marginalised groups, why have they chosen to discriminate against one particular group? If governments fear history repeating itself, then why are they repeating history? John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher, political economist and civil servant. He was one of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism and came up with the harm principle. The basis of the harm principle was considered that as long as no one is harmed, the only justification for interference with other people's freedom would be to prevent harm to others. It is the marginalised groups who argue this and claim that freedom of speech can cause psychological harm.
But as it is raised in this post, it would be harmful to segregate those with mental illness and mental disability from others for fear that their freedom of speech may offend others with the possibility of causing psychological harm. As seen in history, to target and identify marginalised groups, such as those with mental disabilities would be far more harmful than the words they express. In today's society we see more discrimination against those with mental disabilities than any other marginalised group. What is distinctly disturbing, is that this marginalised group receives little protection under the law as it currently stands. This group is once again at the highest risk of being imprisoned for unintentionally offending others and therefore institutionalised.
Governments across the world tell us they are concerned that history is repeating itself. They are right to be concerned, for it is. But as has been seen in the past where governments have been responsible for the discrimination of the mentally ill, today's governments are repeating the exact same patterns. Governments claim to be concerned that history is repeating itself and yet they are ensuring that it does. It is up to us to question why.
the I wrote a blog post regarding Western pornography and its effects on African men, here. And here I would like to further the debate on Western pornography and discuss whether it should be considered freedom of expression, noting the limitations on freedom of expression including harm which may be caused. I would like to then consider the possible harm caused through pornography using the conservative argument, the feminist argument and compare it to the meaning of freedom of expression.
Speech should be context dependent a point illustrated by the judgement by the US Supreme Court in Schenck v Hodges , a case whether defendants were prosecuted for distributing pamphlets arguing against the drafting of soldiers to fight in World War I. “Whether the words used are used in such circumstances and of such nature to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent... If an actual obstruction of recruiting service were approved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced.” Proving that freedom of speech would be limited where a real danger or harm could be caused, the law will seek to limit it. But what accounts for freedom of expression?
Article 10 the European Convention of human rights states; everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. Article 10 seeks to expand on speech by including the use of symbols, cartoons, plays, a particular type of dress et cetera in its use of freedom of expression. The first Amendment to the US Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a readdress of grievances. The ECHR expands its understanding of freedom of expression but limits it with responsibility and duty, where as the first amendment concentrate solely on speech with no acknowledgement of limits to that freedom.
It is therefore fair to say that pornography falls under freedom of expression under article 10 ECHR. However, Ronald Dworkin an American philosopher and jurist, questioned whether pornography should count as free speech, thus benefit from free-speech protections and whether it could cause harm to individuals of a wider society. In 1981, he wrote “the majority of people in both countries would prefer substantial censorship if not outright prohibition of ‘sexually explicit’ material with many of that majority themselves consumers of what ever pornography is on offer, who would strongly prefer that their children, not follow them in that taste.” However, since Dworkin made this statement the accessibility of pornography has progressed.
To define what pornography is, Justice Stewart a US judge famously said in 1964, “I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it”. The Oxford English dictionary defines pornography as “the explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, et cetera in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings.” However, feminist thinkers Andrea Dworkin and Catherine Macakinnon (1988) defined it as “the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women whether in pictures or words,” further explaining the representations dehumanising women as sexual objects or commodities, or as experiencing sexual pleasure in being raped. The problem with this definition however, is it excludes gay and child pornography and also assumes wrong morality with no evidence to prove this. Therefore igniting controversy surrounding the definition of pornography.
Should the law restrict pornography? With this question comes the moral, harm and feminist arguments. So we should explore the Conservative argument first. In 2012, West stated the main opposition to pornography from moral and religious conservatives, was due to its sexually explicit, obscene and morally corrupting content. He explained that according to conservatives, “pornography is deeply offensive to decent family and religious values and citizens who hold these values. Consumption is bad for society, undermining and is stabilising the moral fabric of decent and stable society. It encourages sexual promiscuity, deviant sexual practices that threaten traditional family and religious institutions. It corrupts the character of those who consume it preventing them from leading a good family life... The state is justified in using it is coerces power to uphold and enforce a community's moral convictions understood as ‘legal moralism’, to prevent citizens from harming themselves. Conservatives believe it is legitimate for the state to prohibit consenting adults from publishing and viewing pornography, even in private.” It will also be argued that not all conservatives feel this way about pornography or the prohibition of pornography.
