Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

Guardian coverage of sex trafficking fraud that was carried out by labour gov. feminists and headed by Jacquie Smith and Harriet Harman (with collusion from the anti-sex right no doubt).



Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution


The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.

The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.

Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.

While some prosecutions have been made, the Guardian investigation suggests the number of people who have been brought into the UK and forced against their will into prostitution is much smaller than claimed; and that the problem of trafficking is one of a cluster of factors which expose sex workers to coercion and exploitation.

Acting on the distorted information, the government has produced a bill, now moving through its final parliamentary phase, which itself has provoked an outcry from sex workers who complain that, instead of protecting them, it will expose them to extra danger.

When police in July last year announced the results of Operation Pentameter Two, Jacqui Smith, then home secretary, hailed it as "a great success". Its operational head, Tim Brain, said it had seriously disrupted organised crime networks responsible for human trafficking. "The figures show how successful we have been in achieving our goals," he said.

Those figures credited Pentameter with "arresting 528 criminals associated with one of the worst crimes threatening our society". But an internal police analysis of Pentameter, obtained by the Guardian after a lengthy legal struggle, paints a very different picture.

Continued here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails





Oh no, I used the c/p function to publish the story here, so by Ickle Magoos high standards of "logic" and debate, none of it ever happened!


Despite popular delusions, being a feminist doesn't mean that you have to blindly suppress criticism of extremist fraud, lies and misandry through logical fallacy, IMO if you do suppress criticism of radical extremism, you most likely are "like that"

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I know what Craigslist is - because I've actually researched the topic and I'm not just copying and pasting from elsewhere leading to me not even being able to name them correctly. I'm also not so blinded to the general media highlighting child prostitution and people trafficking that I don't also associate their name with the numerous negative press they have drawn;

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295705
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/08/craigslist-underage-prostitution-allegations


I'm also aware that 17 attorney generals were combining forces to take legal action against Craigslist - perhaps you could tell us all how many were radical feminists? My limited knowledge of the legal fraternity would tell me it would be impossible to do so without some evidence of wrong-doing just as taking the decision to self-censor would not have been taken by Craigslist unless the criticisms could not be defended.

As for "evidence" of legal wrong doing, see misandric, fraudulent and exaggerated feminist claims about trafficking and pedophilia.

NB It's not your sources that are copy and pasted, they just don't work - it's your posts. There are a raft of bizarre unnecessary phrasing, grammatical inconsistencies, repetitive and crassly cobbled rebuttals that were they in your own words would wholly relate to the points being made to you and repetition would be unnecessary as they could be said in a hundred different ways.

I said I would not respond to your thread until you answered all the questions being posed to you and supplied legitimate sources for the specific claims you have made - I am still waiting for those conditions to be met....and I hardly need add, I require that done in entirely your own words, free from the copy and paste regurgitatory plagiarism you are so fond of.



If you wish to be taken seriously and for other posters to engage with you then flooding the thread with the same few copied articles does you no favours - much like the comment above which is worthy of nothing more than a disgruntled 12 yr old.

The anti porn and prostitution lobby are made up of feminists and the religious right. To say that an attorney that is representing the interests of either of these groups might not be radical feminist or Christian themselves and that if it cant be proven that all attorneys that represent the interests of the anti porn and prostitution lobbies are radical feminists (or Christians) themselves means that the anti porn and prostitution lobby is not made up of radical feminists and the religious right, is entirely fallacious.

Your second point, that my posting the sources that I have been asked for makes the information invalid or your position stronger, is yet another fallacy. "If you don't post sources for me , the information is invalid, if you do, the information is invalid".

You are just repeatedly setting arbitrary standards and moving goals in an attempt to silence criticism of radical feminist fraud, if you were capable of tolerating a voice or article that is critical of radical feminist extremism and moving on, this thread wouldn't be in the mess it is in.

Quotas for people like you? 1000 times no.

"Feminism is dying not from a backlash but from an orthodoxy that cannot tolerate real discussion...and never could".
Wendy McElroy of ifeminists.com




Can you now explain for the board without personal attack, correcting spelling or grammar, setting yet another arbitrary goal post or any other fallacies how the information in the guardian is invalid?

And can you answer my "how we have been stereotyped" thread, as agreed.

Thaedydal wrote: »

honestly at this stage this thread reads like it should be in conspiracy theroys where who know we may find out that radical feminists are actually lizard men womyn.

Well, it reads like any thread where criticism of radical feminist extremism isn't tolerated and there is a difference between an investigative journalist at the Guardian uncovering an actual conspiracy and publishing conspiracy theories about lizard people, as you well know.

This thread is a testament to the inability of radical ideologues to tolerate dissent and the weakness of arguments that depend entirely on rhetorical tricks.

Minority fundamentalists and radical extremists should have little or no place in secular governments religious, feminist or otherwise.

K-9 wrote: »

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Only my argument relies on valid sources, the ideologue's relies on rhetorical tricks, so that's just you projecting the characteristics of the other sides argument, onto me, another type of logical flaw..


and I'm still waiting for Ickle Magoo to back up her assertion that the Guardian article on labour feminist sex trafficking fraud is invalid, without trying to use a rhetorical trick in place of a logical, fact based argument and comment on the "how we have been stereotyped thread" as agreed.

