The primary version of "Political Correctness Watch" is HERE The Blogroll; John Ray's Home Page; Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Education Watch, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Recipes, Australian Politics, Tongue Tied, Immigration Watch, Eye on Britain and Food & Health Skeptic. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). See here or here for the archives of this site.


Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

****************************************************************************************



30 April, 2011

Ben Stein Canned as Speaker at Citigroup for Allegedly Cracking Sexist Joke‏

Stein is an outspoken conservative. That was the real problem

Economist Ben Stein is one of the country’s most visible libertarians. He‘s a regular contributor to conservative publications and he’s well-known on the conservative and business speaking circuits. And in May he’s scheduled to speak in New York at a Citigroup-hosted event for pension and endowment funds.

Or rather he was scheduled. He’s now been canned after a women accused him of making sexist jokes at an event earlier this year.

If you just look at the allegations, the case seems open and shut. Sexist jokes no longer have a place in society. He apparently cracked some. But then you hear this: the woman who made the accusations (via e-mail) admits she couldn’t exactly remember the jokes, so she copied them off the internet, and Stein denies telling them the way she claims he did.

Making things even more interesting? The new vice chairman of Citigroup’s investment bank is Obama’s former budget director, Peter Orszag. He is also scheduled to be a speaker at the May event. And guess who forwarded the woman’s e-mail complaint to the sales executives? Orszag, who is the furthest thing from a libertarian.

“We have decided to present the conference without Mr. Stein’s participation,” Citi spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos
told Bloomberg News.

The accuser, 41-year-old Lynda Villarreal, attended a March event in Dallas where Stein was speaking. According to Bloomberg and the e-mail Villarreal sent to Citi and Bloomberg, one of the jokes involved a woman taking her clothes off on an airplane:

Villarreal’s e-mail to Orszag told of three jokes at the Dallas conference she said were disparaging to women. One joke was about a wealthy man, his wife and his mistress, she said.

Another involved a female airline passenger who, realizing the flight is about to crash, takes off her clothes and asks if there is a man aboard who will “make me feel like a woman,” according to Villarreal’s e-mail, which was also sent to Bloomberg News. A cowboy in a hat removes his shirt, hands it to the woman, tells her to iron it and fetch him a beer. But that differs from Stein’s account:

Stein, in an interview, said his jokes were mischaracterized and that the company didn’t call him before canceling.

Stein, a Yale University-educated lawyer and former speechwriter for President Richard Nixon who played the droning high-school economics teacher in the 1986 movie, “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” said in an interview that his jokes at the Dallas conference had been incorrectly retold.

“I’ve been in this speaking-gig business for a number of years, I’ve told these jokes before, and I have never gotten one syllable of complaint,” he said. “I don’t think any woman in the world would call me a misogynist. For this woman to say this is just fantasy.” ....

Stein, who has written columns for Bloomberg News and appeared as a guest on Bloomberg Television, said in the interview that the joke targeted the man, not the woman, and that in his Dallas telling the woman didn’t remove clothing.

“It’s usually a joke understood to be making fun of a kind of cloddish, dopey guy,” Stein explained to Bloomberg. “When I was finished with this speech, dozens of women in the room came up to me and wanted their pictures taken with me, wanted autographs from me. Dozens of them. I got fan mail from women who had been at the group saying how much they liked the speech.”

Apparently, Stein‘s contract stipulates that he will get paid even if he’s canceled.

As for Villarreal, vice president of business development at Trident Trust, which provides accounting services to hedge funds and private-equity firms, she couldn’t be happier:
“I am delighted that Citi has taken this action,” she told Bloomberg. “It shows their corporate leadership and respect for women in the financial industry as well as their clients.”
I wonder if Orszag is, too.

SOURCE





Yesterday's show of British institutions at their best hides years of political vandalism that wrecked our constitution

Although this country remains in serious economic trouble, two of our greatest institutions (the monarchy and the Armed Forces) proved yesterday that Britain can still put on a brilliant show when required and captivate a global TV audience. And for a few days at least, London has seemed like the centre of the world again.

At such times, it is customary for the British to feel a self-congratulatory warm glow about the enduring security of our great institutions and how fortunate we are to have such a strong constitutional structure in this country. The truth, I’m afraid, is very different. Underneath all the pomp, our constitution is badly broken.

Yesterday’s wedding obscures a painful fact: the British constitution — which took centuries to evolve — has been all but wrecked by just a few decades of vandalism inflicted by opportunistic politicians from all the main parties. They have been assisted by liberal judges, bien pensant academics and Leftist commentators intent on demolishing a system that actually worked rather well.

Their malevolent handiwork has led to the complete transformation of our constitutional and governing arrangements — with predictably calamitous results.

Britain is no longer self-governing. Huge powers have been transferred to Brussels and our national sovereignty has been signed away to Europe. Many of our laws and regulations are not really made by Parliament in London. They come direct from Brussels and are merely rubber-stamped by supine MPs.

Take employment law, one of the areas where the over-weening EU has been most aggressive. Since Britain signed up to the Social Chapter there has been a slew of anti-enterprise impositions on businesses and an explosion in workers’ rights and the number of costly industrial tribunals. This discourages hiring and the job creation that is so badly needed after a deep recession.

And when it comes to the massive immigration that comes with the EU’s open borders, myriad health and safety rules and environmental edicts (with endless interfering regulations on recycling), Parliament is also powerless.

Even Britain’s right to choose something as basic as its own weights and measures has been lost.Then there’s the sick condition of the ‘United’ Kingdom and the devolution debacle. Separate parliaments or assemblies were given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by Labour because it was claimed that this would be enough to satisfy the demands of the separatist local politicians. But already those separatists are back demanding (and getting) more powers.

Although the majority population in England does not have its own parliament, it is forced to subsidise the Scots and Welsh — leading to greatly unfair disparities in the provision of public services.

For example, in Scotland there is free care for the elderly, a long list of NHS-supplied drugs which are denied to English patients as well as free tuition for Scottish and EU students (but, unsurprisingly, not for any English youngsters who might want to study there). Devolution has badly loosened the ties that once bound the UK so strongly together.

The ‘reform’ of the second chamber was a similar Blairite disaster. The ancient House of Lords that combined hereditary peers with law Lords and some appointed experts was not perfect, but it worked well for centuries as a revising chamber. It was swept away, and the place stuffed with political appointees. Reform created a flawed system that was worse than the one it replaced.

At the same time, another great institution — the senior civil service — was degraded and politicised by those in power desperate to alter its composition and make it more politically correct.

However, the mandarin class is not daft and has responded by switching its allegiance to the EU (often taking Europe’s side in arguments with ministers). The civil servants realise that real power now often lies with Brussels bureaucrats and unaccountable European judges.

The recent controversy over prisoners’ voting rights shows their cynical calculation is right. Our elected representatives in the Commons voted against the enfranchising of murderers, but then unelected European judges over-ruled them. Politicians may talk about asserting Parliament’s supremacy, but this is mere posturing and David Cameron knows it.

Meanwhile, our judges in our new Supreme Court (another Blair folly) connive with Europe in its daily interference in our democracy. This follows New Labour foolishly incorporating into law the European Court’s human rights laws. As a result, unaccountable judges use the Court’s laws to issue gagging orders against the Press as they try to create their own privacy laws — something that should be the domain of Parliament.

All these huge changes were presented to voters as being in keeping with the British tradition of a steadily evolving constitution that adapts to new circumstances while keeping the traditional underpinnings intact. But that was a lie.

When Britain joined the European Union — or the European Economic Community as it then was in 1973 — this country suffered an historic loss of power. Under the terms of the Treaty of Rome, for the first time since Henry VIII refused to accept the Pope’s authority, a foreign body was placed above our national Parliament and the Crown.

Until that point, the underlying assumption had been clear. Britain — with a constitutional monarchy, an independent Parliament, accountable law courts and a robust, free press — governed itself. It was on these rocks that our security and great prosperity were built.

But then things started to change. Losing our empire and super-power status in the years after World War II produced something akin to a collective nervous breakdown in parts of the British establishment. For much of the ruling class, the idea of throwing our lot in with the Europeans was seen as the only answer to our problems. Many honourable people (including a misguided Margaret Thatcher) were deceived. What was originally a free trade organisation rapidly became an anti-democratic supra-national monster.

But the most fervent Europhiles — such as Tony Blair — were very cunning. They realised that to make Britain more European they would have to dismantle steadily the traditional structures of government and erode this country’s sense of its own distinctive institutions. This was done under the banner of ‘modernisation’ and ‘Cool Britannia’. Hence, we were given devolution based on the European model, European human rights law was incorporated into British law and there were attempts to ditch the pound and replace it with the euro.

Modernisers such as Nick Clegg have since taken up where Blair left off, seeking to impose all sorts of unnecessary changes to the character of our national life.

The most recent attack has focused on the traditional voting system for elections. Next Thursday is the referendum on whether to replace the traditional ‘first past the post’ system with AV, a system that will make coalitions, where politicians do deals with each other to stay in power, more likely. Mercifully, opinion polls suggest common sense will prevail and voters will decide to keep the traditional electoral system that has served this country so well for years.

Yet even if Clegg is snubbed by voters over AV, he won’t give up and will immediately begin planning his next piece of constitutional vandalism. The House of Lords is in his sights — he wants an elected Lords because it would give the Lib Dems more seats and more power.

It is quite extraordinary that a Tory Prime Minister has allowed the Lib Dems to embark on this wrecking spree — when his own Conservative Party supposedly stands for the defence of the constitution. Yet David Cameron has allowed Clegg his cherished AV referendum and is helping him gerrymander the Lords to the Lib Dems’ advantage.

Indeed, what is most deeply troubling is that none of the political parties seems prepared to defend the little that is left of our constitution, or to set about reclaiming what has been surrendered.

That means that when the inevitable sad day comes and the Queen — who personifies the bulwark defence of this country’s institutions and traditions — is no longer with us, Britain will be in treacherous waters.

Make no mistake: the monarchy itself will be the next target of modernisers and republicans demanding radical change. Who will there be to stop them as they embark on their final big battle in their war to kill off the British constitution?

SOURCE




The Malthusians who masquerade as Marxists

Both radical and mainstream authors now frequently attack ‘neo-liberalism’ and ‘free-market fundamentalism’. But their alternative to these largely mythical creeds would be far, far worse

One of the great puzzles of contemporary political debate is what exactly critics of Western governments mean by the term ‘neo-liberalism’. Typically, the concept is associated with the ideas propagated by a familiar cast of conservative villains, including Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News. Behind the scenes, pulling the strings, are said to be the financial powers of Wall Street and the City of London. But this will not do as a definition. It is rarely made clear whether the ultimate object of their attack is a theory, a set of policies, a phase of capitalism, or something else.

The mystery deepens when it comes to David Harvey, one of the most sophisticated exponents of the concept of neo-liberalism. In the current intellectual climate, it would probably come as a surprise to many to learn that the work of a 75-year-old professor of anthropology and self-proclaimed Marxist is so popular. Yet his 2010 YouTube lecture on the crises of capitalism has received over one million hits. Other critics of neo-liberalism also widely cite Harvey’s many books as authorities on the subject.

Fortunately the publication in paperback of Harvey’s latest book, The Enigma of Capital, provides an opportunity to probe the notion of neo-liberalism more closely. If anyone can spell out exactly what it means it should be him. Indeed, by page 10 he does attempt to define the term: ‘My view is that it refers to a class project that coalesced in the 1970s. Masked by a lot of rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility and the virtues of privatisation, it legitimised draconian policies designed to restore and consolidate capitalist class power.’

But on closer inspection, even this definition is ambiguous. Are the ideas he mentions just superficial ‘rhetoric’ or is the legitimising role of this ideology the defining feature of the neo-liberal project? Or perhaps the draconian policies themselves are the essence of neo-liberalism? The whole of Harvey’s work is imbued with such lack of precision, and sometimes even with blatant inconsistencies.

Nevertheless it is possible to identify three broad claims running through the book that are central to Harvey’s argument: the dominance of neo-liberal ideology since the 1970s; the manipulative role of all-powerful banks; and the need to curb economic growth for the sake of the planet. If all of this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Stripped of their Marxist language, such views are entirely mainstream.

Even so, it is worth examining each of Harvey’s contentions in more detail. By doing so it is not only possible to pinpoint his mistakes, but also to start to identify what is genuinely novel about recent developments. Identifying the real character of the attacks on popular living standards is a vital task for anyone who wants to resist them. There is no doubt that Western governments are starting to impose austerity on their populations. But the attack is not coming from free-market ideologues.

In Harvey’s view, neo-liberal ideas, based on the fusion of neo-classical economics and liberal politics, first came to the fore in the economic crisis of the 1970s. Although the ideas were not new, the growing popularity of free-market economists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek reflected their increased importance. In political terms they were taken up first by General Augusto Pinochet, who led a bloody coup in Chile in 1973, followed by Thatcher in Britain and Reagan in America.

Harvey is careful to note the gap between neo-liberal rhetoric and practice. This is just as well for him, as successive Western governments have conspicuously failed to cut state spending over the medium or long term. Although there are differences between countries, the level of state spending in the West typically varies between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of GDP – a long way from the minimal state favoured by the likes of Friedman and Hayek (1). Instead Harvey makes the more limited claim that the neo-liberals have tried to cut welfare spending as well as noting their drive to repress wages. However, he even partly backtracks from these claims when he acknowledges how hard Britain and Scandinavia have found it to make cuts in health spending.

The first thing to notice about Harvey’s discussion of neo-liberalism is that most of the central figures are either dead or elderly. It is also over two decades since they were in office. Pinochet, Chile’s brutal dictator from 1973 to 1990, died in 2006; Reagan, America’s president from 1981 to 1989, died in 2004; Thatcher, Britain’s prime minister from 1979 to 1990, is 85. Among the free-market economists, Friedrich Hayek died in 1992 and Milton Friedman in 2006.

But even these dates give an exaggerated view of the influence of neo-liberal ideas. As Harvey acknowledges, if the essence of neo-liberal theory is support for a minimal state – that it should confine itself to providing an army, police force, judiciary and basic infrastructure – then it was never implemented in practice. Yet even on a rhetorical level politicians were backing away from it during the 1980s. As Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize-winning economist and no radical, has noted: ‘By 1992, monetarist and rational expectations theorists had lost virtually all influence over actual policy, in the United States and elsewhere.’ (2)

The likes of David Cameron in Britain or Barack Obama in America might sometimes be accused of being neo-liberal, but neither of them argues that a minimal state is politically desirable. When Cameron, for instance, demands spending cuts in Britain, he typically uses the language of an accountant: it is a regrettable necessity because the books do not balance. To the extent that there is a debate today, it focuses on the exact timing and scale of the cuts necessary.....

Harvey’s casual aside on the neo-liberals finding it to hard to cut health spending in Britain over the years also reveals his poor grasp of important trends. For many years, health spending in Britain rose significantly in real terms rather than falling. However, as Michael Fitzpatrick has discussed extensively in spiked and elsewhere, this coincided with an intrusive trend towards health promotion (3). The health authorities increasingly took on the role of interfering in the most intimate aspects of the lives of ordinary people. It has become commonplace for medical practitioners to devise detailed rules about permissible foods, alcohol consumption and sexual practices. Harvey’s focus on cardboard cut-out neo-liberals as the enemy blinds him to important assaults on the personal lives of ordinary people.

The Engima of Capital concludes with a call for a vaguely defined anti-capitalist alliance of workers, the dispossessed, grassroots organisations, traditional left-wing organisations and others. Harvey even claims there are millions of ‘de facto communists’ around, although they apparently do not realise it.

It is not necessary to do a detailed textual analysis to see that Harvey’s points are entirely at odds with the thrust of Marx’s argument. The main aim of Capital, Marx’s theoretical masterwork, is to show how under capitalism the drive to raise productivity (produce more stuff) comes into conflict with the imperatives of profitability. Although capitalism can produce growth, which Marx welcomes, it tends to be uneven and crisis-ridden. For Marx, it was desirable to overthrow capitalism in order to attain an even more productive society.

Ending the scourge of scarcity is, in Marx’s view, a necessary pre-condition for realising the human potential. It is only then that people can be truly free to do as they please. Should they so wish, as Marx puts it, they can ‘hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner’ (4). The good life cannot be achieved in a society still dominated by want.

Harvey’s arguments, in contrast, are more akin to those of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), the notorious campaigner against ‘overpopulation’. Whereas Marx wanted society to produce more, both Malthus and Harvey present output as inherently limited. And where Marx wanted to remove economic constraints, both Malthus and Harvey view the imposition of extra limits as necessary. Indeed, the essence of Harvey’s convoluted attack on neo-liberalism is a demand for economic restraint.

In effect, Harvey has turned Marx into a green and has transformed left into right. Whereas socialist movements used to campaign for popular prosperity – higher working-class living standards in the old terminology – the critics of neo-liberalism rail against what they see as excess consumption. The green egalitarianism that Harvey advocates is essentially a call to share out the misery more widely across society.

Ultimately, most critics of contemporary society do the same thing. They use such terms as ‘market fundamentalism’ (Joseph Stiglitz), the ‘shock doctrine’ (Naomi Klein), the ‘Washington Consensus’, or ‘globalisation’. And ultimately, these all represent narrow and backward-looking critiques of capitalism. If Harvey differs from the others, it is mainly in being less explicit in his desire for the state to play the central role in curbing economic progress.

The prevailing outlook of austerity is not neo-liberalism but green anti-capitalism. Mainstream notions of environmental restraint are far more influential than belief in the free market. Anyone wishing to defend popular living standards first needs to challenge this Malthusian dogma, even when - or rather especially when - it is dressed up in the language of Marx.

More here





Australia: Carrot approach replaces big stick in Queensland prisons

Another triumph of theory over reality

JAIL staff banned from punishing unruly prisoners could now be ordered to reward them for toeing the line. Prisoners who are polite, undertake work and stay off drugs look set to be offered inducements such as extra jail visits, phone calls, better accommodation and more recreation.

A leaked memo obtained by The Courier-Mail revealed Queensland Corrective Services had developed the framework for a new reward scheme.

The change of philosophy in prisoner management comes after a 2009 Ombudsman's report criticised the agency's approach to prisoner discipline and a year after officers were stripped of disciplinary powers. Now in an attempt to appease frontline staff, QCS has proposed working groups starting this week develop policy recommendations on how to manage criminals through inducements.

QCS deputy commissioner Marlene Morison said it would be the first broad policy of rewarding prisoners to be implemented in the state's 15 jails.

Inmates who remained incident and drug free, were employed, completed required programs and training, maintained good relationships with other prisoners and who were "polite and co-operative" would be rewarded. "This ranges from access to the range of privileges (e.g. visits, phone calls) through to access of less restrictive environments (e.g. residential accommodation or low custody) to additional access to recreation ... " the memo said.

Ms Morison said well-behaved prisoners could also score better jobs while in jail. "It is as much about ensuring poor behaviour has a fair and real consequence as it is about giving reasons for prisoners to behave well," she said. Prison expert Dr Dot Goulding, of Curtin University, called the plan a "huge step forward".

"I'm delighted to hear that someone has some vision that the stick doesn't always work; sometimes the carrot and reward system is a far better way of looking at things," she said. "(The plan) is looking at positives rather than just the negative and to prepare these people to be job-ready and ready to be law-abiding citizens in the community."

However, Opposition corrective services spokesman John-Paul Langbroek said the plan reeked of desperation. "Prison officers have been forced to resort to (this plan) ... just to get unruly prisoners to behave," he said. "The establishment of this working group was an admission that Labor's soft prisoner discipline system was a complete failure and needed to be fixed."

Ms Morison said the plan's draft policy would be developed by the end of next month and available for consultation with staff and the Queensland Public Sector Union, which represents prison officers.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



29 April, 2011

British political correctness allows Indian woman to work only a quarter of the days she was paid for

A woman police constable who took 848 sick days in six years resigned less than a week before she could have been sacked for misconduct. Hina Parekh, 43, made just 11 arrests in her career.

The Hindu WPC, who was born in India, claimed racist abuse and bullying in the Metropolitan Police was making her unwell and was signed off with depression and stress.

But her bosses said she was failing to pull her weight after only turning up to work on 292 days out of a potential 1,140, and put her on a ‘performance improvement’ regime.

Hinah Parekh, 43, claimed that racist abuse from fellow police officers was making her unwell and signed off with depression and stress. She managed an average of only five shifts a month from her job at Belgravia police station in Central London.

However she did not take her case to an employment tribunal and senior officers finally launched disciplinary proceedings. They found that she had worked 327 days out of a potential 1,175 since 2006. Ms Parekh then resigned before she could be sacked.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman today confirmed that Ms Parekh left the police after she learned she faced disciplinary proceedings for unsatisfactory attendance.

He said: 'A police constable from Westminster borough who had been subject to unsatisfactory performance and attendance proceedings, resigned from service during the past 12 months.'

Reports suggest that senior officers did not act sooner because they feared they would become embroiled in a damaging race row.

Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation said Ms Parekh's case should have gone through a process within the force to establish whether she was suitable for sick pay. He said: 'What should have happened after six months is she should have been considered for half pay, then after 12 months go on no pay.

'Her immediate line manager would be responsible for this, then it goes up a chain. 'There is an appeals process as well.

SOURCE






Depraved UN has no right to preach

By Ted Lapkin (U.S. born Ted Lapkin grew up in Israel, and served in the Israeli army as a combat intelligence officer. He now lives in Australia)

THUGGISH despot who slaughters peaceful protesters in the streets, or global guardian of human rights? The United Nations can't seem to make up its mind where Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is concerned.

This week, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was expressing "grave concern" over Assad's decision to set loose his tanks on unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators. But Ban then declined to intervene in the coming elections at the UN Human Rights Council, where Syria is a shoo-in for a new three-year term.

Scheduled for mid-May, these elections have about as much suspense as polling day in … well … Damascus. As one of the four candidate nations vying for the four open slots allocated to the Asia group, Syria's election to the council is all but assured.

Given its own dubious record, you'd think the council might hesitate before setting itself up as a moral arbiter. But that is precisely what happened three months ago as it stood in judgment over Australia's human rights record through something known as the Universal Periodic Review.

At the time, the Human Rights Council counted Saudi Arabia, Libya and the world's last Marxist dictatorship - Cuba - among its members. The presence of this rogues' gallery meant the verdict on Australia was written, in part, by some of the most repressive regimes on the planet.

Only in the depraved universe of the United Nations are the world's worst empowered to pass moral judgment on the world's best. The Universal Periodic Review is nothing more than a politicised kangaroo court that is the equivalent of putting an embezzler in charge of regulating the banks.

I'm in no mood to accept moral critiques from Saudi theocrats whose legal code makes the testimony of a woman worth half that of a man.

But the rhetorical hypocrisies of the UN's human rights machine are merely a casual annoyance when compared with the dark deeds that routinely take place under the United Nations banner.

Three years ago, British charity Save the Children sounded the alarm over rampant child sexual molestation committed by UN staff around the globe. In a 2008 report titled No One to Turn to, the charity noted: "Troops associated with the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) were identified as a particular source of abuse." Even worse was the "culture of impunity" that routinely enabled these paedophiles to escape punishment.

A subsequent Save the Children policy brief, published in December 2009, confirmed that sexual predation by UN personnel remained epidemic: "In 2008, in Cote D'Ivoire, Sudan and Haiti, we found that nearly 90 per cent of those interviewed recalled incidents of children being sexually exploited by aid workers and peacekeepers. In Liberia in 2006, we reported high levels of abuse of girls, some as young as eight.

"In 2004, it was reported that many girls and women in war-torn areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) traded sex for food and other essentials from UN peacekeepers. During the UN mission in Cambodia in 1992-93, the number of sex workers, including children, rose from 6000 to 25,000."

A young Haitian girl quoted by the charity described the culpability of UN staff in particularly stark terms: "The people who are raping us and the people in the office are the same people."

I'm proud to report that Australian troops on peacekeeping duty have never been implicated in such repugnant behaviour. As a matter of fact, Australians in East Timor almost got into a firefight when they objected to the sexual abuse of small boys by Jordanian soldiers. Good on 'em!

Of course, the UN Secretariat has responded to this ongoing abomination with the usual declarations of commitment to zero tolerance strategies. But like nearly everything else related to the UN, the passage of time has revealed those measures to be all bark and no bite.

The NGO Refugees International noted that the UN's unwillingness to enforce an effective policy against sexual abuse meant that "zero tolerance is meaningless". And so sexual predators wearing the sky blue beret continue to prey on the vulnerable victims of war and natural disaster around the globe.

The taint of moral corruption pervades even the pinnacle of the UN's organisational pyramid - the Security Council, where just three years ago Libya was awarded a temporary two-year seat. And now Julia Gillard seeks to resurrect Kevin Rudd's quest for Australia to join the Security Council as a non-permanent member. With apologies to great comedic actor Groucho Marx, I ask: why should we want to join any club that so recently had Muammar Gaddafi as a member?

By word and deed, the UN has forfeited any semblance of a claim to moral leadership. Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton once quipped: "The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 storeys. If you lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." But my response to Bolton's witticism is to say: why stop with only 10?

SOURCE






Hate Speech Makes a Comeback

Pat Buchanan

Well, it sure didn't take long for the Tucson Truce to collapse.
After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot on Jan. 8 by a berserker who killed six others, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl, and wounded 13, the media were aflame with charges the right had created the climate of hate in which such an atrocity was inevitable.

The Washington Post story on the massacre began, "The mass shooting ... raised serious concerns that the nation's political discourse had taken a dangerous turn."

Following Barack Obama's eloquent eulogy and call for all of us to lower our voices, it was agreed across the ideological divide that it was time to cool the rhetoric.

This week, however, hate speech was back in style.

After Donald Trump called on Obama to release his original birth certificate and produce the academic records and test scores that put him on a bullet train from being a "terrible student" at Occidental College to Columbia, Harvard Law and Harvard Law Review editor, charges of "racism" have saturated the airwaves.

To Tavis Smiley of PBS, this was a sure sign the most "racist" campaign in history is upon us. To Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg of "The View," this was pure racism. To Bob Schieffer, CBS anchor, an "ugly strain of racism" is behind the effort to get Obama's records.

Again and again on cable TV, the question is raised, "What, other than racism, can explain Trump's call for these records?"

Well, how about a skeptical attitude toward political myths? How about a legitimate Republican opposition research effort to see just how much substance there is behind the story of the young African-American genius who awed with his brilliance everyone who came into contact with him?

Trump is testing the waters for a Republican campaign. One way to do that is to attract the party's true believers by demonstrating that, if you get nominated, unlike John McCain in 2008, you will peel the hide off Barack Obama. Is there anything wrong with that?

As for the birth certificate, it was The Donald who forced Obama to make it public. Not in two years had anyone else been able to do it. The White House press corps did not even try. The pit bulls of Richard Nixon's time have been largely replaced by purse dogs.

Not since Jack Kennedy has a president had a press corps so protective of the man they cover -- though in Kennedy's case, they covered up a lifestyle that could have ended JFK's presidency.

Trump is drawing crowds because he speaks in plain language and appears unintimidated by the high priests of political correctness.

As Rush Limbaugh notes, it was Trump's demands for the birth certificate that turned the issue from a winner for Obama -- it had been seen as a young president bedeviled by conspiracy theorists and bitter-enders -- into an issue that had begun to cut.

When half of all Iowa Republicans, not a radical group, said they thought Obama was born somewhere else, and a fourth were not sure, the president, who had swept Iowa, was beginning to bleed. The Donald had gotten under his armor.

As Newsweek's Howard Fineman notes, it was the rising doubts of independents about why Obama still refused to release his original birth certificate that caused him to end two years of stonewalling.

If the president has been hurt, is it not partly his own fault for not releasing the birth certificate and ending the matter after he was elected?

And the demand for Obama's test scores -- is that racism?

Well, was it racist of the New Yorker to reveal in 1999 that George W. Bush got a score of 1206 on his Scholastic Aptitude Test (566 verbal, 640 math) or that Al Gore got a 1355? Was it racist of the Boston Globe to report that John Kerry was a D student as a freshman, who eventually rose up to a C and B student at Yale?

Was it racist of The New York Times' Charlie Savage to report that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor had described herself as an "'affirmative action baby' whose lower test scores were overlooked by the admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic"?

If a White House correspondent stood up at a press conference and said: "Mr. President, Donald Trump is asking for your college and law school test scores. Do you believe you benefited from affirmative action in your academic career?" would that be racist?

Perhaps Obama might begin his answer as he did, two decades before, in a Nov. 16, 1990, letter as president of Harvard Law Review:

"As someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action program when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized."

SOURCE





A Thorny, Porn-y Issue for N.Y. Public Library

Jonah Goldberg

Of course you've heard some version of this tale before. Winston Churchill says to a woman at a party, "Madam, would you sleep with me for 5 million pounds?"

The woman stammers: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill. Well, yes, I suppose ...

Churchill interrupts: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

The woman responds immediately: "What? Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!"

To which the British bulldog replied: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."

The story comes to mind upon hearing the news that the New York Public Library has gotten into the porn business. "With adults, anything that you can get on the Internet, you can legally get on a computer in the library," explained an official. "It's difficult, but we err on the side of free and open access."

What does this have to do with the Churchill story? Well, imagine you went to your local library in, say, 1989 -- or some other year before Al Gore invented the Internet.

Then imagine going up to the librarian and asking him, "Do you carry Hustler?"

The shocked librarian answers, "No."

"Back issues of Swank? High Society? Penthouse?"

"No, no and no," quoth the librarian.

"OK, OK. I get it. Do you have movies?"

Librarian answers: "Yes, of course."

"Great!" you reply. "I'd like to sign out 'Debby Does Dallas.'"

"What? No!"

"How about the VHS of 'On Golden Blonde'?"

Finally, the librarian explodes: "Sir, we do not carry any pornography. What do you think we do here?"

Well, the answer to that question is suddenly in doubt. Because up until very, very recently, the idea that public libraries should -- nay, must! -- peddle unfettered access to hardcore porn would have baffled almost everyone.

I'm hardly an anti-porn crusader, but the list of reasons why libraries didn't -- and shouldn't -- carry porn is vast. The two most obvious and mutually reinforcing reasons are moralistic and budgetary: A) "It's wrong," and B) "We have very limited resources and we must choose what we think is worthwhile and what has no redeeming value."

The problem is that the legs have been knocked out from under both answers. Of course, the moralistic -- or "judgmental" -- bias against porn has been eroding for generations. How bad or good a development that is depends on your point of view.

But until the Internet, it didn't matter. Sure, Playboy might make it through, "for the articles." But not even the most radical or deranged librarians could ever justify subscribing to Juggs over National Geographic, because in a world of limited resources, prudential editing is not merely valuable, it's unavoidable.

But the Internet changed all that. The marginal cost of obtaining pornographic materials in libraries, once prohibitively high, is now nearly nonexistent. In fact, it's actually cheaper just to let it all flood in. Who wants to deal with the filters, blockers and monitors? Just proclaim that the First Amendment requires unfettered access to porn.

But, again, just imagine there was no Internet, and all two-dimensional smut was still on paper, celluloid or magnetic tape. Now imagine trying to argue before a cash-strapped city council that the local public library must not only provide some porn -- free of charge! -- to the public, but that it must provide mountains of it free of charge to the public, all because the First Amendment says so.

You'd be laughed out of the room.

Did the First Amendment change with the invention of the Internet? Of course not. What changed is that librarians lost both the "scarce resources" excuse and the backbone to invoke any other rationale -- decency, child welfare, hygiene, safety, etc. -- for barring it from public libraries.

Technological progress poses such challenges. Don't get me wrong: I love technological progress. But technology makes life easier, and when life is easier, it's harder to stick to the rules that were once essential to getting by in life.

The list of customs and values that were formed or informed by material necessity is too long to contemplate because it includes nearly all of them. Cultures, like cuisines, are formed as much by what isn't available as what is. Scarcity of meat is the mother of good seasoning.

The Internet doesn't completely eliminate scarcity of porn (or of hilarious kitten videos), but it gets us closer than humanity has ever been before. When scarcity drops, so does the price. And it seems that for the New York Public Library, like the lady in the Churchill story, price was always the issue.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



28 April, 2011

Silence: One Way Truth Loses

The Duke Lacrosse case is still not over

What can be said about a criminal case in which the mainstream media became a lynch mob, the district attorney’s maneuvering led to disbarment, the left screamed “racism!,” political candidates ran on the promise of justice, and dozens of faculty members at an elite college publicly demanded the conviction of its own students before trial?

In 2006 three Duke University students and lacrosse players were accused of rape by a black stripper named Crystal Mangum. Even though two of the students had rock-solid alibis for when the assault supposedly occurred, they were all indicted. After months of travesty, the accusations were revealed as outrageous lies. What then did the lynch-itchy crowd say? Next to nothing.

Lawsuits have surrounded the Duke lacrosse rape case since 2007. Three of them, taken collectively, constitute one of the most significant political and legal battles of our time. What have you heard of them? Next to nothing.

The Original Duke Case

Three young men were pitted against the entrenched corruption of a court system, an ambitious district attorney, a police department, and the left-biased academia to whom they had entrusted their futures. While DA Michael Nifong hid evidence and Duke University paid for an ad in which 88 faculty members denounced the accused, self-proclaimed civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson played the race card whenever Mangum’s shifting story was questioned.

All the students had on their side was truth, the support of family and friends, and the unflagging analysis of a handful of bloggers. Truth won.

But the win is being reversed by silence. Despite the three-ring circus that has ensued since charges were dropped, the normally scandal-hungry media remains mute. Those who cried, “Hang them now; try them later!” have moved on without apology.

If the current struggle to procure justice were allotted one-tenth the attention given to the false charges, the Duke case would shine a badly needed spotlight on some of the worst institutional wrongs in our society.

When the criminal case crumbled spectacularly, most people assumed the matter was over; after all, there was little in the media to suggest otherwise. Those few who still followed the case probably assumed that Nifong’s disbarment was the final chapter.

But from the moment all charges were dropped on April 11, 2007, those victimized by Duke University and the Durham police department have been seeking remedies for the burlesque of justice they endured. The victims include more than the three indicted students. For example, in 2010 ex-lacrosse coach Mike Presser settled a slander suit against Duke. Presser, who led the Duke team to national renown, was pushed out by the administration shortly after the accusations arose.

The media silence continued, even regarding the slow-motion train wreck that became Crystal Mangum’s life. She has been arrested on charges ranging from arson to child abuse, but the coverage generally has been either brief and matter-of-fact or sympathetic.

Now the silence may be breaking. Mangum’s current indictment on a murder charge has caused some commentators to revisit the parody of justice called the “Duke case.” The Atlantic, for example, is to be applauded for leading the discussion.

As for the rest of the media and the left, they have another chance to act with decency.

Law Suits Proceed

As for the three lawsuits wending their way through the courts since 2007, last month a federal judge gave them the green light. Two were brought by most members of the 2006 Duke lacrosse team, who seek redress from Duke and the city of Durham. Among the charges: Police violated their constitutional rights by requiring the submission of DNA evidence based on false information provided by Duke.

The remaining suit was brought by the three indicted players. Because they settled with Duke earlier, the suit focuses on the misconduct of specific police officers in the department. For example, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb is being sued for violating Fourth Amendment rights, obstructing justice, and making false public statements.

The suits are a rare opportunity to lift the veils that protect academic, police, and court misconduct from public view. Any media outlet that considers police corruption and the ability of ambitious district attorneys to destroy the innocent to be newsworthy will follow the suits closely.

Or will journalism be left to the bloggers again?

SOURCE





Britain a world leader in working mothers: And it's harming children's development, warns global report

Half of British mothers now go out to work before their child’s first birthday – despite clear evidence it can harm their development, an authoritative international report has found.

Mothers in the UK are more likely to rush out to work than those in other Western countries, ignoring research that those who stay at home tend to bring up children who are better behaved and do well at school.

The report quotes studies which found that children of working mothers fare worse in reading and maths tests, tend to be more badly behaved and are more likely to have attention problems.

Critics say the report lays bare the extent to which successive governments have harmed a generation of youngsters by encouraging women to put their children into care and go out to work.

Only Denmark has a higher proportion of mothers in paid work when the child is a year old. The 279-page study paints a depressing picture of family life in Britain, with single parenthood, cohabitation and illegitimacy all on the rise. Called Doing Better For Families, it was compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which represents 34 industrialised nations.

Just a day before the Royal Wedding which will celebrate the institution of marriage, the study shows that just 64.5 per cent of British children grow up with two married parents.

The report shows that in most of the world, maternal employment does not harm child development – but this is not the case in the UK and the U.S..

More than a quarter of mothers in the UK – 28 per cent – are in paid work before their child is six months old. But the children of mothers who go to work before they are six months old end up performing worse at vocabulary tests at the age of five, and significantly worse at reading and maths at seven compared to the children of stay-at-home mums.

The correlation is the same, but less marked, for children whose mothers waited until they were between six months and a year to go to work.

In both cases, the OECD says that attainment and behaviour are even more affected if the working mother is educated to degree-level. Around a third of British women with degrees are back at work within six months.

The report says: ‘In the UK, early maternal employment (full-time and part-time) appeared to have a very small negative association with vocabulary test scores for children aged four to five.

Maternal employment also has a serious effect on behaviour and attention spans by the time the child is seven, again with the situation more marked if the mother went to work before the child was six months.

The OECD suggests that this may be to do with the quality of childcare in the UK. Good childcare is the most expensive in the Western world.

Norman Wells of pressure group Family and Youth Concern, said children were losing out because mothers were under such pressure to go back to work earlier. ‘Too often the needs of children take second place to the desires of a minority of women to impose their feminist agenda on every family,’ he said.

In another sign of Broken Britain, the OECD report demonstrates that we have one of the highest rates in the world for divorces involving children. Almost two thirds (63 per cent) of our divorces are among couples with children. In Italy the figure is a third.

The report also shows how the benefits system creates an incentive for parents to live apart. Single parents get the sixth best deal in the West, while couples get the tenth worst.

Our young people are more likely to cohabit than almost anywhere else in the world. Some 24 per cent of 20 to 34-year-olds are living with a partner – a proportion only exceeded in the Netherlands and Scandinavia.

The report also shows that Britain has seen one of the sharpest rises in illegitimate births. Some 45 per cent of births now take place outside marriage.

SOURCE





British safety madness again: Butlins bans bumping on the bumper cars



When Sir Billy Butlin introduced bumper cars to Britain more than 80 years ago, it can be assumed he expected holiday makers to have fun on the fairground ride bumping into each other. But what Sir Billy did not foresee was the modern culture of health and safety that has not only introduced seat belts and insisted everyone drives in the same direction, but banned bumping.

Staff at all three Butlin resorts in Bognor Regis, Minehead and Skegness are instructed to ban anyone found guilty of bumping into each other in the electric cars equipped with huge bumpers.

Bemused customers who assume that the ‘no bumping sign’ is in jest are told to drive around slowly in circles rather than crash into anyone else for fear of an injury that could result in the resort being sued.

Telegraph columnist Michaal Deacon, who has just returned from a holiday at the Bognor Regis resort, said the experience was like “trundling round an exitless roundabout”.

“I’m not convinced that the dangers were great, given that the bumper cars were equipped with bumpers,” he said. “Seat belts, too. There were no airbags for the drivers, but it can be only a matter of time.”

Butlins confirmed that people are not allowed to bump the bumper cars for “health and safety reasons”. In fact the resorts insist on calling the experience Dodgems rather than bumper cars.

Jeremy Pardey, resort director at Bognor Regis, said there have been injuries in the past including broken bones, due to people bumping into each other. He said the rules are “pretty vigilant” to avoid anyone being hurt, although customers are not asked to wear crash helmets.

But he insisted people have “great fun” dodging one another by crossing the circle of traffic and over taking. “The point of our Dodgems is to dodge people, not to run into people,” he said.

Sir Billy Butlin was the first person to introduce the concept of driving electric cars, equipped with large bumpers, around a flat ride. He brought the UK franchise for Dodgem Cars, a brand of bumper cars manufactured in the US, and introduced them at his holiday camps in 1923.

The ride is now common on most fairgrounds and it is generally accepted that the point is to try and get around as fast as possible by dodging other people and even bumping off rivals.

Although many fairgrounds do have signs saying ‘no bumping’ for health and safety reasons or even for fear of litigation, few fairgrounds ban people for breaking the rules.

Anecdotal evidence suggest people have tried to get compensation for whiplash or other injuries sustained on the Dodgems, but there has not been a single successful case. In fact, more than one firm of solicitors uses the level of impact one would receive from a dodgem crash as an example of where a neck injury compensation claim would not succeed. It would also be difficult to prove some fault on the part of another dodgem driver.

David Cameron has pledged to tear up "mad health and safety rules" that have prevented firemen and police doing their jobs properly.

SOURCE




British police hunt joker who drew Hitler moustache

A rural police force has been criticised for starting an investigation after a poster making a local councillor look like Hitler was put up on a village notice board. At least four officers are said to have visited residents in the hamlet of Pitcombe, Somerset, after a poster of the Conservative councillor Mike Beech had a Hitler-like moustache drawn on it.

After seeing the poster, Mr Beech reported it to the police. Officers began an inquiry under the Public Order Act, saying that the poster could be deemed to cause “harassment, alarm and distress” to the councillor.

Officers even conducted house-to-house inquiries, visiting homeowners at each of the hamlet’s 20 houses. Villagers said the investigation was “an outrageous waste of police and taxpayers’ money”.

David Issitt, a 58-year-old carpenter who lives in Pitcombe, said: “Everyone I have spoken to thinks it is completely over the top. Even the constable who visited me told me he had better things to do.

“The police came to the village three times - it was a complete waste of time by the police. They have far better things to do than following up complaints like that.

“The police even came knocking on people’s doors in the evening. If my shed was broken into would I have received such a tenacious response?

“If Mr Beech is involved in politics, I’d suggest he grows a thicker skin. It was simple lampooning and he needs to learn to laugh at himself.” Mr Beech, a Conservative member of South Somerset district council and former chairman of Pitcombe Parish Council, admitted he had called in the police because he was a “bit offended” by the picture which made him look like the former Nazi leader.

“This is something I am trying to forget. Basically the picture was put on the noticeboard and I took advice from the political hierarchy and they said it was probably best to report it.”

Pitcombe is home to an estimated 40 people and only 13 crimes have been reported in the hamlet and surrounding villages all year.

Avon and Somerset Police confirmed a complaint had been made about posters put up on the village noticeboard, which is not lockable.

A spokesman said: “Police started an inquiry under the Public Order Act that the posters could be deemed to cause 'harassment, alarm or distress’ to an individual. “There is no CCTV in the village, although house-to-house enquires have been undertaken. Officers are duty bound to investigate formal complaints of criminal damage.”

Earlier this month, neighbouring Gloucestershire police were criticised after spending £20,000 on an operation to arrest suspected scrap metal thieves after they took 47p worth of scrap from a skip.

Last year, it was claimed that a police force sent a van full of officers to oversee a calendar model posing in the street in her underwear. Thames Valley Police said that they were acting on a tip-off that Rebecca Hill planned to walk naked down the street.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



27 April, 2011

Whom do you trust? Study reveals our unconscious mind can have racist tendencies...no matter how liberal we are on surface

Banaji has been pushing this barrow for years. I have commented on her work previously -- but the latest report (below) does seem to be an advance in that the findings would seem to provide convergent validation for the rather dubious Implicit Association Test. The correlations reported suggest that the IAT measures what it purports to measure.

Banaji still seems to be naive about the implications of her work however. She seems to think that by "acknowledging" our unconscious biases, we can reduce them. If we look at the stereotyping research, however, that becomes unlikely. As I noted in my previous comments, stereotypes are rapidly formed protective generalizations based mostly on personal experience -- and what Banaji has shown is that whites have negative stereotypes about blacks. Given the high rate of violent crime among blacks it would be surprising if it were otherwise. Whites are right to be wary of blacks

If you were shown a picture of a black person and a white person and asked 'who do you trust more,' your actual answer may be very different from the one in your unconscious mind, a study has revealed.

Researchers found that deciding who we trust - especially with our money - may be influenced more by subconscious racial biases that many of us would be horrified to admit.

'We strive as a culture to not let race bias be a significant factor in the way we choose to do things and on an individual level, we all assume that our beliefs reflect our actions, but we have to be aware of the fact that this won't always be the case,' Elizabeth Phelps, a psychologist at New York University and co-author of the study, told ABC News.

Researchers measured implied and expressed racial bias among 50 racially diverse participants using an Implicit Association Test (IAT) and questionnaires. They then asked participants to rate the 'trustworthiness' of nearly 300 faces of people from many races (although the scores for blacks and whites were used in the analysis).

Participants then played a trust-based economic reward game. Overall, if they showed an unconscious bias toward white people, they were more likely to say they trust whites more when asked - and more likely to risk more money. The same bias showed up in the minority of participants that showed a bias towards black people.

'Despite study after study showing that implicit bias exists, it's still something that a lot of people don't internalise within their own lives and behaviour,' Leslie Hausmann, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, told ABC. 'There's a reluctance to admit that in our day-to-day lives, we have this and it matters,' she added.

Although researchers said the study was not 'overwhelming evidence for racism' when they measured this kind of subconscious prejudice in doctors treating minorities, the doctors were shocked to discover their unconscious bias affected what medications they prescribed to different races.

'Humans have always struggled with this: am I leading my daily life in such a way that my behaviour lines up with the values I have?' said Mahzarin Banaji, a co-author and psychologist at Harvard University. 'Acknowledging this bias is part of bringing our behaviour in line with intentions.'

SOURCE





British Farmer menaced with death threats by gang of gypsies dials emergency number... and police turn up to confiscate her shotguns

Having confronted travellers cutting down trees on her farm, terminally-ill Tracy St Clair Pearce found herself subjected to a terrifying ordeal. Some of the group pelted her with rocks while a youth threatened to slit her throat and slaughter her cattle.

When she dialled 999 she expected the full weight of the law to be on her side. Instead, however, police officers criticised her for inflaming the situation and confiscated her legally held shotguns – even though they had been locked away in a cabinet at home throughout the incident.

Yesterday, the 50-year-old accused police of causing her ‘harassment and distress’ when she should have been given protection. ‘I’ve been treated like a criminal,’ said Miss St Clair Pearce, who has been given months to live after breast cancer spread to her spine.

The incident blew up after around 18 caravans set up camp illegally in a field owned by Colchester Council last Thursday.

Miss St Clair Pearce, who lives on the adjoining Seven Saints Rare Breeds farm with her brother, Stuart, had a good-natured conversation with one traveller who assured her they would be no trouble and would move on within a couple of days.

But at 7pm on Good Friday she was spraying weeds on the 34-acre farm, where she has ten rare Shetland cattle and three horses, when she heard a chainsaw and found four boys felling trees for firewood.

‘I started shouting “Get out” but they just stood there in my field,’ she said. ‘I said I would spray them with the weed killer and one in a red T-shirt, who was about 14, went ballistic. The language coming out of his mouth was unbelievable.

‘I had a short-bladed knife in my hand for the weed removal and he took that as a challenge. He picked up a fence post and hurled it at me. He then screamed “I will slit your throat, I will slit the throats of your calves and cows”. We were face to face and he slid his finger across his throat.’

Miss St Clair Pearce stood her ground and the youth retreated across the brook that marks the border of her land but by this time several traveller men and a woman had come over.

One was the boy’s father, who used ‘sexually explicit language’ before turning away when asked if he was proud of his son. ‘About eight people were still there and they exposed themselves to me, front and back. Then they started throwing rocks at me so I backed off,’ added Miss St Clair Pearce.

Shaken by the confrontation, she called police and waited 35 minutes for a patrol car to arrive before spending three hours giving a statement. An inspector arrived at 11.30pm but questioned her own conduct, accusing her of making threats against the travellers. ‘They said I had been aggressive, the chainsaw was of no consequence, and I should have politely asked them to remove themselves from my premises then walked away and called 999,’ said Miss St Clair Pearce.

Officers eventually visited the camp that evening and the following morning but told her they were unable to find the teenager who had threatened her.

On Easter Monday she was at a dog show when she received a call from Colchester councillor Gerard Oxford, whom she had contacted for advice, and was told police wanted to confiscate her two shotguns.

She refused to start the two-hour journey home immediately and officers began turning up at the farmhouse ‘every couple of hours’ in an attempt to seize the legally held shotguns. At 3.15am yesterday armed officers appeared and demanded the firearms otherwise they would ‘pull the cabinet from the wall’. Left with no choice, Miss St Clair Pearce told her brother where she kept the key and he handed the weapons over. Officers returned later yesterday and confiscated her gun licence to ‘prevent me buying another shotgun’.

Her brother said: ‘I am in shock. I thought the laws in this country protected people who live and work in their communities – not those who visit for a short time and think they are beyond the law.’

The travellers refused to comment when approached yesterday.

Mr Oxford said: ‘The way Tracy has been treated has been quite appalling. It was quite evident the officers were putting more weight on making sure that the travellers were ok than the threats which had been made to Tracy’s life.’

Essex police confirmed they had not yet arrested anyone in connection with the incident. A spokesman said: ‘Officers became concerned at the behaviour of a woman and laid information before magistrates accordingly. ‘They were given powers to seize guns in her possession and have done so as a sensible precaution in the circumstances.’ [No chance for the woman to have her say before the magistrates, of course. Natural justice is extinct in England]

SOURCE





Elf n' safety madness: Postmen banned from crossing road in quiet British village with few passing cars

Postmen have been banned from crossing the road in a quiet village with hardly any passing traffic – for ‘elf and safety reasons. Workers have been told to go all the way down one side of the road before coming back on the other - to minimise crossing.

Residents insist the roads in quaint Goodworth Clatford, near Andover, Hampshire, are so quiet they are happy for even children to cross unattended.

Bosses brought in the new rule to minimise risk but villagers claim deliveries are arriving up to two hours later because of the changes.

The only time that the roads get busy are when parents drop off and collect their children from school, residents claim. They say the traffic is long gone by the time postmen 'amble up the drive at midday'.

Royal Mail workers have apparently complained that they are struggling to deliver to every house in the village because they are spending so much longer making deliveries.

Councillor David Drew, who is a member of both Hampshire County Council and Test Valley Borough Council, said the new instructions issued earlier this month were ‘bizarre’. ‘The postmistress gave me the heads up that the postal dispatch system was due to be tweaked – and suddenly the post started to come a couple of hours later,’ he said.

‘I was told the postmen have to go down one side of the road and up the other for health and safety reasons. ‘The workers are fairly upset because it’s taking a lot longer to do their rounds and apparently some people have had their houses missed off completely. ‘They are grown adults and are big enough to decide for themselves whether it is safe to cross the road.

‘Goodworth Clatford is a quiet village and it is perfectly safe for children to cross the road providing they are old enough and sensible enough. ‘Common sense has been taken away by health and safety again’.

Bernard Griffiths, chairman of Abbotts Ann Parish Council, claimed some people in the village had not received mail on two occasions because of the new rule.

‘The postmen are under instruction to deliver what they can and if they cannot do it in the time take it back. I am outraged at this. I am livid. I hope somebody’s head will roll over this.’

The Royal Mail yesterday said ‘Delivery routes are planned to be completed as efficiently and safely as possible which in the majority of cases is to deliver to one side before crossing to return along the opposite side.’

And in a further twist nearly all postmen’s bicycles will disappear in the next few months. ‘We are bringing in new equipment which will reduce the number of bikes we have. We will just retain a small number of them,’ added the spokesman.

SOURCE




Dissatisfaction that it was a homosexual judge who disallowed homosexual marriage ban

Backers of California's ban on same-sex marriage have moved to wipe out a court ruling last year that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying the federal judge who heard the case should have stepped aside because he has been in a long-term same-sex relationship.

Proposition 8 was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections that said only marriage between a man and a woman is recognised in California.

Its supporters argue in court papers that the former chief US district judge Vaughn Walker had a presumed bias in the case because he could have benefited from gaining the legal right to marry his partner.

Mr Walker, who has retired from the bench, has never concealed the fact he is gay and it has been well known in Bay Area legal circles, but he never discussed the issue publicly until a meeting with reporters last month in his San Francisco office before he left the bench.

He said he never considered taking himself off the case, as he felt his sexual orientation should not be a factor in presiding over the legal challenge to the gay marriage ban.

Legal experts labelled the move a long shot that was no different to trying to bump a female judge off a gender discrimination case or a black judge from a racial bias lawsuit. "It frankly sounds like an act of desperation," Rory Little, who teaches at Hastings College of the Law, said. "Their position is shot through with illogical jumps."

