These are all the Blogs posted on Friday, 13, 2009.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Terrorist threat may come from within
From The Copenhagen Post Al-Qaeda is preparing for a new attack in Europe and Denmark is at the top of its list, according to the head of US National Intelligence, Dennis C. Blair.
In his department’s 2008 annual threat assessment report, Blair indicated that Muslim extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and Sunni affiliates who go to Pakistan for terrorist training and return constituted the main threat to European security.
His belief that Denmark is a top terror target supports the assessment of Denmark’s own intelligence agency, PET.
‘Al-Qaeda has used Europe as a launching point for external operations against the US on several occasions since 9/11, and we believe that the group continues to view Europe as a viable launching point,’ the report stated.
‘Al-Qaeda most recently targeted Denmark and the UK and we assess that these countries remain viable targets.’
The report stated that the groups would likely go after leading politicians and economic and infrastructure targets. It also said that attacks would be carried out in a ‘dramatic’ fashion and would seek to instil as much fear as possible amongst the general population.
From The Barking and Dagenham Recorder. A FATHER and son meted out vicious beatings to the son's young wife, while treating her like a slave.
Abdul Motin, 54, and Mohammed Alom, 29, forced Salma Akther to work as their skivvy during a reign of terror which saw the 21-year-old mum kicked, slapped and slashed with a screwdriver.
Snaresbrook Crown Court heard Motin and wife Sunaban Bibi, 50, egged on their son's bullying of his arranged bride who cooked, cleaned and cared for an extended family of 10 at their home in Grosvenor Road, Dagenham.
Motin and Alom were spared jail last week when Judge Timothy King passed community punishment orders - for 18 months and two years respectively.
Passing sentence, the judge said: "If there is any repetition of this kind of behaviour on your part, either towards Salma Akther or anyone else, rest assured you will go to prison.
"Whatever your own culture will approve, I know not, but the law of this country does not approve, accept or condone any culture in which a person is victimised on the account of her gender or victimised by way of brute or physical force."
Mathew Orr, defending Motin, asked the judge to cut his disabled client's unpaid work hours after it emerged he received £35-a-week incapacity benefit.
But Judge King refused, saying: "His incapacity is not such to stop him from assaulting a vulnerable female."
Mrs Akther is now living with her children at a secret address. Meanwhile in the US a convert to Islam awaits sentencing for the abuse and torture of his three wives and 19 children. From The Mercury News of California. MURRIETA, Calif.—It's been nearly a decade since Mansa Musa Muhummed was arrested for investigation of torturing some of his 19 children and falsely imprisoning two of his three wives in his Riverside County home.
Following years of legal wrangling, the self-proclaimed polygamist was convicted in 2008 after several of his children testified that they were starved, beaten and strung up with electrical cord in the basement.
Some of Muhummed's now-grown children were expected to speak out again at Friday's scheduled sentencing hearing, which could end with their father being sent to prison for life.
The hearing was to proceed in Superior Court unless the judge granted a defense motion for a new trial.
Muhummed, 55, was convicted in 2008 of seven counts of torture, 12 counts of child endangerment, four counts of spousal abuse and two counts of false imprisonment.
His trial followed nine years of delays in which he represented himself and changed lawyers multiple times.
Muhummed was a convert to the Muslim faith, which he said gave him the right to have multiple wives.
Muhummed—whose given name was Richard Boddie—was arrested in 1999 in a gated community about 100 miles southeast of Los Angeles after one of his wives, Laura Cowan, slipped a letter to a postal service worker describing the abuse.
Secular Law In A Free Country Twisted Into The Service Of A Religion
Recently, I wrote to the Ambassador of the Netherlands to the Court of St. James the following:
I must protest in the strongest terms about the treatment being meted out to Mr. Geert Wilders by your country's legal system. It is outrageous and unacceptable that a free democracy such as the Netherlands should attempt to penalise criticism of a religious belief system in the way that your country's courts are apparently attempting to do.
