Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Black people don’t really matter but the loss of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy.

412 replies

QOrion · 14/09/2025 15:11

I posted this in response to a short thread on Feminism and Women’s Rights but I want more people to see it. I want to have my say, even if I’m late to the conversation, and even if most people don’t care. I don’t expect many replies but maybe I’ll make some people think about what I’m saying.

I guess none of you are black. It’s the only way you can go out of your way to highlight this man’s ’virtues’. I don’t believe anyone is born bad or is irredeemably bad, I guess that’s my Christian upbringing, but I also don’t understand the deification of this man and the need for many people on this website to paint him in the best possible light. He’s not the first public figure to be shot and killed, even this year. If those deaths were even mentioned on Mumsnet, they certainly weren’t given much attention.

I’d never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was shot and his death had little impact on me. I have serious issues in my own life, people are shot and killed in America every day and there is a lot of suffering going on around the world, a lot of atrocities committed. It didn’t seem to be an incident that affected me in any significant way, even when I discovered his position on transgender ideology. I share essentially the same position on transgender ideology with many people I don’t want to be associated with.

Then I read his comments about black people. I can’t wax lyrical about how Charlie Kirk was ‘decent’ and ‘respectful’. How, ‘Isn’t it nice he gave his political opponents a platform’. And I can’t feel any kind of kinship with people who, knowing what he’s said about black people, still feel compelled to highlight his good qualities.

Let me be clear: I don’t believe he should have been killed. I don’t even support the death penalty in any circumstance, so I can hardly support Charlie Kirk being killed. But I am learning, not for the first time, that Mumsnetters in general, and users of this subforum (FWR) tend to ignore black people and our concerns, until we are useful. Whether that is taking cases to court when much is made of the claimant’s ethnic heritage (why?) or the perennial ‘transgenderism is womanface, it’s offensive like blackface’.

You have no idea and I think it is possible you will never understand just how much slights about my ethnic heritage cut deep. Slights to my womanhood are pretty trivial in comparison. I think this is something white women will never understand. So, you go on singing the virtues of Charlie Kirk. We’ll be here the next time you need to exploit us for your own purposes.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
JHound · 17/09/2025 13:17

NotMyNigelFarage · 16/09/2025 23:18

Although I'm guessing in the above example it wouldn't be specifically aimed at white MC women. But if privilege shields people from discrimination then surely white feminists are less impacted by sexism?

What about when a builder catcalls a middle class businesswoman? Is it just 'offensive' rather than misogynistic due to the social power imbalance?

Privilege does not shield white feminists from sexism but it may shield them from other kinds of oppression.

HRTQueen · 17/09/2025 13:25

Being white and middle class also shields you from negative classism which is an issue in our country

we are still a country where class what class you are really from are an integral part of our society

smallpinecone · 17/09/2025 13:31

samlett · 17/09/2025 11:41

Maybe it's better not to post articles written by a known liar.

www.irishtimes.com/news/somalia-born-critic-of-islam-admits-lying-to-gain-asylum-1.1003537

Any excuse not to engage with ideas which differ from your own.

Any other asylum seeker and you’d have nothing but compassion for them.

5128gap · 17/09/2025 13:37

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 13:16

@QOrion I guess none of you are black. It’s the only way you can go out of your way to highlight this man’s ’virtues’. I don’t believe anyone is born bad or is irredeemably bad, I guess that’s my Christian upbringing, but I also don’t understand the deification of this man and the need for many people on this website to paint him in the best possible light.

My take on it all, fwiw:

Like you I'd never heard of Charlie Kirk prior to his murder. I certainly do not 'deify' him - he's a flawed human being like us all. However as a Christian myself I have argued against the misrepresentation of him, and the essence of what he said, by people who are simply quoting out of context soundbites and who would have no understanding of the promotion of God's Truth by Charlie. He had a deep love for all humankind according to his principles of Faith.

On the issue you are raising here, Charlie was set against diversity, equity and inclusion and asserted that the DEI programme was, in itself, racist and discriminatory. I agree with Charlie's pov and believe that the colour of anyone's skin should not make any difference. We are all made in the image of God and the outer wrapping is (should be) irrelevant - he was trying to work towards a time when it is irrelevant. Cut us and we all bleed.