Last year the judge struck down Proposition 8, concluding that it violates the federal equal protection rights of California's same-sex couples.

The ruling is on appeal in both the US Circuit Court of Appeals and California Supreme Court. The state court is considering whether Proposition 8 supporters even have a legal right to defend the law when the state's top officials refuse to do so.

Proposition 8 supporters say the judge's acknowledged long-term relationship with a doctor should have been disclosed before the hearing because he might have a personal interest in the right to marry.

The issue will first be considered in July by the judge's replacement, Chief Judge James Ware, who has inherited further proceedings in the Proposition 8 case.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



26 April, 2011

Witness: Shooters yell Allahu Akbar

It seems likely that the Jewish group was in breach of regulations but that is no warrant to fire on them with automatic weapons. Netanyahu's response is pathetic. He has called for an "Enquiry". Putting a Hellfire missile into the Palestinian police concerned would get better results. That is what the IDF do in Gaza

A group of Breslov Hassidim's regular twilight visit to Palestinian controlled Joseph's Tomb in Nablus came to a tragically violent end Sunday: According to one of the Breslovers, Palestinian police officers fired at the convoy as they were on their way in to the Tomb.

The fire continued as they drove out, killing Ben-Yosef Livnat, a 24 year-old father of four from Jerusalem and the nephew of Minister Limor Livnat, and injuring five others.

The Palestinians have a different versions to the Sunday events. A joint Palestinian-IDF investigation continues.

Minister Limor Livnat is en route to the settlement of Elon Moreh to meet the deceased's family. The funeral will take place in Jerusalem.

One of the Breslovers who was in the second car in the convoy and was lightly wounded told Ynet: "We arrived at the tomb like on many occasions in the past. Near the tomb we saw a spikes chain. One of the guys jumped out of the car and moved it aside.

"At this point a uniformed Palestinian police officer with a Kalashnikov in a jeep woke his colleagues up and they started firing into the air… I was in the front seat. We started driving fast in the direction of the tomb; we got out of the vehicles and kissed the tomb.

"When we got back to the vehicles the police shot at the vehicles, they were screaming 'Allahu Akbar'. It was crazy, they were shooting to kill. I screamed at the driver to drive out of there quickly. When we got to Har Bracha we attended to the wounded."

Meanwhile the brother of the 17 year-old injured in the incident told Ynet that his brother and his friends went into Nablus without first coordinating the visit and knew that what they were doing was dangerous.

Chairman of the 'Yesod Olam' association Haim Reicher who is responsible for arranging entries to holy gravesites in the West Bank also visited the injured in hospital. Reicher said that Sunday's foray into Joseph's Tomb was done without his coordination.

Reicher added that usually the visits are coordinated with Palestinian elements and then entry to the tomb is done without any difficulty, as with other holy sites in the West Bank.

"The problems start" Reicher notes, "once every month or two months we enter after first coordinating the visit with the IDF, they give us 10 buses, each one has up to 50 passengers but there are over 500,000 that want to pray at the tomb and the numbers approved by the IDF are insufficient. I can safely say that people go there to pray every night."

Palestinian security forces have arrested one suspect in connection with the shooting, who is recounting his version of events with additional members from the patrol force. Palestinian sources who spoke to the IDF have claimed that the shooting was preceded by the Breslovers throwing rocks at the Palestinian police.

SOURCE




Can't read or write English? You could still serve on a jury under new rules designed to help immigrants

Jurors who cannot read English are being invited to decide the outcome of criminal trials. Inability to understand the written language is no bar to serving on a jury, officials said. Even those who cannot easily understand the spoken word could be asked to sit in judgment on those accused of crime.

The opening of juries to people with limited English was confirmed by the new agency set up to run the court system, HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

The 200,000 people a year called for jury service are now all summoned with letters printed in seven languages as well as English to ‘encourage’ non-English speakers, it said.

The agency, part of Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke’s Ministry of Justice, said the ‘language addendum’ sent out with each jury summons ‘is aimed at people who cannot read English very well but can speak English so would be able to serve on a jury’.

Criminologists and MPs said yesterday that they were worried about inclusion of those with poor English on juries.

Douglas Carswell, Tory MP for Clacton, said: ‘The jury system is founded on the idea that we are all tried by our peers. If your peers cannot speak English, or read or write it properly, how can you have confidence you will get justice?’

He added: ‘Ministers in successive governments have stated that they are going to curb the effects of multiculturalism, but the bureaucrats keep on putting forms and documents into dozens of languages.’

Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, said: ‘If you can’t even read the letter summoning you for jury service, you are not fit to be a juror.’

The Courts and Tribunals Service said multi-language summonses were introduced two years ago. One reason was that they allow those who do not read English to avoid the risk of being prosecuted for failing to reply. Ignoring a summons can bring a £1,000 fine.

A spokesman said: ‘HMCTS is committed to encouraging the widest possible participation by the public. The language addendum was introduced in 2009 to ensure no juror is disadvantaged by information being provided only in English and Welsh.

‘The concern was that members of the public were being summoned for jury service where potentially they may not understand what was being asked of them and that they needed to complete the summons.’

He continued: ‘The addendum is available in seven languages and is aimed at people who cannot read English very well but can speak English so would be able to serve on a jury.

‘It also encourages jurors with questions or difficulties completing the reply to contact the summoning bureau, which would decide whether the person was capable of serving as a juror.’

The spokesman added: ‘If a juror attends court and there is a doubt about their capacity to act effectively due to insufficient understanding of English, the matter will be brought to the attention of the trial judge who could excuse them. In more complex cases, such as fraud cases, where jurors may be expected to read documents as part of the evidence, an assessment of whether the juror can serve on that trial will be made at court with judicial input.’

The languages on the addendum are Urdu, Punjabi, Hindi, Gujarati, Polish, Cantonese, and Arabic. In Wales jurors are also sent information in Welsh.

Dr Green, of Civitas, added: ‘A distinction is being drawn between speaking and reading English and I question that. It is very rare to have a case in which there is no reading at all.

‘Jury trial involves serious accusations and the possibility of serious punishment. The whole paraphernalia of the trial, including the high standards demanded of the lawyers, is designed to ensure justice. The same rigour ought to apply to the selection of the jury.’

SOURCE





35 radicals trained for terrorism at British mosques, Guantanamo files reveal

Britain's mosques became an international haven for extremists who enjoyed state benefits while being trained for terrorism, leaked documents show. The WikiLeaks files, written by U.S. military chiefs, reveal that at least 35 Guantanamo terrorists were radicalised in London mosques before being sent to fight against the West. This is believed to be more than any other Western country.

Of these, just 17 were British nationals or had been granted asylum, while 18 had travelled from abroad – cementing Britain’s reputation as a global training camp for terrorists.

U.S. intelligence officers describe Finsbury Park mosque, in North London, as a ‘haven for Islamic extremists from Morocco and Algeria’ and ‘an attack planning and propaganda production base’.

After their UK trip they were then flown to Pakistan and Afghanistan where they were taught to fight and make bombs. The leaked documents also show that an Al Qaeda ‘assassin’ accused of bombing two churches and a luxury hotel in Pakistan was at the same time working for MI6.

Adil Hadi al Jazairi Bin Hamlili was captured in 2003 and sent to Guantanamo Bay where interrogators were convinced that he was an informer for British intelligence.

U.S. intelligence reports describe the 35-year-old Algerian citizen as a ‘facilitator, courier, kidnapper, and assassin for Al Qaeda’. CIA interrogators found him ‘to have withheld important information from …British Secret Intelligence Service … and to be a threat to U.S. and allied personnel in Afghanistan and Pakistan’.

He has been returned to Algeria but it is not clear whether he will stand trial there.

The WikiLeaks documents, published by the Daily Telegraph, also reveal that 16 detainees sent back to Britain were regarded as ‘high risk’ by the U.S. authorities and capable of plotting acts of terror.

Yet each has been paid £1million of public money by the Government to compensate them for their unlawful detention.

The documents point to the crucial role played by London-based preachers such as Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza in the suspected indoctrination of extremists, before they were dispatched around the world to plot terror attacks. They describe Qatada as ‘the most successful recruiter in Europe’ and ‘a focal point for extremist fundraising [and] recruitment’.

Despite this, the London cleric and Al Qaeda’s chief European agent was paid £2,500 for being ‘unlawfully detained’ by the British Government, after being held indefinitely without trial following 9/11.

A ruling found that keeping him in Belmarsh prison, while he refused to return to his native Jordan, breached his human right to a fair trial. The Government is trying to deport him to Jordan, where he has been sentenced to jail in his absence on terror charges.

Meanwhile Hamza is named as encouraging ‘his followers to murder non-Muslims’, in the documents, and yet continues to fight deportation to the U.S. because of Europe’s liberal human rights laws.

Extradition proceedings began six years ago, but he appealed to Strasbourg on the grounds that this would breach his human right to a fair trial because he would be given an ‘excessive’ sentence. The taxpayer continues to fund his stay in Belmarsh prison while his wife and eight children are claiming £680 a week in benefits and living in a council home in West London.

Three other mosques and an Islamic centre are also highlighted by senior commanders as places where young Muslim men were turned into potential terrorists.

Many obtained EU passports from other European countries such as France, but then travelled on to Britain to take advantage of the generous asylum system. The leaks help explain why U.S. intelligence services regard extremists in Britain as the greatest threat to American security.

The CIA is still so concerned about militant recruitment in the UK that it operates its own intelligence network and recruits its own agents among the Muslim population in Britain.

In a statement, the Pentagon said: ‘The previous and current administrations have made every effort to act with the utmost care and diligence in transferring detainees from Guantanamo.’

SOURCE




Teenagers dressed as Easter bunnies turned away from zoo over fears they would cause animals 'psychological damage'

People-hating British bureaucrats at work again. Do anything non-routine and they pounce



A group of teenagers dressed as Easter bunnies were turned away from a zoo - amid fears they would 'psychologically damage' the animals. Cancer-sufferer Laura Gibson, 15, and her friends were told to change out of their costumes before entry into Edinburgh Zoo in case they upset the creatures.

The trip had been planned as a special treat for the teen, who was joined by friends Hannah, Kirsty and Becki Nicholson and her brother Cameron, who was dressed as a chicken. But a Zoo employee told the group of four bunnies and a spring chicken that animals can get scared of people dressing up.

Miss Gibson, from the Scottish capital, wrote on her blog: 'Arrived at the zoo and went to the ticket desk where the manager said we weren't allowed in due to our inappropriate attire that would scare and upset the animals and cause them "psychological damage". OH PUH-LEASE. 'There are people with face paint and masks and we weren't allowed in wearing bunny costumes.'

Kirsty Nicolson said her mother had made the outfits and the youngsters were miserable when they were told they could not wear them into the zoo.

She said: 'We had planned this as a special treat for Laura. What is so scary about bunnies?'
Psychologically damaging: A spokesman from Edinburgh Zoo said: 'There is very real evidence that humans in costume can cause distress to some of the zoo animals. This is particularly the case with our chimpanzees.'

Psychologically damaging: A spokesman from Edinburgh Zoo said: 'There is very real evidence that humans in costume can cause distress to some of the zoo animals. This is particularly the case with our chimpanzees.'

Miss Gibson, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma in March and is being treated at city's Sick Kids Hospital, and the rest of the group went bowling in their costumes instead.

Zoo PR manager Rachel Goddard said: 'Laura and her friends weren't denied access, simply asked to remove costumes before going in.

'There is very real evidence that humans in costume can cause distress to some of the zoo animals.

'This is particularly the case with our chimpanzees, who get very anxious and disturbed.

'When we have our own costumed characters on-site, we ensure they're away from the animal enclosures.'

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



25 April, 2011

Please Don’t Hit The Pinata! More Nanny-State Madness‏

Since hitting the pinata is originally a Mexican custom, it's a wonder the hysteric below has not been accused of "racism"

Prepare to have your jaw drop. Folks in the nanny-state are busy selling yet another concept that will push the next generation closer to becoming a mass of uninspired robots who are not allowed to learn about competition or even the concept of competitive fun.
The target du jour for those who would crush all individualism? Piñatas.

The anti-pinata folks have a problem with piñatas because people are encouraged to hit them.

That was not a typo, there are people on this planet who believe that hitting pinatas will harm the youth of America. If you think I am kidding, read the title of an article posted on Yahoo.com‘s ’associated content’ section.

PINATAS: A BAD IDEA FOR YOUR CHILD’S PARTY?

The author is Vanessa Bartlemus, a woman with degrees in Journalism and Psychology who is also the mother of a 2-yr-old daughter. Ms. Bartlemus’ column makes the anti-pinata argument stating:

"Piñatas are not a good idea for your child’s party. Children should never hit anything with a stick. Even worse, kids can get piñatas in their favorite character too. Doesn’t anyone slightly cringe at the thought of their child whacking Dora the Explorer or Elmo around with a baseball bat? What is that doing for a child’s character? Getting a flower or car piñata is only slightly less worse."

(I know plenty of parents who have nightly fantasies about whacking both Dora and Elmo piñatas. But I digress, back to the anti-piñata argument.)

The article continues:

"People carefully teach their children, from the first time they playfully hit as a baby, that hitting is wrong. They don‘t allow hitting in their family and they don’t spank. But then children are allowed to hit piñatas to the breaking point. Then they get candy; they are rewarded for violent behavior!"

Yes, yes, yes, breaking open a fake donkey or elephant or a fake star, filled with delicious treats is part of a GAME. It is fun and not part of a training program for future abusers. Anyone who has watched kids trying to break open a piñata probably remembers the laughter and fun, ending with a shower of candy.

Ms. Bartlemus does offer a suggestion to replace the typical piñata party game. She wants everyone to use a non-hitting piñata. The violence-free version has a string hanging from it. One child is chosen to pull the string and out comes the candy. No blindfolds, no spinning the child around and no more handing them a stick or a bat to watch them swing and miss.

And, in the overly-protected piñata world of Vanessa Bartlemus, there is also ‘social candy justice.’ She also advocates making certain that the candies are divided equally among all participants.

In other words, NO FUN. Hey kids, gather ’round, we’re about to pull a string and then equally distribute all of the goodies inside to each and every one of you! Frankly I was surprised that the article did not advocate for veggie-filled, string-pull pinatas.

To be fair, there are piñatas with questionable images on them. In researching this story I did find a site called piñata.com that sells virtually every kind of piñata you might imagine, including a few that would raise some eyebrows.

The people at piñatas.com have also licensed characters from Disney and Nickelodeon. Does anyone believe that the marketing geniuses at both of these multi-billion dollar companies would allow piñatas bearing images of their bread and butter characters to be made and sold if they were causing harm to little ones?

Earlier this week, Jon Seidl reported on NY state’s attempt to micro-manage the games played at day camps. Thankfully, a media storm of criticism and attention seems to have brought some common sense to that situation.

Should the anti-piñata lobby gain any more strength, let us hope the media will again step up and fight for sanity. Banning the whacking of papier mâché figures with bats in order to gain access to tasty treats is just one more step towards building a next generation of emotional walking time-bombs, filled with pent-up rage from years of being told that any expression of anger is bad.

SOURCE




Lord Patten attacks 'intolerant' secularists

The new chairman of the BBC has waded into the growing row over secularism by warning that atheists are "intolerant" of religion.

Lord Patten of Barnes, the former Cabinet minister and a practising Catholic, said that he felt he was regarded as "peculiar" over his faith.

His comments come amid a deepening battle over the freedom of religious belief, which last week saw a Christian electrician threatened with the sack for displaying a cross in his van.

Lord Patten, a Conservative peer who will take control of the BBC Trust next month, is the highest-profile political figure to enter the debate over what is seen as a creeping attempt to remove Christianity from public life.

But his comments angered secularists, who last night expressed concern that his faith could affect his ability to remain objective in making decisions.

In a lecture delivered last week at Our Lady of Grace and St Edward in Chiswick, called 'Personal Faith and Public Service: Christian witness in the wider world', Lord Patten said he was dismayed by the attitude of secularists to the Pope's visit last year.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist campaigners, called for Pope Benedict XVI to be arrested when he came to Britain last year over the Catholic Church's record on child abuse, and demonstrations were held in London to protest at state funding for the papal visit.

"Some of the arguments put forward by secularists against the Pope's visit were lacking in intellectualism and were extraordinarily mean-spirited," said Lord Patten, who oversaw the Government's preparations for the papal trip.

"I'm surprised the atheists didn't have better arguments [against the Pope's visit]."

He claimed those who reject religious belief were hypocritical to portray religious people as being narrow-minded given the level of aggression they have displayed to Christians.

"It is curious that atheists have proved to be so intolerant of those who have a faith," he said.

"Their books would be a lot shorter if they couldn't refer to the Spanish Inquisition, but it is them who tend to have a level of Castillian intolerance about them."

The former governor of Hong Kong and current chancellor of Oxford University, who described himself as a cradle Catholic, said his own experience was that people looked down on him intellectually for having religious belief

He said: "It makes people think I'm peculiar and lack intellectual fibres because I don't have any doubts about my faith, but I'd be terrified to have doubts."

This admission echoes the claim made by Tony Blair in 2007 that people in political life who speak about their faith tend to be viewed by society as "nutters".

A report earlier this year, endorsed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, warned that the Church faces a battle to prevent faith being seen as "a social problem" and says the next five years are set to be a period of "exceptional challenge".

Fears have been growing that Christians are suffering from an increasing level of discrimination following a series of cases in which they have been punished for sharing their beliefs.

Last week, Colin Atkinson, an electrician, was summoned to a disciplinary hearing by his employers for displaying a small palm cross on the dashboard of his company van - but eventually allowed to keep the symbol of his religion.

However, Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said he was alarmed by Lord Patten's criticism of secularists and questioned whether he could remain impartial in his role as chairman of the BBC Trust, which is designed to represent the concerns of licence-fee payers.

"Lord Patten's comments don't bode well for his position as chairman of the BBC Trust," he said.

"He is supposed to represent all viewers, not just Catholics or religious people and I am quite concerned that he will not be able to be objective when religion comes into conflict with free expression in programme-making."

Mr Sanderson suggested the Conservative peer's faith could also influence his response to debates over the amount of time the BBC devotes to religion, which has been a recurring source of tension between the corporation and the Church of England.

Over recent years, the BBC has upset Christians by broadcasting the controversial Jerry Springer the Opera, which depicted Jesus in a nappy, and commissioning a cartoon featuring an infantile Pope bouncing on a pogo stick.

Fears have been raised amongst Church leaders that the BBC has become increasingly hostile to Christianity, but last year the corporation rejected calls from secularists for atheists to be included on Radio 4's Thought for the Day.

SOURCE






Welfare handouts aren't fair – and the British public knows it

A new survey shows that despite years of propaganda from the Left, Britons retain a deep-seated sense of fairness and individual responsibility, says Janet Daley

Like a mythical traveller seeking truth, a think tank has asked a profound question: what is fairness? And lo, the people have answered with (almost) one voice: what "fair" means is that those who are deserving shall receive, and those who are not shall be – well, not exactly cast out, but certainly not entitled to everything that's going.

As we report today, Policy Exchange – supposedly the Prime Minister's favourite ideas outlet – has done a brave and unusual thing. Rather than polling the public just on policy and voting intention, it has put a far more abstract moral issue before them. It instructed the pollsters at YouGov to find out precisely what the public thought the most powerful term of approbation in the political lexicon – "fair" – actually amounted to.

The quite unequivocal reply that was received (with breathtakingly enormous majorities in some forms) came as no surprise to this column. To most voters, fairness does not mean an equal distribution of resources and wealth, or even a redistribution of these things according to need. It means, as the report's title – "Just Deserts" – implies, that people get what they deserve. And what is deserved, the respondents made clear, refers to that which is achieved by effort, talent or dedication to duty: in other words, earned on merit.

As I have written so often on this page, when ordinary people use the word "fair", they mean that you should get out of life pretty much what you put in. Or, as the report's authors put it, "Voters' idea of fairness is strongly reciprocal – something for something." By obvious inference, a "something for nothing" society is the opposite of fair. And this view, interestingly, is expressed by Labour voters in pretty much the same proportion as all others.

Imagine that. After all these years of being morally blackmailed by the poverty lobby, harried by socialist ideologues and shouted at by self-serving public sector axe-grinders, the people are not cowed. Even after being bludgeoned by the BBC thought monitors and browbeaten by Left-liberal media academics with the soft Marxist view of a "fair" society – from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs – they have not bought it. They do not believe that if people are poor, it is necessarily society's fault, and therefore society's duty to deal with the consequences.

No, they say, as often as not, poverty is a consequence of lack of effort or self-control – and, therefore, the individual must accept the consequences. And they do not believe that such character failings and their consequences should be disregarded in the apportioning of welfare or help from the state – help which they know is made possible by the efforts of those who do "the right thing". They still have a firm and undaunted conception of the "undeserving poor" – a term so unfashionable that no politician would be capable of uttering it – and would like such people to be made to accept their reciprocal obligation to society in return for any assistance from public funds.

So the idea of "workfare" schemes, in which the long-term unemployed must undertake services to the community such as litter collection or graffiti removal if they are to continue receiving benefits, is hugely popular. Indeed, the public believes that one of the causes of unemployment is that out-of-work benefits are too generous.

This is a striking example of how voters can come to a common-sense understanding of an economic situation – that if you pay people not to work (or to be poor) then they are likely to stay out of work (or remain poor) – even though almost no one in public life has ever enunciated it. More surprising, perhaps, is the robust demand that those who could work, but won't, should have their benefits cut or stopped altogether – even if they have children. There seems to be little sympathy for the argument that the children of the workshy should not be penalised for their parents' fecklessness.

Now, this matter of children, and how they affect matters, is an interesting one. Those who responded to this poll seemed to take a quite startlingly hard line on the question of how much the presence of children should be taken into account by the welfare state. A majority said, for example, that there should be no additional child benefit paid after the third child, and they were only lukewarm on the subject of tax breaks for families with children (although they certainly prefer tax reliefs to cash benefits). And although they believe that lone parenthood should be discouraged, they are not particularly keen on the idea of encouraging marriage by incentivising it through the tax system.

On the face of it, this might appear odd, given what seem to be the traditional (some would say almost Victorian) attitudes that are expressed about work and life's vicissitudes in the survey as a whole. I think the result might have been different if the wording of the question had been more clearly linked to fairness: ie, is it fair that a married person supporting a family should pay the same amount of tax as a single one with no dependants?

But that notwithstanding, there is a comprehensible pattern here. I suspect that people now see marriage and the having of children as a matter of personal choice – a private decision one makes for oneself – rather than as a virtually inevitable part of adult life. Raising a family in today's world is not viewed so much as a function of accepting your grown-up role in the community, but a lifestyle option which you or may not adopt according to your personal tastes. What follows from that assumption is that you must accept responsibility for that decision.

That is the common thread throughout this survey: overwhelmingly, and with remarkable consistency, people reiterate their belief in individual responsibility. Their insistence that those who are able should be prepared to support themselves – and any children they produce – is not mean-mindedness or lack of compassion. (There was a clear message that those genuinely unable to make their own way should be helped.) Rather, it is an acknowledgement of the value of self-respect and self-determination: an understanding that taking responsibility for yourself is a proper part of fully fledged grown-up life, and that not having such expectations of people demeans them.

That part of the argument has been won. Now the case must be made more clearly that those who are carrying out the most important business of the society, by raising its children in a responsible way, are genuinely deserving of special consideration – even if it was their own self-sacrificing decision to do so.

SOURCE





Orange County's Misguided Award

He has wished for "the implementation of Sharia [Islamic law] in all areas" of society, said Muslims can never accept homosexuality and predicted God's wrath on America for its support of Israel.

Now, Muzammil Siddiqi is about to be honored by Orange County, Calif.'s Human Relations Commission. Siddiqi "has steadfastly worked with other faith leaders to build understanding of the great commonality that exists between all religions, despite the political clashes that can drive wedges between them," an announcement from the board says. Siddiqi is among "amazing individuals and groups who have made extraordinary human relations contributions to Orange County!"

Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of Orange County, is active in interfaith programs and even traveled to Auschwitz and Dachau last summer. He signed on to a statement acknowledging "chilling places where men, women and children were systematically and brutally murdered by the millions because of their faith, race, disability and political affiliation."

As the Investigative Project on Terrorism's profile of Siddiqi shows, his views have not always been so tolerant of others.

A year after 9/11, Siddiqi indicated the identities of those responsible remained unresolved. " It is - the point is that we said - whosoever did it, we condemn it. We did not say it is Muslims who did it," he told a convention of the Islamic Society of North America in September 2002. "We did not say this and that. But the point is that whosoever did it, it was wrong. And this is a basic point … We cannot say in surety whoever did it or not. But the point is that if the name of Islam is taken, we have to clarify the name of Islam."

Homosexuals need "to repent, turn to God and take Islam seriously," he told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2001. "Being gay and Muslim is a contradiction in terms. Islam is totally against homosexuality. It's clear in the Koran and in the sayings of the prophet Mohammed."

In an online question and answer session two years later, Siddiqi called homosexuality "evil" and warned that tolerating it begs God's wrath. "There are agencies and lobby groups that are working hard to propagate it and to make it as an acceptable and legitimate lifestyle," he wrote. "For this reason it is important that we should speak against it. We should warn our youth and children about the evil of this lifestyle. We should make it very clear that it is Haram and absolutely forbidden. It kindles the wrath and anger of Allah."

God's wrath was on Siddiqi's mind during an October 2000 rally in Washington. The rally came a month after the second Palestinian intifada had started. The violent uprising started after Israeli political leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount, a holy place for Jews, but also the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had been planning the violence, and used Sharon's visit as a pretext.

Israel was solely to blame for the conflict, Siddiqi said, although American support facilitated it. "We want to awaken the conscience of America. America has to learn that because if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come," Siddiqi said. "Please! Please all Americans, do you remember that, that Allah is watching everyone. God is watching everyone. If you continue doing injustice, and tolerating injustice, the wrath of God will come."

By the time the rally occurred, the Jewish Holy Site of Joseph's Tomb was destroyed by Palestinian rioters and two soldiers were lynched in Ramallah.

Yet, "the Palestinian demonstrators are not violent people," Siddiqi said. "The violent people are those who are oppressing them day and night and for many years. We want to say to our government to respect the right of the Palestinian people. Do not be the blind supporters of oppressors. And al-Aqsa, my brothers and sisters, is our sacred mosque. It belongs to Islam. It belongs to all the Muslims of the world, 1.5 billion Muslims of the world, it belongs to them. We cannot accept any threat to the al-Aqsa mosque."

Siddiqi described the rally as "a gathering of all the Muslims of America, all the national organizations of Muslims of America together." And he was not alone in making statements condemning American policy. Muslim Public Affairs Council founder Maher Hathout blasted Israel as an "apartheid brutal state," saying of its leaders that "butchers do what butchers do."Abdulrahman Alamoudi, then the head of the American Muslim Council and one of the nation's most influential Muslim political activists, taunted the U.S. designations of Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist organizations. Alamoudi would plead guilty three years later to illegal dealings with Libya and to aiding a plot to assassinate a Saudi crown prince.

No speaker at the 2000 rally called on Hamas or other terrorist groups to cease attacks on civilians.

It is unknown whether Orange County officials were aware of Siddiqi's history when they selected him for recognition. It's also possible that Siddiqi's views have moderated in recent years, though there is no public record of him recanting.

In a letter to Orange County supervisors, retired law enforcement agent Gary Fouse suggested that Siddiqi "come forward before May 5 and publicly address these charges. If there is a credible explanation for these allegations, or if they are not true, let him make it clear. Then I would not oppose the award. If he cannot explain or refute these concerns, then I see no justification for this honor."

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



24 April, 2011

Jesus vs Che Guevara: A man who laid down his life for us ... or a murderous ‘rock-star’ rebel?

We now have to be pleased that a man has not been sacked from his job for putting a small cross on the dashboard of his company van.

Please forgive me if my joy is muted this Eastertide. The real meaning of the Wakefield Palm Cross Affair is not specially happy.

Colin Atkinson would have been fired if it hadn’t been for the might of this newspaper – and the dogged courage of a union official, Terry Cunliffe. Many unions are keen on ‘Equality and Diversity’ codes, and wouldn’t have taken the case.

And as it’s Easter, I’d like to focus on the fact that the manager involved, Denis Doody, had a picture (perhaps I should say ‘icon’) of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara on his office wall.
Interesting.

Why? Well, what we recall at Easter is the show trial and judicial murder of Jesus of Nazareth. A mob is manipulated into calling for his death. The judge, who knows he is innocent, feebly gives in. Such things are common in the real world, to this day.

The resurrection, which some of us still celebrate today, symbolises the ultimate defeat of cruel and cynical human power by a far greater force. Among other things, Easter enshrines the idea that what we do here matters somewhere else, that there is an absolute standard by which our actions are judged.

Down 20 centuries, this idea has restrained the powerful. They do not like it. Never have. Never will.

The worship of Christ, victim of a lynch mob and a crooked judge, is dangerously radical. What about the cult of Comrade Guevara, embraced by Mr Doody?

It claims to be radical too. But its devotees are the power-worshipping generation that now dominates our culture, using their slogan of ‘equality’ as a bludgeon to flatten opposition.

Guevara was an evil killer, the exact opposite of Jesus. There is no excuse at all for revering him.

He personally slaughtered alleged traitors to his nasty revolution.

One of these was Eutimio Guerra, a peasant and army guide. Guevara himself icily recounted: ‘I fired a .32 calibre bullet into the right hemisphere of his brain which came out through his left temple. He moaned for a few moments, then died.’

Later, when the rock-star rebel ‘Che’ was in power, he would lie on top of the wall at
La Cabana prison, jauntily smoking a cigar while he watched the firing squads below punching bloody holes in the victims of his kangaroo trials.

Guevara’s view of justice was typical of the smug Left, which knows it is right because it knows it is good. ‘Don’t drag out the process. This is a revolution. Don’t use bourgeois legal methods, the proof is secondary.’

There you have it, rather neatly expressed – the two rival forces that compete for supremacy in what was once a Christian country – the Gospel of Che, hot with hate and splattered with other people’s blood and brains in the pursuit of a utopia that never comes, and the Gospel of Christ, a life laid down willingly for others.

Care to choose?

SOURCE





Is this equality? As a British lawyer, I never thought I’d have to defend Christians in a Christian nation

By Andrea Minichiello Williams

I wanted to be a barrister for as long as I can remember. I wanted to be an advocate, to give a voice to those in society who could not help themselves. I wanted justice to be done and believed that our great British legal system, founded on Christian principles, would secure such justice.

I never imagined that my skills as a lawyer would be used to defend Christians for following their faith in 21st Century Britain.

In the UK, Christians are beginning to experience discrimination that leads to them being marginalised and losing their jobs. Over the past three years more than 100 have suffered after wearing a cross, sharing their faith, even offering a prayer.

Why is this? I believe it is because, as a nation, we have forgotten our history and Christian foundations – our very identity. The legal and political elite tell us that we have now ‘grown up’ and are a secular nation.

This rings hollow for many of us. Even those who might not attend church regularly still – the majority of them – identify with the great faith that shaped our nation.

Christian principles are clear-cut and easy to understand. They espouse life, joy, forgiveness, freedom, tolerance and justice. These principles are good for all and we are poorer as a society when we reject their source.

The social reformers of the 19th Century who made Britain great – Wilberforce, Fry, Peel and Rowntree, among others – were compelled by their love for Christ and built on the foundations of preachers such as Wesley and Whitefield of the 18th Century. Most of the great advances in public life, in healthcare, education and social provision, came as a result of Christian conviction.

Biblical principles of justice transcribed into the statute books helped to maintain true tolerance within our society, the dignity of every human being and the call to great
sacrificial public service.

Yet since the middle of the last century the Christian framework that shaped our culture has come under increasing attack.

As a young barrister in the Eighties I had the privilege of knowing Lord Denning – a judge famous for doing the right thing – and every three months I would enjoy fish and chips with him at his local pub in Whitchurch in Hampshire. What was it that informed Lord Denning? It was his notion of Christian justice. He once proclaimed: ‘Without Christianity, there can be no morality, there can be no law.’

Yet modern legal and political thought, particularly under the Blair/Brown regime but continuing under Cameron and Clegg, has been dominated not by Christian principles, but by liberal secular humanism, exemplified in the equalities legislation of the past decade.

Contrast Lord Denning with Lord Justice Munby, and his statement in a recent Christian Legal Centre case: ‘Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the past century. Our society is now pluralistic and largely secular.

‘We sit as secular judges serving a multicultural community of many faiths . . . The laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form. The aphorism that “Christianity is part of the common law of England” is mere rhetoric.’

Has Lord Justice Munby forgotten the whole of our nation’s history?

While appearing to have the noble aim of upholding personal dignity, equality laws passed in the past decade have acted as a political lightning rod to eliminate Christian morality from the workplace. In essence, they are being applied unequally.

Take marriage. Marriage as traditionally understood no longer has any special status in the law and yet it is the first building block for a stable society. We have exchanged the ideal of marriage between a man and woman for ‘All relationships are equal’.

As the new morality is enforced by the State, the fear of appearing ‘phobic’ has led to many public bodies conducting ‘Middle Age’ witch-hunts against anyone who dares speak or even think differently.

Eunice and Owen Johns were foster parents with an impeccable record. Their fostering application, for children aged between five and ten, stalled because they couldn’t sign an equality policy which meant that they would be prepared to ‘promote the practice’ of homosexuality.

The judges said there might ‘be a tension between equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation’. Where this is so ‘the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence’.

It has all gone too far. It is time to turn the tide. I don’t believe the great and ordinary British people want this kind of liberal-tyranny. We want our freedom back. People should be free to debate, state and hold the view that a child needs a mother and a father without feeling ashamed or sidelined.

We don't want preachers arrested or Christian registrars forced from office because they can’t, in conscience, officiate at same-sex civil partnership ceremonies. We don’t want doctors and magistrates to lose their jobs because they believe that vulnerable children are best raised in a home with a mother and a father, or our children put in isolation because they refuse to take off a purity ring.

I could go on. The liberal tyranny does not stop at the family but invades any manifestation of the Christian faith in the public arena. It leads to a nurse of 38 years being taken off frontline nursing because she won’t take off her two-inch cross; it leads to an electrician being told to remove the palm cross he has had in his van for 15 years.

These cases are the tip of the iceberg. Most go unreported. It was the sense of injustice that led us, three years ago, to set up the Christian Legal Centre and its sister organisation, Christian Concern. Are we as a nation really prepared to let go of our Christian roots? Well, I am not, not without a fight.

There cannot be a Big Society without a Big Story. This nation’s great story is based on that of Jesus Christ. At Easter, we celebrate how, faced with a world that had rejected Him and gone its own way, God reached out in love, at the cost of His own life, to bring reconciliation at the most fundamental level – a reconciliation to Him.

Christians for generations have responded to this story of new life, hope and sacrifice by giving themselves in acts of service to our great land. Surely it is time to embrace and accept them, noting that true tolerance is accepting the difference, not silencing or eliminating them from public life.

SOURCE





MT: Judge rejects gay couple rights suit

A Montana judge on Thursday rejected a lawsuit that sought to extend to gay couples the same legal protections as married couples, saying in his decision that he can't grant the benefits partly because of the state's voter-approved constitutional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of the gay couples, arguing that the guarantees in the Montana Constitution of equal protection, privacy and dignity should require the state to afford the legal rights to the gay couples. The ACLU said it plans to appeal the case to the Montana Supreme Court.

The gay couples weren't asking for the right in the lawsuit to marry, which the Montana Constitutional defines as between a man and a woman. Rather they wanted to be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes.

The attorney general's office has countered in court that Montana can't extend spousal benefits to gay couples because those benefits are limited to married couples by definition since Montana voters in 2004 approved the marriage amendment.

The state argued in court that the Legislature is free to create a new, separate class for couples regardless of sexual orientation. It argued such a policy choice should be made by the state, and not the courts.

District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock noted in a decision dated Tuesday that the state government grants its gay employees the same employment-related benefits for their same-sex partners. And he pointed out that the Montana Supreme Court has previously decided that that the state university system's past policy of barring such benefits to gay employees violated the equal protection provisions of the Montana Constitution.

But the new case sought to go farther.

Sherlock pointed to similar cases in Vermont and New Jersey that successfully ordered the states to allow the common benefits and protections of marriage to gay couples, even if they are not allowed to get legally married. But Sherlock said neither state had a constitutional marriage provision like Montana.

The judge said, despite sympathy for the plaintiffs, that it would be an inappropriate breach of separation of powers for him to order the Legislature to enact "a domestic partnership or civil union arrangement" as sought by the gay couples. He said forcing the lawmakers to draw up new laws goes much farther than asking him to declare one of their statutes unconstitutional.

"This court finds plaintiffs' proposal, although appealing, to be unprecedented and uncharted in Montana law," Sherlock wrote. Sherlock said the marriage amendment alone wouldn't prevent the court from extending the relief, but he argued it does play into his decision that the "requested relief constitutes an impermissible sojourn into the powers of the legislative branch."

Sherlock said the information provided voters deciding the state's amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman were told by both sides that it went beyond just a legal designation.

"Indeed, the proponents and opponents seem to both acknowledge that the marriage amendment would have something to do with benefits and obligations that relate to the status of being married," Sherlock said. "Thus, it appears that both the proponents and opponents of CI-96 felt that that constitutional provision bore on some of the very issues now presented to this court."

The ACLU argues that the marriage amendment does not preclude other rights.

"We are obviously very disappointed in the judge's decision," said ACLU of Montana legal director Betsy Griffing. "We are evaluating all of our options. We recognize that this is a long road. We certainly don't consider our advocacy on this point to be over."

SOURCE




Virginia Protects Religious Liberty in Adoption and Foster Care

Virginia residents witnessed a significant victory for religious liberty this week. On Wednesday, Virginia’s State Board of Social Services voted 7–2 to reject a controversial policy that could have forced faith-based institutions to abandon their beliefs and cost Virginia many effective adoption agencies. Governor Bob McDonnell (R) is expected to approve the regulations.

The proposed changes to the regulations would have added sexual orientation, family status, age, religion, and other characteristics to the state’s family services nondiscrimination policy, prohibiting any adoption agency in Virginia from considering those attributes in prospective adoptive parents. Refusing to abide by this or any other adoption and foster care regulation would result in an agency losing its state-issued license to place children for adoption in Virginia. A religiously affiliated agency that believes children thrive in married households with both mom and dad would have been forced to either renounce its moral beliefs or shut its doors.

The proposed changes would have threatened the religious liberty of adoption agencies, effectively banning many faith-based family service organizations with tragic consequences for the thousands of Virginia children waiting for adoption. In 2002, the latest year for which data is available, roughly 80 percent of Virginia’s 2,121 adoptions were facilitated by private organizations or through direct placement. Forty-two of the nearly 60 state-approved private adoption agencies have a particular religious affiliation.

A public comment period on the proposed regulations afforded a glimpse into the consequences of alienating faith-based adoption and foster care agencies. As Teresa McDonough, director of Catholic Charities for the Diocese of Arlington, wrote: “We feel this does not allow faith-based agencies to follow their beliefs in regard to sexual orientation, religion and family status when approving families for foster care and adoption, thereby impacting their ability to continue to operate in this state.”

Likewise, Brian Luwis, CEO of America World Adoption, which is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, commented, “As a Christian adoption agency … we fear that this regulation, if implemented in its current form, could put our agency in conflict with licensing standards and endanger our ability to serve children.”

According to the Washington Times review of the 1,000-plus public comments on the proposed regulations, the vast majority of respondents took issue with the addition of “sexual orientation” to the nondiscrimination policy, while just over 30 respondents viewed the change positively.

Similar unintended consequences have resulted from broadly defined nondiscrimination policies in other localities. In the wake of legalizing same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts, both jurisdictions sacrificed the vast and important work of local Catholic archdioceses in helping place foster children in loving homes. The new same-sex marriage laws and previous sexual orientation policies pitted legal statutes against the organizations’ teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and that children deserve the unique benefits provided by both a mother and a father.

Absent robust religious exemptions, government redefinition of civil institutions like the family often forces religious organizations to choose between providing services or forfeiting their convictions on bedrock moral issues. As Heritage visiting fellow Thomas Messner writes in recent research:

When civil liability or equal access to government benefits depends on private citizens adopting the “official” state position on controversial moral issues, the potential for infringement of religious liberty and rights of conscience is clear.

Differences over moral issues of great weight are not likely to end soon. Whenever government has a regulatory or funding interest in such issues, policymakers should be careful to provide full protection for and encouragement of the religious liberty of organizations whose work advances civil society.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



23 April, 2011

Nasty British bureaucrats

Give ANY power to a British bureaucrat and it will be used to hurt people. It was perfectly proper to catch a wandering dog but there was NO need to put it down immediately. They would have done so only because they KNEW it was a fully registered family pet

A family was left devastated after their pet dog escaped from their home during a burglary - and was then put down by the council just two hours later.

It is thought four-year-old Lennox was startled by the intruder and ran out of the house in Weymouth, Dorset. Members of the public reported the Rottweiler-cross to police after he was spotted wandering the streets of Weymouth, Dorset.

Lennox was subsequently captured by officers and a council dog warden, who used a pole and noose to trap him before assessing him as 'vicious'. Despite the fact he had a microchip implant which would have identified him and his owners to vets, he was put to sleep.

The dog, described as a 'big softie' by its owners, was put down by a vet at 6pm - just two hours after the break-in. His worried family arrived home at 8pm and reported both the burglary and Lennox missing to the police. At first they were wrongly told Lennox was being held in council kennels but were later informed he had been put down.

Owner Sophie Johnston, 24, is livid that Lennox, who was micro-chipped, was put down so quickly without receiving so much as a phone call from the authorities.

Miss Johnston said the dog had been brought up with her two children Freya, six, and Khan, four, and added: 'He was a big softie. 'He was scared of the hoover and even our kittens used to bully him and throw him off his bed. 'He has got out before and we have called the dog warden as a precaution, so they have our number. 'He was micro-chipped. They should have at least called us. 'I could understand the decision if he had got out and hurt someone, but he didn't.'

Her family is now considering taking legal action against Weymouth and Portland Borough Council.

Miss Johnston had left Lennox at home while she and partner James Maskery, 21, went out for a few hours. While they were away family friend Andy James, 23, received a call from a neighbour to say Lennox was on the loose. He went to investigate and found the couple had been burgled.

Mr James said: "The front door was closed when I got there. I went round the back and called Lennox and tried to see if he was inside but he wasn't. 'I walked back round to the front and the front door was open. I think I must have disturbed whoever was in there.'

Over the next two hours Lennox was seen running through neighbouring streets, prompting residents to report a 'big dog' was on the loose. Lennox was eventually cornered by police and the council's dog warden Ian Lewis, who said the animal was 'having a go' at anything that went past him.

A spokesman for Weymouth and Portland Borough Council said they sympathised with Lennox's owners but they had acted in the interest of public safety. He said: 'We were left with no alternative given the actual and reported behaviour of the dog.

SOURCE





The untouchables: How violence and drugs go unpunished in Britain's care homes where all that matters are children's rights

When Winston Smith became a youth worker after leaving university, he was an idealistic liberal. But after ten depressing years of seeing disruptive children in care being indulged rather than disciplined, he’s written a devastating book exposing the truth about the anarchy in this country’s care homes

Well past midnight, a thuggish teenager called Liam is playing music in his bedroom at full volume. Three adults have spent 20 minutes cajoling him to ‘make the right choice’: in other words, to turn it down and let everyone get some sleep.

As they’ve been trained to do, they’ve praised him for those few hours in the past week when he wasn’t causing mayhem. But none of this works. It rarely does.

Liam has an angry, vacant look in his eye. Even threats don’t work. When I tell him he risks not going to Alton Towers this weekend, as planned, he roars: ‘B******s! I’ll be f***ing going. I’d like to see you try and stop me.’

If I dare to come into his room, he adds, ‘I’ll f***ing smash you right up!’

Everyone in the care home is awake now. Suddenly, a semi-feral 15-year-old appears at Liam’s door and hurls a 4kg dumb-bell at him, narrowly missing.

Provoking Liam — who, at just 15, is 6ft 2in and weighs 15st — can be unwise. In the past, he’s assaulted staff and gone on a wrecking spree simply for being asked politely to go to school.

What follows now is a hellish chase down a corridor. Fortunately, the dumb-bell thrower manages to barricade himself in a bedroom, along with two care-home workers and a pregnant teenager.

Liam starts furiously kicking the door down with his steel-toed boots. He’s also grabbed a frying pan from somewhere and is clearly intending to clobber the people cowering inside.

The door’s splintering and nearly off its hinges, but there’s nothing I can do except call the police. If I try to intervene physically, one of us will probably end up unconscious — and if it’s Liam, I know I’ll never work in social services again, regardless of the mitigating circumstances.

Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of care homes, where boys like Liam regularly get away with everything short of murder. During the many shifts I’ve worked at Charrington Place care home, he’s spat on me, threatened me with a home-made flame-thrower, thrown a clock at me and pelted me with eggs. He’s done variations of the same to pretty much everyone else.

On this particular night, the police arrive just in time to prevent a bloodbath, but conclude that there aren’t sufficient grounds for arrest.

The next day, Liam refuses to go to school. Instead, he’s taken for a walk in the countryside and then a row round a lake in the grounds of a stately home.

You might think this a highly inappropriate reward for attempted murder, and you’d be right. But the care system prefers always to look on the positive side. In the paperwork we have to fill out, Liam’s relaxing day is magically transformed into an ‘educational outing’.

On his return, he announces that he wants to go into town. ‘I don’t want to f***ing walk,’ he tells the care home manager. ‘Get me a car.’ The car isn’t available, so Liam begins rampaging around the house. He tears several paintings off the wall, throws a plate at me, slaps the manager, spits in my face, grabs me by the throat and spends a good hour trying to kick the office door down.

Later, he threatens to ‘mash’ me up while I’m asleep.

At the end of all this, he’s solemnly informed that he’s lost his £1 good behaviour incentive money for that day. Beyond that, though, he escapes censure; indeed, he’s told that if he behaves until Saturday, he’ll be taken to a nearby leisure centre.

Madness? Of course it is. Right across the country, the residential care system has been infected with an institutional and ideological form of insanity. As many as 90,000 children and young people pass through the care system in England every year, and 28 per cent are looked after in dedicated children’s homes. The average care home is small, with ten children or fewer, but I’ve seen some trying to keep tabs on more than 60 teenagers.

Much more HERE




It’s okay to be a sexist pig if you write for a liberal newspaper

Pittsburgh Tribune Review columnist Eric Heyl opined yesterday that the NRA will fail to attract new women shooters. According to Heyl, women are more interested in fashion than firearms, and firearms are not fashionable. Here’s some of Heyl’s comments:

“Spending several hundred dollars on a serviceable handgun might leave them without enough money to get the full treatment at that next visit to the day spa.”

“Carrying a gun in a small purse would leave less room for more important items, such as lipstick or compact.” “Gunpowder residue might stain the new Karen Scott blouse they just bought at Macy’s.”

Apparently, Heyl believes the little ladies simply can’t handle worrying their pretty little heads about icky topics as rape and self-defense. Or maybe, like many chauvinists, he feels threatened by the prospect of self-reliant women who don’t need protection by an insecure man, and who can provide the ultimate “NO” to unwanted advances by lizards operating under the delusion they are God’s gift to women?

The National Organization of Women issued no membership alerts to boycott the Tribune-Review. Curiously, there’s lots of copy on Rush Limbaugh, where they catalogue his “sexist offenses”.

Do you want to get in touch with your inner pig, but don’t want to face consequences? Get a job in liberal media first.

SOURCE





The Human Right Not To Be “Offended”

. . . now trumps all throughout the Western world.

In Australia, the columnist Andrew Bolt is on trial for the crime of “offending” prominent members of the taxpayer-remunerated “professional Aborigine” elite. One of the complainants simultaneously “offended” a fellow Aborigine by comparing her recent appearance on TV unfavorably to an act of equine bestiality, but that’s not actionable because no formally designated white people were involved — which was kind of Bolt’s point in the first place: Collective rights based on race, sex, orientation, and ideology (ie, religion) destroy the concept of equality before the law.

In Denmark, despite an earlier acquittal, Lars Hedegaard of the Danish Free Press Society is to be re-tried by the State for the crime of “offending” Muslims by discussing Islam’s treatment of women in a private conversation.

And in Canada the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal has just fined a stand-up comic, Guy Earle, $15,000 for the crime of “offending” lesbians at a comedy club. They were drunk and were heckling him, and he unburdened himself of some putdowns. But they were homophobic putdowns, and so he must be punished. Earle was working for a fifty-buck bar tab and doesn’t have 15 grand, and no comedy club in Vancouver will hire him ever again. He donated money to a gay charity in atonement, but his fellow liberals abandoned him anyway.

In all the above “human rights” cases, the traditional protections of Common Law do not apply — whether the notion that truth is a defense or the principle of equality before the law. For the crime of giving offense is in the eye of the offended. A “multicultural” society needs not sensitivity training but insensitivity training — that’s to say, thicker skins. The alternative is what is happening in some of the oldest free societies on earth: a state ever more comfortable in regulating the citizenry’s speech, thoughts, and jokes. There’s a word for that, and it isn’t “diversity”.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



22 April, 2011

An Easter victory as Christian electrician wins battle to display cross in his van

Christian electrician Colin Atkinson has won his fight to display a cross in his van following a nationwide outcry. The dramatic climbdown by Wakefield District Housing came after senior church figures were joined by Hindu, Muslim and Sikh leaders in condemning his employers.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey had described the 64-year-old grandfather’s plight as ‘scandalous’ and Housing and Planning Minister Grant Shapps said WDH’s action was ‘wrong’. Last night Lord Carey said: ‘I’m so glad. All that was needed was a little bit of compassion and understanding. Where there is a bit of common sense we can find a resolution.’

WDH caved in and agreed to let Mr Atkinson display his cross in an effort to end the embarrassing row. The U-turn came at a ‘confidential and unminuted’ meeting between Mr Atkinson, his Unite union rep Terry Cuncliffe, WHD executive director of people Gillian Pickersgill and a senior manager at the organisation’s headquarters in Castleford, West Yorkshire, on Wednesday.

During the hour-long meeting WDH managers put a series of proposals to Mr Atkinson – all of which would allow him publicly to display the cross.

Mr Atkinson has agreed with managers not to reveal the details of the compromise agreement. But he had maintained all along his right to display the cross publicly was ‘non-negotiable’. He has been supported throughout his 18-month battle to keep his cross by Mr Cuncliffe.

Yesterday Mr Cuncliffe told the Mail: ‘The issue is about Colin’s ability to demonstrate his faith. ‘And any proposals to resolve this issue must allow Colin to display his faith in the way he is comfortable. ‘I believe the situation is up for resolution. ‘It is now time to calm things down and apply some common sense.’

He added: ‘This was a private and confidential meeting. Minutes were not taken so there could be a frank exchange of views between parties. ‘Both parties put forward suggestions to provide solutions and we worked jointly towards reaching a resolution.’ Mr Atkinson is expected formally to agree to WDH’s plan that will allow him to display his cross next week.

He told the Mail: ‘I just want this all over so I can get back to work and provide for my wife and family. ‘This is important. ‘I did not ask for this fight but I have been forced to join it. ‘I have every right to manifest my faith. That is all I have done. ‘I have not bashed anybody with my Bible. I simply want to be able to demonstrate my faith.’

Yesterday WDH declined to comment on the climb-down. Lord Carey thanked the Mail for championing Christians’ right to worship. He said: ‘I am grateful to the Daily Mail for highlighting this case. Christians in this country are under pressure.’

Former Home Office Minister Ann Widdecombe, a devout Christian, added: ‘At last, a victory for common sense and tolerance. It is hugely symbolic that this has come so close to Good Friday.’

Mr Atkinson faced the sack after he refused to take the small palm cross off the dashboard of his company vehicle. WDH told him it was ‘unacceptable’ to display the 8in symbol of his Christian faith in the van for fear of upsetting ‘diverse’ tenants in the organisation’s 31,000 homes.

However, a Muslim worker is allowed to display a Koranic verse in the car she uses for work and staff are allowed to wear specially made company burkas. The obvious injustice led WDH to be branded ‘anti-Christian’ as the dispute sparked anger across the country.

Mr Atkinson has also been supported by Muslim, Hindu and Sikh leaders. The electrician from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, is married to Geraldine, 61. They have five children from previous marriages and three grandchildren.

