The ‘Fair Trials for Grooming Gangs’ Protests Are a Disgrace
Despite its penchant for universalist ideologies, the West is actually very peculiar in its typical social and moral attitudes. In anthropologist Joseph Heinrich’s book The WEIRDest People in the World (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic), one of the ways he demonstrates this is through varying answers worldwide to the following question.
You are riding in a car driven by a close friend. He hits a pedestrian. You know that he was going at least 35 mph in an area of the city where the maximum allowed speed is 20 mph. There are no witnesses, except for you. His lawyer says that if you testify under oath that he was driving only 20 mph, it may save him from serious legal consequences. Do you think: (a) that your friend has a definite right to expect you to testify (as his close friend), and that you would testify that he was going 20 mph OR (b) that your friend has little or no right to expect you to testify and that you would not falsely testify that he was only going 20 mph?
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I didn’t get past the first supposedly moral dilemma question. How injured is the person hit? Is your friend showing remorse? How would testifying affect your friend and how would it affect the person hit? How would it affect their families? etc etc etc. There’s nothing black and white in life, and trying to understand the complex nature of society and the human mind by pigeon-holing people based on the answer to an imagined dilemma which doesn’t consider nuance is part of the reason why we are where we are. We’re not machines that can be explained by a simple reductionist disassembly of our body and mind into ever smaller disconnected bits; we’re more than the sum of our parts, and society is more than the sum of its people.
No, I think it’s quite simple.
To cover up for your friend would be lying under oath (= bearing false witness).
Well, it might be simple for you, but not for me. Let’s say the person hit wasn’t seriously injured in any way, and telling the truth would mean that your friend would lose their job. Your friend is the sole income provider for his children (his wife died of cancer a few months ago), and they’ve already been struggling to pay their mortgage – one more late payment and the house will be repossessed. The likelihood is that the children will be taken into care and your friend is at high risk of suicide. The person hit, however, walks away with a nice amount of compensation and no negative consequences. But you’d destroy your friend and his family’s life just so that you can feel better about not lying? I know where my moral stance lies and if there’s a God that wants me not to lie under those circumstances then that’s no God that I want to follow.
In our justice system we have mitigating factors and also the ability of the judge to show mercy. Guilt does not exclude the possibility of mercy.
in your example the Christian thing to do would be to tell the truth but also then step up to pled with their employer for mercy, a second chance, and also to willing be to help with mortgage payments etc.
PS. Christian faith is basically we are guilty and worthy of punishment but God is not only willing but desperately wanting to show you mercy if only you would ask and His son will take the punishment in your stead.
Not only if you ask for forgiveness, but more importantly, if you REPENT YOUR SIN, and do your best to “Go, and sin no more”.
Without true repentance, there can be NO FORGIVENESS and NO SALVATION.
Free Lemming, the problem is that the human mind is extremely good at finding excuses for justifying criminal behaviour, no matter how serious the offence is.
Ask every mass murderer and they will come up with an elaborate explanation why their action was justified. Stalin: I wanted to create the perfect society! Adolph: I acted in the best interest of the German people!
(Dostoevky’s Crime and Punishment is exactly about this dilemma: can a talented but penniless student kill a useless, disgusting old loan shark and take her money to pay for his studies?)
The trouble is that this is a slippery slope to total lawlessness and a corrupt cesspit society.
Maybe it’s not so simple for you because you are imbued with a culture that allows you to lie in circumstances where your religion or tribe would gain a benefit from tht lie – I believe Muslims call it taqqiya?
If somebody is not religious and needs to stand in court to give evidence, how do they do their oath? Because they can’t be expected to put their hand on a Bible and say “I swear by almighty God…” it would be utterly meaningless, like swearing on the Yellow Pages and they could commit perjury, except it couldn’t be classed as perjury, presumably, because they made a false oath.🤔
They affirm:
I affirmed during my jury service.
In the old days, it was sufficient for a man to give his “Word of Honour”, and his word was his bond.
Yes, it would be breaking The Ninth Commandment:
“Thou shalt not bear False Witness against thy neighbour.”
Sorry but there must be laws, limits to human nuances because of those very human failings or we just degrade to hedonism, lawlessness and anarchy, wonder how that would work out?
This just illustrates the general problem with contrived examples: They can be made up to be anything. In the real world, I’d expect most people to be willing to lie for the benefit of their friends if they are actually their friends and to deny that strenously when being questioned about it. Especially in the area of traffic regulations which many, if not most, people routinely ignore, anyway and which many times don’t really make a difference.
A pedestrian hit by a ton of metal at a speed of 15.6 meters per second (35mph) is not going to be 1.7 times as dead as when the speed had only been 9 meters per second.
Thanks for these comments. I’m not sure of the answer. I think context is important, but I also like clear moral principles. Very interesting. But I do agree that it is spurious to carve up the entire world in terms of the majority answer to these things. Frankly it’s racism in its purest form. Individual responsibility is what Christianity and the law in the UK is all about. In fact this whole article is bollox. Smearing a decent campaign because of what one or two arseholes loudly pronounce is exactly how the media attempt to invalidate any campaign they don’t like. Especially those ” hate marches” against genocide, continually being billed as “pro Palestine ” etc. So sorry, I think these people have every right to protest for fair justice.
Yes and it is also right and legal to highlight the fact that people are exercising their right. Whether you agree or not.
I think the fundamental problem is that, according to some Muslim belief systems, the rape of non-Muslim girls is not sinful.
That of course brings them to a conflict with western values. But, as far as they are concerned, they haven’t really done anything wrong.
This is the issue here: the incompatibility between Islam and the west. And, as the west was very much built on Christian values, it is ultimately an unresolvable conflict between these two religions.
To simplify the situation:
According to Islam, it’s OK to take non-believers as sex slaves.
According to Christianity, it is not, under any circumstances, permissible to do this.
‘Suicidal empathy’ will be our downfall;
“Religion A: I hate your values, your culture, your heritage, your religion, your freedoms, your liberties, your zest for life, your love of dogs, your rights for gays, your rights for women, your love of music, your sexual liberation, your freedom of speech, your freedom of inquiry, but especially I hate your Jews.
The West: We must work hard to fight against any A-phobia. We cannot tolerate any discrimination toward A. We must increase immigration from lands of A.” Gad Saad.
Indeed.
Or, another possible interpretation: the self-hatred of the nihilistic western societies creates a suicidal death-wish. Adherents of religion A are invited to administer the coup-de-grace.
Quite: “A society dies when it cares more about exhibiting infinite tolerance and empathy than invoking it’s survival instinct.” Gad Saad Here is another excerpt from Gad Saad’s book ‘the Parasitic Mind’, Chapter 8 “Call to Action” page 176 Sam Harris recounted an anecdote that perfectly summarizes the moral blindness that cultural relativism engenders. It centred around a conversation he had with an appointee to President Obama’s Council on Bioethics She said, “How could you ever say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong from the point of view of science?” I said, “Well, because I think it’s pretty clear that right and wrong relate to human well-being, and it’s just as clear that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags and beating them, or killing them when they try to get out, is not a way of maximizing human well being.” And she said, “Well, that’s just your opinion.” And I said, “Well, okay, let’s make it even easier, Let’s say we found a culture that was literally removing the eyeballs of every third child, ok, at birth. Would you then agree that we have found a culture that is not maximizing well-being?” And she said,… Read more »
Nailed it.
Food for thought: a religion where eating a bacon sandwich will result in eternal damnation but keeping an underage kafir girl as a sex slave and raping her is not sinful.
To make it a bit more complicated again: Is Andrew Tate a moslem?
Rw, why stop there? What about Prince Andrew, or all those other Christian visitors to Epstein Island, or even the 500 thousand children trafficked over the Mexican border and lost in America?
Because that’s a substantially different story which ocurred on a distant continent and was very particular to the weird laws of this distant continent.
You can stop where you like. But exploitation of children for sex is not exclusive to any race or religion.
Nobody except you wrote anything about sex with children.
You are missing the point entirely, which is that depraved practices such as Raping Children, Raping “War Captives”, and Raping Animals are NOT LEGALLY SANCTIONED in western democracies, and are NOT RELIGIOUSLY SANCTIONED by the Christianity upon which Western Civilization was founded.
Those depraved practices ARE, however, religiously sanctioned by some Third World Religions, and are therefore legally sanctioned in countries where those religions are dominant.
In those religions, the VICTIMS of the depravities are the ones considered “guilty” for “tempting the innocent rapists”. And that’s why those protesters say the Muslim Gang Rapists are “innocent”.
Sheikh al-Fawzan, who was head of a council of imams and reputedly close to MbS, said “As long there is Islam, there will he jihad, and as long as there is jihad, there will be slavery.” He went on to denounce abolitionists as apostates. His holy book has many references to sex slaves. This is why the only countries where slavery is still practiced are Islamic – Sudan, Mali, Mauritania, Libya, etc.
Awkward, little known fact:
Slavery is still legal in Israel, as long as the slave is not Jewish.
This was exposed by Eastern European women who were offered normal administrative jobs in Israel, only to be raped and pimped out by their “employers” after they arrived, and their passports had been seized. They were told that they “belonged” to their employers now, because slavery is still legal in Israel.
Slavery is illegal in Israel.
Section 375A: Holding a Person under Conditions of Slavery
(a) He who holds a person under conditions of slavery for work or services, including sexual services – is subject to imprisonment for a term of 16 years.
However, according to the Global Slavery Index 2023, an estimated 3.8 in every thousand people were in modern slavery in Israel at any point in 2021. In other words, 5,000 people experienced forced labour or forced marriage in Israel in 2021. Perhaps it is because Muslims constitute 18.1% of the total Israeli population, making them the largest religious minority there? Of course, it is also possible that there are Jewish Israelis that behave outside the law?
No, it’s a clever trick. Slavery is illegal in Israel ONLY if the slave is Jewish.
Just like “The Noahide Laws” that were furtively inserted into US law. They only apply to Gentiles.
No clever trick. You are referencing the Talmud which was written a few centuries before Christ and up until 1800 there were no laws anywhere against slavery. After a short search this was the AI response to this topic. No, Israeli law does not take precedence over Talmudic law on slavery. While the Talmud discusses slavery, modern Israeli law, particularly its penal code, criminalizes holding a person in slavery. This means that while Jewish law might have previously allowed for certain forms of slavery, Israeli law explicitly prohibits it, effectively overriding any conflicting Talmudic provisions. Here’s a more detailed explanation: Talmudic Law: The Talmud, a central text of Rabbinic Judaism, includes discussions and regulations related to slavery, particularly regarding Jewish and non-Jewish slaves. These laws, developed over centuries, reflect historical practices and interpretations of biblical texts. Israeli Law: Modern Israeli law, including its penal code, explicitly prohibits slavery and related practices like forced labor. Section 375A of the Israeli Penal Law, for example, deals with holding a person in slavery and prescribes imprisonment for offenders. Overriding Conflicting Provisions: When a conflict arises between Talmudic law and Israeli law, the latter takes precedence. This is because Israeli law is the governing legal framework for the state,… Read more »
I repeat:
Slavery is NOT ILLEGAL in Israel, unless the slave is Jewish.
The Israeli laws against slavery apply ONLY TO JEWISH PEOPLE.
The vast majority of slaves in Israel are NON-JEWISH SEX SLAVES from HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
Human trafficking for sex is a problem across the planet with almost every country being affected. Also those buying sex exist in all countries so there is nothing particularly Jewish about this. Sex trafficking into Israel dropped significantly when the border with Egypt was re-enforced and on a global index of sex trafficking Israel shares the same place as France, Germany and United States, all Western countries and all countries that are suffering the consequences of open borders. https://ocindex.net/rankings/human_trafficking?f=rankings&view=List In addition https://2021-2025.state.gov/reports/2024-trafficking-in-persons-report/israel/ Following the October 7th attack and ensuing conflict, the government diverted law enforcement resources, including those for anti-trafficking efforts, to conflict-related efforts including identifying victims of the attack, collecting evidence, and investigating terrorism-related cases. Nonetheless, in 2023 police initiated 54 new investigations, including 10 sex trafficking cases involving 34 suspects, four labor trafficking cases involving seven suspects, and 40 child sex trafficking cases involving 25 suspects. In addition, the government investigated 57 sex trafficking-related crimes involving 83 suspects but determined all were “prostitution” related offenses. The government also investigated an honorary consul of a foreign government in Israel for brokering an illegal labor recruitment scheme. This was a significant increase compared with 25 new investigations involving 24 suspects… Read more »
Slightly O/T: I am always impressed by the quality of the banners held by the protesters at certain rallies. In the picture above I see laminated A1 laser-printed (albeit one-colour above) with perfect spelling, typesetting, alignment and kerning, neatly stapled on the same stock handles. It’s almost as if some well-funded central organisation gets these mass-produced and distributes them to their foot-soldiers. By way of contrast, the banners waved by anti-lockdown and anti-illegal-immigration rallies seem to have been hastily drawn with random-coloured felt-tip makers on the back of cereal packets. It’s almost as if they are cobbled together spontaneously by the individuals general public in their kitchens the night before in response to frustration at the absence, or banning, of any organisation representing their views.
It was much the same with the public address system during Lockdown. The pro BLM rallies were comfortably-seated outdoors and had fully-managed top-notch PA systems and a paid sound engineer handling expert public speakers; the anti-lockdown people next door in Hyde Park were standing around being addressed by mumbling geeks armed with toy loud-hailers that had grabbed on eBay the day before.
Follow the money!
‘Mumbling geeks’ is a bit hard. They were on the front line defending all our freedoms.
I completely agree. When I first heard of this mob my immediate reaction was that we were being set up. It is clear that Fighting for Fair Trials (FFFF ?) has been put on the streets in order to 1. keep the Paki Rape Gangs in the news and 2. to ensure that further divisions between different ethnicities are reinforced.
This has government involvement running through it all the way.
The government has been trying to hide the atrocities carried out by rape gangs on the grounds of community cohesion. Do you think they have now done a 180 and want to do the exact opposite.
see the link above, yes, the government do appear to interfere but so do others like Soros, Bloomberg et al. also note that the article was from an organisation called Middle East Eye.
it could be that the article is merely to smear the government, whatever, nobody can be trusted so in many ways that justifies the article and it’s findings, if trust breaks down it will inevitably cause a fracture in society. Which is exactly what has happened in the western world.
Choose your side!
it called controlled spontaneity. The British government and no doubt others engage in it frequently. Which is why the establishment are the real enemy.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mind-control-secret-british-government-blueprints-shaping-post-terror-planning
Nick Buckley in his very good interview with David Betz said he became convinced civil war is coming when nobody in the close knit Pakistani community snitched on the rape gangs – when if it had been white men raping Muslim girls, there would have public apologies and outrage instead of crickets. He said that is when he realised conflict is inevitable.
Rubbish. What about all the
gutless, selfish, moral degenerates in our government and police that enabled this behaviour and profited from it? What about the entire gutless middle managerial public sector workforce. Some crap revolution its gonna be!
The raped girls themselves said that many of the police and some social workers who enabled it were also Pakistani Muslims.
Interesting conundrum, I would need to know if my friend had actually asked me to cover for him which isn’t explained in the question.
If he had asked me to cover for him he’d be no friend of mine!
Your thinking in a Christian fashion which is concerned with truth and justice. The driver asking you to lie is only relevant to a person who is concerned with truth and justice. How the question is answered reveals the worldview of the person. Truth & Justice worldview. This worldview is based on the truths revealed in the Bible. It is the basis for the western world. See Tom Holland’s book “Dominion” were he shows foundations of the western world is Christianity and in particular Protestantism. PS. Note in the map in the article the darker shaded countries are mainly Protestant. Catholic countries are a lighter shade. Honour/Shame worldview. In this worldview loyalty is a key positive virtue. People are concerned about the honour of their group. They will readily lie or cheat to maintain the honour of their group. eg. To cheat in an exam and get a better mark is good as you get greater honour, but be careful you do not get found out and disqualified as that would be very dishonourable. 2nd example – to fail in business is great dishonour in this worldview, but with truth/justice worldview failure in business is not viewed badly as long… Read more »
Excellent post! I’ve just jotted down that book & author to see if I can find a copy to read.
From the internet, I can see that Tom Holland has written a whole series of history books, so I wonder whether there are any more that you would specially recommend?
My suspicion is that certain people from abroad come from places where the legal system is corrupt and tribal and so it is ‘natural’ to regard the law ‘over here’ as corrupt, tribal, and something to work around.
Perhaps another strong reason to reject any possibility of ‘two tier’ justice… unless you want our law to be corrupt and tribal too.
Our justice system has already sunk to that of a Turd World country, it is corrupt and tribal, strongly in favour of efniks and wholly against white British and particularly males; two tier justice is now a fact of life in this country.
20 miles per hour is a speed of about 9m/s. If a ton of metal hits a pedestrian at a speed of 9 meters per second, the pedestrian is going to be dead unless very lucky.
Antrophologist apparently not only can’t count, they also don’t understand the difference between being willing to break the law and being willing to admit to be willing to break the law.