That such charges have been brought against Mr. Wilders, and the validity of those charges reportedly upheld by a Court of Appeal in your country, brings no credit to your country's otherwise highly respected system of due legal process. The freedom to criticise the beliefs of others in any terms which one chooses is a fundamental freedom in any free and democratic society.
Commenting upon, or criticising, another person's beliefs is not a crime and should not, in a free democratic country such as the Netherlands, attract the attention of the legal system of that country. It matters not that the holders of the beliefs so criticised or condemned feel themselves to be outraged or insulted. A religious belief is just that - a belief. Such belief is not founded in fact but in faith and is, therefore, open to criticism and question regardless of whether or not the holders of such a belief, or beliefs, feel belittled, insulted or outraged by such criticism or questioning.
It is also deeply disturbing that your country's judiciary seems to cleave to the view that criticism of a faith based belief is, in itself, an incitement to hatred of, and violence against, individual citizens. Manifestly, one can condemn a religious belief whilst not, in any way at all, advocating violence against the holders of such a belief. As far as I am aware Mr. Wilders has never advocated violence against any believing Muslim and his spoken words, his films and broadcasts and his written words have never been used by him to justify any such violence.
Freedom of speech, and, thereby, the freedom to criticise and question any belief whatsoever, is the single most important prerequisite in any democracy. It is an appalling abuse of power, and an affront to freedom and democracy, that Mr Wilders, an internationally respected Netherland's parliamentarian, should be in such a position that he has to defend himself against such entirely spurious charges in a Court of Law. There is no case in which any religious belief whatsoever should enjoy immunity from criticism and questioning, nor should such putative immunity be explored in, or sanctioned by, Courts of Law in free and democratic countries.
The treatment of Mr. Wilders by the legal system in the Netherlands is neither just nor right in any terms.
Today I received the following reply from His Excellency Ambassador Pim W. Waldeck:
Dear Mr Joyce
In reply to your e-mail message of 25 January 2009 I would like to let you know the following.
The Netherlands is a constitutional state with an independent judiciary.
According to Article 7 of the Dutch constitution freedom of speech is enshrined, subject to one’s responsibility to the law.
The law makes deliberate insult or arousing of hatred an offence. An aggrieved party can thus ask the Prosecutor’s Office to act. If the prosecutor does not see enough legal reason to act, the aggrieved party has a right of appeal.
The appeal judge has apparently ruled in this case that the aggrieved party has due reason to demand prosecution. The Dutch equivalent of a Magistrates’ Court Judge has now to give a verdict on whether or not there was an offence made.
Case to be continued.
You can, I hope, see quite plainly from His Excellency’s reply that in the Netherlands you do indeed have the right not to be insulted! Actually, of course, Article 7 of the Dutch constitution states no such thing and deals solely with the legal concepts of libel and slander. Ambassador Waldeck is being disingenuous in his reply to me. Quite deliberately, I feel, he confuses the Constitution of the Netherlands with the Law of that country as enacted by its Parliament.
Actually, and as His Excellency most certainly knows, Article 7 of the Dutch Constitution (in its English translation which may be inaccurate) reads as follows:
(1) No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.
(2) Rules concerning radio and television shall be laid down by Act of Parliament. There shall be no prior supervision of the content of a radio or television broadcast.
(3) No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals.
(4) The preceding paragraphs do not apply to commercial advertising.
This only barely supports his contention in the third paragraph of his reply to me.
Article 6 of the Dutch Constitution (in translation and with the previously stated proviso) is also relevant here. It reads as follows:
1) Everyone shall have the right to manifest freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law.
(2) Rules concerning the exercise of this right other than in buildings and enclosed places may be laid down by Act of Parliament for the protection of health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders.
So, it seems to me that His Excellency Pim W. Waldeck deliberately seeks to mislead by introducing the concept of constitutionality into this debate – a concept which I did not raise in my original communication wherein I stuck solely to concepts of Law and natural rights. It is manifestly obvious to me that that is a deliberate attempt to impugn and malign Mr. Wilders and to accuse him of undertaking actions which are unconstitutional in the Netherlands. But look closely at those clauses from that admirable document. They contain weasel words, words designed deliberately to entrap and ensnare:
...without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.
...without prejudice to his responsibility under the law.
There are no guarantees of freedom in that document. Thanks to those twisting, Alice-in-Wonderland, words the Dutch Constitution means exactly what a majority of Dutch MPs feel that it ought to mean at any given moment in time – and Ambassador Waldeck must know that. That is not a constitution for it does not enshrine or defend absolute rights and over-arching freedoms from the vagaries of pathetic, maundering Parliamentarians. It is, rather, an illiberal licence to make law according to prevailing prejudice – a licence which Dutch Parliamentarians have availed themselves of most copiously. It is also an invitation to the judiciary of the Netherlands to interpret the Law in relative, rather than absolute, terms.
However, and let’s be plain about this, despite the best efforts of members of the Dutch establishment like His Excellency Ambassador Waldeck, Mr. Geert Wilders will not face trial for some offence against the Constitution of his country but will, rather, face trial (if it comes to that) under laws enacted by his own Parliament – under laws deemed – wrongly, in my opinion – to be constitutional. Those self-same laws may be ‘constitutional’ (for some strange and given definition of that word) but they are most certainly not in accordance with basic freedoms or the Rights of Man: absolute concepts which the Constitution of The Netherlands singularly fails to acknowledge – in common with the constitutions of most other European countries!
In The Netherlands prevailing Law takes precedence over the weak and ill-conceived Constitution which is deliberately designed to reinforce Parliament against the population. Prepare yourselves: If Mr. Wilders is tried he will lose! The entire deck is stacked against him – as it is stacked, today, against every defender of freedoms in Europe. Readers in the USA may have some difficulty in understanding just how weak and irrelevant the constitutions of many European countries actually are given the fact that the Constitution of the USA is a broad definition of rights and obligations supported by a Court which cannot be abolished on some political whim or other. In comparison with the USA, European Constitutions are evanescent, irrelevant and designed to protect the ruling elite – witness the recent attempts to promote an EU Constitutional document which was, and is, most manifestly, not a constitution, but is, rather, an attempt to enshrine in immutable law, masquerading as a constitution, the rights and perquisites of a tiny, self-selecting, political elite.
You can read the Constitution of The Netherlands, in English, at this site.
A pizza chain has sparked fury by opening a Muslim branch that refuses to serve pepperoni, ham or bacon.
The Domino’s takeaway only makes food with Halal meat.
Classic ingredients that contain any pig meat are banned.
Customers who want a traditional pizza are directed from the shop in the mixed race district of Hall Green, Birmingham, to a non-Halal branch of Domino’s two miles away.
Yesterday pizza fan Chris Yates, 29, a hospital worker, said how he was told he could not have a Meteor pizza topped with pepperoni, sausage, meatballs, ground beef and bacon.
“It’s a disgrace,’’ he said. “I’m all for racial and religious tolerance but, if anything, this is intolerant to my beliefs.”...
Compared with the Wilders ban, this is trivial, but an accumulation of trivialities does matter. However, a distinction must be made between a private business and a government institution. Non-Muslims are not banned from the takeaway; they simply cannot get a pizza with pepperoni or ham there. But they can go elsewhere, either to another branch of Domino's or to another chain altogether. Not long ago I had supper at Reubens, a Kosher restaurant in Baker Street. Unsurprisingly, bacon was not on the menu. And if I were silly enough to eat at a vegetarian restaurant, I wouldn't be able to tuck into a lamb chop. Nothing is being imposed here, although Halal food laws would certainly be imposed if the country became Muslim.