His ordeal began after bosses received an anonymous letter claiming tenants may be offended by the cross in the van. He refused to remove it and was accused of rejecting a ‘reasonable’ management complaint. Mr Atkinson and his union rep argued there was nothing in company rules prohibiting the cross.

Hindu and Sikh colleagues appeared as witnesses in his defence. WDH promotes its inclusive policies and allows employees to wear religious symbols – including burkas – at work. But it changed company policy on Christmas Eve last year to ban all personal effects in its vehicles.

In January Mr Atkinson was reported for continuing to display the cross and last week WDH concluded he had breached company rules. On Monday he was thrown out of his workplace and told he had violated his contract by revealing his ordeal.

Mr Atkinson, who is currently on ‘gardening leave’, expects to return to work on Tuesday – and display his cross in public.

SOURCE





Dubious claim: Women to sue hotel that 'banned them because they're gay'

A guesthouse owner is being sued by a lesbian couple who claim he turned them away for being gay. But the manager of a hotel in Brighton insists he had no qualms about their sexuality and only refused the two women a room because they were being ‘loud and abusive’.

Now Nasser Dean, 52, fears his guesthouse will be dragged into a high-profile political row by the gay rights movement, after civil rights group Liberty declared it was backing the couple in their legal action.

Rebecca Nash, 22, and Hope Stubbings, 19, of Andover, Hampshire, say they phoned up and booked a double room at the Brunswick Square Hotel. But when they arrived, they claim the manager told them no rooms were available and that the hotel only accepted straight couples and families. They were then ushered out of the hotel by the manager who allegedly became increasingly aggressive towards them, according to Liberty, which is funding their legal battle.

It is the latest in a string of cases of gay people being turned away from hotels. But unlike some others, in which Christian owners have refused gay people a room on principled grounds, Mr Dean says he has nothing against homosexual guests.

He said: ‘I never ask if my guests are gay, it’s none of my business. If I had a problem with it, I wouldn’t have come to Brighton [known as the gay capital of Britain] or stayed in business here for 22 years. ‘I have never had trouble like this before. It is very upsetting. The only time we send people away is if they are loud or hooligans. ‘I run a quiet hotel and these girls were not quiet, so I did not want them disturbing other guests.’

He claims the women never actually made a booking, but had merely phoned to inquire if a room was available before showing up a couple of hours later.

However, a different story is told by the women, both office workers. A Liberty spokesman said: ‘When they arrived, they were told by the manager that no rooms were available and that the hotel only accepted “couples and families”. ‘Miss Nash and Ms Stubbings explained that they were in fact a couple, and had purposely booked a double room. But the manager replied: “No two boys, no two girls. We don’t have any rooms”.

‘Despite the couple’s protests, the manager became increasingly aggressive, raising his voice and ushering them out of the hotel. They told him they had nowhere else to stay, but he threatened to call police before shouting: “I don’t accept rejects in my hotel”.’

Liberty claims the women were unable to find other accommodation and had to go home, losing out on their weekend away in October. Liberty is bringing proceedings against the hotel on the couple’s behalf on the grounds they were discriminated against contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Legal director James Welch said: ‘Laws prohibiting hotels and guesthouses from discriminating against gay men and lesbians have been in place for four years but clearly the message isn’t getting through.’

SOURCE





Anti-Semitism as Thick as a London Fog

Anti-Semitism reached a new low in London earlier this month as the Hamas-affiliated International Solidarity Movement (ISM) successfully forced Israeli-owned AHAVA to close its London shop. For almost two years, the Israeli-based cosmetics company, a manufacturer of Dead Sea mineral skin-care products sold worldwide, has been targeted by street protests and in-store disruptive actions by the ISM and related groups committed to destroying the state of Israel.

The ISM actions against AHAVA were part of the ISM's broader anti-Israel activities. These have included demands for international sanctions against Israel, sponsorship of worldwide Israeli divestment campaigns, and orchestrated boycotts of Israeli products, academics and events. The ISM has advanced the false narrative of Israel as a Nazi-like apartheid state and mendaciously equated the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust with the plight of the Arab-Palestinians today. Like its partners-in-crime Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the ISM does not support the peace process and endeavors to eliminate Israel. Thus, the Israeli cosmetics company has been yet another political target as part of the ISM strategy to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish State using false accusations of "illegal" activities.

Last fall on two occasions, ISM members carried a concrete block into AHAVA's London shop, blocked the store entrance, and disrupted business for nearly seven hours. ISM operatives refused to leave and were later charged with trespassing and disobeying a police officer. In court, ISM defense attorneys denied that AHAVA's business had been damaged or any employees and customers intimidated. Participating ISM members justified their criminal actions by claiming that AHAVA operates in "illegal Israeli settlements" and thereby engages in "illegal business activities."

This tactic of disruptive actions against private individuals and businesses in retaliation for Israel's foreign and domestic policies has been widely used to suppress Israeli research and punish Israeli academics. Despite its organizational name, the ISM focuses only on what it calls "Israeli apartheid in Palestine," solely targeting Israeli Jews for fictitious atrocities and ignoring widespread global human rights abuses, including summary executions in Communist China, government-sanctioned enslavement in North Korea and Saudi Arabia, and the chemical genocide of the Kurds committed by the Turkish government.

In 2009, ISM members caused damages totalling nearly $300,000 when they ransacked an arms factory in Moulsecoomb, Brighton, to protest the alleged manufacture of arms for the Israeli air force in Gaza. They were later acquitted after arguing that their activities were legally justified given Israel's war crimes. The presiding judge, George Bathurst-Norman, who was later sanctioned by the Lord Chief Justice, injected his political bias into the court proceedings with another lie by referring to Gaza as a "giant prison camp."

This statement, besides being grounds for disbarment, was followed by even more outrageous comments as Bathurst-Norman disparaged U.S. support of Israel, spuriously calling it evidence of complicity with Israel's actions. The judge also said Gazans suffered "Hell on Earth," as he referred to Operation Cast Lead, Israel's defensive war in 2005 after over 10,000 rockets from Gaza sent Israeli civilians running for their lives to bomb shelters. Not surprisingly, given the judge's attitudes, all five defendants who damaged the arms factory were acquitted. An appeal is unlikely under English law.

In the AHAVA matter, the Covent Garden store has been an ISM target for years. Two times in 2009, and again in the fall of 2010, the store was forced to close after demonstrators chained themselves to a concrete block inside the store. English courts, again, seem determined to set ISM protestors free. The first trial was dismissed after witnesses failed to show up. A second trial on subsequent trespasses is still in the works with a verdict expected this month.

The inherent anti-Semitism in singling out an Israeli shop for alleged human rights violations was lost on neighboring shopkeepers who appealed to the local landlord not to renew AHAVA's lease. Instead of condemning the protestors' actions as a public nuisance and an obstruction to normal business activities, they complained about AHAVA "bringing the street down." They failed to confront the protestors and allowed a lawful business to be chased out of the area by people opposed to Israel's very existence.

Of course, all sense of reality about Israel is typically barred whenever the narrative against the Jewish state springs up. Israel is not a soi-disant "apartheid" entity as it is erroneously portrayed, but a democracy with a plurality of ethnic groups and religions living side-by-side and enjoying equal rights.

Contrast this to Gaza, in which homosexuals and non-Muslims are persecuted and unable to openly declare their sexual orientation or freely practice their religions. Arab-Palestinian homosexuals escape the threat of death in Gaza by making their way to sanctuary in Tel Aviv. Whereas churches have been destroyed, Christians have been murdered, and acid-throwing has forced the veiling of Christian women in Gaza, Christian holy sites, as well as the holy sites of all religions, are protected in Israel, as are all religious practices. Women and non-Jews enjoy the same rights of Jewish Israelis and may even serve in the Knesset. Unlike Gaza, no gender segregation exists, nor any requirement to follow the Islamic shariah. Fully 20% of Israel's population is Israeli Arabs who enjoy the same rights as Israeli Jews.

As the country with the most freedom and democracy in the Middle East, Israel is also the most maligned country in the world. There is not and never has been a system of apartheid in the Jewish state. The true apartheid by religion, sex, and sexual orientation exists in the Arab-Palestinian territories and throughout the Muslim world. Sadly, it is opposition to Israel because it is a Jewish state -- the only one in the world -- that underlies the phenomenon of continued opposition and hatred. By allowing anti-Israeli terrorist-affiliated groups to dictate which shops will be permitted on a London street, appeasement has reached a new low and London falls further down the slippery slope toward Islamization.

SOURCE





Hate-filled "LGBT" Professor Sends Vulgar E-Mail to College GOP

This won't make many waves, it was a Leftist professor saying it to the college Republicans and so the mainstream media will not even talk about it

When the College Republican club at the University of Iowa sent out a university-approved blast e-mail regarding its “Conservative Coming out Week,” one professor took umbrage with it. And she let the group know it with three some simple words: “Fu** You Republicans!”



Ellen Lewin [above], a professor of Anthropology and Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies in the Department of Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies, was outraged at the club‘s playful rundown of the week’s events, which included a friendly blood drive competition between Rupublicans and Democrats “for a good cause.”

The e-mail, with Lewin’s initial response, is here, via the Iowa Republican

Lewin’s response was sent via her official University of Iowa e-mail account and included her official university title in her signature.

“We understand that as a faculty member she has the right to express her political opinion, but by leaving her credentials at the bottom of the email she was representing the University of Iowa, not herself alone,” Natalie Ginty, University of Iowa student and chairwoman of the Iowa Federation of College Republicans, wrote to James Enloe, the head of the Department of Anthropology. Lewin did offer an apology, but it came with multiple disclaimer:

“This is a time when political passions are inflamed, and when I received your unsolicited email, I had just finished reading some newspaper accounts of fresh outrages committed by Republicans in government. I admit the language was inappropriate, and apologize for any affront to anyone’s delicate sensibilities. I would really appreciate your not sending blanket emails to everyone on campus, especially in these difficult times.”

The Iowa Republican notes that the group did not choose the distribution list, the e-mail was school-sanctioned, and it met the guidelines for mass e-mailings.

Lewin eventually sent another response bashing the GOP’s “general disdain” for LGBT rights:

"I should note that several things in the original message were extremely offensive, nearly rising to the level of obscenity. Despite the Republicans’ general disdain for LGBT rights you called your upcoming event “conservative coming out day,” appropriating the language of the LGBT rights movement. Your reference to the Wisconsin protests suggested that they were frivolous attempts to avoid work. And the “Animal Rights BBQ” is extremely insensitive to those who consider animal rights an important cause.

Then, in the email that Ms. Ginty sent complaining about my language, she referred to me as Ellen, not Professor Lewin, which is the correct way for a student to address a faculty member, or indeed, for anyone to refer to an adult with whom they are not acquainted.

I do apologize for my intemperate language, but the message you all sent out was extremely disturbing and offensive.

The controversy prompted a blast e-mail response from University of Iowa President Sally Mason blasting Lewin’s “intolerant and disrespectful discord,“ calling it ”not acceptable behavior:”

Dear Members of the University Community:

The University of Iowa encourages freedom of expression, opposing viewpoints, and civil debate about those opposing viewpoints. This is clearly articulated in our core values of Diversity and Respect. Because diversity, broadly defined, advances its mission of teaching, research, and service, the University is dedicated to an inclusive community in which people of different cultural, national, individual, and academic backgrounds encounter one another in a spirit of cooperation, openness, and shared appreciation.

The University also strongly encourages student engagement in such discussions and supports students acting on their viewpoints. Student organizations are sometimes formed along political lines and act on their political beliefs. Even if we personally disagree with those viewpoints, we must be respectful of those viewpoints in every way. Intolerant and disrespectful discord is not acceptable behavior.

Sally Mason
President

According to the Iowa Republican, Lewin is the author of the books titled, Inventing Lesbian Cultures in America, and Gay Fatherhood: Narratives of Family and Citizenship in America.

Gateway Pundit might have summed it up best: “You’ve gotta love it. She tells them to “f**k off” then lectures them on civility during these ‘difficult times.’”

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



21 April, 2011

Chilling effect of Euro judges: Britain's public safety being put at risk by human rights court, warns top Lib Dem lawyer

Rulings by unelected judges in Strasbourg are having a ‘chilling effect’ on public safety in Britain, a senior government adviser warns today. Lord Carlile, a Liberal Democrat peer, said the European Court of Human Rights had placed itself on a ‘collision course’ with the UK Parliament.

In particular, he attacked the way the European Convention on Human Rights was blocking the removal of foreign criminals and terror suspects. Lord Carlile, a Home Office adviser on terrorism, said: ‘A narrow interpretation of the convention has had a chilling effect on deportation, and thereby on public safety.’

The fact that such scathing comments are being made by a Lib Dem grandee will reopen the controversy over human rights law.

Prime Minister David Cameron promised to reform the law in opposition, but he has since been frustrated by his Lib Dem coalition partners.

The peer made his remarks in the foreword to a new report by Tory MP Dominic Raab, an expert in international law who led the backbench revolt against prisoner voting. The pamphlet, for the Civitas think-tank, calls for urgent reform of human rights legislation to keep European judges from deciding British law.

Mr Raab says that, by granting prisoners the vote, Strasbourg went beyond simply interpreting the convention, which was deliberately worded to allow members states to disenfranchise criminals. Instead, Strasbourg is now ‘making law’. As a result, Mr Raab says democratic policy-making increasingly stands at the mercy of unelected judges.

He writes: ‘The judges have assumed a legislative function, fully aware that there are limited means for elected governments subject to their rulings to exercise any meaningful democratic oversight over them. This judicial coup represents a naked usurpation, by a judicial body, of the legislative power that properly belongs to democratically-elected law makers.’

Mr Raab, a former chief of staff to Attorney General Dominic Grieve, calls for the UK’s Supreme Court to be the last court of appeal, rather than Strasbourg.

He also wants the Human Rights Act to be amended to ensure Strasbourg rulings involving the UK are subject to a debate in the House of Commons. This would be coupled by a political commitment by the main parties to permit ‘free votes’.

Mr Raab also attacks human rights laws which prevent the deportation of criminals and terrorist suspects. Last year, more than 200 foreign convicts evaded removal on the grounds that it would infringe their right to a ‘family life’.

Cases included Iraqi Mohammed Ibrahim, who knocked down 12-year-old Amy Houston and left her to ‘die like a dog’ under the wheels of his car. He was driving while disqualified, and after the little girl’s death he committed a string of further offences. An immigration tribunal ruled that – because Ibrahim had children while living in Britain – he had a right to a ‘family life’ in the UK.

Mr Raab says: ‘The massive expansion of human rights law threatens to frustrate Britain’s ability to deport convicted criminals and terrorist suspects. The goal-posts keep shifting, because of unaccountable judicial legislation – especially the expansion of claims around the right to family life.

‘Britain has lost a degree of control over its borders, which inevitably means we are importing more risk. This has contributed to the growing terrorist threat.’ Mr Raab calls for the law to be changed so the right to a family life is no longer a bar to deportation.

SOURCE





Do You Feel Like We Do?

Mike Adams

The culture has changed a lot in the last couple of decades. Some of the changes have been so subtle as to be almost undetectable. But one change has been so dramatic that few people could deny or ignore it –although opinions vary as to the desirability of its effects on the larger culture. The change I am talking about is the increasing tendency of people (especially men) to share their feelings instead of their thoughts when discussing intellectual matters.

This trend is especially noticeable to those of us who grade papers for a living. Recently, I was reading a case brief in which a student kept telling me what he felt the Supreme Court case meant and what the Court felt about the legal issues at hand. In his defense, part of the problem is that Supreme Court Justices do sometimes inject their feelings into Court decisions. Some, like Anthony Kennedy, mindlessly emote about one’s right to “define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life.”

But the problem extends far beyond the study of the law. English department are becoming increasingly entrenched in a postmodern worldview that considers the endless study of personal narratives to be a legitimate source of intellectual inquiry. The disdain for generalizations is rooted in a professed belief that there simply are no general truths. I say “professed” belief because the English professors don’t really believe what they are saying. They believe that at least some of the things they say are generally true. Otherwise, they would not be professors.

Even today’s honors students are prone to back their positions with thoughtless emotion. A student in one of my honors classes justified her support for affirmative action by saying “I just feel so strongly about issues of social justice.” I asked her whether she thought it reinforced racist notions of black intellectual inferiority.” Her response: “But I just feel so strongly about issues of social justice.”

This endless emoting colors the debate on a variety of issues outside the classroom. Speaking of color, I recently joked that we are on the verge of bringing back “colored” restrooms as our campus becomes more and more segregated. This prompted a call from a black female student who went on and on with a detailed emotional account of what it felt like to be black on a predominately white campus. After about fifteen minutes on the phone I just hung up. I wasn’t being rude. She was yelling. Besides that, I felt like I was going to puke. I guess I have feelings, too.

The most dramatic display I ever witnessed in this regard occurred at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) shortly after a speech I gave on the topic of campus speech codes. During the Q&A, one student asked whether I supported reinstating slavery. Another student asked whether I was in favor of straights beating gays with baseball bats. My responses to both questions were similar: I asked each to sit down after letting them know they should be ashamed of themselves for asking such absurd (and accusatory) questions.

The response to my response was interesting. First a young man got up and told me that he felt I had been too harsh on the two women who had accused me (respectively, but not respectfully) of supporting slavery and aggravated battery. When I asked whether he had a substantive remark he sat down. But he got up again, stood in front of the microphone, and shared his feelings about my rebuke of the two aforementioned women.

A few minutes later, he made his way to the microphone for the third time for another emotional outpouring. Then, after the speech he interrupted my book signing to share his feelings for a fourth time. It was really weird. I mean, it felt really weird. And my feelings count, too.

I walked out of the auditorium that night surrounded by five armed police officers. We passed a glass display case that had been shattered by students who spray-painted a swastika on the flyer advertising my speech. Just as we were passing that shattered monument of left-wing emotional sensitivity an assistant dean caught up with me. He shook my hand, and thanked me for coming to UNH. But then he ruined the moment by saying that he felt I needed to be “more sensitive towards the students who did not share (my) views.”

I guess some college administrators feel a need to protect students who throw bricks through display cases and spray-paint over speech that offends them. Personally, I think they need to be incarcerated.

That night at UNH a good discussion of an important topic was hijacked by self-absorbed students who could not stop talking about their feelings. One could almost say that higher education is over-run by students who are possessed of an endless range of emotions and a boundless desire to share them with others. But one emotion is notably lacking from their repertoire: Humility.

It’s really easy to sit around and talk about your feelings. It means never having to defend an idea on its own objective merits. It means our nation can continue to feel smarter while its collective mind continues to atrophy.

SOURCE






Anti-Israel BS: Labor's infected and the Greens are gangrenous

Conservative Senator Eric Abetz comments on anti-Israel attitudes in Australia's Green party and also in the Labor party

Last night at a meeting of the Marrickville Council, the council voted eight to four to not pursue its boycott of Israel.

Marrickville Council's abortive attempt to implement the Global Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (GBDS) campaign against Israel in Sydney's Inner West should be a wake-up call. The moment to turn this objectionable campaign around should not be lost, else we will see more loopy home-grown forays into foreign policy. While this campaign may have been temporarily halted at a municipal level, it has gained considerable ground within Australia's unions.

In moving her motion at Marrickville Council, Greens Councillor, Cathy Peters noted that the BDS campaign had the support of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, the South Coast Labour Council, and various state branches of the ASU, Teachers' Union, LHMWU, CFMEU and MUA. In fact this is only half the list.

Branches of the AMWU, CEPU, ETU, FSU, HACSU and RTBU, along with the Geelong Trades Hall Council, Newcastle Trades and Labour Council, Queensland Council of Unions and Unions ACT, have also lent their support to this campaign.

This support ranges from in-principle backing, through active involvement in the BDS campaign, to pressuring the ACTU and Labor Party to support the BDS movement.

To give you the flavour, the Victorian Trades Hall Council last September resolved to:

Promote this campaign within the community, work with unions and other organisations that support the campaign to maximise its effectiveness" and to "provide reports to Executive Council at 6 monthly intervals and will include information on the effectiveness of the campaign (Sis Halfpenny and Bro Cragg will be the responsible officers).

The BDS campaign in Australia has a more sinister side. The Australian BDS movement, which promoted Marrickville Council's BDS intiative, is conducting a campaign of direct harassment and boycott against Israeli linked businesses.

For over six months the cosmetic company Seacret has had its shops picketed by screeching BDS activists because it is allegedly `profiteering from resources in the land stolen by Israel'.

Cosmetics companies L'Oreal and Jericho have also been targeted for similar reasons, as has Caterpillar because its bulldozers are used by Israeli authorities.

These highly-charged "actions" by BDS protestors are disruptive and intimidating. As Michael Danby said of Marrickville Council:

Are they now going to paint the Star of David on shops selling Israeli products?

Now is the time for Australia's political leaders to act if we are to halt this extremism.

To his credit the AWU's Paul Howes has taken a strong stand against the BDS campaign taking root in the unions. He has rightly concluded that it is just the first step in of a broader campaign enlisting `useful fools' to demonise all Israel and attack its legitimacy.

But to date the ACTU has been conflicted on the issue. It must take a stand. It must come down hard on the Sister Halfpennys and Brother Craggs in the union movement who think that they can implement foreign policy out of Trades Hall.

This situation would never have been allowed to get so far out of hand under Bob Hawke.

As far as Labor is concerned, Kevin Rudd and Craig Emerson did not hesitate to lambast Marrickville Council over its BDS policy.

However, Labor still has a lot to answer for. Four local Labor Councillors voted for the policy and NSW Labor directed preferences to the Greens Mayor of Marrickville, Fiona Byrne, when she contested the seat of Marrickville at the recent state election.

Meanwhile Labor has the internal problem of Labor 4A Just Palestine - an anti-Israel group which supports the BDS campaign - convened by David Forde, who could be preselected for the Brisbane seat of Stretton.

But if BDS has infected Labor, it's positively gangrenous in the Greens.

Senator-elect Lee Rhiannon shepherded the BDS policy through the NSW Greens state council. The policy called for all Australians and the Australian Government to boycott Israeli goods, trading and military arrangements, and sporting, cultural and academic events.

Greens Leader, Bob Brown, failed to condemn Marrickville's BDS policy during the NSW state election; he opposed a Senate motion condemning it; and has subsequently tried to diffuse responsibility by blaming the Labor councillors on Marrickville Council.

Nevertheless I congratulate Greens Leader Bob Brown and Prime Minister Gillard for heeding calls to pull their councillors into line - albeit they should have done so long before now.

So where to now? Firstly, Labor, the Greens and the unions must be honest about the extent to which the BDS movement has taken root in their parties and set about countering it.

In light of the rebuff to Marrickville Council I will amend my motion, to be considered by the Senate when it returns in May, so as to give Labor and the Greens the opportunity to acknowledge that Israel is a legitimate and democratic state and a good friend of Australia, and to condemn the BDS campaign wherever it has taken hold.

It is only by subjecting this objectionable BDS campaign to public scrutiny that we can make Marrickville Council's reversal on this issue a watershed in this debate.

SOURCE





ALG Blasts White House Executive Order Silencing Dissent

Americans for Limited Government (ALG) President Bill Wilson today condemned a draft executive order by the White House to compel companies to disclose donations to non-profit groups that might make independent expenditures during an election cycle.

The executive order would apply to “[a]ny contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.”

“The White House cannot arbitrarily amend federal contractor requirements without a vote in Congress. This is an end-run around the constitutional process, with the Obama Administration once again attempting to implement administratively what it cannot achieve legislatively,” Wilson declared.

He explained, “In this case, the White House could not get the DISCLOSE Act passed, and so the draft executive order compels federal contractors to publicize donations to third parties that make independent expenditures in election cycles that are otherwise shielded from public scrutiny under federal law.”

Wilson added, “It’s nothing more than a cynical gag order issued by executive decree with no basis in the duly enacted laws of the land. As part of the contract-awarding process, the White House wants to know who is giving to whom and will surely make decisions based on that knowledge.”

The executive order would apply to any donations in excess of $5,000 in a given year. Any contractor that donates in excess of the specified minimum to an organization that engages in express advocacy of a candidate would have their names submitted to http://data.gov.

“These disclosure requirements, as intended and designed, will have a chilling effect on speech, which is why they previously have been found to be unconstitutional,” Wilson said, pointing to Supreme Court precedent protecting anonymous donations made to groups that solely make independent expenditures in NAACP v. Alabama (1958).

Then Justice John Marshall Harlan’s majority opinion stated, applying the First Amendment via the Fourteenth to Alabama, “We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“There is no question that individuals’ speech is stifled by excessive disclosure requirements on independent expenditures. The Obama Administration is once again attempting to shame and intimidate certain corporations, groups, and individuals from saying anything about elections. Free speech is now an executive order away from being abolished,” Wilson said.

Wilson concluded, “It is outrageous that Obama is making political contributions a criterion for getting a contract with the federal government. This is corrupt Chicago-style politics at its worse.”

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



20 April, 2011

Why 47 dangerous criminals on the run in Britain can't be named: Because of their human rights, of course!

Forty-seven dangerous fugitives cannot be named by officials – because of their ‘human rights’. They include criminals convicted of child sex offences, murder and rape. All have breached the terms of their licence and should have been returned to prison.

They are assessed by officials as being at ‘high or very high risk’ of committing further criminal offences. But the Ministry of Justice has refused to name them. Critics said the human rights of offenders were being put before those of ordinary members of the public.

Details of the scandal first emerged 18 months ago when officials revealed more than 1,000 criminals were at large despite having been recalled to custody. Among the total were some who have been on the loose for up to 25 years after police failed to track them down.

The most recent Ministry of Justice figures show 960 have not been found, including two rated as level four – the highest risk to the public – and 45 rated level three. The group of 47 includes two murderers, two paedophiles, a rapist and ten robbers.

Police should find 75 per cent of recalled prisoners classified as ‘emergency’ cases within 74 hours and three-quarters of standard recalls should be completed within six days.

Details of all offenders who had not been returned were compiled following the murder in London of two French students, Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez, in 2009 despite the killer being recalled to jail. Dano Sonnex, who had been serving eight years for a stabbing and a number of knifepoint robberies, had been mistakenly freed under low supervision when documents revealing his true danger to the public had not been shared by officials.

Opportunities to return the 23-year-old to prison were then squandered or missed. When an arrest warrant was finally issued, it took police a further 16 days to get round to knocking on his door. By that time, Mr Ferez and Mr Bonomo were dead, knifed to death by Sonnex earlier that day.

Tory MP Philip Davies said human rights should not be used as an excuse to hide the ‘hugely embarrassing’ revelations. ‘It’s absolute madness. Once again it appears to put the human rights of dangerous criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding people to know who is at large. 'It must be in the public interest to put the names of these offenders in the public domain.’

Ministers have now ordered a review of the policy of releasing criminals’ details. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘This Government is committed to transparency and there should be a presumption that such information is published unless the police object for specific operational reasons. Recapturing high-risk offenders will always be a priority.

‘Over the past 10 years, in more than 99 per cent of cases where an offender has been recalled, the individual has successfully been returned to custody.’

SOURCE





BBC sneers at popular novels

The BBC has been attacked for its "sneering coverage" of genre fiction during its World Book Night programmes. BBC Two's programmes The Books We Really Read: A Culture Show Special and New Novelists: 12 Of The Best, which were shown on March 5, triggered the protest.

The 85 signatories to a letter to Mark Thompson, the director general of the BBC, include the Gold Dagger-nominated crime author SJ Bolton and children's writer Debi Gliori. Many fantasy, science fiction and horror authors – including Iain Banks and Michael Moorcock - also signed the letter.

Fantasy author Stephen Hunt, who organised the petition, said: “The sneering tone that was levelled towards commercial fiction during The Books We Really Read was deeply counterproductive to the night’s aims of actually encouraging people to read novels. The weight that was given to the single sub-genre of literary fiction in the remaining programmes was unbalanced and unrepresentative of all but a small fraction of the country’s reading tastes.

"And closest to my own heart, the failure to feature a single work from the three genres of horror, fantasy, and science fiction was a disgrace. The official World Book Night list included Philip Pullman’s fantasy novel, Northern Lights. It is a shame the BBC could not.

"There have been weeks when one in three books sold in the UK were Harry Potter novels, or more recently, Twilight novels. The sweeping under the carpet of the very genres of the imagination which engage and fire readers’ minds shows a lot more about the BBC production team’s taste in fiction than it does about what the general public is actually reading. If the BBC really wishes to support reading in this country, then they should produce a literary version of The Film Programme, or commission a modern updating of the Bookworm show that had Griff Rhys Jones as its lead presenter in the ’90s. A series with a mainstream slot. Then perhaps the BBC can do what it said on the tin the first time around: cover the books we really read.”

SOURCE




The intolerant Left will never be happy

Celebrating a holiday in Britain is like trying to celebrate it in an unhappy family. The best-laid plans for reviving much-loved traditions quickly blow up in an almighty row. There’s no embarrassing uncle in his cups or stroppy in-laws; just schools that drop Nativity plays, shopping centres that phase out carols, and offices that shun Christmas trees. When Christians meekly complain that their Christmas is being ruined, the powers-that-be shout them down: “It’s in the name of diversity, stupid!”

Now there’s a new rumpus, and just in time for Easter. The Wakefield and District Housing Association in West Yorkshire has ordered one of its electricians to remove a palm cross from the dashboard of his company van. Colin Atkinson, a grandfather and former soldier, faces the sack for refusing to follow orders.

Clearly, in the eyes of this publicly funded body, Mr Atkinson’s palm cross is on a par with a swastika, or a racist slogan. The symbol of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice strikes Mr Atkinson’s bosses as offensive: any show of Christian allegiance could drive a divisive wedge into this multicultural society.

I wish these self-appointed defenders of multi-culturalism would consult a representative group of Jews and Muslims. They would discover that minority faiths have no issue with palm crosses or Christmas carols. Read the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sachs, on this subject; listen to Fareena Alam, editor of the Muslim magazine Q News, and Dr Taj Hargey, an Oxford-based imam. They all agree: a Britain that respects, and protects, its predominant faith is a Britain that respects, and protects, all faiths.

At stake is not just a happy holiday. Once banning Christian symbols becomes accepted practice, the rejection of Christian beliefs is next. Already, social services have stopped a Christian couple from fostering children lest they infect their charges with an anti-gay attitude.

Soon, the authorities will forbid conscientious objection: Christian doctors, for instance, will be forced to carry out elective abortions, which they regard as a sin.

Where will it end? I fear intolerant atheists will not be satisfied until they’ve driven faith underground: Christians, Jews and Muslims will be forced to resort to Masonic handshakes and hush-hush gatherings. Meet you in the catacombs.

SOURCE





How Do We Deal With "Sticks and Stones?"

In our present day culture, we have been taught (usually at mother's knee) that “sticks and stones may break your bones but names can never harm you.” Annoying as it is to have people call you names, it does not warrant punching them in the face. But this is not so elsewhere, not did it used to be so in our own civilization's past. What we are talking about here is “the honor culture.”

Until the middle of the 19th century, gentlemen fought duels of honor. That by seriously wounding or killing an opponent who had either said something unpleasant about you or dishonored you (by seducing your wife), you were obliged to engage in a duel. That went out of style here-although one notorious duel was fought in our own history-that of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton died and Burr became an outlaw.

The Sicilian mafia, a holdover from a medieval past, has always been an honor society that punished disloyalty, above all sins, with death. A disloyal wife, along with disloyal colleagues, were so dispatched.

In today's world, the only “honor cultures” left are in the Muslim world. A man's honor, they tell us, rests in the women he “possesses,” wives, daughters, concubines, and even mothers. Should any of these women step out of line in their sexual behavior (even though falsely accused of this-or even as the victim of a male in the household), the men's honor is lost until the woman is murdered. In Muslim-majority countries, for the most part, the murderer of a woman for such purpose is lightly punished by the courts, if at all.

We only care about this when such an honor culture moves among us, such as the case of the outraged Muslim radio executive who decapitated his wife because she “dishonored him” by wanting a divorce, or the Texas taxi driver who murdered his college girl daughters whose “American ways” besmirched his “honor.” Europe has also been so awash in “honor killings” that they are finally starting to address.

So, how does the Muslim world feel about “sticks and stones?” We have seen the Afghan response to the stupid actions of an American pastor in Florida who held the Koran on trial, found it wanting, and “executed” it by burning it. A very stupid act, we would all agree, but one defended by our freedom of speech-even when obnoxious. He also said Islam is not a religion of peace, which outraged “peaceful” Muslims in Afghanistan. They proved him right. The Afghans considered this insult to their honor sufficient to go on a rampage of murder, slaughtering any UN officials they could find. To them, a book burning warrants human deaths.

One might also wonder how the honor of Pakistani fanatics was redeemed by blowing up a shrine of another Muslim sect, Sufis, and killing and wounding 50 people. Does worshipping Islam in a slightly different way demand a death sentence? Evidently so.

Israel, a modern state, regards sticks and stones in a different way. After enormous provocation by Hamas in Gaza hurling hundreds of rockets at them (sticks and stones), they went in the winter of 2008-9 to clean out the rocket factories and their perpetrators. Then the UN sent in a respected investigator, South African Judge Richard Goldstone, who urged both sides to investigate, but severely condemned Israel for deliberately targeting civilians. This report was devastating to Israel's reputation. Name calling can harm you.

After a new investigation, Goldstone acknowledged his report was mistaken. The Israelis had no government policy to target civilians. Hamas, however, not only plants their weapons among crowded civilian homes, but is happy to abuse civilians-theirs and Israel's. Goldstone has now condemned them for refusing to conduct the investigation he requested.

When it comes to “sticks and stones” and name calling that hurts, we must consider the source. Honor cultures do not think as we do, but we dishonor our own culture when we fear “offending” them.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



19 April, 2011

'What about burning poppies?' asks man jailed for setting Koran alight

Unequal justice in Britain

A man has been jailed for 70 days today after he burnt a copy of the Koran just over a month after a Muslim got away with a paltry £50 fine for a similar offence. Andrew Ryan, 32, stole a copy of the holy book from Carlisle Library then set it on fire by a monument in the city of Carlisle.

Last month Emdadur Choudhury was fined after he burned a poppy outside the Royal Albert Hall in London on Remembrance Day while shouting 'British soldiers burn in hell'.

As he was led down to the cells, Ryan shouted at the judge at Carlisle Magistrates' Court today: 'What about burning poppies?'.

Police arrested Ryan shortly the Koran burning in English Street on January 19.

Sentencing him at Carlisle Magistrates' Court, District Judge Gerald Chalk said: 'This is a case of theatrical bigotry. It was pre-planned by you as you stole the book deliberately. You went out to cause maximum publicity and to cause distress.'

He told Ryan that people were entitled to protest but not in the manner he chose. The court heard the defendant had six public order convictions between 2002 and 2010 including racial chanting at a football match and assault with intent to resist arrest. Judge Chalk said: 'You are a man who has a history of violence and disorderly conduct.'

Ryan pleaded guilty to religiously aggravated harassment and theft at an earlier hearing. Prior to the hearing, a Facebook page created by the 'English Defence League Carlisle Division' urged visitors to support 'Division Member' Ryan in his court appearance.

Around 10 men sat in the public gallery but walked out when District Judge Chalk announced the sentence. Comments of 'what a joke' and 'call that justice' were made as they left the courtroom. Before he was led to the cells, Ryan said: 'What about burning poppies?'

The court was told that Ryan's former probation officer witnessed him shouting and waving a book at Carlisle Cross outside the Old Town Hall in the city centre.

Ryan told him he intended to burn the Koran in a protest against the Muslim faith. He failed in his first attempt with matches before he succeeded with a lighter.

Ryan then continued to shout abuse about the Muslim faith as he held the burning book, before he threw it to the floor and walked away, the court heard. He then updated his Facebook page to reveal what he had done.

Margaret Payne, defending, said: 'Mr Ryan has said to me that the incident was silly and it is not something he would do again. 'He wants to make it clear that it was directed towards radical Islam such as the burning of poppies and flags. 'He would certainly not want Muslim people to think he had problems with their beliefs.

'Mr Ryan was brought up to respect the Armed Forces. Some members of his family were in the Armed Forces and he himself served in the Army between the ages of 16 and 20 in Northern Ireland.

'What caused him to 'lose it' on that day was that he had been looking at a website which had shown radical people burning poppies and abusing British troops returning from abroad.'

Unemployed Ryan was also sentenced to 30 days in jail for the theft of the book, to run concurrently. Following sentencing, Inspector Paul Marshall, of Carlisle CID, said: 'Today's result shows how seriously we take hate crime in the county.

'This incident was highly unusual for Cumbria as we have such low levels of hate crime in the county. 'However, when it does occur we investigate thoroughly so that offenders, and the local community, know that hate crime will simply not be tolerated.'

SOURCE





Not-so-noble savages

The screams must have been unbearable. High on the peaks of the Pennines, a terrified group of women, teenagers and children sat huddled in the half-finished ditches and walls of their hill fort, surrounded by gloating faces.

The men were missing, either killed in battle or taken to one side to be pressed into military service or sold for slaves by their captors. But that left the less valuable women and children to be disposed of. Any pleas for clemency fell on death ears.

Dozens, maybe even hundreds, of women, babies and children were stabbed or strangled, stripped of possessions and tossed into the ditch that encircled the fort. Then their attackers toppled a 13ft-high limestone wall over their broken bodies, covering the mass grave with a litter of rocks and soil.

The full story of that gruesome day on Fin Cop in Derbyshire 2,400 years ago, and the reason why two Iron Age clans came to blows, will never be uncovered. But the discovery of nine bodies thrown carelessly in a ditch is challenging some widely-held views about life in Iron Age Britain and whether life before the Romans was quite as peaceful as some academics like to claim.

It has become fashionable to interpret Iron Age hill forts, the 3,000 circles of banks and ditches found across the country, as farming settlements or status symbols - the prehistoric equivalent of Tudor castles and 19th century stately homes.

Dr Clive Waddington, of Archaeological Research Services which uncovered the bones, believes there could be 'dozens or hundreds' more bodies buried on the site. Radiocarbon dating shows that the Fin cop hill fort was built around 400BC, but was destroyed before completion.

Dr Waddington's team, assisted by hundreds of volunteers and local schoolchildren, uncovered the bodies in two sections of a ditch, created as part of the fort's defences. They included four babies, one who was unborn, a two-year-old toddler, a teenage boy and three adults, two of whom were definitely women and one whose sex is unknown. The bodies had been thrown in the ditch and covered with rubble from a stone wall.

'We excavated ten metres but there is 400metres of ditch around the site, and the implication is that could be dozens - if not hundreds - of bodies there,' said Dr Waddington.

There were no personal possessions, suggesting the captors removed any valuables. Dr Waddington believes they were massacred after the hill fort was attacked and captured by a rival chieftain.

There are clues that the hill fort was created in a hurry and that the victims knew they were at risk. 'The ditches and fort were never finished. They had started to make a second wall but that wasn't completed,' he said. 'You can tell that it was a hasty thing - they were trying to rapidly build it and it was not done on time.'

Dr Waddington said archaeologists have increasingly interpreted hill forts as status symbols, not military defences. 'But we know from Classical sources that the British were warlike,' he said.

'It's true that some of the hill forts don't make sense as strongholds because they are not built at the top of hills, or because they are overlooked. But that probably means there is truth in both views.

'The early castles of the 11th and 12th centuries were strongholds, but the later Tudor ones, after the invention of gunpowder, were statements of status. The same is likely to be true of the Iron Age.'

Animal bones in the ditch show they farmed cattle and pigs and kept horses.

SOURCE






Save us from the gamble of living

Paul Syvret gets fired up by an attack on two-up, Australia's traditional gambling game

THE world can be a dangerous place. Luckily though, we have the forces of law, order and social engineering to guide us through its perilous waters.

Thus it was a relief last week to see our authorities threaten a Cairns hotel with all manner of perdition should the publican persist with thumbing his nose at the law by hosting a two-up game on Anzac Day.

Two-up is, after all, one of the most villainous of gambling pursuits in that it is one from which the Government can't rake any tax revenue.

But why stop at the Red Beret Hotel in the north, given that on Monday there will hundreds of pubs and clubs across Queensland openly flouting the laws of our land?

We should have squads of crack police mobilised across the state ready to swoop at the first sign of a couple of pennies spinning through the air in a lazy arc; ready to batter down the doors of any drinking den from within which can be heard the beery cries of "head 'em up".

Normal policing duties should be suspended for the day, so that our officers can once and for all wipe this scourge from our midst. Federal Independent Andrew Wilkie has the right idea with his fixed-bayonet charge at the poker machine lobby.

Mind you, it's all very well to propose we issue "licences" to people who want to have a flutter, set pre-determined spending limits and decrease the amount you can wager but we're still being sort of half-pregnant here, aren't we?

Even we casual punters, who don't mind the occasional bet on the silly things, would be better off with that $20 in our pockets than the coffers of some rapacious leagues club which will only squander the money on yet more sporting facilities or subsidised Sunday roasts for the nannas.

If pokies are such a pestilence, wreaking misery on the hapless minority who don't know when to stop, why not ban the things altogether?

Then we could return to the good old days when pokies were illegal, and the gaming machine business was run quietly and efficiently (and out of the public eye) by organised crime rings and certain entrepreneurial elements of the Queensland Police Service.

One thing I don't understand though is why some forms of gambling (the pokies) are considered so much more evil than others.

The long-suffering Mrs Syvret and I were at the local leagues club on Saturday night to watch the mighty Broncos flog the Roosters rather than for the purposes of the punt and sitting in the sports bar.

At the next table was a posse of very well lubricated young men who had amassed a spectacular collection of losing TAB and Keno tickets, which eddied in great swirls around the empty pot glasses.

They looked to be having a whale of a time (and had a thirst you could photograph), but surely there lay in those piles of discarded betting slips the same seeds of ruination that were being planted by the purseful by the little old ladies in the gaming room next door?

And booze is part of the problem here. With the tobacco industry fighting a rearguard action and Andrew Wilkie's war on the pokies being prosecuted with brutal resolve, the demon drink appears to have slipped under the radar of those tireless social engineers whose self-appointed task it is to save us from ourselves.

We need labelling akin to that planned for a pack of smokes, depicting diseased livers and torn, bloodied faces of glassing victims.

And if a licence to gamble, accompanied with pre-set bet limits is good enough for the punters, then perhaps similar self-harm minimisation mea- sures should apply to tipplers.

Why not a licence to drink, accompanied by a weekly ration card that would allow no individual more than two standard drinks a day with a couple of days off the grog altogether? Admittedly there could be a just a wee problem in controlling the subsequent black market in ration card trading, but it would certainly make shouting a round of drinks at the local pub a lot more affordable.

The protectors of our physical and moral fibre also need to cast their eyes farther afield than the so-called sin industries of smoking, drinking and gambling, for there are myriad other traps lurking amid our everyday lives.

While much attention and debate has been devoted to the hazards of junk food, what of seemingly innoc- uous foodstuffs that harbour potential nastiness?

Why, for example, is the carton of full cream milk in my fridge not plastered with confronting health labels warning me about the dangers of cholesterol? Surely some photos of diseased arteries from the cow juice would save lives?

And salt. You can buy the deadly stuff by the kilogram with not so much as a single cautionary word of warning to be seen on the packet.

So please, someone, take responsibility for our lives and remove the temptations of all potentially risky life choices. We clearly don't know what's good for us and are incapable of making our own decisions.

SOURCE





Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean I'm barking

By Barry Cohen, who is homosexual and who happens to be my favourite Australian politician, sadly now ex. His book, "The Yartz" must be about the funniest book I have ever read -- JR

I'M in love with Jamie and Hamish, before that it was Fergus and Dougal. Now that I've got that off my chest I sense an enormous feeling of relief. No more regrets. No more hiding my preferences. Everyone knows now. I can relax.

Despite that, I don't plan to marry any of them, primarily because I don't like nails down my back during the night even if they are those of a border collie. Which brings us into the topic du jour: gay marriage.

When I first saw it mentioned about 20 years ago I nearly had a conniption. What a wonderful sense of humour these boys and gels have. Then I realised they were serious. My amazement was exceeded only when I saw recent polls sponsored by the gay movement to show the majority of Australians actually support marriage between same-sex couples. My, how things have changed.

If I had any doubts, they were removed while watching a recent episode of ABC1's Q&A. The subject was raised and any doubts as to whether Q&A stacks its audience with a Left bias were dismissed by the sneering, booing and ridicule at any member of the panel who was less than enthusiastic about gay marriage. The inference was that those who opposed it were homophobic and-or barking mad (no pun intended).

This tactic has been used by the Green-gay lobby because they are well aware there is nothing the cognoscenti and commentariat dislike more than to be called right-wing, neo-conservative or redneck. One's views on same-sex marriage, climate change, hatred of Israel and the US guarantees you acceptance by the cafe latte set. Just in case you hadn't realised it by now, I'm of the view that the idea of two people of the same sex being "married" is absurd. But homophobic, I think not. Unlike many of the "in" crowd I have runs on the board.

Let me take you back to October 18, 1973, in the House of Representatives.

John Gorton, member for Higgins: "I move that in the opinion of this House homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should not be subject to the criminal law."

A stirring address by the former prime minister was followed by Moss Cass (Maribyrnong), John Cramer (Bennelong) and Bert James (Hunter). The debate was cut short due to the visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Please, no jokes about queens.

The question was put and carried by 64 to 40. Among those who voted yes were Les Bury, Jim Cairns, Clyde Cameron, Moss Cass, Don Chipp, Frank Crean, Kep Enderby, Gorton, Bill Hayden, Phil Ruddock, Ian Sinclair, Tom Uren, Gough Whitlam, Ralph Willis and you guessed it, yours truly.

On the "no" side were Lance Barnard, Kim Beazley Sr, Lionel Bowen, Rex Connor, Cramer, Fred Daly, Paul Keating, Jim Killen, Phil Lynch, Billy Snedden, Bill Wentworth. Gradually the states followed suit.

My philosophy was simple. It is enshrined in a column I wrote in The Australian (January 25, 1995) when gays started to get serious about what most Australians thought was a huge joke.

I wrote: "It concerns me not at all what adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom or for that matter their kitchens, bathroom or laundry. Should they choose to stand on their heads, wave their legs in the air or swing from chandeliers, providing they do not do each other a serious mischief, it is, or should be entirely a matter for them."

Having held that publicly expressed view for as long as I can recall, it will not surprise readers that on those occasions when I was called upon to vote in the House of Representatives on such matters I voted against legislation that discriminated against homosexuals. I have since applauded any measure by any government or institution that has broken down the prejudice against those with a different sexual preference.

A lot has happened in the past 40 years that has been of benefit to the gay community. Some I agreed with, others went too far, but marriage between people of the same sex giving them equal status with heterosexual couples, in my view, goes way beyond the pale. They argue that the present law discriminates against them. It does. And it's the same reason why I can't marry Jamie or Hamish.

And how about the discrimination against pedophiles, prohibiting sexual relations with children? Why do we discriminate against 15-year-old girls and boys for what used to be called carnal knowledge? Why do we ban men from entering women's toilets or vice versa? I could go on but I'm sure you discern my drift. We discriminate because society believes it is the right and moral thing to do.

Marriage was considered, until recently, sacrosanct. Bigamy and polygamy are banned. Why should we discriminate against men who want more than one wife, or wives who want more than one husband?

With all its flaws, and few marriages are perfect, marriage is the bedrock on which our society is based. It won't be if these twerps have their way.

The time has come for us "neocons" to fight back and tell the gay community that we've gone from prohibition to tolerance to acceptance, but we won't accept that gay marriage and conventional marriage is the same thing.

They might have got some of what they wanted if they had asked for a gay marriage act, quite separate from conventional marriage but can you expect them to accept a gay marriage certificate proclaiming them to be a gay couple?

It is to be hoped that those who support conventional marriage as one of the building blocks on which our society is built will stand up and tell the gay community it's not going to happen. Not even if hell freezes over.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



18 April, 2011

'Wear a headscarf or we will kill you': How the 'London Taliban' is targeting women and gays in bid to impose sharia law

Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.

Other targets of the 'Talibanesque thugs', being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals. Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: 'Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment'.

Posters for H&M which feature women in bikinis and a racy poster for a Bollywood film have been defaced.

It is believed Muslim extremists are behind a spate of attacks being investigated by police, according to the Sunday Times.

An Asian woman who works in a pharmacy in east London was told to dress more modestly and wear a veil or the shop would be boycotted. When she went to the media to talk about the abuse she suffered, a man later entered the pharmacy and told her: 'If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you'.

The 31-year-old, who is not a practising Muslim, said she has since been told to take holiday by the pharmacy owners and now fears she may lose her job. She said: 'Why should I wear a hijab (headscarf) or burqa? I haven't done anything wrong.'

Other incidents reported include the placing of stickers across the white-minority borough which state it is a 'gay-free zone' and the daubing of paint on posters for clothing shop H&M featuring women in bikinis.

Ghaffar Hussain, of the anti-extremism thin tank the Quilliam Foundation, told The Sunday Times that the intimidation was the work of 'Talibanesque thugs'. He added: 'This minority think they have the right to impose their fringe interpretation of Islam on others.'

Three men have been charged with religiously-aggravated criminal damage in connection with some of the incidents, which have mirrored crude attempt at censorship in Birmingham.

Borough Commander of Tower Hamlets, Paul Rickett said: 'I am saddened that there are a small minority of people who do not wish to respect the lifestyle choices of others. 'I would like to reassure the people of Tower Hamlets that we are investigating these incidents.

'At this stage there is no information to suggest any of the incidents are linked. Anyone found committing such criminal acts will face criminal proceedings. 'We work closely with faith leaders in the community, the Tower Hamlets interfaith forum, our partner agencies and the local community to ensure that people feel safe in the borough.'

Khalid Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, said he had seen posters vandalised in Birmingham but was not aware of threats being made. He said: 'I have seen posters defaced in Birmingham and it's just complete nonsense. 'If people choose to follow the religion they should be free to do so and we don't want to go down the route that the French have done, but these people have to accept other people. 'If it's about the freedom to do what you want, others should have the freedom to do what they want to do.

'It's the actions of a very small minority, and in Birmingham we have not seen people threaten women who are not wearing the burqa - it someone were to do that the police should be informed.'

Firebrand Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary said that he was aware of individuals who would speak up if they saw a Muslim woman without a headscarf, but insisted they were only giving advice about their views of Islam. He said no threats would be made and described the allegations of threats of death as 'completely ridiculous'. He said: 'There are groups who propagate Islam, and if they see a Muslim woman without a hijab they may say "sister, it's obligatory that you cover your hair".

'It's an individual intervention to propagate Islam. For non-Muslims, they may point out to them that women are being exploited in the West. 'It's about telling people about the preference of covering up, but nobody's going to say "you are going to be killed".'

Tower Hamlets has a reputation for being a centre of Islamic extremism in London. Recently it was revealed Rich Dart, a middle class former BBC worker had converted to Islam and was living in Bow, east London in a £300,000 flat paid for by benefits.

Despite being unemployed, Mr Dart regularly attends Muslim rallies in which he was recently heard to say: 'When the Taliban defeat the allies we will establish Sharia law and take the fight to the enemy.'

Before Christmas posters appeared in the borough claiming the religious festival was 'evil'. The campaign's organiser was 27-year-old Abu Rumaysah, who once called for Sharia Law in Britain at a press conference held by hate preacher leader Anjem Choudary, the leader of banned militant group Islam4UK.

Mr Rumaysah said: 'Christmas is a lie and as Muslims it is our duty to attack it. 'But our main attack is on the fruits of Christmas, things like alcohol abuse and promiscuity that increase during Christmas and all the other evils these lead to such as abortion, domestic violence and crime. 'We hope that out campaign will make people realise that Islam is the only way to avoid this and convert.'

SOURCE




Niall Ferguson: 'The left love being provoked by me ... they think I'm a reactionary imperialist scumbag'

The historian has been living back in the UK for almost a year, the first time since leaving for the US in 2002, where he now teaches at Harvard. From the outside, it's looked like quite a successful stay; his Channel 4 series, Civilization, was broadly well-received, and the accompanying book is another dollop of vintage Ferguson history, devoted to the superiority of western civilisation. While here he's also been advising Michael Gove on the history curriculum in secondary schools, and now that the Tories, of whom he approves, are back in charge of the country, he must have found the political climate more to his tastes. But when I ask him for the single biggest change he's observed since leaving Britain, he replies with a kind of theatrical despair,

"I think the situation in British universities has gone from being parlous to being catastrophic. When you look at where British universities are going, and where Harvard's going, you'd have to really love other things about England to take the hit."