With West’s argument in mind, it is necessary to explore the harmfulness of pornography. Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist and a professor emeritus at Stanford University created a survey of 20,000 young people of which 75% were men. It was observed young men, who played videogames to excess, excess being about five or more hours a day, and their average viewing time of pornography. That viewing time equated to around two hours per week, but Zimbardo, recorded the psychological change in mindset through excessive use of video games and pornography. He noted how rather than concentrating on work in class boys minds drifted to wishing they were playing computer games. And when in the presence of girls, boys would rather be watching pornography due to never getting rejected. Zimbardo, therefore claimed that this was leading and had already led to a crisis. He noted the change in brain function, the change to the reward centre in the brain and the evidence that it happens more in boys brains than girls brains. He claimed that boy’s brains were becoming digitally rewired.
It was argued that we currently see young men of today drink less than they once did, take less drugs than they once did, they are less violent than they once were, and in other words the picture is not as bleak as what Philip Zimbardo was claiming. Zimbardo argued the less violence is due to their not leaving their room. They are not drinking alcohol because they are drinking Coke and addicted to sugar. He argued young boys are becoming ‘fat arses’. With the increase in obesity, that also increases the likelihood of getting type 2 diabetes a consequence of which is reduced libido. Kids are getting turned on by watching video but physiologically they are less aroused. It is called PIED, porn induced erectile dysfunction. The solution offered by Zimbardo, is for parents to become aware of a number of hours the child spends doing these things. He recommends using a time journal and listing how much time children spend with friends, spend exercising, spend reading and writing. The point which will become realised is that the parents will be alarmed when they do this and therefore set more stringent rules, such as don't do play videos until you finish your homework. Zimbardo, believes media especially American media is to blame providing negative images of men being slobs, or being undesirable. Here Zimbardo has provided mental and physical harm created by pornography.
And now we arrive at the feminist argument. As previously mentioned some feminist writers argue pornography should be censored due to the detrimental impact it can have on the women within society. One such author is Prof Rae Langton. Rae Langton uses the feminist definition of pornography explaining the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women portraying women as sexual objects, as things, or commodities, enjoying pain or humiliation or rape. She goes on to clarify she is concerned only with the type of pornography that does subordinate women and acknowledges not all pornography does that. Rae Langton believes the solution lies in certain material being justified in censorship but prefers an opt in system rather than an opt out system within obtaining pornography through the Internet if you really wanted it. Her concern is not so much that it turns men into rapists but that it dehumanises women and changes the views towards women within society.
As Zimbardo’s study acknowledges, men have become more fearful, not of women but of rejection and therefore avoid them out of preference to their own psychological needs. However, my concern raised in my previous blog post regarding the impact of Western porn on Third World men does reinstate the fear feminists raise with regards to men turning violent having watched pornography. The problem here in lies that those proven to act violently having watched pornography are those who we are deliberately inviting into our society. It would infringe on human rights for studies to take place on particular segments of society to reach a more clear perspective with regards to the effects of pornography on particular societal demographics. With these men now being invited into our Western culture but political correctness suppressing freedom of speech, to dispute this action or discussion the feminist concern with pornography has now become legitimate.
With Mills argument in mind, that is the state should only limit individual freedom if harm is caused to others and having considered all the arguments raised, I now handover this information to you for you to reflect upon and come to your own conclusions as to what should happen with regards to pornography and censorship.
It is a really nice feeling to know that my tribunal is nearly out of the way. Taking your case to tribunal is emotionally exhausting and prevents you from moving forward. I have also learned that should I win the tribunal I still have to go through the process of fighting for how much compensation I should win, a further battle. It therefore feels as a victim of rape, as if from the moment you do get raped you are constantly persecuted by all and everyone around you. This includes the authorities and the government who are meant to be there to protect you. So the reality here, is that although I may win this part of the battle, there is still a further battle to be won.
For this reason, I see 2018 as being a slow year for progress for me. But this is something that I am prepared for and have acknowledged early on. And with that realisation that it will be a slow process this year I have set myself some targets, you might say baby step targets to help with a feeling of self achievement. It is safe to assume that having been through this whole situation, I am lacking somewhat in self-esteem, so baby steps are the ideal self-medication. I had hoped to find the confidence in myself to tell the rest of my family what had happened to me. I had hoped to find this confidence at the beginning of 2018, while my family were around me during the holidays. This was not to be, and I was not able to find the courage to tell them at this time. But it is only January. What I did manage to do, which I felt was quite an achievement was tell one family member that I have voted Brexit. It probably seems quite laughable that a person would be so worried as to tell family members they voted in such a way. However, it is also worth considering that some of my family currently live in other European countries. And that is where the problem lies in my vote.