He argued against people being stuck in the past and pointed out how damaging that is when it prevents people moving forward. Being stuck in the wickedness of the past seems to be some people's comfort blanket and it's easier to blame all others for their current situation, than to look to themselves, or to use the glib line 'it's our culture'. He believed in a meritocracy, where it's the best human being and character for the job.

You felt compelled to repeat your pov here, so I guess I felt compelled to respond in balance. For me, it's not about painting him in the best possible light, but just correcting lies about him - if people do not hear or see the full context of his words, then they become lies by omission. I guess I was just shocked, but then not shocked by the amount of hatred pouring out towards him and then his grieving widow.

I'm done now trying to explain the Godly Christian mindset of a man that I never knew. People will still continue to judge him according to what is in their own heart and to repeat the soundbites to justify their stance. Lies hate Truth. Playing the person and not the ball seems to be the way. Racism is wicked.

Can you explain what is racist and discriminatory about a company believing that there may be untapped talent within our society, that for whatever reason has somehow not risen, and for looking for ways to help that talent pool to rise? Because if you believe we are all equal under God, then it must surely follow you believe he gifted all human beings with skill and talent, regardless of their sex or skin colour.
Yet somehow, something has gone a little wrong as the people who we are choosing to utilise the gifts of in some sectors of our society (which happen to be the most powerful, high status and best rewarded) seem to be predominantly white men. Thus missing out as a society on what other people can offer.
The airline scheme sought only to reach out into previously untapped pools of potential talent by opening the door to a training opportunity to black people and women who would otherwise have been overlooked.
Can you explain to me why a Christian would not think reaching out to some of God's children who may have much to offer not God's work?

NotMyNigelFarage · 17/09/2025 13:45

samlett · 17/09/2025 11:41

Maybe it's better not to post articles written by a known liar.

www.irishtimes.com/news/somalia-born-critic-of-islam-admits-lying-to-gain-asylum-1.1003537

I don't really care what she said to get out of her dire situation. She's already admitted she had to lie to get out of Somalia as fleeing a forced marriage wouldn't have been seen as suitable grounds.

She makes some valid points IMO and it says a lot about the people that try and silence them. I'm guessing you're on the side of the Taliban and not the women living under their rule?

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 14:07

5128gap · 17/09/2025 13:37

Can you explain what is racist and discriminatory about a company believing that there may be untapped talent within our society, that for whatever reason has somehow not risen, and for looking for ways to help that talent pool to rise? Because if you believe we are all equal under God, then it must surely follow you believe he gifted all human beings with skill and talent, regardless of their sex or skin colour.
Yet somehow, something has gone a little wrong as the people who we are choosing to utilise the gifts of in some sectors of our society (which happen to be the most powerful, high status and best rewarded) seem to be predominantly white men. Thus missing out as a society on what other people can offer.
The airline scheme sought only to reach out into previously untapped pools of potential talent by opening the door to a training opportunity to black people and women who would otherwise have been overlooked.
Can you explain to me why a Christian would not think reaching out to some of God's children who may have much to offer not God's work?

Can you explain what is racist and discriminatory about a company believing that there may be untapped talent within our society, that for whatever reason has somehow not risen, and for looking for ways to help that talent pool to rise?

If it's based simply on the colour of somebody's skin, it is both racist and discriminatory.

if you believe we are all equal under God, then it must surely follow you believe he gifted all human beings with skill and talent, regardless of their sex or skin colour.

Eh? Of course, and I have nowhere said anything differently.

... seem to be predominantly white men

In a meritocracy, which is what Charlie was advocating, then so what if it's a white man if that white man is the best person for the job.

Can you explain to me why a Christian would not think reaching out to some of God's children who may have much to offer not God's work?

No.

5128gap · 17/09/2025 14:25

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 14:07

Can you explain what is racist and discriminatory about a company believing that there may be untapped talent within our society, that for whatever reason has somehow not risen, and for looking for ways to help that talent pool to rise?