The Glaswegian-born academic and presenter, 46, has been sending the left into fits of rage ever since he published Empire in 2003 – an elaborate cost-benefit analysis of the British empire, which concluded that it had, on the whole, been a good thing. The character of Irwin in Alan Bennett's play, The History Boys – a pushy, contrarian teacher who becomes a TV historian – is modelled on Ferguson, and ideological sparring matches with his leftwing critics, one of whom branded his work "startlingly obscene", have become something of a national sport. Rather than get into yet another one with him, I'm more interested to find out what he thinks about the things that are often said about him, so I ask if it's true that he loves provoking the left.

"No, they love being provoked by me! Honestly, it makes them feel so much better about their lives to think that I'm a reactionary; it's a substitute for thought. 'Imperialist scumbag' and all that. Oh dear, we're back in a 1980s student union debate." But didn't Ferguson himself admit that his conversion to Thatcherism while a student at Oxford in the 80s was motivated chiefly by delight in taunting student union lefties?

"Well, of course, yes, it was partly that," he concedes. "But that was the 80s, and I was young. I'm not a punk Tory any more, we have come a long way since then, it's now 2011. I don't really care about those people any more. The debate that I'm interested in having is with seriously smart people about how we design institutions in the 21st century that will genuinely address problems of poverty and educational underachievement. Now that's an interesting debate to have, but very few people in this country are interested in having it."

Warming to his theme, he cites one reviewer of Civilization who clearly hadn't even read the book before attacking it. "You know what?" he says crossly. "There's a lot of intellectual shoddiness in this country. My interest in my work now is not to wind up British lefties; I couldn't care less about them, not really. I couldn't care less about how they feel. So the problem is not that I like to wind them up. It's that they like to be wound up by an imaginary rightwing historian who satisfies all their emotional needs."

Let's say then, I suggest, that he's absolutely right; that the left has got itself into a tizz and accused him of all sorts of views he does not actually hold. He is forever insisting he is not rightwing – so could he offer some examples of his thinking which would demonstrate that he isn't?

"Ask me not are you rightwing, but ask me are you a committed believer in individual freedom, the values of the enlightenment? Then, yeah, if being rightwing means believing Adam Smith was right, both in the Wealth of Nations and the Theory of Moral Sentiments, then I'm rightwing. If being rightwing is thinking that Karl Marx's doctrine was a catastrophe for humanity, then I'm rightwing. If you think that it's rightwing to say that the welfare state has trapped 10-20% of the population of western Europe in a dependency culture, an abyss of social failure, then I'm rightwing."

He sounds as if he could quite easily be a member of David Cameron's cabinet. "I'm very sympathetic to both David Cameron and George Osborne," he agrees. "But we have to redefine this debate, this argument. I'm just constantly amazed by how far people remain trapped in the labelling of the 80s. In the 80s I was a Thatcherite, and we won on both issues, the economy and the cold war, and for a lot of people that must have hurt a lot because those arguments were very bitter, but the outcome was just clear. So when people call me rightwing I get a little pissed off, because it's so anachronistic; it assumes there is some kind of choice."

Ferguson's politics don't appear to rest on semantic definitions of rightwing, so much as a refusal to recognise the validity – or even possibility – of any alternative way of looking at the world. Such certainty presumably explains the other thing everyone always says about him – that he has an almost superhuman absence of self-doubt. But when I ask if this is true, he says: "Of course not!

One of the things that really amazes me is how many people would rather discuss style than substance – that I'm too arrogant, too self-assured. But what the media want from a public intellectual is someone who is absolutely certain in his views. When you are on Newsnight or Question Time, they want combative polarisation; they want a strong case, strongly put. And I do that – I can do that – because a certain intellectual discipline is involved. But as a teacher, my strategy is to encourage questioning. I'm the least authoritarian professor you'll ever meet."

Ferguson has produced 16 books and five TV series in the last 16 years, and sounds unmistakably proud of his workaholism, so I guess that he thinks work-life balance is basically for losers. "I think work-life balance is a phrase invented at business schools to make workaholics feel they're doing something about their problem," he agrees scornfully. "The truth is, there is no balance. You can't strike a balance. You can't write a book like Civilization on three hours a day.

More HERE





Coverage of Pew Prison Study Stinks

In language designed to alarm viewers, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric reported on Wednesday night that the U.S. has the world’s largest prison population—more than two million people behind bars—and that a Pew study says it is costing states more than $50 billion a year. But what Couric and national correspondent Jim Axelrod failed to point out is that more prisons have equaled less crime.

In other words, the policy is working. This is something that state governments are doing right.

Axelrod’s story on the CBS News website is linked to an Associated Press account which is headlined, “Despite large increases in spending on corrections, many commit crimes within three years of prison release.” This would seem to suggest that these criminals ought to be serving longer prison terms because they cannot be rehabilitated. Instead, Axelrod proposed more spending—not on prisons—but on “drug treatment and general education degree programs—plus help transitioning back into society…”

So we are supposed to let the criminals back out on the streets and coddle them even more, in the hope that they will not commit more crimes. This means, of course, that the money saved on prisons will not be truly saved. Instead, it will be spent on the George Soros approach of “alternatives to incarceration” recently reflected in an NAACP report that was extremely flawed and completely ignored the cost of handling illegal alien criminals.

A Federation of American Immigration Reform study, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers,” estimates state and local costs associated with handling illegal alien criminals at $8.7 billion a year (with an additional $7.8 billion worth of costs being borne by the federal government).

The Pew study does not suggest saving money on prisons by cutting back on illegal immigration. It proposes cutting back on prisons, period. However, its rationale is questionable. It says, “This high price [spending on prisons and corrections] would be more than defensible had it yielded proportionate improvements in public safety.” This seems to suggest that the money has somehow been wasted. But it then goes on to say, “In fact, the crime rate has been falling since the early 1990s, and is now at its lowest level since 1968. Prison expansion certainly contributed to this trend.”

So building more prisons and putting criminals in them has worked. But Pew seems determined to avoid this conclusion by then commenting, “The most sophisticated research gives prison growth credit for one-quarter to one-third of the crime drop during the 1990s.” (emphasis added).

It is a matter of opinion whether such research is sophisticated or not. Some might call it dangerously misleading.

However, liberal California Governor Jerry Brown is one of those “sophisticated” thinkers. He has proposed a budget that reduces the number of criminals going to prison. Rina Palta, who covers criminal justice issues, explains, “The current budget calls for less restrictive supervision for a whole host of lower level crimes. That means that fewer crimes carry the penalty of state prison, fewer people getting out go under the strict supervision of state parole, and those that violate parole would likely not go back to prison for the violation.”

But Todd Gillam of the Parole Agent Association of California has written in response, “There is no other plausible outcome to this bill, but increased crime.” This is the viewpoint being ignored by the major media as various news organizations hype the new Pew study that apparently lies behind the Jerry Brown approach.

The Pew Center has been on a campaign against prisons. Back in 2008 it released a report, “One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008,” which attempted to shock the public with the claim that, “for the first time in history, more than one in every 100 adults in America are in jail or prison—a fact that significantly impacts state budgets without delivering a clear return on public safety.”

No clear return on public safety?

Professor Paul Cassell commented at the time, “The Pew Center claims that we are not really getting anything in return for the moneys spent on prisons. But curiously, despite the claim that this expenditure is ‘failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall crime,’ the study never attempts to assess the impact on overall crime.”

He cited a graph showing that “significant increases in spending on prisons has coincided with significant reductions in crime. Of course, proving causality would require a more sophisticated analysis. But it would be remarkable to think that the prison growth has had nothing to do with the fact that violent crime rates have reached their lowest point in recent years, according to the Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.”

In a June 22, 2008, column that carried the title, “More Prisons, Less Crime,” columnist George Will drew the obvious conclusion: “For many reasons, including better policing and more incarceration, Americans feel, and are, safer.” But The New York Times, he noted, has had a history of failing to recognize the relationship between more prisons and less crime. He cited the following “amusing” Times headlines:

· “Crime Keeps on Falling, But Prisons Keep on Filling.” (1997)
· “Prison Population Growing Although Crime Rate Drops.” (1998)
· “Number in Prison Grows Despite Crime Reduction.” (2000)
· “More Inmates, Despite Slight Drop in Crime.” (2003)

This New York Times mentality of not recognizing reality seems to be at work in the coverage of the Pew study.

SOURCE






Australia: Leftist State Premier slams judges as 'out of touch'

Mandatory sentencing is always a second-best solution but the actions of some judges would seem to make it a better system than what we have at the moment

PREMIER Anna Bligh has accused the judiciary of losing touch with the community after two controversial decisions involving serious child sex offenders in as many days.

Attorney-General Cameron Dick has been ordered to review a decision that allowed an Ipswich man, 45, to walk free on bail after being charged with 24 offences, including four of rape and 20 of indecently dealing with a minor.

Mr Dick will also review the case last week of a child sex offender in Cairns who was jailed for seven years for raping and abusing six girls.

Ms Bligh yesterday said the State Government would do whatever it could to appeal the decisions. "People want to see these types of offenders treated very harshly and that isn't what they have seen in the past two days," she said.

Bravehearts executive director Hetty Johnston said an inquiry was needed on sex offenders. "The system does not protect children. We want an opportunity to sit down and try to find some logical solutions to a very difficult problem," she said.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



17 April, 2011

Persecuted for his cross: British electrician told he faces the sack for Christian symbol on his van dashboard

Everything but Christianity is OK, apparently

An electrician faces the sack for displaying a small palm cross on the dashboard of his company van. Former soldier Colin Atkinson has been summoned to a disciplinary hearing by the giant housing association where he has been employed for 15 years because he refuses to remove the symbol.

Throughout his time at work, he has had an 8in-long cross made from woven palm leaves attached to the dashboard shelf below his windscreen without receiving a single complaint.

But his bosses at publicly funded Wakefield and District Housing (WDH) in West Yorkshire – the fifth-biggest housing organisation in England – have demanded he remove the cross on the grounds it may offend people or suggest the organisation is Christian. Mr Atkinson’s union representative said he faces a full disciplinary hearing next month for gross misconduct, which could result in dismissal.

The association strongly promotes ‘inclusive’ policies and allows employees to wear religious symbols at work. It has provided stalls at gay pride events, held ‘diversity days’ for travellers, and hosted a gender reassignment event entitled A World That Includes Transpeople.

Mr Atkinson, who has an unblemished work record, said he had not been shown similar respect. ‘The past few months have been unbelievable, a nightmare,’ he said. ‘I have worked in the coal mines and served in the Army in Northern Ireland and I have never suffered such stress. The treatment of Christians in this country is becoming diabolical. It is political correctness taken to the extreme.’

But he added: ‘I have never been so full of resolve. I am determined to stand up for my rights. If they sack me, so be it. But I am standing up for my faith.’

Mr Atkinson’s battle follows a series of similar cases involving Christians who claim their freedoms have been curbed following the introduction of controversial equality laws.

Campaigners accused the housing association of ‘remarkable intolerance’ at a time when millions of Christians will be celebrating Palm Sunday today, a week before Easter Sunday. Palms are traditionally distributed during services to mark Christ’s triumphal entrance into Jerusalem.

Despite the company’s treatment of Mr Atkinson, the boss of the depot where he works in Castleford has been allowed to adorn his office with a poster of the Argentinian revolutionary Che Guevara. Denis Doody, who is WDH’s environmental manager, also has a whiteboard on which are written several quotations by the Marxist guerrilla leader, who was a key figure in the Cuban revolution in the Fifties. Colleagues said staff and even members of the public who were visiting the depot would be able to see the poster and whiteboard through his office window.

Mr Atkinson began work as an electrician in the mines before serving as an Army radio technician for seven years. His military career included a stint at the notorious, riot-torn Long Kesh internment camp in Northern Ireland in 1974. He was employed as a £25,000-a-year electrician by Wakefield Council in 1996, but its housing department was transferred into the association’s ownership six years ago.

His ordeal began last year when managers at WDH, which has 31,000 properties, told Mr Atkinson to remove the cross from the van after years of ignoring it.

He demanded to know why. He said his cross was as discreet and inoffensive as other forms of religious expression and accused his bosses of badgering him.

The company said, however, that he had refused a ‘reasonable’ request to remove the symbol from an official vehicle that could be seen by members of the public.

The 64-year-old grandfather became a committed Christian more than 20 years ago and was a regular Church of England worshipper for many years.

He and his second wife Geraldine, 61, who have five children from previous marriages and three grandchildren, now attend the Pentecostal Destiny Church in Wakefield.

The softly spoken electrician said he never pushed his beliefs on other people but would gently explain his faith to anyone who enquired.

‘I’m just an ordinary bloke. I get on with people and have many friends of other faiths, including a Sikh and a Hindu who both came and spoke up for me at one of the meetings I’ve had with managers about this. ‘Christians are called to be public in our faith, and the cross is my way of being obedient to that call. It brings me peace and strength. It is a central part of who I am and I can’t hide it away.’

Wakefield and District Housing's equality and diversity manager, Jayne O'Connell, believes wearing a burka at work would be considered discreet

Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, which is backing Mr Atkinson, said: ‘Colin Atkinson is a decent and hard-working man, yet after many years of service he has been told he cannot continue to have a small palm cross in his van. ‘This smacks of something deeply illiberal and remarkably intolerant. Is this the kind of society the British public want to live in?

Wakefield District Housing said: ‘We do not allow employees to display any personal representations in our vehicles, although they are free to do so upon their person. ‘It would be inappropriate to comment further about this individual case.’

The association had a turnover of £106 million in the financial year to the end of March 2010. The chief executive is Kevin Dodd, who earns £157,000 a year. A 2009 report revealed that the association staged a number of diversity days for employees and tenants. Sessions have been led by groups including Women In Construction, Mental Health Matters and The Leeds Gypsy and Travellers Group. The imam from Wakefield Central Mosque has also been involved.

The company also produces an intranet calendar for employees that shows religious festivals and celebrations.

SOURCE





Repeat offender: Ga. county sued again, unlawfully denies another church’s right to build

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed their second lawsuit of the year against Coweta County Wednesday for unlawfully blocking another church’s right to build on its own property despite prior recommendations for approval.

In the most recent case, the county board of commissioners denied Holiness Is the Way Ministries a conditional use permit even though the county planner and the board of zoning appeals had already recommended approval of the permit to build a place of worship. The refusal comes despite the county’s issuance of conditional use permits to 13 other churches over the past four years.

“Churches shouldn’t be singled out for discrimination by a county’s zoning decisions,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “This is especially true when the church has already received all the recommended approvals through the appropriate channels and no other legitimate reason for denial has been given. The county must learn to abide by the U.S. Constitution and federal law, which prohibit this kind of discriminatory treatment of churches.”

After entering a contract to purchase 10 acres of land in January 2010, Holiness Is the Way Ministries applied for a conditional use permit with the Coweta County Board of Zoning and Appeals to build a church on its rural property in April 2010. The following month, the Coweta County planner issued a recommendation to the zoning board for the permit to be approved. The board then recommended to the Coweta County Board of Commissioners in June 2010 that the church’s application be approved, yet after a hearing, the commissioners denied the permit without providing any reason for the denial.

ADF attorneys argue that the county’s refusal is once again in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law that prevents zoning officials from singling out churches for discriminatory treatment.

The lawsuit, Holiness Is the Way Ministries v. Coweta County, was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Newnan Division.

In February, ADF attorneys filed suit against Coweta County for refusing to let All Souls Church of God in Christ build on its own property after it also had met all county requirements and previously received recommendation for a conditional use permit to be issued.

SOURCE




Another Muslim wriggler

His emotional testimony, choking back tears as he discussed a Muslim-American first-responder killed on 9/11, garnered national headlines last month for U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison.

But two days after a House committee hearing on Muslim radicalization, the Minnesota Democrat had a far more hostile tone. In a speech in Rochester Hills, Mich., Ellison made a series of personal attacks against three other witnesses who were on the opposite side of the issue.

* He seemed to blame Melvin Bledsoe for the actions of his son Carlos, who stands accused of shooting and killing an Army private after converting to Islam and becoming radicalized.

* A Somali-American who complained about interference from organized Islamist groups while trying to learn about a score of missing young men who turned up with a terrorist group in Somalia was there simply to "diss" the Muslim community in Minneapolis.

* Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix physician who challenges the Islamist narrative, simply is out to make a buck, Ellison said.

His tearful tribute to Mohammed Salman Hamdani came before the House Homeland Security Committee and the national media drawn to the controversial hearing called by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. Ellison's attacks on the other witnesses came before a friendlier and more partisan crowd, with sponsors that included the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.

The hearing generated controversy because of its focus on radicalization solely among Muslims in America. Committee Democrats criticized King and the hearing's premise, with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas saying the proceedings placed the U.S. Constitution "in pain." California Rep. Jackie Speier dismissed the witness testimony as anecdotal.

Ellison's speech echoed that criticism, and he told his Michigan audience that if King "really was trying to learn something about violent radicalization, why wouldn't he include [as a witness] somebody who actually had something to say of value?" Ellison asked. Instead, he called "one guy… named Mr. Bledsoe, whose son I guess became a Muslim, went to Yemen, came back and killed some police officers (sic)."

Bledsoe dropped out of college shortly after his conversion to Islam in 2004. Muslim leaders in Nashville urged him to go to Yemen, long a hotbed of jihadist activity. In 2007 he traveled there, apparently to study under a radical imam.

He is accused of opening fire outside an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark. in June 2009, killing one soldier, Pvt. William Long, and seriously wounding another, Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.

In his testimony, Melvin Bledsoe recounted his son's descent into violence, saying the American people are largely unaware of the threat posed by Islamist radicalism. "There is a big elephant in the room, but our society continues not to see it," Bledsoe said.

After stating that he did not want to bring pain to a grieving parent, Ellison appeared to suggest that the bulk of the blame for Carlos Bledsoe's radicalization didn't lie with the jihadists who indoctrinated him, but with his father. Carlos "was in that man's house all his life. He's a Muslim for a few years. Enough said," Ellison said.

Melvin Bledsoe did not mince words when told about Ellison's comments during an interview with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. He dismissed Ellison's notion that radical Islam played no part in his son's actions. Carlos left the Bledsoe home in 2003, changed his name to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad when he converted to Islam a year later, and spent extensive time in Yemen.

"They stole my son," Bledsoe said. "They raped his mind. They changed his thought, his behavior. They changed him from Carlos to Abdulhakim. I asked God to give me my son back."

Ellison is a "fool" and "liar" when he tries to deny the insidious nature of jihadist recruiting that is occurring in this country, Bledsoe said.

In his speech, Ellison expressed similar disdain for Abdirizak Bihi, a Somali American from Minneapolis who also testified. Bihi's teenage nephew Burhan Hassan was shot to death in Somalia in June 2009. Burhan was one of at least 20 Somali men and teenage boys from the Twin Cities area who have traveled to Somalia since 2007 to fight for the terrorist group al-Shabaab. The "only reason" Bihi was invited to testify was "because he's willing to diss the Somali and Muslim community in Minneapolis," Ellison said.

As part of his testimony, Bihi described how Islamist leaders discouraged people from cooperating with the investigation into the missing men. Talking to the FBI could get you sent to Guantanamo Bay, they said. And, there are consequences in the afterlife by being damned with "eternal fire and hell."

Ellison's harshest remarks were reserved for Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy - and like Bihi, a non-Islamist Muslim. Jasser was invited to testify "because he fits the narrative of people who want to defame you," Ellison told his Michigan audience.

Jasser's real goal, he suggested, was to criticize Muslims in order to enrich himself. Ellison said that "if you want to make some money talking about Muslims," follow the example of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Hirsi Ali renounced her faith and has been highly critical of it in her writing. A good portion of her money goes to 24-hour-protection since her life was threatened in 2004. When filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered on an Amsterdam street, the killer tacked a note on him saying Hirsi Ali would be next. The two collaborated on "Submission," a short film protesting the treatment of women in Islam.

Ellison said: "You know, I think Zuhdi Jasser just said, 'Why should Ayaan Hirsi Ali make all the money'" criticizing Islam?

In a statement to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jasser, a devout Muslim, said he was shocked by the carelessness of Ellison's statements. Ellison engaged in "fabrication and character assassination rather than" debate the issues put forward, Jasser wrote.

"Perhaps it is naïve of me to assume that a sitting member of Congress would maintain a degree of honesty and forthrightness commensurate with his office. Congressman Ellison's false and malignant attacks on my character and integrity speak volumes to the tactics used by leading Islamists in their efforts to marginalize dissent within our Muslim communities," Jasser wrote. "Mr. Ellison's behavior also demonstrates the mudslinging directed toward reform minded Muslims by some leading Muslims threatened by our ideas."

Another Ellison claim about Jasser "is a complete fabrication," said a Des Moines man who was involved in the incident. In October, Drake University hosted a forum on Islam. Ellison claimed that Jasser approached the congressman's son, who was president of the MSA at Drake, and "demanded" to be included in the "What it means to be an American Muslim" event.

Stanley Richards, a philanthropist and sponsor of the event, said that was not true. Jasser was the first person he contacted about attending the forum. Jasser's organization then invited the Drake Muslim Student Association to participate. Ellison's son "informed me that his board had voted not to participate" by sponsoring the forum or serving as a panelist, Richards said.

Ellison's son Isaiah did attend the forum, making statements and asking questions. "Ellison's son spoke with Jasser after the forum and had a respectful conversation," Richards wrote. Rep. Ellison was also invited to be a panelist but declined due to a scheduling conflict.

In his Michigan speech, Ellison claimed he had "gotten to know" Jasser and had had "debate[d]" him in the past. During an October 2009 Capitol Hill briefing on political Islam, the Minnesota congressman slandered Jasser as a bigot seeking to censor Islamists.

Jasser criticized groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for trying to discredit reports noting the connection between radical Salafism and support for jihad. He said that if Muslims want equal respect and credibility they must "stand for reform within our faith of laws that are still in the 15th and 16th centuries."

Ellison responded to Jasser's call for reform with an angry personal attack in which he virtually called him an Islamic "Uncle Tom."

"I think you give people license for bigotry," Ellison told Jasser. "I think people who want to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that."

In Michigan, Ellison continued to mischaracterize Jasser's views and motives. Jasser advocates a "separation between mosque and state" and fights against "political Islam," the application of religious tenets into government and society as espoused by violent jihadists like al-Qaida to political movements like the Muslim Brotherhood.

"By the way, I don't believe that my faith as a Muslim should be politicized," Ellison said. "My faith is way bigger than politics, right? So I don't agree with, but I don't even know what he's even talking about quite frankly. I don't know what he means."

That's surprising, given that groups Ellison works closely with, including the Muslim American Society (MAS) was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. MAS even paid for Ellison to travel to Mecca for the hajj in 2008.

Brotherhood bylaws show its adherence to political Islam, calling for "the need to work on establishing the Islamic State, which seeks to effectively implement the provisions of Islam and its teachings."

Court records show that CAIR, meanwhile, was created by a Hamas-support network in America created by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ellison repeatedly defended CAIR in his Michigan speech, saying it is "a legally operating organization" that would have been shut down had it done anything wrong. He failed to tell his audience that the FBI severed formal relations with CAIR nearly three years ago, due to questions about its founders' ties to the Hamas-support network known as the Palestine Committee. FBI Director Robert Mueller has repeated this position twice in the past month before congressional panels.

In court papers, prosecutors wrote that CAIR was "a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew."

The Congressman cannot blame Jasser or the other witnesses for that.

SOURCE





Turkey’s cautionary tale

Turkey's AKP used democracy to gain power. Now that they have power, they are systematically destroying freedom in their country

Today’s Turkey is a cautionary tale for the West. But Western leaders are loath to consider its lessons.

Ever since Turkey’s Islamist Justice and Development AKP party under Recip Tayip Erdogan won the November 2002 elections, Western officials have upheld the AKP, Erdogan and his colleagues as proof that political Islam is consonant with democratic values. During Erdogan’s June 2005 visit to the White House, for instance, then-president George W. Bush praised Turkish democracy as “an important example for the people in the broader Middle East.”

Unfortunately, nine years into the AKP’s “democratic” regime it is clear that Erdogan and his colleagues’ embrace of the language and tools of democracy was a mile wide and an inch thick. They used democracy to gain power. Now that they have power, they are systematically destroying freedom in their country.

Turkey ranks 138th in the international media freedom group Reporters Sans Frontieres country index on press freedom. Sixty-eight journalists are languishing in Turkish jails for the crime of doing their job. The most recent round-up of reporters occurred in early March. And it is demonstrative of Turkey’s Islamist leaders’ exploitation of democratic freedoms in the service of their tyrannical ends.

As Der Spiegel reported last week, veteran journalists Ahmet Sik from the far-left Radikal newspaper and Nedim Sener from the highbrow Milliyet journal were among those rounded up. As radical leftists, both men oppose the AKP’s Islamist politics. But they shared its interest in weakening the Turkish military.

The Left opposed the military’s constitutional role as the overseer of Turkish democracy because the military used that role to persecute leftists. The AKP party opposed the military’s power because it blocked the party’s path to Islamizing Turkish society and politics. When the AKP turned its guns on the military it used leftist journalists to support its actions.

This collusion came to a head in 2007. In a bid to destroy the legitimacy of the military, the AKP regime has engaged in unprecedented levels of wiretapping of the communications of senior serving and retired generals.

This wiretapping operation preceded the exposure in 2007 of the so-called Ergenekon conspiracy in which senior military commanders, journalists, television personalities, entertainers and businesspeople have been implicated in an alleged attempt to topple the AKP government. As part of the Ergenekon investigation, over the past four years, hundreds of non-Islamist leaders from generals to journalists have been arrested and held without trial.

Ironically, Sik, who is now accused of membership in the Ergenekon plot, was an editor at the leftist weekly magazine Notka that “broke” the conspiracy story.

As Der Spiegel notes, the arrest of Sik and Sener shows that the AKP’s early embrace of investigative reporters and championing of a free press was purely opportunistic. Once Sik, Sener and the other 66 jailed reporters had finished discrediting the military, the regime had no need for them. Indeed, they became a threat.

Both Sik and Sener have recently written books documenting how Turkey’s version of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Fetulah Gulen network, has taken over the country’s security services.

In an interview this month with the opposition Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review, former Turkish president Suleyman Demirel warned that the AKP has established “an empire of fear” in Turkey.

TURKEY’S DESCENT into Islamist tyranny has not simply destroyed freedom in Turkey. It has transformed Turkey’s strategic posture in a manner that is disastrous for the West. And yet, in this arena as well, the West refuses to notice what is happening.

Earlier this week the US Ambassador to Ankara Francis Ricciardone gave an interview to the Turkish media in which he romantically upheld the US-Turkish partnership. As he put it, “Our interests are similar. Even if we have different methods and targets, our strategic vision is the same.”

Sadly, there is no way to square this declaration with Turkish policy.

This week it was reported that NATO member Turkey is opening something akin to a Taliban diplomatic mission in Ankara. Turkey supports Hamas and Hizbullah. It has begun training the Syrian military. It supports Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It has become the Iranian regime’s economic lifeline by allowing the mullahs to use Turkish markets to bypass the UN sanctions regime.

In less than 10 years, the AKP regime has dismantled Turkey’s strategic alliance with Israel. It has inculcated the formerly tolerant if not pro- Israel Turkish public with virulent anti-Semitism. It is this systematic indoctrination to Jew-hatred that has emboldened Turkish leaders to announce publicly that they support going to war against Israel.

The Turkish government stands behind the al- Qaida- and Hamas- linked IHH group. IHH organized last year’s pro-Hamas flotilla to Gaza in which IHH members brutally attacked IDF naval commandoes engaged in a lawful mission to maintain Israel’s lawful maritime blockade of Gaza’s coast. With the support of the Turkish government, IHH is now planning an even larger flotilla to assault Israel’s blockade of Gaza next month.

Actually, in a sign of the intimacy of its ties to the AKP regime, this week IHH announced it is considering postponing the next pro-Hamas flotilla in order to ensure that its illegal pro-terror campaign will not harm the AKP’s electoral prospects in Turkey’s national elections scheduled for June.

American and other Western officials have argued that it would be wrong to distance their governments from Turkey or in any way censure the NATO member because doing so will only strengthen the anti-Western forces in the anti- Western government. Instead, Western leaders have done everything they can to appease Erdogan.

The US even allowed him to invade Iraqi Kurdistan.

Unfortunately, this appeasement policy has only harmed the West and NATO. Take the behavior of NATO’s Secretary-General and former Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. As Denmark’s prime minister, Rasmussen stood up boldly to the Islamists when they demanded that he apologize for the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten’s publication of caricatures of Muhammad in 2005. Yet when Turkey threatened to veto his appointment as NATO secretary-general in 2009 over the Islamists’ rejection of free speech, Rasmussen abandoned his strong defense of Western liberal values to placate the Turks.

In a humiliating speech Rasmussen said, “I was deeply distressed that the cartoons were seen by many Muslims as an attempt by Denmark to mark or insult or behave disrespectfully towards Islam or the Prophet Muhammad... I respect Islam as one of the world’s major religions as well as its religious symbols.” Rasmussen then proceeded to appoint Turks to key positions in the alliance.

Far from reining in Turkey’s anti-Western policies, by maintaining Turkey in NATO Western powers have been forced to curtail their own defense of their interests.

NATO’s incoherent mission in Libya is case in point. It can be argued that Germany’s large and increasingly radicalized Turkish minority played a role in German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to risk her country’s good ties with Britain and France and refuse to support the Libyan mission. So, too, it was reportedly due to President Barack Obama’s deference to Turkey that the US failed to support the anti-regime forces until Gaddafi organized a counteroffensive against them. So if as appears increasingly likely, Gaddafi is able to survive the NATO-backed insurgents’ bid to overthrow him, he will owe his survival in no small measure to Erdogan.

TURKEY IS a cautionary tale for the West, which is now faced with the prospect of AKP-like regimes from Egypt to Tunisia to Jordan to the Persian Gulf. And the real issue that Western leaders must address is how things in Turkey were permitted to deteriorate to the point they have without any US or European official lifting a finger to stem the Islamist tide? The answer, it would seem, is a combination of professional laziness and cultural weakness. This mix of factors is also on display in the US’s behavior toward the revolutionary forces active throughout much of the Arab world.

More HERE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



16 April, 2011

Report: UN gender equality plan “a costly failure”

A month after the United Nations last summer announced the creation of a new, $500 million-a-year organization to promote equality for women in global affairs, the U.N.’s own investigators revealed that 15 years of “gender mainstreaming” efforts within the UN Secretariat have been a sweeping and costly failure.

The report, issued in August 2010, evaluates how gender mainstreaming -- the term that the U.N. uses to describe achieving equality between the sexes in all walks of life -- is being incorporated in all U.N. work to “ensure that the different needs and circumstances of women and men are identified and taken into account when policies and projects are developed and implemented.”

The evaluation carried out by the U.N. watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), looked at 20 of the U.N.’s most important departments and offices. It found glaring deficiencies almost everywhere. Among them:

- A fundamental lack of knowledge among U.N. staffers about the gender policy, with less than half of program managers polled saying they “always” or “mostly” believed their staff understood what gender mainstreaming is or why it should be implemented.

- An equally fundamental lack of understanding of what “gender mainstreaming” was supposed to achieve. According to the report, U.N. staffers often assess evidence of gender mainstreaming by counting the number of references to “gender,” “women,” and “girls” in documents, “rather than undertaking a considered, qualitative assessment of whether a gender perspective [meaning sensitivity to sexual equality] informs work processes.”

- “Weaknesses in leadership and accountability” in making gender equality programs work -- along with a pointed observation that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and his top managers “carry the responsibility for the implementation of gender mainstreaming in the United Nations Secretariat.”

- “Lack of comprehensive and systematic evidence of results.”
In other words, there was little evidence that anyone was even trying systematically to make the programs work. In the 20 departments and programs surveyed, only 12 had policies or strategies or had distributed specific guidelines on how gender mainstreaming was supposed to operate.

Those conclusions were not for lack of U.N. efforts -- and hundreds of millions of dollars in spending -- on behalf of women’s rights, as the report documents a welter of U.N. officials, many specifically appointed to the task, running off in various directions to promote improved attitudes toward sexual equality, without necessarily indicating what they were trying to promote.

The picture painted by the document is a particular embarrassment to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who has made women’s rights a personal crusade since he took office in December 2006, and who orchestrated the latest U.N. agency to boost the promotion of the issue.

More HERE




Heavy-handed and unrepentant British council order a couple to apply for planning permission... for their daughter's WENDY HOUSE



Over zealous council officials took bureacracy to the extreme when they ordered a couple to apply for planning permission - for their daughter's Wendy house. The bijou Wendy house measures 6ft by 8ft and was a birthday present for three-year-old Abigail Gent, from Shropshire.

None of the neighbours raised any objection to the 7ft tall structure, but because of officials' 'crazy' red tape it still needed planning permission. It has left parents Richard and Olivia Gent scratching their heads over the bizarre move.

Wrexham County Borough Council said permission was required to ensure no 'additional development' was carried out.

Mr Gent, a company director in London, said he was 'puzzled' by the council's red tape. "I thought it was crazy and I couldn't understand the reasoning behind it. I really thought the world had gone mad,' he said.

The couple said they initially built the Wendy house in a paddock - which is part of their property - when they moved in about a year ago. It stood there unchallenged for three months but when officials visiting another property nearby spotted the offending structure they sent the Gents a letter.

It told them either to move the Wendy house from the paddock to their garden or apply for planning permission to keep it in the paddock - which they were advised would cost £169 and probably be refused as the paddock was classed as agricultural land, the couple said.

Instead, the Gents said they dismantled the Wendy house and moved it to the garden. But they still had to apply for planning permission and spend hours dealing with bureaucracy. Mr Gent added: 'We thought the paddock seemed a sensible place to put it until someone from planning wrote saying we couldn't have it there.

'Technically the council are right and are only doing their job - but I cannot understand why in these austere times for the public sector, officials are worrying about such a trifling thing as this.'

A spokeswoman for the council said: 'The reason planning permission was required was due to previous planning conditions, when approval was granted for a barn conversion and a change of use of land for grazing of recreational horses.

'Due to the restricted application site, and its relationship with adjoining properties, it was considered important to ensure that no additional development is carried out without the permission of the Local Planning Authority. 'Permission for this structure was granted on March 8, 2011.'

SOURCE





Britain's 1981 Brixton riots are now being hailed by the Left as a heroic uprising. The truth is rather different

Easter was around the corner and a grand Royal Wedding was being planned. The Government was struggling with public spending cuts, young jobless totals, and control of immigration. But this isn’t 2011. It was 30 years ago, as Brixton in South London burned almost to the ground in the ugliest British riots of the 20th century.

For three days, battle raged across this inner-city Lambeth borough already brutalised by Hitler’s bombs. Over one balmy April weekend, thousands of West Indian youths fought 3,000 Metropolitan police through every alley and street.

The windows of television, furniture and jewellery stores were smashed and looted, even though many belonged to the rioters’ families, who had settled in post-war Britain from the Caribbean. By the Monday morning, 60 bystanders had been hurt, some pulled from their homes for a beating by the mob. In all, 149 police were injured, and 224 people arrested. In the mayhem, the predominantly white fire and ambulance crews sent into Brixton to save lives had been attacked with bricks and bottles too. There had been no such event in English memory. The country was swept up in a wave of shock and recrimination.

Brixton was a catalyst for copycat riots by young blacks — often egged on by Left-wing agitators — in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leicester, Leeds and other parts of inner-city London.

The Communist Party of Great Britain stated that Brixton was an explosive reaction to the unfair treatment of ethnic minorities and the ‘particular consequences’ of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s policies. It was a view many in the Labour Party hungrily endorsed.

Today, in the minds of the liberal Left, a mythology has grown up promoting the belief that the Brixton rioters were justified in their behaviour because they were racially oppressed. To celebrate the anniversary, the BBC produced a naively one-sided account of the riots for Radio 4’s Reunion programme — in which people who have taken part in an event are brought together years later to discuss it.

The Reunion’s line-up featured five people — Brian Paddick, then a police sergeant, later a controversial Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard famed for telling police in Lambeth to ease up on drug arrests; Darcus Howe, a Left-wing black ‘thinker’; ‘Red’ Ted Knight, who led Lambeth Council at the time; Alex Wheatle, now a novelist and then a young rioter; and Peter Bleksley, then a junior policeman caught up in the riots who went on to become a ‘community’ copper in the area.

‘This selection was a parody of BBC bias,’ proclaimed the commentator and journalist Charles Moore after hearing the programme. ‘We were not reminded that Knight declared, in the aftermath of the Brixton riot: “We want to break the Metropolitan Police.” He was probably the hardest-Left of all the Labour leaders in London.’

The BBC offered no ordinary residents — black or white — of Brixton to describe the fear, crime and disorder meted out on that once-peaceful community. Nor did the programme invite anyone to pass comment on the havoc that poorly planned mass migration had wreaked on Brixton all those years ago, as well as on other traditional working-class inner-city communities.

In Lambeth this week there was even a questionable ‘celebration’ of the Brixton riot 30th anniversary. Councillors renamed the event the ‘Brixton Uprising’ and provided ‘first-hand witness accounts’ along with ‘special guests’ for entertainment. Among them was the Jamaican ‘poet’ Linton Kwesi Johnson, whose writing contains graphic descriptions of alleged police brutality during the Eighties, including one poem entitled Ingland Is A Bich.

But what really caused the Brixton riot? And what did the events of that weekend say about a Britain which had absorbed 1.9 million non-white immigrants since the Fifties?

Brixton in the early Eighties was a tinderbox. Unemployment in the area stood at 13 per cent overall, and 25 per cent among the West Indian community. Half of young black men were jobless and, understandably, discontented with their lot.

In those days, it was a place of black council tenants, many hardworking older immigrants, and white squatters living cheek by jowl.

Many of the young blacks smoked dope, listened to reggae, and spoke an almost impenetrable patois. Empty houses, still not renovated after war bombing, were taken over as drinking and gambling dens and all-night party venues. Crime was soaring, with 90 burglaries, muggings and assaults being recorded each week.

Relations between the police and Brixton’s black community had never been good. In 1966, a report published by the Commonwealth Institute, with the foul title Nigger Hunting In England?, reported that the police used dogs to chase black people, and that ‘reliable sources’ confirmed how constables left Brixton police stations with the express purpose of hounding West Indians and other ethnic groups.

Even 15 years later, on the eve of the riots, the area was awash with unconfirmed stories that detectives working there wore ‘Ace of Spades’ ties, and sported BNP badges on the inside of their jacket lapels. At the time, just 286 of 117,000 officers in the England and Wales forces were black or Asian, a far smaller proportion than in the population.

Determined to stamp out violent crime in Brixton, the police launched Operation Swamp 81 that April. They sent in hundreds of officers to stop and search 1,000 people in just two days, using outdated 19th-century vagrancy laws.

These ‘sus’ laws were hated. The 1824 Vagrancy Act had been passed to stop soldiers from begging on the streets after they returned from the Napoleonic wars. Anyone could be convicted on the sole testimony of the arresting officer for being a ‘suspected person loitering with intent to steal’.

Among the hundreds of policemen sent into Brixton as part of Operation Swamp was Steve Margiotta. On Friday, April 10, 1981, he was patrolling not far from Railton Road, a main street in Brixton which was to become the ‘Frontline’ of the riots.

A black teenager, 19-year-old Michael Bailey, ran towards him. The policeman wrestled him to the ground and found Bailey had been stabbed. As Margiotta, then 27, recalled recently: ‘I was on a busy street and I could see this person running towards me. He was coming at quite a speed. He was coming straight for me, so I had to stop him. ‘We collided, and as we got up his shirt came off the shoulder and I could see he was bleeding. I was also covered with blood.

‘He kept on running and I set off in pursuit — just to help him, as I could see he was badly hurt. Some others there thought I was trying to arrest him. They were saying: “What are you doing?” ‘It all started from there.’

Bailey ran to a flat where a white family tried to help him. The father of the house put some kitchen roll over the wound and bound it tightly. When he asked Michael who had caused the injury, he simply said: ‘Blacks.’

Bailey was put in a mini-cab for the hospital. But, fatefully, a police car saw the cab moving away at speed and stopped it. When an officer from the police car, realising Bailey was injured, tried to bind his wound more tightly, trouble ensued.

A group of 50 youths began to shout for Bailey’s release. ‘Look, they’re killing him,’ claimed one. And with that the crowd descended on the police car and pulled him out. They dispatched him to hospital and told officers: ‘Let us look after our own.’

By now, rumours were spreading through Brixton streets that it was the police who had hurt Bailey. And within an hour, the riots had begun.

It seems astonishing now that a misunderstanding, even a small act of kindness from the police themselves, should have sparked an event that would have such huge political and social consequences.

At the height of the fighting, in what many took as a racist gesture, a tailor’s white-skinned dummy had been pulled from the broken window of the men’s shop Burton’s, thrown to the ground, then stripped and set alight by the rioters.

The smouldering, naked effigy was still lying on streets covered with shattered glass and next to upturned Panda cars, when Prime Minister Thatcher was whisked from 10 Downing Street for tea at the local police station during a lull in the riots.

She asked the West Indian tea ladies who served her what they thought of the rioting. ‘They were clearly as disgusted as I was with those who were causing the trouble,’ she recalled later. ‘I had gone to the canteen to thank the staff, as I had thanked the police officers themselves, for all that they were doing.’

More here




Australia: Pro-Asian, anti-Muslim will deemed discriminatory

A man wanted to leave his estate to people whom in his opinion would benefit most from it: Non-Muslim young Asians. There would be many people in that category but anti-discrimination laws mean that his executors cannot advertise for people of the sort he specified

A man who instructed the funds of his estate be donated only to non-Muslims may have his wishes overturned by the Queensland Supreme Court. Abraham Werner, who died in Brisbane in 1989, has had his will deemed discriminatory in several states. The estate executor, Perpetual Trust, has sought a court order to allow them to distribute the funds outside of his strict conditions.

Mr Werner's will bequeathed almost $700,000 with conditions the executor "first consider destitute male orphans of Asian parentage without any known relatives". Further conditions were that his money not go to followers or devotees of Islam, those not in "good health and mentally alert of good intellect and of good behaviour" or to anyone older than 21.

He also wished his funds not to go anyone involved in "using or marketing any form or drug of addiction" and that beneficiaries "must speak English adequately or undertake to learn to speak English within two years".

Mr Werner, who was originally from Holland, had never married nor had children. He donated his body to science.

In documents filed last month in the Supreme Court in Brisbane, Perpetual Trust says between 1991 and 2001 it managed to grant funds to charities which fell within Mr Werner's conditions. But in 2002 lawyers advised the organisation the criteria they put forward on Mr Werner's behalf could be unlawfully discriminatory in three Australian states and the ACT.

Lawyers considered the exclusion of "followers of Islam" was unlawful in Tasmania, Western Australia, the ACT and possibly unlawful in New South Wales.

Andrew Thomas, of Perpetual Trust, wrote in an affidavit the organisation "had difficulty identifying potential benefits because it could not advertise for applications given the discriminatory nature of criteria to be applied".

"Charities that assist disadvantaged children could not provide any assistance to Perpetual Trust as they either could not distinguish between individuals on criteria such as those set out in the will, or were not prepared to," Mr Thomas said.

He said the organisation ceased dispersing Mr Werner's funds in 2005. Almost $600,000 remains in the estate.

The court documents seek an order from the court to allow Perpetual Trust to distribute the remainder of Mr Werner's money to The Smith Family. Perpetual Trust say the charity would then pass on the money in a manner as near as possible to Mr Werner's wishes. Mr Thomas said Mr Werner's funds would go to a program The Smith Family operates to assist disadvantaged children.

"Negotiations with The Smith Family .. confirmed it is not able to confirm the religion [of children] and it's not its practice to collect such information," he said. "Perpetual Trust considers that it now has no other option but to make this application to the court for an order to apply the income from the trust [as close as possible."

The case has been adjourned will return to court on a date to be fixed.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



15 April, 2011

British Easter walk banned on "health" grounds

Every year the Christians from different churches get together to march a 400-yard route to celebrate Easter. But this year their Good Friday parade has been banned – because it breaches health and safety laws.

Church leaders say town hall bureaucrats are refusing Christians rights routinely afforded to minority groups, and have vowed to defy them.

Previously organisers of the parade in Willesden, north London, had only needed to inform police of their route. But new red tape means they now need permission from Brent Council. Officials said they banned the procession because they were contacted too late to carry out a ‘consultation’ to close the roads.

Father Hugh MacKenzie, of St Mary Magdalen Roman Catholic Church, said: ‘The rights of Christians are being overlooked in favour of the rights of Islamic groups and gay rights organisations. ‘One does wonder whether if it was a homosexual rights or Islamic group the council would have been more flexible, as it doesn’t seem like rocket science to permit us to walk 400 metres. ‘The rights of Christians are just not respected in Britain.’

Church leaders have vowed to walk in the road anyway carrying a cross, a painting of Jesus washing followers’ feet and other religious symbols.

Brent Council hosts a Diwali [Hindu] street celebration every year. Last November it boasted it had held the biggest Diwali event in the country, after more than 60,000 people turned out. And in July last year the council appealed to the Muslim community to notify it of any Eid events so it could promote them free of charge. But it did not do the same for other religious festivals.

Last night former Home Office minister – and devout Christian – Ann Widdecombe said: ‘Don’t Brent Council know about Easter? These processions will be taking place all over the country on Good Friday, it’s part of our tradition. ‘It’s ridiculous and petty that a group cannot walk 400 yards. Why should they need special permission to do that?’

Every Easter for 13 years, about 200 worshippers from four churches – the New Testament Church of God, St Andrew’s Church of England, St Mary Magdalen and Willesden Green Baptist Church – have marched before celebrating communion together.

Father MacKenzie said: ‘It is a long-standing tradition in the area. It is a chance for us to get together. ‘The idea of tolerating the major religions, particularly the Christian religion which has been at the heart of our civilisation, and our right to express ourselves in this moderate way is a very basic aspect of religious freedom.’

Last night Brent Council told the worshippers to walk on the pavement. A spokesman added: ‘Brent Council was not contacted about the march until around a week ago. ‘There is a strict legal procedure we have to follow to issue a traffic order closing roads so people can march in the highway, which includes advertising and consultation, and this takes about five weeks. ‘We are very sorry to say there is now not enough time for us to legally facilitate this march.’

SOURCE







British liberal newspaper reveals the liberal distrust of the people

Why did one of Britain’s oldest liberal papers collude with the state in the arrest of a man for expressing an idea?

Something very odd happened at the weekend. A 40-year-old member of the far-right British National Party (BNP) was arrested for burning a copy of the Koran in his own back garden. Yes, it is apparently now a crime to express your disdain for a certain religious faith in the privacy of your own home. But that’s not the end of it. What makes this case especially odd is that the man in question - Sion Owens - was reported to the police by a broadsheet newspaper that claims to be liberal: the Observer. Since when has it been the job of the respectable, left-leaning press to grass people up to the cops for alleged speech crimes?

When spiked looked into this strange story, we discovered that there are some major disagreements at the Observer in relation to it. The crime correspondent defended the Observer’s actions, but one of the paper’s top columnists questioned the wisdom of reporting a private expression of ideas to the authorities.

Owens, a senior member of the BNP who lives in south Wales, does seem to be an odd individual. Going into his garden, placing a Koran in a metal Quality Street box, dousing it with flammable liquid and then setting it alight while a colleague filmed him - it was a stupid and childish act. However, it was done in a private garden. So regardless of the fact that it was videoed, this was a form of private expression, and therefore none of the state’s business.

The Observer clearly didn’t think so. When the film of the Koran-burning incident was leaked to the paper, it decided to inform the police ‘immediately’; it sent them the offending video. It also got the Home Office to chide Owens. ‘The government absolutely condemns the burning of the Koran. It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society’, a Home Office spokesman said. The Observer seems almost boastful about its actions. ‘A video clip of the act, leaked to the Observer and passed immediately to South Wales police, provoked fierce criticism from the government’, it said in Sunday’s paper.

Owens, the paper proudly informs us, was ‘arrested following an investigation by the Observer’. The Crown Prosecution Service is now withdrawing the case against Owens, thankfully, but the chief prosecutor says an investigation is ongoing and ‘almost certainly other proceedings will ensue’.

So why did the Observer, the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper and a proud upholder of liberal values, collude with the state in the arrest of a man for expressing his thoughts in his own garden? Such behaviour seems to contradict the views of CP Scott, a former editor of the Guardian, the sister paper of the Observer, after whom the trust that currently owns the Guardian Media Group is named. ‘Comment is free’, said Scott, and ‘the voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard’. What would he think of his successors effectively policing their opponents’ private speech?

Mark Townsend, the crime, defence and legal affairs correspondent at the Observer, who penned Sunday’s piece about the Koran incident, told spiked that he stands by the paper’s decision to inform the police. ‘On top of the free speech debate, this is clearly a security issue that had to be dealt with sensitively’, he says. ‘The issue isn’t just one of freedom of expression as there could be very serious violent repercussions.’

But this view isn’t shared by all at the paper. Henry Porter, a long-time columnist for the Observer and well-known commentator on civil liberties, told spiked: ‘I am not in the loop on the thinking that went into this decision: there may be all sorts of concerns about which I am unaware. On the face of it, though, it would seem a doubtful decision because handing over the video, which appears to have been made for private use and was in a sense a private expression of this individual’s views, is likely to inflame feelings more than if the matter was simply ignored. That is the practical aspect.’

‘The second worrying part’, he continues, ‘is that this does indeed seem to sanction an invasion of the private sphere, in which, of course, all manner of reprehensible thoughts and actions are concealed’.

However, he says, ‘If there is evidence that the individual was about to publish the video, then I think there is perhaps cause for police action because of what happened a few days ago in Afghanistan where several people lost their lives. It is a delicate issue and by no means clear cut. However, it is the case that prohibition of an act, whether in public or private, often makes that act more likely to occur. That is why I am against the ban on the burqa in France.’

Unlike Porter, I believe that Sion Owens should also have had the freedom to release the film into the public domain, if he so chose. Freedom of speech, the cornerstone of all our freedoms, is too often compromised on the grounds that people might be harmed as a result of it. But people should be trusted to make up their own minds about whether to act upon footage of some idiot burning the Koran, rather than prevented by the state from seeing such footage in case it drives them crazy. To censor is to treat the public as a pogrom-in-waiting, whose eyes must be protected from offensive words and imagery. It is an updated, perhaps slightly more PC version of the same patronising assumptions that were exposed in the Lady Chatterley Trial: ‘Would you let your wife or servant read it?’ The question some are implicitly asking in relation to the BNP Koran video is: ‘Would you let the white working classes watch it?’ or ‘Would you let angry Muslims watch it?’. Perhaps that is what Townsend was getting at when he said the video could have ‘serious violent repercussions’.

The denigration of free speech through the idea that sections of the public are volatile and unpredictable is captured in the way that, in recent years, the category of ‘incitement’ has been replaced by the looser term ‘stirring up hatred’. As spiked has previously observed: ‘There was a time when, in legal terms, to incite meant to be in a close relationship with another person or group of people and to try to convince them or cajole them, face-to-face and intensively, to commit a crime. Today the term “incitement” is used far more promiscuously so that everything from a speech at a rally to a Jamaican dancehall song playing at a disco to a placard saying “I hate Islam and you should hate it too” can be said to incite hatred or violence.’ The treatment of all sorts of words and images as forms of ‘incitement’ speaks to a new degraded view of people as fundamentally incapable of enjoying full freedom of speech.

To my mind, the Observer/BNP affair could have some potentially quite Orwellian consequences. It seems that even within journalism - the fourth estate – some no longer understand how crucially important freedom of speech is. Some even seem to think it acceptable to play a part in having someone arrested for the ‘crime’ of expressing his views in a private arena. It will be a very sad day when people are not at liberty to give voice to their inner feelings without the threat of criminal charges. That would be bad for us all – for the public, for freedom, and for journalism.

SOURCE






Junk Science Smites Craigslist

Freedom rests on a flimsy foundation

Craigslist.org took its Adult Services section offline permanently last September as a result of pressure from Congress and at least 17 state attorney generals. The most damning accusation leveled at the classified advertising network was that its adult section facilitated child prostitution.

Child prostitution of course is something to be concerned about, but hysteria about it, in the absence of real evidence, should not be allowed to limit adults’ free-speech rights.

One study was particularly influential. In early 2007 the Atlanta-based anti-prostitution group, A Future Not A Past, asked the Georgia legislature for money to track juvenile prostitution in the state. The group’s campaign director, Kaffie McCullough, admitted, “We had no research, no nothing. The legislators didn’t even know about it.” Nevertheless, the group received 20 percent of what they requested. The group then asked the Georgia-based Schapiro Group to construct a study on juvenile prostitution.

McCullough provided statistics during the legislature’s next session. “It gave us traction — night and day,” she said. “That year, we got all the rest of that money, plus we got a study commission.” (You can listen to the Village Voice interview with McCullough here.)

Eventually several Atlanta groups banded together, most prominently the Women’s Funding Network, which financed similar studies in New York, Michigan, and Minnesota. It was the Network’s chief program officer, Deborah Richardson, who revealed the bombshell data to a September congressional hearing into Craigslist: Child prostitution had “risen exponentially in three diverse states.” She offered exact figures, “Michigan: a 39.2 percent increase; New York: a 20.7 percent increase; and Minnesota: a staggering 64.7 percent increase.”

Craigslist had been one of the prime data sources for researchers. The methodology of the state studies can be illustrated by the Minnesota one. Before a full study began, researchers asked a group of 100 observers to judge the ages of young women in photographs. (The observers are described both as a “random sample” and as “balanced by race and gender.”) The accuracy rate was 38 percent. The same people were then shown similar online ads of young women seeking sexual partners and answered the same question about age. (It was assumed the online photos were current and matched the person advertising.) Researchers multiplied the resulting number of allegedly under-aged photos by 0.38 to arrive at a total number of presumed child prostitutes.

Full statewide studies treated the 38 percent success rate as a constant even though they assigned a handful of new observers to count presumed child prostitutes on advertising sites like Craigslist and Backpage.

The claim of an exponential rise came from the estimate of presumed under-aged girls: In February the count was 68; in May, 90; and in August, 112. (The rise was attributed to increased prostitution rather than increased advertising.)

On March 23 the Village Voice ran an exposé titled “Women’s Funding Network Sex Trafficking Study Is Junk Science: Schapiro Group Data Wasn’t Questioned by Mainstream Media.” Quoting experts on research methodology, the article concluded, “[T]he numbers are all guesses. The data are based merely on looking at photos on the Internet. There is no science…. In fact, the group behind the study admits as much. It’s now clear they used fake data to deceive the media and lie to Congress. And it was all done to score free publicity and a wealth of public funding.”

Indeed, after Craigslist surrendered its Adult Section, Richardson and the Women’s Funding Network did a celebratory cross-country tour to make the most of the uncritical media coverage.

Those who used the flawed child-prostitution studies as supporting evidence dismissed the Village Voice critique on the grounds that the newspaper is financed by the same group that supports Backpage. But the list of critics within academia and the alternate media grows daily.

Nevertheless, Women’s Funding Network and similar groups seem to have political will and media sensationalism.

In announcing the permanent closure of its Adult section, William Clinton Powell, a director at Craigslist warned that the ads would simply migrate elsewhere. Accordingly, 21 state attorneys general have set their sights on Backpage.com. Anti-Backpage articles are beginning to appear in the mainstream media; a headline in the Seattle Times declared, “State should join effort to put backpage.com’s sex-trafficking ads on the front burner.”

The Women’s Funding Network has announced its intention to have the study conducted in all 50 states.

Will hysteria or science prevail? I am rooting for science but betting on hysteria. After all, both children and illicit sex have been thrown into the mix, and it is an election year. It doesn’t take much to assault First Amendment freedom’s these days.

SOURCE







City Tells Tea Party Group “No Free Speech Here!”

Four Corners Park in Coldwater, Mich., is home to Memorial Day festivities, bands in the summer, and monuments to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to defend the American way of life. Now it’s also home to a blanket prohibition on the freedom of speech following a local Tea Party’s request to hang a banner announcing a rally last July.

First Amendment, anyone?

Here’s where the trouble began. The Tea Party group, known as the Common Sense Patriots of Branch County, informed the city that they were going to display a red, white and blue banner that simply stated, “Branch County Tea Party … July 31st … 1:00 pm” to announce its upcoming event. City manager Jeffrey Budd rejected the request “because he considers the TEA Party to be too political and too controversial,” according to a lawsuit the organization filed against the city in U.S. District Court. The Patriots responded that the decision was an unconstitutional restriction on their right to free speech, the city relented, and the group could hang its sign. But it was only a temporary victory.

At Budd’s recommendation, the city council enacted a blanket ban on ”banners or other signs of any type or description whatsoever.” And according to the Patriots’ complaint, Budd justified the ban by citing to “administrative headaches” and “comments about the banners affecting the natural beauty of the park” that the signs would provoke. But As the Patriots argue, such a ban would prohibit the display of any kind of sign, banner, or poster — even the American flag. The attorney who filed the suit, Robert Muise, told the Mackinac Center for Public Policy that the ban is too broad:

Instead of using a scalpel, they used a sledgehammer,” Muise said. “They didn’t mind when they had people put up banners for some innocuous event, but when the tea party put up their sign, they said, ‘Wait a minute. This is too controversial.’ “There is a problem when you ban everything in a traditional public forum.”

The city says its working on an amendment to its policy.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



14 April, 2011

The useless (but politically correct) British police again

Woman driving to dying mum's side is arrested for a crime she didn't commit...then finds her car's been stolen when police release her SIX hours later!

A woman on the way to pick up her terminally-ill elderly mother for a hospital appointment was subjected to a nightmare ordeal by police who put her in a cell on suspicion of stealing petrol. It was six hours before officers realised they had made a mistake because the theft was in fact carried out by two men. [What utter imbeciles!!]

And by the time they returned law-abiding grandmother Beverley Bennett to the spot where she was arrested, her car had been stolen.

When Mrs Bennett, 58, complained about her treatment, police said she could not take action against them because they were immune from prosecution in negligence cases. But she has now been awarded £2,000 in an out-of-court settlement after she found a lawyer and the force admitted an ‘error’.

‘I have never been in trouble in my life,’ said Mrs Bennett, from Grays, Essex. ‘I don’t even have any points on my licence. How on earth did they end up arresting me, a little lady of 4ft 11in, when they should have been looking for two male suspects? ‘I cannot trust the police any more. I didn’t feel that way before but all they did was pass the buck.’

It was in May last year that staff at Tesco in Chadwell St Mary contacted Essex police to report that two men in a black Honda Accord had driven away without paying £20.70 for fuel. Mrs Bennett visited the same petrol station in her Honda Accord an hour later.

When police arrived to take details of the theft two days later, staff accidentally handed over her registration number and CCTV footage of her filling up and paying – although they did say the suspects were male.

Officers failed to view the footage, however, and the suspects’ sex was not put on to the Police National Computer. On June 24, Mrs Bennett was on her way to collect her 79-year-old mother Susanna Smith, who had cancer, for an appointment at King George Hospital in Ilford, East London. She was pulled over in Dagenham by an officer who noticed her registration had been tagged as belonging to a crime suspect.

‘I honestly thought it was a joke – that someone was having a wind-up,’ she said. ‘But once I was in the cells I realised they certainly were not joking.’ Her £1,500 car was left in a layby beside the A13 dual carriageway while she was taken to Grays police station, where her handbag, shoes and reading glasses were confiscated before she was transferred to a cell await questioning.

The divorced mother of two, who is a registered carer for her disabled grandson, protested her innocence but was not freed until officers finally checked the CCTV footage they had been handed.

She was taken back to her car but it had disappeared and was never recovered, forcing her to make a claim on her insurance. She has now replaced it with a 12-year-old Ford.

Mrs Bennett says the stress caused by the incident caused her mother to be admitted to hospital. She died in December from emphysema, although she had been battling breast cancer. ‘She could not handle any stress as it would cause a strain on her heart,’ she said. ‘It made her ill.’

Solicitor Ian Gould, who specialises in cases against the police, represented Mrs Bennett and won her the payout. He said: ‘It was a catalogue of errors by the police which led to this situation.’

The Essex force yesterday admitted it still had not arrested the right suspects for the theft at the petrol station. A spokesman added: ‘An investigation has concluded that, when crime details were recorded on Essex Police’s systems, vital detail was missed. ‘This was human error and the member of staff concerned has been spoken to.’ [What a comfort!]

SOURCE





Call young criminals customers: British probation chief says being considerate stops re-offending

Criminals must be treated as customers – not offenders, a probation service boss has insisted. They should be invited to speak about their needs and asked how they feel about the treatment they receive, London probation chief Heather Munro added.

And these people should not have to spend time in shabby waiting rooms or be sent to dingy offices to be interviewed. Giving criminals the same consideration a company gives its customers will steer them away from committing future crimes, according to Mrs Munro.

‘It’s a bit like running a business,’ she said. ‘Any business would ask its customers how it can improve its service. It just doesn’t make sense not to.’

The call for probation officers to make life more comfortable for offenders comes at a time of growing concern over the way their service deals with criminals under its supervision.

Last week judges criticised the Government’s plan to keep more offenders out of jail, citing worries ‘relating to occasional poor and ineffective monitoring and management’ of community sentences.

Around half of those given community punishments never finish them, and in London – where Mrs Munro’s service supervises 70,000 criminals a year – probation officers have a particularly poor record.

Lapses by staff were blamed for the decision to free violent career criminal Dano Sonnex from jail in 2008. He went on to torture and murder two French students.

Mrs Munro said the answer to helping criminals quit crime was to consider their feelings and think about how an offender would feel walking into a probation office. ‘I don’t think staff had thought about it from that angle,’ she said. ‘What do the waiting rooms look like, the interview rooms? How are people treated? ‘That whole process hadn’t been thought of in terms of the offender, it was, “how do we deliver this in a way that suits us?”.’

The decision to refer to criminals as ‘customers’ follows efforts by police forces to find softer language to refer to some groups of offenders.

For example, the Metropolitan Police has referred to ‘group rape’ rather than gang rape. However the Met has used the word ‘customers’ in official terms only to apply to victims of crime.

The use of the word for criminals is an extension of the practice of social workers, who refer to troubled families as ‘clients’.

Mrs Munro, a 55-year-old mother of two, told the Guardian newspaper that probation officers should continue to help criminals after their period of punishment and supervision ends.

The idea of a 24-hour helpline for criminals would save money by making them more likely to stop offending, she added. And she suggested there might be a state employment agency for ex-cons to run alongside the helpline. She also called for a biometric fingerprinting system to check offenders turn up when asked to do so. In such cases, they would not need to speak to a probation officer.

Mrs Munro, who earns £130,000 a year, said that better treatment of offenders would be good for victims of crime. ‘The first thing is to acknowledge what any victim has been through,’ she said. ‘But you also want, as a victim, for something not to happen again. ‘And that’s the same as I want. It’s about fewer victims in the future.’

But her call was criticised by Tory MPs and academic experts. Philip Davies, MP for Shipley, said: ‘This is putting the criminal’s rights before those of victims and of ordinary law-abiding people – and it makes people’s blood boil. ‘We know from a poll that 80 per cent of people think sentencing is too lenient. ‘With people like Mrs Munro in charge, that is no wonder.’

Criminologist David Green, of the Civitas think tank, said: ‘The use of the word “customer” could not be more inappropriate. If a customer doesn’t like what they see in Tesco, they don’t need to shop there. But an offender on probation cannot choose his probation officer. ‘This undermines the authority of probation officers. They have to build a good relationship with an offender, but their job is to serve the public, not the criminal.’

A London Probation Trust spokesman insisted it had ‘not adopted’ the word customer to describe offenders but to ‘illustrate a particular approach’. ‘Our chief executive was simply outlining that if we were a business we would conduct customer feedback,’ he added. ‘In this context we would do so to gain insight into how we could cut re-offending further in order to make communities safer.’

SOURCE





Screwy Seattle renames Easter eggs 'spring spheres'

Eggs are not spherical, for a start

Show most children an Easter egg and they'll refer to it as just that, regardless of their cultural background. So when one teacher asked 16-year-old Jessica, who was volunteering at their elementary school in Seattle, to refer to the eggs as 'spring spheres' she was stunned.

The sophomore, who attends a private high school in the city, told KIRO Radio's Dori Monson, the incident happened at the end of a week-long community service project at the school. She declined to give her full name and refused to name the school in question in the telephone interview.

Jessica told the presenter she had loved working with the third graders so much that she wanted to give them a present. 'At the end of the week I had an idea to fill little plastic eggs with treats and jelly beans and other candy, but I was kind of unsure how the teacher would feel about that,' the girl said.

Jessica went on to say she had been worried about the gift after sitting in on a meeting earlier in the week where she had learned about the school's 'abstract behaviour rules'.

'I went to the teacher to get her approval and she wanted to ask the administration to see if it was okay,' Jessica said. 'She said that I could do it as long as I called this treat "spring spheres". I couldn't call them Easter eggs.'

Jessica said she decided to 'roll with it' but when the children saw the eggs they didn't toe the PC line. 'When I took them out of the bag, the teacher said: "Oh look, spring spheres" and all the kids were like "Wow, Easter eggs." So they knew,' Jessica said.

A spokesman for the Seattle Schools District told MailOnline they had not been able to confirm the incident had happened. 'We have asked around about it but have not heard that it happened,' they said before adding: 'It's a big district. Usually when something like this happens we hear about it.'

However the district's guidelines for the observance of religious holidays states that such holidays can be discussed and recognised in school providing it is done in 'an objective instructional way'.

The actual observance and celebration of these holidays however 'belongs in the home and with religious institutions.' 'Any programme which might be interpreted as religious indoctrination or which promotes or favours the beliefs and practices of any one or several religious faiths, or non-faiths, shall be avoided,' the guidelines state.

The Seattle elementary school in question isn't the only government organisation to leave Easter out of the equation. The city's parks department has removed Easter from all of its advertised egg hunts.

Luckily the annual White House 'Easter Egg Roll' will still be called the 'Easter Egg Roll' this year.

SOURCE






Australia's Leftist Prime Minister declares war on the idle

A worthy aim. Let's hope there is more to it than talk

JULIA Gillard has declared war on idleness, revealing she will use the May 10 budget to press Australians to "pull their weight" and not give in to welfare dependency and economic exclusion.

The Prime Minister last night vowed to use the prosperity of the mining boom to fund programs to boost workforce participation, arguing that many people on disability and other pensions should be working.

She said taxpayers should not have to fund welfare for people capable of supporting themselves, and that she would offer training opportunities as part of a push to "entrench a new culture of work".

Her uncompromising comments came in a speech to the Sydney Institute in which she also promised to withdraw government spending to reduce pressure on inflation as the private sector lifted its activity after a period on the economic sidelines forced by the global financial crisis.

Since ousting Kevin Rudd from the Labor leadership last June, Ms Gillard has frequently expressed her belief in what she describes as "the dignity of work" and promised to use education and training to deliver equality of opportunity. At the same time, the government has been working on policy to deal with the fact that current work participation rates will be insufficient to support the ageing population.

In her speech last night, Ms Gillard married the themes, declaring that Labor was "the party of work, not welfare" and placing respect for work and a fair go at the centre of the national policy agenda.

While she conceded there would always be some Australians who were unable to work because of disability, Ms Gillard said it was a "social and economic reality" that some people who could work would not. "Relying on welfare to provide opportunity is no longer the right focus for our times," the Prime Minister said.

"In today's economy, inclusion through participation must be our central focus." She said the nation's strong economy provided a perfect opportunity to target people stuck on welfare with reforms based on "high expectations that everyone who can work, should work".

While she gave no details of the reforms, the Prime Minister hinted at measures to help those she described as "hard cases" to prepare themselves to work by dealing with their health issues and providing opportunities for them to balance work with their family responsibilities.

Ms Gillard suggested welfare recipients could be ushered back into the workforce with the right mix of policies. This could involve training or measures "as simple as learning to read and write at a higher level". "It is not right to leave people on welfare and deny them access to opportunity," she said. And every Australian should pull his or her own weight. It is not fair for taxpayers to pay for someone who can support themselves."

The comments are likely to upset the welfare sector, which has recently warned against punitive measures to force welfare recipients to work.

Labor's left wing could also baulk at the reforms, although the opposition has been proposing its own measures to lift workforce participation, including grants to help the unemployed move to areas of high employment.

The Prime Minister said 230,000 Australians had been unemployed for more than two years, while 250,000 families did not have an adult in the workforce for at least a year.

"The party I lead is politically, spiritually, even literally, the party of work - the party of work, not welfare, the party of opportunity, not exclusions, the party of responsibility, not idleness," Ms Gillard said.

"The values I learned in my parents' home - hard work, a fair go through education, respect - find themselves at the centre of Australia's economic debate in the challenge to cut long-term welfare dependency."

Ms Gillard rejected claims that her pledge to return the budget to a surplus by 2012-13 was a political decision and that she could cause less pain for taxpayers if she delayed the plan.

The Prime Minister said that although her promise was political in the sense that she made it during the election campaign, it was also economically prudent for the government to cut spending after more than two years of heavy economic stimulus to offset the effects of the global recession.

"When the private sector was in retreat, the government stepped forward to fill the gap," she said. "Over coming years, as the private sector recovers strongly, it is the right time for the government to step back."

Ms Gillard also allowed herself a note of satisfaction, saying she was sceptical of "exaggerated" commentary about politics. She noted that people had predicted she would be unable to deliver reforms such as her flood levy, health reform package or her National Broadband Network legislation. In each case, she said, she had prevailed with patience and perseverance.

Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said last night the government's mismanagement and wasteful spending on programs such as the Building the Education Revolution, pink batts and the National Broadband Network "makes a mockery" of the Prime Minister's claim in her speech that Labor was committed to fiscal responsibility.

"The government's budget in May will not be worth the paper it is written on," Mr Hockey said. "It will not include the revenue and expenditure from its new carbon tax."

Former Labor minister Graham Richardson launched a blistering attack on what he said was the Gillard government's use of a politically unheard of "big-target" strategy on a series of issues ranging from carbon tax compensation to cuts to health research funding.

Mr Richardson used his Sky News show Richo to criticise the government for not giving details of the likely impact of the carbon tax and how people would be compensated. Planned measures to limit gambling on poker machines ensured that every pub and club in Australia would become a campaign office for the opposition, he said.

Mr Richardson added that it all got worse this week when it emerged the budget would cut $400 million in health research.

That was mean-spirited, he said. "If they do it, they're crazy."

Ms Gillard's appearance at the Sydney Institute dinner at Luna Park attracted a band of gay marriage protesters, who called on her to "open your heart" to "marriage rights now".

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



13 April, 2011

Failed by the system: 25 abused children die under the noses of British social workers

They're too busy harassing middle class families for imaginary offences

Twenty-five children have died and dozens more been seriously injured despite being known to social services, an Ofsted report reveals.

Vulnerable youngsters are let down in ‘too many’ cases by professionals who fail to listen to the concerns of grandparents, neighbours and even fathers, it says. In four of the cases, grandparents reported concerns but this did not lead to effective action.

Local authorities and other agencies failed to learn lessons from the Baby P scandal, the report shows. He was found dead, aged 17 months, in a blood-splattered cot having suffered a broken back and fractured ribs in August 2007.

Ofsted assessed 67 serious case reviews (SCRs) between April 1 and September 30 last year involving 93 children. Thirty-nine had died. SCRs, carried out by safeguarding boards, are triggered after a death or serious injury, where abuse or neglect is suspected. They can come as much as two years after an incident.

Of the 93 children, 70 were known to social services. Twenty-five of these died, including four who were subject to active child protection plans.

Ofsted warned that too often the focus on the child was ‘lost’ as they were not seen by the professionals involved or not visited regularly enough. In some cases, the child was seen but not questioned and there was often an ‘over reliance’ on what the parents claimed.

In a case involving a family of seven children, a grandmother had repeatedly contacted social carers alleging sexual and physical abuse of her grandchildren by their stepfather. Ofsted said that this failed to trigger child protection procedures. It was not until more than a decade later that disclosures were made by the eldest children, revealing the abuse that had taken place.

A tendency by agencies to overlook the role of fathers, male partners and other men living within families was also a ‘common theme’, the report said.

Referring to one case, it added: ‘One of the children, living with the mother, was sexually abused by the mother’s partner. ‘The father passed information many times to children’s services and to the police that the mother’s partner was a registered sex offender and had unrestricted access to the children.’ The SCR found that although steps were taken to ‘monitor or restrict access’, the father was ‘not properly listened to’.

The watchdog said that warning signs were also ignored when parents and carers refused access to their homes.

It added: ‘A lesson from some of the SRCs was that practitioners had not listened sufficiently to the child or had not paid enough attention to their needs. ‘They had focused too much on the parents, especially when the parents were vulnerable.’

It highlighted a case where a baby suffered skull fractures even though the family was known to agencies due to the mother’s alcohol abuse. Meanwhile, signs of grooming by a sex offender and the ‘significance of domestic violence’ were sometimes ‘overlooked’.

A teenager had been the subject of internet images in which she was sexually assaulted. She and her brother had been ill-treated by their mother and sexually abused by their uncle. The family was known to agencies in three local authorities where they had lived and there had been ‘sufficient information’ for the abuse to be recognised.

Christine Gilbert, Ofsted’s chief inspector of schools, said: ‘It’s shocking to see that too often children in vulnerable situations are not heard by those who should be looking out for their interests.’

SOURCE





Moral Monsters in Afghanistan and Moral Idiocy in America

Given the preoccupation of the American media with the possible closing down of the American government, and the preoccupation of American and world media with Japan's travails and the revolts in the Arab world, many Americans may have missed the news about the April 1 massacre of United Nations employees in Afghanistan.

That is unfortunate because it was as significant as it was instructive.

It began on Sunday, March 20, when a pastor named Terry Jones burned a Quran at his small church in Florida. To their credit, almost no American media covered the event, and a mere 30 people came to witness it. But Jones broadcast the offensive and asinine event on the Internet -- and did so with Arabic subtitles.

To the best of our knowledge, since Sept. 11, 2001, when 19 Muslims murdered 3,000 Americans, not one American out of a population of more than 300 million has publicly burned a Quran. Nevertheless, some Muslims in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) claimed that this one American and this one act, which was condemned by every prominent American of every religion and every political persuasion, was deemed worthy of retribution. And that retribution was the slaughter of as many non-Muslims as they could find.

On April 1, hundreds of enraged Afghan Muslims descended on a United Nations office building in Mazar-i-Sharif and murdered -- by beating, stabbing and cutting throats four Nepalese, a Norwegian, a Swede and a Romanian.

It is worth reflecting on this massacre. Let us remind ourselves about the mindset of those Muslims and of any Muslims who agree with them. To these people, murdering any non-Muslims they can find is a just and Islamic response to the burning of a Quran.

This is important to note because it gives one a clearer picture of the type of the person the Islamist is. We have here a level of moral primitiveness unknown elsewhere in the human race. There are bad people in every religion, in every country and in every group. But we do not know of any group, let alone millions of people, who believe that murder is a proper response to an affront to their religion (or to their country or to their ethnic group).

The world's more than 2 billion Christians regularly endure far greater affronts to their religion, yet not one Christian has murdered anyone specifically because of these affronts. For example, an artist, Andres Serrano, put a crucifix in his urine and titled it "Piss Christ"; yet he knows that he doesn't have to worry about even one Christian hurting him. Likewise, not one of the museum curators whose museums have exhibited the work believe they have anything to fear from even one of the world's 2 billion Christians.

And what about the Christians regularly murdered by Muslims in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere? Why haven't these crimes, infinitely morally worse "affronts" than the burning of a Quran -- or a Bible -- produced anything analogous to the enraged Muslims in Afghanistan?

The frequent and large demonstrations in the Muslim world against affronts -- real and imagined -- to Islam need to be juxtaposed with the utter absence of demonstrations against the now-routine murdering of innocents in the name of Islam.

Even the notion of religious affront needs to be examined. Isn't evil done in the name of one's religion more of an affront than evil done against one's religion? I suspect this is how nearly every Jew and Christian thinks. The vast majority of Christians would be considerably more affronted by murders of innocents in the name of Christ than by insults -- like "Piss Christ" -- to Christ. Why, then, isn't the Muslim world more affronted by all the Muslims who shout "Allah is the greatest" while cutting the throats of innocent men, women and children than by illustrations of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper or the burning of a Quran by a crackpot in Florida?

Unfortunately, the moral confusion wasn't confined to Afghanistan. Though in no way morally equivalent, we Americans exhibited our own form of moral confusion in regard to the Quran burning.

Joe Klein, political commentator for Time magazine, morally equated Terry Jones and the Afghan murderers: "There should be no confusion about this: Jones's act was murderous as any suicide bomber's."

Anyone with common sense knows that there is no moral equivalence between destroying a book, no matter how holy, and destroying a human life. So how does one explain Klein's statement?

Klein is a leftist, and his comment embodies two aspects of the contemporary left. One is the left's hard time identifying and confronting real evil.

Instead of focusing on Islamism, the left focuses on small evils like alleged pay gaps between men and women working at the same job or on non-evils such as carbon dioxide emissions. Or they engage in moral equivalence: The Muslim murderers are no worse than Terry Jones.

The other characteristic of the left embodied in Klein's statement is what George W. Bush called the "soft bigotry of low expectations." It is clear that Klein has contempt for Muslims. If Christians had slaughtered innocents because of "Piss Christ," it would never have occurred to Klein to write, "There should be no confusion about this: Serrano's act was as murderous as any slaughtering Christians."

With Islamism dominating major parts of the Muslim world, and leftism dominating much of the non-Muslim world, these are not the best of times.

SOURCE





Welfare for the Well-Off

The case against government subsidies for public broadcasting

The local public radio station, WCVE, is in the midst of its spring fundraiser. As someone who tunes in most mornings, I kicked in some bucks for the good of the cause last week. And if you pay taxes in Virginia, you did, too.

Gov. Bob McDonnell tried to have it otherwise. He sought repeatedly to slash state funding for public broadcasting, but was gainsaid by the General Assembly—which trimmed appropriations for public radio and TV by only 10 percent.

During debate on the governor's budget amendments last Wednesday, Del. Jennifer McClellan, a Richmond Democrat, displayed an Elmo doll on her desk. Dear, cute, sweet Elmo! All those in favor of tossing the little red fellow into the fetid maw of some slaverous beast vomited up from the bowels of hell by voting to defund "Sesame Street," please raise a hand. Nobody? Not one soul? Didn't think so.

That, regrettably, seems to be roughly the level of discourse surrounding public broadcasting: Are you pro-Elmo, or do you hate anything that makes children happy?

This is known as the fallacy of the false alternative. There is of course a third alternative. Elmo, NPR, Frontline, and many other menu items on the public-broadcasting buffet could do just fine without a government subsidy, and might even be better off, as former NPR exec Ron Schiller said in a now-infamous sting video by right-wing provocateur James O'Keefe.

Public broadcasting's supporters sometimes say otherwise. When critics of government subsidies complain about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, friends of NPR (etc.) say the government stipend is just a drop in a very large funding bucket. When critics then say in that case the stipend would not be missed if it were stopped, supporters say funding cuts would be devastating. Well: Is the stipend significant, or not?

Assume it is significant. To say that cutting the subsidy would be devastating is not, in itself, an argument against doing so—because it does not explain why the subsidy should exist in the first place.

Here, supporters of public broadcasting make two points. First, public broadcasting serves state purposes because stations sometimes help out with online training for schoolteachers and provide educational programming used in the schools. Yes, but: Is a stipend for public broadcasting the only way to provide such services? If the answer is "yes," then wouldn't it be useful to treat the station providers as contractors who should invoice the state for services rendered? When the commonwealth of Virginia buys ammunition for state troopers, it doesn't provide a general subsidy for the Remington corporation with the vague expectation that the local gun store will eventually send over a few boxes of 9 mm cartridges in return.

It used to be possible to argue that public broadcasting provides program content unavailable elsewhere. But the profusion of new media—from educational children's TV to live-streamed Internet feeds from General Assembly floor debates—has blunted that point almost to a nullity. There may be occasional shows that offer unique content, such as the recent "Virginia Currents" feature on the Flying Circus of Bealeton air show. Does such a program truly serve a core purpose of state government? Really?

It certainly does not serve a social-welfare function. The median household income of an NPR listener is $86,000—50 percent higher than that of an ordinary American family. Public broadcasting subsidies are welfare for rich (or at least richer) people.

The remaining case for supporting public broadcasting (other than the fact that the wrong people oppose it—a knee-jerk, red-team/blue-team reaction that seems to explain a great many positions taken on both sides of the political aisle these days) is that public broadcasting does many wonderful things. This runs up against what one might call the Libyan-intervention question.

The Obama administration essentially has said humanitarian reasons trump constitutional rules about who can start a war. But humanitarian reasons would justify military intervention in a dozen or more places around the globe. So why single out Libya? Likewise, countless organizations and institutions do good things. Why single out public broadcasting for government support? Why not also give government money to newspapers, to the Girl Scouts, to the SPCA, and so on ad infinitum? No coherent answer forthcomes.

One complaint about public broadcasting commands sympathy. Only a small percentage of those who listen to public radio and watch public television contribute during pledge drives—despite the fact, as noted above, that they tend to have more disposable income. A far greater percentage of listeners, however, seem to think non-listeners should be forced through compulsory taxation to support what they themselves will not support voluntarily.

To explain that peculiarity, one should turn to Brian Caplan, an economist at George Mason University. "The wealthy but uncharitable socialist," he wrote a few years ago in The Independent Review, "ceases to be a mystery once you understand relative prices. Voluntary charity is costly to the giver, but voting for charity ... is virtually free."

SOURCE





Australia: No penalty for black pedophile

Young black girls are less deserving of protection than are white girls, apparently

A MAN who "married" a 13-year-old girl and got her pregnant has escaped jail after pleading guilty to having sex with a child under 16. The Northern Territory Supreme Court heard the man was 23 when he married the girl, "in the Aboriginal sense" in a remote community, the Northern Territory News reports.

The relationship only came to light when the girl gave birth and a subsequent DNA test proved he was the baby's father.

Chief Justice Trevor Riley told the man that the court would be "blind to reality" if he did not impose a penalty which allowed him to return to his wife, who is now 17.

Chief Justice Riley sentenced him in the Alice Springs sittings of the Supreme Court to nine months in jail suspending it immediately. The maximum sentence for having sex with an underage person is 16 years in prison.

Upon sentencing the man Chief Justice Riley said it was "not a case of an older predator taking advantage of a young girl". "You are in a relationship with her. The relationship existed before the birth of the child and continues until today."

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



12 April, 2011

Shame as British Navy seizes 17 armed Somalis, gives them halal meat and nicotine patches... then sets them free!

Walking the plank was once a guarantee of preventing future offending by pirates. Why not now?

When a Royal Navy warship captured a crew of Somali pirates, it seemed like a rare chance to strike back at the ruthless sea gangsters. The 17 outlaws were armed with an arsenal of AK 47s and rocket-propelled grenades, and had forced hostages on a hijacked fishing vessel to work as slaves for three months.

But instead of bringing them to justice, the British servicemen were ordered to provide the pirates halal meals, medical checks, cigarettes – and in one case even a nicotine patch – before releasing them in their own boats.

The extraordinary treatment – revealed in a Radio 4 documentary to be broadcast tonight – came at a time when Somali piracy is causing mayhem to shipping in the Indian Ocean. More than £60million was paid in ransoms last year and pirates currently hold 30 ships and nearly 800 hostages.

HMS Cornwall is one of two Royal Navy frigates patrolling two and a half million square miles of ocean to try to capture pirate ships.

The apparent breakthrough came in February when the captain of a merchant ship crossing the ocean radioed to say he had seen something suspicious. A helicopter was scrambled and spotted a Yemeni fishing vessel which had been hijacked by pirates and was being used as their ‘mother ship’ to attack other vessels.

Armed Royal Marines launched boats and swooped on the pirates, who were found with nine AK 47s plus rocket-propelled grenade launchers and boarding ladders. The five slave crew from the fishing vessel were released and the 17 pirates initially detained on board the warship.

Commander David Wilkinson, Cornwall’s captain, said: ‘This team admitted their intention was to commit piracy activities.’ But after compiling the evidence against them and submitting it to his superiors he was ordered to ‘set up arrangements for putting them ashore in Somalia’.

Before being freed, the pirates were given a medical check-up in accordance with UK law and food which included a halal option to take into account religious needs. After showing they were compliant, some were given cigarettes, and one was given a nicotine patch on medical advice because his tobacco withdrawal had caused his heart rate to soar.

Close to shore, the British servicemen set them free in two skiffs which they had earlier seized from the gangsters – with no food and just enough fuel to get them to land.

As they stepped off the warship, Commander Wilkinson told the head of the pirate gang: ‘If you are a leader, go back and lead for good. ‘If you are going to carry on in this trade, expect to find me and my colleagues waiting for you. And if I see you again, it’s not going to go well.’

Commander Wilkinson added that he believed the order to free the pirates was the ‘right decision’ because he was not convinced bringing them back to the UK would have been a deterrent. He also said he was unconvinced that they had enough evidence to convict the pirates – even though they were heavily armed, were carrying hostages and had confessed.

The decision to release the pirates was made by the UK’s Maritime Component Commander based in Bahrain after considering UK policy and law.

Foreign Office Minister Henry Bellingham said the Government is reviewing the ‘catch and release’ approach to piracy. ‘It is not going to happen in the future unless there isn’t any other alternative.’

SOURCE




British "safety" measures make racecourse more dangerous

Measures pushed by animal rights people in order to make it safer for horses are actually killing them -- and hurting riders too

A jockey was clinging to life in a coma last night as a champion trainer accused ‘do-gooders’ of making horse racing more deadly. Red Rum’s trainer, Ginger McCain, said safety measures at the Grand National had made it faster and more dangerous.

Two horses died in Saturday’s National and jockey Peter Toole suffered horrific injuries in a fall during an earlier race at Aintree. A third horse, Inventor, was destroyed after breaking its leg in a race on Thursday.

The incidents prompted condemnation from animal rights organisations, which called for the National to be banned or made safer.

But Mr McCain said safety measures, including reducing ‘drops’ on the landing side of fences, had inadvertently made it more dangerous. The veteran trainer, who won three times with Red Rum, said: ‘It’s getting quicker and it’s speed that does it… They’ve taken the drops out for the do-gooders and it has encouraged the horses to go quicker. It is speed that kills.’

Winner Ballabriggs – trained by Mr McCain’s son Donald – completed the race in the second-fastest time ever but his jockey was handed a five-day ban for excessive use of the whip. Donald McCain said: ‘It’s unfortunate that accidents and injuries happen. ‘Every horse deserves his chance to be a great horse. There is no great joy for a horse being stuck in a field. If it does not want to jump at Aintree, he won’t jump. ‘They have done everything they can to be the safest race it can be.’

An estimated worldwide audience of 600 million viewers saw his triumph, but many watched in horror as two horses, Ornais and Dooneys Gate, died on the Grand National course.

Two hours earlier, 22-year-old jockey Mr Toole suffered serious injuries in a fall during the Maghull Novices’ Chase. His horse, the 100-1 outsider Classic Fly, fell at the first fence of the race, which is not run over the Grand National jumps. Video appeared to show another horse kicking Mr Toole’s head.

He was taken to hospital and later transferred to the Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Liverpool, amid fears he could have suffered brain damage. Doctors put him into a medically induced coma as they battled to treat bleeding on the right side of his brain and are expected to keep him in it until today at the earliest.

The Grand National is billed as the ‘ultimate test’ of horse and jockey, but critics said the treatment of horses amounted to animal cruelty. Forty horses started the race this year but only 19 completed it. The League Against Cruel Sports branded the Grand National ‘ritualised animal cruelty’ and called for a boycott of racing’s ‘day of shame’.

Animal Aid director Andrew Tyler said: ‘The public has been conned into believing the Grand National is a great sporting spectacle when, in reality, it is animal abuse that is on a par with Spanish bullfighting.’

Aintree’s managing director Julian Thick said: ‘Safety is the first priority. We are desperately sad at the accidents and our thoughts go out to the connections of Ornais and Dooneys Gate.’

RSPCA equine consultant David Muir said the charity could not stop deaths, despite working with Aintree to improve safety.

SOURCE




'Non jobs' gravy train rolls on for British councils

Councils have recruited an army of climate change workers, equality officers, communications staff and other "non jobs", while cutting front line services

The first survey of local authorities since the coalition came to power last May has found that town halls created more than 4,000 new posts during the period.

Despite the public sector being told to make sweeping cuts, councils have advertised for posts such as "woodfuel development officer", "new media staff" and "healthy workplace coordinators".

Last night Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, said the appointments were "self indulgent" and "irresponsible".

The findings come as councils are under unprecedented financial pressure and try to cut costs by increasing charges, cutting basic services and closing facilities such as libraries.

Mr Pickles accused some authorities of making "politically-motivated" cuts, ahead of next month's local elections, by blaming the Tory-led coalition for cuts to services on which the public rely, while protecting "pet projects" and bloated bureaucracies.

The research show that in total, 205 councils have created a total of 4,148 new posts since May 1 last year.

Most have reduced their overall staffing levels during the period but the study found that while doing so, many have continued to create brand new roles for "communications officers", "equality officers" and "climate change staff".

Councils have also recruited dozens of workers to enhance the "wellbeing" of staff and "customers", as well as "life skills" experts, who teach members of the public basic tasks such as ironing.

The figures also reveal a boom in such jobs as "walking coordinators", "obesity strategy officers", and "active" workers, whose job is to encourage the public to pursue more healthy lifestyles.

* At Anglesey, where no party is in overall control, 48 council jobs and 16 teachers are to be cut, the authority has created new posts for an "age friendly communities" manager – to make the island a better place to live for older residents – a walking and cycling officer, a "community conservation" officer – to run "green gym" schemes, where people are encouraged to create community gardens and plant trees – and an "Energy Island" programme office administrator, to promote renewable energy. The council insisted the roles would benefit Anglesey economically.

* In Hastings, the Labour-run council has put up parking charges, shut down public lavatories, reduced maintenance of allotments, cut the budget for lifeguards and closed the local museum one day a week, and is planning job cuts. But it has also created 25 new jobs including three "active women officers" whose job is to get local women involved in netball, athletics, cycling, badminton, rounders, tennis, table tennis or swimming. A spokesman justified these posts saying they could help to reduce costs to the taxpayer by increasing fitness levels.

One post, created by Tory-run Charnwood council – where charges for using public lavatories have been introduced and job cuts planned – is for a member of staff to encourage asylum seekers and ethnic minorities to get involved in nature conservation projects. It is partly funded with Lottery money

Mr Pickles said: "The public will be very unimpressed to see some pet project put together when front line services are being chopped.

"These recruitment decisions are made at a local level and it is up to local people to let their council know exactly how they feel about what can only be described as irresponsible, short-sighted appointments.

"There are people on the front line who will be losing their jobs because of the self-aggrandisement and self indulgence of these appointments." He added: "It is pretty clear that a number of Labour-run authorities are cutting front line services and blaming the Tories, but I think people are rumbling them.

"Councils should be grown up and take responsibility rather than expecting everything to be decided for them at the centre. We gave the clearest indication that there would be significant reductions in public expenditure.

"They have ignored that advice and will be delivering – because of these non-jobs – a worse service to the public.

"Sensible and prudent councils could see that cuts were on the way and prepared for them by not recruiting. All these other councils have done is make their situation worse. They have cut off their flexibility."

Some councils responded to the survey to say they had not created any new posts, while others said they were unable to provide the information.

Some of the new jobs are part funded by other public bodies, such as NHS Trusts or Natural England.

Councils argue that some of the posts are created by reorganising their structures, that others are to cover for maternity leave and that some of them are in schools.

John Ransford, chief executive of the Local Government Association, said: "Far from being a bloated bureaucracy, the local government workforce is being reduced by 140,000 over the next year as councils cut their cloth to prioritise frontline services.

"Many local authorities are restructuring their entire operations to cut management costs, and if some new posts are created it must be seen in the context of the overall numbers of staff being reduced.

"Councils are responsible for providing 800 different services, and many of the posts often denigrated as 'non-jobs' reflect a lack of understanding about the complex nature of the vital work local authorities do."

SOURCE





Governmental arrogance

A dialectic of judicial deference and political arrogance is on display in St. Louis. When excessively deferential courts permit governmental arrogance, additional arrogance results as government explores the limits of judicial deference. As Jim Roos knows.

He formed a nonprofit housing and community development corporation that provides residences for low-income people. Several times its properties have been seized by the city government, using "blight" as an excuse for transferring property to developers who can pay more taxes to the seizing government.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision legitimized this. It permits governments to cite "blight" -- a notoriously elastic concept, sometimes denoting nothing more than chipped paint or cracked sidewalks -- to justify seizing property for the "public use" of enriching those governments.

Roos responded by painting on the side of one of his buildings a large mural -- a slash through a red circle containing the words "End Eminent Domain Abuse." The government that had provoked him declared his sign "illegal" and demanded that he seek a permit for it. He did. Then the government denied the permit.

The St. Louis sign code puts the burden on the citizen to justify his or her speech rather than on the government to justify limiting speech. And the code exempts certain kinds of signs from requiring permits. These include works of art, flags of nations, states or cities, symbols or crests of religious, fraternal or professional organizations. And, of course, the government exempted political signs. So the exempted categories are defined by the signs' content.

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm defending Roos, notes that signs may be the oldest form of mass communication -- Gutenberg made advertising posters -- and they remain an inexpensive means of communicating with fellow citizens. St. Louis says it regulates signs for "aesthetic" reasons and to promote traffic safety, but admits it has no guidelines for the bureaucrats exercising aesthetic discretion and no empirical evidence connecting signs with traffic risks. And why would Roos' mural be less aesthetic and more distracting to drivers than, say, a sign -- exempted from any permit requirement -- urging the election of the kind of city officials who enjoy censoring Roos?

St. Louis is not the problem; government is. Many people go into it because they enjoy bossing people around. Surely this is why a court had to overturn a decision by the government of Glendale, Ohio, when it threatened a man with fines and jail because he put a "for sale" sign in his car parked in front of his house. The city said people might be distracted by the sign and walk into traffic.

St. Louis Alderman Phyllis Young is distressed that Roos' speech might escape government control: "If this sign is allowed to remain then anyone with property along any thoroughfare can paint signs indicating the opinion or current matter relevant to the owner to influence passersby with no control by any City agency. The precedent should not be allowed."

The alderman's horror of uncontrolled speech is an example of what Elizabeth Price Foley, law professor at Florida International University, calls "an ineluctable byproduct of disregarding the morality of American law." In her book "Liberty for All" (2006, Yale), she says the growing exercise of legislative power "in the name of majoritarian whims" has eroded America's "twin foundational presumptions" -- limited government and residual individual sovereignty.

The original constitutional structure has, she says, been inverted: Citizens are required to convince the courts that laws restricting liberty are "irrational"; government should be required to articulate justifications for limiting liberty. The Founders' goal -- in John Adams' formulation, a nation of "laws, and not of men" -- has, Foley believes, "been taken much too far."

She thinks we have become a nation of laws, and not of liberty. We are, she notes, a nation with local laws prohibiting the wearing of hats in theaters or courtrooms, catching fish with one's bare hands, carrying a slingshot, teaching others about polygamy, having a garage sale for more than two days a year, serving alcohol within a mile of a religious camp meeting....

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether the city of St. Louis can regulate what Roos can say concerning what the government has done to him. This case, which arises from unwise judicial deference to city governments wielding the power of eminent domain, demonstrates the dialectic of courts inciting governmental arrogance by deferring to it. So judicial deference often is dereliction of judicial duty.

Source

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



11 April, 2011

Evolution of prejudice: Study reveals racism in MONKEYS

Racial, ethnic and religious prejudice may lie in our evolutionary past, according to new research using monkeys. Several experiments have found the animals were more wary of outsiders and associated bad things with them. The research was conducted on the uninhabited Puerto Rico island of Cayo Santiago, which has a large rhesus monkey population.

Yale student Neha Mahajan led a team of psychologists to study their behaviour because like humans, monkeys live in groups and have strong social bonds.

Psychologists have always known many of our prejudices operate automatically, without us even being aware of them.

Tests on the monkeys showed that our tendency to see the world in terms of 'us' and 'them' has ancient origins.

Researchers measured the amount of time the monkeys stared at photographed face of an insider (part of the group) versus the outsider monkey. Across several experiments, they found that the monkeys stared longer at the faces of outsiders suggesting they were more wary, according to the Scientific American.

To ensure the monkeys weren't just curious, the team paired familiar outsider faces - monkeys that had recently left the group - with monkeys which had recently joined.

When presented with these pairs, the monkeys continued to stare longer at outsider faces, even though they were more familiar with them. The monkeys were clearly making distinctions based on group membership.

Mahajan and her colleagues devised an experiment to discover if the animals had negative feelings towards the outsiders. They paired the photos of insider and outsider monkeys with either good things, such as fruits, or bad things, such as spiders.

When an insider face was paired with fruit, or an outsider face was paired with a spider, the monkeys quickly lost interest. But when an insider face was paired with a spider, the monkeys looked longer at the photographs.

It was assumed the monkeys found it confusing when something good was paired with something bad. This suggests that monkeys not only distinguish between insiders and outsiders, they associate insiders with good things and outsiders with bad things.

Overall, the results support an evolutionary basis for prejudice, said the Scientific American.

SOURCE






The indispensable freedom of association and "discrimination"

by Jeff Jacoby

BRAD ASKS ANGELINA FOR A DATE, but she doesn't want to go out with him. Should she be legally free to turn him down?

I take it for granted that no one in America thinks the law ought to interfere with Angelina's freedom to say no. Whether she agrees to date Brad or not is a matter of complete indifference to the government. That's true regardless of her reason. She can reject Brad's suit because he's handicapped, or because he's Christian, or because he isn't tattooed. She can discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, national origin, or table manners. When it comes to friendship and romance, freedom of association -- which by definition includes the freedom not to associate -- is absolute.

Freedom of association is a core human right, and not just when it comes to dating. It would be unthinkable for the government to meddle in our choice of sports team to root for, house of worship to pray in, or neighborhood to move to.

You are free to join a gay men's choir because you like being with gays, or to avoid gay pride parades because you don't like being with gays. You can volunteer for a political campaign, attend a cocktail party, go to the beach -- or not -- and your reasons may be admirable (the candidate's record of public service) or not so admirable (the candidate's skin color). The choice is yours. Other people may disapprove of what you choose or why you chose it, but the law gives them no authority to stop you.

Freedom of association should be valued as highly in our economic life as it is in our social life. When it comes to choices made by consumers, tenants, and employees, it usually is. The government cannot make you buy from a store you don't want to shop in -- and it doesn't matter whether your reason for avoiding it is that the prices are too high, the goods aren't American-made, or the owner is a Jew. The same is true for employees who don't want to work for an employer, or a tenant who declines to rent from a landlord. They are free to say no, and the law doesn't inquire into their motives.

That liberty should be a two-way street, but it isn't. Employers, for example, have nothing like unabridged freedom of association when it comes to hiring. You don't have to work for a woman if you don't want to, but a lawsuit awaits any employer who tries to exercise the same freedom. Federal and state laws ban discrimination on a wide array of grounds, and efforts to enlarge the list are never-ending.

US Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia introduced legislation last month making it illegal to discriminate against job applicants who are currently unemployed. A state legislator in Texas is pushing a bill that would outlaw discrimination against creationists. In Massachusetts, Maryland, and other states, transgender and transsexual activists want lenders, employers, and landlords barred from discriminating on the basis of "gender identity."

It's easy to understand the desire to protect individuals from being discriminated against unjustly. But are lawmakers truly equipped to decide which kinds of discrimination are reasonable and which aren't? Does Big Brother know better than the business owner whose bottom line is at stake whether a given applicant is right for a given job? If the government won't second-guess Angelina's decision not to date Brad or buy from Brad, why should it infringe on her prerogative not to hire Brad or rent to Brad?

Free and competitive markets aren't thought of as promoting tolerance and reducing bigotry, yet they do so far more effectively than ever-more-detailed civil rights regulations. Writing in the 1730s, Voltaire famously described the London Stock Exchange as a place "where the representatives of all nations meet for the benefit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mohammedan, and the Christian transact together, as though they all professed the same religion, and give the name of infidel to none but bankrupts." Gary Becker earned the 1992 Nobel Prize in economics in part for demonstrating that discrimination is economically detrimental -- free markets penalize an employer who discriminates for reasons unrelated to ability and productivity.

Freedom of association is indispensable to making a free society work. No culture is without unfairness. But where men and women are unfettered in their freedom to form or avoid relationships with others -- socially and economically -- tolerance and cooperation increase, and ugly prejudice recedes.

SOURCE






Maybe Britain needs a First Amendment, too

How did Britain reach a situation where newspaper columnists can be investigated by the cops for being offensive?

Last week it emerged that the Metropolitan Police are investigating the Spectator magazine following complaints from a Muslim group about comments made on a blog entry on its website by the Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips. Writing about the massacre, in the West Bank, of a three-month-old Jewish girl, her two brothers and her parents as they slept in their beds, Phillips referred to the murderers as ‘savages’ and to the ‘moral depravity of the Arabs’.

Phillips is not generally noted for even-handedness when it comes to writing about the Middle East. She is often polemical, some might even say tendentious, in her support of Israel. She is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, and perhaps you would include yourself in that. Perhaps you feel that she comes too close to smearing all Arabs. Perhaps you even think hers are the sort of views that should be investigated by the police. But then again, perhaps you don’t read her blogs and form your views of the rights and wrongs of faraway bloodshed from other sources. Perhaps you wonder what all the fuss is about.

There are echoes here of the case of another Daily Mail journalist, Jan Moir, who in 2009 upset a lot of people by appearing to attribute the death of the singer Stephen Gately to his lifestyle. Gately was gay. The Crown Prosecution Service eventually decided, about a year ago, not to prosecute Moir, but the whole episode conjured up bizarre images of crown officials poring over words and phrases in a newspaper opinion column for evidence of illegality.

And then there was the case, less well-publicised, involving Douglas Murray, another journalist. He was investigated by the Press Complaints Commission and the police merely for suggesting that the prosecution of an English councillor for telling a joke about an Irishman being a bit dim was ludicrous. And last year, too, a Liberal Democrat councillor was convicted under the 2006 Public Order Act for using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress’. Shirley Brown, who is black, had called a female Asian councillor, Jay Jethwa, a ‘coconut’, a colloquial term used to denote a person who is ‘brown on the outside and white on the inside’ - someone who has, in other words, betrayed his or her cultural roots by pandering to ‘white’ opinion.

But it’s not merely in print and in the debating chamber that solecisms can have repercussions: cyberspace also has its victims. Think of Paul Chambers, who was fined £3,000 and lost his job for tweeting, in jest, words to the effect that he would blow up an airport if its closure due to bad weather disrupted his travel plans. Or of Gareth Compton, the Tory councillor who was arrested in November when – after hearing the Independent’s Yasmin Alibhai-Brown argue on a radio programme that the West had no moral authority to condemn the practice of stoning women in the Muslim world – he asked his Twitter followers ‘Can someone please stone [her] to death?’, adding ‘I shan’t tell Amnesty if you don’t. It would be a blessing, really.’

That some users of social media are discovering, to their detriment, that the online environment does not in fact mirror the domain of the private conversation down the pub was perhaps inevitable. But then, as the Sky Sports commentators Andy Gray and Richard Keys – who lost their jobs for making off-colour remarks when they thought they were not being recorded - recently found out, even private conversation is no longer safe from censure.

What is going on? How did we arrive at a situation where giving offence is automatically sackable or worse? Surely the freedom to disagree with a comment or to ignore it is enough. When it is suggested that certain points of view or ways of expressing them might be or should be illegal – or that intolerance should not be tolerated, to purloin the common malapropism – a notion that should chill anyone who holds the principles of liberal democracy dear is given life: the notion of thought crime. Freedom of speech was hard-won in the West; the freedom only to speak inoffensively is no freedom at all.

If UK prime minister David Cameron seemed to grasp this when he spoke of the merits of ‘muscular liberalism’ earlier this year, it is a pity that his government’s Protection of Freedoms Bill – an Act which has been making its way through parliament since last summer and which it is intended will extend freedom of information, turn back the tide of state intrusion into our lives and repeal unnecessary criminal laws – makes no attempt to return free speech to its rightful place at the altar of democracy.

The Lib-Con coalition government may well be less authoritarian than the Labour one that preceded it, but in a way we are still suffering the hangover from New Labour and the ideals it pressed into service when it ditched socialism: diversity, equality, respect. Among the 4,300 new offences put into statute under Labour were those governing ‘hate speech’, or the giving and taking of offence. First came legislation on racial and religious hatred; later, protection was extended to gay, transgender and disabled people. Doubtless heightened sensitivity about Islam in the wake of 9/11 played its part: the Religious Hatred Act of 2006, for instance, extended outdated blasphemy laws to afford people of all faiths, including Jedis, recourse against things they don’t like hearing said or seeing written.

One of the results has been a new culture of fastidious censoriousness in every public body, human-resource department and media organisation in the land. Furthermore, the giving of offence need not be intentional, nor the words (or cartoons) themselves possessed of the propensity to give it in order for it to be taken. Never mind the freedom to speak offensively: people have been invited to believe there is such a thing as the right not to be offended. Never mind that ‘incitement to hatred’ is a grey, disputable thing, and a different thing to incitement to violence, which was already a criminal offence. Never mind that most ideas are capable of giving offence, and that Socrates, Galileo and Darwin were all considered beyond the pale in their time. And never mind that in the marketplace of ideas, ‘hate speech’ can be challenged, debated or ignored. What we now have is moderated free speech at best.

That distinction between incitement to hatred and incitement to violence is a crucial one for Peter Tatchell, one of this country’s most tireless and principled human rights campaigners. When I spoke to him last year he had recently been in the news for defending the rights of Christian preachers hounded by the law over homophobic hate-speech crimes. One American Baptist evangelist, Shawn Holes, was fined £1,000 for telling shoppers in Glasgow city centre that homosexuals were bound for hell; Tatchell, who is gay himself and renowned for his campaigning on behalf of gay rights, called it ‘an attack on free speech and a heavy-handed, excessive response to homophobia’.

He had also spoken up for the five Islamists convicted of showering abuse at British soldiers at a ‘homecoming’ march in Luton, but had elsewhere called for sanctions on extremists who incite violence – including Abu Usamah, who was shown in a Channel 4 undercover documentary advocating the killing of gays and Muslims who leave their faith. But there was no contradiction, he insisted. ‘If someone says “I want to encourage people to plant bombs in Princes Street in Edinburgh”, then that’s pretty clear incitement to violence’, he told me. ‘Saying “I sympathise with al-Qaeda” is not, on the other hand.’

While that view may not be likely to find favour with mainstream political opinion, muscular liberal or otherwise, it makes sense from a First Amendment perspective, if you’re talking American. Britain doesn’t have a First Amendment, of course, but it did produce John Stuart Mill, who wrote in 1859 that ‘there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered’. The limits of such liberty should be defined by the ‘harm principle’, he said, not by social offence. In other words, dealing with offence is part of being a grown-up in a grown-up society.

Liberals nowadays seem to have lost the stomach for such principles, however. The word ‘liberal’ itself has come to denote a much narrower set of ideas: vaguely leftish, environmentalist, irreproachably PC, pro-European, pro-Palestine, pro-Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Technology, meanwhile, may have helped to create a more informed and engaged citizenry, but it has also given a leg up to the power of mob rule. Online forums and message boards foster a culture of outrage, indignation and recrimination; they manufacture and mobilise offence.

The Lib-Cons’ Protection of Freedoms Act will flush away ID cards, biometric passports and the ContactPoint database of children in England. It includes provisions to restrict and regulate the use of surveillance powers, CCTV and the storage of internet and email records and it will restore rights to freedom of assembly, non-violent protest and trial by jury. It may prove to be a watershed moment for liberty in Britain. It could have been a much greater one. It is time to weigh again the value, as opposed to the price, of free speech.

Source




Australia: State government Minister says burka is 'alien', prompting applause from Federal conservatives

THE federal opposition has backed a West Australian minister's controversial comments on the burka, saying the dress goes against Australian culture and should not be worn.

WA Minister for Women's Interests Robyn McSweeney sparked heated debate when she spoke out against the burka at the weekend, labelling it "alien" to Australia's way of life. "I'm saying that it's confronting when somebody's face is not showing and I personally think that they're being oppressed," Ms McSweeney told The Australian yesterday. "I would just love for them to have the freedom to show their faces."

Opposition parliamentary secretary for the status of women Michaelia Cash said the burka had nothing to do with religion because Islam stipulated modesty only, not the wearing of a face covering. She said the dress deprived women of their identity and isolated them from society. "It is inconsistent with our culture and values and I truly believe that women should not do it," she said.

Both Senator Cash and Ms McSweeney said they were not advocating legislation to ban the burka but wanted Australians to have a "conversation" about whether it should be worn.

But Liberal senator Cory Bernardi renewed his calls for a burka ban because the garment was a security threat and restricted social interaction. In Europe to monitor France's anti-burka law -- under which veiled women will be fined E150 ($205) from today -- he supported Ms McSweeney.

Minister for the Status of Women Kate Ellis said the government was not considering a burka ban and there were differing views about the covering. She said her view was that governments should support a person's choice in dress and encourage understanding of diversity.

Queensland Minister for Women Karen Struthers said Australians respected cultural traditions "as long as no one is being hurt". South Australian Minister for the Status of Women Gail Gago said there was no reason to influence a Muslim woman's choice if it were made freely.

WA opposition women's interests spokeswoman Sue Ellery claimed Ms McSweeney was playing the race card. Victorian opposition women's affairs spokeswoman Jill Hennessy accused Ms McSweeney of engaging in "dog whistle politics".

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



10 April, 2011

Army medals out, Gay Pride badges in, and theft blamed on badgers to cut crime rates: How political correctness is crippling my police force

By a senior British police officer

The suspect stared at me with hooded eyes, devoid of any emotion or conscience. His emaciated figure was so wrecked by heroin abuse that he could barely raise his arms. ‘Hello, inspector, it’s me again,’ he said, his voice dripping with disdain.

He had every reason to sound cynical, even contemptuous. He was a one-man crimewave, a prolific offender whose miserable life was dominated by violence, drugs and thieving, yet in all his years of delinquency he had never been properly punished by our laughably misnamed justice system.

When he was brought into the station last week, on a charge of stealing from a 94-year-old woman, I had a look at his record. It was a lengthy indictment of the incredible leniency of our courts. Aged only 23, he had been arrested 80 times and convicted of an incredible 140 offences. Among his crimes were assault, aggravated burglary, blackmail, theft and possession of Class A and Class B drugs.

His behaviour has long been out of control, showing respect for neither the law nor the rights of others. But despite his lengthy catalogue of offending, he has spent just 12 weeks in prison. The only lesson he has ever learned is that he has nothing to fear from the courts. No doubt he will receive another ineffectual slap on the wrist the next time he is up before a judge.

As a long-serving police inspector, I despair of the reluctance of the state to deal vigorously with serious criminals such as this thuggish drug addict. This soft, destructive stance not only weakens public faith in the fight against crime, but also undermines the morale of the police.

What drags down our effectiveness, however, is not just the useless courts system that so often undoes all the effort we put into building cases, but also the highly politicised, target-driven, dogma-fixated culture of the police hierarchy.

Instead of allowing us to focus on the real task of tackling criminality, police chiefs and politicians have bogged us down in bureaucracy, much of it driven by fashionable obsessions with multiculturalism and meaningless performance statistics.

Official determination to manipulate crime figures has reached new heights of idiocy. Data is no longer a reflection of performance, but an exercise in deceit of the public. In this brave new world of propaganda — conjured up by a string of directives — a vast array of crimes are reclassified by ‘crime managers’ to lessen their seriousness.

So burglaries of potting sheds become ‘badger damage’, broken windows are blamed on ‘frost’ and stolen handbags are listed as ‘lost or misplaced’. Even vandalism to vehicles can be ascribed to ‘stones thrown up by speeding cars’.

The warped priorities of this culture are also reflected in the ridiculous amount of time we have to devote to the creed of diversity. At times it seems as if the modern police force is seen by senior managers as a vehicle for social engineering rather than deterring crime.

My internal office phone directory lists no fewer than 32 officers with ‘diversity’ in their job title, all of them working nine-to-five in desk-bound jobs, while we slog it out on the front line. I was half-hoping that, given their irrelevance to the battle against crime, they might be made redundant in the public-sector cuts, but that was far too optimistic. Diversity is sacrosanct, its commissars are protected and its influence is all dominant.

So in our training, for instance, just one day a year is devoted to practical instruction in officer safety, dealing with procedures such as correct use of handcuffs, Tasers and batons, or how to put a violent suspect in a van or cell.

Yet the effort devoted to diversity is far greater. We have to carry out two days of diversity training a year at headquarters, another day at our divisions, go through an eight-hour ‘e-learning’ package on our computers and, in our annual performance appraisal forms, show that we have accomplished three separate objectives ‘to raise diversity awareness’. In addition, during weekly individual meetings with our supervisor, we have to explain what we have done to promote cultural diversity.

The minutiae of Hindu festivals, details of Black History month and the rituals of gypsy culture are all drummed into us. The whole pantomime is idiotic, especially in my neighbourhood where the ethnic minority is tiny. Once, as one of my personal ‘diversity objectives’, I stated I had listened to some Indian sitar music in a Manchester park.

Such absurdities can be found everywhere in the police. So we were told recently that former servicemen like me were no longer allowed routinely to wear medal ribbons on our uniforms, as had previously been customary, because such insignia might be deemed offensive to Muslims and Irish people. However, we have been encouraged to wear Gay Pride badges.

Similarly, Welsh and Scottish police forces are allowed to wear their national badges on their uniforms, but the St George’s flag appears to have been banned by English forces, as if our national identity is an embarrassment.

The neurosis about diversity is also reflected in the requirement to cater for every type of inmate, so our custody suites have a menu of no less than 16 choices, include low-carb, vegetarian, fat-free, kosher and halal.

The ideology extends to the front line. When visiting a Muslim household, we are instructed to remove our shoes, but I have refused to obey that edict because I believe it is disrespectful to my position as British police officer. On one occasion, I had to call on a Muslim family and the daughter refused to let me in until I had taken off my boots.

I simply told her that, while on duty, I was not prepared to remove any part of my equipment, footwear included. So she went off to her father to report my non-compliance, only to find he did not object at all to me keeping my boots on.

When I reported this back to the Diversity Unit, the officer implied that I must have intimidated the father, which was nonsense. This diversity officer was indulging in just the kind of stereotyping he condemns in others, clinging to the belief that every Muslim adheres devotedly to religious custom.

On another occasion, I was given a reprimand because I told a family that their son was a drug dealer. The mother had made a complaint that we were harassing him. When I turned up at her home, which appeared to be well-equipped with the proceeds of his drug crimes, I told her frankly: ‘We keep arresting him because he’s a dealer.’

Such honesty prompted another complaint from her, and I was told I should have shown more ‘tolerance and politeness’ in my language towards the family. It was just another indicator of how political correctness has destroyed the moral self-confidence of senior managers.

Almost as depressing is the dead-weight of bureaucracy. Form-filling has become an end in itself. For example, we were recently asked to fill in a 14-page document called a Display Screen Risk Assessment, which was meant to detail the safety of our working environment, including computers and furniture.

The whole exercise was absurd, since all our office equipment is supplied centrally — and therefore, by definition, approved — by the very bureaucrats asking us to fill in these safety forms.

Bureaucracy also means that crime figures can’t be trusted. Successive governments have been fond of boasting about falling crime rates, but I’m afraid the statistics are less and less reliable.

To take one classic example, a group of youngsters binge-drinking in a town square could be dealt with under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which would mean their behaviour would be recorded as a violent crime, leading to action through the courts. Or it could just be handled as an incidence of drunk and disorderly conduct under more ancient laws, with the result that the crime would not be recordable and the offenders would be sent home or kept in the cells until they sobered up.

So, often, the police response will depend entirely on that month’s crime statistics. If the local chiefs think the crime rate has been too high in recent weeks, they will demand that no arrests be made under Section 5. Instead, all miscreants should be treated under the less rigorous category of drunk and disorderly. This does nothing for police or public morale, particularly if crimes have taken place.

At one stage we were issued with a fleet of fast-pursuit vehicles — standard saloons fitted with all the mod cons of policing, such as radars, radios and computers. But we found that, at speed, the cars were uncontrollable. The only way of making them safe was, believe it or not, to put a quarter of a ton of sand in the boot.

There were similar problems with new four-wheel-drive estate cars for firearms officers, which were discovered to be simply not big enough for four armed officers with all their equipment. So, though we didn’t need such gas-guzzlers, they had to be passed on to the rank and file. More money down the drain.

At a time of financial cuts, none of this has raised our spirits. Nor has the aloof attitude of some of our senior personnel.

In one ludicrous instruction, they barred us from having a cup of tea with paramedics at the ambulance base beside the local hospital because they said the water boilers might be unsafe, though such camaraderie has long been an integral part of the emergency services.

Even more offensive was their decision to bar the playing of radios at police premises, on the grounds they could not afford the £20,000 fee under new licensing regulations. Yet these same high-minded, prudent chiefs can be seen swanning around in £60,000, top-of-the range BMWs bought at the public’s expense.

On coming to power last May, the Coalition was meant to have changed all this. As the parties of reform, the Tories and Lib Dems would lead the fight against crime. Yet the culture of bureaucracy and diversity remains intact.

Often the rhetoric of the Coalition is simply ignored. So Home Secretary Theresa May recently announced she had abolished a raft of performance targets. These included the specific requirement that, as part of their annual performance appraisal, officers had to set out three objectives for raising public confidence. This bureaucratic ‘public confidence’ order, she said, was consigned to the dustbin of history. Yet, in reality, it carries on, just under the new title of ‘public satisfaction’ objectives.

Dogmatic officialdom continues on its own sweet, expensive way — and we in the poor bloody infantry are continually hampered in the struggle to do our job, which is to actually fight crime.

SOURCE





Harriet the hypocrite: Labour Party eminence accused Tories of encouraging nepotism... but her son got first proper job working for his mother's best friend

Harriet Harman has been accused of hypocrisy in the row over internships after it emerged that her eldest son’s first job was at a public relations firm owned by one of her influential friends.

The Government said this week that the system of informal internships – whereby youngsters get placements because of who they know rather than ability – must end.

It prompted Ms Harman to accuse the Tories of encouraging rich parents to lever their children into jobs. Mocking the Conservatives for auctioning off internships to the highest bidder at a recent Party fundraiser, Ms Harman said in the Commons this week: ‘Is that not the Government’s idea of social mobility? We have further to go, but they are turning the clock back.’

Now Ms Harman’s eldest son Harry Dromey has revealed that he got a foothold in the notoriously competitive world of advertising thanks to his mother’s connections.

Harry, 28, had just graduated with a degree in politics from Bristol University when he jumped straight into a job with a PR consultancy founded by key Labour Party adviser Deborah Mattinson, a friend of his mother.

Ms Mattinson, 54, said she had known Harry for years by the time he got a job at her firm, the Smart Company. Aged 16, he volunteered at her market research company, Opinion Leader Research, which has won contracts worth almost £3 million across an array of Government departments and agencies.

Harry described how his job at the Smart Company gave him the chance he needed. ‘I was a dogsbody,’ he said. ‘I was working there for hardly a year for a small amount of money so I could do what I want to do.’ Harry said his job at the Smart Company had nothing to do with his current role as an account director at advertising firm Leo Burnett.

One of his first tasks at Leo Burnett was working on the launch of the Home Information Pack for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The advertising firm won the £6 million Government contract to sell the idea to the public.

Ms Mattinson and her fellow director at the Smart Company, Amanda Jordan, are both former Labour Government advisers.

SOURCE





From draper's son to judge ... THAT was social mobility -- in Britain of the past

By Peter Hitchens

The phrase ‘social mobility’ has been twisted round by the elite to mean the opposite of what it once did. In their mouths it signifies ‘crude discrimination against those who seek to advance themselves or their children through effort and talent’.

This is a wicked perversion. Here is what it really means: when this was still a free country, you could climb thanks to your talent and hard work. My favourite example is that of Lord Denning, one of six children of a Hampshire draper who became the greatest judge of our time.

One of his brothers, Reginald, helped plan the D-Day landings and became a general. Another, Norman, became an admiral, and Director of Naval Intelligence. The boys’ mother, Clara, must have been quite a person, but Whitchurch National School and Andover Grammar School should take a little credit too.

In their austere, disciplined, orderly classrooms, children from poor homes could learn real knowledge, and gain the habits of work and diligence that might take them to the very summit of our once-open society. If they had talent, it would be nurtured and encouraged. If they were studious, they would not be bullied for it, but rewarded.

Faced with ferocious exams, which it was possible to fail, they learned that real life wasn’t easy and had to be tackled with application and determination. That’s how a proper middle class, confident, strong and open to talent, is made.

But those who now shape and direct our society long ago destroyed these places. Believing it was kinder, they scrapped the discipline, the order and the rigour, and turned the exams into feeble jokes. When the truth became clear, they refused to change their minds but carried on as before. The three Denning brothers would rapidly have had their hopes crushed by today’s state school system.

If three such boys – or girls – now exist, we will never hear of them, except perhaps in the courts, because the corruption of the best is the worst of all, and a bright and energetic mind, when all the doors of ambition and hope are slammed in its face, can easily turn to wrongdoing.

I cannot express on paper just how angry this makes me, or how angry it ought to make you. The nearest I can come to it is this – to say to Nicholas Clegg, David Cameron and Edward Miliband that they are all three of them cruel, contemptible and stupid, enemies of promise, enemies of their country, and enemies of the poor. And in each case the crime is especially serious because of their own immense personal privilege. I hope all their political careers end in abject, howling failure, preferably with them being laughed out of office, the only punishment they are likely to understand.

Because all three of them, and their wretched parties, have set their faces against the honest self-improvement that is the mark of a free society. Instead, they gargle the discredited slogans of equality – an equality they don’t even believe in for themselves or their children.

You will have to ask yourselves why the leaders of supposedly democratic parties in a supposedly free society have endorsed a policy that is more or less identical to that of the Eastern European communists of the Forties. More importantly, you will have to ask yourselves why on earth you have continued to vote for them, knowing what they are and what they stand for.

SOURCE






Australia: Abortion is OK but selecting the sex of a baby is not?

A COUPLE who have had their bid to choose the sex of their child rejected by VCAT say they may go overseas in their desperation for a baby girl.

The couple, who are still grieving for a baby girl they lost at birth, had appealed the Patient Review Panel's decision against their wish to select sex by IVF treatment.

The panel - an independent, hospital-based authority - ruled that under Victoria's 2008 Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act, any conflict between the welfare of the child to be born and the health of the person undergoing assisted reproduction must be resolved in favour of the child.

"They (the couple) believe having a child of the same sex as the one who died would assist their recovery from post-traumatic stress disorder, or assist their psychological health or wellbeing," the VCAT judgment read. "The tribunal was not satisfied the matters relied upon by the applicants gave paramountcy to the welfare and interests of the child to be born."

The couple, who have three children, said they may go overseas to fulfil their wish. "We expected that result. We were trying to do the right thing and do it here in Australia and it looks like they're stuck in the 1980s on the panel," the father said.

"I can understand that a woman coming off the street and asking for that, they'd say no. But this isn't about choosing the sex, it's about the chance of having a child we should have had, that we lost.

"The pressure is on for change. The legalities will eventually catch up with the science. We have to move with the times."

All IVF clinics in Australia must stay within National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines that say sex selection should not be done, except to reduce the transmission of a serious genetic condition.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



9 April, 2011

Outrage as top Italian history professor blames fall of Rome on rise of homosexuality

There was certainly a lot of debauchery at the top

A professor is facing calls to resign after blaming the collapse of the Roman Empire on homosexuality. Roberto De Mattei, a devout Roman Catholic, had already raised eyebrows by saying the Japanese tsunami was ‘divine punishment’.

In a radio interview, the vicepresident of Italy’s prestigious Centre for National Research said: ‘The collapse of the Roman Empire and the arrival of the Barbarians was due to the spread of homosexuality. ‘The Roman colony of Carthage was a paradise for homosexuals and they infected many others.’

The 63-year-old added: ‘The invasion of the Barbarians was seen as punishment for this moral transgression. ‘It is well known effeminate men and homosexuals have no place in the kingdom of God. ‘Homosexuality was not rife among the Barbarians and this shows God’s justice comes throughout history.’

Professor De Mattei is a close friend of education minister Maria Stella Gelmini and controversial prime minister Silvio Berlusconi who once said: ‘Better to love girls than be gay.’

Last night fellow historians, gay rights groups and politicians expressed outrage. Paola Concia, an MP with the Democratic Left, said: ‘I have tabled an urgent call for the education minister to intervene.’

Italian homosexual groups said the professor’s comments were ‘based on superstition, ridiculous and outrageous’ and called on him to resign from his Rome-based post.

Historian Emilio Gabba, a leading light in Roman history, said: ‘It is highly improbable homosexuality led to the fall of the Roman Empire.’

Professor Lellia Cracco Ruggini, an expert on Roman history from Turin University, said: ‘There is no proof Rome had a high number of homosexuals. I can safely say Rome did not fall because it was gay.’

However research would seem to suggest homosexuality was rife in ancient Rome. The 18th century expert Edward Gibbon wrote that ‘of the first 15 emperors, Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct’. Homosexuality is widely portrayed in ancient Roman art and was seen as acceptable 2,000 years ago.

Professor De Mattei co-operates with the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Historical Sciences and has been awarded the Order of Knighthood of St Gregory the Great in acknowledgement of his services to the Roman Catholic Church.

SOURCE





Louisiana woman Arrested for False Rape Accusation

It's not only in Britain....

A 17 year-old Lake Arthur woman has been arrested after state police say she lied about being raped by a Lake Arthur Police Officer.

On February 24, 2011, the Lake Charles field office of the Louisiana State Police Bureau of Investigations was asked by the Lake Arthur Police Department to investigate a complaint filed by 17-year-old Megan Franks of Lake Arthur, Louisiana. Franks stated an officer with the Lake Arthur Police Department raped her, according to officers.

Physical evidence and the inconsistent statements Franks provided to investigating troopers indicated a rape did not take place, say police. Officers say that during an interview, Franks admitted to making up the rape allegations and injuring herself to be more credible.

The Jefferson Davis Parish District Attorney's Office obtained an arrest warrant for Franks for false swearing for the purpose of violating public health or safety (L.R.S. 14:126.1). Franks was arrested at her residence and booked into the Jefferson Davis Parish Jail. If convicted, she could face up to 5 years in prison and/or up to a $1,000 fine.

SOURCE







British bureaucratic madness

Operation overkill: 25 firemen and five engines sent to rescue one cat stranded on roof

It's a service traditionally offered by our compassionate fire services. But the response of the Suffolk brigade to a cat trapped on a roof went well beyond the call of duty.

Health and safety rules meant 25 firefighters were sent to rescue the cat at an estimated cost of £1,500.

The cat was perched about 40ft up on a two-storey house in Leiston, Suffolk, yesterday when five crews were dispatched to save it. The crews – two of which came from 30 miles away - scrambled to comply with national ‘working at height’ regulations to ensure the health and safety of firefighters, but union leaders have branded the response ‘crazy and overkill’.

Suffolk Fire Service sent a turntable ladder from Bury St Edmunds with a two-strong crew, escorted by a support crew from the same station. They sped off on the 60-mile round trip to Leiston at 9.45am.

Firefighters with specialist training in working at heights ‘each likely to be four or five strong’ were also mobilised from Felixstowe, 30 miles away, and Bungay, 20 miles away.

Ironically the crews were turned back within minutes when a local firefighter from Leiston climbed a ladder and rescued the cat - which ran off unscathed. Under the guidelines firefighters are allowed to work temporarily from the top of a ladder.

Suffolk Fire Service recently adopted national regulations drawn up in 2005 to ensure the safety of people working at height, according to the Fire Brigades’ Union. The response would have cost taxpayers thousands of pounds.

A spokesman for campaign group The Taxpayers’ Alliance said: ‘It’s ridiculous that five fire crews were sent out to rescue one cat. ‘It’s almost laughable but wasting resources is bad news for taxpayers and others who might have needed to be rescued, so it’s not funny.’ He added: ‘Of course we want firemen to be safe, but health and safety and red tape has resulted in an excessive and costly response.’

The crews from Leiston and Bungay are on-call, or retained, while the other stations involved have day-only cover.

Andy Vingoe, Suffolk branch chairman of the FBU, said: ‘Health and safety says that if we go up on to a roof, it brings into play our working at height procedures and safety system.

‘If a cat is stuck on a roof there is a chance the owner could get distressed and try to rescue it themselves and we would end up having to rescue them as well.’ He stressed: ‘It is crazy and it’s overkill and if we are having to send five teams to an incident like that, what happens if there is a serious incident elsewhere? ‘It strengthens our case that we need more people to make sure we have enough cover to cope with the demands of the service.’

A Suffolk County Council spokeswoman said it had been called by the RSPCA to help and the reaction was in line with national regulations. She said: ‘Due to the nature of the incident, fire crews with the specialist training and equipment were called to attend, in addition to the local crew. ‘The incident was quickly dealt with by the local crew so the specialist teams were stood down and did not attend.’

Neighbour Teresa Saunders, 49, alerted the fire service after hearing the cat crying. She said: ‘The firefighters deserve a lot of praise. They were very quick and dealt with it incredibly well. ‘I don't know whose it was - it had a blue collar and was a tortoise shell tabby.’ She added: ‘It was perfectly fine as far as I could tell. It ran off as soon as it got down.’

SOURCE




Mr Incorrectness again

ITALIAN Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi doesn't seem to be letting his legal woes get him down, joking to two young blondes he'd like to invite them to his famed "bunga bunga" parties.

Mr Berlusconi went on trial this week on charges he paid for sex with a 17-year-old girl at some of the parties, before trying to use his influence to cover it up. He and the girl both deny they had sex.

The 74-year-old Premier was handing out prizes to a dozen promising young college graduates in the courtyard of his Rome offices today when he congratulated two young women for their accomplishments.

"Congratulations, you are so great. I'm thinking of inviting you to 'bunga bunga'," Mr Berlusconi quipped, as his seemingly exasperated youth minister Georgia Meloni looked away. Mr Berlusconi didn't stop, telling a third recipient - a male - he was cute enough to come along as well.

The billionaire media mogul-turned politician is an unapologetic jokester who frequently explains away off-colour gaffes as harmless jokes.

Participants at his dinner parties have said "bunga bunga" was an inside joke; prosecutors have said it referred to erotic dancing and stripteases that followed dinner.

Mr Berlusconi was in a particularly ebullient mood today, telling another two prize recipients with bald spots he'd pass along the number of the doctor who performed a hair transplant on him.

To another, Mr Berlusconi pointed out the bottom of his tie was poking out from his suit, and to yet another he suggested getting rid of his beard. He told the crowd, he had about 2000 jokes at his disposal for just about any occasion.

Mr Berlusconi has a history of legal woes stemming from his business dealings although he has never been convicted.

The trial on underage prostitution and abuse of office charges is the first to delve into his private life.

The Premier has denounced magistrates for pursuing what he considers a politically motivated witch hunt designed to drive him from office.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



8 April, 2011

Don't be nasty to criminals! Knife thug walks free because British judge was rude to him

A thug has walked free from court after his conviction for knife possession was overturned because the trial judge was ‘rude’ to him. Koenya Tedjame-Mortty, 32, had been found guilty by a jury after being caught by police driving around London armed with knives.

But in a decision that has caused outrage, judges at the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on the basis that the judge in his case was ‘rude, harsh and sarcastic’, leaving the villain too ‘unsettled’ to give ‘credible evidence’ in his own defence.

During his trial at Kingston Crown Court last year, Judge Fergus Mitchell reprimanded the career criminal for intimidating a boy doing work experience at the hearing.

The judge told him to ‘shut his mouth and listen’, asking him how dare he speak to the boy, who had complained of being accosted outside court and being stared at in an ‘unpleasant and threatening manner’.

The circuit judge, who summoned the defendant before him to investigate a possible contempt of court, also threatened to revoke his bail shortly before he was called to give evidence in his defence.

At the end of a short trial, the thug was found guilty of two counts of possession of a bladed article after the jury heard he had been driving the car with a kitchen knife and a craft knife in the back.

He was handed a seven-month suspended sentence and ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid community work on November 19. But Tedjame-Mortty immediately appealed, saying the exchange with the judge had left him feeling ‘anxious and shaken’.

This week, three Court of Appeal judges agreed with him, saying they could not rule out the possibility the ‘quality’ of his evidence was affected by Judge Mitchell’s ‘wholly inappropriate’ intervention. 'We do not think that we can safely exclude the possibility that he may have given his evidence less credibly than he would have done if the judge had dealt with the matter appropriately. 'There is no reason why a reprimand in a measured tone at the end of the day would not have been sufficient.

'We do not want this judgment to be regarded as requiring judges to treat defendants with kid gloves before they give evidence. 'The difference in this case is that the quality of the defendant's evidence could have been affected by the conduct on the part of the judge, which was wholly inappropriate'

Mr Justice Keith castigated Judge Mitchell for raising his voice, using an ‘unpleasant tone’ and being ‘rude, harsh and sarcastic’ to the serial offender, who has a string of convictions for drink-driving, among other offences.

The landmark ruling has appalled MPs and former home secretaries who fear it will set a dangerous precedent, forcing the judiciary to ‘bow and scrape to career criminals’.

Last night there were mounting calls for the extraordinary decision to be reversed at the Supreme Court after appeal judges rejected requests by the Crown Prosecution Service for a re-trial.

The perverse case comes on the back of a contentious declaration this week by leading Appeal Court justices who said victims of crime should have no say over what happens to criminals, as some just want revenge.

Yesterday former home secretary David Blunkett said the decision sent an alarming message about attitudes to knife crime. He told the Daily Mail: ‘It is astonishing that the appeal judges did not agree to a mistrial, which would have allowed the case to be re-heard, rather than overturning the conviction.

‘Whatever the harsh treatment by the original judge, the defendant clearly had a case to answer and in the interests of justice and, in particular, the avoidance of the wrong sort of messages getting out on carrying knives, the Crown Prosecution Service was right to ask for the trial to be re-run. ‘The public do begin to wonder whose side the law is on.’

David Green, of think-tank Civitas, said the case had set a dangerous precedent for the judiciary. ‘It’s accepted that judges have to have a judicial temperament. They have to manage the proceedings and if someone is intimidating a young boy, it’s their duty to say something about it.’

More HERE





The £650m apology: Forget Britain's own ailing education system, that's what Britain's giving to Pakistani schools

David Cameron vowed to hand hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money plus vital military secrets to Pakistan yesterday to make amends for offending the Muslim nation last year. The Prime Minister pledged to invest £650million in Pakistani schools at a time when the education budget at home is being cut.

Britain is also to give highly sensitive military technology to combat roadside bombs to the Pakistani security services, which are widely blamed for funding and arming the Taliban.

In a huge gamble with the lives of British troops in Afghanistan, Mr Cameron agreed to spend millions more on a centre of excellence for the country’s soldiers and spies near Peshawar, a hotbed of militancy.

The gesture came after Mr Cameron sparked a diplomatic rift last year when he accused the country of ‘looking both ways’ on terrorism.

The technology deal sparked fears that the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, would hand details to the Taliban, enabling them to build more effective improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

The huge cash injection for schools by the Department for International Development will make Pakistan the UK’s biggest recipient of overseas aid.

It is designed to get four million children into the classroom – 17million currently get no schooling. Pakistan spends just 1.5 per cent of its national income on schools but is placing billion-pound orders for six Chinese submarines and 36 fighter aircraft.

The UK will have no control of the curriculum in schools receiving funding, meaning taxpayers could see their money pumped into madrassas peddling extremism.

Mr Cameron defended the payments, saying it was ‘in our interest’ to help Pakistan. He said: ‘If Pakistan is a success we’ll have a good friend to trade and invest and deal with. ‘If we fail we’ll have all the problems of migration, of extremism, problems that we don’t want to see. So it’s in our interest that Pakistan succeeds.’

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani said he believed a ‘root cause’ of terrorism was illiteracy.

But Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘Particularly at the moment when we’ve got no money, there’s absolutely no justification for increasing the amounts that we give to other countries. ‘That is especially the case with countries that can afford to spend billions on defence. If they can afford submarines they can afford to educate their own people. ‘We need to concern ourselves with our own schools because countries around the world are overtaking us in educational attainment.’

In a speech to university students, Mr Cameron vowed to get over the ‘tensions’ sparked by his comments last year and create a ‘new start’ in relations with Pakistan. But he also said Pakistan had to raise taxes and stamp out corruption to justify British generosity. ‘Understandably, the British people want to know every penny we spend is going to the right places.

‘I need to convince them that it is. But my job is made more difficult when people in Britain look at Pakistan, a country that receives millions of pounds of our aid money, and see weaknesses in terms of government capacity and waste.’

Mr Cameron, who was accompanied on his one-day visit by Tory party chairman Baroness Warsi, who is of Pakistani origin, ducked questions about whether he could guarantee that the ISI will not hand the anti-IED technology to the Taliban.

SOURCE






NC: Duke lacrosse accuser arrested in boyfriend’s stabbing

This is the woman that a mass of Duke U professors immediately believed and supported. Why? Because of her known good character? No because she is black. Sheer racism, in other words

The woman who accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape five years ago was arrested Sunday, suspected of stabbing her boyfriend, police said. Officers responding to a call early Sunday about a stabbing at an apartment in Durham, North Carolina, found a 46-year-old man who had been stabbed in the torso, police said. He was taken to Duke University Hospital for treatment of serious injuries.

Officers later arrested the man's girlfriend, Crystal Mangum, 32, at a nearby apartment. She was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury, police said. Mangum was placed in the Durham County Jail without bond.
Officers said the stabbing occurred during an argument at the couple's shared apartment.

In March 2006, Mangum claimed to have been sexually assaulted by three players on the Duke lacrosse team while performing as a stripper for a team party. North Carolina's attorney general later found no credible evidence that the attacks ever occurred and the charges were dropped.

The scandal, however, forced the cancellation of the men's lacrosse season that year and the resignation of team coach Mike Pressler. It also led to widespread criticism of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was later disbarred for his handling of the case.

Mangum was arrested in February 2010 on attempted murder charges after a fight with her then-boyfriend. She was also accused of arson, identity theft and resisting arrest, among other charges.
CNN affiliate WTVD-TV reported the arrest happened after she set fire to a pile of the boyfriend's clothes while her children were at home.

In a June 2010 interview with the station, Mangum said her boyfriend had attacked her, and that her involvement in the Duke lacrosse case had influenced police handling of the case. "I do feel that I am being unjustly treated because of preconceived notions about my character in the media," Mangum said at the time.

In December, a jury found Mangum guilty of child abuse in the case but could not agree on a first-degree felony arson charge, which could have resulted in a seven-year sentence, WTVD reported.

SOURCE





Diversity Perversity

Walter E. Williams

The terms affirmative action, equal representation, preferential treatment and quotas just don't sell well. The intellectual elite and their media, government and corporate enthusiasts have come up with diversity, a seemingly benign term that's a cover for racially discriminatory policy. They call for college campuses, corporate offices and government agencies to "look like America."

Part of looking like America means if blacks are 13 percent of the population, they should be 13 percent of college students and professors, corporate managers and government employees. Behind this vision of justice is the silly notion that but for the fact of discrimination, we'd be distributed equally by race across incomes, education, occupations and other outcomes. There is absolutely no evidence that statistical proportionality is the norm anywhere on Earth; however, much of our thinking, laws and public policy is based upon proportionality being the norm. Let's look at some racial differences whilst thinking about their causes and possible remedies.

While 13 percent of our population, blacks are 80 percent of professional basketball players and 65 percent of professional football players and are the highest paid players in both sports. By contrast, blacks are only 2 percent of NHL's professional ice hockey players. There is no racial diversity in basketball, football and ice hockey. They come nowhere close to "looking like America."

Even in terms of sports achievement, racial diversity is absent. Four out of the five highest career home-run hitters were black. Since blacks entered the major leagues, of the eight times more than 100 bases were stolen in a season, all were by blacks.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently ordered Dayton, Ohio's police department to lower its written exam passing scores so as to have more blacks on its police force. What should Attorney General Eric Holder do about the lack of diversity in sports? Why don't the intellectual elite protest? Could it be that the owners of these multi-billion-dollar professional basketball, football and baseball teams are pro-black while those of the NHL and major industries are racists unwilling to put blacks in highly paid positions?

There's one ethnic diversity issue completely swept under the rug. Jewish Americans are less than 3 percent of our population and only two-tenths of 1 percent of the world's population. Yet between 1901 and 2010, Jews were 35 percent of American Nobel Laureate winners and 22 percent of the world's.

If the diversity gang sees underrepresentation as "probative" of racial discrimination, what do they propose we do about overrepresentation? Because if one race is overrepresented, it might mean they're taking away what rightfully belongs to another race.

There are other representation issues to which we might give some attention with an eye to corrective public policy. Asians routinely get the highest scores on the math portion of the SAT while blacks get the lowest. Men are 50 percent of the population and so are women; yet men are struck by lightning six times as often as women. The population statistics for South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1 percent of their populations is black. On the other hand, in states such as Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, blacks are overrepresented in terms of their percentages in the general population.

There are many international examples of disproportionality. For example, during the 1960s, the Chinese minority in Malaysia received more university degrees than the Malay majority -- including 400 engineering degrees compared with four for the Malays, even though Malays dominate the country politically. In Brazil's state of Sao Paulo, more than two-thirds of the potatoes and 90 percent of the tomatoes produced were produced by people of Japanese ancestry.

The bottom line is there no evidence anywhere that but for discrimination, people would be divided according to their percentages in the population in any activity. Diversity is an elitist term used to give respectability to acts and policy that would otherwise be deemed as racism.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



7 April, 2011

Britain's gilded political elite, hypocrisy and the death of social mobility

So here we go again. Making Britain fairer and improving social mobility, declared Nick Clegg before his bid to stamp out unpaid internships blew up in his face, is the Government’s ‘overriding mission’. Life, he said, should be about ‘what you know, not who you know’. You wonder, though, whether he thinks that principle should apply to politicians, as well as to the rest of us.

Within hours the Deputy Prime Minister was fighting off accusations of hypocrisy, with critics pointing out that he got his first internship after intervention from his father, the head of the United Trust Bank. Even his first job only came after Lord Carrington, a family friend, put in a good word with the European Commissioner Leon Brittan.

There is no doubt that the death of social mobility in modern Britain, one of the most unequal societies in Europe, is a matter of extreme urgency. But with their loose talk of imposing quotas for state school pupils on universities, and their ham-fisted efforts to crack down on internships, our political masters are in danger of turning a desperately serious issue into a farce.

Behind the fuss of the past few days, however, lies a deeper and more troubling reality. For Mr Clegg is far from unusual: inside Westminster’s gilded Oxbridge elite, his CV looks positively normal. Indeed, if Mr Clegg wants to see the principle of ‘who you know’ in operation, he should take a look at the self-satisfied faces around the Cabinet table.

He might ask the Chancellor, George Osborne, how he landed his job at Conservative Central Office after leaving Oxford — the answer being that his pal George Bridges, a political journalist, put in a good word for him.

Then there is the Prime Minister, who once claimed that he got ahead through ‘sharp elbows’, but who actually owes his rise almost entirely to birth, breeding and contacts. Even before going up to Oxford, David Cameron had worked as a researcher for a Tory MP — who just happened to be his godfather. He got his job in PR at Carlton Television through his mother-in-law, Lady Astor, who asked the TV mogul Michael Grade to give him a break. Most famously, he got his job at the Conservative Research Department only after an anonymous phone call from Buckingham Palace. ‘I am ringing to tell you,’ the mysterious caller said, ‘that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man.’

Look across the House of Commons, though, and the story is no better. Absurd though it now seems, there was once a time when the Labour Party called itself the People’s Party, its benches crammed with former miners and manual workers. These days its leader, Ed Miliband, is the son of a Marxist academic, bred in the high-minded intellectual salons of North London and educated, naturally, at Oxford. His first experience of work was as an intern for Tony Benn, who, yet again, just happened to be a family friend.

As for Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman, it is the same old story. Her uncle, the Earl of Longford, was a Labour minister under Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson. And Harman herself, the self-proclaimed champion of equality, actually went to St Paul’s Girls’ School, one of the most exclusive establishments in the country.

For those of us who wish that our political classes actually represented the people, this is a sorry tale indeed. But it merely reflects a wider picture. Between 1964 and 1997, not only had every British Prime Minister been educated at a grammar school, but many came from distinctly humble working-class backgrounds. Yet out of 119 Coalition ministers today, 66 per cent went to public schools, compared with only 7 per cent of the general public.

And only last year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that one revealing indicator of social mobility — the difference between parents’ and children’s incomes — is worse in Britain than almost anywhere else in Europe.

For anybody who wants to live in a fair and aspirational society, these figures are a source of deep shame. What is really damning, though, is not only that inequality actually got worse during New Labour’s 13 years, but that the Coalition seems intent on repeating the last government’s mistakes.

The hypocrisy of privileged politicians haranguing the rest of us about ‘sharp elbows’ is bad enough. To make matters worse, they seem convinced that merely by announcing some new ‘initiative’ — the political equivalent of waving a magic wand — they can somehow make everything right.

This internships business is a case in point. Although they are abused by those lucky enough to have connections, unpaid internships are a symptom, not a cause, of a deeper social imbalance. Forcing companies to hold competitions and interviews would merely scratch the surface of the problem.

Even more alarming are the Coalition’s threats to our top universities. Now that their tuition-fee reforms have turned into an outright fiasco, with universities queuing up to charge the maximum £9,000, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have started muttering about forcing institutions to admit lower-achieving students from poor backgrounds.

All this is irresistibly reminiscent of Gordon Brown’s boorish behaviour during the Laura Spence affair, when he complained that Oxford academics had discriminated against a bright working-class girl from the North-East. Later, it emerged that she merely lost out to equally brilliant candidates from a wide range of backgrounds.

In fact, both Oxford and Cambridge already expend vast efforts on access schemes to encourage applications from poor children in state schools, as do many other top universities.

The fact is that like internships, universities merely reflect society’s existing inequalities. Turning them into blunt instruments of social engineering, as the Coalition seems determined to do, would merely pervert and destroy some of the few world-class institutions we have left.

In any case, as far as social mobility itself is concerned, all this is basically irrelevant. If the Government really wants a fair and mobile society, it should forget about channelling young people into pointless Media Studies degrees and concentrate on two things: schools and jobs.

As David Davis, one of the few Tory MPs from a council-estate background, pointed out yesterday, our education system abjectly fails to provide opportunities for bright working-class children. And such views are not confined to the political Right.
'By getting rid of grammar schools politicians have forced upon the state sector a system of enforced downward mobility'

The Left-wing historian Tony Judt, who died last year, went to a grammar school in Wandsworth in the early 1960s. In his posthumous memoir, Judt wrote that the abolition of the grammar schools was one of the worst mistakes the Left ever made. ‘Intent on destroying the selective state schools that afforded my generation a first-rate education at public expense,’ he wrote, ‘politicians have forced upon the state sector a system of enforced downward mobility.’

It was a disgrace, this old socialist added, that the gap between private and state schools was greater than at any time since the Forties. And it was no wonder given that imbalance, he thought, that the Coalition Cabinet is dominated by public schoolboys.

But schools are only half the battle. What really ensured social mobility during the relatively golden years of the Fifties and Sixties was the fact that working-class children went into decent jobs in manufacturing industries, where they could work their way up the ladder. The dignity of work may be a mystery to some of our MPs. But it made a real difference to millions of lives in the post-war decades, offering a chance for ordinary people to get on.

Not all of these people were socially mobile. Many were proud to call themselves working class. Honest, hard-working and productive, they were the backbone of Britain’s economy for decades, until our great industries collapsed in the Seventies and Eighties.

So if the Government is really serious about creating a fair society, it should cut out the social engineering initiatives, stop meddling with higher education, restore genuinely high standards to the state school system, and invest in apprenticeships and infrastructure to rebuild our manufacturing sector.

Give people a good education and make sure there will be decent jobs for them afterwards, and you are halfway to a truly egalitarian society.

Without those things, you can launch all the initiatives you want. But like most of our privileged politicians’ promises, none of them will be worth the paper they are written on.

SOURCE





Ministers promise a 'red tape revolution' to get rid of pointless rules and regulations in Britain

Good if it happens

David Cameron and Vince Cable will today invite people to rip up thousands of ‘pointless’ rules and regulations holding back enterprise.

The pair will promise a ‘red tape revolution’ in favour of small business, arguing regulations brought in over the last decade are costing as much as five per cent of national income.

Members of the public, businesses and voluntary organisations are being invited to tear up some of the 21,000 existing rules that are getting in their way.

Ministers have already identified a string of bizarre rules, including ones prohibiting the setting of a price when reselling a bed, restrictions on the sale of liqueur-flavoured chocolates and a four-second time limit on the sounding of ice cream van chimes.

They say many regulations are widely ignored, while others are badly designed and should have been scrapped years ago.

The Prime Minister last night wrote to all Cabinet ministers telling them they have three months to explain why a regulation in their area is still required, or it will be scrapped.

Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Mr Cable will tell the British Chambers of Commerce annual conference today that he realised wars on red tape were ‘as old a theme as regulation itself’.

But he will insist: ‘We want to be the first government in history to leave office having reduced the overall burden of regulation, not increased it.’

‘The problem is that to the experienced practitioner – from the civil servant drafting the language, through the inspector visiting premises, down to the lawyers weighing in during a dispute, the rules can seem to make sense,’ he will add.

‘For people whose job is regulation, there doesn’t seem to be a problem. And if they are the only people we talk to, we won’t see the problem, and it will just get worse.

‘That is why we are launching a website to contact directly the people who understand best what the costs of regulation are. In other words, you. ‘We shall display, sector by sector, the stock of regulations on the basis that if it cannot be justified it should lapse.

‘Surely, within the 21,000 statutory instruments we counted there are regulations that have come to their natural end. Do we really need regulations as specific as the ‘Indication of Price (Beds) Order’? ‘The presumption will be clear: regulations will be presumed guilty unless proven innocent.’

The coalition has implemented a three-year moratorium on any new regulation from any government department affecting firms with ten employees or fewer. Sunset clauses, introducing a built-in time-limit, are to be included in any new regulations.

The initiative came as Nick Clegg’s plans to encourage new fathers to take more time off work came under attack from Mr Cameron’s former adviser on red tape.

Former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Young of Graffham said the plans to allow fathers to take up to 10 months of paternity leave if the mother goes back to work would be damaging for small businesses.

He said: ‘You don’t have to make (maternity leave) interchangeable. Why should men take time off?

‘No, they can leave things how they are. What I would think would be extremely difficult is to have extended leave going to the men as well.’

Earlier this year Mr Clegg said existing rules on paternity leave ‘patronise women and marginalise men’. He said parents should be free to divide up parental leave between them as they see fit.

New rules allowing parents to share up to six months of parental leave came into force last weekend. Mr Clegg wants to extend this to allow fathers to take up to 10 months off.

But businesses have warned that the new system will place a huge burden on them. A survey by the British Chambers of Commerce found that more than half of firms thought the new parental leave rules would be ‘detrimental’ to their business.

RED TAPE MADNESS

* The Indication of Prices (Beds) order 1978 which prevents people from specifying a price when re-selling a bed; Article 2 of the Order states that “a person who indicates that a bed is or may be for sale by him shall not indicate a price at which another person buying it may sell it”.

* Code of Practice on Noise from Ice Cream Van Chimes, 1982 makes it an offence to sound chimes for longer than four seconds at a time, more often than once every three minutes, when the vehicle is stationary, when in sight of another ice-cream van which is trading, within 50 metres of schools (during school hours), hospitals, and places of worship (on Sundays and any other recognised days of worship).

* The Licensing Act 2003 which prevents people under 16 years of age buying liqueur chocolate;

* The Amendment to the 1967 Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 which obliges retailers to notify TV Licensing of any sales or rentals of television sets;

* The Pedal bicycles (safety) regulations 2010 which compel all bikes sold in the UK to be fitted with a bell; and

* Various orders prohibiting companies from ‘Trading with the Enemy’ dating from when countries like French Indo-China were enemies.

SOURCE




Homosexuals have been discriminated against for a long time

Revulsion against them appears to be natural

Five thousand years after he died, the first known gay caveman has emerged into the daylight. According to archaeologists, the way he was buried suggests that he was of a different sexual persuasion.

The skeleton of the late Stone Age man, unearthed during excavations in the Czech Republic, is said to date back to between 2900 and 2500 BC.

During that period, men were traditionally buried lying on their right side with the head pointing towards the west; women on their left side with the head facing east.

In this case, the man was on his left side with his head facing west. Another clue is that men tended to be interred with weapons, hammers and flint knives as well as several portions of food and drink to accompany them to the other side.

Women would be buried with necklaces made from teeth, pets, and copper earrings, as well as domestic jugs and an egg-shaped pot placed near the feet. The ‘gay caveman’ was buried with household jugs, and no weapons. Archaeologists do not think it was a mistake or coincidence given the importance attached to funerals during the period, known as the Corded Ware era because of the pottery it produced.

From history and ethnology, we know that people from this period took funeral rites very seriously so it is highly unlikely that this positioning was a mistake,’ said lead researcher Kamila Remisova Vesinova. ‘Far more likely is that he was a man with a different sexual orientation, homosexual or transvestite. What we see here does not add up to traditional Corded Ware cultural norms.’

An oval, egg-shaped container usually associated with female burials was also found at the feet of the skeleton.

Another member of the archaeological team, Katerina Semradova, said that colleagues had uncovered an earlier case dating from the Mesolithic period where a female warrior was buried as a man.

She added that Siberian shamans, or witch doctors, were also buried in this way but with richer funeral accessories appropriate to their elevated position in society. ‘This later discovery was neither of those. We believe this is one of the earliest cases of what could be described as a transvestite or third-gender grave in the Czech Republic.’

SOURCE





Whom Are We Fighting For?

Pat Buchanan

On March 20, Pastor Terry Jones, who heads a congregation of 30 at his Dove World Outreach Center church in Gainesville, Fla., conducted a mock trial of the Quran "for crimes against humanity."

Pronouncing Islam's sacred book guilty, Jones soaked a Quran in kerosene and set it ablaze in a portable fire pit.

Few noticed. But Hamid Karzai did.

On March 24, the president of Afghanistan, our presumed ally in the war with al-Qaida and the Taliban, condemned this "crime against the religion and the entire Muslim nation," called on the United States to bring Jones to justice and demanded "a satisfactory response to the resentment and anger of over 1.5 million Muslims around the world."

Thus the firebrand here is not just Jones, who perpetrated the sacrilege, but Karzai, who made certain his countrymen knew what happened 10,000 miles away and four days before.

Friday, after prayers in Mazer-e-Sharif, a mob, inflamed by imams denouncing Jones, descended on the U.N. compound. When they left, seven U.N. employees lay dead, two reportedly beheaded.

President Obama denounced Jones' "act of extreme intolerance and bigotry," and added that "to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous and an affront to human dignity and decency."

Gen. David Petraeus deplored the Quran-burning as "hateful, disrespectful and enormously intolerant."

Still, on Saturday, rioters waving Taliban flags and shouting "Death to America" and "Death to Karzai" went on a rampage in Kandahar that ended with nine Afghans dead and 80 injured when they tried to march on the U.N. compound and security troops fired on them.

Three more were killed Sunday as riots continued in Kandahar and spread to Jalalabad. Forty more suffered gunshot wounds.

Petraeus then met with Karzai, who issued a new statement demanding that "the U.S. government, Senate and Congress clearly condemn (the Rev. Jones') dire action and avoid such incidents in the future."

In short, our ally seized this opportunity to rub America's nose in what the Rev. Jones did, as though the U.S. government, whose highest civilian and military officials had condemned Jones, is morally culpable for not preventing his Quran-burning and not punishing him for it.

Nor is this sufficient. Henceforth, the U.S. government is to police its citizenry to ensure no such anti-Islamic sacrilege takes place again.

Intending no disrespect, who do these people think they are?

Undeniably, it was an incendiary insult to a religion professed by almost a fourth of the world's people for Jones to do what he did. But what does this murderous reaction to a book-burning tell us about the people for whose right of self-determination Americans are fighting and dying in Afghanistan?

Candidly, it affirms what we already knew.

Many Afghans believe beheading or stoning is the right response to an insult to Islam. And not only that. Five years ago, Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity, faced the death penalty for apostasy and was forced to flee his own country.

In some Muslim countries, death is the prescribed punishment for Muslims who convert, for Christians who seek converts and for any who insult Islam, like that Danish cartoonist who sketched a caricature of the Prophet with a fused bomb for a turban.

