PEOPLE WHO EAT LEEKS ARE NO BETTER THAN PAEDOPHILES

This site recently revealed details of an Early Day Motion which opposes anonymity for those falsely accused of rape. Such an offensive an illiberal proposal was produced by Labour's Fiona MacTaggart and it would very much appear she's able to give Harriet Harman as run for her money in the New Labour misandry contest.

In addition to a contempt for victims of false accusations, MacTaggart also fits the feminist stereotype of inventing statistics to suit her arguments as we discussed previously. However we can also reveal the MP for Slough also has some particularly distasteful not to mention preposterous views on men who pay for sex.

In an interview with the Observer newspaper, the MP stated "I don't think most men who use prostitutes think of themselves as child abusers, but they are". She went on to describe the use of prostitutes as "the most common form of child abuse", though offering no statistics to back up her arguments (invented or otherwise).

MacTaggart's argument appears to be that some prostitutes begin to enter the profession before adulthood and some are cored into it or controlled by pimps/traffickers. This somehow leads her to the conclusion that all men who pay for sex are somehow responsible for all these wrongs rather than the actual perpetrators of the offences. MacTaggart ignores the fact that drug use and/or the prospect of earning easy money are attractive options in the deprived parts of Britain (a country in which inequalities between rich and poor widened significantly under her party's governance). Neither does it occur to Ms MacTaggart that there are a variety of catalysts for girls engaging in harmful practices at a young age, one of the most obvious being the absence of her father again an issue on which her government refused to act). It's also apparent that MacTaggart doesn't bother to make any distinction between children and adults, nor does she actually care about the issue of consent. Contrary to her false claim that 80% of prostitutes are controlled by pimps and work against their will, most are in fact consenting adults.

One adult paying another for sex is in itself an entirely consensual activity. It might be a somewhat distasteful transaction to some, but in a free society adult men and women should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies. It goes without saying that we should crack down extremely hard on violent and controlling pimps, on people traffickers and of course actual child abusers grooming girls for prostitution, but none of these awful crimes form any sort of intrinsic or compulsory aspect of sex work. Whilst there are indeed parts of the country where the grooming of girls for prostitution is an issue, there's actually evidence the Labour government and the police failed to protect the victims of such crimes to the racial component of many such offences.

MacTaggart is perfectly happy to make sexist comments falsely proclaiming three million men to be no better than baby rapists, somehow holding them account for other people's crimes occurring perhaps a decade previously or, as in the vast majority of cases, not at all. At the same time any common link in terms of the identity of actual perpetrators of the crimes she's supposedly so concerned about (other than gender) is strictly taboo.

Similarly off limits is any mention of the fact that women use prostitutes. Why? Well the gender feminists like to pretend women don't commit any sort of abuse and therefore any time a woman pays for sex it must therefore be an entirely consensual act (I'm sure it is in most cases too). However if so many men are voluntarily engaged in such a profession than it surely follows that plenty of women are similarly happy working in the sex industry? (or fully willing participants at the very least). Mactaggart's points are yet another attempt to infatalise women as completely unable to consent to anything or make rational decisions, a view which is actually a huge barrier to women achieving full equality.

If we take MacTaggart's arguments to their logical conclusion and apply it to other areas then it surely means all sorts of other consumers are guilty of serious offences too? Contrary to McTaggart's claims, evidence from arrests shows most people trafficking involves the agricultural sector. Given cases such as this one, MacTaggart presumably feels that all people who eat leeks must be automatically be guilty of violence, abuse and trafficking and they should certainly put a stop to their disgraceful consumption of such vegetables. I expect some of the victims come form disadvantaged backgrounds and were possibly even sexually abused when they were younger so perhaps all Leek eaters are paedophiles too? MacTaggarts system of finding the worst practices in any given industry, assuming they apply across the board and then delving into the victim's childhood to find more issues to which she holds consumers accountable you can link any person to any crime if you try hard enough.

MacTaggart's illogical, not to mention offensive comments aren't all bad though. They actually help us to understand her motivation for blocking measures to help victims of false rape allegations and perhaps those of her Labour colleagues. As with so many other such highly privileged and wealthy gender feminists, she demonstrates no real understanding of the issues. Her "arguments" suggest she has no actual interest in helping rape victims nor protecting prostitutes from dangerous clients and pimps. Anyone wanting to help sex workers would have introduced a New Zealand style system of brothels by now to ensure the workers were all adults, working voluntarily and in safety. Similarly anyone concerned with the plight of the many genuine rape victims out there would be demanding far stronger sanctions against false accusers and the removal of any legislation facilitating or encouraging their crimes, most notably the ability to ruin the lives of their victims before trial. Instead she prefers to brush the issue under the carpet, with her Early Day Motion pretending all accusers are in fact victims who's accusations should automatically be believed regardless of the evidence.

MacTaggart's hysterical attitudes to consensual sex illustrate exactly why false rape accusations present such a problem today. Rather than help the victims of such offences who have their lives ruined she prefers to play politics with such issues in order to further her anti-male, anti-sex agenda. Her comments on prostitution are in fact little short of false rape allegations themselves, though aimed at the male population as a whole rather than one specific victim. It's little wonder she's so opposed protecting people from such offences given that she shares so much in common with false accusers herself.

by John Kimble

Comments

[j]

keep up the good work John.

[amfortas]

It is an unfortunate and unanticipated aspect of 'Democracy' in huge populations, that mental midgets find themselves in positions of power when totally unequipped even to think. The urge to 'influence' is exhibited in such people as MacTaggart who are in a position to make statements with far reaching consequence while fitted only for listing groceries to be bought on the way home from playschool.

It is not an issue confined to women however, much as we might wish to think it. This woman is supported by a raft of weedy men who are similarly afflicted with delusions of adequacy.

[John Kimble]

I forgot to add that MacTaggart used to work as a teacher and is quoted as saying that she decide to become an MP because being able to change the world "thirty people at a time" seemed too slow for her.

I hate to think what she was trying to change those kids into.

[Pierce Harlan]

Wonderful, John. Keep up the great advocacy!