If it's based simply on the colour of somebody's skin, it is both racist and discriminatory.

if you believe we are all equal under God, then it must surely follow you believe he gifted all human beings with skill and talent, regardless of their sex or skin colour.

Eh? Of course, and I have nowhere said anything differently.

... seem to be predominantly white men

In a meritocracy, which is what Charlie was advocating, then so what if it's a white man if that white man is the best person for the job.

Can you explain to me why a Christian would not think reaching out to some of God's children who may have much to offer not God's work?

No.

Do you believe that the current system, which sees white men disproportionately represented in positions of wealth and power, is a result of a system that selects the best person for the job? From which we would be forced to conclude that white men are almost always best for the highest status and most powerful jobs? Which seems contradictory to the idea that God created us equal.
Or can you allow for the possibility that there may be other factors contributing to the over representation of white men in these roles?

You answered my first question simply by repeating you thought it racist and discriminatory, when my question was can you explain why you think it is. For something to be racist and discriminatory there needs to be harm or disadvantage caused to people based on their race. I'm asking you to explain where the harm lies in offering places on a training course and who you believed was harmed, and how?

samlett · 17/09/2025 15:02

Stop wasting your time @5128gap . The poster wants the status quo to remain, for white people to hold all the privilege and keep everyone else down. I think there's another name for that.

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 15:11

@5128gap In a historically predominately white country, of course you will see a larger proportion of white people in positions of power. Similarly, in a predominately historically black country most people in power will be black. Like wise in any country, those in power will be predominantly the 'colour' or characteristics of the predominant race: China, India, etc.

In a predominantly white society that uses DEI as some sort of politically correct apology for being predominantly white - In a country that insists on DEI I don't want to look at my surgeon and wonder if s/he's the best person for the job, or if s/he's just fitting a racial profiling tick box KPI and isn't as qualified or experienced as the person who was dismissed because their skin was not the right shade. DEI creates racism. Without DEI I have confidence that my surgeon (or pilot was one example given by Charlie) of whatever skin shade they live in, is the best person for the job.

You answered my first question simply by repeating you thought it racist and discriminatory, when my question was can you explain why you think it is.

To pick a person simply based solely on the colour of their skin and not on talent, character and having the best qualification for the job - is both racist (because the process is based on skin colour alone) and discriminatory for the same reason and also as you are excluding people simply because of their colour of skin. If that explanation is not good enough for you, I cannot think of any other way of putting it.

For something to be racist and discriminatory there needs to be harm or disadvantage caused to people based on their race.

You have explained the racism and discrimination caused by DEI, in a nutshell.

I'm asking you to explain where the harm lies in offering places on a training course and who you believed was harmed, and how?

Anyone excluded based solely on skin colour from a place on a training course is being discriminated against.

5128gap · 17/09/2025 15:12

samlett · 17/09/2025 15:02

Stop wasting your time @5128gap . The poster wants the status quo to remain, for white people to hold all the privilege and keep everyone else down. I think there's another name for that.

Yes, I know. What I'm genuinely curious about is how this sits with their belief that this equates to following the will of God and the teachings of the Bible.

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 15:12

samlett · 17/09/2025 15:02

Stop wasting your time @5128gap . The poster wants the status quo to remain, for white people to hold all the privilege and keep everyone else down. I think there's another name for that.

😂

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 15:13

5128gap · 17/09/2025 15:12

Yes, I know. What I'm genuinely curious about is how this sits with their belief that this equates to following the will of God and the teachings of the Bible.

Explain to me how you think it doesn't.

5128gap · 17/09/2025 15:27

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 15:11

@5128gap In a historically predominately white country, of course you will see a larger proportion of white people in positions of power. Similarly, in a predominately historically black country most people in power will be black. Like wise in any country, those in power will be predominantly the 'colour' or characteristics of the predominant race: China, India, etc.

In a predominantly white society that uses DEI as some sort of politically correct apology for being predominantly white - In a country that insists on DEI I don't want to look at my surgeon and wonder if s/he's the best person for the job, or if s/he's just fitting a racial profiling tick box KPI and isn't as qualified or experienced as the person who was dismissed because their skin was not the right shade. DEI creates racism. Without DEI I have confidence that my surgeon (or pilot was one example given by Charlie) of whatever skin shade they live in, is the best person for the job.