Stoning is also seen as proper punishment for women who commit adultery.

In Pakistan recently, the governor of Punjab and the Cabinet minister for religious minorities, both Catholics, were assassinated. Why? Both had opposed a law under which a Christian woman had been sentenced to death after some farmhands accused her of blasphemy.

The governor was murdered by his own bodyguard, who was then hailed by 500 religious scholars who urged all Muslims to boycott the governor's funeral ceremony, as he had gotten what he deserved.

In the last two years, Christians have been burned alive by Muslims in Gorja, Pakistan, and by Hindu extremists in Orissa, India. Christian churches have been torched and scores of the faithful massacred on holy days in Iraq and Egypt. Few of these atrocities have received the media attention of the Rev. Jones' stupid stunt or the Danish cartoonist's irreverent scribbles.

Before America sends more of her sons to die for the freedom of Arabs and Muslims, perhaps we ought to have a better idea of what these folks intend to do with that freedom. For across that Muslim world, the faith that created our world, Christianity, is being persecuted and in some sectors annihilated.

To neocons and liberal interventionists, the goal of U.S. foreign policy should be to use our wealth and power to advance freedom until the whole world is democratic. Only then can we be secure.

But if democracy means rule by the people, ought we not to inquire a little more closely what it is these people, down deep, really want, before we bleed and bankrupt ourselves to win it for them?

Maybe Hosni Mubarak had a point.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



6 April, 2011

Pathetic! British PM says Britain caused many of the world's problems

It's bad enough for a Leftist leader like Obama to be disrespecting his own country but to have an alleged Conservative do it...!

Britain is responsible for many of the world’s historic problems, including the conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan, David Cameron has said.

The Prime Minister appeared to distance himself from the imperial past when he suggested that Britain was to blame for decades of tension and several wars over the disputed territory, as well as other global conflicts.

His remarks came on a visit to Pakistan, when he was asked how Britain could help to end the row over Kashmir. He insisted that it was not his place to intervene in the dispute, saying: “I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.”

His remarks about Kashmir were greeted warmly by the audience of Pakistani students and academics, but drew accusations from historians that the Prime Minister was wrongly apologising for Britain’s past.

Daisy Cooper, the director of the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit, said: “This is typical of the UK’s schizophrenic relationship with former colonies where it is both proud and embarrassed about its past. The Coalition has said that it has big ambitions for a modern Commonwealth and the UK should stop being embarrassed about its colonial past and they should work with other countries to help improve their human rights.”

Tristram Hunt, the Labour MP, historian and former television presenter, said: “To say that Britain is a cause of many of the world’s ills is naïve. To look back 50-odd years for the problems facing many post-colonial nations adds little to the understanding of the problems they face. “David Cameron has a tendency to go to countries around the world and tell them what they want to hear, whether it is in Israel, Turkey, India and Pakistan.”

Mr Cameron’s apparent willingness to accept historic responsibility for the Kashmir dispute has echoes of public apologies issued by his Labour predecessors. In 1997, Tony Blair apologised to the Irish people for the famine the country suffered in the mid-19th century. And in 2006, he spoke of his “deep sorrow” at Britain’s historic role in the African slave trade. In 2009, Gordon Brown issued a formal Government apology to tens of thousands of British children shipped to Australia and other Commonwealth countries between the 1920s and 1960s.

In the same year, Mr Cameron said that Britain should do more to celebrate its history, writing: “We must never forget that Britain is a great country with a history we can be truly proud of. Our culture, language and inventiveness has shaped the modern world.”

Sean Gabb, of the campaign group Libertarian Alliance, said Mr Cameron should not apologise for Britain’s past. He said: “It’s a valid historical point that some problems stem from British foreign policy in the 19th and 20th centuries, but should we feel guilty about that? I fail to see why we should.

“Some of these problems came about because these countries decided they did not want to be part of the British Empire. They wanted independence. They got it. They should sort out their problems instead of looking to us.”

Mr Cameron’s remark is striking because he has previously spoken of his pride in Britain’s past and named Viscount Palmerston as one of his historical inspirations. As foreign secretary and later prime minister in the mid-19th century, Palmerston was popular for his brazenly interventionist foreign policy, an approach that later became known as “gunboat diplomacy”.

Mr Cameron was in Pakistan to make amends for any offence he caused last year by accusing the country of “exporting” terrorism.
Kashmir has been contested since 1947 when India was partitioned. The original borders were drawn up by Viscount Radcliffe, a law lord who became chairman of the two boundary committees set up with the passing of the Indian Independence Act. He submitted his partition in August 1947 and the two nations were created.

While some historians say that makes Britain responsible for the dispute, others point to Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of Kashmir in 1947. Despite an expectation that Muslim areas of the subcontinent would become part of Pakistan, he decided that Muslim-majority Kashmir should be part of India.

Pakistan and India have fought three wars over Kashmir since partition, and the dispute continues to strain their relationship. On a visit to India last year, Mr Cameron was criticised when he said Britain should approach its former imperial possession “in a spirit of humility”.

As well as Kashmir, some historians say Britain bears historic responsibility for other international disputes. Many trace the Israel-Palestine dispute back to Britain’s decision in 1917 to establish a “national home for the Jewish people” in the territory then known as Palestine.

The borders of many Middle Eastern states were also drawn by Britain. The badly-defined and highly unstable border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan was also largely defined by Britain in the late 19th century.

SOURCE




Britain may have a Tory PM - but Lefties and luvvies still run the place

Over at Ofcom it is shrug-your-shoulders time. The broadcasting regulator had shown leniency to ‘edgy’ comedian Frankie Boyle after he made jibes about a disabled child — letting him off with no more than a rap on the knuckles.

Boyle’s remarks were made on Channel 4, another public body. Chairman David Abraham and the channel’s liberal supremos were similarly disinclined to take the matter too gravely.

In the House of Commons the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, was asked about the soppingly wet commission which will consider a Bill of Rights. It includes Leftist lawyers Anthony Lester, Helena Kennedy and Philippe Sands. Mr Clegg wafted aside concerns from Tory MP Esther McVey that the commission might not ‘reflect the will of the British public’.

Over on Twitter, meanwhile, millionaire actor and Labour supporter Eddie Izzard was regaling his faithful munchkins with his latest political apercus, attacking the Government’s cuts. What a tangled web!

This is not about Frankie Boyle, horrible though he sounds. Nor is it a beef about Ofcom, Channel 4 or Nick Clegg, richly though they may all deserve criticism.

I hope simply to draw attention to a lesson from these unrelated events. They all show the way that our politics is increasingly being influenced by unelected voices from the Left.

The country may have booted Labour out of power at the last general election, but the bien-pensant liberals remain very much in control. Though they liked to consider themselves ‘alternative’, they are in fact the Establishment, as set in their ways and as intolerant as the tailcoated elders of the Victorian age.

In the middle of the last century, public life in Britain was dominated by elected representatives. Ministers, chosen from the House of Commons, made most of the decisions. Royal commissions were rare. Procrastinating ‘consultation exercises’ were few and certainly not subject to the myriad equality audits and minority-balance assessments which today’s civil servants demand.

It is in such discussions that democratically elected politicians have their will emasculated.

Today’s politics, partly thanks to over-regulation and the deadly grip of lawyers, partly thanks to the timidity of so many MPs, is more about quangocrats and cronies — many of them still, sadly, Tony Blair’s.

We may think ourselves to be a modern, democratic land, but our public life is very much the plaything of the rich and famous, friends of the powerful, popular pin-ups.

It is about ‘celebrities’ seeking to establish themselves as concerned citizens. It is about an interfering, pro-public spending ‘third sector’ and former Blairites who still need to earn a few bob and therefore seek a perch on the public cliff-face.

Think of Blair’s ex-bag carrier Sally Morgan — his director of government relations — who has just, staggeringly, depressingly, been put in charge of Ofsted, the schools standards watchdog.

Think of Alan Milburn — the Health Secretary who resigned to spend more time with his family — being made the state’s independent authority on social mobility. Milburn! What a chancer he was as a minister.

In a few weeks’ time we will vote in a referendum on electoral reform which could alter Parliament for good. Given the effect that this referendum could have on our elected politics, you might have expected MPs to hurl themselves into the debate. But no.

The Yes To AV referendum campaign has been dominated by showbusiness personalities. Stephen Fry has been involved. Isn’t he always? So have Tony Robinson, who played Baldrick in TV’s Blackadder, Oscar winner Colin Firth, militant atheist Richard Dawkins (ugh) and dreadlocked poet Benjamin Zephaniah.

Poor old Zephaniah was dropped from some of the campaign’s leaflets in the Southern counties, though. Perhaps it was felt he was a bit black.

We had more of the same, unelected stuff when the No To AV campaign held its dismal little launch. On the stage sat Lord Winston, that telly scientist with the Groucho Marx moustache. ‘I am not a politician,’ he boasted (falsely, because he is a Labour peer and therefore a member of Parliament). Anything but an elected tribune, that was the mantra.

Hang on. Are politicians not voted in by us? Do we not choose them to represent us and to be accountable? How can an inadequate ‘star’ such as the impeccably Left-wing novelist Zadie Smith be held up to scrutiny when she appears on BBC Radio to rail against library closures? Other ‘names’ opposing changes to public libraries have included fashion designer Dame Vivienne Westwood, actress Dame Judi Dench and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Perhaps the Archbish’ was determined not to be outdone by atheist Philip Pullman, who has long made it his business to spout forth about public funding of libraries. The naughty thought enters my head that Mr Pullman’s books must do quite good business at libraries, but I am sure it would be quite wrong to suggest that he is supporting libraries purely for personal financial gain.

Arts Council cutbacks last week were another example of vicious cultural politics, conducted almost entirely away from Westminster and to the favour of the Left. The shenanigans involved the Council’s chairman, Dame Liz Forgan (who chairs the trust which runs the Guardian newspaper), and a slew of Left-wing luvvies, all united in a common belief that they have a God-given right to spend and waste taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

Actor Sam West, whose mother Prunella Scales (of Fawlty Towers fame) appears in Labour Party adverts, was leading the pack, making daft accusations that the Tories actually enjoyed cutting the arts. If a politician made that sort of ludicrous claim we could vote him or her out of office. When the likes of West do it, we are pretty much powerless to take issue with him.

On the same day, the Royal Shakespeare Company’s director, Michael Boyd, went on the BBC to compare the Daily Mail to the Soviet Union’s propaganda sheet Pravda. Why? Because we had argued that the country, regrettably, had no option but to reduce national debt. If anyone was behaving like a hardline communist, it was Mr Boyd and his cadre of subsidised, bourgeois privilege.

The unelected Leftist Establishment confronting the Cameron Government at present is a daunting edifice. It ranges from the new Supreme Court, serial naysayers to the elected Commons (the judges seem much keener on Europe), to essentially frivolous figures such as Shilpa Shetty, a Bollywood actress who appeared on Celebrity Big Brother. She demanded continued spending on the BBC’s Asian Network, even though it costs many millions of pounds. Is she not rich enough to fund it herself?

No discussion of pay is allowed to pass on the public airwaves without a contribution from Left-wing journalist Will Hutton. Scintillating he is not. Yet he is Left-wing, so on he goes. No debate about murdering despots passes without a contribution from the ultimate luvvie lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC.

Analysis of the health service is bent towards the views of The King’s Fund, allegedly independent but distinctly big-state in its views. The pink-tinged Institute For Public Policy Research think-tank has an unhealthy influence over Whitehall pensions policy.

And so it continues. The Left has been discredited at the ballot box, but its remit continues through unelected channels.

There are big guns such as the Local Government Association which opposes the cuts, and the Equality And Human Rights Commission, which uses public money to prosecute Christian hoteliers for refusing to rent rooms to gay couples.

And there are smaller fry such as athletes Denise Lewis and Dame Kelly Holmes, who opposed reductions in the tax money spent on school sport. Cyclist Jason Queally wrote to the Prime Minister ‘seeking an urgent meeting and demanding a rethink’ on that policy.

In an ideal world, Downing Street would ignore this carping chorus. In a Britain gripped by celebrity worship and run by headline-seeking politicians, unfortunately, they are listened to and allowed to set the agenda.

So far, David Cameron has appeased these people. Maybe he feels comfortable in their presence. Socially, he is ‘one of them’. They dress like him, eat the same sort of food, speak the same language, go to the same holiday destinations. Politically, however, they are a mortal danger, not only to the Government (which they hate), but also to our continued sovereign power.

If Britain is going to conquer the peril of its national debt and become competitive in the 21st century it is going to have to shake off this sly, unelected and deeply unrepresentative elite, and the sooner the better.

SOURCE






NV: Couple outraged after hospital takes newborn baby away

This Nevada incident is a great contrast with how it goes in Britain. Public pressure meant that the matter went no further. In Britain the couple might never have seen their baby again

A group of protestors want answers after a couple had their baby taken away by social services at Summerlin Hospital. The decision was made by hospital staff regarding the care of the baby.

The couple says their baby was kept at the hospital against their will after a nurse contacted social services for what they describe as an "unjustified reason."

Lincoln and Cecilia Rogers say their dreams came true when baby Lilia was born healthy just a week ago. But they describe a nightmare in getting her home from Summerlin Hospital.

"They said, ‘Well, if you leave the hospital I'll have to arrest you and your husband.'" Cecilia is referring to the police officer who was sent to her room just hours after giving birth, all because she and her husband told the nurse they didn't want to keep Lilia overnight in the NICU to be treated for jaundice. "We just really wanted to take the natural approach if we could," Cecilia explains.

The couple says it got a second opinion and spoke with a pediatrician at Summerlin Hospital, who agreed that it would be okay if the couple took the baby home with minor jaundice as long as they signed a medical release form.

But the nurse they originally worked with called Child Protective Services to report these new parents for not agreeing with the recommended hospital care. "And then Child Protective Services walked in and started interrogating my wife," Lincoln recalls. "Basically, they were going to take the baby and put her in that incubator no matter what. I thought we had no option."

That lack of option is what prompted a protest outside of Summerlin Hospital. Dozens of people stood up in support of the Rogers family, many of whom are new parents themselves. "I feel that – especially new parents – we need to know what our rights are and when they're being overstepped," says Wyndee Forrest

And that's exactly what Lincoln and Cecilia say happened when their baby was required to stay at the hospital. "It took one nurse to make one horrible decision and a domino effect to happen like that," says Lincoln. "It's just been so unfortunate."

Summerlin Hospital declined to comment on the specifics of this case but did release a statement that it disagrees with any claims that the hospital violated any patient rights.

Baby Lilia is reportedly healthy and at home with her parents.

SOURCE





Australia: Racial Discrimination Act has chilling effect on freedom of speech

By James Allan (Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland)

COLUMNIST Andrew Bolt is before the Federal Court because various plaintiffs are seeking a declaration against him under the Racial Discrimination Act (together with a court-ordered apology, which sounds Orwellian even writing it down).

They want the court to declare that Bolt's opinion pieces about light-skinned Aborigines were unlawful under the act, which strangely enough need not be the same thing as being a criminal offence under that act. And they want the court to enjoin their being republished.

In 1995, the last year of the Keating government, this act was amended to include racial vilification, meaning it became unlawful "to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group" on the basis of their race. But because of the fear of how stifling this could be for free expression in this country, the act also limits remedies for this as well as providing for lots of exemptions. So you don't infringe the act if your words were said reasonably and in good faith in such contexts as being part of an artistic work, or an academic debate, or was "a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest".

The Bolt trial is testing the limits of this legislation. We will see how this 1995 legislative amendment, controversial even back then, is interpreted by the courts. We will see how much room there is in Australia to say things that offend others, the sort of issues that really do lie at the heart of free speech concerns.

Four comments only indirectly related to that trial are worth making. First, I have always said that Australia has more free speech than Canada and Britain. And in practice, if you factor in the sort of self-censorship you see on American university campuses, then we have more scope to speak our minds here than even in the US.

Depending on how this trial goes, that could all change.

Second, a number of commentators have mistakenly claimed this couldn't happen if we had a bill of rights. Wrong! Canada has one of the strongest bills of rights in the common law world. It also has way more limits on your scope to speak your mind when it comes to so-called hate speech, and indeed defamation and campaign finance rules, than we have here. That's why Mark Steyn was dragged before courts and pseudo-courts in Canada, bill of rights and all. The mistake is to think a bill of rights with its "right to free speech" somehow gives you an absolute right along those lines. Wrong. All you buy with a bill of rights is the judges' views about the proper scope of the right, how it relates to other enumerated rights, and what limits on it are reasonable.

Put differently, you can be an unstinting critic of bills of rights at the same time as you are in favour of lots and lots and lots of free speech. There is nothing inconsistent in that and people who point to some supposed mismatch between the two simply don't know how bills of rights work. When you buy one, you are simply buying the views of the unelected judges. You are not buying absolutist guarantees of rights.

Third, however this court case goes, and even if there be some sort of appeal, the people to blame for this infringement of free speech are our legislators. This 1995 amendment ought to be repealed, and now. Sure, you can read this statute as giving such wide exemptions that you could drive a truck through them. So maybe Bolt will walk away unscathed.

But the very fact he (and you) can be brought to court at all can impose a massive chilling effect on free speech. We shouldn't have an act that allows complaints of a quasi-defamatory nature to be turned into ones dressed up as racial vilification. Those who think, like me, that the valuable sort of free speech is the kind that protects stuff many find offensive and distasteful will want this 1995 amending legislation repealed.

Otherwise claims to be in favour of free speech start to look like favouring only the warm, fuzzy varieties of free speech.

The only valuable sort of freedom of speech is the sort that allows people to do or to say what others find wrong-headed, offensive, distasteful and intolerant.

Being free to say and do what everyone else wants you to say and do is not a liberty or freedom you will ever have to fight for; it will make little difference to anything.

Already this Bolt trial is getting publicity in the US. Steyn is writing about it, as are others. And they're painting us as a Mickey Mouse little jurisdiction where being offended is enough to allow victims to paint some speakers as acting unlawfully. Some are suggesting we might be heading down the road Canada travelled.

I think any good, well-functioning democracy requires its citizens to man up and grow a thick skin. If you're offended, tell us why the speaker is wrong. Don't ask for a court-ordered apology and some two-bit declaration.

Of course none of this is the court's fault. They didn't pass this legislation. Our legislature did. And it's time to repeal it. Now.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



5 April, 2011

Top British Leftist wants to stymie young people who try hard to get a job

He claims to be moderate but sounds more like a Marxist. He wants to abolish a pathway to work for the really keen: unpaid internships

Nick Clegg will call for sweeping changes to internships today to try to break the ‘sharp elbowed’ middle-class stranglehold on the professions. Firms that fail to provide ‘financial support’ to interns could face investigation by HM Revenue and Customs over their compliance with the minimum wage laws.

Launching the Coalition’s social mobility strategy, the Deputy Prime Minister will also warn that the ‘well-connected’ middle classes enjoy an unfair advantage in getting work experience for their children. He will argue that internships have become a closed shop in many professions.

Mr Clegg will also criticise the practice of expecting interns to work for nothing, which he believes discriminates against youngsters from poorer backgrounds.

The Lib Dem leader will say: ‘For too long, internships have been the almost exclusive preserve of the sharp-elbowed and the well-connected. ‘Unfair, informal internships can rig the market in favour of those who already have opportunities. A country that is socially mobile bases opportunity on your ability and drive, not on who your father’s friends are.’

Lib Dem sources said Mr Clegg is determined to break the ‘old boys’ network’ that dominates many of the professions, such as the law, accountancy and architecture.

Research shows that just a quarter of working-class boys go on to get middle-class jobs. The 7 per cent of children at private schools account for more than half of the top level of most professions.

But the move will leave the Lib Dem leader open to charges of hypocrisy. The son of a millionaire banker was educated at £30,000-a-year Westminster School, and went on to enjoy three internships.

Conservative Party Chairman Baroness Warsi will announce plans to provide internships in every Whitehall department for youngsters from poorer backgrounds.

Employers are being asked to sign up to a ‘business compact’, which encourages the advertising of internships in state schools and provides at least basic living expenses. Ministers insist the strategy will improve social mobility across society, not just give a leg up to the poorest.

But the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies warns that the focus will involve ‘downward mobility for individuals from rich or middle-income families’.

SOURCE





How a "homeless" British man was barred from home town... only to have order overturned as it breached his human rights

Since he was prone to minor crime, the barring was a good low-key preventive

A homeless man has won the right to walk through the streets of an affluent Lancashire town after overturning an ASBO against him... because it breached his human rights. Simon Frodsham, 41, has been arrested more than 160 times for breaching the terms of his ASBO by walking through his home town of Lytham, in Lancashire.

For eight years, privately-educated Mr Frodsham had been banned from walking in the town and had spent much of the time in jail as a result. The cost of arresting him, keeping him in jail and time spent prosecuting him in court had escalated to more than £1.4million, Blackpool Magistrates' Court heard.

Mr Frodsham applies for his ASBO to be lifted - not because he was behaving himself, but because the order was not working and he claimed it infringed his human right to walk in his home town.

Steven Townley, representing him in court, said: 'My client believes the original order was made maliciously because he is the only homeless man in Lytham. 'This is a town with a high proliferation of millionaires with multi-million pound houses. This is a nimby ASBO. 'Had Mr Frodsham lived in Manchester or Liverpool or Blackpool there would be no order.'

Mr Townley told the court the first ASBO even banned his client from going into churches and drinking water in the streets. That order lasted for five years and the police successfully had it extended for another five years until 2013.

Mr Townley added: 'He is not anti-social, he merely walks into his home town, crossing an invisible line and gets arrested. 'It is the town where he has friends, where his mother lives and where he gets support. Apart from that, he is a man who likes to sleep under the stars.'

Steve Finnigan, Chief Constable of Lancashire Police, formally opposed the lifting of the ASBO. Chris Kehoe, representing the police, said: 'In many respects it would appear that this man breaches this ASBO because he wants to get arrested and get a meal and bed for the night. 'When the order was not in place he turned to crime and anti-social behaviour so in terms of protecting the public the order is working.'

Lifting the ban on Mr Frodsham, Judge Lowe said: 'Mr Frodsham should not be criminalised for walking down the streets of his home town, there is no evidence he has done anyone any harm of late.'

Speaking after the hearing, Mr Frodsham said: 'I have felt like a political prisoner who lost eight years of his life for nothing other than walking into my home town. 'I shall be taking up a compensation claim against the police for what I have lost.'

SOURCE





Some conservative views from Australia's Leftist Prime Minister

JULIA Gillard has reassured leaders of Australia's 20 major Christian churches that she supports traditional values and freedom of religion, and is listening to their concerns about the Greens' social agenda on legalising same-sex marriage and euthanasia.

The Christian leaders urged the Prime Minister to ensure that freedom of religion in public continued to be protected by law and a clear human right.

Ms Gillard repeated her personal opposition to same-sex marriage and euthanasia, while the church leaders told her of their concerns about changes to the anti-discrimination act that could make it more difficult for Christian schools to hire on the basis of religion.

Australia's Catholic leader, George Pell, told The Australian last night that the Prime Minister "as always" was "friendly and gave us a good hearing".

Cardinal Pell said the leaders told Ms Gillard: "We are very keen to ensure that the right to practise religion in public life continues to be protected in law. It is not ideal that religious freedom is protected by so called 'exemptions and exceptions' in anti-discrimination law, almost like reluctant concessions, crumbs from the secularists' table. What is needed is legislation that embodies and recognises these basic religious freedoms as a human right."

Cardinal Pell also asked Ms Gillard to do "what she could to protect the rights of religious minorities in Islamic countries, particularly for Coptic Christians in Egypt, whose situation has deteriorated in the last few months and worsened since the revolution".

The meeting with Ms Gillard in Canberra yesterday - which came as Tony Abbott took part in a charity bike ride part-sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons - was organised by Australian Christian Lobby chief Jim Wallace. Mr Wallace had organised similar meetings with Kevin Rudd when he was prime minister.

Leaders of the Catholic, Anglican, orthodox and evangelical churches all raised concerns about social policy agendas that threatened Christian values, and appealed for help for refugees.

The meeting came as Ms Gillard continues her fight with the Greens over "traditional family values", and as her Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, overturned a ban on giving religious books such as the Bible or the Koran to newly sworn-in citizens of Australia.

In recent weeks, Ms Gillard, who has publicly declared she is an atheist, has told parliament she can still recite scripture learned at her Baptist Sunday school and opposes euthanasia and same-sex marriage on the basis of maintaining traditional values.

The Prime Minister has portrayed herself as socially conservative and last Thursday attacked the values of the Greens, who "wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy". "The Greens have some worthy ideas and many of their supporters sincerely want a better politics in our country," she said. "They have good intentions but fail to understand the centrepiece of our big picture - the people Labor strives to represent need work. And the Greens will never embrace Labor's delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation."

SOURCE






Some moderation in Muslim-run Malaysia

Malaysia’s government said it would allow Malay-language Bibles to be printed locally, in a major concession to the country’s minority Christian community to soothe anger over seized shipments of their holy books.

The government’s announcement late Saturday comes ahead of an April 16 election in Sarawak state on Borneo island, where Christians account for more than 40 percent of the population. The poll is seen as a crucial barometer of support for Muslim-majority Malaysia’s ruling coalition that may determine whether it will call early general elections.

Christians have been angered over the seizures of tens of thousands of imported Malay-language Bibles by Malaysian customs authorities, some since 2009.

The seized Bibles violate a government ban on non-Muslim texts that use the word “Allah” as a translation for God amid concern it could confuse Muslims or be used to convert them. Malaysian Christians say the ban is unfair because the Arabic word is a common reference for God that predates Islam.

Idris Jala, a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, said in a statement that Bibles in all languages, including Malay, can now be printed locally. The move extends an olive branch to Christians, who previously had to import Malay-language Bibles from Indonesia.

Jala pledged there would be no restrictions on Malay-language Bibles in Sabah and Sarawak states on Borneo, where there are large Christian communities.

However, he said books that are imported or printed in peninsula Malaysia must carry the words “Christian publication” and the sign of the cross on its front cover, in a move likely made to appease the country’s Muslim community.

The Christian Federation of Malaysia, which represents most of the country’s churches, said Sunday that church leaders will meet next week to discuss the government’s offer.

One of the Christian Federation’s leaders, the Rev. Hermen Shastri, said the proposal did not address the group’s call to revoke a long-standing government order that deems the Malay-language Bible a threat to national security. “The fact that the government is maintaining that position is a denial of our rights because the Bible is our holy book that enlightens people and not a threat to security,” he told The Associated Press.

It is unclear how the move would affect an ongoing court case on whether non-Muslims have the constitutional right to use the word “Allah.”

The government is appealing a December 2009 court ruling that religious minorities have the right to use “Allah.” The verdict caused a brief surge in tensions last year, when 11 churches were attacked amid anger among some Muslims. Muslims comprise nearly two-thirds of Malaysia’s 28 million people, while Christians are about 10 percent.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



4 April, 2011

British Fascist is ready to use shock and awe to force social change

Those who think Nick Clegg [Leader of the Liberal party] has got a raw deal out of this Coalition should pay attention on Tuesday as the Government’s social mobility strategy is, at last, given its formal launch. Elements of the plan have already been unveiled: the appointment of Alan Milburn as the Government’s independent reviewer on social mobility; the £430-per-head “pupil premium” given to schools which educate the poorest children; and the new “access agreements” for universities which propose to charge tuition fees of more than £6,000 per annum. This week, the Deputy Prime Minister will join up the dots and – more to the point – seek to demonstrate the political will that underpins the rhetoric.

All governments say they are in favour of “social mobility” and issue appropriate platitudes. But this one seems to mean business, thanks in large part to the fire in Clegg’s belly. The ministerial committee exploring the issue has come to be recognised as a forum where important decisions are taken: Michael Gove, though not a formal member, has made a point of attending some of its meetings alongside his colleagues David Willetts and Iain Duncan Smith. The Education Secretary is wise to do so: the policies and governing strategy that are being formulated under this rubric will be deeply controversial, and (in Clegg’s eyes, at any rate) they are meant to be.

As a curtain-raiser, it was disclosed last week that the Government is to publish an annual “report card” on seven key indicators, ranging from babies’ body weight and the skills learned by five-year-olds to GCSE results and adult earnings. These, Clegg insists, will not be targets but “a series of dials”, a dashboard used to check on the nation’s social wellbeing and to “trigger a reaction” when things go wrong. Without apology, he makes government sound like a giant Heath Robinson contraption, monitored by ministers in white coats with clipboards. A politician who talks about “dials” can scarcely complain if he is accused of “social engineering”.

Those involved in the formulation of this strategy – Lib Dem and Tory – insist that it will not involve quotas or US-style “affirmative action”. Yet it is hard to escape the conclusion that a line is about to be crossed in social policy. Already, Clegg has made clear to university vice-chancellors that the rules of the game have changed. How they go about broadening their undergraduate intake is for them to decide, in collaboration with the Office for Fair Access. But he wants to see results, especially in the proportion of state school pupils going to the best universities. It is hard to exaggerate the level of unease this has already spawned in Oxford and Cambridge common rooms – which is exactly what Clegg wants.

Private school heads seethe about a new era of “differential offers”, in which their pupils will have to clear much higher hurdles than rival candidates from the state sector. Again, Clegg has no problem with parents beginning to doubt that they can buy social advantage for their children by paying exorbitant school fees. The gradualist approach, he believes, has failed, and it is time for a spot of shock and awe. Either the top higher education institutions deliver change, or they will lose the right to charge increased tuition fees.

In Cabinet, the Prime Minister makes a point of presenting Clegg’s social mobility plan as “Coalition policy” – rather than a Lib Dem wheeze tolerated by reluctant Tories to hold the Government together. Nor is the Conservative leader averse to forcing the pace of social change when it suits him: it was Cameron, after all, who imposed the A-list of candidates upon deeply sceptical Tory associations. Conservative politicians often accept the practical necessity of social intervention from which they ideologically recoil: as President Obama has noted approvingly, it was Nixon who launched the first federal affirmative action programmes for black Americans.

That said, it would be absurd to deny the tensions between the two parties on this most contentious issue. Last week, even as Clegg unveiled his seven indicators, Willetts declared that he still believed in “a liberal labour market that doesn’t try to achieve social objectives”.

There is agreement on the DPM’s cradle-to-grave approach to social mobility, his insistence that it amounts to more than the alleviation of poverty, and his introduction of multiple metrics to monitor progress. But Tories are much more comfortable with “supply side” measures than they are with threatening universities over the numbers of state school pupils they admit.

For Iain Duncan Smith, the heart of the problem is the broken society that breeds poverty of aspiration. For Gove, it is the culture of expectation and excellence within state schools that needs to be addressed. The point of difference is that Clegg and co are willing to go much further, to use the power of government to compel change, rather than simply to nudge and nurture it and hope for the best. The DPM’s message to universities, for a start, might be called a Nike strategy: Just Do It.

I take an old-fashioned view, which is that grammar schools were the most effective engine of social mobility ever devised, and that the reintroduction of academic selection in the state sector remains the best hope of repairing the wrecked ladder of opportunity. But where I agree with Clegg is that, in this particular endeavour, you really do have to break a few eggs to make the desired omelette. There is no painless path to social change.

If, like me, you want the 11-plus back, you have to accept the impact upon those who do not pass (John Prescott still hasn’t recovered, more than 60 years after he failed the exam). Likewise, the fight that the DPM has picked could be extraordinarily bloody.

Eleven years ago, Gordon Brown’s intervention in the case of Laura Spence, a high-achieving state school pupil turned down by Oxford, caused a national furore. That was a story about a single candidate, with no implications for policy and no prospect of redress. Now imagine the Laura Spence row nationalised, so to speak, and every non-compliant university facing stiff punishment.

Imagine litigation, human rights cases going all the way to Strasbourg, top higher education institutions threatening to go private and charge what they like. The 7.2 per cent of parents who send their children to independent schools (paying average fees of £10,100 a year) are a minority, but they are disproportionately noisy. Good luck to any politician who declares war on them.

Even so: it remains astonishing that Clegg has persuaded a Conservative-dominated Government to undertake this project. Labour MPs whisper their congratulations to Lib Dem ministers, and express justified amazement that a Coalition led by products of Eton, Westminster and St Paul’s has embarked on this social crusade.

In 32 days’ time, the nation will go to the polls in the first UK-wide referendum in 36 years and decide whether to adopt a new electoral system. The stakes for Clegg are vertiginously high. But it is the battle he is launching on Tuesday that he really wants to win.

SOURCE






Why rich families today were probably rich 1,000 years ago

This is an odd finding, best explained by genetic inheritance. Not all descendants of the rich remain rich but there appears to be an overall tendency in that direction nonetheless

Surnames which indicated nobility and wealth in medieval times are still richer even today, research has suggested. 'Moneyed' surnames, such as Darcy, Percy, Baskerville and Mandeville continue to have more cash than those with 'poor' names, such as Smith, Mason and Cooper.

The research, which uses university admissions, probate records and official information going as far back as the Domesday Book, tracked what happened to those whose surnames suggest their forebears were either aristocratic or 'artisans' from the working class.

Researcher Gregory Clark, a professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, found that in the group with rare names he studied from the 1850s until 2011, the gap between rich and poor narrowed.

However, those with 'rich' surnames left estates worth at least ten per cent above the national average, and also lived three years longer than the average, according to The Observer.
That's rich: Colin Firth as Fitzwilliam Darcy, in a scene from Pride and Prejudice. Research suggests that people with certain names such as name Darcy have always been better off

Such names indicated a descent from nobility who came to England after the Norman Conquest and are found in the Domesday book of 1086. They drew their name from the surrounding Normandy towns and villages, the Observer says, whereas other 'poor ' surnames - such as Carpenter, Shepherd or Baker - indicated an occupation.

In his paper - which is due to be presented at the Economic History Society's annual conference - Prof Clark says: 'Despite the social and political changes in England since the Industrial Revolution and the extension of the political franchise, if anything the rate of social mobility is slower now than in medieval England.

'The huge social resources spent on publicly provided education and health have seemingly created no gains in the rate of social mobility. 'The modern meritocracy is no better at achieving social mobility than the medieval oligarchy.'

And while rich and poor in general may eventually become 'average', with 'no permanent social classes', those from the 1850s may take another 'two to four' generations to get there, he finds.

Prof Clark added a warning for the current poor in Britain: it may be many generations 'perhaps centuries' before they achieve equality.

'The children of groups of recent immigrants to the UK – specifically those from Bangladesh and Pakistan – have levels of wealth, income, and education that are substantially below those of the general population,' his paper says.

SOURCE





Australia: Ban on childcare naughty corner, Easter parades

This is just a feast for lawyers and the people paying for it will be the parents -- as fees go up to cover liability insurance. Isn't childcare dear enough now?

CHILDCARE workers who send tantrum-throwing toddlers to "time out" risk hefty fines under national childcare laws to come into force next year.

New regulations will expose childcare centres to penalties if children are required to take part in religious or cultural activities, such as Christmas tree decoration or Easter hat parades hunts.

Childcare supervisors risk personal fines for the first time, under the national legislation being adopted by state and territory governments.

Centres could be fined as much as $50,000, and supervisors $10,000, for failing to ensure children are adequately supervised, or for using "inappropriate discipline" to keep order.

Centres will be banned from using any form of corporal punishment, as well as "any discipline that is unreasonable in the circumstances".

The Education and Care Services National Act, which has been passed by Victoria as the "host jurisdiction" and will be replicated by other states and territories, does not define "unreasonable" discipline.

But draft regulations with the legislation show childcare supervisors risk $2000 fines for "separating" children.

Supervisors must "ensure that a child being educated and cared for by the service is not separated from other children for any reason other than illness or an accident", the regulations state.

Children cannot be "required to undertake activities that are inappropriate, having regard to each family's family and cultural values, age and physical and intellectual development".

The childcare industry yesterday demanded greater clarity, warning that staff could be fined for putting a toddler in "time out" or asking a child to help decorate a Christmas tree.

The Australian Childcare Alliance, representing private centres, called for a definition of "separation", noting that each state and territory could interpret the law differently.

Childcare centres had banned smacking, and no longer used the "naughty corner" technique of isolating children who were violent or disobedient, alliance president Gwynn Bridge said.

But the regulations left the way open for a supervisor to be fined if a litigious parent objected to a child being taken out of a group for hitting other children, or throwing sand.

"There is time out but naughty corners went out years ago," Ms Bridge said. "You move a child a short way from the group and talk to them about their behaviour.

"But we don't know the meaning of the word 'separate' - is it distance? This needs clarification, otherwise people will be in breach without realising it."

The regulations also require family carers, who normally look after a handful of children in their homes, to ensure regular visitors are "fit and proper persons".

Criminal checks would have to be carried out on any neighbours, friends or relatives who visit while children are present on more than three days in a month, or seven days a year.

SOURCE






Former Australian Labor Party leader says that present leader has no empathy because she's childless

For once I actually agree with Latham but politics is more than emotion. Cost-benefit calculations are more important and with her hugely expensive boondoggle of a fibre network that will be obsolete as soon as it is built, Gillard is a major failure there -- not to mention her witless carbon tax that will achieve exactly nothing -- JR

MARK Latham has renewed his attack on Julia Gillard's personal life and character, questioning her ability to empathise and experience true love because of her decision to remain childless.

After derailing her election campaign last year, the former Labor leader today resurfaced to critique the Prime Minister once again.

In an interview to spruik a re-release of his 2005 book The Latham Diaries, Mr Latham said the ability to empathise with small children was a good test of character.

“I think having children is the great loving experience of any lifetime. And by definition you haven't got as much love in your life if you make that particular choice,” he told ABC radio.

“Choice in Gillard's case is very, very specific. Particularly because she's on the public record saying she made a deliberate choice not to have children to further her parliamentary career.

“One would have thought to experience the greatest loving experience in life having children you wouldn't particularly make that choice.”

Mr Latham said the proof Ms Gillard had no empathy was her “very wooden” performance during the Queensland floods.

“I'm not the only one saying that. I've also had some experience where around small children she was wooden. And I think the two go together.”

Mr Latham has previously attacked Ms Gillard's decision to pursue her career over children, saying in February: “Anyone who chooses a life without children, as Gillard has, cannot have much love in them.”

He's not the first politician to attack the Prime Minister on such grounds.

In 2007 Liberal senator Bill Heffernan said that “anyone who chooses to deliberately remain barren ... they've got no idea what life's about”.

And last year opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis questioned Julia Gillard's ability to “understand the way parents think” about virginity because she didn't have children.

Defending Tony Abbott's right to discuss the advice he gave to his daughters on virginity, Senator Brandis said Ms Gillard was a “one-dimensional” person who had “chosen not to be a parent”.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



4 April, 2011

British Fascist is ready to use shock and awe to force social change

Those who think Nick Clegg [Leader of the Liberal party] has got a raw deal out of this Coalition should pay attention on Tuesday as the Government’s social mobility strategy is, at last, given its formal launch. Elements of the plan have already been unveiled: the appointment of Alan Milburn as the Government’s independent reviewer on social mobility; the £430-per-head “pupil premium” given to schools which educate the poorest children; and the new “access agreements” for universities which propose to charge tuition fees of more than £6,000 per annum. This week, the Deputy Prime Minister will join up the dots and – more to the point – seek to demonstrate the political will that underpins the rhetoric.

All governments say they are in favour of “social mobility” and issue appropriate platitudes. But this one seems to mean business, thanks in large part to the fire in Clegg’s belly. The ministerial committee exploring the issue has come to be recognised as a forum where important decisions are taken: Michael Gove, though not a formal member, has made a point of attending some of its meetings alongside his colleagues David Willetts and Iain Duncan Smith. The Education Secretary is wise to do so: the policies and governing strategy that are being formulated under this rubric will be deeply controversial, and (in Clegg’s eyes, at any rate) they are meant to be.

As a curtain-raiser, it was disclosed last week that the Government is to publish an annual “report card” on seven key indicators, ranging from babies’ body weight and the skills learned by five-year-olds to GCSE results and adult earnings. These, Clegg insists, will not be targets but “a series of dials”, a dashboard used to check on the nation’s social wellbeing and to “trigger a reaction” when things go wrong. Without apology, he makes government sound like a giant Heath Robinson contraption, monitored by ministers in white coats with clipboards. A politician who talks about “dials” can scarcely complain if he is accused of “social engineering”.

Those involved in the formulation of this strategy – Lib Dem and Tory – insist that it will not involve quotas or US-style “affirmative action”. Yet it is hard to escape the conclusion that a line is about to be crossed in social policy. Already, Clegg has made clear to university vice-chancellors that the rules of the game have changed. How they go about broadening their undergraduate intake is for them to decide, in collaboration with the Office for Fair Access. But he wants to see results, especially in the proportion of state school pupils going to the best universities. It is hard to exaggerate the level of unease this has already spawned in Oxford and Cambridge common rooms – which is exactly what Clegg wants.

Private school heads seethe about a new era of “differential offers”, in which their pupils will have to clear much higher hurdles than rival candidates from the state sector. Again, Clegg has no problem with parents beginning to doubt that they can buy social advantage for their children by paying exorbitant school fees. The gradualist approach, he believes, has failed, and it is time for a spot of shock and awe. Either the top higher education institutions deliver change, or they will lose the right to charge increased tuition fees.

In Cabinet, the Prime Minister makes a point of presenting Clegg’s social mobility plan as “Coalition policy” – rather than a Lib Dem wheeze tolerated by reluctant Tories to hold the Government together. Nor is the Conservative leader averse to forcing the pace of social change when it suits him: it was Cameron, after all, who imposed the A-list of candidates upon deeply sceptical Tory associations. Conservative politicians often accept the practical necessity of social intervention from which they ideologically recoil: as President Obama has noted approvingly, it was Nixon who launched the first federal affirmative action programmes for black Americans.

That said, it would be absurd to deny the tensions between the two parties on this most contentious issue. Last week, even as Clegg unveiled his seven indicators, Willetts declared that he still believed in “a liberal labour market that doesn’t try to achieve social objectives”.

There is agreement on the DPM’s cradle-to-grave approach to social mobility, his insistence that it amounts to more than the alleviation of poverty, and his introduction of multiple metrics to monitor progress. But Tories are much more comfortable with “supply side” measures than they are with threatening universities over the numbers of state school pupils they admit.

For Iain Duncan Smith, the heart of the problem is the broken society that breeds poverty of aspiration. For Gove, it is the culture of expectation and excellence within state schools that needs to be addressed. The point of difference is that Clegg and co are willing to go much further, to use the power of government to compel change, rather than simply to nudge and nurture it and hope for the best. The DPM’s message to universities, for a start, might be called a Nike strategy: Just Do It.

I take an old-fashioned view, which is that grammar schools were the most effective engine of social mobility ever devised, and that the reintroduction of academic selection in the state sector remains the best hope of repairing the wrecked ladder of opportunity. But where I agree with Clegg is that, in this particular endeavour, you really do have to break a few eggs to make the desired omelette. There is no painless path to social change.

If, like me, you want the 11-plus back, you have to accept the impact upon those who do not pass (John Prescott still hasn’t recovered, more than 60 years after he failed the exam). Likewise, the fight that the DPM has picked could be extraordinarily bloody.

Eleven years ago, Gordon Brown’s intervention in the case of Laura Spence, a high-achieving state school pupil turned down by Oxford, caused a national furore. That was a story about a single candidate, with no implications for policy and no prospect of redress. Now imagine the Laura Spence row nationalised, so to speak, and every non-compliant university facing stiff punishment.

Imagine litigation, human rights cases going all the way to Strasbourg, top higher education institutions threatening to go private and charge what they like. The 7.2 per cent of parents who send their children to independent schools (paying average fees of £10,100 a year) are a minority, but they are disproportionately noisy. Good luck to any politician who declares war on them.

Even so: it remains astonishing that Clegg has persuaded a Conservative-dominated Government to undertake this project. Labour MPs whisper their congratulations to Lib Dem ministers, and express justified amazement that a Coalition led by products of Eton, Westminster and St Paul’s has embarked on this social crusade.

In 32 days’ time, the nation will go to the polls in the first UK-wide referendum in 36 years and decide whether to adopt a new electoral system. The stakes for Clegg are vertiginously high. But it is the battle he is launching on Tuesday that he really wants to win.

SOURCE






Why rich families today were probably rich 1,000 years ago

This is an odd finding, best explained by genetic inheritance. Not all descendants of the rich remain rich but there appears to be an overall tendency in that direction nonetheless

Surnames which indicated nobility and wealth in medieval times are still richer even today, research has suggested. 'Moneyed' surnames, such as Darcy, Percy, Baskerville and Mandeville continue to have more cash than those with 'poor' names, such as Smith, Mason and Cooper.

The research, which uses university admissions, probate records and official information going as far back as the Domesday Book, tracked what happened to those whose surnames suggest their forebears were either aristocratic or 'artisans' from the working class.

Researcher Gregory Clark, a professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, found that in the group with rare names he studied from the 1850s until 2011, the gap between rich and poor narrowed.

However, those with 'rich' surnames left estates worth at least ten per cent above the national average, and also lived three years longer than the average, according to The Observer.
That's rich: Colin Firth as Fitzwilliam Darcy, in a scene from Pride and Prejudice. Research suggests that people with certain names such as name Darcy have always been better off

Such names indicated a descent from nobility who came to England after the Norman Conquest and are found in the Domesday book of 1086. They drew their name from the surrounding Normandy towns and villages, the Observer says, whereas other 'poor ' surnames - such as Carpenter, Shepherd or Baker - indicated an occupation.

In his paper - which is due to be presented at the Economic History Society's annual conference - Prof Clark says: 'Despite the social and political changes in England since the Industrial Revolution and the extension of the political franchise, if anything the rate of social mobility is slower now than in medieval England.

'The huge social resources spent on publicly provided education and health have seemingly created no gains in the rate of social mobility. 'The modern meritocracy is no better at achieving social mobility than the medieval oligarchy.'

And while rich and poor in general may eventually become 'average', with 'no permanent social classes', those from the 1850s may take another 'two to four' generations to get there, he finds.

Prof Clark added a warning for the current poor in Britain: it may be many generations 'perhaps centuries' before they achieve equality.

'The children of groups of recent immigrants to the UK – specifically those from Bangladesh and Pakistan – have levels of wealth, income, and education that are substantially below those of the general population,' his paper says.

SOURCE





Australia: Ban on childcare naughty corner, Easter parades

This is just a feast for lawyers and the people paying for it will be the parents -- as fees go up to cover liability insurance. Isn't childcare dear enough now?

CHILDCARE workers who send tantrum-throwing toddlers to "time out" risk hefty fines under national childcare laws to come into force next year.

New regulations will expose childcare centres to penalties if children are required to take part in religious or cultural activities, such as Christmas tree decoration or Easter hat parades hunts.

Childcare supervisors risk personal fines for the first time, under the national legislation being adopted by state and territory governments.

Centres could be fined as much as $50,000, and supervisors $10,000, for failing to ensure children are adequately supervised, or for using "inappropriate discipline" to keep order.

Centres will be banned from using any form of corporal punishment, as well as "any discipline that is unreasonable in the circumstances".

The Education and Care Services National Act, which has been passed by Victoria as the "host jurisdiction" and will be replicated by other states and territories, does not define "unreasonable" discipline.

But draft regulations with the legislation show childcare supervisors risk $2000 fines for "separating" children.

Supervisors must "ensure that a child being educated and cared for by the service is not separated from other children for any reason other than illness or an accident", the regulations state.

Children cannot be "required to undertake activities that are inappropriate, having regard to each family's family and cultural values, age and physical and intellectual development".

The childcare industry yesterday demanded greater clarity, warning that staff could be fined for putting a toddler in "time out" or asking a child to help decorate a Christmas tree.

The Australian Childcare Alliance, representing private centres, called for a definition of "separation", noting that each state and territory could interpret the law differently.

Childcare centres had banned smacking, and no longer used the "naughty corner" technique of isolating children who were violent or disobedient, alliance president Gwynn Bridge said.

But the regulations left the way open for a supervisor to be fined if a litigious parent objected to a child being taken out of a group for hitting other children, or throwing sand.

"There is time out but naughty corners went out years ago," Ms Bridge said. "You move a child a short way from the group and talk to them about their behaviour.

"But we don't know the meaning of the word 'separate' - is it distance? This needs clarification, otherwise people will be in breach without realising it."

The regulations also require family carers, who normally look after a handful of children in their homes, to ensure regular visitors are "fit and proper persons".

Criminal checks would have to be carried out on any neighbours, friends or relatives who visit while children are present on more than three days in a month, or seven days a year.

SOURCE






Former Australian Labor Party leader says that present leader has no empathy because she's childless

For once I actually agree with Latham but politics is more than emotion. Cost-benefit calculations are more important and with her hugely expensive boondoggle of a fibre network that will be obsolete as soon as it is built, Gillard is a major failure there -- not to mention her witless carbon tax that will achieve exactly nothing -- JR

MARK Latham has renewed his attack on Julia Gillard's personal life and character, questioning her ability to empathise and experience true love because of her decision to remain childless.

After derailing her election campaign last year, the former Labor leader today resurfaced to critique the Prime Minister once again.

In an interview to spruik a re-release of his 2005 book The Latham Diaries, Mr Latham said the ability to empathise with small children was a good test of character.

“I think having children is the great loving experience of any lifetime. And by definition you haven't got as much love in your life if you make that particular choice,” he told ABC radio.

“Choice in Gillard's case is very, very specific. Particularly because she's on the public record saying she made a deliberate choice not to have children to further her parliamentary career.

“One would have thought to experience the greatest loving experience in life having children you wouldn't particularly make that choice.”

Mr Latham said the proof Ms Gillard had no empathy was her “very wooden” performance during the Queensland floods.

“I'm not the only one saying that. I've also had some experience where around small children she was wooden. And I think the two go together.”

Mr Latham has previously attacked Ms Gillard's decision to pursue her career over children, saying in February: “Anyone who chooses a life without children, as Gillard has, cannot have much love in them.”

He's not the first politician to attack the Prime Minister on such grounds.

In 2007 Liberal senator Bill Heffernan said that “anyone who chooses to deliberately remain barren ... they've got no idea what life's about”.

And last year opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis questioned Julia Gillard's ability to “understand the way parents think” about virginity because she didn't have children.

Defending Tony Abbott's right to discuss the advice he gave to his daughters on virginity, Senator Brandis said Ms Gillard was a “one-dimensional” person who had “chosen not to be a parent”.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



3 April, 2011

Britain's prisons must be tougher, says survey

The Coalition's law and order policies have failed to win public backing, according to a major new survey which found widespread support for tougher punishments. The research found a huge majority of the public do not back the community sentences which Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, wants to see used instead of short prison sentences.

The poll, the largest piece of independent research into public thinking on crime and punishment since the General Election last year, suggests little support for community punishments and demand for tougher prison conditions. The poll of more than 2,000 adults, 1,000 victims of crime and 500 police officers found:

* Eight out of 10 people believe community sentences are a "soft punishment", while among police officers the figure was nine out of 10.

* Asked about high reoffending rates by criminals who have served short jail terms, two thirds of the public thought the best solution was to "make prison life harder, to make it more of a deterrent to committing further crimes".

* Six out of 10 interviewees agreed that rehabilitation was a "soft option that tries to make excuses for offenders", while only four out of 10 said it was a "hard-headed practical way of trying to reduce reoffending".

* Only 13 per cent of the public believed the Coalition was being tougher on crime than Labour, with 23 per cent saying it was less tough and the remainder said it was about the same.

The research was commissioned by Lord Ashcroft, the former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, who said that it was a warning that the Conservative party risks "undermining an important part of its appeal" by failing to deliver on law and order.

Mr Clarke's criminal justice Green Paper, published in December, proposed replacing short jail terms with "tougher" community punishments but the research found there was widespread support for sending criminals to jail even for short periods.

It abandoned the "prison works" policy put forward by then Home Secretary Michael Howard in 1993 - in a speech written by his then adviser, David Cameron - and followed by the Conservatives until the General Election.

Mr Clarke has repeatedly spoken of the need for "rigorously enforced community sentences that punish offenders" instead of prison sentences, as well as claiming the public's fear of crime was exaggerated. 'The public are still very, very worried about lawlessness," he said in June 2010. "People still feel fear of crime – probably to a greater extent than they actually face it.'

But those views are challenged by the research. The poll report said: "There was an overwhelming view in the groups that sentencing for convicted criminals in Britain is too soft.

"If offenders went to prison at all their sentence would be too short; they would then serve only half the time they were sentenced to because of the cost or lack of space; and the time they did spend inside would be much too comfortable to constitute proper punishment or a deterrent to reoffending."

