This is the third in a series of articles on the reporting and police work surrounding a recently exposed case of slavery in Britain that has been going on for over 30 years. My suspicion in this series has been that Islam was the guiding doctrinal justification for this slavery and that the husband-wife slave masters are not only Muslims, but true Mohammedans.
But my suspicion has also been that both The Telegraph and Scotland Yard, have acted as an Islamic defense attorney. Much like in Egypt (or Pakistan, or Syria, or Yemen…) where Egyptian Christians are brutalized while the entirely Islamic police force sighs a collective yawn, the British police force is doing careful Islamic image management to control the narrative.
Over the weekend, The Telegraph published a couple of articles whose objective seemed to be to gently leak to the public that Islam is the culprit, but then to set the foundation to exonerate Islam by the tried and true method of moral equivalency.
The first article gentle intimates that the 30 year old slave girl was dressed according to Islam prescriptions: “She looked completely normal. She was wearing a headscarf and just went into the flat on the times I saw her,” While the article’s title makes some vague “political collective” culpable, the crime itself of slavery (e.g., sanctioned in e.g., Koran 4:3, 4:24), the “headscarf” and the article’s classification (“Immigration”) suggest Islam is the real culprit.
A second article by The Telegraph is filed under “Religion,” yet the article finds the slave-master couple to be driven by a “shared political ideology.” This political bogey man was also run up The Telegraph’s flag pole in the title of their first article which implicates a “political collective.” So why then did The Telegraph classify the article under “Religion”? Wouldn’t politics have been more apropos?
In writing, “They were not sexually abused… The youngest, a British citizen, is believed to be the daughter of the man of the house and has spent her entire life in captivity,” this second article vindicates the suspicion I voiced in my first article.
Sounds like the 30 year old is the daughter of her slave-master.
Listen to the crafty manner in which The Telegraph would appear to hide Islam from Islam’s stated slave doctrine in the Koran (e.g., Koran 4:3, 24).
- “4,300 groups on our database classified as New Religious Movements, and that definitely includes groups that are political and ideological rather than religious.” This 4,300 group business is leftist-speak for moral-equivalence with Islam. The Telegraph wants the reader to believe that Islam is just one of 4,300 other equally possible groups that could have been responsible for this slavery.
- “Dr. Newcombe believes that the influence non-religious political groups can exert is just as profound as religious cults.” Oh yeah, get some Dr. Huff-N-Puff to say what you want the reader to believe right? So it is not just Islam but non-religious political groups that could be, or that is teased to be, the culpable ideology behind this slavery?
The next point is made more intricately. Listen to the abstract sounding language:
“There was a whole mixture of spiritual and far Left political ideology. New groups would take ideas from established political and religious doctrines and create a toxic mix of their own, and leaders would claim to have special insight or powers that would allow their followers to reach a sort of Promised Land.”
Do you hear the language of creating or implying something new? In other words, The Telegraph is trying to plead with us to realize that this is not real Islam, but a home grown offshoot. Something like President Bush sadly said in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, “[Islam’s] teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.”
The protective subterfuge The Telegraph provides to Islam is amazing. Here The Telegraph writes in a way to say everything technically possible to exculpate Islam and not say that Islam had no role:
it seems certain that the apparatus of manipulation, established in the context of a Sixties collective, remained intact, and allowed the suspects to exert a power over the three women for decades.
To protect Islam, The Telegraph is throwing themselves and their ideological parents under the bus. How many of these “Sixties collective[s]” had their women “wearing a headscarf”?
Of course, The Telegraph IS protecting Islam here. The dead give-a-away is that if Islam was not the culprit, The Telegraph would have already divulged the name of the 1960’s era political collective; that was one of 4,300 other such political and/or religious collectives, that mutated from something legitimate to slavery.
If the guiding doctrine of the slave-masters was some esoteric one of 4,300 crazy-nut groups, then the cowardly Telegraph would have already named this group. That would have been within the cowardice of the Telegraph‘s possibilities.
But they didn’t.
Gotcha Telegraph! You sick, evil and perverted souls are the lamest. You sick children of the 1960’s need your sins forgiven. Confess your sins! Believe on Jesus and be saved. Then perhaps you could be a decent newspaper.