And then you all wonder why people decide that feminists and even women in general cant be trusted, are dishonest, illogical etc..

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Beyond pointing out the invalid link provided, I haven't suggested the Guardian article is an invalid article - I presume that must be yet more of your grabby-grabby cross-assertions? It is just a piss-poor attempt to qualify your specific statements about radical feminism and labour politicians and your continued ignorance has already pointed out clearly and concisely here, here, here and here among the many others.

If you can show a full and detailed link between the two rather than resorting to and relying on asinine denial of the antecedent then there wouldn't be any objections to make - we would all have to accede it was commonly accepted, proven and, indeed, public knowledge that all female labour politicians were in fact rabid extremists and radical feminists working solely for and being driven by their rabid extremism and radical feminism - rather than democratically elected politicians serving the interests of their electorate and merely carrying out the duties their office, party and thus political manifesto bestow on them.



As for the above, I'll also state now; I will not be entering into discussion with you again on this or any other thread. The level of debate and discussion you have proffered has been truly appalling - there is no intelligent wit, no quality of forethought, no point of originality, nothing beyond thinly veiled misogyny hidden behind general postulation and tin-foil hat infantile nonsense. The entire basis for your arguments consist of a fallacious, ill-thought out conveyor-belt of plagiarism - hoping that proof by verbosity would ensure the objectors lost the will to challenge further, if not the will to live - all the while skirting around and dancing over any and all of the substantial objections raised. If you wish myself or, I'd imagine, most other posters to enter into dialogue with you I would suggest you raise your game by quite a considerable margin because your performance thus far has been less than woeful.

Best of luck :cool:

Ickle Magoo, you have used 1000s of words and multiple pages denouncing my sources with personal attacks and fallacies and little else. See your quote above which like all the others is little but setting goal posts, personal attacks, projection and now you are calling providing sources plagiarism, it just a barrage of lies in place of integrity.

I am simply asking you to back up your claims that these sources (on labour feminist quotas, BBC, Guardian, hard statistics, Stern Review etc) are invalid with something fact and logic based and without resorting to insults and fallacies.

You could have the integrity to acknowledge that the sources are valid but admit that you support quotas and radical women in politics anyway, if thats what you believe, and we could agree to disagree, you could have used honesty and intregrity 7/8/9 or whatever it is pages ago to reach an agreement with me, instead you chose repetitive fallacies and harassment.

I ask you again to please demonstrate how the sources that I have used are invalid using facts and logic as opposed to personal attacks and other logical fallacies starting with Nick Davies exposure of the Labour feminist sex trafficking fraud in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

Once you acknowledge how my sources are valid we can move forward look at other gov quotas around the world and see if they have been designed by feminists and benefit mostly feminists, or not as you contend.

We can also discuss if a feminist politician by definition will be ideologically biased towards one group, and harbour misadrist and mythical beliefs about an other, or not as you contend.


Or just scuttle the debate because your fallacies are failing.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Really?

I have no time for radical feminism which states all men are rapists, all men are oppressors, all sex is rape in some form, that all porn is evil and I have no time for radical feminism which is misogynistic as I have men in my life how are fathers, brothers, lovers, sons, friends whom I love and I do not have any regard for radical feminism which is separatist, if we want to make the changes which are needed then we need men to understand the issues and to support the changes and to speak to each other about the issues.

So often in this forum radical misogynistic speratist feminism is criticised.
The problem is when people seem to think that the above is the only type of feminism or that the discussion of the fringe overtakes the thread.

This thread was about quotas here in Ireland not anywhere else, but well done on derailing it completely and hogging the thread.

I didn't derail the thread, one poster that refused to back up their claims with the assistance of a mob derailed the thread with a barrage of lies and personal attacks, and anyone that reads the thread can see that. Now, in a continuation of that barrage of lies I'm being falsely accused of being the one that derailed the thread. Hogging? No, I responded to personal attacks, logical fallacies and patiently requested that claims were backed up.

I was critical of quotas and radical feminists in gov. thats what provoked the derailing and mobbing. Im not saying that all the posters here are intolerant of criticism of radical feminism, I'm just saying that the ones that are working so hard at derailing to suppress that criticism and frame me as the derailer, are.

And looking at the same policies in other countries is perfectly normal, truth is if I was using other countries as support for quotas, the opinion would be welcome.

edit, Just look at all the thanks you have gotten for misrepresenting what happened here and making a false accusation by the very people that set out to derail the thread because information and opinion that the deemed "incorrect" was being published. The correctness of an opinion is being judged on political grounds (and perhaps sexism) rather than facts.

And back to talking about quotas in other countries being framed as incorrect, any real conversation about quotas would allow comparing policies in the UK, Kosovo, India, Sweden and anywhere else where this sort of candidate and election rigging has been imposed.

As well as that there is the question of the suitability of people that are ideologically predisposed to support discrimination, for example against certain abuse victims while protecting certain abusers, in health care, education, in law... being allowed to candidate and election rig and the track record that these people have in gov. and how their ideological beliefs have lead to fraud and discrimination is valid conversation.

All these factors might be uncomfortable for some, but they are none the less valid in a conversation about feminist rigged quotas.