Again it was only one person in my family, and they did not react. This is obviously a positive thing, but I do question if they think that I might have miss spoken. However, if you look at my bookshelves which this family member did it becomes all too clear what I likely did vote Brexit. Therefore, their lack of reaction is in my opinion a very good thing and quite encouraging for me to speak about the unspeakable- the rape. I guess it is quite reasonable to expect family to not get irrate with regards to other family members politics. But it likely depends on the devotion and loyalty of those you speak to not to mention other members need for your vote to benefit them (like my family living in Europe).
I am not sure that this is something I've ever mentioned, but I struggle with agoraphobia. I think I can safely say that my fear isn't so much leaving the house, but rather returning to it. My fear for returning home is due to the possibility of being followed and what might come of that. Obviously, I have bared the brunt of such a thing. It therefore currently in my mindset, seems far more logical option to remain at home and only leave when necessary. Thankfully I am self-employed, and with door-to-door services these days and the ability to do a lot of things online my work is quite achievable under such circumstances. However, as you can probably imagine, this is not an enjoyable life to live for myself or for my young son. For myself I would probably find it bearable and not aspire to fix this problem. However, for such a young child to be put in such a situation whereby their parent fears going outside with them, this is a problem. It is therefore a problem which needs fixing.
It was last year; my driving license was removed due to stress which caused seizures as a symptom. When I had learnt to drive, it completely changed my life and my sons life. I felt safely cocooned by this piece of protective machinery, safe in the knowledge no one would walk behind me and follow me home. The stress which caused my seizures, has been put down to the ongoing case with regards to the tribunal. So, I will be very happy when this tribunal does end, which will hopefully be this year. And it will hopefully be by the end of 2018, when I will be able to drive again and enjoy the freedom in my safe cocoon. But until then, it is my duty to my son and also my own health to ensure we both enjoy the world around us. We do go out occasionally, but I restrict my area, and it is not as frequently as is healthy. Of course, I take him to school and pick him up as well as pop to shops and local amenities. But these are within my restricted area and even still cause great anxiety on my part. But at least I am pushing myself. And pushing yourself is by all means the best remedy.
When I learned to drive, I was also dealing with great anxiety. I constantly feared that I may have a seizure while driving and possibly kill myself and the driving instructor. Yes, pretty extreme! But it is quite incredible when throughout your childhood and adult life you have experienced seizures every day, to suddenly experience none. In fact it is quite surreal and with it comes the questioning. So, to push myself into driving, I bought a Satnav which for me was relatively expensive and therefore came with an expectation to push myself in to having to use it and not waste it. It definitely had the desired effect, and although learning to drive with that kind of thinking in the back of my mind was hard, I still managed to achieve it. Bizarrely the fact that I had learned to drive is one of the key points being used against me in the tribunal. Well much of my health records is being used against me but that is a story for another time.
So now, I have bought myself a fancy camera which I intend to use with the expectation of using it outside of my home, and hopefully beyond my restricted area. The intention here is to encourage me to go to new places with my son and help take my mind off my anxieties while I learn a new skill. I don't know how effective this will be, but I'm not willing to let my son down. I had brain surgery to have that tumour removed on the basis that it would ensure my sons safety and bring him a better life. I was certainly able to live with the daily seizures and the life limits they brought with them. But if I have the ability to change someone else's life, someone I love dearly, for the better, then it is my job to ensure that positive change. Even if that change is made only by me changing myself.
On reflection that is quite a dramatic statement to make. But reflecting on it further it is obvious that this little boy has himself brought incredible positive change to my life. That, in my opinion needs rewarding and acknowledging. So, I hope to embrace the wonders which Britain has to offer and records that with my camera. One day all that history, represented in castles and architecture could be demolished. All those green rolling mountains, could be built upon. I don't think it's safe to assume anything these days. But I do need to ensure that my little boy gets to enjoy his country before it is destroyed any further.
I had watched a documentary which reported on the effects of Western pornography on society. It included a section regarding the effects on the African continent. It documented how in African hut villages, men and young boys would watch pornography on the Internet or phones in a hut and found that in an effort to relieve themselves, the men would find a woman or a child to rape. The village women had reported also that the men's behaviour had changed over the last few years by a severe degree whereby they felt afraid of the men. In these types of African villages, it would be questionable whether rape would be seen as a criminal offence and if there were any consequences for such behaviours. In the one-hour documentary about Western pornography, this element of it only received approximately 10 minutes of insight.
Having been a victim of the migrant rape crisis however, not an African migrant I felt the need to investigate this further. Since I had found the documentary on YouTube I decided to investigate further documentaries on that same platform. With typing in “effects of Western pornography in Africa” search results pulled up various African amateur pornography. Despite having a no pornography rule on YouTube these clips still came up. Perhaps that is the liberal side of YouTube? Not only this, but it is important for us to recognise that those in Third World cultures who watch Western pornography, will have a distorted view of white European women which would likely encourage uncivilised behaviours. Such behaviours can be observed within African villages where rape has been recognised as relief for men who have watched this pornography. With acknowledging this it is therefore important to consider how we ensure the safety of white European women and prevent this from happening knowing that these Third World cultures may observe all Western women as a collective i.e. porn stars. However, further research on this subject is not easily found on this subject, not even on the internet.
Along with the mass rapes within the African villages a steady increase in the those contracting HIV has been observed. This is something which has been controlled for now but is a concern that it could get out of control. Not only is there an increase in HIV and rape, but with no criminal action against the rapist those men are now coming over to Europe and acting in the same manner. Indeed, it is found that when migrants do rape white European women they appear to face little to no consequences in legal terms as they argue they did not understand. It is fair to say that the authorities even empathise more with the migrant than the rape victims. If these people are coming to our continent not understanding our rule of law and therefore risking our health and safety, then surely that is negligence on the part of the European Union? It is not as though they do not know what is going on and taking place against European women, children and men by these migrants. Of course, another way to look at this is the future possibility of an AIDS epidemic in Europe.
It likely is unknown how many innocent women and children and men have contracted the HIV virus having been raped by a migrant. The test was something which I had to go through myself, and to my great relief I was free of any such virus. But I didn't recollect what had happened to me for a year. Apparently, this is very usual and a way for the brain to bubble wrap the mind. However, in that time the virus could have spread onto other people. Perhaps to a partner of the victim? Maybe a new lover? And perhaps those people would spread the virus onto others unknowingly? Well, at least there would be pharmaceuticals to make a profit out of such a catastrophe. So it seems there is a winner out of all of this devastation and sadness.
It would be discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights to educate these men from Third World cultures on their behaviours in a civilised society when they feel the need for sexual relief. It would be discrimination because they could claim it was a racist or they were being discriminated against because of their religion. Therefore it is very difficult for European countries to educate migrants from Third World countries specifically. It should not be taken lightly that rapes such as what have been happening in Europe will continue. In educating women and men about what has been documented in these different cultures it would certainly add to the safety of many and the prevention of sexual assault however, it would act as segregation within our society. Segregation has been happening for decades now, whereby many people have arrived from opposing cultures in the hopes of making money, but with no desire to integrate. This lack of desire to integrate, has seen those migrants unable to speak the native language and therefore be completely reliant on the welfare state. It could also be assumed that the lack of desire to integrate is from this prejudged idea that all Westerners are like porn stars or just a general disliking of Western society, despite the opes to profit from it.
But is it fair to lay the burden of these misconceptions on Western men and Western women and relieve those of Third World cultures of any crime or wrongdoing? With there appearing to be no end to the migrant crisis, this element of Third World misconception of Western women through Western pornography has to be looked at seriously and in greater detail to ensure our safety. It would be fair to assume not all migrants will presume and judge in this way, but it is also fair to assume that many will. It is important now that we recognise that talking about our differences, our obvious differences has now become a necessity. We have to stop pretending that these men arriving from Third World countries are civilised men understanding our laws and our culture, all for the sake of appearing empathetic, understanding and rejecting racism. We have to now accept that some of these people are not civilised and there is masses of evidence to prove that.
With the Internet being a globalised utility currently, and Western porn now being free entertainment to the masses worldwide it is important we consider the psychology of how it affects different cultures who our political elite are inviting in. It is also up to our political elite to consider these elements and review their laws and legislation. Surely, we can only all be equal under the law if we have all been educated under the same rules and laws. If we have been educated in a very different manner or at least some of us have within our society, then surely it is better and safer to acknowledge that those in particular might be a greater risk to society as a whole. Rather than assuming this to be racist or anti-religious we must focus on it being about very different cultures, opposing cultures being thrown together and the requirement for adjustment, teaching and intolerance for bad behaviour by all, no exceptions.