The aspect of this story that is worrying is that there is sufficient demand for Halal pizzas for Domino's to deem it profitable to open such a takeaway. This means that there are a lot of Muslims in the area. The growth in Muslim numbers is worrying, even if the pizzas are not.
Traditionally, and unimaginatively, the English call hot food that you take away a "takeaway". The place you take it away from is also called a takeaway, whether a Chinese takeaway or a takeaway pizza. It sounds a little dreary: the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. You take your pizza away and shuffle back to your living room for an evening's vegetating in front of the telly.
The American version of this, now catching on over here, is much sprightlier. "Pizza to go" suggests a dynamic, busy bee who grabs a pizza only to re-fuel for continued busy-beehood. I quite like it.
Rumour has it that somewhere in America, prospective pizza customers were directed to a back entrance by a sign saying: "Pizza to go up rear." Somewhere or nowhere in America - it doesn't really matter.
Meet Rabbi Rami Shapiro "scholar in residence" at the Micah congregation in Nashville, TN.
Last night I attended the first of a three part lecture series he is giving entitled "Islam: What Every Jew Needs To Know."
One might have expected to hear how Muhammad presented himself to the Jews of Medina as the Messiah and was rejected. About how he treated the Jews thereafter as people who had earned Allah's special wrath. About the fate of the Banu Quraizah, the farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, or the rest of the Jews of Medina. About how on his deathbed, Muhammad ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Arabia. One might have expected to hear something that explains the deep-seated Islamic antisemitism of today, why crowds of Muslim chant "Death to the Jews" all over the world, but that was not to be.
It was clear from the beginning this man knows practically nothing about Islam, but he declared his intention so save us "from looking stupid," by explaining that people who contend that Allah is a different God from the Judeo-Christian deity are simply mistaking "a different word for another reality," that is the equivalent of saying the French worship a different God because the word God in French is Dieu. He declared this a laughably silly and obvious mistake. How could people be so ignorant!
Then he proceeded to trot out every worn out and discredited Muslim selling point for Islam he could think of and present it as though it were the truth. We heard everything from "Muhammad lived in the full light of history," to how he was a "wonderful family man and role model" (at which point he went on at length about what a terrible father Abraham was), to the "Golden Age of Islam" in the Middle Ages, to the wonderfulness of the five pillars. He talked about Abraham and Hagar travelling to Mecca as if it was an established historic fact. He said that Islam accepts all the prophets from Adam to Muhammad and that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets (no qualifier). He said that Muhammad is the latest articulation of the one true way and that Islam, unlike Christianity, is not supercessionary. (!!)
UPDATE: In an email exchange, Rabbi Shapiro says he misspoke when he said Islam is not supersessionist.
Shapiro also explained that though his is a rabbi, he does not believe in God. Another rabbi, Laurie Rice, added that she, too, did not believe in "truth with a capital T" and she also thought that for most Jews, God was a peripheral consideration. Through all of this, Rabbi Shapiro, laughed and joked and acted as though all religious thought was childish and that even though he was above it all, he was showing how tolerant and understanding he could be. There were several irrelevant side stories about his Muslim friends.
Shapiro's main thesis concerning the difference between Islam and Judaism is that Jews argue with God whereas Muslims don't. He used the Muslim story of Muhammad's night journey in which Muhammad meets Moses in heaven and Moses talks him into arguing with God about the number of times people should pray as an illustration. He also spoke of a movie called "God on Trial" in which holocaust victims put God on trial for crimes against humanity and convict him of evil doing and then afterward, pray. How ironic. His actually said Jews could learn about submission from Muslims. And how.
At a time like this, when Jews are in peril all over the world and the main source of that peril is Islam, this man chose to joke and laugh and pretend nothing is happening, but more than that, he chose to try to make people think their concern is misplaced. That makes him a dangerous man.
Geert Wilders to Show “Fitna” and Receive Italian Anti-Jihad Award in Rome
As Geert Wilders said yesterday, the British government was ‘cowardly’ for suppressing his freedom of speech by ejecting him from the U.K. virtually upon arrival at Heathrow. We posted yesterday that Wilders is going on to Rome, where, on February 19th, he will present his film “Fitna” at an invitation-only event. In addition to the screening, a news release issued today from the International Free Press Society notes:
The February 19 event will also include an address by Mr. Wilders, a press conference, and a ceremony during which "A Way for Oriana" will award Mr. Wilders with the Orianna Fallaci Free Speech Award, an honor that will recognize the parliamentarian, like the late Italian author and journalist, as a “symbol of the fight against Islamic fascism and a knight of the freedom of humankind.”
The event will be held at the Grand Palatino Hotel in Via Cavour 213, Rome, Italy. For security reasons, the conference is being restricted to those who have received invitations only.
Fitna will next be screened in smaller gatherings in the United States later this month, including assemblies in the New York and Washington, DC areas.
Wilders noted what are the objectives of his Facing Jihad World tour:
“This event is part of the ‘Facing Jihad’ world tour for Fitna that will serve to expose Islam for what it is, an ideology that preaches terrorism, anti-Semitism and the oppression of women, homosexuals and non-Muslims” said Mr. Wilders.
“Educating the public about the harsh realities of Islamization is the first step to effectively combating and ultimately defeating Global Jihad,” said Mr. Wilders.
Wilders leader of the Freedom Party in the Dutch parliament is facing criminal prosecution for effectively insulting a religion, Islam, in Holland arising from a controversial Amsterdam appeals court decision last month.
Notwithstanding the decision to bar entry of Wilders yesterday by the Gordon Brown government in Whitehall, “Fitna” was shown to a private gathering at the House of Lords sponsored by Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox. The U.K. Home office letter and actions by immigration officials at Heathrow airport is a reflection of deepening intimidation by the British Muslim community led by Lord Ahmed who had threatened to bring 10,000 Muslims to the Westminster parliament to protest Wilders and the showing of “Fitna”.
Britons were perturbed with its government’s decision to bar entry to Wilders. As reflected in a Daily Mailpoll with the question, “Should Dutch MP Geert Wilders be allowed to address the House of Lords?” more than four fifths, 86 percent, responded that Wilders should have been permitted to present and speak at their Parliament.
The Speech Geert Wilders Would Have Given To The House Of Lords Had He Been Allowed To Give It
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.
This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.
The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.
In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.
What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.
Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.
Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.
There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.
Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.
We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.
Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.
For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.
Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.
But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan.’
I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of Islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeals ordered my criminal prosecution for making Fitna and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime.’
You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. IfFitna is considered ‘hate speech,’ then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?
Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.
I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trail.
The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi Arabia and Jordan on one hand, and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.
Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?
We have to defend freedom of speech.
For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.
What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?
The choice is ours.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We will neverapologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.
Policemen have been getting younger since Adam was a lad. Recently - for me anyway - flashers have been getting younger. Now it's fathers. Thirteen seems very young for a boy to father a child. I wonder what the record is. From the BBC:
The case of the 13-year-old who has fathered a baby highlights a worrying trend of "children having children", the Tory leader has said.
David Cameron was speaking after Alfie Patten's girlfriend Chantelle Steadman, 15, gave birth on Monday.
Latest figures from UK National Statistics show there were 7,826 conceptions in under-16s in 2006 - down 1,000 from 10 years earlier.
Sexual health experts said teens should be encouraged to have "ambition".
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said it was an "awful" and "unusual" case.
It put me in mind of that song by the Pentangle:
Father, dear Father,
You've done me great wrong
You've married me to a boy who is too young
I am twice twelve and he is but fourteen
He's young but he's daily growing
At the age of fourteen he was a married man
Age of fifteen the father of a son
Age of sixteen on his grave the grass was green
Cruel death had put an end to his growing
"She wore me out", as Rod Stewart once sang of an older lover, Maggie May. Toyboys take note - don't peak too early.