You answered my first question simply by repeating you thought it racist and discriminatory, when my question was can you explain why you think it is.

To pick a person simply based solely on the colour of their skin and not on talent, character and having the best qualification for the job - is both racist (because the process is based on skin colour alone) and discriminatory for the same reason and also as you are excluding people simply because of their colour of skin. If that explanation is not good enough for you, I cannot think of any other way of putting it.

For something to be racist and discriminatory there needs to be harm or disadvantage caused to people based on their race.

You have explained the racism and discrimination caused by DEI, in a nutshell.

I'm asking you to explain where the harm lies in offering places on a training course and who you believed was harmed, and how?

Anyone excluded based solely on skin colour from a place on a training course is being discriminated against.

The US is not a historically predominantly white country though, is it? And even if it had been, its clearly multi racial now. So what is the explanation for the continued over representation of white men in power positions today? And if you're suggesting it's due to historical factors, then it's not due solely to merit. Does this not concern you?
Does it not concern you that the white man flying your plane, performing your surgery or running your country may not be the best person for the job but may have secured his role due to advantages of his birth, wealth and/or social connections?

5128gap · 17/09/2025 15:36

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 15:13

Explain to me how you think it doesn't.

I don't profess to have the knowledge of your faith to do that. That's why I'm asking you the questions. It was you that said the views of CK were rooted in God's Truth.
My approach to debate is opposite to CKs 'prove me wrong' because I think if a person is putting forward something as The Truth, God's or otherwise, then the onus should really be on them to prove themselves right. Anything less is a 'because I said so' stance, which is less than compelling.

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 15:40

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 15:54

5128gap · 17/09/2025 15:36

I don't profess to have the knowledge of your faith to do that. That's why I'm asking you the questions. It was you that said the views of CK were rooted in God's Truth.
My approach to debate is opposite to CKs 'prove me wrong' because I think if a person is putting forward something as The Truth, God's or otherwise, then the onus should really be on them to prove themselves right. Anything less is a 'because I said so' stance, which is less than compelling.

Right, okay, I think I see what you're asking. If you do not have a Christian faith then I don't expect you to understand. I have no need to 'prove' what I believe or why I believe that Christ Jesus is my Lord and Saviour (as He is Charlie Kirk's). I have debated with non-believers and come to realise that it is impossible to explain God's Truth to their satisfaction. I realise too that simply to state that fact is frustrating to the asker and they feel it is not good enough.

The OP's thread was about comparing two different scenarios as if one had more merit than the other based on racism. I disagreed with their stance. I have explained why I agree with Charlie Kirk's thoughts on racism and DEI. I believe that it is unGodly to be prejudiced and discriminatory based solely on a person's skin colour. To be / do so, promotes racism. You have a different opinion to me and that's okay. You cannot understand my Faith and God's Truth, and that's okay too.

NotMyNigelFarage · 17/09/2025 16:08

For something to be racist and discriminatory there needs to be harm or disadvantage caused to people based on their race.

I see it differently. The intentions and the act itself defines the racism rather than whether it has an impact. If somebody tries to shoot me their intentions aren't any less malicious if the bullet should miss.

5128gap · 17/09/2025 16:12

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 17/09/2025 15:54

Right, okay, I think I see what you're asking. If you do not have a Christian faith then I don't expect you to understand. I have no need to 'prove' what I believe or why I believe that Christ Jesus is my Lord and Saviour (as He is Charlie Kirk's). I have debated with non-believers and come to realise that it is impossible to explain God's Truth to their satisfaction. I realise too that simply to state that fact is frustrating to the asker and they feel it is not good enough.

The OP's thread was about comparing two different scenarios as if one had more merit than the other based on racism. I disagreed with their stance. I have explained why I agree with Charlie Kirk's thoughts on racism and DEI. I believe that it is unGodly to be prejudiced and discriminatory based solely on a person's skin colour. To be / do so, promotes racism. You have a different opinion to me and that's okay. You cannot understand my Faith and God's Truth, and that's okay too.