One member of the public told researchers: "In the good old days you went to prison and it was a punishment. Now there is TV, a gym, you can get drugs, you can get whatever."

Many interviewees expressed concern about criminal justice reforms outlined by Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, which include sending fewer people to prison and offering more generous sentence discounts to criminals who plead guilty.

One police officer told the researchers Mr Clarke was "wrong" and added: "The only way you'll protect the public from the criminals who constantly reoffend is to lock them up."

Another interviewee said: "Has he ever had anything happen to him? He'd want them in prison."

The panel was heavily against giving judges more discretion to decide appropriate sentences, as put forward by Mr Clarke, while a proposed 50 per cent sentence discount for pleading guilty drew "incredulous laughter" from focus groups.

"However, some participants saw some value in community punishments that brought tangible benefits to society," said the report. "Several also felt that an element of public humiliation, such as uniforms which made it clear to passers-by what they were doing and why, could be effective."

One police officer told researchers how a "community payback" scheme he had observed was "laughable". The officer said offenders who were supposed to be painting railings around a churchyard were seen "smoking and heckling members of the public", while one offender wrote graffiti on the pavement with paint provided by his supervisors.

Among the police officers interviewed, who were largely drawn from the rank and file but did include 50 at the level of "inspector or above", 43 per cent said they had often been involved with prosecutions where judges failed to hand down a custodial sentence where one was merited. A further 42 per cent said this had happened occasionally and only 9 per cent said it had never happened.

SOURCE





Claim: Feminism widened poverty gap and set social mobility back decades

Feminism has set back the cause of social mobility by decades, a senior minister has claimed. Universities Minister David Willetts said feminist policies had inadvertently halted the improvement in the life chances of working-class men and widened the gap between rich and poor. He said feminism was the ‘single biggest factor’ in the decline in social mobility since the 1960s, adding: ‘Feminism has trumped egalitarianism.’

Mr Willetts was speaking ahead of next week’s launch of the Government’s flagship social mobility strategy, which will lay out a raft of measures designed to increase the life chances of those from less well-off backgrounds.

Grammar school-educated Mr Willetts, one of the Conservative Party’s leading thinkers on social mobility, said the main beneficiaries of feminism had been middle-class women, who enjoyed educational opportunities denied to their mothers. He said he did not want to see the gains made by middle-class women reversed, but added that policymakers had a duty to ensure any gains in social mobility were spread more evenly in the future.

Ministers will publish detailed research next week showing that social mobility has stagnated for almost 40 years. New indicators are expected to show that almost every measure of social mobility – from achievements at school to job prospects in later life – has either stalled or gone into reverse.

Asked to identify the cause of the decline, Mr Willetts said: ‘One of the things that happened over that period was that the entirely admirable transformation of opportunities for women meant that with a lot of the expansion of education in the 60s, 70s and 80s, the first beneficiaries were the daughters of middle-class families who had previously been excluded from educational opportunities.

‘And if you put that with what is called assortative mating – that well-educated women marry well-educated men – this transformation of opportunities for women ended up magnifying social divides rather than narrowing them. ‘It is such delicate territory because it is not a bad thing that women had these opportunities.

‘But I think it certainly widened the gap in household incomes because you suddenly had two-earner couples, both of whom were well educated, compared with often workless households where nobody was educated. ‘So I do personally think that the feminist revolution in its first-round effects, was probably the key factor. Feminism trumped egalitarianism.’

Mr Willetts dismissed suggestions that the destruction of the grammar school system was a major factor. Grammar schools offered a route out of poverty for the post-war generations, but Mr Willetts suggested they had been hijacked by the middle classes, with entry policies that were ‘not particularly broadly based’.

Shadow equalities minister Yvette Cooper reacted angrily to the comments. She said: ‘The idea that working women are responsible for persistent child poverty or youth unemployment in disadvantaged areas is just shocking. ‘David Willetts should quickly withdraw this rubbish and face up to the real problems his policies are causing for young people and women who want to get on.’

SOURCE




When words lead to murder

When I saw my daughter crying while watching the news about the horrible murders in Itamar last Saturday night, I finally decided I had enough. Enough of the barbaric “humans” who slaughter a four-month-old baby, but also enough of the relentless campaign that caused the death of three Jewish children and their parents.

I am not only talking here about the incitement in Palestinian society, but also about the national and international demonization campaign against Jews like me who are living in Judea, Samaria or in east Jerusalem.

"Settlers" are generally being treated only in one way; we are less than human beings. Our villages our branded" illegal" and in the end we ourselves have become "illegal beings."

Last year during the launch of our public diplomacy project Missing Peace in Amsterdam, an Israeli journalist asked how an information desk run by a director living in the West Bank could be reliable. Get it? By living in Judea and Samaria one is automatically an unreliable outcast.

Do not think this is only the opinion of a leftist Israeli journalist, I know of plenty of European officials who think the same.

During a fact finding tour in the Gush Etzion area for Israelis a while ago, we visited several places where Palestinians and Jews are meeting or work together. After visiting a garage where 10 local Jews are working together with 10 Palestinians from Hebron, the participants started to complain about propaganda.

Thereafter we interviewed a Palestinian contractor in Efrat who talked about his 20-year relationship with the local Jews. When the guy said he liked to work in Efrat and bluntly stated that life had been much better before Oslo, someone even suggested he had been bribed. It simply could not be true that a Palestinian had a positive story to tell about “settlers.”

Several young people told me that a date came to an abrupt end when they revealed they were living on the West Bank. A friend who used to work for the Dutch embassy in Tel Aviv saw his contract terminated when embassy staff found out he was living in Efrat. He received a letter in which he was told that he lived in the wrong place. These are only few examples of how incitement against Jews in the West Bank worked out.

Foreign media demonization

After the news broke about the Itamar murders we saw government officials issuing the usual calls for international condemnation of this barbaric act. On Sunday, the Israeli government declared that it would establish a special team that will monitor Palestinian incitement. Yet nothing has been said about the other source of incitement that caused the dehumanization of roughly half a million Jews.

Even on the day the five members of the Fogel family were buried, a large part of the foreign media continued its demonization campaign against the Jews living across the Green Line. The New York Times and the Washington Post reported that “five settlers” had been killed. The BBC buried the news in an article about new “settler homes” and Sky did not even report the news for 48 hours.

There are countless examples of the foreign media using only Palestinian sources for stories about “settlers.” Just last week it was widely reported that “6 Palestinians were shot in clashes with settlers.” Thanks to a well known Israeli blogger, in this case the truth came to light. The Palestinians initiated an attack on a Jew and were wounded in the ensuing clash with the IDF.

This kind of reporting has created the picture that all Jews in the West Bank are extremist criminals. The fact that the overwhelming majority of those people are working, studying and law-abiding citizens who managed to establish some of the finest communities in Israel is hardly known even in Israel.

The demonization campaign against Jews living across the green line should have been addressed a long time ago. Now the disease has spread to the state as a whole and threatens our very existence in this country. The Talmud in tractate Peah 1:1 states that Lashon HaRa (evil speech) is equivalent to murder. In this case, disinformation by large parts of the media led to de-legitimization and caused the demonization of a large part of Israeli society.

The events in Itamar on Shabbat proved that in such a climate eventually actual physical murder becomes the next step. That is why the government should give higher priority to countering the global dehumanization campaign against West Bank Jews than to the fight against Palestinian incitement.

SOURCE




American Jewry's Fight

Over the past year or so, American Jewish opponents of Israel like writer and activist Peter Beinart have sought to intimidate and demoralize Israelis by telling us that American Jews either no longer support us or will stop supporting us if we don't give in to all the Arabs' demands.

But statistical evidence exposes these threats as utter lies. According to mountainous survey evidence, the American Jewish community writ large remains deeply supportive of Israel. Two surveys released last year by the American Jewish Committee and Brandeis University's Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies showed that three quarters of American Jews care deeply about Israel and that Israel is an important part of their Jewish identity. The Brandeis survey notably showed that young American Jews are no less likely to support Israel than they were in the past.

In fact, American Jews under 30 are more hawkish about the Palestinian conflict with Israel than Jews between the ages of 31-40 are. According to the Brandeis survey, 51 percent of American Jews oppose a future division of Jerusalem, while a mere 29% would support it. Younger Jews are more opposed to the capital's partition than older Jews are.

It is notable that the Brandeis survey found that political views do not impact American Jews' support for Israel. This is striking because among Americans at large, polls show Republicans are significantly stronger supporters of Israel than Democrats. But not among Jews.

"Liberals felt no less connected than conservatives and were no less likely to regard Israel as important to their Jewish identities. These observations hold true for both younger and older respondents," the Brandeis survey report explained.

Across the board, American Jews blame the Palestinians for the absence of peace and believe there is little chance that there will be peace between Israel and the Palestinians in the foreseeable future. Seventy-five percent agreed with the statement, "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel"; 94% said the Palestinians should be required to accept the Jewish state's right to exist.

In light of these overwhelming levels of support, it is disconcerting to see that across the US, Jewish communities are failing to prevent anti- Zionist Jews from hijacking communal funds and facilities to finance anti-Israel activities.

Consider a few recent examples.

In Orange County, California, intra-communal rancor is growing over the local Jewish Federation's financial and organizational support for University of California at Irvine's Olive Tree Initiative.

The Federation subsidizes Olive Tree Initiativeorganized tours of Israel for Jewish students. As Tammi Benjamin from UC Santa Cruz explained in a letter last December to local Federation CEO Shalom Elcott and local Hillel director Jordan Fruchtman, while OTI claims to be interested in fostering good relations between Jewish and Arab students, it actually just propagandizes against Israel. The speakers who addressed students participating in the two-week trip were overwhelmingly anti-Israel. Almost all the Palestinian speakers expressed hatred for Israel. Many of the Israeli speakers represented groups that call for economic warfare against Israel and defame Israel as a racist state. Half of the supposedly neutral representatives of international organizations who spoke to the group are notorious for their opposition to Israel.

Rather than end the practice of using Jewish communal funds to propagandize Jewish students to hate the Jewish state that most American Jews support and see as important to their Jewish identity, the Federation and Hillel have dug in their heels.

This week, the Los Angeles Jewish Journal reported that over the past two months, allegedly acting on instructions from the Federation, two local synagogues canceled an event sponsored by the local branch of the Zionist Organization of America at which Irvine Rabbi Dov Fischer was to present information about OTI's anti-Israel activities.

Speaking to the paper, Fischer said, "The amazing thing is how there has been a clamp-down by The Federation to prevent any speech or dissent in the community against The Federation's program. The idea that two different temples in the community, who have all kinds of speakers, canceled this program is profoundly shocking."

Meanwhile on the East Coast, both the Washington and New York Jewish communities are embroiled in a feud over Federation funding for anti-Israel Jewish groups. In Washington, a group of pro-Israel activists operating as the Committee Opposed to Propaganda Masquerading as Art has begun a campaign to end Federation funding for anti-Israel activities.

In a letter to Federation President Susie Gelman and Federation board members from March 6, COPMA's chairman Robert Samet argued, "It is critical that the Federation establish guidelines for withholding funding from partner agencies that engage in political propaganda and activism denigrating Israel and undermining its legitimacy as a strong, secure and independent Jewish state."

COPMA's specific concern is Federation Funding for the District of Columbia Jewish Community Center's professional theater group Theater J.

As the letter explained, "Theater J, a partner agency of the Federation and a recipient of its funding and support, has turned an arts program at the DCJCC... into a platform for political activism that expresses hostility and antipathy towards the State of Israel and little regard for its security."

In 2009, Theater J staged the virulently anti- Semitic post-modern passion play Seven Jewish Children by Caryl Churchill. The play accuses the entire Jewish population of Israel of mass murders that were never committed.

Unfortunately, as COPMA notes, this is par for the course. In the past, Theater J's artistic director Ari Roth organized buses to bring community members to Shepherdstown, West Virginia, to watch a production of the virulently anti-Israel propaganda play My Name is Rachel Corrie.

This year, under Roth's leadership, Theater J presented Return to Haifa, a play that COPMA argues "distorts the history and origins of Israel and makes the historically accurate death of a Jewish child in the Holocaust... comparable to the fabricated and utterly fantastical story of an Arab child allegedly abandoned by his fleeing parents in Haifa in 1948, ostensibly as a result of their terror over advancing Israelis."

In response to COPMA's letter, Roth told the Forward that it "is not a prerogative of the donor" to intervene in artistic content, and claimed that attempts to limit the theater's activities amounted to censorship or blacklisting.

Carol Greenwald, COPMA's treasurer, rejects Roth's arguments. In her words, "The issue is not artistic freedom to create whatever the artist chooses; the issue is the appropriateness of a Jewish communal institution using Jewish communal funding to showcase defamation of the Jewish people."

The Forward quoted Andrew Apostolou, a local Jewish Community Relations Council member, as quite sensibly saying, "There are things a Jewish community shouldn't be doing, like serving a bacon cheeseburger on Yom Kippur. Putting on an anti-Semitic play is one of these things."

COPMA is not alone in its concerns. In New York, a group of activists formed a new organization called JCC Watch to force the New York Jewish Federation to end financial support to the Manhattan JCC due to its partnership with organizations that support economic warfare against Israel through calls for economic boycotts, divestment and sanctions. Like COPMA, JCC Watch asks that the local Federation adopt guidelines to prevent Federation funds from being transferred to groups and programming that showcase calls for economic and political warfare against Israel.

So far, Washington's Federation has not responded to COPMA's letter. Interviewed by the Forward, the Washington Federation's CEO defended giving supporters of anti-Israel sanctions the stage as part of Federation-sponsored panels on the grounds of "welcoming multiple voices." And in an op-ed in New York Jewish Week last month, the New York Federation's CEO defended the JCC's partnership with groups that engage in economic and political warfare against Israel.

What is going on here? According to the AJC and Brandeis surveys, fewer than 10% of American Jews tend to accept the Arab line against Israel. Given the wall-to-wall support for Israel among American Jews, why do American Jewish organizational leaders refuse to do what their members want them to do? Why are they taking Jewish communal funds to finance activities and causes that are offensive to the Jewish community? Why are they pretending that the call to end communal funding for anti-Israel activities is a call for an abrogation of free speech?

To get a sense of how unprecedented this is, it is useful to consider the American Jewish community's response to Jews for Jesus. While Reform and Orthodox rabbis agree on almost nothing relating to Jewish laws and practices, since the emergence of Jews for Jesus in the 1970s, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis have been unified in their rejection of the Christian missionary group's protestations of being Jewish.

Everyone understands that while Jews have a perfect right to change their religion, they have no right to force the Jewish community to accept Christians as Jews. That is, they have no right to change the definition of Judaism to include people who worship Jesus.

So-called Messianic Jews falsely call themselves Jews to undermine the community from within. But no Federation feels compelled to invite a representative of so-called Messianic Jews to proselytize on stage as part of a panel discussion in order to "welcome multiple voices."

Hillel organizations have rightly refused space and funding to Messianic Jewish groups.

But today, American Jews find themselves helpless when a marginal group of anti-Zionist Jews demands - like the Messianic Jews of their day - communal funding and space for their anti-Israel activities.

The anti-Zionist groups make the same arguments as the Messianic Jews. They call themselves pro-Israel even as they engage in activities aimed at harming, defaming, weakening and delegitimizing the Jewish state. They claim that refusing them communal funds constitutes a violation of their free speech rights.

Yet while communal leaders did not hesitate to call the so-called Messianic Jews' bluff, they cannot find the way to expunge anti-Israel groups from their umbrella organizations.

The explanation for this behavior is apparently social. Federation leaders don't mind disappointing evangelical Christians. But most of their friends are leftist. Consequently the perceived social cost of taking action against groups like Theater J, J Street, B'Tselem, Breaking the Silence and Jewish Voices for Peace is too high for many American Jewish leaders to bear.

Happily, a handful of committed community members throughout the country are standing up and demanding that their communal leaders act in the interests of the communities they serve. It can only be hoped that the overwhelming majority of American Jews who clearly wish to support Israel will join these activists' call and demand that all Jewish Federations stop allowing anti-Israel groups to feed from the communal trough. If they do, they will find that much to their surprise, the social costs of actions will be far smaller than they expected.

After all, Israel's supporters are the majority.

UPDATE: Yesterday the Forward reported that in September 2009 UC Irvine students met with Hamas leader Aziz Duwaik during an Olive Tree Initiative organized visit to Israel. The Orange County Federation knew about this in October 2009 and yet not only have they continued to support the OTI, they actively blocked public discussion of the OTI as recently as this month.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



2 April, 2011

Left-wing, shallow and oh-so politically correct... my verdict on the BBC, by Michael Buerk

Michael Buerk has launched a withering assault on the BBC’s ‘creed of political correctness’. The veteran presenter accuses staff at the Corporation of an inbuilt ‘institutional bias’ and warns that they read the left-wing Guardian newspaper as if it is ‘their Bible’.

Reviewing a memoir by his former colleague Peter Sissons, Buerk endorses his view that the BBC is warped by the prejudices of its staff.

He says fellow reporters have ‘contempt’ for business and the countryside – and that a left-wing culture means the national broadcaster has been cast ‘adrift of the overriding national sentiment’ on issues such as climate change.

Criticism from such a well-known figure is likely to unsettle his bosses. Buerk, who presents Radio 4’s Moral Maze, is one of the most respected broadcasters of his generation. He made his name with a series of moving broadcasts on the Ethiopian famine in 1984, which prompted the Live Aid campaign, before becoming the main presenter of the BBC’s flagship evening news programme. His son Roland Buerk is the BBC’s Tokyo correspondent.

In Sissons’s memoir, which was serialised in the Daily Mail last month, the former Nine O’Clock News and Question Time presenter denounced the ‘zealotry’ of the BBC over the issue of climate change and ‘the culture of political correctness’.

Buerk, who has previously voiced criticisms of fellow newsreaders for being overpaid, autocue-reading ‘lame brains’, praises Sissons for attacking ‘Autocuties, “Elf ’n’ Safety” and ‘its culture of conformity’.

Buerk also accuses BBC reporters of an ‘uncritical love affair with environmentalism’. He condemns the ‘flatulent masses of its middle management’.

The BBC has no way of distinguishing between competent managers and the ‘totally transparent t***ers’ who populate the Corporation, writes the former news anchorman in Standpoint magazine. ‘What the BBC regards as normal and abnormal, what is moderate or extreme, where the centre of gravity of an issue lies, are conditioned by the common set of assumptions held by the people who work for it. ‘The Guardian is their bible and political correctness their creed.’

He also attacks BBC bosses for their ‘vulnerability to political pressure’ and condemns ‘the callow opinionising of some of its reporters’.

Buerk admits that some of his own bosses, including Director General Mark Thompson, were ‘extraordinarily bright, decent and effective’, but adds: ‘Of course, there were, and are, plenty of totally transparent t***ers.’ He adds: ‘The BBC’s difficulty is that it has never been able to tell the difference. In any case, it is the institution that increasingly seems to be the problem.’

And he warns: ‘It’s often notably adrift of the overriding national sentiment.’

BBC bosses are already on the back foot. They were humiliated after losing an age discrimination case to Miriam O’Reilly, the 53-year-old presenter of Countryfile. And they are also under pressure from the Government to disclose full details of how much big stars are paid.

The BBC said: ‘While Michael is entitled to his opinion, it has been some time since he has worked for BBC News so it’s interesting he feels in a position to comment. We certainly do not recognise the picture he has painted and nor would his colleagues. ‘Impartiality is critical to our success as a news broadcaster and is always at the centre of what we do.’

SOURCE





A nation divided: Britain is no longer split by class. Instead the social chasm is between taxpayers and the public sector

Last weekend’s march in London, protesting against The Cuts, highlighted the only social divide that matters in modern Britain. It is not between rich and poor, North and South or even Arsenal and Manchester United supporters. It is between those employed in the public and private sectors of the economy.

The march — a howl of anguish to which Ed Miliband lent his presence and absurdly extravagant rhetoric — was a partisan demo by Labour’s six-million-strong client vote, the employees of the state who have become Britain’s new privileged class.

Watching TV images of the marchers snake through the capital, I reflected that they should rightfully have been wearing wigs and powder, because they are the modern-day counterparts of pre-Revolution French aristocrats, enjoying advantages such as the rest of us can only dream of.

Once upon a time ‘civil servants’, as they were called before both words became satirical, enjoyed lifelong job security, to compensate for the fact that they received much more modest financial rewards than their private-sector counterparts.

The humble little bureaucrat taking the bus to the council office every morning from suburbia, wearing a Burton suit and Terylene tie, was the stuff of TV sitcoms. Not any more.

Margaret Thatcher galvanised British business, but conspicuously failed to reform the public sector. Subsequent Labour governments showered good things on state employees — ‘our people’.

Gordon Brown, doctrinally committed to a belief that the man in Whitehall knows best, boosted the state payroll by almost a million, so that today it constitutes one-fifth of Britain’s workforce.

Of course, teachers, nurses and other front-line workers in the public sector do hugely valuable jobs. But these people have become by far the most formidable, unionised and muscular interest group in the country. Labour voters almost to a man and woman, they enjoy job security, early retirement rights and better pay.

Yet they are statistically 2,000 per cent more prone to take industrial action than private sector workers — as the Prison Officers’ Association seems about to remind us with widespread walkouts by staff in protest against the use of private firms to run jails.

In 1997, median public sector salaries were already 2.5 per cent higher than those in business and industry. By 2009, thanks to Mr Brown’s largesse, that premium had increased to 12.5 per cent. Calculated on an hourly basis, the independent think-tank Policy Exchange reckons public sector workers get 29 per cent more than their private sector counterparts.

While there is a case for paying a few top officials big money to get quality, there is no rational argument at all for overpaying rank-and-file workers, save as a shameless political bribe for their votes.

And while the private sector has been closing final-salary pension schemes as unaffordable, public sector inflation-linked pensions remain guaranteed — and the rest of us pay for them. According to the National Audit Office, the state paid £14.9 billion towards the £19.3 billion cost of the UK’s four largest civil service schemes, while staff provided £4.4 billion.

Those figures are getting much worse. The cost of public sector pensions to taxpayers — not to the employees themselves — is expected to double over the next five years, as many people who joined the civil service on generous terms 30 to 40 years ago approach retirement.

The scandal is that in many cases these pensions are not drawn from money that is set aside — as in the private sector — but instead come from current taxation income. So when interest rates rise, as they obviously will, taxpayers’ contributions to state sector privileges will become even more painful.

Three thousand public sector workers have pension pots worth more than £1 million, which would take an average earner 600 years to fund.

For instance, the chief executive of the South West Regional Development Agency has a pot worth £1.3 million. Several senior executives of the BBC, which has come to resemble the banks in being run chiefly for the personal enrichment of its senior executives, have recently retired on pensions in excess of £200,000 a year.

Yet there is nothing the Government can do to claw back these privileges for existing employees because legal experts say employees’ contracts cannot be retrospectively rewritten.

Gordon Brown was widely criticised as Prime Minister for striking deals for the construction of two absurdly costly aircraft-carriers (which would guarantee jobs for Scottish Labour voters) on contractual terms that made cancellation almost impossible. In precisely the same fashion, Brown fixed unbreakable, gold-plated deals for state employees which taxpayers will be funding for decades.

The truth is that if current Coalition Government spending cuts damage schools or hospitals, it will be because the state’s budget has ballooned so much over recent years and is now being controlled by its employees.

This week, the Cameron Government has faced fierce criticism from the arts lobby for imposing a very modest reduction of the £2 billion subsidy arts organisations receive.

In truth the Arts Council, under the influence of its Labour commissars, has become a mechanism for distributing money for welfare projects, especially to ethnic minorities, through its ‘diversity and equal opportunities’ units.

If cash for the Arts Council’s social engineering operations was cut off — which is not being done — there would be no reason for Britain’s ‘real’ arts and theatres to suffer at all.

Meanwhile, local authorities are still squandering money on non-jobs and unnecessary functions. Why does Manchester Council need a graphic designer earning £120,000 a year, or a ‘climate change officer’ on £37,206? Why is Barnsley Council employing two ‘European officers’ and Hackney four ‘diversity officers’?

Also, many Labour councils are cutting services while hoarding large cash reserves.

Barnsley has recently stopped free swimming for local residents, blaming this on government cuts, while continuing to fund 38 full-time trades union posts at a cost of more than £1 million a year. It spends more than £2 million a year on ‘publicity’, and last year recruited for an ‘Athletics Network Development Officer’.

Haringey Council spends £386,665 on translating its mountainous output of paper into ethnic minority languages. It employs two political advisers, three climate change officers, and four-and-a-half diversity officers who cost £245,839 a year.

Last weekend’s London demo represented a protest by the most pampered sector of society — state employees — against this Government’s desperate efforts to curb their unaffordable numbers and rights.

The BBC reports government cuts as if these constitute a brutal assault on the British people. The real mugging, however, is that conducted by the taxman, who takes away the money of ‘hard-working families’ to fund the new state elite.

Last weekend’s events highlighted the chasm between today’s two Britains. One is populated by taxpayers who generate profits; the other by Labour’s vast client vote which spends it, as of right. Far from the Government’s spending cuts being cruel or unreasonable, if properly implemented they could be much tougher, because waste is so great.

Britain will never be a healthy society until cured of its addiction to the opiate of excessive state spending.

SOURCE






Home at last: The twins snatched by the British State after innocuous remark sparked social services witch hunt

Leaning over the hospital incubator, Tara Norman smiled proudly down at her tiny newborn twins and whispered: ‘You should see what you have done to your Mummy’s body.’ It was the kind of rueful joke that any exhausted new mother might make after a traumatic emergency Caesarean section. Implicit, of course, was the emphatic message that she would do it all again in a heartbeat, for the sake of knowing the joy of motherhood.

Throughout her pregnancy she had dreamed of the day she and husband Adrian would leave hospital as a family. She couldn’t wait to take their son and daughter, Ashley and Olivia home, and settle them into their nursery. But she had no idea that this passing remark about her figure — lovingly spoken, in a private moment — was being secretly documented by a nearby nurse or that it would set in motion a Kafkaesque nightmare which would tear her family apart.

Observing that Tara appeared ‘bitter’ towards her twins, the nurse updated the babies’ daily diary — a set of notes that are kept as standard practice on neonatal wards to help staff keep track of each premature baby’s progress.

The incident — if one can call it that — was never mentioned to Tara or Adrian. And if there were any other signs that something was amiss, the Normans, as new parents to two premature babies, were understandably too preoccupied to notice.

In fact, they knew nothing of the problem until days later, when a woman from Havering Social Services arrived at their home in Hornchurch, Essex, and announced: ‘I’m here because we want to take your children into care and we want you to agree to it.'

The Normans, whose twins were yet to leave hospital, were left bewildered and the woman made no mention of the comment Tara had made about her body.

Speaking exclusively to the Mail, Tara says: ‘We couldn’t believe what was happening. I made a silly joke and suddenly they were ripping our family apart. We told her we’d never agree to our children being taken away. So she said: “Then we will see you in court.”’

Any loving parent would have been panic-stricken by such a threat — but for the Normans it was even worse. This threatened their only chance of having a family. Owing to a rare hormone disorder, Tara is unable to conceive naturally. The couple had endured five gruelling rounds of IVF and suffered a miscarriage before she eventually fell pregnant with twins.

There could be no doubt of their desire to become parents or their commitment to care for their children, yet social workers claimed that Tara had made ‘emotionally abusive’ comments towards the twins. In their professional opinion, Tara and Adrian could not cope with the demands of first-time parenthood with two premature babies.

Havering Borough Council, acting on information supplied by Whipps Cross Hospital in East London,warned that Ashley and Olivia were at risk of ‘significant harm’ and launched court proceedings to take the six-week-old twins into care. According to the hospital, the Normans were struggling to care for the twins, born six weeks early and weighing only 3lb each.

As evidence of their ‘inadequate parenting skills’ and failure to bond with the twins, nurses cited Tara’s comments and occasions when the couple had not fed the children the recommended amount of milk or changed their nappies properly.

‘No one is born with parenting skills, but we were learning as we went along, just like anyone else,’ says Adrian, a 43-year-old former Post Office worker. ‘If we had been given some help we would have been fine. But they only seemed interested in taking the children away.’

Whatever the fears of the nursing staff, who no doubt felt they were acting in the best interests of the children, what happened next seems to be a gross overreaction. Within days a protection order was granted at a secret Family Court hearing and the six-week-old twins were discharged from hospital and placed in a series temporary foster homes.

The twins were placed in a foster home, but moved within 24 hours to a placement with a foster family near Southend, Essex, an hour’s drive from the Normans’ home in Hornchurch. Tara and Adrian were allowed just five hours’ supervised contact a week.

Adrian and Tara acknowledge their inexperience and insist they would have welcomed support from social workers. But instead, Havering began care proceedings.

They were told to get separate solicitors and warned that it was possible custody would be awarded to just one of them, meaning they would have to live apart after five years of marriage.

It was, without doubt, an extraordinarily cruel punishment for a non-existent crime. Without evidence that any violence or abuse had ever taken place, huge decisions were made in haste. As a result, the twins spent their first precious year in the arms of strangers.

And even when, in March 2009, the twins’ court-appointed guardian formally recommended they be returned to their parents as soon as a parenting assessment was completed, nothing could halt the wheels of officialdom. When Tara protested, social workers noted that she had ‘anger problems’. She admits she once threw her handbag at a wall in fury, and it hit a social worker on the arm — she accepted a police caution over the incident.

Two social workers also claim she threw her mobile phone at them. Her understandable frustration was regarded as proof of the risk she presented to her children. ‘They had taken my children away from me. How was I supposed to react?’ she says.

In January 2010, more than a year after their birth, the twins were allowed to go home with their parents under a court supervision order. Key to this was Adrian’s decision to take voluntary redundancy to help Tara to care for the twins.

Health visitors and social workers visited the family’s house at least once a fortnight and consistently reported that Ashley and Olivia were ‘happy and content children’.

Tara said: ‘I had imagined taking two tiny babies home from hospital, but by the time they were finally allowed to come home they were one-year-olds. ‘The first minutes on our own in the house were almost unbelievable — it had taken a year to get to a point where we were finally alone with our own children.’

Now toddlers, Ashley and Olivia cling to their parents and demand constant attention, but the Normans hope they will not remember their separation as they grow up. No further concerns were raised and the court supervision order expired in February this year.

The Normans, who are considering taking legal action against the council, have received no formal notification from the court or the council, although Family Court officials have confirmed to the Mail that the case has been closed.

But they cannot shake the fear that officials will find a pretext to take their children again.

A spokeswoman for Havering Borough Council said: ‘We have worked hard with the family and are pleased that after a year of supervision and Mr Norman’s decision to be at home during the day, we have closed our orders.’

SOURCE





How I lost faith in multiculturalism

Greg Sheridan, commenting from Australia

In his speech Bowen sets up a neat dichotomy between a good Australian multiculturalism and a bad European multiculturalism.

Bowen is right to point out that Australian official policy, whether at any given moment describing itself as multiculturalism or not, has always stressed English as the national language and the need for immigrants to commit to democracy and the rule of law. But at the declaratory level, European multiculturalism has also stressed the national language and a commitment to democracy.

There are two obvious, logical flaws in the way Bowen treats immigration into Europe.

The first is that he puts the entire burden for the success or failure of an immigrant community's experience down to the attitude of the host society and places absolutely no analytical weight at all on the performance and behaviour of the immigrants themselves.

Second, the problems that Bowen is talking about are problems with Muslim immigrants, not with immigrants generally. Chinese and non-Muslim Indian immigrants have been immensely successful in Britain. Indeed, being Indian in Britain is extremely chic.

These minorities for the most part have done OK in France, too. Certainly immigrants to Britain from the rest of Europe don't display anything like the alienation of a serious minority of Muslim immigrants.

So this must, logically, lead to one extremely inconvenient, politically incorrect and desperately fraught question. Could it be that the main difference between Europe, with its seething immigration problems, and the US, Canada and Australia, with their success, is not actually a difference based on some footling interpretation of multiculturalism?

There is one other variable that is consistent with the results. The US, Canada and Australia have far smaller Muslim migrant communities as a percentage of their total populations than do most of the troubled nations of Europe. Could this be the explanation?

Several trends in Australian society give pause to wonder whether we, all unintentionally and all fast asleep, may be heading away from the US-Canada-Australia success story and towards a European future. That would be a very bad outcome for Australia.

Discussing these issues is very difficult. It goes without saying that most Muslims in Australia are perfectly fine, law-abiding citizens. The difficulty with discussing Muslim immigration problems is that you don't want to make people feel uncomfortable because of their religion.

Muslims are not only individuals, wholly different from each other, but national Islamic cultures are very different from each other. The Saudi culture is different from the Turkish culture, which is different from the Afghan culture. So generalisations are dangerous.

Then there is the ever present risk of being labelled a racist. No matter how calmly the discussion is conducted, that is a big danger.

But the only people who don't think there is a problem with Islam are those who live on some other planet. The reputation of Islam in the West is not poor because of prejudiced Western Islamophobia, still less because Western governments conduct some kind of anti-Islamic propaganda. Instead, it is the behaviour of people claiming the justification of Islam for their actions that affects the reputation of Islam.

In January, the governor of the Punjab province in Pakistan, Salman Taseer, was murdered because he opposed the severity of the nation's blasphemy laws.

One of his last acts was to visit a Christian woman sentenced to death for insulting the prophet. The governor's murderer won wide public support.

ABC television recently showed a documentary on the killing of Ahmediya sect members in Indonesia, among the most liberal Muslim nations, because their Muslim murderers regarded them as a deviant sect. On YouTube you can watch scenes of a young Afghan woman being publicly flogged because she was seen in the company of a man who wasn't her husband or brother.

In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, government thugs beat protesters to death to safeguard the rule of the mullahs.

This list could go on and on. It may very well be that the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims reject such actions. But it is fatuous to try to find a similar pattern of Christian, Buddhist or Jewish behaviour. You can find extremists in every religion and from every background, but there is no equivalence in the size and strength of the extremist tendency in other religions. The Australian Muslim population is still relatively small, perhaps 400,000 or just under 2 per cent of the population.

Because of my passionate commitment to the refugee issue, it took me a long time to wake up to the routine scamming of refugee processes today.

The same is happening in northern Australia now, and as the Gillard government loses control of the situation, the number of illegal immigrants, almost all Muslim, will increase, exactly replicating the dynamics of Europe's disaster, though of course on a much smaller scale.

Lakemba and surrounding areas such as Punchbowl had a large Lebanese Muslim population, many of whom had come when Malcolm Fraser crazily instituted a come-one, come-all admissions policy for those claiming to be refugees from the Lebanon conflicts of the 80s.

Replicating the European experience that the second generation had more trouble than the first, it was the sons of some of these immigrants who figured heavily in anti-social activities.

I was shocked to discover the growth of jihadi culture in Lakemba. We used to go to its main street for shopping and for food.

One day, waiting for a pizza order, I wandered into the Muslim bookshop. I was astounded to see titles such as The International Jew or The Truth about the Pope, amid a welter of anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and pro-extremist literature.

The revenge attacks on white Australians after the Cronulla riots originated out of Punchbowl. A number of media crews were attacked when they went to local mosques. A large number of those charged with terrorism offences in Australia stayed in or had associations with the area.

Due to the brilliant and fearless reporting of this paper's Richard Kerbaj, who spoke perfect Arabic, we found that at a number of the mosques in the area outright hatred was being preached: anti-Semitic, misogynist, conspiratorial. Most of the time, these sermons didn't advocate violence. The speakers were what Britain's David Cameron has called "non-violent extremists".

The advent of satellite television made it easier for these folks to live a life apart. Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV station was available on satellite packages. Most Arab homes you went into had Arabic TV playing in the background.

The anti-social behaviour became more acute. One son was playing cricket with friends when they were challenged by a group of teenagers, whom they presumed to be Lebanese but may have been of other Middle Eastern origin, who objected to white boys playing cricket. A full-scale, if brief, fist fight ensued.

One son was challenged by a boy with a gun. Lakemba police station was shot up. Crime increased on the railway line.

The worst thing I saw myself was two strong young men, of Middle Eastern appearance, waiting outside the train station.

A middle-aged white woman emerged from the station alone. She was rather oddly dressed, with a strange hair-do.

The two young men walked up beside her, began taunting her and then finished their effort by spitting in her face. They laughed riotously and walked away. She wiped the spittle off her face and hurried off home. It was all over in a few seconds.

These events in Lakemba and nearby are not unique. Lots of people from lots of different backgrounds commit violent crime in Australia. There is a good deal of unemployment, combined with a highly advanced informal culture of welfare exploitation, often freely discussed at the local schools, in the area. But Lakemba is different from most of Australia.

A senior policeman from nearby Bankstown once told me that policing in the Bankstown area was unlike working anywhere else in Australia, and he was amazed how much violent crime went unreported by the media.

Does Islam itself have a role in these problems? The answer is complex and nuanced but it must be a qualified, and deeply reluctant, yes.

This is the only explanation consistent with the fact other immigrant communities, which may have experienced difficult circumstances in the first generation, don't display the same characteristics in the second generation.

Australia has been a successful immigration country. But the truth is not all immigrants are the same. And it may be much easier than people think to turn success into failure.

Much more HERE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************



1 April, 2011

Anti-Semitism 2.0

by Mudar Zahran (A Palestinian)

The concept of the "evil Jew" has made a well-disguised comeback: Criticizing Israel and Zionists, is now deemed a legitimate option to cursing Jews and Judaism. Not only is it open, socially acceptable and legal, but it can actually bring prosperity and popularity.

This new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 is well-covered-up, harder to trace and poses a much deeper danger to the modern way of life of the civilized world than the earlier crude form of it, as it slowly and gradually works on delegitimizing Jews to the point where it eventually becomes acceptable to target Jews, first verbally, then physically -- all done in a cosmopolitan style where the anti-Semites are well-groomed speakers and headline writers in jackets and ties; and not just Arab, but American and European, from "sanitized" news coverage of the most bloodthirsty radicals, to charges against Israel in which facts are distorted, selectively omitted or simply untrue, as in former President Jimmy Carter's book on Israel.

Why would a Palestinian be writing this? The answer is simple: The Palestinians have been used as fuel for the new form of anti-Semitism; this has hurt the Palestinians and exposed them to unprecedented and purposely media-ignored abuse by Arab governments, including some of those who claim love for the Palestinians, yet in fact only bear hatred to Jews. This has resulted in Palestinian cries for justice, equality, freedom and even basic human rights being ignored while the world getting consumed with delegitimizing Israel from either ignorance or malice.

Worse, just as the old form of anti-Semitism has proven itself a threat as poisonous to its supporters, as it was to the Jews, the new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 could prove itself the same -- all the more likely as we see the world tolerating Iran's nuclear ambitions not necessarily out of love for the Mullah's regime, but instead because of mental fixation against Israel.

Such bias against Israel cannot be "accidental" or merely "unfortunate." No other nation has received the amount of scrutinizing, criticism, coverage, demonization and delegitimization. In fact the question to be asked is not whether there is bias against Israel; but rather why there is bias against Israel?

While honest coverage is a pride claimed by all modern media, news reports are assigned according to every editor's choice, this has resulted in a wide editorial bias against Israel and its actions. What makes things worse is the fact that there are no adverse consequences -- such as "lack of access" or physical retribution -- against whoever writes lies about Israel, an open society with a free press. More than 80 human rights non-governmental organizations operate within Israel, constantly monitoring and criticizing it with nothing to worry about -- either professionally or politically --therefore, anyone who misreports or misrepresents facts, or even who lies, is free to keep doing so -- including the the Israelis.

For example, the English language newspaper of choice for foreign journalists, Ha'aretz, does not even contain a corrections column. Reporters are told only to write about "The Conflict," and if they do not file by six pm, they are out of a job -- while conflicts which are claiming lives, such as the slaughter of the Assyrians in Iraq, are forgotten. The global media seem to be so consumed by the conflict in Israel which, as dramatic as this may still be, still has claimed only a fraction of the total number of victims of other conflicts.

Bias against Israel does not stop with the media; international organizations exhibit a similar pattern. The recent governmental meltdowns in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have exposed that Arab dictators keep cash and property in Western countries, where they are able to roam freely, while many Israeli politicians have to think twice before they set a foot in Europe for fear of being arrested for "war crimes."

Also, Israeli military actions seem to receive more scrutinizing from the international community than the rest of the world's militaries: the UN Security Council still stands reluctant to tackle Qadafi's ongoing atrocities against protesters, but shows no hesitation in investigating even wild claims against Israel.

Recent protests in Arab countries have provided further proof of the media's selective coverage. While young peaceful protesters are being shot by the Jordanian King's guards or attacked by what doctors describe as "a mysterious teargas" in Yemen, the media fail to provide proper coverage for any of that; on the other side, a car accident involving a Palestinian boy and an Israeli driver made global headline news.

Further, amid recent protests in Arab countries, most global media outlets refrained from taking a position on the power-contested Arab dictators; but they have never failed to present pre-packaged anti-Israeli positions when they cover Palestinian uprisings. This extends to perplexing twists: when the protests in Libya started, for example, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim scholar and no friend of Israel,, appeared on Al-Jazeera, saying, "Qaddafi has done to his people what the Zionists would never do to the Palestinians," yet this strong statement from an unlikely source never made it to the Western media.

Media bias against Israel does not harm only Israelis; it comes at very dear price to us, the Palestinians. In July of 2010, for example, a seasoned journalist Robert Fisk interviewed a group of right-wing ultra-conservative East Bank-Jordanians who were calling on King Abdullah of Jordan to strip the Palestinian majority of their citizenship and property. The group, mostly made up of retired Jordanian servicemen and journalists were also calling for ending the peace treaty with Israel and "establishing it as an enemy state."

Despite my attempts to contact Mr. Fisk –-along with another Jordanian-Palestinian journalist---to warn him of the people he was going to meet, he nonetheless, published an article entitled, "Why Is Jordan Occupied by Palestinians?" -- Which was mainly a manifesto for those with whom he had met. They then publicized the article as a global media victory for themselves, and drove the Palestinians of Jordan into even deeper fear for their own safety in a country where they are already oppressed by security agencies; virtually barred from any government or local authority positions, excluded from state universities, despite paying "a university tax", as well as other taxes and tariffs --which their fellow Jordanians of Bedouins heritage are exempted from-- and regularly and openly insulted by the government-run Jordanian media calling for them to be expelled.

The day before Mr. Fisk met with the extremist group, one of their members, a retired intelligence officer now turned writer, published an article calling on the Jordanian intelligence service to "chop off Mudar Zahran's head in the UK without any observance of diplomatic restraints;" would Mr. Fisk have met with an Israeli journalist calling for the Mossad to behead a Palestinian on British soil?

Anti-Semitism and the image of the "evil Jew" find their roots deep in Europe's intellectualism, from Shakespeare to Nietzsche, not to mention the fraudulent Franco-Russian Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The pretexts for Hitler's Nazi ideology existed vigorously before he came to power. Hitler probably manifested more of a crude exposure of a public trend, exacerbated by a terrible economy, except that the suffering Hitler brought to the world was not limited to Jews. It took the destruction of entire nations and the deaths of millions for people to realize that racism and extremism can be as dangerous to the oppressors and the haters as it is the oppressed and the hated.

As a result, European societies of today collectively renounce racism and anti-Semitism, but even though the haters encountered rejection and exclusion, they were nonetheless able to find an alternative pathway by prospering on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As it has raged -- and continues to rage -- for sixty years, the global media have found a lively source of news material that is endlessly interesting as a conflict between "two religions," "two ethnicities," and the line between the West, represented by Israel, and the East, represented by the Palestinians and Arabs in general.

This form of hatred is hurting us all; it must be countered.

SOURCE





Useless British police again

Harassing the innocent is all that they are good at



Boxing legend Frank Bruno told today how he was stopped by police recently on suspicion of stealing his own car. He said the 'two youngsters' involved were 'a disgrace' and should have checked beforehand that it was his car, which has its own number plate.

He told BBC Radio 5 Live that the incident had happened 'in the last month' at Berkhamsted, Herts. 'They said 'there's a lot of high performance cars, sir, being stolen around the area'. 'I could see them laughing like two hyenas in the car, but I didn't find it funny.'

Asked if they had recognised him, he said: 'They recognised me, like Tom and Jerry, and Peter Pan, and Batman, but I think, I didn't want to give them no hassle, showed them the documents, waited there for 10 minutes, and done what I had to do. 'Because the police are the police, they are the law of the land, you've got to keep up to the rules and regulations of the law of the land.'

He said there were some police officers around the area of his home, in Bedfordshire, who were 'good as gold'. 'You're going to get a little bad bunch here and there, but they were a disgrace, to stop and ask, "have you nicked the car?". 'I thought they were joking, I thought it was Candid Camera, but it weren't Candid Camera, it was serious.

'But when you're dealing with the police, don't go 'what are you saying to me', hold it down. 'No, officer, it's my car, check it out'. 'I think they checked it out, but some of them abuse their power, but there's good and bad in everything, so I don't want to diss them at all.'

Asked if they had been rude to him, he said: 'They weren't rude to me, but they've got all the gadgets in the car, the latest gadgets, that can tell what time it is in Iran, what temperature it is.'

The former world heavyweight champion added that where he lived, in Bedfordshire, he had previously been stopped for speeding. 'They warned me, and let me off, so you're going to meet good and bad in whatever you do.'

SOURCE




British Cafe owner wins extractor fan appeal after neighbour claimed 'smell of bacon offends Muslims'

A cafe owner was yesterday celebrating victory after a six-month legal battle to fry bacon triggered by Muslim complaints. Beverley Akciecek, 49, was ordered to tear down an extractor fan after a neighbour told council bosses his Muslim friends refused to visit his home because of the ‘foul odour’. Graham Webb-Lee said the smell made them feel ‘physically sick’.

Mrs Akciecek and her husband Cetin, 50 – himself a Turkish Muslim – spent months struggling to pay legal fees and worrying about the future of their business. Now the planning inspectorate has announced that they can keep the extractor fan at the Snack Shack cafe in Stockport. The council has been ordered to pay the entire legal bill, which could be as high as £5,000.

Mrs Akciecek, a mother of seven, said: ‘This is a victory for common sense but we shouldn’t have been put through this in the first place. We had lots of support from the Muslim community. They were infuriated.’

When the couple took over the cafe in 2007, they replaced a worn-out extractor fan with a modern one. They had not applied for planning permission but after the complaints, were told they had to. They applied retrospectively in May last year but were refused, before their successful appeal.

Yesterday Mr Webb-Lee said: ‘This is disgraceful. It makes our house stink of vile cooking smells, we can’t eat our breakfast. I will be speaking to my lawyer.’

The Lib Dem-run council originally ruled the smell from the fan, which has been in Bev's Snack Shack for more than three years, was 'unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity' and told her to take it down. But Beverley and her husband appealed the decision. After a six-month legal battle, the Planning Inspectorate finally announced they had won their case.

She said today: 'The council have got to pay our legal fees which is a great relief because we were beginning to struggle. 'It would have cost us a couple of grand to move it which we just didn't have. 'We would have had to shut down while they were doing it, which would have taken a couple of weeks and it would have been a nightmare.

'This has really taken it out of us as a family. We were like robots, we did everything we had to do but it was always there and it caused us so much stress. 'Now we can just get on with being a normal family.'

They claim they received no complaints about the cafe, which is open from 7.30am-2.30pm six days a week, until around eighteen months ago.

Mrs Akciecek said: 'I just think it's just crazy. Cetin's friends actually visit the shop, they're regular visitors, they're Muslim people, they come in a couple of times a week. 'I have Muslim people come in for cheese toasties. Cetin cooks the food himself, he cooks the bacon.

'When we go to a cafe my husband wouldn't be offended by the smell of bacon. 'His friends are not offended by it, we have three visitors who come here for a sandwich, friends of my husband, and the smell doesn't offend them at all.

'We've never had a problem about the smell because everything is pre-cooked. We cook it in the oven so there's no foul smell. 'It's pre-cooked so the smell isn't as strong when we're frying it off.

'It's been a sandwich shop for about eight years, cooking exactly the same stuff. The lady before me did double because they were actually building new houses across the road so she was really busy.

'They were there before me but they were also there when the lady who owns the business was here. She had five staff, you can imagine how busy that shop was and they never complained at all.'

SOURCE





Taking Feminism Overseas

Feminism as a "movement" in America is largely played out. The work here is mostly done.

At a time when education matters more than ever, more American women attend college than men. More women graduate, with better grades and get more advanced degrees. As Kay Hymowitz writes in her new book, "Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys": "For the first time ever, and I do mean ever, young women are reaching their twenties with more achievements, more education, more property, and, arguably, more ambition than their male counterparts."

Even the fight for "pay equity" is an argument about statistics, lagging cultural indicators and the actual choices liberated women make -- to take time away from paid jobs to raise their kids (never-married women without kids earn more than men) or to work in occupations like the nonprofit sector that pay less.

These are the fruits of feminist success. And, as the father of a little girl, I'm grateful for many of feminism's achievements. And as a conservative, I'm delighted that so much of the energy and passion on the right is fueled by women, a fact that causes no small amount of cognitive dissonance on the left. For instance, when Sarah Palin was tapped as the second woman on a presidential ticket in American history, University of Chicago professor Wendy Doniger fumed that Palin's "greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

That is the kind of thing intellectuals say when they have nothing worth saying anymore.

The good news for those who want to continue the fight for women is that there is plenty of work left to do -- abroad.

The plight of women in other countries is not only dire, it's central to global poverty and the war on terrorism. Jihadism is largely a male problem. This shouldn't be a surprise, given that jihadis commit mass murder in pursuit of a virgin bonus in the afterlife.

Islamist extremism and oppression of women go hand in hand. And while the correlation between poverty and terrorism is often overstated, the correlation between prosperity and women's liberation is profound. Female education is tightly linked with GDP growth, lower birthrates and even higher agricultural yields.

It's also tightly linked with human freedom and decency, which is why no Islamic "spring" is possible without a feminist revolution. Countless Islamist countries practice gender apartheid and countenance wife-beating, honor killings and female genital mutilation. Islamist radicals have thrown acid in the faces of young girls for trying to go to school.

In Turkey, long the crown jewel of secular, modern and moderate Islam, the murder rate of women has gone up 1,400 percent since the country lurched toward Islamism, notes my American Enterprise Institute colleague Michael Rubin. In Egypt, those who hoped for a secular and democratic revolution are dismayed by the army's burgeoning partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood and reports that the military forced "virginity tests" on female protesters taken from Tahrir Square.

After being admitted to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, Iran shepherded to passage the only resolution this session aimed at a specific country. Apparently Israel holds back Palestinian women somehow.

Meanwhile, as Omni Ceren of Commentary has noted, "Iranian prison guards rape female dissidents before executing them, lest their victims go to heaven as virgins. Iranian men get to avail themselves of temporary marriages, de facto legalizing the institutionalized slavery and rape of prepubescent girls. Iranian women are consigned to the backs of buses, have to shroud their bodies from head to toe."

But there are signs of hope as well. In a widely circulating video, Veena Malik, a Pakistani model and actress, tears apart a smug Islamist mullah berating her for being "un-Islamic." Not only does she stand up for a modern humane Islam that can tolerate women and "fun," she tells the cleric, "I am more angry with you people than you are with me." Malik offers heroic moral clarity that should cheer anyone who has lamented the lack of moderate Muslims willing to condemn the extremists.

And she offers a reminder for us all that the real war for women's equality is now a battle to be fought in foreign lands.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************






Examining political correctness around the world and its stifling of liberty and sense. Chronicling a slowly developing dictatorship


BIO for John Ray


Sarah Palin is undoubtedly the most politically incorrect person in American public life so she will be celebrated on this blog


I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.


I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take chidren away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass


Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"


Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!


Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.


Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."


The Supreme Court of the United States is now and always has been a judicial abomination. Its guiding principles have always been political rather than judicial. It is not as political as Stalin's courts but its respect for the constitution is little better. Some recent abuses: The "equal treatment" provision of the 14th amendment was specifically written to outlaw racial discrimination yet the court has allowed various forms of "affirmative action" for decades -- when all such policies should have been completely stuck down immediately. The 2nd. amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed yet gun control laws infringe it in every State in the union. The 1st amedment provides that speech shall be freely exercised yet the court has upheld various restrictions on the financing and display of political advertising. The court has found a right to abortion in the constitution when the word abortion is not even mentioned there. The court invents rights that do not exist and denies rights that do.


Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".


One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.


It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.


The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin


On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.


I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!


Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds