This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Tuesday, 27 March 2012

Dewsbury’s Muslim on non-Muslim violence and ‘manslaughter’

There has been an interesting case in Dewsbury recently.

Melvin Watts, 16, has been sent to a young offenders’ institution for five years after pleading guilty to wounding, 'with intent’, a young ‘Asian’ man. Mr Watts, to be more precise, slashed this young man across the face.

Clearly, Watts deserves some kind of punishment for this. However, it’s how this case has been reported, and tried, that’s interesting.

The Yorkshire Evening Post wrote that the attack was 'racially-motivated’ and 'unprovoked’. The court itself (in Leeds) referred to the action as 'racially-aggravated assault’.

Yet the Yorkshire Evening Post also said that 'racial tension’ had been 'running high’ in Dewsbury. So not only was the attack classed as 'racist’, it was also classed as 'unprovoked’. It is strange, then, that in this very same article we are told that, in a sense, the crime was provoked. Leeds Crown Court, for example, said that there had been 'racial tensions in the area between white and Asian gangs’. More importantly, Melvin Watts’ own relative, Jack Carter,
had been killed in a street attack in Dewsbury earlier in the year. [Image right: Jack Carter]

Watts had also been angry because the charges for this killing were reduced from murder to manslaughter.

Not only all that. Two other offenders, Josh Foster and Jordan Williams (friends of Watts) had also been attacked by Muslim youths just days before Watts attacked the Asian youth.

It is strange that Watts’ violent action was classed as ‘unprovoked’ when the Yorkshire Evening Post goes straight ahead and tells us that it was provoked (though not in these words, of course). This is not to condone vigilante action. I also realise that although the attack was provoked, it wasn’t necessarily provoked by the young Asian who was attacked by Watts. But that’s isn’t to say it wasn’t provoked. Full stop. I simply question the phrase ‘unprovoked attack’.

Similarly, was Melvin Watts’ attack necessarily racist if, as the Yorkshire Evening Post itself admits, Muslim (‘Asian’) gangs were frequently committing violent acts on the non-Muslims of Dewsbury?

Why was Watts’ attack necessarily racist? Perhaps Watts, and his friends (also tried in Leeds), were simply gaining revenge against the Muslims who had killed Watts' relative and who had attacked his friends as well.

No comments:

Post a Comment