No, I really wasn't asking you to explain why you believe Jesus is your Lord and Saviour or to prove your belief is correct. I understand completely that this is unprovable and if accepted must be on the basis of faith, not evidence. I would never ask a person to justify their faith, that would be both pointless and disrespectful.
I was actually asking for something much more prosaic than that. I was asking you explain how advocating for the removal of measures aimed at giving disadvantaged people opportunities, which I would have considered to align with the teachings of your faith, sat with a Christian conscience.
Also how you felt about a system which has resulted in certain groups amongst the equal children of God being disproportionately represented in the most powerful positions. I do know that Jesus didn't gather his disciples from the ranks of the already priveleged.

5128gap · 17/09/2025 16:16

NotMyNigelFarage · 17/09/2025 16:08

For something to be racist and discriminatory there needs to be harm or disadvantage caused to people based on their race.

I see it differently. The intentions and the act itself defines the racism rather than whether it has an impact. If somebody tries to shoot me their intentions aren't any less malicious if the bullet should miss.

That's true, of course. How about I slot in 'the potential for' before the word harm? Does that work?

NotMyNigelFarage · 17/09/2025 16:59

5128gap · 17/09/2025 16:16

That's true, of course. How about I slot in 'the potential for' before the word harm? Does that work?

For me it's still about the intent but I take your point. Also appreciate my analogy wasn't the best as the bullet hitting/missing is down to chance and not predefined structures etc (I was trying to get at the intent behind the act).

For me, racism is when somebody unconditionally hates a particular race simply because of their ethnicity. The lines become more blurred when they have a 'justifiable' reason as there's then an argument of whether it's actually prejudice or a reaction, but I think this is where it's key to acknowledge that people are individuals and not responsible for the sins of the fathers etc.

Obv it's a pretty deep subject.

5128gap · 17/09/2025 17:28

NotMyNigelFarage · 17/09/2025 16:59

For me it's still about the intent but I take your point. Also appreciate my analogy wasn't the best as the bullet hitting/missing is down to chance and not predefined structures etc (I was trying to get at the intent behind the act).

For me, racism is when somebody unconditionally hates a particular race simply because of their ethnicity. The lines become more blurred when they have a 'justifiable' reason as there's then an argument of whether it's actually prejudice or a reaction, but I think this is where it's key to acknowledge that people are individuals and not responsible for the sins of the fathers etc.

Obv it's a pretty deep subject.

So if we take your understanding of racism, it even more begs the question I was asking PP. Which was why the training course to increase opportunities for black people was racist. I see no hate there, either in its intent or its execution.

Tandora · 18/09/2025 06:29

NotMyNigelFarage · 17/09/2025 09:28

That was written by a Somalian ex-Muslim.

I do agree though with your statement, though, but it also applies to men in general. Most are fine but that doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge problematic behaviors and attitudes. Nobody is saying all Muslims are like that.

However, are you going to seriously try and deny that things aren't great for women in many middle eastern countries? Is it just a wild coincidence that some men from cultures where mob rapes are relatively common enact similar things when they come to Europe. Or did I miss the night where 1200 women were sexually assaulted by western men?

Personally, my tolerance doesn't extend to tolerating misogyny and VAWG. Misogynistic views aren't just 'a different perspective'.

It’s got nothing to do with “no all men”. Ridiculous analogy.

However, are you going to seriously try and deny that things aren't great for women in many middle eastern countries? Is it just a wild coincidence that some men from cultures where mob rapes are relatively common enact similar things when they come to Europe. Or did I miss the night where 1200 women were sexually assaulted by western men?

You are making some massively sweeping /
over-simplistic generalisations.
and , yes, they are racist.

There are complex structural/ political reasons that drive higher rates of VAWG and inequalities between men and women in some countries compared to others and amongst some populations in UK compare to others. Essentialising “culture”- tied to nationality/ ethnicity (eg “Afghan” men or “middle-eastern” men- is absolutely not it.
If Muslim people emigrate to the UK and become attracted to extreme forms of Islamism, it’s not because we haven’t “educated” them on how to be civilised like us good, proper white western people 🙄. These dynamics are driven by structural racism / inequalities in the uk. People feel disenfranchised and othered/
excluded. They are searching for an identity , community that they feel belongs to/ accepts them. The attitudes you are expressing on this thread worsen these dynamics , they are not the solution to them.