Because of the white men are privileged concept which is being used within the education system, the mainstream media and is remarked upon quite frequently, I had believed initially that men would not have cared that I had been raped. That is what the current indoctrination and brainwashing are doing to women like myself. I had expected more women to find my video on YouTube. But the analytics and statistics show that the great majority of my viewers are men. At first is felt quite strange for me. But that was only a momentary feeling. When considering the amount of supportive messages which I had received in relation to the statistics it proved to me that men, white nationalist men, and just white men who are very empathetic and concerned.
A video had been made on YouTube about someone's rape. The YouTuber in question goes by the name of Blair white. Blair white is a transsexual female who was raped at the age of 18. At the beginning of her video she remarks how she will not go into detail so as not to satisfy the perverts. I had watched this video after I had started creating my own content and I was taken aback by her comment as I had never received any perverse questions asking for details. In fact because I hadn't received any perverse questions I felt offended by that remark on behalf of men. It was also clear that many other people felt offended by the remark.
I had certainly received trolling comments, which I still to this day find very difficult to deal with. This is predominantly because what happened to me still feels very real and comments suggesting I deserve to be raped are very difficult for me to deal with. I do receive other types of trolled comments and I had been receiving those comments from the left for a number of months previous. I suspect that I became immune to such comments. What is sad is that I had to get used to such trolling comments about such a personal situation. And what continues to be sad is that I will have to get used to such trolling comments from the right as well telling me that I deserve to be raped.
The fact of the matter is I know that I can get past these comments because I have got passed these comments in the past by the left. In fact, I have got past years of bullying as a child, so I know I'm very capable. But overall in the grand scheme of things men and predominantly white men have been particularly kind, caring, concerned about me to the point of defending me. With men goading each other with comments on labels such as White Knight, Cuck and Beta, I only hope that men continue this empathetic path which I have found them to be and don't destroy this through labels and fear mongering. The paternal, caring good nature I have received from these men signals to me that there is still much hope left for future relationships between men and women.
Having been through a rape, and then questioning whether it really was rape simply because of the race of the man and comparing this to the current sexual harassment claims, whereby a male stroked a female’s knee and newspapers are alarmed by this, I must question sexual offences legislations. Are they dictated to by the executive a.k.a. government and parliament, or are they dictated to by news stories and alarmists? If the latter, what kind of effect will this have on genuine victims of rape if we trivialize sexual offences? To me it seems our laws are being dictated to by news stories, and this is very concerning to me for the blatant reason that news stories are sensationalised, as the knee story portrays. And if all laws and legislation are dictated to by sensationalised news stories, then it is reasonable to suggest that the future holds sensationalised over exaggerated laws. This will undoubtedly lead to what already inhabits our legal system of unjust sentencing.
For the larger part I have been thankful I am relieved for the positive, caring comments I have received. It is clear that the majority of viewers are against rape. This is not something which would be commented on in a news articles or through the education system, which I see as brainwashing and indoctrinating young women like myself against young men. So, with the sensationalised anti-white male rhetoric, and the new sensationalised anti-white legislation and sentencing, I can't help but question where this will lead relationships in the future. Not just relationships but all areas of life. It is clear to me that representation has become unfair and unequal as has our legal system. Voting against this rhetoric is very important. With a son who is white, from a poor background I worry for his future. His schooling needs will be dismissed on this rhetoric and has already proven that white, British boys from poor backgrounds do poorly in schools, even if they start off well. My son started off well, I don’t want to allow the system to let him down. I will cover this further on my website in the future. I see the injustice taking shape and it is important to me to start voting against it.
Voting against it will show the judiciary that the average person is feeling and thinking very differently in this day and age. It would therefore be clear to judges in their sentencing that although precedent has now been set, it will have to be renegotiated to satisfy the observations of the average person in the UK. The media, acknowledging also the changes within the political voting strategy will likely vanish, be reduced significantly or recognize the will of the people…. those who buy their biased rubbish. And we mustn't forget that law is a three-tier system with the executive, the legislator and the judiciary. Being the average people but we are, it is important we bring our disputes through the legal system. In doing so and changing our voting strategy, we the people will be dictating how our country runs rather than media taking control. We the people for the most part care about each other, want to help each other, and know what's best for our country.
Indeed we have been lied to by our mainstream media and education system not to mention our governments, but we are taking back control and we will win.
First of all, the immigration policy for Europe meant that those Europeans who were part of the European Union could roam freely to any of those European countries signed up to the European Union. With communism combated in the eastern block of Europe and those countries now signed up to the European Union, there is great optimism from both European immigrants that they would find wealth, opportunity and success in Western European countries such as the UK. Along with mass immigration from those European countries came huge wage wars, whereby European immigrants would work for longer hours with less breaks for a lower wage. Many Britons have been condemned as lazy for expected proper legal employment rights. The forfeiting of such entitlements by many European immigrants ensured corporations benefitted from turnover with a greater profit.
With this extensive immigration came new types of contracts such as the zero-hour contract which would inevitably have a great impact on those who found themselves out of employment and needing to rely upon the welfare system. With the mass immigration, zero-hour contracts and wage wars governments were now able to confidently support with statistical evidence, that employment had in fact increased. However, it could also be statistically proven at the same time, that poverty had significantly increased within the UK.
Along with mass immigration from the eastern block of Europe, came a huge influx of migration from the Middle East and Africa. Many reasons were given for this including rehoming refugees from illegal wars which the West had started, to low birth rates in Europe, so a great need for population replacement. Despite Angela Merkel stating that multiculturalism had failed in 2015 she continues to invite mass migration to Europe. But with such an acknowledgement, why would that be?
Bonded labour also known as debt bondage is one of the most widely used methods of enslavement despite being outlawed by the United Nations Supplementary Convention on the Abolishment of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery 1956, bonded labour continues to exist. A bonded labourer is a person who is forced to work in order to repay loans. They work long hours every day for little or no payment work usually consists of heavy duty tasks. A bonded labourer may find themselves getting a loan to escape war-torn areas or countries or on the promise of a better life in another country through the means of human trafficking.
Bonded labourers will also have an impact on the natives within a society. The significantly reduced wages and salary ensure that a corporation is making massive profits. Due to wage stagnation within the Western society, corporations have found themselves to be boycotted by potential consumers on the basis that they take their companies and factories to other continents therefore not providing Western natives with jobs and security. However, convincing potential consumers that their products are made in Western society therefore providing Westerners with jobs and careers and prospects, corporations would likely see an influx in sales once again.
It is therefore important that the consumer asks themselves the question as to whether the factory in which the product was made within Western society, actually employed native Westerners. It is now a very possible likelihood that although products may be produced in Western continents, they are still produced by slave labour. And with the mass importation of probable bonded labourers from Third World nations, this will have a very significant impact on the employability of the natives.
For the natives to ensure their own employability, it is very likely that they will have to also wage war against slave labour from Third World countries invited and welcomed by bureaucrats in the European Union. The United Nations is already aware of the practice of bonded labour and still acknowledges it to be the most predominantly used form of slave labour. It is also important for one to ask, how would a migrant who is unable to communicate in the language of the country in which they work, that they are bonded labourers? In fact, it would need to be questioned if they could inform authorities would it be in their best interest to do so.
It is a well-known fact that the migrants coming over to Europe from these Third World continents are human trafficked over, therefore the human traffickers will have applied a loan to these migrants. It is likely in this case, that threats are made towards the family of those migrants. We can therefore accept that these migrants are brought over to Western continents as bonded slave labourers with the full knowledge of the ruling elite. Under these circumstances it is probable that the ruling elite don't only expect to continue stagnant wages within society but now expect to reduce them further. With the ruling elite, the establishment and the mainstream media fighting the rejection of migrants as being racist, xenophobic or Islamophobic, the message could be interpreted here as the ruling class supports bonded and slave labour.
If you yourself are a supporter of slavery within Europe in a modern age, then you should be voting those parties who invite and welcome migrants from Third World countries knowing and recognising that they are human trafficked to Europe. But if you reject the use of slave and bonded labour from Third World nations in our society knowing they are human trafficked here to be used as slave labour for our consumerist society, then it is up to you to vote against it. Not only do need you to vote against it, but you could also vote against consumerism through your wallet by rejecting corporations and globalism and supporting your independent companies. The choice is yours we live in a democracy.
What are your thoughts? Do you believe the migrants brought to Europe are bonded labour slaves who will inflict greater wage stagnation on the future of European natives?