My tolerance doesn’t extent to justifying misogyny and VAWG, which is why I cannot stand Charlie Kirk. I also don’t think it’s acceptable to use VAwG to justify racism.

Tandora · 18/09/2025 06:47

Dannydevitoiloveyourart · 17/09/2025 10:47

Which ethnicity?

Indian? Nigerian? Indonesian? Bangladeshi? Turkish? Eygyptian? Pakastani? Ethiopian? Sudanese? Filipino? Chinese? Each of those countries has a Muslim population in the 10a to 100s of millions- and there any many other countries globally with millions of Muslims.

Or did you mean Persian / Middle Eastern/ Arab? Or perhaps you meant non-white?

Islam is no more tied to race than Christianity.

Christianity is also tied to ethnicity!

You are misunderstanding the point entirely.

It’s not that there is one race that is Muslim or one race that is Christian,

the point is that being a Muslim is overwhelmingly tied to heritage (where a when a person happens to be born and into what family)- which is why you don’t see a lot of white British born Muslims knocking around. Islamaphobia is not about challenging a particular set of ideologies or religious ideas (these are massively massively diverse in different communities), it’s about holding fixed, stereotyped and very negative generalisations against a group of people who look different (ethnically) and who have a different customs in relation to dress/ cultural practices etc.
The idea that “Muslim men” or “Afghan men” are an increased threat to white women, because of their violent “culture”, is an example of islamaphobia and yes it’s racist.

Hameth · 18/09/2025 09:40

BollyKnickerz · 14/09/2025 20:35

What gives you the right to label white people's views as "white fragility?" You're ok with racism towards whites then clearly? Did you bother to read my post about that poor young woman or do you just pick narratives where your cause is the victimhood?

A deeply disturbed man attacked an innocent victim. The apparent racial element is accidental as he was psychotic. The real racial story in this attack is that black people ar emuch more likely to be denied healthcare for mental illness. Many studies shows this, eg, here are two links but Google and AI will find you many more: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5128839/,www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40495539]

The evidence is that black people's SMI is more likely to be treated as criminal behaviour not a healthcare issue.
The man should have been sectioned but the system failed him. Both were victims in a terrible tragedy but the racial element was the general and specific denial of treatment to someone with SMI..

NotMyNigelFarage · 18/09/2025 20:05

Tandora · 18/09/2025 06:47

Christianity is also tied to ethnicity!

You are misunderstanding the point entirely.

It’s not that there is one race that is Muslim or one race that is Christian,

the point is that being a Muslim is overwhelmingly tied to heritage (where a when a person happens to be born and into what family)- which is why you don’t see a lot of white British born Muslims knocking around. Islamaphobia is not about challenging a particular set of ideologies or religious ideas (these are massively massively diverse in different communities), it’s about holding fixed, stereotyped and very negative generalisations against a group of people who look different (ethnically) and who have a different customs in relation to dress/ cultural practices etc.
The idea that “Muslim men” or “Afghan men” are an increased threat to white women, because of their violent “culture”, is an example of islamaphobia and yes it’s racist.

Edited

So, what do you think was responsible for the 1200 sexual assaults on that NYE in Germany? The police statement identified five key areas as being 'group pressure, absence of police intervention, frustrations of migrants, disinhibition caused by alcohol and/or drug use, and disinhibition due to lack of social ties with indigenous German society'.

Also, see the below....

A report from the end of February 2016 by the Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Criminal Police) analyzing hundreds of cases of alleged sexual assault in Cologne, Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt am Main, and Stuttgart on New Year's Eve, which was made public in June 2016, mentioned factors that seem to have favoured those sexual assaults (by groups).

In North Africa and Middle East – where most of the suspects presumably have cultural roots – sexual assault or harassment by groups of men is, according to the Bundeskriminalamt, a widespread form of everyday violence against women, especially in "economically weak" countries and in "crisis regions". According to the Bundeskriminalamt, this is called taharrush gamea or taḥarrush jamāʿī in Egypt (The Rape Game).

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults