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.
****************************************************************************************
31 December, 2010
NC: Wrong lunchbox; honor student suspended & charged for “weapon”
A standout North Carolina high school student has been suspended for the remainder of her senior year and charged with a misdemeanor for having a small paring knife in her lunchbox.
Ashley Smithwick, 17, of Sanford told WRAL she accidentally took her father's lunchbox to Southern Lee High School in October instead of her own when school officials searched the lunchbox, along with several other students' possessions, possibly looking for drugs.
Ashley's father, Joe Smithwick told the station the lunchbox had a paring knife inside so that he could slice up an apple that accompanied it. "It's just an honest mistake. That was supposed to be my lunch because it was a whole apple," he said.
But school officials didn't see it that way. The athlete who takes college-level courses was suspended for the remainder for the school year, banned from campus and this month was charged with misdemeanor possession of a weapon on school grounds, WRAL reported.
Ashley says she finds the punishment particularly alarming because she's never been in trouble before. "I don't understand why they would even begin to point the finger at me and use me as an example," she told the station.
Lee County Superintendent Jeff Moss told the Sanford Herald that he couldn't discuss the specifics of Ashley's case, but that under school policy principals can determine discipline on a case by case basis and that discipline is usually less severe if a student who accidentally carries a weapon to school reports it rather than having a teacher find it.
"When the principals conduct their investigations, what typically is fleshed out is the true intent," he told the paper. "Bottom line is: We want to ensure every child feels safe on our campus."
Despite the suspension, Ashley is completing her coursework though online courses at Central Carolina Community College but says she worries how the incident will affect her college prospects. "When you have a criminal record no school's going to look at you," she told WRAL. "I have a pretty nice talent. I'm good at playing soccer and that talent is just wasted now."
SOURCE
Save the children from Hooters?
NOW calls on the breast-obsessed chain to stop serving kids
The National Organization for Women is protesting Hooters. I know: Yawn. Next I'll be interrupting major sporting events with breaking news that Gloria Steinem isn't a fan of the "Girls Gone Wild" franchise. But, seriously, the argument at play here is more interesting than it at first seems. It isn't the breast-obsessed chain's existence that is being challenged, but rather the fact that Hooters serves children. Clearly, there is abundant evidence that Hooters is guilty of poor taste (see: restaurant name) -- but should the chain be forced to card customers at the door and turn away anyone younger than 18? Several California chapters of NOW have filed official complaints alleging just that.
Hooters is described in official business filings as a provider of "vicarious sexual entertainment." NOW points out that the chain has "used this designation as a way to avoid compliance with regulations against sexual discrimination in the workplace." The official employment manual warns that a waitress is, as NOW paraphrases, "employed as a sexual entertainer and as part of her employment can expect to be subjected to various sexual jokes by customers and such potential contacts as buttocks slaps." At the same time, however, Hooters is marketed as a family-friendly restaurant. It offers a kid's menu, high chairs, booster seats and all sorts of merchandise for little tykes -- like a "Life begins at Hooters" T-shirt, an "I'm a boob man" onesie and a "Your crib or mine?" bib.
We could argue over whether Hooters has a healthy impact on a kid's developing view of women and sex, but I tend to think entertainment and dining decisions should be left up to individual parents. More important, that isn't the issue at hand. In this case, NOW (which hasn't always been a model of moderate thinking) has taken the exceedingly reasonable position that Hooters shouldn't be allowed to have the best of both worlds: Either it functions exclusively as an adult venue, and continues to protect itself (somewhat) from sexual discrimination claims, or it's held to the same standards as any ol' family restaurant and gets to keep on serving the kiddies tater tots and creepy onesies.
SOURCE
The Destructive Nature of Envy and Why Arabs Hate Jews
Jews show Arabs up as being useless and stupid
Nancy Kobrin, PhD, Joan Lachkar, PhD
As mental health professionals and as political analysts, it is our opinion, that the on-going Arab-Israeli Conflict is powered by Envy as the root cause. Just as Chaucer said that money is the root of all evil [Chaucer was quoting the New Testament. 1 Timothy 6:10], we say in turn that envy is the root of all evil. The Palestinians held the land for a thousand years and did nothing all those years to enhance or fertilize it, keeping it as a total wasteland. The Jews came back to their homeland and in decades transformed it to a rich green fertile land of Milk and Honey.
Politicians, historians, let alone the media, have grossly overlooked or shown myopia to the destructive nature of envy. Of course we don't expect these experts and governmental officials and people in Homeland Security to understand a fundamental principle, which governs all human forces as do psychoanalysts and those in the mental health profession. We feel, though, that it is our moral responsibility and the time is right to present the primitive nature of envy as fundamental to the political state as the centerpiece and major deterrent to peace.
More and more people are beginning to understand how peace negotiations, empathy, offers of land for peace are falsely embraced and then immediately repudiated. Several times the Israelis reached out to the Palestinians and each time the effort was rebuffed or repudiated. Yasser Arafat accepted Rabin's offer with much gratitude and smiles, only later to reveal his smile was really a smirk like the cat who swallowed the canary. Lttle did we know in the next breath he would bring explosives and weapons to wage an even fiercer war against the Jews, let alone to assuage his military cohorts martyrs who feared his betrayal to their cause -- the destruction of Israel.
Throughout history the Jews have been the most successful group of people in science, music, literature, entertainment and winners of Nobel prizes. We take a pause and question why? Jews throughout history have not only been encouraged to question G-d to not live by dogma, but to study Talmud. In doing so they have been for generations questioning, analyzing, and examining. Freud's nanny would read him Bible stories every night and in the story of Joseph, Joseph is asked to analyze three dreams. Is it any wonder that Freud would develop an entire psychology based on what might have been for having read these stories (dream interpretation, the understanding of dysfunctional families, the unconscious, sibling rivalry, oedipal rivals etc.)?
But why envy? The answer is simple. More than any group, the Jews have been awarded the Nobel Prize for worldwide recognition in such fields as chemistry, engineering, science, literature, medicine, entertainment, physics, economics, and peace winners. In spite of being one of the smallest populations represented in the world population (only 2 percent), the Jews excel. Another reason may be historical but Biblically-based Jews have not only adhered to the myth of being "G-d's Chosen People," they have made it a reality. Yet we hasten to add that being chosen means observing the 613 mitzvot of the Bible – it doesn’t mean that Jews are “special,” which of course is part of the reason why many envy. Success has not come easy for them, yet they have persevered through persecution, the Holocaust and hard labor.
Much fun is made of the Jewish mother syndrome and her effort to enforce her "son's chosenness” through education, thinking, inventing, and there is some truth here. Freud once quipped in a joke about a Jewish mother running frantically along the beach screaming, "Help! Help! My son the doctor is drowning!” In many earlier contributions, this second author has written about how Jews because of the envy they evoke in others with this admiration comes sadistic attacks against them - hence the Holocaust.
Envy differs from jealousy and is considered to be the most primitive fundamental emotion. It is destructive in nature and is based on hatred and evil and its intent is to destroy that which is enviable. Jealousy, unlike envy, is based on love wherein one desires to be part of the family, the clan, the group or the nation. It is a higher form of development and does not seek to destroy.
In conclusion, as political analysts and therapists, it would be nice to offer a cure, suggestions, how to overcome this brutal and toxic syndrome, but that would be rather grandiose on our part. Our purpose is mainly to draw attention to an area that has not been given much attention by the media or those who study and unravel the mystery of terrorism and suicide bombings. Why else would an entire nation devote/dedicated themselves to destroying a tiny majority of people whom they regard with hatred and evil? For the time being, until a further explanation comes along, the answer is ENVY!
SOURCE
Christianity not mentioned in Australia's proposed national history curriculum
The draft national curriculum for history opened an exciting prospect. Here was a chance, I thought, to defend the honour of Christianity amid the cut and thrust of educational theory, pitting myself against the intricate arguments of those who would deny, or at least downplay, the greatness of the influence of Christianity in the unravelling of the great events of the ages.
Yet the compilers of the draft curriculum have chosen the simplest strategy of all: deliberate, pointed, tendentious and outrageous silence. In its 20 pages, the draft ancient history curriculum mentions religion twice. There is no reference to Christianity anywhere in the document.
The draft modern history curriculum is 30 pages long. Christianity is simply never mentioned, at least not explicitly. The word religion appears twice, the first occurrence in the context of Indian history, the second in the context of Asian and African decolonisation. However the precise phrase in which it is found discloses the agenda of the compilers: "The effect of racism, religion and European cultures." This, surely, is an oblique mention of Christianity and a judgment upon it at the same time.
The English philosopher Roger Scruton took the word oikophobia and gave it a new meaning. Oikophobia literally means fear of one's own home, but Scruton nicely adapted it to mean "the repudiation of inheritance and home", the contemptuous rejection of everything that one's parents and grandparents respected, fed by the vanity of a new and supposedly enlightened way of looking at the world.
The name of Christianity is particularly odious to those oikophobes for whom the hope of a multinational and God-free world stands in the place of the dream of a promised land. For such people Christianity has brought more misery than relief, more gloom than joy, more war than peace, more hatred than love.
And - let us be honest - they can produce evidence to support all those opinions. They can point to the massacres of the Crusades, the use of torture and connivance at capital punishment by the Inquisition, the ruthless eradication of the Albigensians, the Thirty Years War, apparent indifference (in some places) to slavery, the treatment of the Jews throughout European history, the fighting in Northern Ireland, the brutish behaviour of certain clergy towards children.
But against that - if they are honest - they will have to acknowledge that all the evil deeds done by men professing themselves Christian have been counterbalanced by all the good things that have been done in the name of Christ.
The systematic care of the poor, the relief of prisoners, the establishment of hospitals, schools and universities, the self-sacrificing saintliness of many clergy, active resistance to the bullying of civil authorities, the amelioration and ultimately the prohibition of slavery, and the improvement of the lot of women (yes, that too) . . . all these things have emerged within a society that has been predominantly Christian.
Even today, in the shadow land of the post-Christian era, there are many who insist on calling themselves Christians still who have abandoned the faith but maintain a firm commitment to what they rightly regard as the "Christian ethic".
Yet the draft curriculum in history avoids all of this. It is almost completely silent on the whole matter of Christianity. It chooses to ignore a worldwide religious movement that has marched with civilisation for 2000 years, infusing it with a morality that has shaped the thinking of the whole of society, including the minds of those who lost the faith but clung to the moral view. This omission is not just careless, it is staggeringly inept and profoundly dishonest.
What would an honest and inclusive curriculum look like? It would recognise the enormous influence of religion in the world since late antiquity.
Moreover, being an Australian curriculum, intended for students in Australian schools, it would not pretend to the possibly laudable but utterly impossible task of giving all the world's cultures and religions equal coverage, but will acknowledge that, like it or loathe it, Christianity has been the dominant faith and moral mentor for our nation since white settlement began, that many indigenous people have embraced it too, and that the more recent waves of settlers - including Muslims and Hindus - have scarcely been unaffected by it. It would be good to see our society honestly facing up to the implications of its own heritage, and mature enough to recognise the good alongside the bad, and wise enough to see that amid the imperfections of any human organisation there is much to take pride in.
For believers, though, the reality is that the incarnation of Christ was and is the greatest event in human history, and that this greatness is not simply a matter of degree, but it is a kind of an absolute and ultimate truth by which alone the significance of all other events must be judged.
Many unbelievers cannot but be angered by such assurance, and we should not be surprised or disappointed by a savage response to such claims.
Many of those most bitterly opposed to Christianity have perhaps sensed that we are on the ropes, utterly nonplussed by this apathy, and are determined to continue to wage that kind of war of attrition in the hope that we shall simply and finally melt away. My suspicion is that some of the framers of the curriculum are driven by such a plan, perhaps consciously, perhaps by instinct.
Many other people of goodwill, non or anti-Christian in their orientation, are willing enough to face us on the field of debate and controversy. Such people may indeed admire and respect aspects of Christianity, while rejecting all or most of its metaphysical tenets.
In many such men and women I think I can see - excuse the presumption - the characteristics of the unconverted St Augustine: all too often they bark against a faith they have not troubled (or have not been able, through the scandal of our failings and our own poor example) to understand.
Clearly it is the best interest of the Christian religion boldly and confidently to face the challenge of those who would with equal confidence contest the veracity and integrity of our claims.
To take the battle vigorously to the critic's gates, to emerge thus from the slough of indifference that now threatens to swallow us, is our best hope.
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.
***************************
30 December, 2010
Jamie is right, today's spoilt children need to learn money needs to be EARNED
Yet again Jamie Oliver opens his big mockney mouth to talk about what’s good for children — only this time it’s not turkey twizzlers in his sights. He has announced plans for his own four children, saying that as soon as each reaches the age of ten, Papa will put them to work in the family business. Not in half measures, either.
‘I’m going to get them working three hours on a Saturday and a Sunday,’ he says sternly — yes, that’s three hours, each day — ‘to get them realising that you have to put in a few hours of sweat to get a couple of quid.’
Say what you will about Jamie Oliver — and there has never been a shortage of people with strong views about him — on this matter he is absolutely right. Moreover, if other parents were to follow suit, we would all be better off.
Children and young adults today are arguably less clued-up about money than any generation before them. ‘Cost’ and ‘value’ are meaningless to the average teenager, in £80 trainers that are as ugly as they’re obscenely priced, and paid for, of course, by Mum and Dad.
But there’s no point in blaming the teenager — not even for his nagging about ‘needing’ the damn shoes — when the fault clearly lies elsewhere. We are in the grip of a trend which has parents vying with each other to protect their offspring from financial realities. They’ll hock their souls, if need be, to ensure that darling kiddo never goes without.
The middle classes consider it a matter of pride that they ensure their children are recession-proof. Their homes aren’t, of course; nor are their jobs, their bills, their health and certainly not their own dreams of small luxuries. Heaven forbid, however, that the bubble-wrap should crack open long enough for the children to glimpse the truth of this — and heaven forgive the lengths to which some parents will go to make sure that it does not.
This week, more than any other in the year, millions will be calculating the cost of their deception. A family with two children, living on one average salary, will have spent a whole week’s net pay on those children’s Christmas presents.
Some 40 per cent of them will have thrown credit cards at the problem, which in real numbers translates as four million people getting into debt just to pay for Christmas. What’s more — and this is stomach-churning — we can expect three million still to be repaying the bill for this Christmas when the next one comes along.
But never mind. Even if one in five families will have trouble meeting this month’s rent or mortgage as a result, at least Jonny got his new bike. That’s what matters.
If it were only a seasonal madness, it would be bad enough. But with belts tightening everywhere else, the competitive display of indulgence to children is escalating. People on moderate incomes will have their children’s parties privately catered, the entertainment hired and the going-home bags stuffed with expensive goodies.
End-of-term gifts for favoured teachers — theoretically ‘from’ a schoolchild, but naturally paid for by the Bank of Mum and Dad — now include jewellery, cashmere and days in spas.
Holidays, toys and technology are a source of infinite parental pride — ‘only the best for my girl!’ — and it doesn’t even stop when the growing does; I recently heard a man boast about his 19-year-old son’s ‘gap year’. Not a gap year as you or I might know it, mind. He had paid for his little prince to flit from country to country, flying first class on planes and sleeping in five-star hotels, on the proud basis that ‘no son of mine’ would sleep in a hostel. He honestly believed that this proved him to be a better parent than his son’s friends’.
But what was even worse than spoiling the brat senseless was his reaction to my remark that his son would be better off working the trip; a spot of bar-tending here, putting up a few deckchairs there. He simply wouldn’t hear of it. Nothing to do with his son’s dignity, either; the message was clear — menial work done by his children would demean him, their father.
And that, I think, doubles the problem. While parents continue to dip their hands into empty pockets so as not to deprive their children, they actually deprive them of learning the one thing they need to know about money: where it comes from.
You don’t know what money is until you’ve earned some; until you have, as Jamie Oliver bluntly puts it, ‘put in a few hours of sweat’. This is the first generation of parents which seems not to understand that. My grandmother slaved away, my mother earned all she spent, I had pocket money — but if I wanted more, I worked Saturdays, just as my daughter did, in an especially squalid supermarket.
Nobody quibbled about doing it; nor did it signify rich or poor. I have a friend made rich as Croesus by life as a rock star, but whose son was still made to earn his allowance, usually by offering to clean the family cars. (Though, I grant you, that ‘cars’ plural did make it very lucrative.)
It was a rite of passage worth more than just its pay packet. Young people who swap time and energy for hard cash learn the difference between flush and skint which, in turn, means their parents can stop the pretence at home. My own daughter knew the score exactly: I threw every last penny at her school fees, which meant that when much of her class spent Easter at the Pyramids, and she wanted to join them, a simple ‘no’ was understood and accepted.
Her partner, schooled in the Eighties, had the same kind of upbringing. His school’s skiing trip was so evidently unaffordable, he says, that he didn’t bother to ask: ‘In fact, I didn’t even take the letter home.’
A 14-year-old who has schlepped on a paper-round knows precisely what it takes to put a tenner in your pocket ... and, by extension, how many tenners must come out of that pocket for an iPhone.
And yet modern parents, far from encouraging their children to discover these real values for themselves — as Jamie Oliver plans to do — seem actively to strive against such enterprise.
You hear them making up excuses on their children’s behalf. Paper-round? Too dangerous. (It’s not.) Shop work? There isn’t any. (There is.) Sweeping up at the hair salon? Pays peanuts. (So?) Besides, Saturday is when they go to the football, shop for clothes or go clubbing....
And behind it all, that same, smug message: look at me, the perfect parent, paying for all their extra-curricular fun as well! My children, they want for nothing, I see to that.
Except, of course, they do. They want for learning, by example, that which will stand them in financial stead when their concerns are rather graver than a designer label in their kiddie Christmas stocking.
Jamie Oliver, as we know, could afford to buy his children all the labels under the sun. But by introducing them to the world of hard graft, he’s giving them a gift more valuable still. He’s making sure that they’ll be able to buy their own.
SOURCE
£3,000: the annual bill working Britons pay for Britain's lavish benefits system
Up by $200 under the Labour party governmernt
Labour's lavish benefits system has burdened working families with an average bill of £3,000 a year, figures revealed yesterday. Tory analysis of official statistics revealed that the average working family contributes an extra £200 a year towards the welfare system in real terms following changes made by Labour.
The Tories last night said the figures underlined the need to reform Britain’s bloated benefits system to reduce the pressure on taxpayers who have to fund it.
Conservative MP Gavin Barwell said: ‘The benefits bill rocketed under Labour. That’s why we will cut the ballooning welfare budget and make work pay through a radical new Universal Credit. ‘Ed Miliband and Labour’s opposition to our reforms, which will make work pay, show he is not on the side of fairness or hard-working families.’
Figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions show that the real terms cost of working age benefits, such as Incapacity Benefit and Jobseeker’s Allowance, rose by £3.2billion under Labour, hitting £48.2billion last year.
The increase left the 16.5million working households paying almost £200 a year extra to support those on benefits. The total cost of working age benefits is equivalent to £2,920 a year for every working household. The figures also reveal that the number of workless households increased under Labour from 3.7million to 3.9million.
Ministers are planning a range of new measures to help people on benefits to get back into work. They are also planning a £25,000 annual cap on the amount of benefits an individual household can receive. The figures do not include the cost of pensions or locally administered benefits such as housing benefit.
SOURCE
New German airports chief calls for passenger 'profiling'
The incoming president of the German Airports Association called in an interview Tuesday for Israeli-style profiling of passengers to expedite security lines and improve safety.
Christoph Blume, who is also the head of Germany's third busiest airport in Duesseldorf, told the daily Rheinische Post that frequent travellers with a long and clean track record could get express treatment at security checks.
"Israel for example uses a risk-based approach," said Blume, who will become president of the ADV airports association in January.
"Passengers are put into various risk groups. Safe customers on whom there is sufficient data and who regularly fly the same route are not checked as much as passengers on whom there is no or little data. "Germany should consider Israeli 'profiling'."
Israel's strict airport screening, applied for decades at the country's Ben Gurion international airport and by Israeli airlines abroad, is based in part on the ethnicity of passengers. It entails assessing the risk posed by a passenger according to his nationality, background and behaviour. Israeli security agents consider Arab or Muslim travellers as potentially high threats.
Blume, who did not speak of profiling based on factors such as race or religion, said targeted checks would be in the interest of all travellers.
But German police union GdP said such measures opened the door to discrimination without necessarily being more effective. "To assume that potential attackers only come from certain countries and have certain features could prove to be a risky mistake when someone who does not fit the profile launches an attack," union president Bernhard Witthaut said in a statement.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) recently proposed a similar strategy under which passengers would be screened to a degree linked to the amount known about them. The idea is to be debated among IATA members next year.
In November, British Home Secretary Theresa May announced plans to introduce tougher vetting for passengers booking from potentially hostile countries or who pay for their tickets in cash.
SOURCE
Los Angeles City Council condemns "Islamophobia," ignores hate crimes against groups victimized far more often
MPAC has skillfully played the victim card against the Los Angeles City Council, despite the fact that statistics show that hate crimes against Muslims are rare -- much rarer than the incidence of such crimes against other groups. "Hyperbole rules in Muslim debate," from the Los Angeles Daily News, December 26 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
WITHOUT serious debate or examination, the Los Angeles City Council recently passed a resolution that opposes "Islamophobia" and "repudiates" random acts of violence against Muslims.
This admittedly ceremonial resolution apparently accepts the premise that residents of the city commit acts of hate against Muslims so often that it warrants an official resolution from city leaders condemning and repudiating these acts. Is this really the case?
According to the latest hate crime report from the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations, 88 percent of all religiously based hate crimes in 2009 were against Jews. Hate crimes that targeted Muslims (3 percent) ranked slightly above those directed at Scientologists (1 percent). In fact, the commission found that attacks against Christians (8 percent) outnumbered attacks against Muslims.
In any case, the actual number of reported hate crimes based on religion is quite small. In a county that has more than 10 million highly diverse residents, only a total of 131 crimes based on religion took place in all of 2009. Of course, this in no way takes away from the emotional or physical harm that each and every one of these attacks causes.
Since only 3 percent of 131 hate crimes during 2009 was directed against Muslims, it's difficult to understand why city leaders would pass a resolution that zeroes in on the category that has the next-to-lowest numbers recorded by the County's Human Relations Commission.
It appears that the City Council simply took information provided by an advocacy group, one that's hardly unbiased, and uncritically spat out a resolution opposing "Islamophobia" and "random acts of violence against Muslim-Americans."
This begs the question: Except for some Islam-hating cretins with sub-zero levels of intelligence, exactly who is in favor of random acts of violence against Muslims?
The term "Islamophobia" has crept into popular use, drummed into our consciousness by a sensationalized Time magazine cover story, and activists who exaggerate anti-Islamic bias for the causes they espouse. The term dominated the often angry debates that swirled around the plan to build a mosque 600 feet from Ground Zero in New York. While there are extremists at both the left and right ends of the political spectrum, the issues surrounding this controversial building project are far more complex than anti-Islamic bigotry.
Factually, there is no alarming number of attacks against Muslim-Americans. According to the FBI, the largest number of recorded hate crimes against Muslim-Americans took place in 2001. That year the number dramatically escalated from only 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001 - the year that young Muslim men drove planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field outside of Shanksville, Pa., murdering 3,000 innocent Americans in the name of Islam.
Prior to the City Council resolution, the Muslim Public Affairs Council released a statement expressing skepticism about tactics used by law enforcement among Muslim-Americans. The statement referenced the recent and troubling incident where the FBI says a young Somali man in Portland, Ore., plotted to blow up a public Christmas tree lighting ceremony. The MPAC statement also mentioned a similar case in Baltimore, where the FBI says a Muslim convert planned to bomb a military recruitment center in that city.
This statement from MPAC is in effect a thinly veiled claim that government agents entrapped these wannabe-terrorists. But as we have discovered, this young man's dilemma in Portland was hardly entrapment - in fact, as we know, his father called the FBI to let them know about his son's growing jihadist views. Nonetheless, the claims from MPAC and other Islamic activists groups were taken seriously enough to cause a response from the nation's attorney general. Eric Holder gave a 20-minute speech in San Francisco at the annual dinner event of Muslim Advocates, an Islamic civil rights group....
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 December, 2010
Let’s make 2011 the year of free speech
We should take to task the film censors, advert-banners and political blacklisters who think they know better than us
Unfortunately, in 2010 the idea that the public needs to be protected from ‘dangerous ideas’ did not get ousted alongside the New Labour government. Instead, in the disparate spheres of politics, culture, education and advertising, words, opinions and images continue to be censured, corrected, silenced and removed from public view in the name of protecting us from harm.
The busybodies who take the liberty to decide what we, the public, are allowed to hear clearly cannot tell the difference between words and deeds, and do not understand that without the right to hear all sides of an argument or to see full versions of movies or plays, we don’t actually have genuine freedom of expression and conscience. Without access to a broad range of views and aesthetic judgements, we can’t truly work out for ourselves what is wrong or right, what is good or bad.
Here in Britain, many civil liberties campaigners were hopeful that the Lib-Con coalition government would help us reclaim the freedoms robbed by New Labour micro-managers. We heard that the database state was being rolled back, the ID cards scheme was getting slashed, and some surveillance cameras would be disassembled. Yet while some of the intrusive and unwieldy symbols of the surveillance society have certainly come to feel out-of-date and so New Labour, our new rulers continue to treat our minds as play dough to be kneaded and moulded into an ‘acceptable’ shape.
The Lib-Cons and their social psychology advisers call it ‘nudging’: it’s about gently pushing us, ‘empowering us’, to make the right choices, to think pleasant thoughts, to do good. And so anyone or anything that can potentially lead us to behave badly must be removed. We’ve gone from ‘the politics of behaviour’ to ‘the politics of the brain’.
The idea that a minority should determine for the rest of us what we are allowed to say, think or listen to now spans the political spectrum. Remember, for instance, when the Conservative home secretary Theresa May used exclusion powers for the first time? It was to disallow Mumbai-based televangelist Dr Zakir Naik from giving a series of lectures in Britain in the summer. May was very much following in the footsteps of the former Labour home secretary, Jacqui Smith, who barred from Britain hundreds of people deemed not ‘conducive to the public good’. Such bogeymen have ranged from Muslim preachers to an American ‘shock jock’, from neo-Nazis to an Israeli politician. May used the same rhetoric as Smith, helping to make Naik’s crackpot views seem somehow mysterious and dangerously persuasive when they are nothing of the sort.
Nowhere is the clampdown on extreme views felt more acutely than in universities. These institutions should ideally be offering young people a unique chance to engage in free-flowing debate, to listen to – and question – everything. Yet in 2010, academia continued its transformation into the frontline of the ‘war against terror’. With universities viewed as hotbeds of ‘radicalisation’, higher education lecturers have been co-opted into keeping students in check. And student bodies, too, have been all too willing to ‘no platform’ ideas deemed too wacky, un-PC, or too potentially harmful for public airing.
Many people have internalised the idea that they have the right to decide on behalf of others what is acceptable or what is not – and that they should be thanked for doing so. So in 2010, eight people complained that an advert showing a pregnant nun with a tub of ice-cream, beneath which it said ‘Immaculate Conception’, was in poor taste. The Advertising Standards Authority duly banned it.
For others, the expression ‘the means justify the ends’ has no bounds. Take the National Health Service smoking cessation group. It recently demanded that children should be banned from watching films like 101 Dalmatians and Lord of the Rings because they show people smoking. In this instance, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) said banning was inappropriate. Yet in other cases, the BBFC has seen fit to cut and slash movies in the name of protecting adults from supposedly harmful images. Forty-nine scenes were cut out from the political horror flick A Serbian Film, severely compromising, in the view of the filmmakers, the movie’s message. The BBFC also gave a fairly tough 15 certificate to the British film Made in Dagenham simply because it featured swearing factory workers.
All of which begs the question: who the f**k do these prudes think they are? They are little more than jumped-up, self-styled guardians of morality who think they know better than the rest of us.
Whether it’s the government sending a message about what opinions are acceptable, the Advertising Standards Authority upholding the complaints of tiny, easily offended minorities, or the BBFC determining what kind of violent scenes or foul words audiences can stomach – today censorship is repeatedly dressed up as being for our benefit. And that’s one idea we should seriously challenge in 2011.
Source
Being Nice Hasn't Protected Sweden
The Grinch Steals Christmas. Sweden, a country that has prided itself on its good sense, openness, decency, and neutrality has suddenly encountered the unexpected: the terror war coming home to them. Fortunately, the suicide bomber who wanted to blow up Swedes doing their Christmas shopping was incompetent—and he succeeded only in blowing up himself. You can be sure that the Swedes are now revisiting their practices regarding Islamist immigrants, as have all other European countries that have been under attack.
On December 15, the Security Police in Stockholm presented a report on “violence-prone networks” in Sweden. They conclude there are perhaps 200 Jihadis in the country, about 30 of them trained in Somalia. These networks live in three of Sweden’s major cities: Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmo. Malmo has long been identified as having a social democratic City Council that is so pro-Muslim that a large part of the Jewish population has left the city.
An audio file in Swedish and Arabic was sent to the Swedish news agency ten minutes before the jihadist suicide bomber killed himself in one of two explosions in central Stockholm. The audio said: “Now the Islamic state has been created. We now exist here in Europe and in Sweden. We are a reality. Now your children, your daughters and your sisters will die as our brothers, our sisters and our children are dying.”
While we in the west protect freedom of speech, the Islamists fight it. “Insulting Islam” in print or cartoon is enough motive for murder. Will we start censoring ourselves as a result of this?
The bomber was Abdulwahab Al-Abdaly, a 29-year old citizen of Sweden whose Iraqi parents were given sanctuary from the horrors of Iraq. He was a typical young Swede—wearing bluejeans, spiked hair, and was once a disc jockey until he married a fanatical Muslim woman in Luton, England who, according to her grandmother, “turned her husband into an extremist.” She is in hiding with her three beautiful children, including the youngest, who is named Osama (to honor 9/11, it seems). Wife Mona Thwany, a Romanian, was converted to radical Islam on a trip to North Africa.
Sweden is also in the news because of its arrest warrant against anarchist publisher of other people’s mail, Julien Assange. Assange is accused of rape—and his defenders are sure that this is a frameup—showing how Sweden is the lap dog of the United States, whose diplomatic cables were stolen by an American soldier and broadcast on line to the world by WikiLeaks. Assange’s techno-terrorist organization.
WikiLeaks’ Tarnished Underbelly. Reason.com has done a little investigating of WikiLeaks and has found that one of its most trusted operatives is a Swede with the pseudonym “Israel Shamir” (a.k.a. Adam Ermash or Joran Jermas). Shamir’s job is to select and distribute the stolen cables to Russian news organizations. Echo Moskvy radio in Russia has identified Shamir as the fabricator of a cable that claimed that there was collusion among those who walked out on Iran’s president Ahmadinejad’s nasty speech to the United Nations in October. Shamir calls Amhadinejad the “brave and charismatic leader” of Iran.
He refers to the Auschwitz death camp as “an internment facility attended by the Red Cross, not a place of extermination. He told a Swedish journalist that “it’s every Muslim and Christian’s duty to deny the Holocaust.”
More Suicide Attacks Planned. Iraqi authorities have obtained confessions from captured insurgents who claim al Qaeda is planning suicide attacks in the United States and Europe during the Christmas season. The Iraqis have notified Interpol about this, and note that the Swedish attack was probably part of this plot. American security officials consider these threats credible.
Even Iran is Under Attack. Suicide bombers killed at least 39 people and wounded dozens more December 15. Sunni Baluchi terrorists had targeted a procession of Shiite Muslims in a town in south-east Iran. The Iranian government accused the US of complicity—although the US has blacklisted this group, Jundallah, as terrorists. This thing is indeed global.
SOURCE
The attempted marginalization of Christians in the USA
It is, for many of us, the most powerful line in the most powerful carol of the Christmas season: “Long lay the world in sin and error pining ‘Til He appear’d … and the soul felt its worth.”
So reads John Sullivan Dwight’s English translation of Adolphe Adam’s beautiful French carol, O Holy Night. Singing and listening to that song this year, though, I’ve been sadly reminded what an unholy year it has been for many Americans – particularly Christians – in the courtrooms of our nation. So many crucial judgments this year seemed calculated to convince believers that they have no worth at all, in our country’s “halls of justice.”
In California, for instance – with one sweeping and breathtakingly arbitrary ruling by a federal trial court – Christians were effectively told that they have no place in the political process of the state, and that marriage as we’ve always known it, the union of one man and one woman, is now unconstitutional and irrelevant to the needs and concerns of children.
In 2009, another federal court determined that Christian law students cannot block the participation of non-Christian law students in the election of officers for a club designed for … Christian law students. Incredibly, to outlaw that kind of “prejudice” against those who don’t believe, the courts encouraged universities to institutionalize prejudice against those who do. This year, the U.S. Supreme Court concurred in that judgment. So much for the worth of souls who care about the souls of others.
Meanwhile, across the country, in New York, a federal court ruled that a Christian medical professional has no right to sue, should her hospital employers violate federal law and compel her to take part in an abortion, whatever the pretext. Even if the Christian has affirmation in writing that she will not be forced to participate in abortions. Even if helping with an abortion is a mortal sin. In other words, in a nation whose founders regarded the protection of religious freedom as the holiest duty of the law … religious freedom is now expendable, if it interferes with the business of medicine.
Is this the spirit and letter of the law now, in America?
That marriage means nothing …
… that the need to separate faith from citizenship is now so critical that Christians are to be denied any meaningful participation in the electoral process …
… that the freedom to gather with people who share one’s beliefs is forfeit to the political correctness of those beliefs in the eyes of the state …
… that the voice of one’s conscience is no longer valid for the making of life-and-death decisions …
… that religious liberty isn’t worth the paper our Constitution was written on?
That’s the way the legal winds are blowing, in our nation today. So it’s not just the winter cold sending chills along the spines and into the hearts of so many citizens and voters.
In our courtrooms, our law schools, our legal journals and our judges’ chambers – as in that little town of Bethlehem two thousand long years ago – “the hopes and fears of all the years” are met, in the increasingly dark night of America’s soul.
SOURCE
Federal Regulators Wage War on Christmas
It's worth noting not only that the War on Christmas has continued, but now federal regulators have joined the wrong side. Christians should get far more aggressive in fighting back, because the Constitution is on their side.
Various outlets have reported throughout December that regulators from the Federal Reserve told privately-owned banks that they can’t have Christmas displays. It’s illegal for government agents to do that.
The Federal Reserve is a public-private hybrid. In one sense, it’s a private bank with money reserves, and also serves as a clearing house for checks and wire transfers from other banks.
In another sense, it’s a government agency. It was created by Congress and its board members are appointed by the president of the United States. It determines the money supply in the economy and sets interest rates. The Fed has regulatory authority over every bank in the United States. And its regulations and orders carry the force of law.
One such order violates the U.S. Constitution. One Fed regulation, called Regulation B, disallows “words, symbols … and other forms of communication” that “suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion.” That regulation is okay in many circumstances, but not all.
A bank in Oklahoma City displayed Bible verses and had a cross on the tellers’ counter. Some bank workers also wore “Merry Christmas” buttons. Fed regulators visiting the bank said that these displays violated Regulation B, and ordered them removed. A similar situation is unfolding in Nebraska. The American Exchange Bank of Lincoln has also been told to discontinue religious displays.
This is outrageous. Government actors—as that’s what Fed regulators are whenever they give an order to a privately-owned bank—cannot order a private person (and a corporation is a “person”) or the individuals working there not to engage in religious expression. To the extent that Regulation B suggests anything to the contrary, that regulation (and any order based on it) is unconstitutional.
The Constitution is firmly on the side of these banks and private citizens. Joe Infranco is an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), one of the foremost religious-liberty organizations in America, which litigates countless cases nationwide defending religious expressions. About this bank situation involving the Fed, Infranco says, “It’s ridiculous that people have to think twice about whether it’s okay to publicly celebrate Christmas. An overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas and are opposed to any kind of censorship of it.”
It’s unfortunate that the War on Christmas hasn’t gotten much attention this year. With the understandable focus on massive deficit spending and other economic issues, such as the tax-extension deal (loaded with hundreds of billions of dollars in new deficit spending) and the defeated $1.2 trillion omnibus, there hasn’t been a big media appetite for the ongoing secularization of American society.
Yet that’s exactly what we’ve seen. Christmas parades where renamed “holiday parades” this year, despite the fact that Christmas remains a federal holiday officially recognized by this nation. And in the midst of this increasingly anti-Christian bias, we see the inexcusable action of federal regulators telling private banks and citizens that they cannot freely celebrate Christmas.
No federal order or regulation can trump the U.S. Constitution. It’s time for Christians to reengage in this fight for religious liberty. Stop playing defense. Go on offense. Make a New Year’s resolution that next Christmas will see people unapologetically celebrating the birth of Christ, and an uncompromising legal fight against any government officer who tries to stop it.
SOURCE (See the original for links)
*************************
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 December, 2010
Christians 'are denied human rights by our courts,' claim British bishop and top judge
An Anglican bishop and Britain’s former top judge yesterday launched an impassioned defence of the rights of Christians in an increasingly secular society. The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, said judges wrongly discriminate against people of faith because they are ignorant of religious beliefs.
He said failure to support the beliefs of Christians and other religious people could drive them from their jobs and blamed the Human Rights Act for allowing them to be victimised.
The bishop was backed by ex-Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf, who said the courts had gone ‘too far’ in restricting the rights of Christians in the workplace. He said it was ‘about time the tide turned’.
The two were speaking at the end of a year in which Christian relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane lost his appeal against dismissal after he refused to give sex therapy to a homosexual couple, and nurse Shirley Chaplin lost a discrimination case after she was moved to a back office job because she wore a crucifix.
During the General Election campaign, David Cameron promised to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, which would spell out rights and responsibilities based on British traditions. But that promise has been watered down by the Coalition agreement, which promises only to set up a commission to ‘investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’.
Yesterday the bishop said he ‘generally welcomed’ the Human Rights Act but said it was being used without reference to religious sensibilities. He said: ‘There is growing up something of an imbalance in the legal position with regard to the freedom of Christians and people of other faiths to pursue the calling of their faith in public life, in public service. One major context is obviously the Human Rights Act.’
He condemned the treatment of Mr McFarlane, who was sacked by Relate after refusing to give sex therapy to a gay couple because it contradicted his religious beliefs. The bishop said: ‘We have had a statement from a senior judge this year that matters of Christian belief were only matters of opinion and the law couldn’t possibly take countenance of them in coming to decisions about the rights and wrongs of particular behaviour in the workplace.’
He argued it was not an option for Christians to keep their faith private. ‘Anybody who is part of the religious community believes that you don’t just hold views, you live them. Manifesting your faith is part of having it and not part of some optional bolt-on.’
He said in the McFarlane case, ‘judgment seemed to be following contemporary society, which seems to think that secularist views are statements of the obvious and religious views are notions in the mind. That is the culture in which we are living. The judges ought to be religiously literate.’ He also accused Parliament of having behaved ‘quite tyrannically’ over the treatment of Catholic adoption societies, which were told they would have to accept gay and non Christian staff.
Lord Woolf said the bishop’s complaints did have ‘a grounding in the facts’ and added: ‘I think it’s a very good thing that you voice those concerns because the tide goes in and the tide goes out in these areas and sometimes it’s about time the tide turned a bit and started to go back. We may have gone too far.
‘The law must be above any sectional interest even if it is an interest of a faith but at the same time it must be aware of the proper concerns of that faith. ‘The law should be developed in ways that, wherever practicable, it allows that faith to be preserved and protected.’
SOURCE
My father got to work even when the sea froze... then came 50 years of 'progress'
Peter Hitchens comments from Britain
Actually I didn’t much like the Fifties, which I remember as bleak and chilly and smelling of damp raincoats, stale tobacco, suet pudding and cabbage. Not to mention the chilblains.
It is the fate of those who don’t much like the present to be told all the time that they are yearning for some bit of the past, when they’re not. Even so, as I try not to laugh too loud at the pretensions of the supposedly advanced modern world, I cannot help being fairly sure that the past 50 years or so have not been a matter of unmixed progress.
I remember winters when the sea at the end of our road actually turned to ice, winters when the milk on the doorstep froze into a sort of dairy rocket, with the foil top perched on the solidified cream, winters when our garden was full of gigantic snowballs for weeks on end.
And as far as I can recall, my father still went off to his work each day and so did everyone else. The trains and buses continued to run, the roads and pavements were swiftly cleared of ice and snow.
In that Britain of town clerks, rural district councils, bus conductors with peaked caps station masters, the Gas Board, unreformed county boundaries, yards, feet, inches, pounds and ounces, we somehow managed to be far more efficient than we are in the days of chief executives, Metropolitan Authorities, Network Rail, centimetres and kilograms.
And I think more and more that we have mistaken newness, modernity and packaging for reality.
Yes, of course, the narrow, shabby restrained country of 50 years ago had its drawbacks. What is interesting is how many of them we have managed to retain in our frenzy of change – the deep and wasteful class divisions, the bad diet and general poor health, the neglect of the old, the grim cities – though now they are grim in a different, more modern way.
Our supposed progress, by contrast, is often a shallow matter of possessions, plastic and paint, accompanied by a shocking level of incompetence and defeatism, which afflict us when we face any sort of challenge – from foot-and-mouth disease to a few inches of snow.
At Christmas, in some strange but powerful way, the past lives in our minds as at no other time. Perhaps those of us who still remember it should recognise honestly during this moving and reflective season that in our haste for change and modernisation, we have lost at least as much as we have gained.
SOURCE
Follies of a feminized society
I get labeled a misogynist all the time. But I'm simply pointing out that men and women are different. Or at least they used to be.
We’ve done away with gender roles. As a culture we decided the smaller the chasm between male and female, the more evolved our society would be. But there’s a reason you have yours and we have ours. We’re different, and that’s a good thing. Why is it that the same people who beat the celebrate-differences drum when it comes to cultures refuse to acknowledge the biggest cultural difference on the planet? Men and women. I guarantee you Japanese men, German men, and black men have a hell of a lot more in common than your average dude and chick. Let’s face it. Women are better with the kids when they get a boo-boo, but when it comes time to disarm the roadside bomb, that’s where the fellas come in.
I have a theory that I think will put things into perspective. Look at society as a giant X. Women on one bottom leg, men on the other bottom leg. The date: 1950. Women cooked, cleaned, took care of the kids, and mended torn dungarees. Men provided, fixed the car, patched the roof, and warded off intruders with a baseball bat. Then the sixties arrived. Each gender moved a little higher up the leg of the X. Women stopped shaving their armpits and men grew their hair out. Women started going to work and men started taking their car to the mechanic. Now we get into the eighties. Figure we’re about halfway up the X leg before the cross. Men start applying mousse and eyeliner, women are more worried about having rock-hard abs than they are about their kids.
Now the nineties. School districts are being sued for girls’ rights to play on the boys’ football team, and being a woman trapped inside of a man’s body is as real a medical diagnosis as Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
In the 2000s, we officially hit the intersection of the X. Men are “metrosexuals” getting mani-pedis while their wives drive a jeep to their job as an NFL sideline reporter. If you go to a store today you can find unisex fragrances. This idea would have never worked in the fifties. Women’s perfume came in a glass slipper and smelled like baby powder and lilacs; men’s cologne came in a ship or a football and smelled like a pine cone.
I grew up in the seventies with a steady diet of “the reason girls play with dolls and boys play with trains is because of the Man’s homophobic agenda.” Bulldust! My son loves trains. All boys love trains. They can’t help it, it’s in their blood. It’s amazing that the train wasn’t invented earlier, considering that young boys have been around for millions of years. It’s heroin for them— they go berserk for it. If you put a boy alone in a room with some Thomas the Tank Engine toys and some Barbies and don’t say a word, I guarantee that he’ll go right for the trains.
What the hell were my mom and her angry hippie friends thinking? And why haven’t they apologized?
SOURCE
The Pope challenges the Left
Theodore Dalrymple
It is a nice question as to whether a true or a false accusation provokes more outrage in the accused. So when, a few days before the Pope’s late visit to this island, Cardinal Kasper said that arriving at Heathrow was like arriving in a Third World country, he was much excoriated by those who hate Cardinals as a matter of principle, and was immediately accused of racism, the accusation against which no defence is known.
Quite apart from the fact that the term Third World corresponds to no racial category, the all too swift resort to the accusation always puts me in mind of Lear’s remark in Act IV:
Why dost thou lash that whore?
Strip thine own back.
Thou hotly lusts to use her in that kind
For which thou whip’st her.
In other words, the accusation of racism is often but a smokescreen for the accuser’s own doubts.
It is obvious to all who know Heathrow that the Cardinal’s remarks about our largest airport could have been interpreted in another way than racist: that its disorganisation, its atmosphere of always being on the verge of chaos or collapse to be brought about by one more passenger, its over-crowdedness, its sheer physical messiness, brings to mind the urbanisation of the Third World. Has anyone ever heard of people choosing to fly through Heathrow when an alternative presented itself, just because they liked the experience of Terminal Three? The very idea is absurd; the question answers itself; and while the tendency or ability to muddle through might be an admirable one in some circumstances, it certainly is not in the design of airports.
In other words, Cardinal Kasper’s terrible crime was to be right, to draw attention to an unpleasant aspect of our reality from which we would rather avert our attention because we cannot face the effort, and no doubt the expense, that would be required to change it.
A great deal of the hostility to the Pope’s visit was likewise caused by his having been right, at least in some things, such as the insufficiency of consumerist materialism as a basis for a satisfactory existence. There are few human types less attractive, surely, than failed materialists, which is what the British, or at least so many of them, now are. They consume without discrimination what they have not earned: which is why many of them are so grotesquely fat as well as so deeply indebted. Indeed, there is scarcely any kind of debt or deficit to which we as a nation have not resorted in order to continue (at least for a time) on our vulgar and degraded way. A nation that behaves thus is quite without honour or self-respect, collective or individual. All this Benedict XVI has seen with a perfectly clear eye; and if what George Orwell once wrote, that we have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men, we might even call the Pope the George Orwell of our time.
Gratitude is seldom the reward of those who see an unwelcome truth more clearly than others; quite the reverse. But Benedict’s ‘crime,’ apart from being German, goes much further than his failure (or worse his refusal) to screen out the unpleasant consequences of consumerist materialism from his vision, which it is the duty of all right-thinking people. He lays down a ethical challenge to our utilitarian ways of thinking; in other words, he is a heretic to be excommunicated from the Church of Righteous Liberalism.
In pointing out some of the fallacies, oversimplifications, dangers and empirically unfortunate results of contemporary rationalist utopianism, the Pope is potentially provocative of the kind of spiritual crisis that John Stuart Mill recounts in his Autobiography. When he was twenty, Mill, who had hitherto been trained as a kind of calculating machine for the felicific calculus, asked himself a question, with (for him) devastating results:
Suppose that all your objects in life were realized; that all the changes in institutions and opinions which you are looking forward to, could be erected this very instant: would this be a great joy and happiness to you?’ And an irrepressible self-consciousness answered ‘No!’At this my heart sank within me; the whole foundation on which my life was constructed fell down. All my happiness was to have been founded in the continued pursuit of this end. The end had ceased to charm, and how could there ever again be any interest in the means? I seemed to have nothing left to live for.
In other words, Benedict XVI presents not a challenge to this or that piece of social policy, but to a whole Weltanschauung. And hell hath no fury like a questionable Weltanschauung questioned.
Here it is necessary for me to declare an interest, or rather lack of one. Just as one cannot write of the question of tobacco-control without declaring that one owns no shares in a tobacco company, so I must declare that I am not a Catholic, that I am not religious, that I am not therefore an apologist for the curia or anyone else. I am, in fact, not a systematic thinker at all, lacking the capacity or patience for it. And I disagree with the Pope on many things, but I do not therefore hate him.
The quite extravagant expressions of antagonism towards him — such, for example, as that consideration be given to arresting him for crimes against humanity — seem to me to bespeak a very odd, almost paranoid, state of mind. And while I hesitate always to use Freudian concepts, surely the idea of projection, the attribution to others of discreditable inclinations, thoughts or behaviour that one has oneself had or indulged in, is appropriate here.
As everyone knows, the Catholic Church has been embroiled in a scandal about the sexual abuse of children by priests and the religious. It is the Pope’s supposed complaisance towards and responsibility for child abuse that has led people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins to call for his arrest for crimes against humanity, under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction for such crimes. No one would say that the church has acted always with appropriate expedition in dealing with the problem.
But the problem is not only, or even mainly, that of the church, quite the contrary. It is universally accepted that step-fathers, for example, are many times more likely to commit both physical and sexual abuse against children than biological fathers; and since step-fatherhood has now become a very much more common relationship than it once was, thanks to the social reforms of the last fifty years or so, it is likely that the great majority of child abuse that occurs in this country is committed by them. Moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge that many mothers connive at such abuse because they wish to retain the favours of the step-fathers.
It follows from this that, if the Pope should be arrested for crimes against humanity, so should the following categories:
* Divorcees with children
* Step-fathers
* Single mothers
* Feminists and all other proponents of lax marriage and easy divorce, including journalists
* All legislators who have eased divorce laws and all government ministers who have either failed to support marriage by fiscal means or have actually weakened it by those means
* All judges and other lawyers who have administered easy divorce laws instead of having refused to do so
* All social workers and social security officials who have sought advantages for or administered payments to non-widowed single parents and no doubt many others.
I hope I need not say that I am not in favour of the arrest and trial of perhaps forty per cent of the population between the ages of twenty-five and sixty, or that I expect secular social ‘liberals’ either to arrest themselves or each other, but that they should does seem to follow from the argument of at least a few of their representatives. Indeed, the very resort of some liberals to the language of arrest shows how, not very far beneath a veneer of libertarianism, lies an authoritarianism that makes Benedict XVI look very liberal indeed. They want arguments to be settled by arrest: in other words, who can arrest whom, assuming that they will always be the ones to wield the handcuffs.
As is well known, Professor Dawkins has suggested that a religious upbringing should in itself be considered a form of child abuse, because in his view it is a form of child abuse; but he then drew back from the obvious inference that such an upbringing should be illegal. Of course, there are degrees of child abuse as of every other crime; but if a religious upbringing is not so abusive as to merit legal sanction, is it properly to be called child abuse at all, given the current connotations of that expression?
Given that so intelligent a man as Professor Dawkins, and others like him, were so clearly illogical on the matter of the Pope’s visit, are we not entitled to suspect a deep emotional confusion within them: for example, one caused by a robust and unaccustomed challenge to a brittle Weltanschauung?
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 December, 2010
The Queen defies animal rights fanatics
The Queen and the Duchess of Cornwall came under fire from animal rights campaigners yesterday after they both wore fur hats on Christmas Day. The Russian-style hats they wore to attend a church service in Sandringham with other members of the Royal Family were made from fur from different types of fox, claimed experts.
Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid, said: ‘This strikes me as an ostentatious display of cruelty. To parade fur in 2010 says something unpleasant about the person wearing it.’
The Cossack-style hat worn by Camilla was made from ‘vintage fur’, by designer milliner Philip Treacy, using a piece of fur which had previously belonged to the duchess’s mother.
A spokesman for the Queen said she could not confirm if Her Majesty’s cream-coloured hat and matching coat trim were made from real fur but experts said they were convinced it was.
Many fashion designers continue to use fur in their collections, and campaigners have expressed fears that it has come back into style. They have called on celebrities and members of the Royal Family to ‘set a good example’ by choosing not to wear animal pelts. The Queen has worn fur in the past and her official robes for State occasions are trimmed with ermine, the winter coat of the stoat.
Camilla faced anger from animal rights organisations last year, when she wore fur twice during an official visit to Canada. First she wore a grey rabbit stole when she visited Newfoundland, together with a hat trimmed with fake fur. She then donned a calf-length cape lined with grey fox fur. Both pieces were said to have been ‘refashioned’ from vintage fur that had belonged to her grandmother, Sonia Cubitt, Baroness Ashcombe, whose mother, Alice Keppel, was a mistress of Edward VII.
The ethical question of ‘recycling’ vintage fur has split opinion, but Mr Tyler said: ‘It doesn’t matter when the animal was killed, it’s a body part and a product of cruelty.’
In 2000 Prince Edward’s wife Sophie apologised after she was seen wearing a fox fur hat. The Countess of Wessex said her decision to wear the hat on a skiing holiday in St Moritz, Switzerland, was ‘an error of judgment’.
Legislation to ban fur farming in Britain was passed that same year following a lengthy campaign highlighting the physical and psychological distress suffered by animals in some fur farms.
However, it remains legal to import fur and in China, now the world’s leading fur exporter, millions of animals who are killed for their fur are often skinned alive, according to the campaign group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
A Peta spokesman said: ‘Britain is a nation of animal lovers and more than 90 per cent of Britons refuse to wear fur. We hope that Her Majesty will choose to wear something more humane in future, that better reflects the values of the British people.'
SOURCE
Sorry, Archbishop, but there IS a big difference between the deserving and undeserving poor
As predictable as the bells pealing out the arrival of Christmas, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has once again managed to mark the festive season by a display of painful moral confusion.
First, he used his sermon at Canterbury Cathedral to rebuke the most prosperous for having yet to shoulder their load in the economic downturn. And then in an article for yesterday’s Mail on Sunday he wrote that the poor should be absolved of any responsibility for their own circumstances.
True, he acknowledged that there were doubtless ‘some who make the most out of the benefits culture’ — although even here he couldn’t resist a swipe at ‘some who have made the most out of other kinds of perks available to bankers or MPs’.
But he warned: ‘The Victorian distinction between the deserving poor and the rest is very seductive.’ And he added: ‘Even if there are those who are where they are because of their own bad or foolish choices in the past, that doesn’t mean they are any less in need in the present. And it can’t be said often enough that most people in poverty — and we should be thinking of children in particular — haven’t chosen it.’
This was an extraordinary thing to say. It means that even if poor people are dishonest or irresponsible, the rest of society must regard them as just as deserving of society’s largesse as the honest poor. But the notion that those who have behaved immorally or irresponsibly should be treated in exactly the same way as those whose behaviour has been irreproachable is itself profoundly amoral.
Of course, no one chooses to be poor. But some people do choose lifestyles that cause them to become poor — such as choosing not to work, or deciding to bring up children on their own.
And what was so disturbing about Dr Williams’s observation was that he seemed to be negating the importance of such choices. Indeed, by demonising the better-off while investing the poor with a halo, he came close to suggesting that wealth — however honestly or arduously earned — is intrinsically evil, while poverty is a holy state.
His core point was that no distinction should be made between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor — which to him clearly conjures up Dickensian nightmares of workhouses, cruelty and destitution. This distinction was, indeed, a key concept in Victorian times. However, after the development of the Welfare State, the idea that any poor people could be considered ‘undeserving’ was ruled out of court. Contrary to the beliefs of the founder of the Welfare State himself, William Beveridge, it became the accepted view that it was odious to hold any poor people responsible for their own poverty.
The question of individual behaviour and its consequences was airbrushed out of the welfare picture altogether. This was in large measure because Left-wing thinking — in the famous aphorism — replaced Methodism with Marx. And Marxist analysis holds that people are not responsible for their own circumstances, but are instead helpless tools of the capitalist system.
Obviously, many do become poor through cruel twists of fate. But others certainly contribute to their poverty through their own behaviour. For example, many women choosing to have babies without a permanently committed father on board doom themselves and their children to poverty and a host of other terrible disadvantages.
Of course, some lone mothers are the innocent victims of desertion. But it is crucial to offer all poor people assistance which will give them a leg up and out of poverty rather than kick away the ladder of opportunity from beneath their feet. Yet leaving them stranded with no escape route is precisely what the ‘non- judgmental’ view of poverty represented by Dr Williams has brought about.
Which is precisely the woeful state of affairs that the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is determined to end.
True, Dr Williams paid dutiful credit to the Government’s welfare reforms for its ‘clear intention to put things in place that will actually reduce poverty and help people out of the traps of dependency’. But clearly, he simply doesn’t understand that this depends to a large extent upon restoring the distinction between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor that he finds so abhorrent.
That is because it is not motivated by an absence of compassion, as he implies, but by its precise opposite — a deeply principled desire to end the trap of permanent poverty. And the way to do that is encourage behaviour that will end it, through viewing the poor as governed by the same impulses as everyone else.
Dr Williams’s view, however, effectively treats the poor as less than human. The essence of being human, after all, is to be capable of moral choice. And all of us, rich and poor, are capable of making those choices. The choice to be honest rather than fiddling the benefits system. To work, however demeaning the job, in preference to taking state charity. To bring children into the world only where there is a committed father to help bring them up.
But if people who make immoral — or amoral —choices benefit from these, that creates a fundamental injustice throughout society. For there is no surer way of undermining and demoralising those who refuse to cheat the system or who are living lives of self-restraint and responsibility. Yet that is precisely what our non-judgmental culture of dependency has given us — the moral degradation of an entire society.
You might think that the Church of all institutions would be in the forefront of fighting such cultural collapse. So why does Dr Williams put himself on the wrong side of the moral tracks?
Well, his disapproving reference to the Victorians is more than a little revealing. For during that period, it was Christians who spearheaded the great social reform movements which turned Britain from a society riven by crime, illegitimacy and drunken squalor into a tranquil country in which the traditional family was the crucible of social order.
That transformation came about through a profoundly moral view of the world rooted in a muscular Christianity. This upheld the dignity of every human being and the optimistic belief that people could redeem themselves through their own behaviour.
It was these Christian attitudes that led to the abolition of slavery and a host of other reforms. Yet Dr Williams has in the past apologised for the role of the church during this period, radiating deep embarrassment about religious impulses which once were a synonym for progressive attitudes.
This is rooted in a collapse of religious belief within the Church of England which has been going on for decades. Accordingly, it has steadily eroded its commitment to the moral codes embodied in the Bible and embraced instead the secular alternative – the religion of Left-wing ideology.
Thus Sunday school was replaced by social work, morality by expediency and holy war by class war.
Dr Williams undoubtedly wants to do good in the world. And he is far from being a stupid man; he is considered to be a profound thinker and theologian. But it took Iain Duncan Smith, in the striking article he wrote for this paper last week, to use without embarrassment the Biblical figure of Joseph to illustrate one of the key antidotes to permanent poverty — the committed father.
The fact is that what Mr Duncan Smith is doing embodies Christian conscience in a way that appears completely to elude the leader of the Anglican communion.
When a politician boldly links morality, religion and compassion while a religious leader can only spout Left-wing cliches, a society’s foundations have become shaky indeed.
SOURCE
The ACLU's Unholy War on Catholic Hospitals
Ho, ho, ho! Just in time for Christmas, the American Civil Liberties Union has launched a new salvo against people of faith. Even as billions around the world celebrate the birth of Christ, joyless, abortion-obsessed secularists never take a holiday.
On Wednesday, the ACLU sent a letter to federal health officials urging the government to force Catholic hospitals in the U.S. to perform abortions in violation of their core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn. They're counting on sympathetic Obama rationing czar Donald Berwick -- a recess appointee whose radical views on wealth and health redistribution were never vetted by Congress -- to dictate which religious principles hospital operators can and cannot follow.
The ACLU reiterated its call for a federal probe -- read: fishing expedition -- of Catholic hospitals nationwide that refuse to provide "emergency" contraception and abortions to women. In practice, of course, every request for abortion is an "emergency" to the left.
The Catholic Church makes clear that it is morally permissible under certain circumstances to treat directly the cause of the mother's medical condition, even if those efforts unintentionally and indirectly cost the baby's life. But Catholic health providers must never directly trade one life for another.
Civil liberties activists have a particular vendetta against devout Phoenix Catholic Bishop Thomas Olmsted, who recently revoked the Catholic status of a rogue hospital that performed several direct abortions, provided birth control pills and presided over sterilizations against the church's ethical and religious directives for health care. "It would be unfaithful to pretend the institution is still Catholic," Olmsted concluded.
"The dioceses cannot be permitted to dictate who lives and who dies in Catholic-owned hospitals," the ACLU's lawyers fumed in response.
But shall it be left to the ACLU and Obamacare bureaucrats to determine the Catholicity of a Catholic hospital?
And shall it be left to litigious secularists to sabotage the First Amendment rights of religious-based health care entities with impunity?
No. The ACLU now seeks to unilaterally rewrite a federal emergency medical treatment law passed by Congress in 1986 to mandate that all hospitals provide abortions. But for more than three decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, federal law has firmly established strong conscience protections for individual health care providers and hospitals who are reluctant or unwilling to "counsel, suggest, recommend, assist or in any way participate in the performance of abortions or sterilizations contrary to or consistent with" their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."
As the Washington-based Becket Fund, a public interest law firm that defends the free expression of all religious traditions, pointed out to the feds: "The ACLU has no business radically re-defining the meaning of emergency health care,' just as it has no business demanding that religious doctors and nurses violate their faith by performing a procedure they believe is tantamount to murder. Forcing religious hospitals to perform abortions not only undermines this nation's integral commitment to conscience rights, it violates the numerous federal laws that recognize and protect those rights."
According to the Catholic Health Association, Catholic health care facilities form the largest not-for-profit health service sector in the United States -- serving one out of every six patients in America and providing 15 percent of the hospital bed capacity in the country. Moreover, Catholic health care institutions employ about 540,000 full-time workers and 240,000 part-time workers.
If the abortion lobby gets its way, faithful Catholic hospitals and Catholic medical professionals who follow their consciences and adhere to canon law could see their federal funding yanked. And radical social engineers may well force the shutdown of countless Catholic hospitals at a time when Obamacare costs and consequences are already wreaking havoc on the health industry.
Fewer jobs, less access to health care, less freedom and more lives lost: Merry Christmas from the ACLU.
SOURCE
Liberal Paper Sued for Racial Discrimination
A major subsidiary of The Washington Post, one of America’s great liberal newspapers, has been sued for racial discrimination. Read it for yourself in the Post:
“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday sued The Washington Post Co.’s Kaplan Higher Education unit, alleging that it discriminated against black job applicants by refusing to hire people based on their credit histories.”
But it wasn’t front-page news. Instead, it was on page 14 of the print edition.
The EEOC said the liberal company “violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…” Title VII prohibits hiring practices that have a discriminatory impact because of race and are not job-related and justified by business necessity.
What is fascinating is that various “progressive” groups are now beating up on the Post, which is pro-Obama. “How The Washington Post Helps Kaplan Rip Off Students” is the headline on www.change.org, which comments on how “Former students and staff are coming forward with horror stories from the Washington Post Company-owned school.” The scandal is an old one that has been covered extensively by Accuracy in Media. In effect, the paper’s subsidiary has been getting students deep in federal debt for courses that produce very few good jobs. Taxpayers are on the hook for the uncollected debts.
Now we find out that Kaplan has allegedly been discriminating against minorities in the process, making the scandal even more odious.
Kaplan figures in a CNBC documentary, “The College Debt Crisis,” which notes that student loan debt will surpass $1 trillion in 2012.
When Kentucky Senator-elect Rand Paul, as a candidate, questioned the reach of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Post was alarmed, noting that he had created a “controversy.” Now the paper’s sister company stands accused of violating the law.
Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a regular on MSNBC, accused Rand Paul of living in what the headline called “Libertarian La-La Land.” He suggested Paul was the Tea Party’s Madhatter. Robinson wondered if Paul believed that the federal government had the authority to outlaw racial discrimination in private businesses. He said the candidate had “loopy beliefs.”
Now that the EEOC has sued the Post, saying its subsidiary engaged in racial discrimination, will Robinson tackle the subject in print and on MSNBC? Will Robinson take on his employer?
Don’t hold your breath. Kaplan is a cash cow for the Post newspaper, meaning that it helps pay the salaries of columnists like Robinson.
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 December, 2010
Skin colour row in India
Criticizing this is in a way to criticize India. Skin colour and prestige are highly correlated in all of India and the correlation is of very long standing. And, "incorrect" though it no doubt is, I too think she looks better with pale skin. But I am very pro-Indian and so respect Indian values
THE Indian edition of Elle magazine has stumbled into a race row after allegedly whitening the skin of a Bollywood actress on its cover.
Britain's The Daily Mail Online reports that readers had reacted with anger after it was suggested the fashion magazine might have digitally lightened the complexion of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, a former Miss World who has also starred in Bride & Prejudice and The Pink Panther 2.
The 37-year-old appears on the cover of this month's Indian edition. Inside the magazine, she is again pictured in a series of shots, all showing her with pale skin.
It is not the first time that Elle has been attacked for appearing to lighten the skin of its non-white models.
In September this year, black actress Gabourey Sidibe appeared on the cover of the US magazine with a much paler complexion. On that occasion, Elle claimed it had not altered the Precious star's skin any more than that of the other models photographed alongside her.
Fans have posted angry comments online about the latest cover, one saying: "It's annoying because it seems like lighter skin is always in fashion, as if darker skin is something to be frowned upon."
Skin lightening is a controversial issue in India, and those with a lighter complexion are often perceived to be both more successful and wealthy.
Skin-lightening products aimed at young men and women now form a multi-million-dollar industry.
SOURCE
Jesus Who? Christian Cross Banned from Bethlehem Souvenir Shops
Two-thousand years after Jesus Christ was born in the town of Bethlehem, the Christian cross has reportedly been banned from souvenir shops as tourists and pilgrims pour into the Holy Land for the Christmas season.
According to AsiaNews, textile shops in Jerusalem and Hebron have begun to print and sell tee-shirts “depicting the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem without the cross.” The cross has also been removed from tee-shirts of local football teams “because of the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the Palestinian territories.”
Interviewed by AsiaNews, Samir Qumsieh, journalist and director of the Catholic television station Al-Mahed Nativity TV in Bethlehem, said: “I want to launch a campaign to urge people not to buy these products – he says – because the removal of the cross is an intimidation against Christians, it is like saying that Jesus was never crucified. “
Like every year, thousands including authorities, faithful and tourists from all over the world crowd, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem for midnight mass on the night of 24 December. It will be celebrated by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and will be attended by the highest offices of the Palestinian Authority.
Qumsieh says that the population is living these days with joy, but the situation for Christians is still dramatic. According to the journalist, the dialogue of recent years between Muslims, Christians and Jews has not changed the situation.
“In the Holy Land – said Qumsieh – the emigration of Christians is growing, even if the authorities refuse to give precise numbers. Every day there are people who flee to other countries. As Christians, we live in a constant feeling of fear and uncertainty, and if you live in constant tension and pessimism you can not plan anything.
According to the journalist, “people leave because there is no work and movement is restricted under Israeli control.” Other factors are the internal problems of Palestine, such as the clash between Hamas and Fatah, which has repercussions on the economic situation. Qumsieh points out that from 2002 to 2010 the Christian population of Bethlehem has dropped from over 18 thousand to 11 thousand people.
In Gaza, after Hamas came to power in 2006, Christians have fallen by about 3,200 units, from 5 thousand to less than 1800 in 2010. Only 15,400 Christians (2% of the population) live in Jerusalem, as reported in a study by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. They are 50% less than the 31 thousand registered residents in 1948, when Christians accounted for 20% of the population of the city.
The reporter says that if this exodus continues there will be no more Catholics in the Holy Land and that one day the Church of the Nativity could be turned into a museum. “If there are no more Christians in the Holy Land – he says – then there will no longer be Christians anywhere.”
Meanwhile, as religious worshipers descend on the Holy Land for Christmas celebrations, the Israeli military has reportedly ordered troops deployed to the Palestinian territories to facilitate safe passage for Christian pilgrims.
SOURCE
Storm over Pope's Thought for the Day as scores of listeners complain to the BBC
I think if I was a traditional Protestant, I would be a bit miffed too
Scores of listeners have complained to the BBC over the Pope's historic Christmas Eve message on Radio 4's religious slot Thought For The Day. The Corporation said it had already received 60 formal complaints following its decision to grant Benedict XVI such a prominent platform, and there were dozens of hostile comments on BBC internet sites.
During the three-minute broadcast on Friday morning, Benedict XVI prayed for the elderly and recalled his State visit to Britain in September 'with great fondness'. He focused on traditional Christian themes and made no reference to scandals that have recently engulfed the Vatican and its leadership.
No Pope has ever presented the BBC radio's religious slot before, and it was the first time the Pontiff had addressed a Christmas greeting directly to one of the countries he had visited during the year. The coup follows months of lobbying by BBC executives, including its Roman Catholic Director-General Mark Thompson.
But critics said Benedict XVI should not have been allowed to present his views unchallenged when many people questioned his role in controversies such as clerical child abuse.
Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society, said: 'I've got no problem with the message itself, but I think it's an extraordinarily bad choice for the BBC and I think it's actually a slap in the face for these hundreds of thousands of child-abuse victims.'
Comments posted on the BBC's Radio 4 blogsite echoed his criticisms. One read: 'I hope that the Pope's message will provide some comfort to the great many children throughout the world who were raped and abused by Catholic paedophile priests.'
Some messages supported the Pope's right to be heard.
A spokesman for the BBC said: 'As a religious slot, Thought For The Day has guest speakers from many faiths. 'Previous religious speakers have included the Chief Rabbi, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Westminster and representatives from other faiths.'
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham Bernard Longley told Radio 4's Today programme that it was the Pope's reception on his recent visit to Britain that had persuaded him to make the ground-breaking broadcast.
The Pope stirred more controversy in his traditional Christmas Day message from the Vatican by referring to the limits placed on Chinese Catholics by the state. China's 10million Catholics are split between followers of the Pope and the state-sponsored version of the church, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.
He said: 'May the birth of the Saviour strengthen the spirit of faith, patience and courage of the faithful of the Church in mainland China, that they may not lose heart through the limitations imposed on their freedom of religion and conscience but, persevering in fidelity to Christ and his Church, may keep alive the flame of hope.'
SOURCE
Killjoy British officials ban pantomine stars from throwing sweets to children
They are traditions that no proper pantomime should be without – the over-dramatic dame, the frantic cries of ‘It’s behind you’ and the hurling of sweets into the audience for excited children to grab. But council officials have now decided that throwing boiled sweets is a health-and-safety risk and have ordered amazed actors to lob marshmallows into the crowd instead.
The stars of a new production of Aladdin have also been forbidden from squirting water into the auditorium – and the pyrotechnics that usually herald the appearance of Aladdin’s genie have been barred as well.
Panto traditionalists believe the measures are the most stringent ever applied to a production, and the producer of the show has described the council’s attitude as idiotic and miserable.
The restrictions have been imposed by officers at Barrow Borough Council in Cumbria. The council says the rules are necessary to ensure no members of the audience are injured during the production of Aladdin And His Wonderful Lamp, which is playing at the town’s 500-seat Forum 28 venue.
Duggie Chapman, the show’s producer, said he was saddened by the excessive requirements. ‘Pantomime is the only really British theatre tradition we have left and these rules do bother me,’ he said. ‘They are idiotic. I guess it’s down to someone in a particular department making a job for themselves. It is a bit miserable.’
Mr Chapman is also producing a version of Aladdin in Bolton – where no such restrictions on panto fun have been imposed. He said: ‘In the Bolton production we can have enormous fun slopping water all over the audience and we do have some amazing pyrotechnics. But we can’t do any of that in Barrow because of the conditions the council has imposed. ‘When the genie comes in, we have to make do with some lighting tricks because we are not allowed the pyrotechnics.’ He added: ‘The ban on throwing water into the audience is particularly crazy because the kids love being splashed.’
The council’s rules were slammed by Christopher Biggins, the country’s most celebrated pantomime dame, who is starring in another production of Aladdin at the Grand Theatre in Wolverhampton. He revealed that in his production, too, actors had also been barred from throwing sweets. And he added: ‘These sorts of rules are idiotic and ludicrous.
‘I would love to throw boiled sweets like the old days and hit them right between the eyes. But we can’t so I have to make do with marshmallows and things like that. We have a lot of pyrotechnics in our show and the day they say I can’t have pyrotechnics is the day I retire.’
Nigel Ellacot, who is the dame in a production of Jack And The Beanstalk in Dartford and who runs the It’s Behind You pantomime website, said audiences liked some physical interaction with the cast, but he added: ‘We are living in the world of Claims Direct.’
Sandra Baines, manager of Forum 28 in Barrow, insisted the council was not over-reacting. She said: ‘The council has a responsibility to ensure everyone has a fantastic show in a safe environment.’
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 December, 2010
Merry Christmas....
I wanted to send some sort of Christmas greeting to my colleagues, but it is difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone. So I met with my lawyer yesterday, so acting on advice I wish to say the following :
Please accept with no obligation , implied or implicit , my best wishes for an environmentally conscious , socially responsible ,low stress , non addictive , gender neutral celebration of the summer solstice holiday practiced with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious / secular persuasions and / or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all .
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2011 , but not without due respect for the calendar of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that Australia is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wished .
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:
This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her / him or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. The wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Best Regards (without prejudice)
Name withheld (Privacy Act).
Christmas as a symbol of freedom
No wonder Leftists hate it. Note that South Korea is mainly a Buddhist and Confucian country, though there is a large Christian minority
South Korea says a giant Christmas tree near the North Korean border will stay lit up till January 8 - a move likely to anger Pyongyang since the date marks the birthday of its heir apparent. The communist North sees the tree topped with a glowing cross as a provocative propaganda symbol.
Cross-border tensions are high after the North's deadly artillery attack last month on a South Korean border island and military drills by the South in response.
The tree - a 29-metre metal tower strung with light bulbs - was lit up on Tuesday for the first time in seven years as marines stood guard against any cross-border attack on it. The tree, atop a military-controlled hill near the tense land border, was due to be switched off on December 26.
``However, we have decided to keep it until early January 8, in consideration of requests from religious groups," defence ministry spokesman Kim Min-Seok told a briefing. ``At first, we planned to keep the lighting on only briefly because of (military) burdens but we had second thoughts as it may send a message of peace to the North."
Another spokesman said the birthday of Kim Jong-Un - youngest son and eventual successor to leader Kim Jong-Il - did not influence the timing. He said it was just a coincidence.
The South switched off the tree under a 2004 deal to halt official-level cross-border propaganda. It also suspended loudspeaker broadcasts and a propaganda leaflet campaign using large helium balloons. The South partially resumed its government propaganda campaign following the March sinking of a South Korean warship and the bombardment of a border island.
Soon after last month's artillery attack, the military reportedly floated 400,000 leaflets across the border denouncing the North's regime. The South has also installed loudspeakers along the land border but has not yet switched them on. The North has threatened to open fire on the speakers if they are activated.
Private activist groups frequently float huge balloons across the heavily fortified frontier. These carry tens of thousands of leaflets denouncing the regime of Kim Jong-Il.
SOURCE
Politics doesn’t need the stamp of state approval
The BNP may be racist, but it should still have the right to decide who can join and what it stands for
Last Friday, British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin, the panto season’s very own neo-Nazi, stood on the steps of the High Court in London, posing for all he was worth like some hero of the English Revolution. ‘We have won a spectacular David and Goliath victory for freedom’, he declared.
Even the BNP’s dozen or so supporters would have to admit that Nick Griffin is an unlikely freedom fighter. What he and his party – something better grasped as a self-help group for the socially inadequate – know (or care) about liberty proper could be engraved on a pinhead. It is their anti-freedom credentials that are impressive: since its inglorious inception in 1982, the BNP has been committed to separating the ‘indigenous British’ from their dark-skinned cohabitants and packing off the non-whites ‘back to where they came from’: ‘repatriation’ as the BNP would put it. Racist in principle and authoritarian in practice, the BNP would be a threat to freedom if they had any kind of substantial base of support – which, of course, they don’t.
But thanks to the state-funded-and-endorsed Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Griffin and the BNP have been able to pose as the voice of liberty. It’s an incredible reversal. The BNP and its chief henchman Griffin come over like Thomas Paine while its persecutor, the official vehicle of tolerance that is the EHRC, appears like a parody of autarchy.
And the reason for this reversal? That’s simple: the EHRC is autocratic. For over 18 months, the commission has attempted to dictate to a political association which principles it can organise around and who should be allowed to join.
The legal pursuit of the BNP has been jawdroppingly illiberal. It was back in June 2009 that the EHRC decided that the BNP’s racist ‘indigenous peoples only’ membership criteria might not only be racist, but ‘illegal’ under the Race Relations Act. With prosecution in the offing, the BNP - wily old beast that it is - decided in a meeting in February this year to change its constitution to allow non-whites to sign up.
Unfortunately, this wasn’t enough for the EHRC. Realising that non-whites might still be put off joining the BNP because they would have to support ‘the integrity of the indigenous British’ and resist any form ‘of integration or assimilation’, the EHRC obtained a Central London County Court order demanding that the BNP make further alterations to its constitution. All the BNP had to do was stop being so discriminatory against non-indigenous peoples, not just in terms of membership criteria, but in principle, too.
The whole point of the BNP is its ‘Britain for the British’ opposition to so-called non-indigenous people. Take the new-fangled, multiculturalist-sounding racism out of the BNP and there’s nothing left: nothing ‘British’ and nothing ‘Nationalist’. Clearly reluctant to rebrand the BNP as simply ‘The Party’, Griffin resisted the court order, and last week, after months of expensive legal wrangling, the High Court finally let the BNP off the hook.
Unpalatable as it may seem to those of us who hate racism, the BNP - as an association of like-minded individuals - should be free to discriminate against those who are not of the opinion that ‘non-indigenous’ peoples should be sent back to where they came from. No one would expect a traditional political party to accept members who are fundamentally opposed to its view of how society ought to be. Just because the BNP’s outlook is racist and promotes discriminatory policies does not mean that the state should forcibly change that association’s principles.
Everyone should be free to associate with whoever they choose, on whatever basis – even if the views of those involved are offensive to the majority of society. Equally, in an open, democratic society people should be free to judge political parties for themselves rather than having the judgement of a court or a quango imposed instead. Only then will the ideas - racist or otherwise - be properly interrogated.
If freedom is not universal, it is not freedom. It becomes something else, something particular, something partial. That is, it becomes a privilege dished out by the state to those with views considered acceptable, and withheld from those with views considered unacceptable. That is the most conservative idea of all.
SOURCE
The greatest gift for all
Christmas is a time of traditions. If you have found time in the rush before Christmas to decorate a tree, you are sharing in a relatively new tradition. Although the Christmas tree has ancient roots, at the beginning of the 20th century only 1 in 5 American families put up a tree. It was 1920 before the Christmas tree became the hallmark of the season. Calvin Coolidge was the first President to light a national Christmas tree on the White House lawn.
Gifts are another shared custom. This tradition comes from the wise men or three kings who brought gifts to baby Jesus. When I was a kid, gifts were more modest than they are now, but even then people were complaining about the commercialization of Christmas. We have grown accustomed to the commercialization. Christmas sales are the backbone of many businesses. Gift giving causes us to remember others and to take time from our harried lives to give them thought.
The decorations and gifts of Christmas are one of our connections to a Christian culture that has held Western civilization together for 2,000 years.
In our culture the individual counts. This permits an individual person to put his or her foot down, to take a stand on principle, to become a reformer and to take on injustice.
This empowerment of the individual is unique to Western civilization. It has made the individual citizen equal in rights to all other citizens, protected from tyrannical government by the rule of law and free speech. These achievements are the products of centuries of struggle, but they all flow from the teaching that God so values the individual’s soul that he sent his son to die so we might live. By so elevating the individual, Christianity gave him a voice.
Formerly only those with power had a voice. But in Western civilization people with integrity have a voice. So do people with a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play. Reformers can reform, investors can invest, and entrepreneurs can create commercial enterprises, new products and new occupations.
The result was a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.
In recent decades we have begun losing sight of the historic achievement that empowered the individual. The religious, legal and political roots of this great achievement are no longer reverently taught in high schools, colleges and universities. The voices that reach us through the millennia and connect us to our culture are being silenced by "political correctness." Prayer has been driven from schools and Christian religious symbols from public life. Diversity is becoming the consuming value and is dismantling the culture.
There is plenty of room for cultural diversity in the world, but not within a single country. A Tower of Babel has no culture. A person cannot be a Christian one day, a pagan the next and a Muslim the day after. A hodgepodge of cultural and religious values provides no basis for law – except the raw power of the pre-Christian past.
All Americans have a huge stake in Christianity. Whether or not we are individually believers in Christ, we are beneficiaries of the moral doctrine that has curbed power and protected the weak. Power is the horse ridden by evil. In the 20th century the horse was ridden hard. One hundred million people were exterminated by National Socialists in Germany and by Soviet and Chinese communists simply because they were members of a race or class that had been demonized by intellectuals and political authority.
Power that is secularized and cut free of civilizing traditions is not limited by moral and religious scruples. V.I. Lenin made this clear when he defined the meaning of his dictatorship as "unlimited power, resting directly on force, not limited by anything."
Christianity’s emphasis on the worth of the individual makes such power as Lenin claimed unthinkable. Be we religious or be we not, our celebration of Christ’s birthday celebrates a religion that made us masters of our souls and of our political life on Earth. Such a religion as this is worth holding on to even by atheists.
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 December, 2010
DADT and Left-Wing Intellectual Bigotry
Last spring, after the Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had been disinvited to an Air Force prayer luncheon because of his support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I wrote a piece called “The Intolerance and Bigotry of Openly Gay Military Service.”
My warnings were ignored and even dismissed by many conservatives as overblown. But Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has confirmed my worst fears today by calling for the dismissal of Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos.
Amos’ crime? Like Perkins (who is himself a former Marine), Amos had the audacity to speak out in defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And, in Cohen’s warped view, this constitutes impermissible “bigotry,” or “one step short of being a bigot.”
“The Marines of today know that virtually the entire Republican Party stood up for bigotry,” Cohen writes. And “this is what concerns me about Amos. His views are on the record…. His subordinates know what he thinks of gays.”
Of course, Amos never said anything disparaging about gays per se. He simply fulfilled his constitutional duty, which is to give his best professional military advice and counsel to policymakers and the public. Cohen doesn’t want to admit it, but homosexual dynamics within small-scale military units are inherently problematical and disruptive. Amos had not choice but to point this out and to state the obvious.
But Cohen is absolutely right about one thing: There certainly is bigotry at work here: intellectual bigotry and intolerance from leftists like him who cannot countenance dissenting points of view. Indeed, I’m reminded of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s famous line: “Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.”
Cohen’s column, though, isn’t so much aimed at Gen. Amos as it is the next generation of Marine and military leaders. His column is a warning: If you dare to dissent from the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy on homosexuality, you will be branded a bigot and deemed unfit for military service. Traditional conservatives and religious believers need not apply. Keep your warped conservative views to yourself.
So it is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated Perkins’ own Family Research Council, a widely respected Washington, D.C. public-policy organization, a “hate group.” As Pat Buchanan explains in his column this morning:
"The world has turned upside down. What was criminal vice in the 1950s -- homosexuality and abortion -- is not only constitutionally protected, but a mark of social progress…
Only in secularist ideology, [however], is it an article of faith that all sexual relations are morally equal and that to declare homosexual acts immoral is bigotry…
Not until recent decades have many in America or the West argued that homosexuality is natural and normal. As late as 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Today, anyone who agrees with that original APA assessment is himself or herself said to be afflicted with a mental disorder: homophobia."
But as Buchanan observes, behind traditionalist beliefs about homosexuality, lie the primary sources of moral authority for traditionalist America: the Old and New Testaments, Christian doctrine, natural law. Thomas Jefferson believed homosexuality should be treated with the same severity as rape.
The problems with openly gay service are exacerbated by the nature of military life, which is hierarchical, bureaucratic, and government-run and –administered. Indeed, as J.E. Dyer has observed at Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog:
"Gays can already serve in the U.S. military; repealing DADT isn’t about allowing them to [serve]. It’s about endorsing their sexual orientation in military operations and culture.
The course of hands-off neutrality is not an option in these realms; their unique character is to require affirmative policy. Civilians should start by understanding this.
The quiescent tolerance they think of in relation to their own lives must translate, in the military, into endorsement and administration of an explicit position."
One question that will have to be answered, Dyer notes, is
whether eligibility for promotion or command will be contingent on explicit support for homosexuality. The issue will be forced by lawsuit if by no other means.
A 20-year veteran with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan may not be comfortable, for example, endorsing “Gay Pride Month” or participating in scheduled military celebrations of it. He may be charged by a gay subordinate with creating a hostile work environment or ordered by a senior officer to get onboard with gay-pride celebrations.
Perhaps his chain of command would back him up and force the issue to a higher level. The serious question remains: what does this have to do with warfighting readiness?
As Perkins himself explained last spring, after he had been disinvited to the Air Force prayer luncheon:
"Unfortunately, this is just a precursor of things to come in a post-“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military. This legislation would more than open the armed forces to homosexuals; it would lead to a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who disapproves of homosexuality…"
Richard Cohen and the liberal-left establishment, of course, don’t disagree. Political conservatives and religious believers, they decree, better learn to shut up and censor themselves if they want to serve in our brave new military.
But Cohen and the Left needn’t worry: I’m sure they’ll be plenty of reeducation and sensitivity training to ensure that our military personnel think the right and appropriate thoughts. The “gay rights” advocates will make sure of that.
SOURCE
The Year of Right-Wing Terrorists?
There is some very dangerous -- as in red-hot incendiary -- hatred going on, and it's being advanced by the national news media directly.
The panel of judges for the Media Research Center's Best Notable Quotables of 2010 found that theme time and time again while selecting the year's worst reporting and punditry.
PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley won "The Poison Tea Pot Award for Smearing the Anti-Obama Rabble." On May 25, he was interviewing author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a bold critic of radical Muslims -- at the risk of a fatwa against her own life since 2004. Ali said jihadists "got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter."
Smiley shot back: "But Christians do that every single day in this country."
Jaws dropped. Ali couldn't believe her ears: "Do they blow people up every day?"
Read very carefully Smiley's response: "Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools. That's what Columbine is -- I could do this all day long."
Smiley wasn't done. Next, he smeared the tea party movement, repeating falsehoods as fact: "Here are folk in the tea party, for example, every day who are being recently arrested for making threats against elected officials, for calling people 'nigger' as they walk into Capitol Hill, for spitting on people."
What, oh, what is the U.S. Congress doing underwriting this radical leftist dishonesty with taxpayer money?
Liberals like Smiley cravenly plead that Islam is no more violent than any other faith. Then they blame Christians for violently persecuting Muslims. When controversy erupted this fall over a mega-mosque proposal at ground zero, Christian conservatives were put in the cross hairs. The dreadful ABC host Christiane Amanpour won "The Ground Zeroes Award for Impugning Americans as Islamophobic."
In an Oct. 3 "This Week" special on Islam, Amanpour opened fire on Gary Bauer in that snooty British accent of hers: "As you know, a series of politicians have used the Islamic center, have used sort of Islamophobia and scare tactics in their campaigns. ... My question is: Do you take any -- after some of the loaded things that have been said, and we can play you any number of tapes, Mr. Bauer -- do you take any responsibility at all for, for instance, what happened in Murfreesboro (Tenn., where a mosque site was vandalized)?"
Bauer, like Ali, was stunned. "Are you serious? Absolutely not. I have never encouraged violence. I condemn violence." But Amanpour would have none of it. "You don't think the rhetoric lays the groundwork for others?"
When conservatives warn America of the potential threat of Islamic radicalism, they're "rhetorically laying the groundwork" for violence. When Islamic radicals actually plot -- and undertake -- violence, America is to be blamed for its failure to be open-minded enough. Such is the worldview of our increasingly radicalized "news" media.
If conservatives are going to be called terrorists, the megaphone-in-chief for that clarion call must be the rabid Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. He won the "Obama's Orderlies Award for Prepping America for ObamaCare" with a Jan. 5 screed about our allegedly murderous private health care system: "What would you do, sir, if terrorists were killing 45,000 people every year in this country? Well, the current health care system, the insurance companies and those who support them are doing just that. ... Because they die individually of disease and not disaster, (radio host) Neal Boortz and those who ape him in office and out approve their deaths, all 45,000 of them -- a year -- in America. Remind me again, who are the terrorists?"
Boortz wasn't alone as some kind of talk-radio terrorist in Olbermann's cockeyed view. Olbermann also took the "Crush Rush Award for Loathing Limbaugh" for his rant on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. He wouldn't blame the actual (executed) bomber, Timothy McVeigh. He was still painting with liberal smears from the Clinton years: "What was the more likely cause of the Oklahoma City bombing: talk radio or Bill Clinton and Janet Reno's hands-on management of Waco? ... Obviously, the answer is talk radio. Specifically Rush Limbaugh's hate radio. ... Frankly, Rush, you have that blood on your hands now, and you have had it for 15 years."
You can dismiss these as the ludicrous utterances of Smiley, Amanpour and Olbermann. But what does it say that they are headliners for PBS, ABC and NBC? It is those networks, not just their reporters, that are advancing a very dangerous form of hatred on the airwaves.
SOURCE
I Confess, Too
I must confess. Rhetorically, that is. I don't want to give European prosecutors any ideas should I travel abroad!
Perhaps you should confess, too. If you have ever publicly expressed an opinion that somebody, somewhere, might deem offensive, chances are you may have violated any one or number of the "hate speech" laws that have proliferated throughout Europe.
The language of some of these laws is sweeping. These perhaps once, well-intentioned efforts to prevent discrimination now no longer merely threaten to eviscerate free speech rights; they are eviscerating them. Europeans must speak up now, while they still can and remove these insidious laws from the books once and for all.
On December 3, 2010, Danish MP, Jesper Langballe, of the Danish People's Party offered a "confession" of his own. Langballe was being prosecuted under Danish penal code Article 266b for a statement he made in support of Lars Hedegaard and in regard to the important issues of honor killings and sexual abuse in some Muslim families. (Hedegaard himself faces prosecution under the same code.)
According to his statement, since truth would not be allowed as a defense and to avoid dignifying the process by participating in what he rightly called a "circus," Langballe pleaded guilty to the charges. He was sentenced to a fine or ten days in jail.
While I can appreciate Mr. Langballe's reasons for confessing, it still makes me shudder to think that, in a Western democracy, he was being prosecuted in the first place. Aside from the most obvious point -that I think his prosecution is a human rights violation- I am most disappointed that the Danes allowed it to proceed even as some Danish officials have called for rolling back these "hate crimes." Back in August, the Legal Project reported on efforts that were afoot to change Denmark's laws on offensive speech because of the threat they posed to free expression. But any progress has been too slow to save Langballe, and Hedegaard's trial is set to proceed in January.
Let the experience of the Danes be a warning to us before we consider adopting "hate speech" provisions here. Laws ostensibly directed toward ending one type of wrong can lead to something even worse, that once on the books, becomes very difficult to dislodge.
SOURCE
Australia's charming Muslims again
THREE worshippers from inner-city mosques were confirmed as Melbourne's second Islamic terrorism cell when a Supreme Court jury convicted them of conspiring to plan a terrorist attack. Two other men, including one who warned that an attack in Australia would be "a catastrophe", were found not guilty.
Their target was the Holsworthy army barracks in Sydney's south-west. Their aim was to enter the barracks armed with military weapons and kill 500 personnel before they were killed or ran out of ammunition.
But there was no evidence that the three found guilty - Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, 34, Saney Edow Aweys, 27, of Carlton, and Nayef El Sayed, 26, of Glenroy - had weapons when they were arrested on August 4 last year.
Federal police monitored their conversations in Somali, Arabic and English for almost a year as they sought a fatwa, or religious ruling, on the permissibility under Islam of launching an attack on the military in Australia. A Somali sheikh suggested it would do more harm than good for Australian Muslims.
The convictions end a 15-week trial and come after the jury of eight men and four women deliberated for more than 47 hours.
The verdicts drew no immediate reaction from the men. But Fattal, who appeared to be praying before the verdicts were delivered, called out to the jurors as they were dismissed: "I respect you. Islam is a true religion. Thank you very much."
The two found not guilty were Abdirahman Ahmed, 26, of Preston, and Yacqub Khayre, 23, of Meadow Heights. Both were embraced by the three guilty men before they left the dock.
When asked about the convictions of his co-accused, Mr Ahmed said: "It's unfortunate but this is God's will. I just want to tell them to be patient. They'll get out one day." He planned to spend the rest of the day at home. "See my daughters. Been a long time."
The federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, said the investigation into the group, code-named Operation Neath, was an example of state and federal police and intelligence agencies co-operating.
The court heard that the group's motivation was anger at the earlier, and what they regarded as wrongful, jailing of a group of seven Muslim men on terrorism charges. Those convictions resulted in sentences ranging from four years' jail to 15 years' jail. The men convicted yesterday were also angry at the deployment of Australian military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Fattal, Aweys and El Sayed will be sentenced next year. A pre-sentencing mention hearing is set for January 24.
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 December, 2010
Protesters picket Charleston Ball commemorating anniversary of South Carolina's secession from the U.S.
Abe Lincoln himself said that the war was NOT about slavery. It was about "The Union" See here
The memory of the Civil War collided with modern-day civil rights this week as protesters targeted the Charleston Ball commemorating the state of South Carolina's decision to break away from the United States of America 150 years ago.
As protesters from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) gathered, a predominantly white group of men in tuxedos and women in long-flowing dresses and gloves stopped to watch and take pictures before going into the Charleston auditorium where the ball was taking place.
The South Carolina men who voted 169-0 to leave the United States 150 years ago set in motion a chain of events that reverberate today.
The decision led to a war that killed nearly two per cent of the nation's population - more than 600,000 people. That is roughly the same number that have died in all the other wars America has fought in from the Revolution, to both World Wars and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. It would be the equivalent of six million Americans dying today.
NAACP leaders said it made no sense to hold a gala to honour men who committed treason against their own nation for the sake of a system that kept black men and women in bondage as slaves. They compared Confederate leaders to terrorists and Nazi soldiers.
'The Germans had a heritage too. Why does South Carolina and America think this is the right thing to do?' said Lonnie Randolph, president of the South Carolina branch of the NAACP.
But organisers of the ball said it had nothing to do with celebrating slavery. Instead, they said the $100-a-person private event was a fundraiser to honor the Southern men who were willing to sacrifice their lives for their homes and their vision of states' rights. 'We honour our ancestors for their bravery and tenacity protecting their homes from invasion,' said Michael Givens, Commander in Chief for the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
The group claims its central purpose is to preserve the history and legacy of the South's 'citizen-soldiers.'
The ball's organisers do not condone or endorse slavery in any way, said Randy Burbage, vice president of the Confederate Heritage Trust, which put on the event. 'It's hard for us to judge the situation that existed then by today's standards. 'I think slavery is an abomination. But it's a part of history, legal at the time. I don't agree with it, but it was,' Burbage said.
Burbage said the NAACP doesn't help its cause with inflammatory rhetoric. 'Any group that wants to call our ancestors terrorists and compare them to Nazi soldiers, we will not negotiate with. 'We didn't need to get their permission to put this thing on, or will we ever seek their permission. We do our thing, they'll do their thing,' Burbage said.
As the Charleston event kicks off more than four years of 150th anniversary Civil War commemorations, it also frames persisting questions. Chiefly, how does a nation remember the time when 11 of its states tried unsuccessfully to break away?
The Secession Ball falls on one end of the spectrum. Organisers said the proceeds from the night of dancing and a play recreating the three-day secession meeting will help the state archives preserve Confederate-era documents.
On the other end of the spectrum are civil rights organisations that see no reason to celebrate a would-be nation like the Confederacy, which in its constitution prohibited its legislature from outlawing slavery.
The state NAACP doesn't plan to protest every 150th anniversary event marking milestones of the Civil War. Leaders said they decided to protest Monday's ball because of the way it was advertised. 'It's disgusting and unbelievable they would have a gala celebration to honor a day that ended up causing so much suffering,' said Dot Scott, president of the Charleston Branch of the NAACP.
On the eve of the Civil War, Census data ranked South Carolina third in wealth among the states. In 2008, its per capita income was 45th in the nation. Not all South Carolinians supported secession. About 57 percent of the state's 703,000 residents in 1860 were slaves. A few white opponents spoke out, including lawyer and politician James Petigru, whose famous quote still echoes through his home state today: 'South Carolina is too small to be a Republic, and too large to be an insane asylum.'
Givens said slavery was likely coming to an end no matter what happened in what he called 'the War Between the States.' 'Everybody was getting rid of slavery around that time,' Givens said. 'The one good thing that we can say that came out of that war is the abolition of slavery.'
SOURCE
Christian British health worker could be fired for handing out books on risks of abortion
A Christian health worker is facing the sack for giving a colleague a booklet about the potential dangers of abortion. Margaret Forrester was ‘bullied’ and ‘treated like a criminal’ after she handed the pro-life leaflet to a family planning worker at an NHS centre.
Miss Forrester, 39, said she offered the booklet during a private conversation, because she felt the NHS did not give enough information about the potential risks. It told of the physical and psychological problems suffered by five women after terminating pregnancies. But her NHS employers have launched disciplinary action against her and she fears she could lose her job. Miss Forrester, a Roman Catholic, has been accused of ‘distributing materials some people may find offensive’.
It is the latest example of Christians facing disciplinary action for expressing religious views.
Miss Forrester attended an internal disciplinary hearing yesterday, but will not be told the outcome until January, meaning she faces Christmas without knowing whether she will lose her job. She said: ‘My pro-life views do come from my Christian belief, but a lot of people have a religion. It’s not a criminal offence. ‘A religious opinion is expressed in the booklet, so therefore it’s not entirely neutral, but I believe women considering abortion should have a full range of information.’
Miss Forrester has worked for the NHS for six years and is a mental health worker at the Central North West London Mental Health Trust, in Camden, North London. In early November she gave two copies of the booklet called Forsaken – Women From Taunton Talk About Abortion to a female colleague with whom she had been discussing the information offered to patients.
It features five women who have experienced what it describes as ‘post-abortion syndrome’, including depression, relationship issues, suicidal feelings and fertility problems.
Miss Forrester said there was no sign her colleague was offended by the £4 charity leaflet, or by their conversation. But a few days later her manager told her she was being sent home on ‘special leave with full pay’. She was ordered not to see any patients and to stay away from any NHS site while the trust investigated.
Miss Forrester was then told she had not been suspended and to return to work but claimed she was not allowed to do her normal job. Instead she was put on other duties, which she found ‘bullying and offensive’, adding: ‘I felt physically sickened by their bullying.’ She was eventually signed off on sick leave and has not been back to the health centre since.
After her hearing, Miss Forrester said: ‘There is an authoritarian management at work here, which is encroaching on very basic freedoms. It is a kangaroo court.’
NHS advice says ‘repeated abortions’ can cause damage to the womb, which can result in fertility problems. Its website says research suggests abortion does not lead to psychological problems, ‘however, some women can feel sad or guilty after an abortion, and post-abortion counselling services are widely available’.
Miss Forrester’s case is backed by the Christian Legal Centre, whose director Andrea Minichiello Williams said: ‘The level of intolerance in the public sphere, particularly in public sector employment, is deeply worrying and suggests we are living in a society that is less and less free.’
Earlier this year, nurse Shirley Chaplin, 54, lost a tribunal over her right to wear a crucifix at work.
Lillian Ladele, a registrar with Islington Council in North London, lost a case at the Appeal Court in which she argued she was entitled to refuse to conduct gay civil partnership ceremonies because they were against her beliefs. She has since left her job.
A spokesman from the NHS trust said she could not comment on internal disciplinary cases.
SOURCE
'Christmas is evil': Muslim group launches poster campaign against festive period
Fanatics from a banned Islamic hate group have launched a nationwide poster campaign denouncing Christmas as evil. Organisers plan to put up thousands of placards around the UK claiming the season of goodwill is responsible for rape, teenage pregnancies, abortion, promiscuity, crime and paedophilia. They hope the campaign will help 'destroy Christmas' in this country and lead to Britons converting to Islam instead.
Labour MP and anti racist campaigner Jim Fitzpatrick branded the posters 'extremely offensive' and demanded they were immediately ripped down. The placards, which have already appeared in parts of London, feature an apparently festive scene with an image of the Star of Bethlehem over a Christmas tree.
But under a banner announcing 'the evils of Christmas' it features a message mocking the song the 12 Days of Christmas. It reads: 'On the first day of Christmas my true love gave to me an STD (sexually transmitted disease). 'On the second day debt, on the third rape, the fourth teenage pregnancies and then there was abortion.'
According to the posters, Christmas is also to responsible for paganism, domestic violence, homelessness, vandalism, alcohol and drugs. Another offence of Christmas, it proclaims, is 'claiming God has a son'.
The bottom of the poster declares: 'In Islam we are protected from all of these evils. We have marriage, family, honour, dignity, security, rights for man, woman and child.'
The campaign's organiser is 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 militant group Islam4UK.
Former Home Secretary Alan Johnson banned Islam4UK group earlier this year, making it a criminal offence to be a member, after it threatened to protest at Wootton Bassett, the town where Britain honours its war dead.
Mr Rumaysah told the Mail that he was unconcerned about offending Christians. He 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.'
Mr Rumaysah, who said his campaign was not linked to any group, boasted that the posters would be put up in cities around the country, including London, Birmingham and Cardiff.
The campaign was highlighted by volunteers from a charity which distributes food and presents to pensioners and the lonely at Christmas. Sister Christine Frost, founder of the East London Neighbours in Poplar charity, said: 'The more posters I saw, the more angry I got. 'Someone is stirring hatred which leaves the road open to revenge attacks or petrol bombs through letter-boxes.
'I told the Mayor we are all scared. 'If we said such things about Muslims, we'd all be hanging from lamp-posts. 'The posters appear to be professionally printed'.
Poplar and Limehouse MP Mr Fitzpatrick said: 'These posters are extremely offensive and have upset a lot of people - that's why we jumped on it and asked the council to remove them. 'Sister Christine is rooted in the community and doesn't take offence lightly. 'But these hate posters really upset her. Christmas is close to her belief.'
A Met Police spokesman said they had received complaints and were investigating.
Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman said the posters had 'upset and antagonised many residents'. He added: 'The messages on these posters are offensive and do not reflect the views of the Council or the vast majority of residents.'
SOURCE
Hope for Every Woman
Mike Adams
Last Saturday night, just as I was leaving the house to dine with a couple of friends, I received an interesting phone call from California. It was Crissy Moran, a lovely girl who, in 2006, gave her life back to Jesus Christ. Before that, she was in the Adult Entertainment Industry. Those who are interested can read her testimony online or listen to her interview on the Drew Marshall Show by clicking on this link.
How many more times do we need to hear such stories before we realize that fathers are indispensible in the lives of young women? One does not have to look at the lives of porn stars to see the common denominator. The same problem is invariably present in the lives of strippers and women who, regardless of profession, are highly promiscuous. That common problem is a father who simply was not there for his daughter when she needed him most.
In the case of Crissy Moran, we hear testimony about a father who made serious mistakes and helped inject confusion into the life of a girl just as she was becoming a woman. But sometimes those mistakes are not so clear or so obvious. Many men simply emotionally detach from their daughters around the time they develop into young women. They fear that any display of touching or affection may seem inappropriate after she begins to develop physically. And that is devastating to them. Men should never stop hugging their daughters any more than they should stop loving them.
Added to the problems men bring upon themselves is a court-backed war on fathers. Men who would like to spend time with their daughters and want to be there for them are often left for no good reason. No fault divorce laws make divorce easy. But when it comes to custody issues men are always presumed to be at fault. The “no fault” part only applies to the woman.
The increasing alienation of daughters from their fathers comes at a singularly inopportune time in American history. Ever since Al Gore invented the internet it has become easier for young girls to look for love in all the wrong places. The threats come not just from individual predators but also from a well-organized adult entertainment industry. It is an Evil Empire that attracts young women with the prospect of attention and the allure of fast easy money. But the money never ends up being easy in the end.
It took more than just a series of bad men to make the life of Crissy Moran spiral out of control. It took some very bad decisions on her behalf. But once things began to get exponentially worse for her, there was only one Way for her to be saved.
Just two days after she told God she hated Him – and long after she decided she wanted to kill herself – the Lord put a good man in her life. She met him on the set of a TV show he and her (now former) boyfriend were filming. Later, when they were at a bar, this good man told her he knew that she made adult films for a living. He also talked with her about Hope. Before the end of the evening, he took her outside to pray with her. She then decided to come back to the Lord. And, of course, she knew she had to leave the industry.
Crissy is a sweet soul – she sounded like a shy little girl when she called me on the phone. And, of course, she has been dealing with the backlash of leaving the industry. She now works with a group called Treasures and helps hand out Bibles to girls currently in the industry.
Her website, which was started around 2000, was making tens of thousands of dollars a month. When she left that life to start a new one in 2006, she cut all ties - that includes not taking any money from her website. At its peak, her portion of the sales was around $13,000 per month.
Unfortunately, the site has continued to run without her as she had signed a contract through 2009. Even more unfortunately, the site is still up and Crissy, being a Christian, does not want to give anyone the wrong idea that she is still supporting this activity. Lawyers have written Cease and Desist letters before but did not follow up and the site continues to run and make money without her permission.
I sit here at my computer writing this column on Crissy Moran’s 35th birthday. There are two things I wish for her on this special day. The first is that some concerned Christian will step up and take her case until the aforementioned site is shut down.
My second wish is that men everywhere will pledge this day to give up pornography and rededicate their time and energy to their daughters. Of course, not all men who watch pornography have daughters. But every woman they watch has a Father who is watching 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.
***************************
22 December, 2010
An anti-business bigot goes too far
British PM David Cameron strips Vince Cable of powers over Rupert Murdoch 'war'
A HUMILIATED Vince Cable was left clinging to his Cabinet position last night after David Cameron and Nick Clegg saved his career for the sake of the coalition.
The Business Secretary was deeply damaged after it emerged he had boasted to undercover reporters that he was waging a war against Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, the parent company of The Times and The Australian.
But even while Dr Cable survived in the Cabinet, albeit stripped of his role overseeing media policy, questions remained about his judgment and impartiality.
Bernard Jenkin, the Tory chairman of the Public Administration Committee, suggested that Dr Cable may not be suitable for the role: "The comments underline what many of us feel is a similar campaign against the City and the banks which is equally prejudicial and not in the public interest.
"If this is driven by the same kind of prejudice, it is not clear that the national interest is being served."
John Whittingdale, the Tory chairman of the Culture Select Committee, said: "If Vince Cable was a typical member of the coalition, he would not still be in office. He is meant to take decisions in competition policy free from political calculation, but his comments make it plain this was not the case."
Privately, some Tory ministers also suggested that the Business Secretary's comments were "resigning territory".
On a dramatic afternoon in Westminster, it emerged in a leak to Robert Peston, the BBC business editor, that Dr Cable had told undercover reporters he would seek to block Mr Murdoch's attempt to take a majority stake in BSkyB for political reasons, in apparent breach of his legal obligation to act impartially.
"I have declared war on Mr Murdoch, I think I'll win. I didn't politicise it because it is a legal situation," he said. "His whole empire is now under attack."
Within hours, David Cameron and Nick Clegg punished the Business Secretary for suggesting that he was prepared to compromise his impartiality in judging an pounds 8 billion takeover. He was stripped of responsibility for policy decisions relating to the media, broadcasting, digital and telecoms sectors.
Summoning Dr Cable, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister gave him a double rebuke, later issuing a statement calling the comments "totally unacceptable and inappropriate". However, the decision to keep him in place as Business Secretary prompted accusations that they were putting politics before good government.
Dr Cable is popular and trusted by Lib Dem activists, and his departure would have caused angst among party members, even though Downing Street aides did not dispute the affair raised questions over his judgment.
Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, called for Dr Cable to be dismissed, saying that he appeared to have breached the ministerial code on objectivity in decision-making: "David Cameron has made this decision not because it is good for the country but because he is worried about the impact on his coalition of Vince Cable going."
Details of Dr Cable's intervention emerged after Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg had spent 90 minutes at a joint No 10 press conference to fend off questions about Dr Cable's claims that he would quit the Government if he were "pushed too far". News Corp said it was "shocked and dismayed by reports of Mr Cable's comments. They raise serious questions about fairness and due process."
SOURCE
Women can't have it all: Female academic says those with top jobs only end up with 'nominal families'
Some women might want it all. But a report by a leading academic claims they never will. Those who try to combine high-powered jobs with having children really only end up with ‘nominal families’ with whom they spend little time.
Dr Catherine Hakim concludes that the battle for sexual equality is over and any pay gap is down to women’s lifestyle choices. She added that there was no popular support for ‘social engineering’ of the kind used by Labour to try to push mothers into work and persuade fathers to spend more time looking after children.
Her report calls on ministers to drop policies pushing for flexible working hours, more time off for fathers, and more places for women on company boards. It comes after the publication of figures that show there is no longer a pay gap acting to the disadvantage of women among people under the age of 30. After 30, women gradually earn less than men. The age at which pay rates diverge between the sexes is the same at which most women start to have families.
Dr Hakim, a senior research fellow at the London School of Economics, said: ‘In Britain half of all women in senior positions are child-free, and a lot more of them have nominal families with a single child and they subcontract out the work of caring for them to other women.’
Her report for centre-right think tank the Centre for Policy Studies will say equal opportunities policies first introduced in the 1970s have now achieved their aims.
Dr Hakim’s paper says the pay gap has not disappeared because women have chosen the jobs and careers they want rather than those that feminists – and politicians sympathetic to feminist arguments – believe they should have. She criticises the widely-held assumption that women want to be financially independent from men and hold the same ambitions and career aims.
Her report also criticises the notion that ‘family-friendly policies’ help businesses achieve profitability. She says there is no difference between men and women managers, and that success in business for either sex depends on commitment to work and the willingness to put in long hours.
SOURCE
More disgusting bureaucracy
Two Men Fined After Rescuing Deer From Icy River. Officials didn't like being shown up for the pansies that they are
To many people, Jim Hart and Khalil Abusakran are heroes. When the two men from Maryland, saw a deer stranded in the icy waters of the Patapsco River, they did what few others would dare. With an inflatable boat, the duo ventured out and rescued the animal before it perished in the frozen stream. But, after they and the deer returned to shore, it wasn't a hero's reception that awaited them -- instead, the two men were slapped with fines for not having life-jackets aboard their vessel.
Last week, 911 operators began receiving reports of a deer stranded in the middle of an icy river, some 50 feet from shore. A fire crew and Natural Resources officers were dispatched to the scene, but it wasn't immediately clear what the best mode of operation would be used to rescue the rapidly fading animal. Officials worried that the river's current might have been strong enough to jeopardize their efforts.
Meanwhile, motorists and spectators began gathering at the scene, though no one appeared to be offering any real help. A few people were simply lobbing sticks and rocks towards the animal in hopes of freeing it, but it proved not to be enough. That's when Jim Hart drove by and noticed the commotion. "I saw something moving," he said. "I saw them trying to break the ice."
Khalil Abusakran, who was also passing by the area, decided to stop, too -- and he just so happened to have a rubber boat in his truck. Perhaps realizing that time was of the essence to save the deer, and frustrated with the pace of rescue crews to solve the matter, Jim and Khalil teamed up and stepped in to do their part.
Natural Resources Police Sgt. Brian Albert explains, to The Baltimore Sun: "The Fire Department was kind of game-planning what they would do. With Natural Resources Police, we will attempt, but we are not going to risk a human life for a deer life, as cruel as that may sound. ... I'm as sympathetic as the next person on that deer being in the water, but when you weigh the risk to the reward, I would probably decide not to try to rescue that deer.
Undaunted, even after they were advised by officers that they shouldn't venture into the river without life-vests, Jim and Khalil paddled out to free the deer from the patch of ice it was stuck in. With shovels and oars, the two men managed to loosen the ice, freeing the animal from certain death and allowing it to escape back into the woods. That's when Khalil realized more than one life was saved that afternoon -- the deer appeared to be pregnant.
But, upon returning to shore having completed their brave mission, Jim and Khalil got more than a pat on the back from authorities. Natural Resources officers promptly served each with $90 fines for not having personal flotation devices on board their boat.
It may seem strange that the duo received a punishment for the helping hand they lent the deer, but for Sgt. Alberts, they got off easy. "They could have been arrested and taken before a commissioner," he said. "Our officer erred on the side of the least invasive action that he could take at the time."
According to The Baltimore Sun, several individuals have volunteered to pay the fines and have the matter be finished -- but the pair plan to fight the charge in court.
SOURCE
Playing games in dark too dangerous, British Court of Appeal tells scouts
Children's groups have been warned not to play games in the dark after the Court of Appeal upheld a compensation award to a scout injured during night activities.
In ruling that playing ball games at night created an unacceptable risk to youngsters, the court upheld a £7,000 compensation payout to a former scout, who was injured during a game called Objects in the Dark.
The Scouts Association had urged the court to overturn the award, arguing it would make it harder to draw youngsters away from computer screens and televisions. But Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Ward, dismissed their appeal.
They ruled that Mark Barnes, of Castle Bromwich, West Mids, had been a victim of negligence and that playing the game in the dark had created an unacceptable risk.
Despite expressing "instinctive sympathy" towards the Scout Association, Lord Justice Ward said that "scouting would not lose much of its value" if such games were played with the lights on.
In a dissenting ruling, Lord Justice Jackson found that it was not the function of the law "to eliminate every iota of risk or to stamp out socially desirable activities".
At an earlier hearing, the court was told that Mr Barnes, now 22, had damaged his shoulder during the game at the 237th troop's hall in Castle Bromwich, in 2001. The activity involved running around a pile of wooden blocks in the middle of a room then, when the lights were switched off leaving only a residual glow from emergency exits, rushing into the centre to pick up a block.
The scout left without holding a block would be out. The activity was a variation of the Scout Association Handbook game “Grab”, which followed the same rules but with lights on. This was done to “spice” up the activity, the court heard.
Mr Barnes, then 13 and captain of the county rugby team and described as a "big lad", had damaged his shoulder when he slid into a bench. An MRI scan in 2007 disclosed a "permanent impaction injury", which meant he would always suffer pain when the shoulder was under stress. Despite being able to continue playing rugby, the transport coordinator was awarded £7,322 in January.
The Scout Association, which had criticised the payout as a damaging example of the "nanny state", was ordered to pay costs and was refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. A spokesman said: "The safety of our members is our top priority and we will be considering the judgment in detail."
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 December, 2010
What we can learn from Victorian 'hypocrisy'
Charles Moore Reviews the British TV programme 'Sinful Sex and the Demon Drink' (BBC2)
It is strange that the editor of Private Eye should have become one of the most morally subtle presenters on television, but true. Ian Hislop is not one of those boring people who, as they get older, go from one extreme to the other. He has not suddenly converted from a drunken, scoffing, dissolute youth to a starchy middle-aged puritanism. He remains satirical and funny. But he is clearly interested in the moral impulse in society, and does not dismiss it as mere hypocrisy.
Hislop's approach was particularly valuable in this, the last of his series of three programmes, The Age of the Do-Gooders, because it is in relation to sex and drink that we get our easiest laughs at the expense of the Victorians. What humbugs they all were, we say complacently. Boldly, and in the spirit of genuine inquiry so often absent from television history, Hislop decided to take them seriously.
The famous test case is W E Gladstone, the dominant statesman of the 19th century, and an enthusiastic rescuer of prostitutes. Walking home from Parliament late at night, he would engage whores in conversation, sometimes even giving them a bed for the night, hearing their stories, hoping, with the help of the Scriptures, to win them for a better life.
You have only to look at pictures of Gladstone, with his masterful countenance and flashing eye, to see that he was a man with a strong sex drive. Psychologists could draw a very obvious conclusion from his passion for cutting down trees. He admitted in his own diary that his thoughts about Marian Summerhayes, a beautiful courtesan to whom he once declaimed Tennyson's The Princess for four-and-a-half hours, ''require to be limited and purged''. He seems to have scourged himself with a whip when temptation proved particularly strong.
To the modern mind, all this damns Gladstone. He was clearly, as we charmlessly say, ''getting off on'' prostitutes, and therefore no better than a dirty old man. Certainly if any prime minister today were to be caught doing what Gladstone did, he would be hounded out by a self-righteous media who would not listen to his excuses.
But Hislop was not inclined to condemn him. He interviewed the director of a Christian charity called Trust which helps prostitutes in south London. She praised Gladstone, and an age in which he could act freely to try to do good. Nowadays, she said, ''Health and safety and all that kind of stuff get in the way." (And it should be noted, in passing, that Gladstone helped materially as well as spiritually. He gave £80,000 – about £4 million today – to help build homes in which prostitutes could stay and learn an honest trade.)
I feel that the Gladstone example applies in other spheres. Take our current obsession with paedophilia. The fact is that a significant number of good teachers have paedophilic tendencies. If they commit no wrong acts, this should not be seen as a problem. Their urges towards children, if they control them, may make them more interested in their pupils' welfare than the rest of us would be. If we want the best for our children we should not be intolerant of the Gladstone equivalents – those who sublimate their dangerous desires to good effect.
In relation to drink, too, Hislop had the courage to listen to the unfashionable position. As someone who opened a bottle of wine before sitting down to watch his programme, I am not on the side of Joseph Livesey, the founder of the temperance movement, who invented The Pledge of teetotalism. Nor, one suspects, is Hislop. But people like Livesey were right to see drunkenness as the greatest self-inflicted slavery and sobriety as a surest way to the emancipation of the poor. To anyone visiting a British town centre on a Saturday night, it is obvious that our culture has not mastered the problem. Indeed, it has made it worse, since women are now encouraged to join in the once male-only madness.
The greatest fault of the do-gooders is that they tended – and their successors still tend – to elide what is right with what should be the law. You have only to look at the drugs trade, which has flourished for 50 years in conditions of complete illegality, to see how a ban can make social evils even greater.
Besides, it is illogical for puritans, who rightly put such store by the exercise of the conscience, to try to compel when they cannot persuade. The Pledge itself was a classic ''Big Society'' phenomenon – an action that gave people dignity by helping them choose what would help them. Such a thing cannot be imposed. The modern challenge, for libertarians and do-gooders alike, is to work for a society which is both free and disciplined. It is babyish to see the two qualities as automatically opposed.
I began by saying that Hislop displayed moral subtlety in these programmes. This was most apparent in his treatment of the Christian motives of almost all his subjects. He made them clear, without bashing the point. From their Christianity came a deep belief in the goodness and the sinfulness of every human being, and the importance of the victory of the one over the other. Their faith also made them believe in change, both in human society and in the human heart. What Hislop was saying, gently, is that we feel the lack of their faith today.
SOURCE
Why it's natural for girls to play with dolls and boys to love guns
Girls play with dolls because they’re programmed to, not because of any sexual stereotyping, new research suggests.
Young chimps in the wild play play boy and girl games, much like their human counterparts, scientists found. Although both male and female chimpanzees play with sticks, girl chimps treat sticks like dolls copying their mothers as they care for infants.
The findings suggest girls play more with dolls than boys not because of sex-stereotyped socialization but because of ‘biological predilections.’
Richard Wrangham of Harvard University said: ‘This is the first evidence of an animal species in the wild in which object play differs between males and females.’
Earlier studies of captive monkeys had also suggested a biological influence on toy choice. When juvenile monkeys are offered sex-stereotyped human toys, females gravitate toward dolls, whereas males are more apt to play with ‘boys’ toys’ such as trucks.
The findings were the result of 14 years of observation of the Kanyawara chimpanzee community in Kibale National Park, Uganda. It found that chimpanzees use sticks in four main ways, as probes to investigate holes potentially containing water or honey, as props or weapons in aggressive encounters, during solitary or social play, and in a behaviour the researchers refer to as stick-carrying.
Mr Wrangham said: ‘We thought that if the sticks are being treated like dolls, females would carry sticks more than males do and should stop carrying sticks when they have their own babies. 'We now know that both of these points are correct.’
Young females sometimes took their sticks into day-nests where they rested and sometimes played with them casually in a manner that evoked maternal play. However scientists are unsure if stick-carrying was a form of play for all chimp clans or was just a ‘social tradition that has sprung up’ in the study group.
If it was found to be unique to the Kanyawara chimps ‘it will be the first case of a tradition maintained just among the young, like nursery rhymes and some games in human children. ‘This would suggest that chimpanzee behavioural traditions are even more like those in humans than previously thought.’
The findings were published in the latest issue of Current Biology
SOURCE
Hope for Every Man, including homosexuals
Mike Adams
Over the course of the last few weeks, I’ve received numerous well-reasoned emails asking me to explain my differences with radio talk show host Neal Boortz – at least as they pertain to an ongoing controversy involving Augusta State University student Jennifer Keeton. Insofar as our present differences arise from more fundamental differences regarding human imperfection and personal redemption I am pleased to elaborate.
For those not aware, Keeton was threatened with expulsion from Augusta State University for refusing to submit to a re-education program run by state-employed university officials. The re-education program was not targeted towards the manner in which Keeton had articulated certain ideas (including private conversations outside of class with fellow students). Instead, it was focused upon the substance of those ideas.
According to state officials, the principal “problem” was Keeton’s assertion that free will plays a role in homosexual conduct. Because she is a counseling major the state was concerned that, upon graduation, she might incorporate those views into her private professional practice. The “solution” mandated by the government was forced abandonment of her belief in free will. This was stated as a condition of remaining in the state-funded university program.
Neal Boortz’ position on the matter was succinctly summarized on his privately owned website back in early August. His support for the government reeducation program appeared then, as it does now, to be based upon two premises – the first of which I believe to be accurate, the second of which I believe to be deeply flawed.
The first premise is that feelings of homosexuality, when first experienced by a young person, tend to be accompanied by rather intense feelings of confusion and anxiety – as does the decision to seek counseling regarding one’s sexuality. In this regard, Boortz has characterized the situation accurately.
The second premise is that hearing a counselor articulate the view that the patient has some degree of control over his sexuality would heighten, rather than attenuate, his feelings of confusion and anxiety. In this regard, Boortz has characterized the situation inaccurately.
It is unclear how Boortz arrives at the conclusion that someone would find the phrase “You can change” to be more traumatic than the phrase “You cannot change.” Human beings have always been comforted by the idea that they have some control over their fate. To suggest that homosexuals are somehow emotionally traumatized by ideas that are found comforting by others is to suggest a high degree of emotional volatility. The idea is not only condescending but lacks any basis in reality.
The idea that homosexual conduct is fully under the control of genetics has been refuted. If sexual orientation is fully genetically determined, identical twins will always have the same sexual orientation. If one is gay, the other identical twin will always be gay. If one is straight, the other identical twin will always be straight. Since this is not always the case, other factors are involved. This situation cannot be as simple as Boortz imagines it to be.
The State of Georgia is attempting to do no less than force a student to articulate a position that has been empirically falsified; namely, that the genetic influence upon homosexuality is so complete as to nullify free will. Their motivation is predicated upon a second falsehood; namely, that the first falsehood promotes self-esteem.
To date, too much has been made of the fact that the Boortz position is at odds with his professed libertarianism. Not enough has been made of the fact that his position is at odds with his professed Christianity.
Put simply, the Boortz position fails to recognize the distinction between temptation and sin. It also fails to distinguish between living an imperfect life and living a life ruled by imperfection. Those who may have given in to temptations to engage in homosexual conduct are not genetically resigned to the full indulgence of the homosexual lifestyle.
Ideas have consequences. The ideas we express have specific consequences in the course of human history. They may either produce life or they may produce death among those who hear them. In that sense, this case is not just about liberty for one individual. It is about hope for an entire generation.
Jesus did not come into the world to establish government programs that teach people there is nothing wrong with them and that they lack the ability to change. He came into this world to save sinners. But His offer is available only to those willing to acknowledge their sin and willing to change. And He gives us the power to change even when talk show hosts tell us we cannot.
We live in a world that hates God – so much so that it nailed Him to a cross. But Hope was resurrected and is there for every man today. And that is our greatest source of comfort in a world that preaches hopelessness.
SOURCE
Useful Idiots and Fifth Columnists: The Media Role in the War Against the West
Melanie Phillips
We are living through a global campaign of demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel in which the western media are playing a key role. The British media are the global leaders of this campaign in their frenzied and obsessional attacks on Israel. In the BBC in particular, such virulence attains unparalleled power and influence since it is stamped with the BBC’s global kitemark of objectivity and trustworthiness.
Israel’s every action is reported malevolently, ascribing to it the worst possible motives and denying its own victimisation. Instead of the truth, which is that every military action by Israel is taken solely to protect itself from attack, it is portrayed falsely as instigating the violent oppression of the Palestinians.
Tyranny around the world — such as the 20-year genocide in southern Sudan, or the persecution of Christians in Africa or Asia — goes almost unreported, as does Palestinian violence upon other Palestinians.
Yet Israel is dwelt upon obsessively, held to standards of behaviour expected of no other country and, with its own victimisation glossed over or ignored altogether, falsely accused of imposing wanton suffering.
Time after time, otherwise cynical, reality-hardened journalists have published or broadcast claims of Israeli ‘atrocities’ which are clearly theatrically staged fabrications or allegations. The false narrative of Arab propaganda is now so deeply embedded in the consciousness of journalists that they cannot see that what they are saying is untrue even when it is utterly egregious and indeed absurd.
The war against Hamas in Gaza in 2008/9 was a case in point. The British media had scarcely reported the constant rocket bombardment from Gaza. Most of the public were simply unaware that thousands of rockets had been fired at Israeli citizens.
But when in Operation Cast Lead Israel finally bombed Gaza to put a stop to the attacks, it was denounced for a ‘disproportionate’ response and for wantonly and recklessly killing ‘civilians’ — even though, according to Israel, the vast majority were targeted terrorists. Nevertheless, the media gave the impression that the Israelis were a bunch of bloodthirsty child-killers.
Israel is further accused of causing a humanitarian catastrophe in maintaining a blockade of Gaza. But there is scant mention of the many supplies Israel does allow through, nor the steady stream of Gazans being routinely treated in Israeli hospitals, nor the fact that it is Egypt which maintains a much tougher blockade on its own Gazan border.
This is because Israel’s crime is to defend itself militarily. To much of the media, Israel’s self-defence is regarded as intrinsically illegitimate. It is routinely described as ‘vengeance’ or ‘punishment’. Thus Sir Max Hastings wrote in the Guardian in 2004: ‘Israel does itself relentless harm by venting its spleen for suicide bombings upon the Palestinian people.’
Israel’s attempt to prevent any more of its citizens from being blown to bits on buses or in pizza parlours was apparently nothing other than a fit of spiteful anger. The Israelis were presented by Hastings not as victims of terror but as Nazi-style butchers, while the aggression of the Palestinians was ignored altogether.
In short, Israel is presented as some kind of cosmic demonic force, standing outside of humanity. To what should we ascribe such unique malice towards an embattled and besieged people?
The first thing to say is that this phenomenon is characteristic not just of the media but the wider intelligentsia and political class.
In Britain, the established church, the universities, the Foreign Office, the theatrical and publishing worlds, the voluntary sector, members of Parliament across the political spectrum, as well as the media — have signed up to the demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel. It’s the home of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
It’s where human rights lawyers threaten to arrest Israelis for war crimes as soon as they step off the plane at Heathrow.
It’s where an English judge virtually directed a jury to acquit anti-Israel activists, who cheerfully admitted committing criminal damage against an arms factory because it sold equipment to the Israelis, on the grounds that the Israelis were making life in Gaza ‘hell on earth’, and were behaving like Nazis and that if they had done this during World War Two they ‘might have got a George Medal’.
It’s where Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron told the Turkish Prime Minister that Gaza was a prison camp, that the Israeli ‘attack’ on the Turkish terror flotilla ship was ‘completely unacceptable’, and where the British Foreign Secretary ‘deplored the loss of life’ in that Israeli attack.
Britain has effectively become a kind of global laundry for the lies about Israel and bigotry towards the Jews churning out of the Arab and Muslim world, sanitising them for further consumption throughout English-speaking, American and European society and turning what was hitherto confined to the extreme fringes of both left and right into the mainstream. Where Britain has led, the rest of the west has followed.
What is striking is the extent to which a patently false and in many cases demonstrably absurd account has been absorbed uncritically and assumed to be true.
History is turned on its head; facts and falsehoods, victims and victimisers have their roles inverted; logic is suspended, and an entirely false narrative of the conflict is now widely accepted as unchallengeable fact, from which fundamental error has been spun a global web of potentially catastrophic false conclusions.
In Britain and much of Europe, the mainstream, dominant view amongst the educated classes is that Israel itself is intrinsically illegitimate. Its behaviour is viewed accordingly through that prism.
Much of the obsession with Israel’s behaviour is due to the widespread belief that its very existence is an aberration which, although understandable at the time it came into being, was a historic mistake.
People believe that Israel was created as a way of redeeming Holocaust guilt. Accordingly, they believe that European Jews with no previous connection to Palestine — which was the historic homeland of Palestinian Muslims who had lived there since time immemorial — were transplanted there as foreign invaders, from where they drove out the indigenous Arabs into the West Bank and Gaza. These are territories which Israel is now occupying illegally (even after its ‘disengagement’ from Gaza in 2005), oppressing the Palestinians and frustrating the creation of a state of Palestine which would end the conflict.
Every one of these assumptions is wrong. Moreover, many of these errors and distortions not only promote falsehoods but actually turn the truth inside out. This is because the west has swallowed the Arab and Muslim narrative on Israel which acts as a kind of global distorting mirror, appropriating Jewish experience and twisting it into a propaganda weapon against the Jews.
Because of the dominant belief in victim culture and minority rights, self-designated victim groups — those without power — can never do wrong while majority groups can never do right. And Jews are not considered a minority because – in the hateful discourse of today – Jews are held to be all-powerful as they ‘control’ the media, Wall Street and America.
So the Muslim world cannot be held responsible for blowing people up as they are the third world victims of the west; so any atrocities they commit must be the fault of their victims; and so the US had it coming to it on 9/11. And in similar fashion, Israel can never be the victim of the Arab world; the murder of Israelis by the Arab world must be Israel’s own fault....
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.
***************************
20 December, 2010
European Commission criticised for omitting Christmas on EU school diary
The European Commission has come under fire for producing more than three million copies of an EU diary for secondary schools which contains no reference to Christmas but includes Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim festivities.
More than 330,000 copies of the diaries, accompanied by 51 pages of glossy information about the EU, have been delivered to British schools as a "sought after" Christmas gift to pupils from the commission.
But Christians have been angered because the diary section for December 25 is blank and the bottom of the page with Christmas Day is marked only with the secular message: "A true friend is someone who shares your concerns and will double your joy".
While the euro calendar marks Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jewish and Chinese festivities as well as Europe Day and other key EU anniversaries, there are no Christian festivals marked, despite the fact Christianity is Europe's majority religion.
Roman Catholic lobby groups and Christian Democrat MEPs have already complained to the commission about its Christmas card for this year which bears the words "Season's Greetings" with no reference to Christianity.
Johanna Touzel, the spokesman for the Catholic Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community, said the absence of Christian festivals as "just astonishing". "Christmas and Easter are important feasts for hundreds of millions of Christians and Europeans. It is a strange omission. I hope it was not intentional," she said. "If the commission does not mark Christmas as a feast in its diaries then it should be working as normal on December 25."
Martin Callanan, the leader of the European Conservatives, accused the commission of being concerned about sending propaganda gifts to youngsters than the true spirit of Christmas. "Given that 2010 was the year when the EU was haunted by its own ghosts of the past, present and future, it comes as no surprise that the commission is turning into a bunch of Euro Scrooges. "Why is the commission spending money sending calendars to millions of schoolchildren in the first place? I'm sure that the children could manage without a present of this nature."
A commission spokesman described the diary as a "blunder" and said that in the interests of political correctness there would no references to any religious festivals in future editions. "We're sorry about it, and we'll correct that in next edition. Religious holidays may not be mentioned at all to avoid any controversy," he said.
SOURCE
No excuse for hating Christmas
Since the forces of good overwhelmed the anti-Christmas brigades a few years ago, the annual yuletide controversies have been rather muted. This year, the always-reliable ACLU threatened schools in Tennessee with doom if they promoted Christmas, and there were a few other atrocities. Generally, though, the traditions of Christmas are on display, bringing happiness to American children.
But dissenters remain. An atheist put up an anti-Christmas billboard outside the Lincoln Tunnel in New Jersey that reads: "You KNOW it's a myth. This season, celebrate REASON!"
You know, I would like to celebrate reason, too. That's why I support honoring a federal holiday that allows citizens a day off to think about a man who changed history by preaching "love your neighbor as yourself."
The view some liberal folks have of Christmas is interesting. New York Times columnist Gail Collins is a moderate lefty who says this about the tunnel billboard: "In this battle for the hearts and minds of commuters, the atheists seem to have been overly belligerent, although it is understandable that they get a little testy this time of year."
It is? Why would any rational person get testy about a federal holiday that brings joy to the majority of their countrymen and helps the economy, to boot? As a Christian, I don't mind the winter solstice people doing whatever it is they do. If it involves ice hockey, I might even participate. Why resent the happiness of others, especially if no harm is being done? That's not reasonable.
Some liberal people believe that Muslims, Jews and atheists might feel "left out" of the Christmas revelry. Well, I feel left out when folks eat onions because my stomach can't tolerate them. That's just the way it goes. Muslims, Jews, Hindus and most every other religious group have their own special days, do they not?
Jesus, I believe, would be shocked that his own humble birth has now become an occasion for attack billboards. The wise men would also be appalled. King Herod might approve, but he also might have executed the atheists involved just for fun. That's the kind of guy Herod was.
In the end, the anti-Christmas people are tiresome and petty. Christmas is about the birth of a child and the happiness of all the children who followed him into this world. The day is set up to create magic for youngsters and to steep them in giving and receiving. Fanatical adults should not be intruding on or interfering with the positive spirit of Christmas. That means you, ACLU.
Finally, there is a reason why Congress designates special days for official celebration. As far as Christmas is concerned, it benefits the individual citizen and the country in general to think of others. That is what Christmas is truly about. It's the reason for the season.
SOURCE
The soaring rate of 'no-father' families: Lesbian couples and single women rush for IVF in Britain
The number of lesbian couples and single women seeking to start a family through IVF has rocketed since the law governing a child’s need for a father was relaxed. There has been a doubling of lesbian couples undergoing fertility treatment, while three times as many women are taking the plunge into single parenthood.
Almost 350 lesbian couples underwent IVF treatment in the UK in 2009 – just after same-sex couples seeking to become parents were put on an equal legal footing with heterosexuals – compared with 176 in 2007 and only 36 in 2000. The number of single women undergoing IVF has risen still further, going up from 347 in 2007 to 1,070 in 2009.
IVF treatment resulted in the birth of 358 babies to lesbian couples over the past three years while the same treatment for single women led to 660 births.
The figures were collected by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the UK’s independent regulator of fertility clinics. Over the same time period the number of would-be lesbian mothers having donor insemination at registered clinics has stayed roughly constant at just more than 300 per year. If lesbians are fertile they can often conceive using this technique which is less complicated and much cheaper than IVF.
Many try for a baby using DIY insemination with donor sperm outside registered clinics or at foreign clinics, a group which may also be growing.
The legal changes affecting such families came in the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which allowed birth certificates to record two mothers or two fathers. The same Act scrapped the requirement for fertility doctors to consider a child’s need for a male role model before giving IVF treatment. Instead couples had to demonstrate only that they can offer ‘supportive parenting’.
NHS Trusts which deny lesbians fertility treatment while funding it for heterosexual couples face possible legal action.
When the law was changed many Christian groups and campaigners for traditional family values warned it would further undermine the role of fathers. Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘It was always inevitable that removing the legal requirement to consider the need of a child for a father would result in a rise in fatherless families.
‘The change in the law had nothing to do with the welfare of children and everything to do with the desires of adults to subvert the natural order and redefine the family to suit themselves.
‘Research demonstrates that the absence of fathers has adverse consequences for children, for mothers and for society. Men and women are not interchangeable and fathers are not an optional extra. ‘If we are really committed to giving children the best start in life, we should not tolerate a law that denies children something as fundamental as a parent of each sex.’
Gary Nunn, of Stonewall, the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity, said it had produced a guide for gays on how to get pregnant using fertility clinics in response to increasing demand. He said: ‘Now the law has changed it has made it fairer and easier for them to get treatment.’
SOURCE
Stay-at-Home Moms are the Real World
Momma, don't let your babies grow up to be stay-at-home mommas. That seemed to be the underlying bias from a popular daytime TV show. It's not a new message, but it's one that may be changing.
"She almost made it," is how Barbara Walters introduced Rachel Campos-Duffy and her husband, Sean Duffy, a congressman-elect, to the set of ABC's "The View." Campos-Duffy, a former reality-TV cast member and now author and mother of six, had auditioned for, and come close to joining, the women of "The View," years before.
Walters went on to ask, "Did you ever think, 'I wish I had a career and I didn't have six kids?'"
Without hesitation, Rachel happily responded: "Well, being a mom is the best job in the world." She said this, by the way, while her youngest, 8-month-old Maria Victoria, sat on her lap.
Knowing that she was representing a lot of women who will never make the daily talk-show circuit, Rachel later all but apologized for not saying more. She wrote on her parenting blog: "I couldn't help being disappointed with my response. Not that it wasn't true -- being a mom is the best job in the world -- but I felt that a question as culturally loaded as this one deserved a better answer." What she may not have realized is that her witness was already as powerful as any longer response would have been.
Walters also pointed out that the Capitol tastemakers at Politico have dubbed Rachel and Sean the new D.C. "hot couple." That really is quite the testament -- if "hot" is now to be the mom who stays in Wisconsin with the kids while the tea-party dad commutes from cutting spending in D.C. (I'm not that hopeful about the social pages understanding this yet -- they may still be stuck on the couple's MTV "Real World"/"Road Rules" past.)
Rachel isn't new to the type of questions asked by Walters -- I doubt any mother of six in 2010 is. Looking askance at stay-at-home mothers, ones with many children especially, may be the sexual revolution's most acceptable bias.
Walters left it out of her intro, but Rachel knows so much about this problem that she wrote a book: "Stay Home, Stay Happy: 10 Secrets to Loving At-Home Motherhood." When I interviewed her about her tome earlier this year, Rachel explained what there wasn't time to say on "The View." After her second time trying out for the show, she realized that she was already "doing what God was calling me to do -- being home, taking care of my kids." Previously, she was in a bit of a holding pattern, "waiting for my next big break." But her oldest child was 5 at the time and, she explained, "I was starting to see the fruits of my time at home with them -- their manners and sense of compassion, the things that happen when you parent well."
At the same time, though, she confronted firsthand a culture that is extremely unsupportive of the choice to stay home. She admitted: "Even if we feel good about our days and choices, we still crave that outside validation." She's fortunate enough to have a supportive husband, but realizes that not every woman does. And it can still get lonely when people feel free to provide commentary in the supermarket line, as folks still do. "I guess I hoped that by writing this book I might in a small way help elevate this noble profession," she told me.
During our interview, she went on to say: "I have made a choice to fully enjoy my kids and this particular season of my life. It's a very conscious, powerful decision. In some ways, it takes more guts to buck the financial rewards and adulation that come from a professional career to pursue something so culturally undervalued as at-home motherhood."
Therein she hit on something almost as powerful as the maternal instinct: the backlash against feminism that we're living through right now. People everywhere are admitting to a growing discomfort with a worldview that insists that women should want to "have it all," that we girls should do anything and everything.
True, you absolutely can choose not to have children and still have a fulfilling life in other ways. But for all too long now we have -- in prep schools and pop culture and in our social lives -- acted as if the woman who is a media mover and shaker or business mogul is somehow superior to the woman who moves to Wisconsin with the man she loves.
Walters implied, in an almost perversely natural way, that Rachel's life was missing something.
Women who prioritize raising their children have no reason to feel inadequate to anyone. They've got our greatest natural resource on their laps. And there is absolutely nothing to regret; there's everything to love and enjoy. That's life in the real world.
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 December, 2010
‘Homosexuality is a sin’ street preacher wins £7k from British police
A street preacher wrongly arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin has won substantial damages as police chiefs issue new guidelines telling officers to be more thick-skinned.
Dale Mcalpine was held for seven hours and charged with a public-order offence in April after telling a gay police community support officer (PCSO) that he believed homosexuals were acting against the word of God.
He was accused of uttering ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’ words ‘to cause harassment, alarm or distress’ contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
But the charges were dropped after the case was highlighted by The Mail on Sunday and now police in Cumbria have agreed to pay him £7,000 in compensation as well as his legal costs, potentially an extra £10,000.
Cumbria’s Chief Constable Craig Mackey also said a senior officer will meet Mr Mcalpine in person and apologise to him to ‘seek to restore his trust and confidence in the Constabulary’.
The payout came as new national guidance was issued to police following growing criticism of their heavy-handed treatment of Christians expressing their religious views.
Keeping The Peace, published by the Association of Chief Police Officers, says officers must be aware that the right to free speech allows people to express unpopular views as long as ‘their conduct is reasonable or the actual or potential violence provoked in others is “wholly unreasonable” ’.
The guidance also makes clear that though officers themselves may be victims of ‘harassment, alarm or distress’, they are expected to have thicker skins than the public, and they have a responsibility to protect the rights of the speaker.
The document, which updates earlier guidance, says police are ‘expected to display a degree of fortitude’ and ‘the conduct complained of must go beyond that which he or she would regularly come across in the ordinary course of police duties’.
Pressure is mounting on the Government to reform the Public Order Act when it introduces its Freedom Bill in the New Year. Campaigners want the word ‘insulting’ removed from Section 5 of the Act because they believe it leaves street preachers and others vulnerable to arrest.
Mr Mcalpine, who works in the energy industry, had been handing out leaflets and talking to passers-by about his Christian beliefs in the centre of Workington, Cumbria. In conversation with one woman, he listed a number of sins cited by the Bible, including adultery, drunkenness and homosexuality.
He was then approached by PCSO Sam Adams, who said he was gay and a liaison officer with the local homosexual community – and who warned him he could be arrested for making homophobic remarks. Mr Mcalpine denied he was homophobic but said that as a Christian he did believe homosexuality was a sin. Three uniformed officers then arrested him.
After seven hours in a cell, which he spent reading the Bible and singing hymns, Mr Mcalpine was charged by a Senior Crown Prosecutor. At a magistrates’ court hearing his trial date was set for September, but coverage of his treatment provoked a public outcry.
Mr Mcalpine said last night: ‘I am delighted the police are going to apologise. It is not about the money but about freedom of speech. I hope the police will in future do their duty defending freedom of speech.’
The Christian Institute, which backed his case, said: ‘We’re obviously pleased that Cumbria Police has seen common sense. But Mr Mcalpine should not have been arrested in the first place. Sadly, it’s not an isolated case. The Government needs to amend the Public Order Act as a matter of urgency.’
Earlier this month, street preacher Anthony Rollins, who was handcuffed and arrested for condemning homosexuality, was awarded £4,250 in damages following a court case against West Midlands Police. Even homosexual rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has called for reform of the law.
SOURCE
Antisemitic British student leader
A radical student leader who dismissed the violent tuition fees protests as ‘a few smashed windows’ has been accused of making anti-Semitic comments on a social networking site.
Mature student Clare Solomon, 37, president of the University of London Union, helped co-ordinate the protests – during which a car carrying Prince Charles and Camilla was attacked – and declared herself proud of the students.
Now there are calls for Ms Solomon, the daughter of a Royal Military policeman, to resign after she wrote on Facebook: ‘The view that Jews have been persecuted all throughout history is one that has been fabricated in the last 100 or so years to justify the persecution of Palestinians. 'To paint the picture that all Jews have always had to flee persecution is just plainly inaccurate.’
Carly McKenzie, a campaigns officer for the Union of Jewish Students, said: ‘We have lost confidence in her ability to represent Jewish students. ‘To claim that Jewish suffering is a deliberate fabrication goes beyond ignorance into real malice.
‘Her remarks had nothing to do with principled opposition to Israel and everything to do with her disdain towards the Jewish people.’
Adam Levine, President of Queen Mary Jewish Society, added: ‘She should find out before she makes such strong comments about what it means to be Jewish.’
Ms Solomon, who was raised as a Mormon, declined to comment when contacted by The Mail on Sunday but told the Jewish Chronicle newspaper: ‘This badly worded comment was something that I wrote in haste on Facebook. I’m sorry for any misunderstandings.’
SOURCE
Liberal elitists in Britain
Comments by an unusually self-aware one of them
Are you furious with Clegg? In sympathy with the rampaging student hordes? Do you believe that tuition fees, housing benefit changes and other ConDem cuts will act as social barbed wire, annexing the poor in a life of inescapable disadvantage?
You may well be one of the many well-meaning, left-leaning citizens out there who believe that this Government is taking a silver-topped cane to smash cherished values of inclusivity and equality. And if so, you are doubtless as mad as hell about it.
But hold on, dear middle-class reader. Forget about all the protest and insurrection for a moment, and let's look closer to home. Here's another question that you might find a little more uncomfortable. Is it possible that, in your own more subtle and perhaps unwitting way, you are collaborating in exactly the kind of social splintering that you find so politically distasteful?
Certainly, that's what I see going on among the liberal-left in the north London village where I live, an area where artists, media types and public sector workers nest alongside some of the most deprived communities in Britain.
Here in Stoke Newington, the poor may always be among us, but you could move for a long time in the best progressive circles, and barely be aware of that fact.
Before I go any further, I should say that this is not some kind of neo-con knee to the groin of "liberal hypocrites", but more a quest for understanding of how and why we all come to fall short of our inclusive ideals – as seen, stones in hand, from the inside of the glass house.
And with that rider in place, follow me, if you will, on a journey through the streets of my neighbourhood. We'll start at the local school. Most of us send our children to state schools round here. But from reception class on, Archie, Alfie and Freya don't play with Jayden, Megan and Mohammed much. Their parents don't talk to each other much, either – although when the PTA meets in the French pâtisserie down the road, its middle-class stalwarts express puzzlement that parents from different cultural backgrounds have been so reluctant to join them for an almond croissant, a £2 caffè grande crema and a discussion about furthering the inclusion agenda.
By the time the children get to secondary, the class gap has become so wide that open hostility sometimes breaks out between the middle-class children, aka the "skaters", and the "just do it crew" – as their less privileged, Nike-loving peers are nicknamed. It's been going on this way for years.
And it's not peculiar to my area. In a 2008 nationwide study by the British Journal of Sociology of Education, researchers looked at 125 white middle-class households who chose inner-city comprehensive schooling. They found a similar split, with "swotties" and "charvers" sticking to their own social groups. They also found middle-class parents "beset with moral ambiguity" about their choice of schooling, agonising over how to square "wanting to do the egalitarian right thing" with their desire to "maintain and enhance their social position" and avoid their children mixing with the undesirable other.
As it turned out, their children mostly achieved A-stars for social position: "They find they are in the top sets," researchers found. "They dominate the Gifted and Talented scheme and they are treated as somewhat 'special'. Both the children and the parents are highly valued by the schools, which in turn strengthens their privileged positions and agency."
An issue of prime importance for these parents in choosing their child's school was "the need for assurance that there are other children at this school 'like us'". And this brings us on to the subject of housing, an area which provides an equally bright window (sash or uPVC?) on the liberal middle classes' ambiguous embrace of inclusion.
Where you live affects your school choice and so much more. One Stoke Newington mother admitted to me that she doesn't invite her son's friends round for tea because if people knew she lived in a council flat, she feared that would be the end of his play-date circuit.
At election time, you could walk for miles along the rows of Victorian terraces that make up my neighbourhood without seeing a window poster of any shade other than red, green or orange. And yet all those expensively retiled front paths, wooden shutters and tasteful loft extensions speak of a true blue competitiveness, a hunger to display status and difference that dominoes down roads near the park and the best schools, but comes to a halt in the surrounds of the larger housing estates.
Tim Butler, professor of geography at King's College London and co-author of London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Re-making of Inner London, has studied such matters closely. "People like the idea and frisson of living in a socially mixed area," he says, "but actually, these groups move past each other in separate worlds which rarely impinge on each other. I refer to this as 'social tectonics'.
"Gentrification," he adds, "is on the one hand about managing social diversity, but on the other hand flocking together – people like us. These are very strong instincts and I guess the question you have to ask is to what extent that diversity becomes more of a social wallpaper."
Butler has a rather sad explanation for why this flocking happens: "Many middle-class people living in the city now were brought up in monocultural suburbs and they would tell you that it was boring, it was death out there: and they don't want it. But because of their own upbringing, they lack skills in dealing with people different from themselves."
The social bonds formed punting on the Cam or drunk-dancing at the Magdalene Ball give rise to the same kind of leftie un-inclusiveness in the political world, where roughly half the Shadow Cabinet and every single Lib-Dem cabinet member are Oxbridge graduates too.
It's not as if anybody sets out deliberately to shut out the less privileged, but, as a report by the Social Market Foundation last week highlighted, to get a foot in the door of many plum middle-class professions – especially in the creative industries – connections are everything.
In August, the think tank Demos published a report, Access All Areas, which urged "action to be taken to get disadvantaged young people into internships normally dominated by the middle classes", citing evidence that "work placements can compound the class divide".
Elitism breeds more elitism, then. I meet up with an award-winning television producer friend, who explains what this means in his particular world: "TV executives are obsessed by representing everyone," he says. "All the channels do a lot of tub-thumping about it, but it's pretty meaningless. My family and friends are from a fairly mixed bag class-wise and race-wise, and so I hear lots of interesting stories and have lots of references that most of the people who control the TV agenda don't have. But when I pitch programmes that could appeal to viewers who they are not already appealing to, they won't commission them, because they don't understand them: the terms of reference simply aren't there. They want people to pitch to them things that they're going to get, so it's a vicious circle."
Later, the author and journalist Richard Benson tells me a similar tale of unintended marginalisation far from the iPhone-waving media world. For his forthcoming book, he has been interviewing former miners in Yorkshire, some of whom have gone into social work. "I hear a lot from them about a very subtle imposition of middle-class values," Benson says. "There was one who'd been studying why young men didn't use Sure Start centres. One of the reasons that he found was that the interiors were too posh: 'Going in there makes me feel like a rubbing rag,' was one quote. They'd spent a lot of money making these centres all wood, glass and leather sofas – a socially specific idea of what something nice was – and it intimidated people. It's only a small thing, but that's life – the big things play out in these small points..."
Benson recently edited The Middle Class Handbook, a study of "the behaviour and tastes of Britain's new middle-class tribes". During his research, he found: "If you do anything about politics, no one is interested; if you do anything about food or language, people really like to talk about that. The conceit of the book, in fact, was that in classifying the middle classes, the cultural differences now are more relevant than the financial ones."
It's all in the details, to which our antennae are so finely tuned. On the pavements, it might be a pair of Carhartt jeans, or an Orla Kiely handbag, that sets us apart. Or just an attitude. You could shop at Aldi because it's cheap, or because you've discovered they sell marinated wild mushrooms. You could watch The X Factor because you like a good tune, or because it's a fascinating exercise in audience manipulation.
"Class differences in everyday tastes – in things ranging from the types of food and clothing we like, to our preferences in music, art, gardening, or sports – serve as resources in the competition between classes," according to the sociologist Wendy Bottero. "High social position still helps to 'insure' against weaker educational performance, and numerous studies show that if we compare lower-achievers, those from more privileged backgrounds have much better careers than their less advantaged peers."
Think about that next time you settle down on your Habitat sofa with a glass of Malbec to watch The Culture Show. You really should: because while there are a thousand and one ways in which we use these social markers – both overtly and unconsciously – to stake out our position in the world, there's been very little academic study of the subject.
"I think everybody's uncomfortable looking at the subject, to be honest," says Diane Reay, professor of education at Cambridge University, and a pioneer in such "psychosocial" research. "There's been much more academic work done on race and gender than the painful differences around social class. Society's saturated by it, and so is our media, so it's an amazing contradiction. Once it's about ourselves, then all these difficult emotions come up and people dis-identify – nobody wants to own up to the class they belong to."
Professor Reay also thinks that for well-meaning liberals, it's harder than ever not to fall prey to "sublimated elitism" because "we're living in a world where there's less and less certainty, and that causes a whole lot of anxieties which make you less receptive to difference and otherness".
This is echoed by the handful of other academics who are dipping their toes into the murky psychological depths where liberal values and baser instincts collide. The economist Professor Guy Standing, for example, who has charted the slide away from altruism and tolerance among that large group of stressed, job-insecure Britons he dubs the "precariat". And the social epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, whose 2009 surprise best-seller The Spirit Level examined how status anxiety in unequal countries such as Britain and the US adversely affects our health, as well as our ability to trust others and engage in community life.
The subject is obviously a huge one and this essay barely lifts a semi-submerged corner for inspection, let alone offer solutions. Set against the crunching shake-ups now taking place at government level, it could, in any case, seem irrelevant – or even wrong – to worry about the minor lapses of the residents of Stoke Newington and other liberal enclaves.
After all, you can't have good intentions without a little hypocrisy – we strive, we fall short, everyone knows that, so why sweat it? What's the alternative? It was the collapse of a bewhiskered and slightly patronising liberal self-confidence at the end of the Victorian age that paved the way for a lethal right-wing ascendancy.
But while we progressives mustn't throw the baby out with the bath water, that doesn't mean we should ignore those murky areas of our psyche where the urges to belong, to display status – and, yes, exclude too – rattle about. The more we understand them, the more secure our true values become. Besides, new research suggests self-doubt is in liberals' genes. You can't be a good one without beating yourself up every now and again.
SOURCE
Hating Wills’n’Kate: the new conformism in Britain
The smart set’s disdain for the royal engagement is driven less by republicanism than by a desire to prove their superiority to the masses
The release this week of the official photographs for Prince William and Kate Middleton’s engagement has unleashed yet more snidey commentary about the royal couple and their allegedly slavish followers amongst the British public. Ever since the royal engagement was announced on 16 November, members of Britain’s cultural elites, including significant sections of the media, have devoted more energy to congratulating themselves than congratulating William and Kate.
Britain’s nouveaux smart set has adopted the social protocol of affecting a studied indifference to anything to do with the impending royal wedding. From its perspective, even a hint of interest in the proceedings is a symptom of the vulgar tastes and conformism that afflict the little people of Middle England. This smart set takes delight in portraying itself as a beleaguered minority defending enlightened values against an army of daytime TV addicts.
‘I’m afraid I just can’t get excited about the royal wedding but, unfortunately, if [the] media frenzy is anything to go by, it seems I am in the minority’, wrote one journalist. Flaunting the self-selected minority badge is mandatory for an entrée into the smart set. Tanya Gold of the Guardian declared: ‘I am going to be tried for saying this, but a royal wedding will make idiots of us Brits.’ As the 999th journalist to declare a fierce sense of independence from a fictitious royalist consensus, Gold only betrays the conformist take on the wedding that is now rife amongst the commentariat.
Within a few hours of the announcement of the engagement, the refrain ‘who cares?’ became the slogan of choice for an elite keen to exhibit its allegedly non-conformist identity. The performance of feigned indifference played a central role in the cultivation of the idea that ‘we’re not like them’. The sensibility that we – the cultivated, enlightened, non-conventional and special people – are not like those dim-witted tabloid readers was summed up by one broadsheet writer, who said: ‘It’s easy to mock the hysteria of a royal wedding, but state occasions help reveal what kind of country we are.’ In casually introducing the word ‘hysteria’ into the mix, the commentator made an implicit moral contrast between his posture of objective detachment and the madness of the mob.
When journalists say it is ‘easy to mock’ the royal wedding, what they really mean is that reverse snobbery comes naturally to them and their media mates. Of course, the affectation of ‘who cares’ was just that: a studied display of contempt for the apparently deferential public. The cultural elite was desperate to make sure that its censorious disapproval of the wedding plans was widely known.
Typically, the statement ‘who cares’ served as a prelude to the question: ‘Who will foot the bill?’ Take columnist Molly Lynch, writing in the North West Evening Mail. After noting that ‘I had to wonder, who cares?’, Lynch pauses before arguing that ‘there is one thing about the royal wedding which does concern me, though, and that’s who will foot the bill’.
Questions about who is going to foot the bill were followed by statements questioning the appropriateness of holding a lavish royal wedding. Expressions of concern about the cost of the wedding are designed to deprive the event of any moral legitimacy. The moral devaluation of the wedding was constantly communicated through the presentation of William and Kate as a couple of social parasites living it up at taxpayers’ expense. Not surprisingly, this provided a warrant for competitive insult-hurling. One Labour councillor described the royal family as ‘inbred aristocrats who’ve never done a day’s work in their life’.
Even members of the progressive section of the Anglican Church took it upon themselves to devalue the moral status of the forthcoming wedding. The Reverend Peter Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden, predicted that the marriage of William and Kate would only last seven years. He also used the occasion to make fun of the appearance of William’s father, Charles, and to liken William and Kate to tawdry celebrities.
If you were to listen in on all the public and private exchanges among Britain’s cultural elites in recent weeks, it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that a complacent form of faux-republicanism has become the new big thing. This mean-spirited lashing out at royalty has nothing to do with traditional forms of republicanism.
Historically, republicanism justified itself through its belief that sovereignty should lie with the people. However, this confidence in the democratic potential of the people is conspicuous by its absence in the worldview of Britain’s modern-day smart set. On the contrary, their studied hostility to the royal wedding can be interpreted as disdain for the behaviour and beliefs of ordinary people.
Many commentators argue that actually the royal wedding is a carefully constructed diversion designed to distract the gullible masses from opposing the government’s austerity measures. One academic told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that with ‘a downturn coming, the British establishment [is] toying with the idea, at least, of trying to distract everyone with these circuses’.
Brian Reade of the Daily Mirror claimed: ‘The biggest beneficiary of Prince William’s forthcoming nuptials is the Cabinet.’ Jonathan Freedland at the Guardian suggested that the wedding was a ‘handy distraction from the economic gloom and spending cuts that are due to bite in the early months of 2011’. Obviously, unlike the plebs who can be distracted at will, Reade and Freedland and the rest are clever chaps who will not be deceived.
Of course, any state occasion can and should be held to account if it manipulates national symbols and tries to achieve some political ends. However, the real objection of the faux republicans is not to the idea that the wedding will be an extravagant distraction from recession, but the very values that seem to underpin the royal engagement and wedding.
A wedding that threatens to celebrate the values of Middle England is bad enough. But what’s even worse is that this event seems to be having some resonance with the public mood. Contrary to the myth of a public hysteria, the public’s reaction is actually characterised by a restrained sense of delight in a young couple’s good fortunes. Yes, the supermarket giant Tesco’s replica of Kate’s engagement dress sold out in an hour. And yes, the mags are full of pictures of the beaming couple. But the idea of public hysteria exists only in the heads of those who are so self-obsessed and detached from reality that they wouldn’t even know what it means to take pleasure in a couple’s devotion to one another.
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 December, 2010
The British Red Cross bans Christmas
The Red Cross has a history of antisemitism. That is why it is crawling to Muslims
Christmas has been banned by the Red Cross from its 430 fund-raising shops. Staff have been ordered to take down decorations and to remove any other signs of the Christian festival because they could offend Moslems.
The charity's politically-correct move triggered an avalanche of criticism and mockery last night - from Christians and Moslems.
Christine Banks, a volunteer at a Red Cross shop in New Romney, Kent, said: 'We put up a nativity scene in the window and were told to take it out. It seems we can't have anything that means Christmas. We're allowed to have some tinsel but that's it. 'When we send cards they have to say season's greetings or best wishes. They must not be linked directly to Christmas. 'When we asked we were told it is because we must not upset Moslems.'
Mrs Banks added: ' We have been instructed that we can't say anything about Christmas and we certainly can't have a Christmas tree. ' I think the policy is offensive to Moslems as well as to us. No reasonable person can object to Christians celebrating Christmas. But we are not supposed to show any sign of Christianity at all.'
Labour peer Lord Ahmed, one of the country's most prominent Moslem politicians, said: 'It is stupid to think Moslems would be offended. 'The Moslem community has been talking to Christians for the past 1,400 years. The teachings from Islam are that you should respect other faiths.'
He added: 'In my business all my staff celebrate Christmas and I celebrate with them. It is absolutely not the case that Christmas could damage the Red Cross reputation for neutrality - I think their people have gone a little bit over the top.'
The furore is a fresh blow to the image of what was once one of Britain's most respected charities. The British Red Cross lost friends this year over its support for the French illegal immigrant camp at Sangatte and its insistence on concentrating large efforts on helping asylum seekers.
Yesterday officials at the charity's London HQ confirmed that Christmas is barred from the 430 shops which contributed more than £20million to its income last year. 'The Red Cross is a neutral organisation and we don't want to be aligned with any political party or particular philosophy,' a spokesman said. 'We don't want to be seen as a Christian or Islamic or Jewish organisation because that might compromise our ability to work in conflict situations around the world.'
He added: 'In shops people can put up decorations like tinsel or snow which are seasonal. But the guidance is that things representative of Christmas cannot be shown.'
Volunteers, however, said they believed the Christmas ban was a product of political correctness of the kind that led Birmingham's leaders to order their city to celebrate 'Winterval'. Rod Thomas, a Plymouth vicar and spokesman for the Reform evangelical grouping in the Church of England, said: 'People who hold seriously to their faith are respected by people of other faiths. They should start calling themselves the Red Splodge. All their efforts will only succeed in alienating most people.'
Major Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, said: 'There is really nothing to hurt the Red Cross in Christmas, is there? Would the Red Crescent stop its staff observing Ramadan? 'In practice, the role of the Red Cross is to run prisoner- of-war programmes and relief efforts for civilians. Those activities require the agreement of both sides in a conflict in the first place. Celebrating Christmas in a shop in England could hardly upset that.'
Major Heyman added: 'Moslems are just as sensible about these things as Christians. The Red Cross is just engaging in a bit of political correctness.'
British Red Cross leaders have, however, not extended the ban to their own profitable products. Items currently on sale include Christmas cards featuring angels and wise men and Advent calendars with nativity scenes. The spokesman said: 'The Red Cross is trying to be inclusive and we recognise there are lots of people who want to buy Christmas cards which they know will benefit us.'
The charity's umbrella body, the Swiss-based International Red Cross, has also had politically-correct doubts about its famous symbol. But efforts to find an alternative were abandoned in the face of protest and ridicule five years ago.
SOURCE
A defeat for Britain's Satanic social workers
Couple who fled UK after social workers took their child are declared fit parents by Spanish officials and reunited with baby No2
A baby boy who was snatched from his parents on the authority of social workers has been returned after tests showed the couple are perfectly capable of caring for him. Ten-month-old Daniel was back home with his parents last night after spending most of his young life in an orphanage.
The smiling boy was cuddled by his father and mother, Jim and Carissa, whose names we have changed for legal reasons.
The couple had fled to Spain, where Daniel was born in February, after their other child, Poppy, now two, was seized by Suffolk social services and put up for adoption. They had deemed the couple ‘unfit’ parents who might emotionally harm their daughter in the future. This decision was roundly criticised in the Commons by local MP Tim Yeo as ‘tantamount to child kidnap’.
Daniel was still being breast-fed by Carissa in hospital when Spanish social workers, acting on a tip-off from Suffolk, took him and placed him in an orphanage in Valencia. Now, in a snub to their UK counterparts, Spanish social workers say Jim and Carissa are no danger to Daniel.
Jim, a 42-year-old legal adviser, and Carissa, 32, plan to sue Suffolk social services for breaking up their family. They are also taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights claiming their family life has been destroyed, as they prepare to fight a High Court legal battle to get Poppy back next month.
Last night Jim said at their home in Spain: ‘The Spanish social services say we meet all their criteria for being good parents and we’re delighted. The authorities here did extensive psychological tests on both of us and found we are normal, and capable of caring for our children. We passed the six tests with flying colours. ‘We hope this will lead to our family being reunited with Poppy at last, and the four of us being left to get on with our lives together.’
His parents had moved to Spain when Carissa became pregnant with Daniel and received warnings from Suffolk Council that he might be taken away when he was born. Their daughter had been torn from Carissa’s arms at 12 weeks old in October 2008 when social workers and police arrived at the couple’s home in East Anglia. They were acting on unproven allegations about Carissa from her ex-husband after a difficult divorce.
They refused to believe evidence to the contrary provided by the couple. But the brutality of the snatch led to the intervention by Mr Yeo. He said: ‘Suffolk Council actively seeks opportunities to remove babies from their mothers.’
Meanwhile, Poppy is living with foster parents who hope to adopt her. Suffolk social workers are not allowed to rubber stamp the adoption while Jim and Carissa fight the plan in the High Court.
The crucial test results on Jim and Carissa have been examined by the Daily Mail. We have changed their names and Daniel’s because, under British laws, the identity of the family cannot be publicised while Poppy is up for adoption.
The return of Daniel is a breakthrough for scores of families who have fled overseas to escape the clutches of British social workers.
In a separate move, Jim and Carissa, along with 35 families, have launched unprecedented legal action against UK family courts which have taken 50 of their children for forced adoption. All were deemed at risk of ‘future emotional harm’ from their parents, a condition unproven in science and often used as the premise to remove children from families by social workers.
Jim said: ‘To find our son had gone as she lay in the hospital was cruelty beyond belief. ‘She could not bear to face the heartbreak again of having yet another child snatched from her. So she decided to be sterilised there and then.’
They saw Daniel on nine occasions after he was taken to the Spanish orphanage 10 months ago. ‘He recognised us every visit and since he arrived home he has never stopped smiling at us,’ added Jim.
SOURCE
Civil unions popular among HETEROsexual couples in France
Some are divorced and disenchanted with marriage; others are young couples ideologically opposed to marriage but eager to lighten their tax burdens. Many are lovers not quite ready for old-fashioned matrimony.
Whatever their reasons, and they vary widely, French couples are increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every three marriages.
When France created its system of civil unions in 1999, it was heralded as a revolution in gay rights, a relationship almost like marriage, but not quite. No one, though, anticipated how many couples would make use of the new law. Nor was it predicted that by 2009, the overwhelming majority of civil unions would be between straight couples.
It remains unclear whether the idea of a civil union, called a pacte civil de solidarite, has responded to a shift in social attitudes or caused one. But it has proved remarkably well suited to France and its particularities about marriage, divorce, religion and taxes - and it can be dissolved with just a registered letter.
"We're the generation of divorced parents," said Maud Hugot, 32, an aide at the Health Ministry who signed a pacte civil de solidarite with her girlfriend, Nathalie Mondot, 33, this year.
Expressing a view that researchers say is becoming common among same-sex couples and heterosexuals, she said, "The notion of eternal marriage has grown obsolete."
France recognises only "citizens", and the country's legal principles hold that special rights should not be accorded to particular groups or ethnicities. So civil unions were made available to everyone. But their appeal to heterosexual couples was evident from the start. In 2000, just one year after the passage of the law, more than 75 per cent of civil unions were signed between heterosexual couples. That trend has only strengthened: of the 173,045 civil unions signed in 2009, 95 per cent were between heterosexual couples.
As with traditional marriages, civil unions allow couples to file joint tax returns, exempt spouses from inheritance taxes, permit partners to share insurance policies, ease access to residency permits for foreigners and make partners responsible for each other's debts. Concluding a civil union requires little more than a single appearance before a judicial official.
Even the Catholic Church, which initially condemned the partnerships, has relented. The French National Confederation of Catholic Family Associations says civil unions do not pose "a real threat".
While partnerships have exploded in popularity, marriage numbers have continued a long decline in France, as across Europe. Just 250,000 French couples married last year, with fewer than four marriages for each 1000 residents. In 1970, almost 400,000 French couples wed.
SOURCE
What Audiences Applaud in the Arab World
Thanks to monitoring groups such as MEMRI.org, many in the West have become more aware of the tone of popular culture in the Arab and Islamic world. As a result, we have a better understanding of the way anti-Semitism has become a staple of popular culture there. But one needn’t focus solely on the hatred of Jews and Israel that is so prevalent in Islamic societies to understand the shocking differences between what is accepted and even applauded in these cultures and our own.
The New Republic’s Ruth Franklin attended the Marrakech Film Festival in relatively liberal Morocco this month. Her account might have focused on the Western stars in attendance and “the glitz of the film festival” or “the charm and warmth of the Moroccans.” Instead, she wrote about a film screening in which a largely Arab audience reacted with spontaneous applause to a scene in which two women are stoned by a mob.
As Franklin writes: "This was one crowd, on one evening, at one screening; and need it even be said that applause is not the same as stoning itself? But, as the lights went up in the theater and the men and women around me calmly gathered their belongings, I could not help but remember that in an Arab country … liberation, at least for women, inevitably comes with limits. The glitz, the red carpet, and the celebrities might have been the same, but the atmosphere in the theater that night felt very far from Cannes or Sundance."
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 December, 2010
Inhuman rights in Britain
David Cameron was accused last night of breaking a personal pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act after a failed asylum seeker who killed a 12-year-old girl used the discredited law to stay in Britain.
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim knocked down 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. Earlier this year Mr Cameron wrote to Amy’s father promising reforms that would ensure ‘that rights are better balanced against responsibilities’. He said the Human Rights Act would be replaced by a British Bill of Rights.
But yesterday Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd, won his lengthy fight to stay in Britain. Immigration judges ruled that sending him home would breach his right to a ‘private and family life’ as he has now fathered two children in the UK.
Last night Amy’s father Paul branded the Act an ‘abomination to civilised society’. He said: ‘This decision shows the Human Rights Act to be nothing more than a charter for thieves, killers, terrorists and illegal immigrants.’
The ruling heaped pressure on Mr Cameron to reinstate a Tory pre-election pledge to abolish the HRA and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. He stated that pledge unequivocally in a letter to Mr Houston, written in January when he was still Leader of the Opposition, and shortly after the death of his son Ivan. It began: ‘As someone who sadly has been recently bereaved, I do have a little idea of what you must have been through.’
Last night Mr Houston, a 41-year-old engineer, made a direct plea to Mr Cameron to think again. He said: ‘He needs to take a long, hard look at himself and make the right decision for this country because as it stands the Human Rights Act is on the side of criminals, terrorists and thieves against law-abiding citizens. ‘He wrote to me to say he would bring in the British Bill of Rights but that appears to have been put in the back burner because of the Coalition.
‘I don’t want to see this matter sidelined. I think it needs to be placed very firmly on the agenda again. If he has got the courage of his convictions that is what he will do. ‘The law does need to be changed so that it properly represents everyone – not just this awful minority who ruin people’s lives.’
Mr Houston, of Darwen, Lancashire, said he was ‘absolutely devastated’ by the decision to allow Ibrahim to stay in the country indefinitely. ‘How can he say he’s deprived of his right to a family life? The only person deprived of a family life is me. Amy was my family.’ Amy was Mr Houston’s only child and for medical reasons he is unable to have any more children.
The case fuelled deep concern on the Tory backbenches. One MP branded the Act the ‘Criminals’ Rights Act’ and repeated calls for it to be scrapped. No minister was prepared to comment directly about the case, but Downing Street issued a statement ‘sharing Mr Houston’s anger’. The UK Border Agency said it was ‘extremely disappointed’ with the decision.
Ibrahim, now 33, arrived in Britain hidden in the back of a lorry in January 2001. His application for asylum was refused and a subsequent appeal in November 2002 failed, but he was never sent home. In 2003, while serving a nine-month driving ban for not having insurance or a licence, he ploughed into Amy near her mother’s home in Blackburn. He ran away, leaving her conscious and trapped beneath the wheels of his black Rover. Six hours later her father had to take the heartbreaking decision to turn off her life-support system.
But despite leaving Amy to die, Ibrahim was jailed for just four months after admitting driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident.
Since his release from prison he has accrued a string of further convictions, including more driving offences, harassment and cautions for burglary and theft. He also met a British woman, Christina Richardson, and fathered two children with her, Harry, four, and Zara, three.
Border Agency officials finally began attempts to remove him from the country in October 2008. Ibrahim’s lawyers argued sending him back to Iraq would breach Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees his right to a private and family life with his children.
When the case first came before an immigration judge in June last year, Home Office lawyers said Ibrahim should be removed because of his persistent criminality.
Ibrahim told the court he had became a father figure to Miss Richardson’s two children from a previous relationship and was even helping them with their homework. This account was dismissed as ‘clearly not credible’ after Ibrahim admitted he could barely speak English.
The judge accepted that Ibrahim’s behaviour was ‘abhorrent’ and branded his evidence ‘contradictory and unsatisfactory’. However he ruled that he had developed a ‘significant and substantial’ relationship with the children and was acting as their father.
The UK Border Agency launched an appeal against the decision. Lawyers for the agency argued that there was little evidence that he was living at the same address as his own children. But yesterday the Upper Immigration Tribunal threw out the appeal, saying the judge had considered the case in a ‘legally correct’ way.
In a letter to the tribunal, Mr Houston made an impassioned plea for Ibrahim to be sent back to Iraq, saying his right to a family life with Amy should outweigh the rights of Ibrahim. He wrote: ‘On the evening of November 23 2003, Mr Ibrahim struck Amy. He didn’t kill her outright, she was still conscious. ‘She was fully aware of what was happening around her even though she had the full weight of the engine block of the car on top of her, she was crying because she was frightened and in a lot of pain... he could have at least tried to help.
‘Amy suffered for six hours before the doctors advised me to switch off the life support machine . . . it was highly unlikely she would survive and if she was to live would be a “cabbage”. ‘The image of Amy taking her final breath, dying a foot away from me as I sat by her bedside holding her hand praying for a miracle, will stay with me till the day I die.’
Last night Mr Houston said: ‘No wonder asylum seekers are queuing up at the borders to get in when they see decisions like this. ‘They realise that whatever they do, be it burglar, rape or murder, they can use the laws to ensure they are able to stay in Britain. ‘The immigration judges have ruled he had a right to a family life. What about my right to a family life with my daughter? ‘That was taken away in the most horrendously cruel fashion by a serial criminal who has never contributed to our society.’
He pledged to continue his seven-year fight for justice and is seeking legal advice over the possibility of a judicial review. Ministers are considering whether to take the case to the Court of Appeal.
David Cameron wrote a letter to Mr Houston offering his condolences and telling him of his plans to change the law
Backbench Tory MPs said the case showed how the Human Rights Act was preventing ministers from controlling Britain’s borders. MP Douglas Carswell said: ‘If we take the tribunal’s findings to their logical conclusion we would leave an open door to the world.’
The Tories campaigned on a promise to bring in a British Bill of Rights to replace Labour’s Human Rights Act, but within weeks of the General Election result, the pledge was downgraded and replaced by a commitment to a review, effectively kicking the policy into the long grass.
SOURCE
Sex offenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt?
It is true that existing bans are too sweeping but this goes too far in the other direction -- JR
Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are ‘unfair’ and even convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said.
Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights.
In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”
A review is currently ongoing into the Vetting and Barring Scheme, introduced following the 2002 Soham murders, amid concerns by ministers that it is too heavy handed.
As well as banning certain offenders, the law currently requires adults coming into regular contact with children other than their own to be screened.
Mrs May ordered the review amid concerns about the vetting of ordinary volunteers such as parents who drive children to football practice and church flower arrangers.
In her article, Miss Reece suggested that the review should also introduce an assumption that sex offenders including child abusers posed no threat once they had served their sentence. She said: "There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.
“The Vetting and Barring Scheme and other legislative measures single out sex offenders for unfair special treatment and they destroy the principle that a prisoner pays his or her debt by serving their sentence before re-entering society on equal terms.”
Individuals are placed on the “Barred List” and banned from working with youngsters or vulnerable adults if they are convicted of a sexual or violent offence, or one involving the mistreatment of a child.
Miss Reece criticised the rules for leading all sex offenders to be “tarred with the same brush,” saying that while “careful screening” was “important,” the issuing of a “blanket ban” violated the rights of criminals who wanted to adopt or work with young people.
She highlighted the case of a grandfather with a conviction for having sex with a 15-year-old dating back to when he was 29, who was refused permission to adopt his own grandchildren.
The ban could contravene the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, and may leave the Government open to legal challenge, Miss Reece warned.
Comparing sex offenders to cohabiting couples, she suggested that if blanket bans on the former were allowed, it would make sense to bar those who were not married from adopting because parents who were wed were less likely to separate with harmful consequences for the child.
She also highlighted the case of four nurses who recently won a High Court challenge after being barred for having convictions. One of the nurses was banned over a police caution for leaving her own children alone in their home. “Rather than presuming that everyone is a potential risk to children and must therefore be vetted, any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk,” the academic said. “This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children.”
Miss Reece has been at the LSE since September 2009, having previously worked at the University of London, University College London and Birkbeck College. A trained barrister, she has an MSc in logic and scientific method, and was awarded the Socio-Legal Studies Association Book Prize in 2004 for a monograph called “Divorcing Responsibly. She has also argued that rape victims should no longer be granted anonymity.
A Home Office spokesman said: “It is safe to say that the vetting review will not be considering allowing paedophiles to adopt. It wouldn’t exactly go down well with the public.
“The review is very much focused on seeing whether the rules have gone too far in stopping normal volunteering with children, while continuing to carry out criminal records checks on people in sensitive posts, such as in the NHS.”
SOURCE
Unveiled: A Case for France's Burqa Ban
Unlike the 2004 French law against “religious symbols” in public places (and obviously aimed at the Islamic headscarf), the law banning the burqa this past July has not given rise, at least for the moment, to any important debate in France or the rest of Europe. (The burqa is also forbidden in Belgium.) This lack of reaction—the dog that didn’t bark—has surprised many Americans. It shouldn’t. The ban does not take aim at any specific Koranic obligation, which makes it more difficult to stigmatize it as “Islamophobic.” Moreover, barely two thousand Muslim women in France wear this head-to-toe concealment, which means that there is not much of a constituency for outrage. And finally, many of the French, in most cases sympathetic with downtrodden minorities, are shocked, even disgusted, by the sight of women wearing this get-up in public.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the French Republic was the first Western European country to debate whether or not it was necessary to publicly display religious symbols in schools and other civic places traditionally ruled by sectarian neutrality. An emphatically secular country marked by many centuries of strife with an intolerant, reactionary Catholic church hostile to progress and to the emancipation of women, France today is de-Christianized and characterized by a strong suspicion of any kind of religion. Paradoxically, we are also the European nation that comprises the strongest community of Jews (five hundred thousand) and Muslims (five million, the majority coming from North Africa), who live their faith in a public way, defining themselves explicitly in opposition to the French ideal of laïcité.
To understand the French reaction that has so startled our American friends, it is necessary to return to the Republican Contract (and the Declaration of the Rights of Man that founded it), which in fact acknowledges equal rights to all individuals regardless of their possessions, their gender, their beliefs, their skin color. Under this vision of secularism and human rights, a person is no longer reduced to his faith, to his ethnic origins.
The error committed by so many Anglo-Americans, starting with President Obama, consists of accusing French republicanism of being hostile to religion and of behaving in an authoritarian manner. In fact, the republic accords its citizens the full and complete right to belong to all cultural, religious, folk, and linguistic associations that they want to, provided that these associations are not seen as superior to the common law and do not become the pretext for one group or another to call for separate rights in the name of their convictions. An individual’s most fundamental right is to free himself or herself from his or her origins: Muslims should be able to leave Islam, become atheist, not observe Ramadan, or convert to Buddhism or to Christianity in the same way that Christians can fall away from their faith and shop for other forms of belief. (In fact, the French press have noted many cases of Muslim aggression against other Muslims who chose not to have children; and as for apostates, they routinely face death threats.) The burqa (or the North African niqab or the Middle Eastern hijab) is a direct challenge to the ideal of laicization since it dramatically violates the principle of equality between men and women.
These issues all came up in a television debate I had not long ago with Tariq Ramadan, generally regarded as the most influential contemporary Muslim intellectual in Europe, whose theories build a “bridge” between Islam and modernity. Ramadan asserted that in calling for a ban on the burqa, I failed to take into account what he called “innate feminine modesty.” On the contrary, I answered, I worry so much about modesty that I would like to extend the Islamic veil to all living creatures, first men, but also cows, pigs, horses, cats, and dogs. And I suggested to the stylish Ramadan (who, despite his reputation as a liberal, is also a friend of Hamas and of the Muslim Brotherhood), that he wear a veil fashioned by Dior or Prada. Why is it good to see a man’s face when it is not to see a woman’s, unless (as is the case in Islam) the woman’s face is regarded as something more than flesh covering bone and musculature—a provocative sexual offering encouraging men to sin. Ramadan’s “modesty” functioned as code for the medieval notion that woman is nature and depravity while man is knowledge and reason.
The 2004 law banning the Islamic headscarf from being worn in the classroom was finally passed without a hitch, although it caused some inconsequential disputes that were settled by the courts. Muslim girls did not leave the schools of the republic en masse, as predicted; indeed, sixty-eight percent of all French Muslim women, in a poll conducted after the smoke had cleared in 2006, overwhelmingly supported this ban and strongly insisted that France would have been dishonored if it had chosen to emulate the vast majority of Muslim countries where women dare not walk down the street with bare heads. They were saying, in effect, that the veil conceals less than it reveals; that it is not a mark of “modesty” but a proselytizing instrument that offers to subjugate and even endanger young girls and women who don’t wear it.
But the recent burqa ban, launched on the initiative of André Gerin, a Communist Party deputy from Vénissieux, poses a different set of problems. Many citizens groused that the ideal of laïcité does not stretch to the state telling them how to dress or regulating the length of skirts, the color of jackets, the wearing of a cross, a Star of David, or a Hand of Fatima (Hamsa). These arguments were repeated by “feminist Muslim” groups that have cropped up over the past ten years and which now declared loudly and strongly in the media that they wear the niqab voluntarily to protect their dignity and that no husband, brother, or parent forces them to do so. And yet these “feminists” also defend—in the name of the Koran—almost all the other controls that encumber Muslim women in the West, with the possible exceptions of stoning and genital mutilation, which they criticize but do not vehemently condemn. Nonetheless, the state still risks overstepping its role by intervening in the realm of private life and personal choice.
There remains another, more pragmatic argument against the burqa advanced by some jurists: the social invisibility it imposes on those who wear it. Like masked protestors who would attack riot police and then disappear back into the crowd, women swallowed up by this covering can fabricate a false identity, or even be men in disguise, able to cross borders or go through identity checkpoints without revealing themselves. Can society accept the idea of a masked mother picking her child up from school or a eye-slitted driver speeding down the highway at a hundred miles an hour? How do you deal with a veiled woman refusing to identify herself in order to get married, as has been the case in a number of town halls in France? Such critics point out that Egypt strictly regulates the wearing of the niqab in public establishments; that in Turkey, women must take university exams bare-headed. And Belgium has far outpaced the French when it comes to the burqa: a number of municipalities have issued executive orders banning both it and the niqab except during carnival, thereby redefining this garb as a quaint item of nostalgia appropriate only in festive moments.
The problem for society is that a person who goes into the streets hidden in this way becomes invisible and erased, denied individual singularity. The Carmelite nun, cloistered in her convent, must present her face uncovered when she appears in civil society. But not the Muslim woman who covers herself. She is nothing, merely a shadow that does not have the right to a minimal social existence, and while walking in the free air remains imprisoned behind her great wall of clothing. This is an invitation for a population of ghosts to wander French streets; no-legged zombies, like so many extras in horror films; a collection of clones denied the most fundamental right of existence—the right of recognition. These ghosts in black silently campaign for the concealment of all women—and characterize as indecent those who do not do it. But this is exactly what the Wahhabist and Salafist sects who encourage this type of practice count on: using covered women as emissaries of a pure and harsh Islam that seeks to reinvigorate European Muslim communities tainted by contact with the decadent, wicked, corrupt West.
The burqa law was affirmed on July 13, 2010, despite massive abstention from the Left, which, with few exceptions, accused the majority of trying to distract from “the real problems of the country.” The law must still be submitted for approval to the Constitutional Council, where it will face a formidable question: Is requiring citizens to be recognizable in their public life a condition for living together, or an attack on individual liberties? France is not alone; other European countries have similar legislative projects under consideration.
The burqa, like the hijab, polygamy, female circumcision, and arranged marriages, poses a fundamental problem to democratic societies: it is not just terrorism that we need to fight, or the work of soldiers, police, and secret services; it is also fundamentalism, equally threatening, even if launched by sermons rather than bombs. It is the religious obscurantism of the fundamentalists that aims to impose on open and liberal societies archaic rules, incompatible with fundamental human rights. In this case, France, generally hostile to social groups who imprison individuals in iron collars of tradition or belief, seems to me more advanced than other European nations, more willing to be a frontline state in this struggle. It sees the stakes: either European Islam turns its back on modernity and locks itself in a symbolic fortress, or, like Christianity and Judaism, it becomes an enlightened, pluralistic religion whose example will shine out from Europe over the ulema, that whole worldwide community of believers who often exist in the dark.
SOURCE
Coral Ridge Ministries Responds to Anti-‘Hate’ Group
“Telling uncomfortable truths about homosexual behavior is not an act of hate”
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) opposition to homosexual activism equals hate. It’s right down there with racism. That’s the formula that the SPLC has used to smear several of the nation’s leading conservative Christian groups as “hate groups.” But it says more about the SPLC’s agenda than anything else.
The far-left, Alabama-based SPLC, famous for monitoring the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, racist skinheads and black separatists, now has, among others, the Family Research Council, American Family Association and Traditional Values Coalition on its “hate group” list.
Coral Ridge Ministries (CRM) didn’t make the “hate” list but is designated as an “anti-gay group.” For the SPLC, being “anti-gay” means harboring unfounded animus, which in our case is an unwarranted assumption. CRM opposes the homosexual activist agenda because we believe homosexual behavior is wrong, unhealthy and reversible, and that the homosexual agenda poses an acute threat to the freedoms of religion, speech and association.[1]
The SPLC said in its pre-Thanksgiving announcement that “viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.” To achieve that status, they say, takes citing or publishing research that has “been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.”
We agree that no one should cite faulty research, such as the now-discredited statistic that homosexuals make up 10 percent of the U.S. population. That false number, based on the fraudulent Alfred C. Kinsey studies, has been long used by homosexual activists to further their cause.
Nor should anyone engage in name-calling. It’s as wrong for the Rev. Fred Phelps and his tiny Topeka, Kansas, congregation to refer to homosexuals as “f__s,” as it was some years ago for homosexuals marching outside Dr. D. James Kennedy’s Fort Lauderdale church to brandish signs blaring messages like “Kennedy = Hate Crimes” and “Temple of Doom.”
Everyone needs to stick to the facts. But what are they? The SPLC released a report that misrepresents Christian groups’ positions, ignores inconvenient science and repeats claims based on junk science and adopted by professional guilds that long ago, bullied by homosexual activists, abandoned any pretense of objectivity.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality in 1973 from its list of disordered conditions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the bible of the profession.[2] The change came about not because of new research or because scientists had made groundbreaking discoveries; it was solely a political coup engineered by homosexual activists. At a crucial APA task force meeting on homosexuality, opponents were given only 15 minutes “to present a rebuttal that summarized seventy years of psychiatric and psychoanalytic opinion.”[3] The process was documented by pro-homosexual writer Ronald Bayer, who wrote: “The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.”[4]
Dr. Charles Socarides, a practicing psychiatrist who witnessed events at APA conventions, including threats of violence by homosexual activists, said, “The APA could only take the action it did by disregarding and dismissing hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports that had been done on homosexuality over the previous two decades.”[5] In 1975, the American Psychological Association followed suit under similar conditions.
For a precise account of how homosexual activists commandeered the guilds, see The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science, by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Ph.D.
It’s also a fact that no evidence exists for a so-called “gay gene.” Dean Hamer’s 1993 research made the cover of Newsweek with the headline, “Gay Gene?” but Hamer, a homosexual, answered “Absolutely not,” when asked if he had found it. Likewise, Simon LeVay, who did a widely reported brain study in 1991, said:
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”
What the Bible Says
Coral Ridge Ministries Senior Writer Robert Knight points out in his new book, The Truth About Marriage, that it’s beyond dispute that the Bible regards homosexual conduct as sin. God judged the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness, which prominently included homosexuality. The New Testament in Jude 7 refers to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah as “having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.” And the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Roman church refers in unmistakable terms (“vile passions”) to homosexuality as sin (Romans 1:26, 27).
It’s also a fact, however, that some people who indulge in homosexual conduct later renounce it and go on to lead lives of abstinence or faithfulness in marriage. This is hugely controversial for homosexual advocates but beyond dispute. Thousands of men and women have abandoned the homosexual lifestyle and its defining behavior, as the group Exodus International can attest. And this has been taking place for centuries. It’s no different from people discovering that other sinful behaviors are worth resisting.
In his first century letter to Christians at Corinth, a hotbed of sexual immorality, Paul provides a long list of those who will not enter God’s kingdom, including fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortionists. And then he adds: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:11 nkjv).
Conclusion
Telling uncomfortable truths about homosexual behavior is not an act of hate. Conversely, it is not loving to withhold information and to enable people engaged in destructive behavior. It is especially immoral to encourage youngsters to experiment with homosexuality or transgenderism.
The SPLC slander of Christian organizations is a troubling shift; instead of being focused on actions, we now are told that certain facts are disallowed in public discourse because they bear negatively on the political agenda and sensitivities of a group of people.
This takes us well toward what Robert Knight has warned will happen if homosexual activists achieve their public policy and cultural goals: the criminalization of Christianity.
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.
***************************
16 December, 2010
Abu Dhabi erects $11m Christmas tree
Abu Dhabi is of course a Muslim country so this should squash claims by the ACLU and others that Christmas trees "offend" Muslims
CHRISTMAS came in extravagant fashion to the Muslim desert emirate of Abu Dhabi as a glitzy hotel unveiled a bejeweled Christmas tree valued at more than $11 million. It is the "most expensive Christmas tree ever", said Hans Olbertz, general manager of Emirates Palace hotel, at its inauguration.
The 13m faux evergreen, located in the gold leaf-bedecked rotunda of the hotel, is decorated with silver and gold bows, ball-shaped ornaments and small white lights.
But the necklaces, earrings and other jewelery draped around the tree's branches are what give it a record value. The tree holds a total of 181 diamonds, pearls, emeralds, sapphires and other precious stones, said Khalifa Khouri, owner of Style Gallery, which provided the jewellery.
"The tree itself is about $US10,000 (AU$10,100)," Mr Olbertz said. "The jewellery has a value of over $US11 million - I think $US11.4, $US11.5."
"Probably, this will be another" Dubai entry into the Guinness book of world records, Mr Olbertz said, adding that Emirates Palace planned to contact the organisation about the tree which is to stay until the end of the year.
Asked if the tree might offend religious sensibilities in the United Arab Emirates, where the vast majority of the local population is Muslim, Mr Olbertz said he did not think it would. "It's a very liberal country," he said.
Like other hotels in the United Arab Emirates, it has had a Christmas tree up in previous years. But this year, "we said we have to do something different" and the hotel's marketing team hatched the plan, said Mr Olbertz.
SOURCE
The ACLU's Not So Holy Trinity
The ACLU seems unusually active right now. What gives? Maybe it's the Christmas season, which always seems to spring the ACLU into high gear, more miserable than usual.
I tried to ignore the latest round of ACLU legal challenges against religious Americans, but they became too much. The surge has been remarkably ecumenical, not singling out Protestant or Catholic interests.
First, I got an email from Mat Staver's group, Liberty Counsel, highlighting a bunch of ACLU lawsuits. Then I read a page-one, top-of-the-fold headline in the National Catholic Register, "Catholic Hospitals Under New Attack by ACLU," regarding an ACLU request to compel Catholic hospitals to do abortions. Next was an email from a colleague at Coral Ridge Ministries, forwarding a Washington Times article. Then came another email from yet another Christian group on lawsuits somewhere in Florida. And on and on.
That was just a sampling of this year's Christmas cheer, courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union. At least the ACLU always finds a way to unite Protestants and Catholics.
In the interest of faith and charity, I'd like to add my own ecumenical offering—a history lesson. It concerns some fascinating material I recently published on the ACLU's early founders, especially three core figures: Roger Baldwin, Harry Ward, and Corliss Lamont. I can only provide a snapshot here, but you'll get the picture.
First, Roger Baldwin: Baldwin was the founder of the ACLU, so far to the left that he was hounded by the Justice Department of the progressive's progressive, Woodrow Wilson. Perhaps it was a faith thing. Wilson was a progressive, but he was also a devout Christian, and Roger Baldwin was anything but that.
Baldwin was an atheist. He was also a onetime communist, who, among other ignoble gestures, wrote a horrible 1928 book called Liberty Under the Soviets. Notably, he was smart enough not to join Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Other early officials of the ACLU, which was founded almost exactly the same time as the American Communist Party, included major party members like William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Louis Budenz (who later broke with the party). Communists used the ACLU to deflect questions from the U.S. government over whether they were loyal to the USSR, were serving Joe Stalin in some capacity, and were committed to the overthrow of the American system.
That whole "overthrow-the-government" thing is something our universities tell us is baloney, a bunch of anti-communist, McCarthyite tripe. In fact, it took me mere minutes of digging into the Comintern Archives on CPUSA to find actual fliers and formal proclamations from the American Communist Party publicly advocating precisely that objective. (Click here to view some of the documents.) I also found the ACLU rife throughout those archives.
So bad had been the ACLU in aiding and abetting American communists that various legislative committees, federal and state, considered whether it was a communist front. The 1943 California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities reported that the ACLU "may be definitely classed as a communist front." The committee added that "at least 90 percent of its [the ACLU's] efforts are expended on behalf of communists who come into conflict with the law." That 90-percent figure was consistent with a major report produced by Congress a decade earlier, January 17, 1931.
Note the consistency: Defending communists secretly committed to Stalin's Russia had been a central component of the ACLU's work since its inception.
In my research, I also found constant approving references to the ACLU in CPUSA's flagship publication, the Daily Worker. The Daily Worker loved the ACLU. Moreover, I was struck by how early the ACLU had been challenging not just Christians but their most joyous holiday, with the Daily Worker's eager approval.
To cite just one example, Christmas 1946, one of the first for returning troops from World War II, the ACLU initiated legal action to stop the singing of Christmas carols in California public schools. For that, the communists were most grateful to Baldwin and the boys.
Aside from Roger Baldwin, there were two other especially influential figures comprising this not-so-holy ACLU trinity. They were Corliss Lamont and Harry F. Ward. Covering these two adequately here is impossible. I've devoted probably about 10,000 words to Lamont alone in my book, Dupes—both men were precisely that: dupes. The ways in which Lamont and Ward were rolled by communists is astounding, with Lamont granted a special Potemkin village tour of the USSR in 1932, guided by Soviet handlers, where he swallowed the most outrageous propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Lamont was most inspired by the Bolsheviks' militant atheism, especially the churches they converted into wicked atheist museums. Lamont had already written his atheist classic, The Illusion of Immortality, which had been his dissertation at Columbia University under John Dewey, godfather to American public education, who himself had made a Potemkin village tour of the USSR (1928).
Given his leftist atheism, Lamont was at home with the ACLU. Harry Ward, however, was a Methodist minister, and a professor at Union Theological Seminary. How could he possibly support the ACLU?
That's what made Harry Ward an even bigger dupe. More than supporting the ACLU, Ward was chairman as Baldwin served as director.
Imagine: a Christian was a founder of the ACLU. That's Harry Ward.
When it came to sheer manipulation by communists, Ward was arguably the single greatest dupe in the entire history of the American Religious Left. Tellingly, a major Congressional report (July 1953) on communist activities in the New York City area featured more references to Ward than any other figure—twice as many as the next most-cited figure, Earl Browder, longtime face of American communism.
I found documents in the Soviet archives where communist officials in Moscow and New York deliberately targeted Ward to help push their propaganda. In one, a December 1920 letter, Ward is listed by Comintern officials as a source to get their materials on the shelves at the seminary library.
It wasn't atheistic communism that concerned the Rev. Ward. No, it was anti-communism. Writing in Protestant Digest in January 1940, long before Senator McCarthy arrived on the scene, Ward admonished the faithful of the perils of "anti-communism," which was being employed "under the leadership of [Congressman Martin] Dies in a new red hunt," one "more ruthless than that of [former Attorney General] Mitchell Palmer." (Both Dies and Palmer were Democrats.)
Alas, Christian charity compels me to concede a key fact, particularly at Christmas time. Among this not-so-holy trinity of Baldwin-Lamont-Ward, there was a measure of redemption for Baldwin at least. Baldwin eventually, after the Red Terror, after the Great Purge, after the Ukrainian famine, after the Hitler-Stalin Pact, after millions of rotting corpses, after the gulag, after the communists had violated every imaginable civil liberty, awakened to the stench of the Soviet system. He finally saw communism, and communists, as a genuine concern.
By the early 1950s, Baldwin began insisting that ACLU officers take a non-communist oath. Call Baldwin crazy, but he figured that any ACLU member who held allegiance to "totalitarian dictatorship" was not truly serious about civil liberties. Perhaps they were publicly exploiting American civil liberties to privately support a nation (the USSR) that had no civil liberties? Good thought. Who could argue with that?
Well, Corliss Lamont could—as could I. F. Stone (who the latest evidence suggests was an actual Soviet agent), several editors at the Nation, several professors from Columbia, the New York Times, and other usual suspects. Finding a purge they could finally condemn, they objected to this ACLU "purge." Lamont resigned.
So, yes, Roger Baldwin's ACLU backed away from its communist leanings.
Sadly, however, Roger Baldwin's ACLU never seems to have shirked from its atheist leanings, which haunt us still today.
Could it be that the ACLU's alleged onetime commitment to defending communism has shifted to an apparent commitment to defending atheism? It certainly seems like it, especially this time of year. And if the ACLU doesn't like that perception, it should do something to change it.
SOURCE
Ruling Elites Wage War on Morality in the Courts
As the nation lurches back toward well-founded suspicion of big government, the ruling elites are putting the pedal to the metal against the moral foundations.
In a matter of months, three liberal federal judges struck down California’s constitutional marriage amendment, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the military’s law barring homosexuality. Why mess around with legislators when federal judges can create havoc with the stroke of a pen?
Sometimes just the threat of a wacko liberal ruling is enough to drive policy. That seems to be the reasoning behind Defense Secretary Robert Gates warning Congress to homosexualize the military before the courts do it. He said it would be disruptive if a court acts, so Congress should order up the lavender tanks instead.
I don’t recall a single reporter asking Gates why, if ending the policy by court order would harm the military, it would be less disruptive if done by the lame-duck Congress? Gates himself hinted at the answer: training (i.e. brainwashing) could begin earlier. Think about that. Troops drawn from America’s heartland will be “trained” to appreciate sodomy—or else. Wonder if they’ll break out those little Maoist dunce caps while they’re at it?
The military keeps ducking bullets in the Senate. A procedural vote on the policy failed to overcome a Republican filibuster on December 9—just barely. But Harry Reid, Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman seem determined to jam it through in a separate bill.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs warned before the vote: “Either Congress is going to solve this legislatively, or the courts are going to solve this. The policy is going to come to an end.” Who cares if the Pentagon’s recent survey showed that Army and Marine combat troops overwhelmingly oppose lifting the policy?
Despite the treachery still being hatched in the Senate, most of the dirty work to redefine morality as bigotry has been initiated in the courts.
It was a California federal judge, Virginia Philips, who struck down the military’s law in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America (could any case be more aptly titled?). She then issued a dictum to the entire armed forces here and abroad to make bases gay-friendly. Before the Ninth Circuit issued a temporary halt to her order, Obama’s Pentagon suspended the policy, then made it more difficult to enforce.
Meanwhile, on Dec. 6, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the challenge to California’s Prop 8 marriage amendment. A ruling is expected within three to 12 months. The case will then go to the full Ninth Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In November 2008, more than seven million Californians voted for Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. From the beginning, it was clear that California’s ruling elites were working to destroy marriage. Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger violated their oaths of office by refusing to defend Prop. 8.
The case mysteriously keeps winding up before leftwing activist judges. Openly gay U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker used it as a platform to promote homosexuality and disparage traditional religious beliefs. He equated biblical morality with prejudice, and struck Prop 8 down.
The case then went to the Ninth’s three-judge panel with two Democratic and one Republican appointees. One of them, Jimmy Carter appointee Stephen Reinhardt, is married to Ramona Ripston, executive director of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU. That’s the group that took a lead role in opposing Prop 8, counseled plaintiffs, and filed an amicus brief.
Addressing this blatant conflict of interest, Reinhardt brushed it aside, saying, “I will be able to rule impartially.” Sure he will, like he did in the 2002 case in which he decided to strike the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Reinhardt is the poster boy for loony left federal jurists.
The ruling elites are, by hook or by crook, trying to make over America in their own corrupt image. The American people should be outraged by this pattern of legal activism that flouts the U.S. and state constitutions, the will of the people and basic rules of court conduct.
In his dissent in Romer v. Evans (1996), in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2, a popularly-approved law that barred misapplying civil rights status to “sexual orientation,” Justice Antonin Scalia pinpointed the problem:
“This court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that ‘animosity’ toward homosexuality … is evil. I vigorously dissent.”
Later, in his dissent in Lawrence v Texas (2003), in which the court cited international opinion in overturning the Texas sodomy law, Scalia wrote:
“Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”
Well, to accomplish that, they’re going to have to burn all the Bibles, suspend the workings of biology and scrub the history books clean of 5,000 years of the universal understanding that sex belongs between men and women in marriage. And they’re going to have to wipe out the First Amendment while they’re at it.
That’s no small feat, even for Masters of the Universe like Judge Reinhardt, Barack Obama and Robert Gates.
SOURCE
The Feminist Deception
Making the rounds on YouTube these days is a film of a group of manly looking women preparing for and conducting a "flash dance" in a Philadelphia food store. The crew of ladies, dressed in tight black clothes and sequined accessories, arrives at The Fresh Grocer supermarket, breaks into a preplanned chant ordering shoppers not to buy Sabra and Tribe hummus and telling them to oppose Israeli "apartheid" and support "Palestine."
From their attire and attitude, it is fairly clear that the participants in the video would congratulate themselves on their commitment to the downtrodden, the wretched of the earth suffering under the jackboot of the powerful. They would likely all also describe themselves as feminists.
But if being a human rights activist means attacking the only country in the Middle East that defends human rights, then that means that at the very basic level, the term "human rights activist" is at best an empty term. And if being a feminist means attacking the only country in the Middle East where women enjoy freedom and equal rights, then feminism too, has become at best, a meaningless term. Indeed, if these anti-Israel female protesters are feminists, then feminism is dead.
In 1995, then first lady Hillary Clinton spoke at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. There Clinton seemed to embrace the role of championing the rights of women and human rights worldwide when she proclaimed, "It is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights...If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights, once and for all."
Yet as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton - like her fellow self-described feminists - has chosen to single Israel out for opprobrium while keeping nearly mum on the institutionalized, structural oppression of women and girls throughout the Muslim world. In so acting, Clinton is of course, loyally representing the views of the Obama administration she serves. She is also representing the views of the ideological Left in which Clinton, US President Barack Obama, the human rights and feminist movements are all deeply rooted.
Since the height of the feminist movement in the late 1960s, non-leftist women in the West and Israel have been hard-pressed to answer the question of whether or not we are feminists. Non-leftist women are opposed to the oppression of women. Certainly, we are no less opposed to the oppression of women than leftist women are.
But at its most basic level, the feminist label has never been solely or even predominantly about preventing and ending oppression or discrimination of women. It has been about advancing the Left's social and political agenda against Western societies. It has been about castigating societies where women enjoy legal rights and protections as "structurally" discriminatory against women in order to weaken the legal, moral and social foundations of those societies.
That is, rather than being about advancing the cause of women, to a large extent, the feminist movement has used the language of women's rights to advance a social and political agenda that has nothing to do with women. So to a large degree, the feminist movement itself is a deception.
The deception at the heart of the feminist movement is nowhere more apparent than in the silence with which self-professed feminists and feminist movements ignore the inhumane treatment of women who live under Islamic law. If feminism weren't a hollow term, then prominent feminists would be the leaders of the anti-jihad movement. Gloria Steinem and her sisters would be leading the call for the overthrow of the anti-female mullocracy in Iran and the end of gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia.
Instead, in 2008 Ms. Magazine, which Steinem founded and which has served as the mouthpiece of the American feminist movement, refused to run an ad featuring then foreign minister Tzipi Livni, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and then speaker of the Knesset Dalia Itzik that ran under the headline, "This is Israel." It was too partisan, the magazine claimed.
Leading feminist voices in the US and Europe remain unforgivably silent on the unspeakable oppression of women and girls in Islamic societies. And this cannot simply be attributed to a lack of interest in international affairs. Islamic subjugation and oppression of women happens in Western countries as well. Genital mutilation, forced marriage and other forms of abuse are widespread.
For instance, every year hundreds of Muslim women and girls in Western countries are brutally murdered by their male relatives in so-called "honor killings." Pamela Geller, the intrepid blogger at Atlas Shrugs website has steadfastly documented every case she has found. This year she ran an ad campaign on public buses and taxis in major US cities to raise public awareness of their plight. And for her singular efforts in championing the right to life of Muslim women and girls, she has been reviled by the Left as an anti-Islamic bigot.
Former Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali was forced to flee Holland and live surrounded by bodyguards for the past six years because she has made an issue of Islamic oppression of women and girls. The Left - including the feminist movement - has treated this remarkable former Muslim and champion of women's rights as a leper.
If all the feminist community's policy of ignoring Islamic oppression of women did was keep it out of the headlines it would still be unforgivable. But the fact is that by not speaking of the central challenge to women's rights in our times, the organized feminist movement, and the Left it is a part of, are abetting Islam's unspeakable crimes against women and girls. It does so in two ways.
Tyranny unchallenged is tyranny abetted. And the first way that the organized feminist movement and the Left abet the oppression of women by Islamic authorities is by signaling to those authorities that they can get away with it. This truth is laid bare by the responses of Islamic authorities in the rare cases where their oppression of women has received Western attention.
For instance, in 2006, an Iranian Islamic court found Mohammadi-Ashtiani guilty of adultery and sentenced the ethnic Azeri kindergarten teacher and mother of two to death by stoning. She was later also found guilty of murdering her husband. Ashtiani's confessions in both cases were extracted under torture. She has already received 99 lashes for her reputed initial crime. Not a Farsi or Arabic speaker, when her adultery trial ended, Ashtiani didn't even know she was convicted or what her sentence was.
In recent years, Ashtiani's children assisted by Iranian émigré and non-leftist human rights groups launched a courageous campaign to save her life. Over the past year, the campaign was covered in the Western media and garnered the support of notables such as the French and Canadian prime ministers' wives as well as international film stars like Lindsay Lohan, Colin Firth, Emma Thompson, Robert Redford and Juliette Binoche.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International got on board this past summer and decried her treatment. Clinton herself gave a half sentence condemnation of Ashtiani's persecution in August. Indeed, the international attention focused on Ashtiani may have been the reason the Obama administration belatedly voiced opposition to Iran's election to the new UN women's rights council. Iran was elected by acclamation in April, but later defeated by India when a roll call vote was called.
Reeling from this criticism, Iranian authorities began backtracking. First they claimed Ashtiani's death sentence would be cancelled. Then they said she would be hanged rather than stoned. Today her fate remains unclear and her life is still in grave danger. But if pressure on Iranian authorities keeps up, there is a reasonable chance that Ashtiani's long ordeal will end in life, rather than death.
Ashtiani's case is proof that when the West makes the barbaric abuse of women an issue, the Islamic world attenuates its abuse of women. Pressure works. In contrast, an absence of pressure empowers the oppressors.
The second way that the feminists and the Left they are a part of abet Islamic oppression of women is through their animosity towards Israel. When the Shariah- besotted leaders of the Muslim world see the Western Left devote its energies to attacking Israel - the only human rights and women's rights protecting country in the Middle East - they see there is no reason for them to reconsider their willingness to tyrannize their women and girls.
Take Indonesia for example. In 2003, then Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri agreed that as part of a ceasefire agreement, the separatist Aceh province was allowed to institute Shariah law as the law of the province. In 2009, the Aceh parliament passed a law making adultery punishable by stoning. On the central squares of the province that is home to 4 million, people are routinely publicly whipped for offenses against Islam.
For example, just last Friday Anis Saputra, 24, and Kiki Hanafilia, 17 each received eight lashes in a public ceremony outside a local mosque for being caught kissing in October. The two are reportedly married to other people and they apparently were given lashes rather than stoned to death because they had yet to consummate their alleged romance.
Last year the province also forbade women and girls from wearing pants. A France 24 investigation of Shariah in Aceh showed a traumatized 14 year old girl who was beset by Islamic police on her way home from school. They cut her jeans off in the middle of the street.
Yet rather than criticize Indonesia for these appalling developments, last month Obama visited Jakarta and waxed poetic about Islamic tolerance of differences and applauded Indonesia for its commitment to democracy. And while ignoring Indonesia's repressive Shariah-ruled province where Islamic oppression is the rule not the exception, Obama devoted his criticism to attacking Israel for allowing Jews to build homes in Jerusalem.
There is no doubt that attitudes that discriminate against women exist today in Western countries as well as in Israel. Women in the free world have unique challenges to overcome because of our gender. But a sense of proportion is required here. These challenges are not overwhelming, systemic or in most cases life-threatening.
On the other hand, hundreds of millions of women and girls throughout the Islamic world are daily terrorized by everyone from their families to their judges. They have no reason to believe that if challenged their rights - even their right to life - will be protected.
The fact that the ladies in Philadelphia decided to take their stand against Israel and that that Clinton and Obama attack Israel for building homes for Jews in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria while they all ignore the suffering of the women of Islam speaks volumes about the degradation of the West under the Left's social and political leadership. It also tells non-leftist women in the West that being pro-women's rights and being a feminist are increasingly mutually exclusive.
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 December, 2010
European judges kill off British law that curbed sham marriages
Laws credited with cutting the number of sham marriages by more than 70 per cent were yesterday killed off by European judges because they breach human rights.
The rules, which required some immigrants to apply for a certificate of approval from the Home Office and pay a £295 fee before they could wed, were judged discriminatory and against the right to marry by the European Court of Human Rights.
Judges said they had ‘grave concerns’ about the scheme because many immigrants could not afford the fee.
The scheme, introduced by David Blunkett in 2004, resulted in a huge reduction in the number of ceremonies performed in its first few years. The number of couples tying the knot in register offices in the East London borough of Newham fell by 72 per cent in the first two years. Across the capital, marriages fell by 36 per cent.
The number of reports from registrars about suspicious marriages also dropped spectacularly. A total of 6,652 people were refused a certificate under the scheme. However, a string of court rulings in the UK began to challenge the system.
The final nail in its coffin was hammered home by the European judges yesterday when they ruled in favour of Nigerian asylum seeker Osita Chris Iwu and ordered Britain to pay him £7,200 in compensation and legal costs of £13,600.
Mr Iwu arrived in Northern Ireland in 2004 and claimed asylum in 2006. In the same year, he proposed to his girlfriend, Sinead O’Donoghue, who has dual British and Irish nationality.
The couple were first barred from marrying at all, but after winning a series of UK court rulings, then could not afford the fee. Mr Iwu was banned from working and his fiancee was on benefits and caring for her disabled parents. They finally married after borrowing the money. Yesterday the Strasbourg court ordered the Government to refund the £295 fee.
The judges said the exemption for Anglicans having Church of England weddings also breached religious freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Home Office earlier this year announced that certificates of approval would be scrapped, in anticipation of the ruling.
SOURCE
Switzerland considers repealing incest laws
Switzerland is considering repealing its incest laws because they are "obsolete" -- but the biology behind the ban is the same as ever. Children born of close relatives have a high rate of congenital defects. Even the Muslim custom of cousin marriage has that effect
The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law decriminalising sex between consenting family members which must now be considered by the government. There have been only three cases of incest since 1984.
Switzerland, which recently held a referendum passing a draconian law that will boot out foreigners convicted of committing the smallest of crimes, insists that children within families will continue to be protected by laws governing abuse and paedophilia.
Daniel Vischer, a Green party MP, said he saw nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, even if they were related. "Incest is a difficult moral question, but not one that is answered by penal law," he said.
Barbara Schmid Federer of The Christian People's Party of Switzerland said the proposal from the upper house was "completely repugnant." "I for one could not countenance painting out such a law from the statute books."
The Protestant People's Party is also opposed to decriminalising the offence which at present carries a maximum three year jail term. A spokesman for the party said: "Murder is also quite rare in Switzerland but no one suggests that we remove that as an office from the statutes."
SOURCE
Australia: Draft legislation boosts homosexual marriage
THE federal Attorney-General's Department is in the early stages of drafting broad anti-discrimination legislation that will make it illegal to discriminate on gender or sexuality grounds and includes a policy suggestion that is a step towards legalising gay marriage.
In its secret Red Book to the incoming Gillard government, the department proposed prohibiting marital and relationship status discrimination "in consolidated bill to include same-sex couples".
The Attorney-General's Red Book says that while commonwealth law prohibits sexuality discrimination in employment, it does not prohibit gender status discrimination.
"This policy commits to including new protections against sexuality or gender status discrimination in the consolidation of commonwealth anti-discrimination laws, which is currently under way," it says.
A spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland was quick to clarify that the Gillard government remains opposed to gay marriage, and has not changed its position.
Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Rodney Croome said it was untenable for the government to outlaw discrimination against same-sex relationships and yet remain the "ultimate offender by continuing to prohibit same-sex marriages".
"Even if the government refuses to admit this is a step towards allowing same-sex marriages, it's clearly a concession to the majority of ALP members and the majority of Australians who support that reform," he said.
The ALP will debate ending its ban on gay marriage at its national conference late next year.
A Greens motion urging MPs to seek the views of their electorates on changing marriage laws was passed in the House of Representatives last month with Labor's support.
A spokeswoman for the Attorney-General's Department said the extract in the incoming government brief prepared by the department refers to the consolidation of anti-discrimination laws project, which is part of Australia's Human Rights Framework.
SOURCE
Australia: Schools should embrace Ramadan as well as Christmas?
SCHOOLS that celebrate Christmas should also embrace other non-Christian religious festivals, Muslim leaders say. Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, called on the Victorian Education Department to include the traditions of other religious faiths as part of the formal school curriculum.
"Schools have religious programs - but generally they're elective, they're not compulsory," he said. "To have an awareness of these festivals can be very enriching for all students, including people who go to secular schools."
His comments follow Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu's recent move to protect Christmas celebrations at state schools so that all children can enjoy the "simple pleasures" of the holiday.
Mr Trad called on Mr Baillieu to extend the same level of support to other religions as well. "When the Premier of the state makes a statement in that manner, one can't help but feel that he is giving an official stamp to one religion to the exclusion of the other," he said. "To be a Premier for all Victorians, I look forward to his instructions to schools to teach about the important religious festivals for all faiths."
Mr Trad added that Muslim people should be able to take leave from work during Eid, the three-day holiday that marks the end of Ramadan.
Sherene Hassan, vice-president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, also endorsed the incorporation of Ramadan and other religious festivals in the classroom. "Conversations about increasing awareness of different cultures and religions are already taking place and have been happening for some time among educators," she said. "The ICV believes this is a positive way of fostering respect between children."
Sheikh Mohamadu Saleem, spokesman for the Australian National Imams' Council, said that schools could hold anything from lessons to full-blown celebrations, depending on the number of pupils of that particular faith. "Christmas here is celebrated, although the majority of Australians are not Christians but probably consider themselves to be secularists or atheists," he said. "Exposure to other cultures in a multi-racial country is a good thing, especially in schools."
Mr Baillieu and the Victorian Education Department declined to comment when contacted by the Herald Sun.
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 December, 2010
Score One for Judeo-Christian Culture
Multiculturalism creates a neurotic and dishonest society. This is seen very plainly during the Christmas season. Those of us who celebrate Christmas are told that we must rip the very core of this season out, and replace it with a phony, soulless thing called "Holiday" or "Winter." This is dishonest because nobody celebrates winter. "Holiday" is a shallow term to describe Christmas; the term abuses language to impose a false meaning on a reality that most of us cherish.
"Holiday" and "Winter" are weasel words used by cultural appeasers who are too ashamed of their own culture to say what everybody knows to be true. That is, that most of us are celebrating Christmas. Maintaining Christmas is part of preserving the culture that gave us almost everything that we have worth keeping. The whole name-changing charade is neurotic because it forces people to pretend that our majority culture is not what it actually is.
Now, the madness of the Christmas season is upon us- not the madness of shopping centers, but the madness of toxic tolerance. It's happening already in Philadelphia, where a shopping plaza was transformed from "Christmas Village" to "Holiday Village."
Sensitive people will respond that concerns about church-state separation could come in to play. But there is not the remotest trace of such a concern to be found in the initial Philadelphia decision. The reported rationale offered by the city manager was that "This is not about taking Christmas out of the holiday. It's about being more inclusive." He also said that the decision was not based on political correctness, but on "common sense."
Just follow the logic of his statement. We want to be inclusive, which means embrace diversity. Therefore we are going to express disapproval for the majority culture that made this nation great, which is what attracted those diverse people in the first instance. Yes, it was largely immigrants of Christian denominations who built this country, and if one does not like that fact then they are free to find another place whose history doesn’t offend them. Next, as the city manager’s logic goes, in place of the majority culture we will substitute a contrived, nebulous thing called “Holiday” or “Winter” which means nothing to anybody.
Ultimately, the Philadelphia Mayor urged "Christmas" to be placed back on the sign. But consider the conflict that played out there, as it does in many cities, every year: For fear of mildly offending a few unreasonable people who don't like to see or hear the word Christmas, we have chosen instead to completely outrage many people who celebrate Christmas as part of our nation’s majority culture.
Some people call it the "war on Christmas" but this phenomenon is best described as part of something larger that harms us year round: toxic tolerance. Toxic tolerance has been described as "the imperative never to offend anyone, no matter how evil, duplicitous, or exploitative they might be." Tolerance is supposed to be something that makes society better off by placing consideration of others before one’s own narrow views. Liberals treat tolerance as an absolute value. Along with "embracing diversity," tolerance is one of the only values liberals will allow- or should I say tolerate.
Make no mistake about it, those who rip Christmas out of public life are duplicitous and exploitative, no matter what they claim their victim status to be, and no matter how noble their motives. It is duplicitous to attack the majority culture under the pretense of tolerance, when the outcome of the ostensible tolerance is to be intolerant of the majority culture. It is exploitative to use privileged victim status to enforce personal preferences at the expense of a profoundly important cultural and, yes, religious observance. There are few things more self-centered than using privileged victim status to erase part of the culture one finds themselves in. If Westerners went to non-western nations and tried this ungrateful, petty behavior, they would be rightly condemned or worse, depending on the locale.
We invite hypocrisy as well- not just garden variety hypocrisy, but the type of fundamental hypocrisy that makes a sham of our self-respect and attacks our national identity. In particular, we can’t have any mention of Christ at Christmastime in public, government places, but your tax money will be used to degrade and insult Christ.
Witness the Smithsonian’s display, this close to Christmas, of ant-covered Jesus art. The federally funded Smithsonian featured an art film showing a bloody plastic crucifix with ants crawling on the face and body. That’s what they think of our majority culture. Ant-covered Jesus went along with Ellen DeGeneres man-handling her own breasts, and naked brothers kissing- neither part of a Christmas display, as far as one can tell. The people who despise the majority culture are forcing taxpayers to fund their contempt for our society. This is sheer dishonesty and exploitation.
At root, this toxic tolerance and holiday madness is produced by blending multicultural appeasement with a thoughtless liberal notion of equality- not equality brought about by merit or based on majority norms, but equality brought about by government coercion, leveling, and betraying the majority culture. We are told, particularly in educational settings, that all cultures are equal- without any proof or justification. On top of the absurd premise of equality, liberals add legal or social coercion.
If a fraction of the public doesn’t celebrate Christmas, we’ll offend the majority by eliminating references to their cultural observance. Thus stores and communities take "Christ" and "Christmas" out of the season, as in Philadelphia.
Likewise, if certain groups can't perform academically at a high standard, we'll destroy the high standard. Thus a high school in affluent Evanston, Illinois is considering eliminating an honors course because the class had too many whites and not enough minorities.
And if certain groups are more likely to commit terrorism, we’ll avoid offending those groups, pretend that everyone is an equal risk, and obscenely offend all groups. Thus, TSA searches a wheelchair-bound nun.
Every place where multiculturalists make the rules, the people who work hard are having their interests undermined, and the majority culture has to let itself be muzzled. Make things worse for successful people in order to compensate for those who aren't. That will make everyone strive to do better. Erode the majority culture to make minorities feel more welcome. That will increase social harmony.
We in America, and in the West as a whole, need to stop apologizing for our culture. We –or more accurately those who came before us- have created something great, and that is why people leave their non-Christian nations to come here and to other Western nations. How dare anyone say they have a right to the benefits of our society while at the same time attacking the root of our culture?
The norm needs to be reinforced: At Christmas time, we are celebrating the birth of the historical figure who gave rise to our culture, Jesus Christ. We who celebrate Christmas should be vocal in saying that we are offended when Christmas is ripped out of public life. Those who do not celebrate can bloody well not celebrate. It is selfish and insulting to demand that the majority alter something sacred, simply for the convenience or comfort of an unreasonable minority.
If the liberal mayor of Philadelphia can be pressured to change course, just about anyone can. The first battle in the War on Christmas has been won by Judeo-Christian culture. No one has an excuse for sitting out. We need to take our culture back and take our country back. That is one resolution that we can achieve before the New Year.
SOURCE
Why I'd rather my daughter marry a rich man than have a brilliant career
During a chat with a group of 17-year-old girls recently, our conversation turned to their dreams for the future. One girl, Patty, wants to be a lawyer. Another, Justine, has her heart set on becoming a doctor.
But it seems there’s one aspiration that’s proving surprisingly popular — and it doesn’t involve years of dedicated study, either. Yes — feminists look away now — most of the girls I talked to are intent on marrying a rich man.
This idea is buoyed by a culture of celebrity that sees attractive women marrying well and then enjoying luxurious lifestyles as a result. Because of this, matrimony is increasingly viewed as an alternative career choice for the ambitious younger generation.
‘I’m going to train as a pharmacist, work for a couple of years and then marry a rich man,’ Lilly announces in a matter-of-fact manner. Her friend Amy also has it all mapped out: ‘I’m going to be a graphic designer — but when I have children, I’ll give up work. I’m going to marry someone with a really good job.’ Her friends nod in agreement.
As a teacher, perhaps I should have argued with these teenagers and told them their happiness depended on financial independence and high-flying careers. A few years ago I would have done, but not any more.
So what’s changed? Well, four years ago my daughter Nancy was born and I became a harassed working mother. It was my implacable belief that a career was the path to female fulfilment that kept me working after her birth. Back then, I honestly believed that women who didn’t work were boring little drones who had given up all vestige of personality. How wrong I was!
Last year, Jill Berry, the then president of The Girls’ Schools Association, publicly said what many of us women in our late 30s and early 40s have come to realise. She said that combining a high-powered career and motherhood and doing both well is impossible. It’s time we stopped feeding girls the fairy tale that they can do it all — and I agree.
But, more than that, I think most women — if given a truly free choice — would choose to stay at home and look after their children in their infancy. The trouble is that most families rely on the salaries of both parents, so it’s not really an option.
It goes without saying, although it sometimes seems we are expressly forbidden to say it, that having a rich husband would provide that option. When I go to pick up Nancy from school, there are three distinct camps of women at the gates: the frazzled working mums like myself, rushing up at the last minute.
Then there are the childminders of those women still at work. Then there are the stay-at-home mothers — and if you imagine the latter group to be tubby drudges in unflattering tracksuits with fuzzy, unkempt hair, think again.
Today’s breed of stay-at-home mother is impeccably turned out — after all, they’re the only ones rich enough to be able to not work. Mostly in their late 20s, they’re clad in designer gear and have the time to have their hair styled weekly at an upmarket salon. Their nails, miniature works of art, certainly haven’t seen the inside of a pair of Marigolds.
Shallow and vapid they are not — this new breed of uber-housewives are highly educated, with clear ideas about their new role in life. They’re not tied to the kitchen sink as their husband’s wealth means they have nannies and cleaners to help with the grind of chores.
My friend Amanda was an accountant before she married and had children. Now, she doesn’t work, but she certainly isn’t darning socks. She employs a cleaner and a part-time nanny. She goes to the gym and is doing a Spanish course. As she says: ‘I’m a wife and mother, not a skivvy.’ Good for her. Amanda, and plenty of women like her, are marrying for love — but this love gets a helping hand when the bank statement arrives.
At the same time, rich alpha males want to marry women who look amazing and whose wit will dazzle at social functions. For modern girls, marrying a rich man is an indisputable announcement of success. It does make life feel a lot more sparkly than getting up to catch the 6am bus every morning.
If, in 20 years’ time, my daughter announces she’s jumping off the career ladder to marry to a wealthy man, I won’t throw a fit. In fact, I rather hope she does marry money so her life is less toil. She’d have the choice to work if she wants and stay at home if she doesn’t — and not feel like a modern-day Stepford Wife.
That might sound shallow. What I mean, though, is that I’ve learned to accept there’s more routes to a woman’s fulfilment than simply the size of her salary.
Younger women have realised that instead of spending the day listening to some bore drone on about sales figures, it might be more fun to go swimming with the children while the cleaner sorts out the house.
Of course, there are still some stay-at-home mums who spend their days dusting the mantelpiece, but these women would be seen in the new pecking order as having failed miserably.
Old-fashioned? Yes, it is. Victorian novels dwell incessantly on the theme of women seeking out rich men for their daughters to marry.
The difference, of course, between us and the Victorians was that if a man was vile, his poor wife was stuck with him. That’s simply not the case any longer. Not that I’m encouraging divorce, but new laws ensure no woman should be left destitute if a marriage fails.
Julia McFarlane, 50, was recently awarded a house worth £1.5 million and £250,000 a year for life after her marriage to a hugely successful accountant ended in divorce. The judge insisted the years she spent supporting her husband’s career and raising three children be recognised and rewarded. Women in the past were often forced to put up with abuse because they had nowhere else to go and no means of supporting themselves.
But the new alpha housewife is the educated, intelligent woman who chooses not to work — but thanks to her husband’s money certainly isn’t pushing a mop around the kitchen floor either.
Hopefully, my daughter and her generation will benefit from our belated realisation that a happy life isn’t guaranteed by working a 50-hour week and seeing your children on Saturday afternoons. A happy life isn’t guaranteed by marriage to a wealthy man either. But isn’t it time we admitted that it certainly helps?
SOURCE
Palestinian “Martyrdom” Culture the Real Obstacle to Middle East Peace
Finally shining light on one of the most important and most overlooked elements of the Middle East "peace process," the Israeli government has compiled a new quarterly report that analyzes what its Palestinian counterparts are doing to promote peace — or not.
Ensuring that Palestinians are not teaching their children to become terrorists would seem to be a pretty obvious starting point in peace talks, but it hasn't been much of a priority to date for the Jewish state.
Now, however, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is insisting that the Palestinians stop promoting violence and instead push messages of peace in order to show that they're serious.
Although Palestinian incitement has been well-chronicled over the years by the likes of Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), gaining the attention of Western governments requires that the Israeli government first take the issue seriously.
The new Incitement and Culture of Peace Index will help Netanyahu pressure his peers in the United States and Europe to start judging Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas not by what he says at intergovernmental meetings at the White House or at bureaucratic junkets, but rather by what the PA is doing at home. Its purpose, according to Israeli officials, is not just to catalog examples of demagoguery and demonization, but also to gauge what steps the PA is taking to prepare its people for peace with Israel.
This report does not deal with Hamas, yet it is filled with examples of the supposedly moderate PA government actively undermining prospects for peace, literally at the same time PA figures tell the West how deeply they desire peace.
One of the most powerful examples of this dichotomy highlighted in the report happened recently. Speaking at the White House on Sept. 1, Abbas stated emphatically that he did "not want at all that any blood be shed" because he wanted Israelis and Palestinians "to live as neighbors and partners forever."
Speaking in Arabic to a Palestinian newspaper two months earlier, though, Abbas gave a different reason for not wanting war: "Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it." He added that he had told the Arab League, "If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor." Of course, this should not come as a surprise because Fatah's constitution maintains to this day that "the struggle will not end until the elimination of the Zionist entity and the liberation of Palestine."
Fatah routinely names streets, buildings and schools after terrorists, and sometimes it hands out awards to terrorists or their relatives.
After Fatah gave an award to the grandmother of imprisoned terrorist Khaled Abd Al-Rahman, Fatah's PA-TV provided her a platform, and she spoke to her grandson and apparently other Palestinians when she said, "Shoot your rifle and cause the Jews to go away."
The PA's glorification of terrorists is systemic. Fatah held a Web forum this fall commemorating the 10th anniversary of the so-called intifada. As documented in the Israeli report, nothing is more telling than the visuals of fires, machine guns and even masked children. One of the images is of the famous golden-domed al-Aqsa Mosque with two machine guns over it in an upside-down "v" formation.
Among the other examples in the report, prepared by a committee headed by Ya'acov Amidror and including PMW's founder, Itamar Marcus, are the PA's religious affairs official praising Palestinians who carry out "ribat," or religious war, and the coordinator of the National Committee on Summer Camps telling local media that Palestinian summer camps instill in kids the Palestinian culture, "which unites the culture of resistance, the culture of stones and guns ... and the culture of Shahada (martyrdom)."
All of this happened around the same time that Abbas said in June at the White House, "We have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we're not doing that."
While President Obama has focused most of his attention on Israeli housing policies, this new report indicates that the PA has gotten worse in its incitement since the start of the latest round of talks. It could be that Palestinian leaders think Obama's unusually strong attention on Israel has given them a free pass.
Perhaps the White House will heed the report and pressure Palestinians to stop incitement against the Jewish state. Perhaps Obama will tell Abbas that he must also actively work to build a culture of peace at home.
If that doesn't happen, however, it is a safe bet that the incoming Republican-controlled House will take the lead — and it controls the federal purse strings. Fiscal conservatives looking to target waste could condition aid to the Palestinians on changing the status quo. The PA, in other words, shouldn't be expecting a blank check from Washington next year.
Changing Palestinian culture cannot be done overnight, but it is crucial. Peace is impossible as long as Palestinian children grow up hating Israel and loving violence.
At least now it is part of the discussion.
SOURCE
Australia: Labor Party revolt growing over Prime Minister Julia Gillard's WikiLeaks stance
JULIA Gillard is confronting a growing backlash within her own party, with more Labor MPs yesterday attacking the Prime Minister's language and declaring their support for WikiLeaks's founder Julian Assange and free speech.
Ms Gillard said the latest WikiLeaks information dump was based on an illegal act, but Canberra has since insisted that was a reference to the original theft of the material by a junior US serviceman rather than any action by Mr Assange.
However, Labor Left MP Maria Vamvakinou from Melbourne yesterday told The Australian the government had read the public mood wrongly on the issue and said she supported the release of the classified material. "The leaked material, I believe, the public should know about and have the right to know about this information. I believe that very strongly," she said. "If you believe in freedom of speech, you can't pick and choose. "I can't understand the comments that have been made by the members of the government. They are unwarranted."
The ALP's parliamentary Left national convenor Doug Cameron said he believed in freedom of the press and the right to publish material without Mr Assange being depicted as a traitor.
"The guy is entitled to a presumption of innocence. He is entitled to consular support and these argument . . . that he is some kind of traitor, I think has to be in the context that it (WikiLeaks) is operating like any other media outlet," Senator Cameron said. "It really is about the problems the Americans have in terms of their security systems."
West Australian Labor senator Louise Pratt said she wanted Mr Assange to get full consular assistance and said he should not be prejudged. "I hope that he doesn't turn into the next David Hicks for the government."
Following suggestions by Ms Gillard and Attorney-General Robert McClelland that Mr Assange may have his Australian passport cancelled, Kevin Rudd told The Australian in Cairo that any such decision was his as Foreign Minister.
The government has asked the federal police to probe whether Mr Assange had broken the law, a process Mr McClelland said could take a long time.
The Coalition's foreign spokeswoman Julie Bishop yesterday accused the Gillard government of being thrown into disarray by Ms Gillard's response to WikiLeaks.
Mr Rudd has consistently taken a different line to Ms Gillard and Mr McClelland.
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 December, 2010
After 13 years of Labour party rule, public mood in Britain shifts right as most voters back Thatcherite values
Public opinion has swung dramatically to the right with most voters now backing welfare cuts and a smaller state. Sympathy for benefit claimants has halved in the past 20 years and barely one in three adults supports shifting income from the rich to the poor.
Veteran Tory Lord Tebbit said that after 13 years of Labour rule the country was falling back into line with the Thatcherite values of hard work and lower taxes.
Analysis of the British Social Attitudes Survey shows:
* There is growing distrust of institutions such as the police, the BBC and banks;
* Contempt for politicians and the government is at an all-time high, with record numbers not trusting anything they say;
* Support for an English parliament is on the rise among voters resentful of high levels of public spending in Scotland;
* No support for redistributing income but widening concern over the pay gaps between bosses and workers;
* Britons are in denial about their age, with many rejecting the suggestion they are middle-aged or older.
The survey, partly funded by the Government, found that only 27 per cent want more to be spent on benefits. In 1991 the figure was 58 per cent.
Penny Young, chief executive of the National Centre for Social Research, which carried out the survey, said: ‘It is 20 years since Margaret Thatcher left office, but public opinion is far closer now to many of her core beliefs than it was then. Our findings show that attitudes have hardened over the last two decades, and are more in favour of cutting benefits and against taxing the better-off disproportionately.’
But while the country is in tune with the Coalition’s plans to shake up the welfare state, ministers could find it more difficult to get support for reforming health and education. Satisfaction with the Health Service was at an all-time high and has doubled since 1997 to 64 per cent. Mr Cameron promised to ring-fence health spending at the election but plans for wider reform could prove contentious.
And Education Secretary Michael Gove may struggle to press ahead with plans to emphasise traditional subjects in schools after the survey found 73 per cent want schools to teach children life skills. Only half of the 3,421 people interviewed said schools equipped children well for the real world.
Miss Young said: ‘Perhaps the biggest problem for the Government is how to lead the British public away from recession and implement reform when trust in politicians, government and banks is at an all-time low. ‘It will need to convince a sceptical electorate that it is working with their best interests at heart. ‘Emphasising the fairness of any cuts while protecting the tangible outcomes of increased spending will be crucial. ‘The public may want the Government to spend less but they don’t want to lose the gains of record investment.’
Lord Tebbit, who served under Margaret Thatcher, told the Mail: ‘Thatcher values were in line with human emotions and they are values which have been assaulted during 13 years of a Labour government.
‘Her values were that you should not choose idleness over working, that work should pay and that people should keep a larger proportion of what they earn, particularly those on lower incomes. They are all common-sense values.’
Every year, the National Centre for Social Research carries out in-depth interviews with more than 3,000 people in their homes. Since 1983, more than 80,000 have been asked for their views on British life.
SOURCE
Suicide bomber lived in Britain: Islamic fanatic in Stockholm car blast was radicalised while studying in Luton
An Islamic fundamentalist was radicalised in Britain before carrying out a suicide bombing on a busy street in Sweden. Iraqi-born Taimour Abdulwahab Al-Abdaly, 28, blew up his car, then himself, in the capital Stockholm. He had spent much of the last decade in Luton – long known as a hotbed of terrorism – where he studied for a degree and continued living there with his wife and children.
The Iraqi-born bomber first set his car on fire and then walked 200 metres before the explosives, believed to be in a backpack strapped to his body, detonated.
Just minutes before, he had sent out an email to the police and a news agency warning of deadly reprisals for having Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan.
He was the registered owner of the car that blew up and was believed to have worked on the street corner on which he died, carrying a sign advertising a local fish-and-chip restaurant..
The Bedfordshire town has a Muslim population of 20,000 and has been linked with a string of high-profile extremists. Last year Muslim protesters disrupted a homecoming march of soldiers returning from Afghanistan. Police were investigating Abdulwahab’s British connections last night. Neighbours in Luton suggested that his wife, who herself has fundamentalist views, and their children are still living there.
The involvement of a student from a British university in yet another terrorist incident will raise fresh questions about admissions to UK universities, and the radicalisation of Muslim students when studying in this country.
It is less than a year ago that a worldwide alert was sparked when former University College London student Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, was arrested on suspicion of trying to blow up an aeroplane with explosives hidden in his underpants.
The latest bomber moved to Sweden with his family from Iraq when he was 11. He came to Britain in 2001 to study sports therapy at the University of Luton, now the University of Bedfordshire. He moved back to Sweden more recently and is believed to have separated from his wife, but they have not divorced.
His Facebook page features an Islamic flag being raised over a world in flames. On the page, he says he is a member of the group Islamic Caliphate State, which seeks to establish Islamic rule worldwide and adds: ‘I’m a Muslim and I’m proud’. On another website he is said to have pictured Tower Bridge engulfed by an inferno.
More HERE
British couple banned from hanging fairy lights for 'health and safety'
British bureaucrats get a kick out of hurting or obstructing people. It makes them feel powerful
A retired couple have been banned from decorating the top floor of their tower block with festive fairy lights because of health and safety fears.
For the last 10 years, Ian and Linda Cameron have lit up the top floor of their tower block with a sparkling display of festive lights, enjoyed by thousands of people who can see them from miles around. But this year the council told them to take them down because they are too dangerous.
The couple live on the 19th floor of Brighton's second highest clocks of council flats, right in the city centre, and for many, the switching on of their lights is the unofficial start to the Christmas season.
Last summer tenants in the block were ordered to remove their doormats from internal corridors because they were considered a fire risk.
Mrs Cameron, 53, said: "Now they are picking on our fairy lights. A woman from the housing office called me at home and told me to take them down immediately. "I was quite upset because she talked to me like I was some kind of criminal. We only put them on when we are at home and turn them off at bedtime. "I asked why and she simply said: 'Health and Safety.' "Have they got nothing better to worry about?"
A Brighton and Hove Council spokesman said: "There is no suggestion that this action is 'suddenly' necessary. In fact, we are responding to a complaint from a member of the public and were not previously aware these lights were being suspended so high above the ground. Far from being 'health and safety gone mad', this is common sense. "Where electric lights are being hung more than 100 feet high, we have a duty to ensure they are not a danger to passers-by."
Mr Cameron, 63, said: "People can see our lights right across the city. I've looped them along the balcony, which stretches half way round the top floor, every year since we moved in a decade ago and nobody has ever said anything before.
"If they haven't noticed them before they can't be that much of a problem. They are proper outdoor lights, secured with cable ties to our solid metal balcony. They're not going anywhere. The very worst that could happen is they could knock out my indoor trip switch. "I understand the need to protect the public but this is way over the top."
The council has now offered a compromise of sending an electrician to check the lights but ordered the couple to take down the lights until they have a certificate saying they are safe.
Mr Cameron said: "At first they said we had to pay for our own safety checks. Now they have agreed to do it but I don't know when. I haven't been given a date and I can't imagine it is a priority at this time of year. "But I don't see why taxpayers should foot the bill to check some fairy lights. Other private blocks of flats have got them up. "Everyone in the block is getting a petition together. They are fed up with health and safety madness."
Debbie Williams, chairwoman of the block's tenants' association, said: "We have told them to leave them up and switch them on. "There are chunks of concrete dropping from the building where it has frozen and cracked and we have two-foot icicles hanging from the balconies above which the council does nothing about. "But we can't have doormats or twinkly lights because they're too dangerous. It's ridiculous."
SOURCE
Moral or Immoral Government
Walter E. Williams
Immorality in government lies at the heart of our nation's problems. Deficits, debt and runaway government are merely symptoms. What's moral and immoral conduct can be complicated, but needlessly so. I keep things simple and you tell me where I go wrong.
My initial assumption is that we each own ourselves. I am my private property and you are yours. If we accept the notion that people own themselves, then it's easy to discover what forms of conduct are moral and immoral. Immoral acts are those that violate self-ownership. Murder, rape, assault and slavery are immoral because those acts violate private property. So is theft, broadly defined as taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another.
If it is your belief that people do not belong to themselves, they are in whole or in part the property of the U.S. Congress, or people are owned by God, who has placed the U.S. Congress in charge of managing them, then all of my observations are simply nonsense.
Let's look at some congressional actions in light of self-ownership. Do farmers and businessmen have a right to congressional handouts? Does a person have a right to congressional handouts for housing, food and medical care?
First, let's ask: Where does Congress get handout money? One thing for sure, it's not from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus nor is it congressmen reaching into their own pockets. The only way for Congress to give one American one dollar is to first, through the tax code, take that dollar from some other American. It must forcibly use one American to serve another American. Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership.
Government immorality isn't restricted only to forcing one person to serve another. Some regulations such as forcing motorists to wear seatbelts violate self-ownership. If one owns himself, he has the right to take chances with his own life. Some people argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt, have an accident and become a vegetable, you'll become a burden on society. That's not a problem of liberty and self-ownership. It's a problem of socialism where through the tax code one person is forcibly used to care for another.
These examples are among thousands of government actions that violate the principles of self-ownership. Some might argue that Congress forcing us to help one another and forcing us to take care of ourselves are good ideas. But my question to you is: When congressmen and presidents take their oaths of office, is that oath to uphold and defend good ideas or the U.S. Constitution?
When the principles of self-ownership are taken into account, two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does violate those principles to one degree or another as well as the Constitution to which they've sworn to uphold and defend. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?
You might answer, "He forgot the general welfare clause." No, he had that covered, saying, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."
If we accept the value of self-ownership, it is clear that most of what Congress does is clearly immoral. If this is bothersome, there are two ways around my argument. The first is to deny the implications of self-ownership. The second is to ask, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi did when asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
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 December, 2010
A dripping wet Tory
Freed mentally ill prisoners could 'bump someone off' - but they should NOT be in prison, claims British Justice Secretary. And he calls OTHER people "loopy"! He should be put out to grass, where he belongs
Kenneth Clarke was branded ‘pig-headed’ by a fellow Tory MP last night after saying the public must accept the danger that his plan to free mentally ill prisoners could lead to someone being ‘bumped off’. The Justice Secretary said it was ‘loopy’ to claim crime could be solved by sending all criminals to jail.
And he airily dismissed reports that he had clashed with David Cameron over his prison shake-up, saying: ‘I’m not going to start analysing the Prime Minister. He’s not where I am in the party, that’s true.’
Mr Clarke defended his policy of reducing the number of mentally ill and drug addicts in jail. [Those two are not the same at all] ‘Most members of the public, if they met some of the mentally ill people in prison would think, “What on earth is this person doing here?” People would be shocked by how bad the conditions are in some prisons. People think they are hotels. There are quite a few hard nicks out there that would dispel that myth.’
Asked what would happen if a mentally unstable offender released under his new regime stabbed someone to death, Mr Clarke said: ‘The first time someone bumps someone off the fortnight after they are let out, there will be absolute outrage. 'But you have to explain to the sensible public that you can’t give an absolute guarantee. ‘It’s about greatly reducing the risk of incidents like this happening. We can do that by providing these people with proper treatment.’ [Only if they keep taking their pills, which many don't] He acknowledged: ‘I suppose I’m more liberal than most Conservatives.’
Mr Clarke said he is determined to press ahead with what he calls a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ designed to curb the high rate of re-offending by prisoners. He says it is a vital part of his plan to reverse the doubling in the prison population to 85,000 since the early Nineties. He said: ‘Crime is also caused by social, educational and economic factors, but it’s loopy to think you can solve it by locking everyone up. No one can argue that what we are doing now isn’t a failure.’
Contrary to Press reports, Mr Clarke said he did not intend to scrap all minimum recommended sentences for killers. ‘Murder is murder. Parliament must have a role in setting that sentence. But (the present guidelines) are nonsense. Why is it more serious for a battered wife to pick up a kitchen knife and stab her husband than for someone slowly to poison to death an old lady for her money?’
He defended judges against claims that they are all ‘wets and can’t be trusted’, saying: ‘I trust the judges more than some people do. ‘When I started they were seen as elderly, reactionary, savage men who didn’t understand the lives of ordinary people and imposed wicked long sentences.’
Mr Clarke, who is 70 and entered the Commons in 1970 when Mr Cameron was just three years old, played down persistent reports that the Prime Minister believes he is taking far too soft a line on crime and punishment. And he denied Mr Cameron had slapped him down over his proposal to abolish the minimum term murderers must serve before they can be let back on to the streets on parole.
‘Of course you do have to touch base with the Prime Minister,’ Mr Clarke observed casually. ‘We discussed it and it was all cleared, it didn’t take very long. ‘It was nothing like the meetings I had with Margaret Thatcher over health reforms when we had blazing rows. There isn’t a difference between us. I’m not going to start analysing the Prime Minister. He’s not where I am in the party, that’s true. He is Eurosceptic.
‘No one planned this prison explosion. It is doing harm. The re-offending rates are catastrophic. We have these overcrowded, dysfunctional prisons and we are not breaking the cycle of lock ’em up, let ’em out.’
Mr Clarke’s chief Tory opponent, Shipley MP Philip Davies, said: ‘Ken Clarke does have a tendency to political pig-headedness. His law and order beliefs are like his pro-Euro beliefs – he is equally wrong and equally adamant about both. 'It is a false argument for him to claim that those of us who want criminals sent to prison somehow do not believe in rehabilitation. It is a question of where the rehabilitation takes place.’
Conservative MPs are divided over laid-back grandee Mr Clarke. Some say his experience is a huge asset, but others claim his off-hand manner is as damaging as his lenient stance on prisons.
When popular ‘Cameron Cutie’ Essex Tory MP Priti Patel asked him for an assurance last week that scrapping laws designed to keep paedophiles behind bars until they are no longer dangerous would not backfire, Mr Clarke scoffed at ‘loony tunes’ critics. ‘He had no right to insult Priti like that and will pay for it if he isn’t careful,’ warned a fellow newly-elected female Tory MP.
And former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw says he fears Mr Clarke’s policies will lead to more lawlessness not less.
Film-maker Julian Hendy, whose father Philip was murdered in Bristol in 2007 by a mentally unstable man with a history of criminal behaviour, said Mr Clarke ‘sounded pretty glib’. Mr Hendy, who spent nearly three years researching mental health homicides in Britain after the murder, said: ‘I’d like to meet Ken Clarke to talk about the reality of losing someone to someone who has mental health problems.
‘Every year, 100 people are killed by someone who has mental health problems. It would be OK to release them if they were to get proper treatment – but the system is simply not up to it.'
SOURCE
Racial abuse against whites gets slap on the wrist in Britain
A teacher who was convicted of a race crime after calling a youth 'white trash' has been reprimanded by the General Teaching Council for her 'unacceptable professional conduct'. But the GTC's Professional Conduct Committee decided that, although it was a 'serious' matter, it was not necessary to suspend Jane Turner from the classroom.
Mrs Turner was working at Moseley School, a specialist language college in Birmingham, when she was convicted at Halesowen Magistrates' Court in October 2009 of using racially threatening words or behaviour likely to cause harassment or distress six months earlier outside a school 20 miles away.
She was made subject of a community order for one year with a requirement to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work, and was ordered to pay compensation of £50.
The General Teaching council also investigated and announcing its decision said: 'On 22nd April 2009 Mrs Turner witnessed a dispute between a group of young people near school premises.
'Mrs Turner intervened in the dispute and in the heat of the moment was observed by a parent of one of the other children saying, "Go and play with your own little white friends, you're nothing but white trash".'
The findings continued: 'Mrs Turner accepts that making a comment like this amounts to unprofessional conduct. Mrs Turner accepts that her words on this occasion may have been perceived as racist and that it is entirely inappropriate for a registered teacher to make such a comment.
'The committee agrees. A registered teacher must demonstrate respect for diversity and promote equality. Conviction of an offence of this type brings the profession into disrepute.
'Although the offence was not committed in the vicinity of the school where Mrs Turner was teaching at that time, her behaviour set a very bad example for the schoolchildren who were present at the time.'
The committee said that it took into account that she was of previous good character and that, while she was not at first willing to accept what she had done, Mrs Turner had now said that she was 'genuinely sorry'.
It added that the police report referred to her being concerned for the wellbeing of a family member present at the time of the incident and also said that her head teacher had not found it necessary to take any further action within the school.
The findings said that in other circumstances a much more severe sanction would have been appropriate, but that having regard to all the mitigating circumstances of the case, the committee considered that the appropriate and proportionate response was a reprimand, which would remain on Mrs Turner's professional registration for two years.
SOURCE
Human rights laws cost Britain £42bn in rulings and payouts
Membership of the European Court of Human Rights has cost UK taxpayers more than £42billion, according to a report. The bill for complying with its judgments has seen money thrown at litigation and diverted from essential services, it is claimed.
The court, based in Strasbourg, France, has even forced Parliament to overturn a number of UK laws. It even made the government give prisoners the vote – despite strong opposition from ministers and the public.
The court rules on cases brought against countries that have signed the European Convention on Human Rights, a code drawn up in the light of Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism.
The study into how much the convention and its court cost Britain, which became a signatory in 1950, was carried out by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.
Dr Lee Rotherham, author of the report, said: ‘Fifty years on from the days of Stalin and Hitler, the Strasbourg court is no longer needed to protect us from a knock on the door at 3am, or being deported with a handcart. It carries an increasingly political agenda that is running roughshod over our laws and our courts, at major costs to the taxpayer and to business.
‘In the homeland of Magna Carta, you would hope that politicians and human rights lawyers might have more self confidence. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States get by very well without joining up to continental human rights courts. Britain can too.’
Controversial rulings include a transsexual serving time for manslaughter and attempted rape being allowed to move to a woman’s prison even though he committed the offences while a man. The court has also prevented the deportation of foreigners found guilty of serious offences.
The UK lost its first case at the court – which is independent from the EU – in 1975 and had to pay out its first damages in 1980. The report suggested that Britain has lost more than three quarters – 331 out of 418 – of cases heard in Strasbourg.
Labour’s Human Rights Act of 1998 was supposed to reduce the number of appeals to Europe by applying Strasbourg principles in British courts. The rate of lost cases has worsened however.
The cost of complying with judgments under the convention is £17.3billion to date, the report said. In addition, the growth of a compensation culture fostered by the court has added a further £25billion in costs.
Sian Herbert, of the think tank Open Europe, said: ‘The ECHR and the European Court of Justice [which rules on EU law] now act as a de facto supreme court in the UK in many ways. ‘While we need to remain a country committed to strong protection of basic liberties and rights, these two bodies lack the democratic and judicial legitimacy to fulfil this duty.’
SOURCE
Walter Williams' Memoir
Thomas Sowell
Walter E. Williams is my oldest and closest friend. But I didn't know that his autobiography had just been published until a talk show host told me last week. I immediately got a copy of "Up from the Projects," started reading it before dinner and finished reading it before bedtime.
It is the kind of book that you hate to put down, even though I already knew how the story would end.
The first chapter, about Walter's life growing up in the Philadelphia ghetto, was especially fascinating. It brought back a whole different era in black communities-- an era that is now almost irretrievably lost, to the great disadvantage of today's generation growing up in the same neighborhoods where Walter grew up in Philadelphia or where I grew up in Harlem.
Although Walter's memoir is titled "Up from the Projects," the projects of the era when he was growing up bear virtually no resemblance to the projects of today.
For one thing, those projects were clean, and the people living in them helped keep them clean, by sweeping the halls and tending to the surrounding areas outside of the buildings as well. The people living in the projects then were probably poorer than the people living in the projects now. But they had not yet succumbed to the moral squalor afflicting such places today.
More important, they-- and the whole black community of which they were part-- were far safer than today. As late as 1958, when Walter was a young taxi driver in Philadelphia, he used to park his cab in the wee hours of the morning and take a nap in it. As he points out, "A cabbie doing the same thing today would be deemed suicidal."
There were jobs for black teenagers in those days, and Walter worked at a dizzying variety of those jobs. Most of those jobs are long gone today, as are the businesses that hired black teenagers.
While there are greater opportunities for many blacks today, there are far fewer opportunities for those blacks at the bottom, living in ghettos across the country and trapped in a counterproductive and even dangerous way of life.
The times in which Walter Williams grew up were by no means idyllic times, nor was Walter a model child nor always a model adult, as he candidly shows. He even reproduces the documents recording his court martial in the Army.
How Walter Williams changed for the better-- partly as a result of his wife, who "became a civilizing and humanizing influence in my life"-- is one of the themes of this book. The other great influence in Walter's life was his mother, one of those strong and wise black women who has had much to do with providing the foundation from which many other black men and women rose out of poverty to higher levels of achievement.
With Walter, that path was not a straight line but had many zigs and zags, and there were times when he was a disappointment to his mother. But, in the end, he vindicated all the efforts and hopes that she had invested in him.
There were also teachers, and then professors, who played a role in developing his mind-- especially hard-nosed teachers in Philadelphia who chewed him out when he messed up and UCLA professors who bluntly told him when his work wasn't good enough.
None of them was the kind of warm, chummy educators that so many hold up as an ideal. After Walter Williams earned his Ph.D. in economics and went on to become a professor himself, he was scathing in his criticism of fuzzy-minded faculty members who think they are doing students a favor by going easy on them or giving them higher grades than they deserve.
As he began to write about racial issues, Walter was able to draw not only on his research as an economist, but also on his personal experiences in the Philadelphia ghetto, in the Jim Crow South and in South Africa, where he lived for some months during the era of Apartheid.
Few others had so much to draw on, and many of them failed to understand that Walter Williams saw a lot deeper than they did. As a result, his conclusions made him a controversial figure.
When I finished reading "Up from the Projects," I wished it had been a longer book. But it got the job done-- and its insights are much needed 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.
***************************
11 December, 2010
British stores airbrush Christ out of Christmas cards
Supermarkets were accused of ‘airbrushing Christ out of Christmas’ yesterday after it emerged that less than one per cent of cards they stock have religious themes. Many stores display hundreds of different Christmas cards yet offer just a handful featuring traditional Christian scenes. Some had no cards at all with religious references in their extensive ranges.
The Daily Mail visited major outlets of the big four supermarkets – Asda, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Morrisons – in seven towns and cities. Out of 5,363 cards sold individually or in multipacks, just 45 featured Christian scenes such as the Nativity – 0.8 per cent. The worst offender was Morrisons, which had six out of a range of 973 cards, or 0.6 per cent.
Second worst was Tesco, despite chief executive Sir Terry Leahy, a practising Catholic, writing to a customer in October to tell her: ‘We have increased the number of Christmas cards that will be available with a religious theme this year.’
Dr Don Horrocks, of the Evangelical Alliance, said supermarkets were ‘airbrushing Christ out of Christmas’. He added: ‘There has been a rise in cards that say “Season’s greetings” or “Happy holidays” which is evidence of the speeding up of the trend of stripping the religion out of Christian festivals.’
Stephen Green, of Christian Voice, said: ‘The situation is caused by managers subscribing to political correctness and the idea that in some way Christian cards are offensive to other religions. This is simply not true.’
Anas Altikriti, of the Muslim Association of Britain, said he was ‘worried’ at the increasing secularisation of Britain. He added: ‘People who are looking for proper choice of Christmas cards should raise it with the store manager.’
The Mail was contacted by a Tesco customer earlier this week who said her local store in Ely, Cambridgeshire, had just a ‘handful’ of cards with religious themes last year - and still had only three out of 67 last month, despite a personal assurance from Sir Terry. After she had repeatedly contacted customer services, she received a letter from the company chief. ‘Sir Terry promised more cards this year,’ she said. ‘But the selection of cards with anything relating to the true meaning of Christmas was tiny, so he has not kept his word.’
Tesco said it had doubled the range of religiously themed cards this year but refused to give numbers, saying they ‘vary from store to store’.
An Asda spokesman said: ‘We sell five different Christmas cards that have religious sentiment and traditional designs.’
Morrisons said: ‘We stock types of cards that appeal to our customers.’
A Sainsbury’s spokesman said: ‘The ranges that appear in our stores reflect what our customers want to buy.’
SOURCE
A classic of British bureaucracy
'Incompetent' rail bosses sent vital de-icing trains for servicing during the big freeze as passengers were left marooned by weather. Whether public or private, a British bureaucrat just loves messing other people's lives up. It gives them a pathetic feeling of power
Rail chiefs sent two vital de-icing trains away for servicing at the height of the big freeze, it was revealed today. Network Rail and the train company SouthEastern have been condemned for 'total incompetance' by Michael Fallon, Tory MP for Sevenoaks in Kent.
Greg Clark, Tory MP for nearby Tunbridge Wells said he was ‘flabbergasted’ that the Network Rail trains were sent in for maintenance in winter rather than the summer leaving passengers to face 'total chaos.'
Rail bosses apologised for the fiasco after the disclosure was made to Kent MPs during an 'angry' meeting with Charles Horton, managing director of rail operator SouthEastern - which is set to increase its fares in the New Year by up to 13 per cent.
The showdown meeting with MPs was held at the House of Commons following massive public criticism about the way Southeastern dealt with the recent sub-zero conditions. The operator has been accused by union leaders of being ‘caught out’ by the cold snap, with its services collapsing into ‘total chaos’.
At the height of the big-freeze, the wintry conditions passengers were left standed overnight on a snowed in train. Southeastern’s 8.05pm train from Charing Cross to Hastings train was forced to shut down north of Orpington as an insulating layer of ice blocked the electricity from getting to the rail. Passengers were stranded until 5.30am on December 1.
Network Rail sent another train to try and rescue the broken-down one but that became stuck too, so they had to resort to manual de-icing.
Southeastern's lines are particularly prone to snow problems because, instead of overhead lines, rails are electrified - and these are worse affected in freezing conditions.
The firm admitted that when the Hastings train finally arrived into Orpington station some passengers refused to get on the replacement buses, preferring to remain on the train. Another train was stranded in Petts Wood overnight.
Network Rail said it had brought in 'extra resources' from other parts of the network which were not affected by the severe weather.
But Mr Fallon said: 'The total incompetence of this farcical situation beggars belief. ‘Passengers who are paying through the nose for an appalling service were let down badly. ‘They don't deserve to keep their franchise.'
He said there was a 'blame game' going on between the train company and Network Rail adding that the number of de-icing trains had in any case been whittled down from eight to just two over the last 20-odd years.
Mr Clark said: ‘It is farcical that de-icing trains should go in for maintenance in the winter, when they are needed, rather than during the summer, when they are not.’
‘Southeastern has let down its customers by failing to run trains and by failing to communicate with the public.' He added: 'Although the amount of snow was exceptional, I was flabbergasted to be told by Charles Horton that two of Network Rail's crucial de-icing trains had been sent away for their annual service at the end of November so were out of action last week.
Network Rail sought to defend its actions. A spokesman said: ‘During last week's winter weather in Kent, we brought in extra resources from other parts of the network which were not affected. These more modern locomotives were able to do much more than the piece of kit that was being upgraded.
‘We apologise to passengers who faced disruption last week and pay tribute to the Network Rail people and train operator staff who worked 24 hours a day in Arctic conditions to enable the best possible train service to run.’
Mr Clark said that Southeastern's communication with passengers during the freezing temperatures was ‘utter chaos' adding: 'Travellers couldn't tell from the company's own website, from station announcements, from the telephone line or from information given to broadcasters what they were supposed to do’. ‘Passengers were able to find out more from each other using Twitter than they were from the company that was taking their money.'
He was 'not persuaded' by the meeting that Southeastern 'fully recognise the scale of their ineptitude on communications.' Mr Clark asked Mr Horton to offer a ‘goodwill discount’ to customers.
Mr Horton apologised to customers: ‘We are sorry that many of our passengers had severely disrupted services last week due to the snow and icy conditions on the track.' He said ice on the conductor rail 'makes it impossible for trains to draw electricity, causing major disruption'.
‘Network Rail worked hard to clear the snow and keep the rails free of ice, but despite their efforts large parts of the network were closed due to the very heavy snowfall.' ‘We accept that there were shortcomings in information provision and this made the disruption even more frustrating for passengers.'
At the height of the freeze, commuters on Southeastern, which will be inflicting rises of up to 13 per cent on season tickets in the New Year, suffered more than half its services cancelled completely.
The meeting followed the announcement that workers at Southeastern are to be balloted for strikes in a row over jobs.
SOURCE
Pagan prisoners in Britain given time off to worship the Sun God
Hundreds of criminals are to be given four days a year off prison work - to celebrate pagan festivals. Prison governors have been issued with a list of eight annual pagan holidays and told pagan inmates can choose four to celebrate.
The festivals include Imbolc - The Festival of the Lactating Sheep - which falls on February 1 and is dedicated to the goddess Brighid. Another is the festival of Beltane, which falls in early May, devotees are urged to celebrate the Sun God with 'unabashed sexuality and promiscuity'. The Yule festival involves pagans 'casting spells' and dressing up as ghosts.
Pagan inmates may even be allowed special food and drink on their days off. Traditional pagan food include Ewe's milk for Imbolc, Simnel Cake and eggs on Spring Equinox and Roast Goose on Autumn Equinox. On Samhain - celebrated on Halloween - pagans by tradition go apple bobbing.
It is the latest in a series of rulings to protect convicts' rights and ensure equality among different faiths.
New guidelines entitled 'Religious Festival dates for 2011' state that all prison staff must be made aware of the pagan festival dates. It states: 'The Prison Service is committed to ensuring that prisoners from all religious faiths are given the opportunity and facilities to practise their religions.'
It lists the eight main festivals before adding: 'Most Pagans celebrate the eight festivals set out, but depending on the particular tradition would attach particular significance to certain days.'
'Because of variations in emphasis between different Pagan traditions it has been agreed with the Pagan Federation that prisoners may choose four festivals on which they should not be required to work.'
Prisons are told they must prepare specific foods if it is a requirement of a prisoner's religion. But the guidance states the food should be prepared inside prison kitchens and the cost must be 'proportionate to the number of prisoners involved'.
Paganism was first recognised by the Prison Service as a religion more than nine years ago. The number of prisoners declaring themselves as pagan has tripled in six years to 366 last year.
Worshippers are allowed to keep tarot cards, a hoodless robe and a twig to use as a wand in their cell. They can also keep incense, a piece of jewellery and rune stones. Skyclad, or naked worship, is banned.
Pagan inmate Mark Stewart, who is serving a three year term for drug dealing at HMP Elmley in Kent, wrote to prisoners' newspaper Inside Time this month to complain about how Pagans are treated.
He claimed Pagans had been 'sidelined' and 'marginalised' in favour of more popular religions. He wrote: 'There is a perception amongst most people that Pagans are devil worshippers, etc, but that is so far from the truth. 'I am an earth loving person who thanks Mother Earth, spirits and ancestors for what I have today. 'I do practise witchcraft, but only for good.'
Sources said there was ‘no question’ of prisoners being served roast goose or boar.
A Prison Service spokesman said: ‘The Prison Service issues annually a list of religious festival dates for the year ahead – this includes key dates on which prisoners registered in that affiliation can be excused from work.’
It comes a day after it emerged that an underworld crime boss jailed for the murder of two grandparents has won the right to be called ‘Mr’ by prison guards.
Colin Gunn complained that he was not treated with sufficient respect and, under guidelines introduced by Labour, prison officers are required to address inmates as they wish.
SOURCE
Australia: Legal fury at 'war on free speech'
A Melbourne lawyer and former boss of Prime Minister Julia Gillard has criticised her government for its handling of WikiLeaks and its Australian founder, Julian Assange. Peter Gordon, whose legal firm made Ms Gillard the first female partner of Slater and Gordon, said her comment that Mr Assange had broken the law was baseless.
He said the fact that people such as Ms Gillard and Attorney-General Robert McClelland - both of whom he knew to be good lawyers and decent people - could be driven to behave in this way was a sobering reminder of "the seductive and compulsive draw of power".
Mr Gordon was speaking on Thursday night at a WikiLeaks forum attended by 250 lawyers and civil libertarians at the Law Institute of Victoria.
In today's Age opinion page, he writes: "If the Wikileaks disclosures tell us anything, it is that no government, whatever its political colours, is going to hesitate for a nanosecond to conflate the notion of 'national security' with 'my own career security'." He calls for a challenge to the "war on information . call it what it is - a growing and insidious attack on free speech".
Mr Gordon's stance was backed by several top barristers, who said neither official secrets nor terror laws provided any offences under which Mr Assange could be charged in Australia.
Mr Assange also received support from more than 500 people who attended a rally outside the State Library in Melbourne. The rally was one of several held around the country, with backers calling for a ban on WikiLeaks censorship and for Mr Assange to be freed.
Julian Burnside, QC, said of the government: "I think they are trying to defend the indefensible." He said the state had an obligation to protect citizens who got into trouble in a foreign country. "They ignored that obligation and instead sided with the Americans. They even went so far as to threaten to cancel his passport. That's exactly the opposite of what any self-respecting country ought to do."
Ms Gillard insists the actions of Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, are illegal. Attorney-General Robert McClelland has said Wikileaks' actions are likely to be illegal. Yesterday Justice Minister Brendan O'Connor said it was entirely up to federal police to say whether Mr Assange had committed any crimes.
Several barristers agreed that it would be stretching credulity to try to mount a case based on terror laws, such as a claim that Mr Assange had recklessly helped al-Qaeda by publishing a list of the sites the US most feared would be terror targets.
Greg Barns, a barrister with experience of Australian terror trials, said: "Even under the outrageous curtailing of freedom of speech that the anti-terror laws represent in this country, you couldn't even at a stretch maintain that there was an intention or even recklessness on the part of Mr Assange."
Mr Barns and others pointed out that any charge laid against Mr Assange would also have to be laid against all the large media outlets that had republished his documents.
Even the United States had so far failed in its search for an offence, Mr Assange's Melbourne solicitor, Rob Stary, said. "This issue has also been examined by the Congressional Research Service in the US, and they made the same observation. He's the second person in the chain; he receives material, but he doesn't take it himself." Therefore, no offence could be identified, he said.
Mr Stary said lawyers at the forum expressed "enormous disquiet as to the role of government attempting to suppress this information" and had criticised Ms Gillard and Mr McClelland for undermining the presumption of innocence.
Mr Burnside said: "I think, standing back from it, what we have seen is what happens to a citizen who breaks the unwritten law about embarrassing the governments of powerful countries . If they want to avoid embarrassment, they shouldn't shut down freedom of information. They should stop acting embarrassingly."
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 December, 2010
Bizarre Britain
The "Yes Minister" comedy in real life
He has been at the forefront of the Government's drive for austerity. But when George Osborne tried to save the Treasury a few pounds by buying the office Christmas tree from B&Q, his economical efforts were thwarted – by health and safety rules.
The Chancellor was told by a senior mandarin that if he ditched the usual £875 tree for a £40 DIY store specimen, the department's building suppliers would refuse to decorate or water it. Nor would they hand over a ladder for anyone else to do the job.
Mr Osborne announced in October that he was scrapping the £875 tree supplied under Labour as part of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract. He vowed: 'I am going to go down to a local market and pay for a tree myself.'
But the Treasury's Permanent Secretary, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, who earns £175,000 a year, warned the idea would fall foul of the Government's contract, as well as health and safety legislation.
In a memo which resembled something from political comedy The Thick of It, he told Mr Osborne the Treasury was obliged to get its tree from Exchequer Partnerships, the PFI supplier. 'The catalogue had a choice of Hollyday, Indulgence, Enchantment, Icicle, or Decadence trees, or bespoke tailor-made trees, from £130-875,' he reported.
Sir Nicholas said he had asked the company 'about whether we couldn't buy a tree from B&Q for £40 instead of spending £900'. But Exchequer Partnerships warned that they would not help water 'an off-contract tree'.
And the senior civil servant added that there were concerns about 'how would we decorate the tree – EP are not obliged to lend us a ladder'. Sir Nicholas said Exchequer Partnerships 'also pointed out that they might have to do various health and safety tests on the tree and its decorations, which they would need to charge us for'. The company said it would need to carry out checks 'if we were using a ladder to decorate the tree'.
Sir Nicholas said there were important questions about 'who would go and choose the tree from B&Q' and 'how would we get the tree into the building from B&Q?'
And the contractors expressed doubts about 'who would dispose of the tree after Christmas, and how would we do this? Wouldn't we need a van? And a place to dump it?'
The Chancellor yesterday revealed a free tree was eventually donated by Exchequer Partnerships and has been adorned with £36 worth of decorations from Argos.
But Mr Osborne said: 'We couldn't overcome the health and safety rules. So in the end, the Permanent Secretary had to put the star on top because he was the only person in the building cleared to do it. 'Unfortunately, Exchequer Partnerships wouldn't provide us with a ladder so the Permanent Secretary had to get a chair from his office and stand on the chair.'
SOURCE
Payout for anti-gay preacher over improper arrest: Landmark ruling in British Christian's battle for free speech
Police have been ordered to pay compensation to a Christian street preacher who was hauled off in handcuffs for saying that gays will go to hell. A judge condemned the arrest of Anthony Rollins, who quoted the King James Bible on the subject of the ‘effeminate’ as he preached in Birmingham.
Mr Rollins was handcuffed and then held in a cell for nearly four hours after a passer-by dialled 999 and complained that his language was ‘hugely offensive’.
The ruling – which ended with West Midlands police ordered to pay more than £4,000 in damages to the 45-year-old preacher – appears to set a new landmark in the battle between the gay lobby and Christians who want to say in public that homosexual sex is wrong.
It comes as Christian leaders, notably former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, have been complaining against the use of equality law to force Christians to act against their consciences.
Judge Lance Ashworth QC said at Birmingham county court that police who made the arrest acted ‘as a matter of routine'. 'This was not done in any way maliciously, spitefully or arrogantly. It was done unthinkingly’.
Mr Rollins has been speaking on the city’s streets as a member of a Christian mission for 12 years. In June 2008 he was handing out leaflets in the city centre and quoting passages from the King James Bible – the Authorised Version which reaches its 400th anniversary next year – that refer to homosexuality.
One of these was from 1 Corinthians condemning the ‘unrighteous’, including fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, and ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’.
Effeminate, Mr Rollins explained to his listeners, meant homosexuals. He also quoted the Book of Revelation to the effect that ‘the abominable shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone’.
Mr Rollins said yesterday: ‘The judgment is excellent news. But I didn’t do this for the compensation. I did it for freedom of speech. ‘It was one man who called the police. A van came up with its lights flashing. The officers didn’t even ask me for my version of events.’ He added: ‘I wonder if they would have arrested the Bishop of Birmingham if he had been preaching on the street? Would they have handcuffed him and dragged him off as if he was a common criminal?’
Judge Ashworth’s ruling was dismissive of evidence given by the onlooker who called police and who said he had been offended by the preaching. He said of John Edwards: ‘I was not impressed by him as a witness. He struck me as a man full of his own self-importance who in the witness box relished the attention and greatly embellished his evidence.’
The ruling was praised by the Christian Institute, the think tank which backed Mr Rollins’s court claim. Spokesman Mike Judge said: ‘Street preachers may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but they are part of our Christian heritage. ‘Most people just walk on by and ignore it. The police have no business arresting Christians for quoting the Bible.’
The case is a notable victory for the Christian argument following a series of court reverses in recent years. Street preacher Harry Hammond was convicted and fined in 2001 for holding a sign saying ‘Stop Homosexuality’ and an appeal on freedom of speech grounds failed.
In a key case earlier this year, judges said a relationship counsellor had no right to refuse sex therapy to gays and that Christians had no right to special protection from the law.
A test case on the right of Christian bed and breakfast owners to refuse rooms to gay couples is expected shortly.
SOURCE
Culture Challenge of the Week: Playing the Hate Card
Children know instinctively that “hate” is a bad thing. And they understand that hating a classmate, teacher, or neighbor is nothing like “hating” the broccoli on the dinner plate. Real hate is a deliberate choice: it wishes evil and foments dark, angry feelings towards another person. And ultimately, it extinguishes any light and all love from the hater’s heart.
It’s a serious thing, hate is. And America’s own tangled history of racial prejudice, fueled by unfamiliarity and ignorance, serves as a cultural memory of the power of hate.
So it was a shocking turn of events last week when the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a long-standing civil rights group, added more than a dozen new organizations to their list of hate-mongering groups. Neo-Nazis? KKK-spin-offs? Muslim or Jew-haters? No. The new “haters,” in this era of sexual license, are those who maintain that marriage has an intrinsic meaning--the union of man and woman--that simply cannot be extended to homosexual couplings. Crying “hate speech,” the SPLC denounced “anti-gay” groups for spreading “falsehoods” that say children do best when raised by a mom and a dad, as opposed to two dads or two moms. “Falsehoods” that support traditional marriage are now “hate speech,” thrown into the same filthy bucket as KKK and Neo-Nazi ideology.
The view that marriage means one man and one woman and that children flourish when raised by a married mother and father is rooted not only in biblical teachings but also in common sense; it's a truth proven by science as well as centuries of lived experience. But children know that "hate" is a bad thing, and no one wants to be labeled a "hater." It's not hard to imagine the pressure tactics that our children soon will face: keep silent or risk being slapped with the label--"hater"--that will define them socially for years.
The label of "Hater" quickly shuts down reasonable discussion or open disagreement. And that's the real point: to intimidate proponents of traditional morality into keeping silent. Put differently, it's to lock traditional morality in the closet so social engineers can be free to redefine marriage as they wish.
How to Save Your Family From Being Silenced
Maggie Gallagher, an articulate defender of marriage, warns that by playing the “hate” card, the homosexual lobby wants to “’shut down the scientific debate’ on statements of fact” about homosexuality and to “control what ordinary people can say and think” about marriage, sex, and morality.
As your children become old enough to discuss these issues, arm them with facts from scientific and religious perspectives. One helpful website, MercatorNet.com defends morality on the basis of human dignity—religious perspective aside. The Family Research Council, one of the “hate” groups tagged by the SPLC, offers valuable research and statistics on marriage, family, and sexuality.
We should also teach our children to boldly proclaim - in love - their own faith. Tim Rutten of the L.A. Times applauds the SPLC action for drawing a line “where the expression of religiously based views on social issues ends and hate speech begins.” Rutten mistakenly agues that “even the most objectionable religious dogma” (like the biblical opposition to homosexual behavior) is protected by the constitution, but only if that belief “stays under the church roof.” (Rutten misses the fact that plenty of non-churchgoing folks support traditional morality.) His view is that one can say what you will in support of marriage—but only inside the church. In other words, your deeply held religious beliefs should be gagged as you exit. Teach your chlidren that folks who advocate silencing faith views in the public square are attacking a key right the First Amendment was designed to protect.
Gallagher also cautions that when homosexual activists liken their plight to racial prejudice, they seek to induce “moral shame” in the hearts of good people. Teach your children to hold fast to the truth and refuse the burden of unfair guilt. We know what marriage is. And no amount of lobbying or name-calling can change that truth. Our only shame would be to keep silent in the face of lies.
SOURCE
The 'Islamophobia' myth
by Jeff Jacoby
"Is America Islamophobic?" When that provocative question appeared on the cover of Time in August, the accompanying story strained to suggest, on the basis of some anecdotal evidence, that the answer might be yes. The FBI's latest compendium of US hate-crimes data suggests far more plausibly that the answer is no.
"Where ordinary Americans meet Islam, there is evidence that suspicion and hostility are growing," Time told its readers last summer. "To be a Muslim in America now is to endure slings and arrows against your faith -- not just in the schoolyard and the office but also outside your place of worship and in the public square, where some of the country's most powerful mainstream religious and political leaders unthinkingly (or worse, deliberately) conflate Islam with terrorism and savagery."
Time published that article amid the tumult over plans to build a Muslim mosque and cultural center near Ground Zero in New York, and not long after a fringe pastor in Gainesville had announced that he intended to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The piece noted that a handful of other mosque projects nationwide have run into "bitter opposition," and it cited a Duke University professor's claim that such resistance is "part of a pattern of intolerance" against American Muslims. Yet the story conceded frankly that "there's no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise" and that "Islamophobia in the US doesn't approach levels seen in other countries."
In fact, as Time pointed out, while there may be the occasional confrontation over a Muslim construction project, "there are now 1,900 mosques in the US, up from about 1,200 in 2001." Even after 9/11, in other words, and even as radical Islamists have continued to target Americans, places of worship for Muslims in the United States have proliferated. And whenever naked anti-Islamic bigotry has appeared, "it has been denounced by many Christian, Jewish, and secular groups." (Case in point: the wall-to-wall repudiation of the Gainesville pastor.)
America is many things, but "Islamophobic" plainly isn't one of them. As Time itself acknowledged: "Polls have shown that most Muslims feel safer and freer in the US than anywhere else in the Western world." That sentiment is powerfully buttressed by the FBI's newly-released statistics on hate crime in the United States.
In 2009, according to data gathered from more than 14,000 law-enforcement agencies nationwide, there were 1,376 hate crimes motivated by religious bias. Of those, just 9.3 percent -- fewer than 1 in 10 -- were committed against Muslims. By contrast, 70.1 percent were committed against Jews, 6.9 percent were aimed and Catholics or Protestants, and 8.6 percent targeted other religions. Hate crimes driven by anti-Muslim bigotry were outnumbered nearly 8 to 1 by anti-Semitic crimes.
Year after year, American Jews are far more likely to be the victims of religious hate crime than members of any other group. That was true even in 2001, by far the worst year for anti-Muslim hate crimes, when 481 were reported -- less than half of the 1,042 anti-Jewish crimes tabulated by the FBI the same year.
Does all this mean that America is in reality a hotbed of anti-Semitism? Would Time's cover have been closer to the mark if it had asked: "Is America Judeophobic?"
Of course not. Even one hate crime is one too many, but in a nation of 300 million, all of the religious-based hate crimes added together amount to less than a drop in the bucket. I do not minimize the 964 hate crimes perpetrated against Jews last year, or those carried out against Muslims (128), Catholics (55), or Protestants (40). Some of those attacks were especially shocking or destructive; all of them deserve to be punished. But surely the most obvious takeaway from the FBI's statistics is not that anti-religious hate crimes are so frequent in America. It is that they are so rare.
In a column a few years back, I wrote that America has been for the Jews "a safe harbor virtually without parallel." It has been much the same for Muslims. Of course there is tension and hostility sometimes. How could there not be, when America is at war with violent jihadists who have done so much harm in the name of Islam? But for American Muslims as for American Jews, the tension and hostility are the exception. America's exemplary tolerance is the rule.
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 December, 2010
Britain backs off becoming even softer on crime
David Cameron ruled out a change in minimum jail terms for murderers yesterday, reversing Government policy on sentencing in just 24 hours. On Tuesday, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke had indicated that he wanted to scrap fixed sentences for knife killers and other murderers, leaving judges to decide how long they should serve.
But after a backlash by victims of crime, Tory MPs and grassroots supporters, Downing Street intervened to head off claims that the Government is 'soft on crime'.
Aides said Mr Cameron will not sanction any reductions in minimum sentences and pledged that the 25-year minimum for knife killers would stay. 'The Prime Minister feels very strongly about this,' his press secretary said.
The U-turn throws into chaos Mr Clarke’s shake-up of the criminal justice system.
Judges are currently under strict instructions on which murders merit a 'whole life' sentence behind bars and which should be imprisoned for 15, 25 or 30 years. Those who kill police get a minimum of 30 years.
But policy experts in Downing Street and the Ministry of Justice spent months working on plans to rewrite the section of the law that spells out minimum sentences.
Asked to explain the consequences on Tuesday, Mr Clarke dismissed the current rules as 'complete nonsense'. 'At the moment, if you murder me you’ll be punished more if you use a knife than if you strangle me painfully. I don’t think you should be too prescriptive. 'It is absurd to say the judge needs a statute to say what method of murder is more serious than another method. 'If I’m getting stabbed, I don’t whether it’s a screwdriver or a knife really.
'We do not need to tell judges that murder is a serious offence. They are perfectly capable of setting a minimum term.'
But police officers, bereaved families and knife campaigners, were outraged by his proposals and victims groups announced plans for a demonstration.
Before the U-turn was announced, Simon Reed, of the Police Federation, had said: 'Rather than diluting this 30-year rule we should be making sure police killers actually spend life behind bars.
Tory MPs openly denounced the plans and the ConservativeHome website, an indicator of the views of the Tory grassroots, was inundated with complaints.
But as Mr Cameron returned from Afghanistan yesterday, his advisers sought to clarify the Government's position, saying the minimum sentences 'were never going to be scrapped'. Instead, a Green Paper will see Schedule 21 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, which spells out the minimum sentences, rewritten, they insisted.
'We will look to simplify it, to make it clearer, easier to use, and more readily understood by victims' families and the public,' a Downing Street spokesman said. 'This Government has absolutely no intention whatsoever of reducing sentences for murder. 'We will never abolish the mandatory life sentence, or seek any general reduction in minimum terms imposed for murder.'
No 10 intervened amid concerns that the plans would undermine Mr Cameron's election pledge to get tough on knife-wielding criminals, which included plans to jail anyone found guilty of crimes involving a knife.
Sources close to Mr Cameron said Ben's Law, named after 16-year-old Ben Kinsella who died at knife point in 2008, which means knife killers must serve 25 years, 'will definitely not be scrapped'. One said: 'The idea that we were going to end mandatory sentences is for the birds. On murder, nothing will change.'
It is the second time this year that Mr Cameron has had to intervene to overrule the Ministry of Justice. No 10 officials disciplined Justice Minister Crispin Blunt after he announced that taxpayers would have to fund prison Halloween parties for killers and paedophiles.
Labour leader Ed Miliband said: 'They’re clearly in chaos over this and it’s a shambolic way to make policy.'
SOURCE
Papal interviews undermine caricatures of the church
A series of official meetings at the Holy See last week served as a reminder that, in its governance function, the Catholic Church is very bureaucratic. Yet Pope Benedict has just done what few government or religious leaders would do. He gave six interviews of one hour's duration each to the German journalist and author Peter Seewald.
The product of this conversation is contained in Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times (Ignatius Press), which has just been published. In the Western world, which is increasingly subsumed with sex and celebrity, media attention has focused on the Pope's answers to two questions about HIV/AIDS in Africa and the church forbidding condoms.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Commentators have homed in on Benedict's comment that in the case of some individuals - he cited the case of a male prostitute - the use of condoms may amount to "a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way towards recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants". That was about it.
But commentators tended to ignore a more significant papal refrain in Light of the World. Namely that "people can get condoms when they want them anyway".
And that's the essential point. The Pope recognises that not all Catholics follow the teachings of the church. Moreover, Africa is by no means a Catholic zone. The unfashionable fact is that HIV/AIDS is rife in large parts of Africa because many African men have multiple sex partners. Only some of them are baptised Catholic.
The Catholic Church has a good understanding of the devastation of HIV/AIDS. It is estimated about 15 per cent of the world's population is Catholic and that 25 per cent of all AIDS victims around the world are treated in Catholic institutions. That's an impressive statistic.
There is another inconvenient truth. The church's interaction with HIV/AIDS victims primarily focuses on caring for wounds and emptying bedpans - rather than writing opinion pieces in newspapers and attending international conferences.
The obsession with Catholicism in the Western media also impacts on discussion of world population growth. Last October, the presenter of Late Night Live, Phillip Adams, interviewed the former Catholic priest Paul Collins about his book Judgment Day - The Struggle for Life on Earth.
As the title suggests, Collins's work is primarily about the environment, climate change and all that. But Adams introduced the interview with predictable comments about condoms and the ridicule-laced claim that Catholics believe "it's naughty to have contraception because it might eliminate a couple of babies and every sperm is sacred".
Collins did not object to Adams's sneers. But he did point out that Catholic fertility in Australia since the late 19th century has been pretty much the same as Australia's national fertility. Collins did refer to the fact that, in Australia, Catholics suffer an enormous amount from caricature. He added that in parts of Catholic Italy the population is in decline.
This suggests that the Pope has a much better understanding of contemporary Catholics than do such secularists as Adams. As Francis Fukuyama pointed out in a lecture in Sydney in 2008, the huge increases in world population are taking place in sub-Saharan Africa where the Pope has little influence. If Adams was truly concerned about the need for condom advocacy as a form of birth control, he would take his cause to the Islamic nations - or, indeed, to Islamic settlements within Western societies. It's just that it is easier to ridicule Christians in the West than Muslims anywhere.
During his visit to Britain in September, Benedict was subjected to more low-level abuse. The author Richard Dawkins described the Pope as a "leering old villain in a frock", the philosopher A.C. Grayling compared him to "the head of a drug cartel" and the humanist Andrew Copson accused him of undermining human rights. Yet, as Bryan Appleyard reported in The Sunday Times, Geoffrey Robertson, QC, obtained a papal blessing in Rome a few months before joining the protests in London.
The evidence suggests the Pope is more considered than many of his critics. This is evident in Light of the World where the former theology professor acknowledges the church handles some issues poorly, concedes that "the Pope can have private opinions that are wrong" and accepts that "no one is forced to be a Christian". The Pope also apologises for the "filth" involved in the sexual abuse of young children by male priests and brothers.
The reader does not have to agree with the views of Benedict to be impressed by the fact he gave lengthy interviews in the absence of minders and that Light of the World was released without "talking points" memos being issued to bishops and priests.
SOURCE
PA Town Removes 57-Year-Old Nativity Scene From Gov’t Building: ‘Highly Disrespectful’
A small Pennsylvania town has removed a Nativity scene from its borough building after a resident complained that the creche is offensive to non-Christians. And while town leaders say they don’t like having to remove it, they say they are legally obligated.
WPXI in Pittsburgh reports Canonsburg Borough and its Manager Terry Hazlett received a written complaint last week from resident Megan Hartley who said the creche was disrespectful to citizens who aren‘t Christian and that it shouldn’t be displayed at a government building.
“I think that it is highly disrespectful to the citizens of this Borough that are not Christian to have Christian iconography displayed on government property,” she reportedly wrote, “a government that is supposed to represent all of the citizens, not just the majority.”
In response to the complaint, Hazlett asked the local Knights of Columbus chapter, which owns the scene and has been displaying it at the borough buiding for 57 years, to remove it. The group obliged, and has since relocated the creche to a nearby business.
That upset local Knights of Columbus member Robert Clark, who told the Observer-Reporter that the removal of the creche offends him. “I think that we have to show tolerance to one another,” Clark said. “It’s disrespectful to my rights, too.”
According to the Canonsburg Borough website, a dozen people showed up at Monday night’s council meeting to protest the move. There, town Mayor David Rhome said he has received several calls questioning why the creche was moved, and asked the council to reconsider....
That sentiment is echoed by Mayor David Rhome. In an interview with The Blaze he said the town is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. While he believes the creche should be allowed, and says that his constituents want it there, the fact remains the courts have decided it cannot.
“In the world we live in, the courts dictate what we can do,” he said. “The law is the law.”
The law he’s talking about refers to a relevant U.S. Supreme Court case that took place in another Pennsylvania town. In County of Allegheny vs. ACLU, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a nativity scene on the steps of the County Courthouse violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
SOURCE
Australia: Bolt case reflects hollow commitment to free speech
The courtroom is no place to shut down even the most offensive opinions
"SORRY, Janet. To better defend my right to free speech, I should stay silent." So said Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt recently when I asked him about the Federal Court action brought against him by Aborigines claiming that he "offended, insulted and humiliated" them in breach of the federal Racial Discrimination Act.
The case is due back in court on Monday and Bolt has been advised that the best way to defend his right to free speech is to not speak about the matter. Welcome to the West's wacky commitment to free speech.
It gets worse. Many who have penned a defence of Bolt's right to express his opinion have offered up a sniggering, begrudging defence littered with a great deal more insult and offence than anything Bolt wrote in the columns now the subject of litigation.
And it gets still worse. A single judge will be asked to form an opinion as to whether Bolt, an opinion columnist, is entitled to express his opinion.
Bolt and his employer, Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, are not being sued for defamation. Neither is the allegation that they used words to incite violence. Quite rightly, the law will censor speech in such circumstances. No, Bolt simply expressed an opinion that there is a fashion for some light-skinned people to self-identify as Aboriginal which is divisive and has the unfortunate aim of entrenching racial differences.
In two columns written last year, Bolt says a number of people, often more European than indigenous, have been able to advance their careers by applying for positions, prizes and scholarships by self-identifying as Aboriginal. He says it is "sad that we harp on about differences and rights based on such trivial inflections of race". For expressing these opinions, Bolt must now front up to court.
Never mind that Bolt acknowledged that these people may have identified as Aboriginal for "the most heartfelt and honest of reasons". Never mind that Bolt expressly says he is not accusing them of opportunism. His aim is that we move "beyond black and white to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide".
Yet the claimants are demanding an apology, a retraction "and any other redress as is deemed appropriate". Welcome, once again, to the wacky world of free speech in the West, where the law hinders open debate about the implications of people who choose to self-identify as Aboriginal.
Of course, if the law allows such claims to be made, no criticism can be made of those who exercise their legal right to sue. However, the law is, in this respect, undoubtedly an ass.
The inconsistent way such a law can be used only compounds its hypocrisies. For example, in a 2002 article in Good Weekend Magazine discussing the vexed issue of establishing Aboriginality, Larissa Behrendt, a well-known indigenous legal academic, said: "If that [issue] isn't resolved, you run the risk of having the parameters stretched to the ludicrous point where someone can say: 'Seven generations ago there was an Aboriginal person in my family, therefore I am Aboriginal.' "
We are entering dangerous territory if the case against Bolt succeeds. Too often, claims made under the plethora of human rights acts can appear to have the result - intentional or not - of shutting down particular views and, even more troubling, particular people who challenge the politically polite views of progressives.
Bolt, a white conservative man loathed by the Left, is sued. Behrendt, an indigenous progressive woman, is not. Instead, Behrendt is listed in the Australian Human Rights Commission complaint form as one of those likely to be "offended, insulted and humiliated" by Bolt's comments.
While the complainants in the Federal Court are no doubt well intentioned, and are perfectly entitled to exercise whatever rights the law gives them, ill-drafted statutes can hijack free speech in pursuit of special interest political agendas. Vaguely drafted provisions proscribing speech that is "offensive" "insulting" or "humiliating" scream out to be pressed into the service of stifling debate.
In Canada, Mark Steyn, another white conservative writer, was hauled in front of a human rights commission to defend his views about multiculturalism and the growing conflict between Islam and the West. In Germany on Friday, the politically moderate German Chancellor Angela Merkel made similar remarks. She said that multiculturalism had "failed, utterly failed" in Germany. It was time for people to integrate, she said. Will she be sued for offending those who haven't integrated?
Let's hope not. The courtroom is no place to determine even the most contentious political debates or to shut down even the most offensive opinions. The prosecution of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician now facing a retrial ordered in October for inciting hate and discrimination against Muslims for criticising Islam, is political, not legal. There are no useful legal tests about hurt feelings or inciting hate. As Oliver Kamm wrote about Wilders, "the state has no business concerning itself with how its citizens feel".
It's unfortunate that this needs to be said again and again. Freedom of expression is meaningless if it does not include a right to be offensive. The real gem at the core of Western progress is the free market of ideas where better ideas triumph by exposing, challenging and contradicting the dud ones. Many views that were once regarded as too offensive to air have been vindicated. Hence Merkel's new-found courage to talk about integration, not multiculturalism.
Even if Bolt wins in court, we lose. Misguided racial discrimination and vilification laws can kill free speech slowly by threatening censorship. Create a bureaucracy and watch its empire blossom. Even some who supported the creation of human rights commissions are having second thoughts. A robust democracy is fuelled by debates that often offend some people. We sharpen our minds and bring clarity to ideas through open, reasoned discussion. By setting up empire-building bureaucracies to shut down offensive views proscribed by ambiguous laws and determined by a handful of judges, we import the standards of censorship found in countries across the Middle East.
That's why the case against Bolt is wrong. Before you say "She would defend him, wouldn't she?", remember that she also defended Phillip Adams when he was the subject of a racial vilification complaint. Adam's view after September 11 that the US was its own worst enemy was offensive. But the notion that he could be hauled before some bureaucracy to censor him is far more offensive to our liberty.
Sadly, some progressives have tried to bask in the sunlight of the high moral ground that comes from defending free speech while aiming a series of insulting slurs at Bolt. When you spend so much time dumping on Bolt, rather than arguing a straightforward defence of free speech, your commitment looks phony.
Free speech is not a Left v Right thing, as Steyn said. It's a free v unfree thing. The case against Bolt shows we are all unfree.
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 December, 2010
Are Child Protective Services being used to harass inconvenient bloggers?
Or are they being used to seek out the "militia" hobgoblins that the Obamabots are obsessing about?
I have been very hesitant about releasing what happened to me regarding Child Protective Services. But after discussing this with Dave Hodges, from the Commonsense Radio Show on Republic Broadcasting, he said I need to get this information out to the public.
This happened about one month ago now. Here is how it all began.
I got a call from Child Protective Services, the woman said they had gotten a "call" about me and abuse of my child. I was in shock, when she told me this. I was completely confused and it also freaked me out, as I could not comprehend on why someone had called Child Services on me. Anyone that knows me, knows how blessed I feel, in having my "miracle child"!
I asked the woman, if they were going to have to go to her father's house also, she said "OH, I didn't know the father did not live there". I gave her, the father's phone number and name. I also, asked "How can I be sure, you are who you say you are". She gave me the phone number for the office and said I could call it back. After she let me know they would be at my house early the next morning and I was still completely freaked and confused on how someone could even think I have ever abused my child, I hung up. I called her father and let him know what was going on. The phone call was just a few minutes before my child was due home from school.
When my child got home, I got a bigger shock! My child told me, child services had come to her school that day and interviewed her! I told her to wait, to tell me anything, as I wanted to put her on speaker phone with her father so she could tell us at the same time, what questions they asked.
My child said, these are the questions they asked " Does your mother have SOLAR PANELS? Where Exactly does your mother take you camping? Where exactly have you gone hiking? Do you hike and then camp? Does anyone else go with you camping? What do you do when you go camping? Does your mother have alternative energy? Does your mother have stored food? Does your mother have any guns? Does your mother saying anything about "The end of the world"? What kind of remodeling has your mother done to your home? Do you have a "safe room", like a bomb shelter in your home?
***EDIT***12/5/10 9:20am est - I forgot to include another question, they asked my child: IF your mother takes you to church and exactly which church do you go to? They did not ask ME that question when I was interviewed - BUT they did ask the father that question in if he knew, if I take my child to church or not. I was surprised at this question, I thought there was a separation of Church and State and did not know those type questions were allowed. - END OF EDIT***
My child also said she told child services, her father does not live with me and there was shared custody and that included being at my house for one week and then her father's house for one week. So my child TOLD Child services the father and I did not live together! I was upset, as the woman then lied to me on the phone saying "She did not know the father didn't live here". I hung up with her father to call Child services and confront the woman. Besides Child services asking what I considered were the MOST Bizarre questions I had EVER heard of, for a child abuse case! What the the World do ANY of those questions have to do with "Child abuse"?!!!!!
When the child services woman answered the phone, I started into her right away, saying she was not truthful about not knowing the father didn't live here to me on the phone earlier! She was a little taken back it seems, that I would be confronting her as I was! She said "she did not remember my child telling her that"! I was telling her "Really?, MY Child TOLD you all about her living with her father and about her brother there and Everything, and you DON'T remember that?!" She said "No" she didn't! I then said I had a HUGE problem with that fact then, because "What else, doesn't she remember in her conversation with my child, when she had just interviewed my child?". I also asked her "Why in the world would you ask a child about "the end of the world and even put any ideas like that in a child's head"? She was flustered and said "they have to ask questions in regards to any accusations".
I told her " I will have witnesses here tomorrow, to make sure things stay "straight"! I also told her, she would NOT be allowed anywhere else in my house, EXCEPT for my child's room, since that was required. *Child services has to confirm a child has a bed to sleep in, clothes and food, with any visit to a home*. She asked me Why - they would not be able to see the WHOLE House? I told her, because the ONLY thing required is her bedroom and that would be IT! She somewhat hung up the phone on me, with exasperation from the call.
I was One Upset person now! To me this was the Most Bizarre event happening. I sat back down with my child and asked her.. "was there anyone else in the room besides the child services people?" My child said "No". I then asked my child "Did they ask, if I have ever hit you, did they ask if I drink, did they ask if I do drugs"? She said "No", they did not ask ANY questions such as that! I was NOW completely confused! How in the heck, is it Child services did NOT ask what I would think would be NORMAL Child Abuse questions that would be abusive to a child! NOT ONE NORMAL CHILD ABUSE QUESTION WAS ASKED!
I called my sister, who lives by me and then I called some neighbors and asked them to be witnesses the next morning. Also I asked my sister to bring her video camera, as I wanted to TAPE the whole Child services interview!
The next morning, my neighbors and sister arrived early and my sister set up the camera, we waited. The child services people as I opened the door saw the video camera rolling - there were 3 of them. The woman had brought her associate and her supervisor with her. They waved at the camera and I told them, for their protection as well as my own, the WHOLE interview was going to be recorded.
I told them, I had a right to know what the Accusations were against me, though they did not have to say WHO made the accusations, as soon as they acknowledged the camera.
The woman said the accusation was "mental abuse and neglect" against me. I asked how child services, decides if there is "mental abuse", since that is very subjective in opinion? They simply agreed it was "subjective". I then said, "Well, I will show you her room, clothes and food now, so that part is over with". I took them to her room (I had all doors shut to all rooms of the house, as I felt it was none of their business in seeing any other rooms of my house). Then we came back and I opened up the fridge and freezer and then showed them the pantry, so they could see food was there. My sister followed us with the camera, everywhere we went, taping the child services workers.
They then asked if they could sit down and discuss the accusations. First they asked me "normal questions, my date of birth, my name, my child's date of birth, my address, and other form questions as that.
They then asked me, if I had ever talked to my child about "the end of the world"? I told them "No, in fact I asked my child if kids ever said anything about it, just a couple of weeks before. My child told me "Yes, kids say stuff about 2012" I told my child NOT to listen to any of the ridiculous stuff kids say". I then told the child services people, I know they asked my child about it the day before and my child TOLD them I had NEVER said anything about "the end of the world" to her! So don't they take my child's word for that?! She said "Yes, they do". So I said "then you know I have not said anything regarding end of the world type stuff".
Then she asked if I had "stored food"? I told her... I follow the guidelines which FEMA has up on their site and I am a Red Cross Volunteer and have gone out on disasters with the Red Cross and I have had all the training with the Red Cross, in knowing that people should be self reliant for a couple of weeks, without needing help from the government or any other source during that time. So "I follow the Guidelines of the government and recommendations from the Red Cross in that respect"!
They then asked if I had an "alternative heat source" for my house! I said "Yes, I have a Yukon Eagle heater, which burns, wood or natural gas for heating my house". I said "I have saved lots of money by heating my house with wood, compared to natural gas". oh, they said "a problem with it could be carbon monoxide", I told them, natural gas heaters had problems with that, besides I have carbon monoxide sensors. . They asked if they could see it (which it is downstairs in my basement), I went and got a brochure and the owners manual on it from my file cabinet and handed it to them, so they could look at it there. I was not going to take them downstairs to my basement, as I felt they did not have a right to "check out my house in all ways". They mentioned wanting seeing it once more, I ignored it and I went on to another subject. The supervisor was familiar with the unit I have, as he said they have lots of them up north, where he came from.
Then they asked me, "what renovations have I done on my home and do I continue to do renovations to it"? I laughed and looked at my neighbors and sister as they too laughed. I told them, I have done lots of renovations, and my sister and I put the wood floors in here, I tiled the entrance and I just redid the hall ways and the outside entrance. I also had taken down walls. The supervisor asked "what walls and where exactly were taken down"? I stood up and said "right here, I took down walls that used to go across here and the wall that separated the kitchen and den".
She then said "We understand you are a "blogger" and what exactly is your blog about, also it is said you have a "conspiracy mind"? I was a little shocked at this question and told them "mainly my blog is about the Foreclosure Fraud that has been happening". They asked how many hours I spend blogging, as that is where the "neglect" part of the accusation came in, in that I spent most of my time "blogging". I told them the weeks I don't have my child "I blog more and spend more time on the computer". But when I have my child, I spend time with my child! My neighbors piped up and said, "we see her outside playing with her child and she is probably one of the best mothers and my child is about the most well balanced child they have ever come across". One neighbor said "we would not have the problems we do, if all kids were raised, as I was raising my child, as she is so balanced".
I told the child services people, "I spend lots of time with my child and I was raising her to "give to others" and that my child and I do fund raisers for the Red Cross and she loves volunteering and doing what she can for others!" I told them, "I have let my child know, doing for others is one of the best things you can do in your life and beauty comes from the inside, not the out".
Then they said "Well, here is the biggest accusation and one of the oddest accusations we have had before. They said I was accused of "Being a member of a Top Secret Agency, that worked against the Government". My sister, neighbors and I began laughing very hard with this! I looked at them and said "Are you Serious?"
I asked them to repeat the accusation, after they did, I just laughed and said "No" as I continued laughing!
The supervisor did say "Well, I would think you would be having "men in black" come see you, if you were".
They then began talking about "militias" and how they raise their children, I just listened to them and the way they were saying it, left it with a question to me on if I was involved in any. I made a comment saying "I would have absolutely no clue, about anything regarding militias, as I had never entered that realm or researched militias".
I asked them directly and asked them to be honest, regarding them seeing any validity to the accusations. They said, "they didn't see any problems or validity of the accusations to me, before they left".
I was waiting for all the questions about my camping with my daughter and so on.... those questions never were asked and at the time I did not think about asking about it either.
I asked them "do you have any more questions"? They said 'No".
They were at my house for about one hour and after they left, I called my child's father, to let him know they were on their way.
After a few hours, my child's father called me and said "they had been at his house for 2 HOURS and the whole time, they were grilling them about ME"! He said, they asked him all kinds of things about my camping, and if HE knew where we went and what we did while camping! He also said "they said they were concerned, since I did not let them see the downstairs of my house". He said they asked him, if he knew what my blog was about and did he read it? He told them "mainly financial stuff and the diseases from last winter and if they were so worried about it, they could get on the internet and read it themselves".
I was completely flabbergasted! I was "WTF"? They did NOT ask ME about my camping with my child and they had TOLD me, they didn't see any problems, yet they were telling my child's father something different! I called and recorded my message for the child services woman saying "I don't understand where there is a problem with me taking my child camping and Where we go, as you Never asked me a single thing about that"!
I will say, I have left 3 messages for her, since that day, asking for clarification on what the problem is with camping and Why is there a problem with our camping? I have never received a call back! Last week, I called and spoke to the supervisor that was here that day and said I wanted to know what accusation was in my regards to camping with my child? He had to look and would call me back. When he did call back, He said "he could not find one on the paperwork". He also said, the accusations were unsubstantiated in their opinion, but they were going to be talking to my child once more.
***That has still not occurred, as of writing this***
SO....... I still would like to know why there were so many questions about my camping with my daughter and where we go camping, hiking and what we do, when we camp. When they had asked my child she told them "we camp in a tent and make sure not to be next to an RV, due to their generator noise and we go hiking to falls and on trails". So if my child told them the type of stuff we do, they don't ask me, BUT then they grill my child's father on it..... What the Heck is WRONG with Camping?!
The day they were here, I will admit, I was completely Freaked out the whole time, as I had never had anything like this happen before. I did not confront them, with the questions they asked my child and why they asked my child the type questions they did, as I wanted to say as little as possible and not open any doors for them to conversations! I do regret now, not confronting them on the camping, solar panels, alternative energy, etc. when they were here. I also feel, they did not want to get into those questions, due to the camera filming everything too!
I did ask them.... were there any claims of "physical abuse" and they said "No", there was nothing in claims of my abusing my child that way, only the "mental and neglect".
I could possibly understand, if a parent talked about the "end of the world" to a child, how that would completely mess up a child's mind, so in that regards, I do not believe that is such a "crazy" question! Though I did want to ask the child services people - "Are you going to go after those children's parents, the ones who are telling MY child, the "end of the world is coming"? But I did not.
I would like to know in fact, in my doing lots of outdoor things with my child and going camping, is that not then a conflict to the accusation of neglect of a child? To me, that means a parent is far from neglecting a child, as they are spending time with the child outdoors, spending time together without T.V.s or other distractions! When did camping become being part of child abuse?
To sum this up, I drove myself crazy for awhile, wondering WHO would have made these accusations against me. I have accused a family member to thinking it was possibly a neighbor, to her father's relatives. BUT, now that time has gone by and I have been able to think more clearly about it, including having a conversation with Dave Hodges from the "Commonsense Radio Show", I am now of the opinion, another branch of the government, possibly sent Child Services to my home.
Dave Hodges, mentioned he has had previous shows about Child services and they are used by other branches to find out what people have or don't have, as it is the easiest way to get information.
So, is it actually from my having this blog and the comments I have made in regards to my thoughts and opinions on various subjects?
So...... now the question is, are others who have been public about their opinions on varied subjects, have had the government check on them? Has child services been used in other cases where they asked bizarre questions, compared to abuse questions?
Dave Hodges from the Commonsense Radio show and I may join forces to find out, if there are other cases and people out there who have had this similar type incident happen to them? Is the government going around and trying to find out, what people may have or not have? Is the government going around, trying to find out if there is a "place in the woods" people plan on going to (hence the camping questions)?
***Note*** I have talked to Dave Hodges yet again today, he feels after talking to someone else who is an expert in regards to child services, is that I was being profiled and assessed in what kind of "threat" I may be for homeland security.
If that is the case, does that mean having a voice and using our voices to speak up in what we feel are wrongs happening in a peaceful manner and exercising our "rights" as citizens, we are then considered possible "threats"? So does that mean everyone in the United States who may not have a blog, yet they still will voice their thoughts and opinions on what is happening in the United States and around the world to friends and co-workers are possibly "threats"?
OH, one other comment - my child went from being a Straight A student with a couple of B's all her school years, to getting F's on tests and began failing classes, the week after this happened! My child was very Traumatized by the Child services ordeal, as she was/is aware of child services and what they do from T.V. etc. and she was Freaked out that she may be "taken away"!
More HERE
British Santa faces littering rap
Council officials are threatening to prosecute a secret Santa for leaving Christmas gifts for children in a park. The mystery man, who signs himself The Woodland Santa, creeps into Pembrey country park, near Llanelli, at night to hang gift-wrapped books and toys from trees. But Carmarthenshire council warned the man that he could land in court for fly-tipping, reports The Mirror.
It is the second year running the phantom Santa has left his festive offerings - last year more than 600 toys and gifts were found hanging from fir trees.
And the kind-hearted Santa has returned with more surprises for young visitors to the park this year.
Park rangers have collected gifts including a Teletubbies annual, cuddly Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh puppet, which have all been passed on to local charity shops. Park manager Rory Dickinson said: "Tis the season to be jolly and giving - but this does cause us a few problems. We cannot leave the presents out because of littering issues."
Carmarthenshire council officials said some of the presents were ruined by the weather and had to be thrown away as litter.
Councillor Clive Scourfield said: "It's an unusual problem for us. We certainly don't want to be the first authority to be labelled Scrooges for citing Santa for fly-tipping. "We would like to come to some kind of arrangement with him to better distribute his generosity - even if it is anonymously."
SOURCE
Finally! The Archbishop of Canterbury speaks out in support of Christmas
There's a strong suspicion that he is just an atheist in a funny hat
The Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday defended Christmas against attempts to suppress it in case it offends people of other faiths. Dr Rowan Williams said those who try to ban Nativity plays and carol singing do not understand how people of all religions love the Christmas story and respect its message.
His intervention is likely to be welcomed by Christians. Unlike many colleagues, he has said little to criticise secular campaigners and public authorities who marginalise Christianity.
Several Christian leaders have stood up recently for the religious nature of Christmas. Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, said attempts to ban the mention of Christmas in public were part of a secular drive to push Christianity from public life. Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said Britain appeared to have become ashamed of Christmas. And on his visit to Britain in September, Pope Benedict spoke of his concern at attempts to discourage Christmas celebrations.
In an interview for Radio Times yesterday, Dr Williams said: ‘The weary annual attempts by right-thinking people in Britain to ban or discourage Nativity plays or public carol-singing out of sensitivity to the supposed tender consciences of other religions fail to notice that most people of other religions and cultures both love the story and respect the message.
‘Christmas is one of the great European exports. You’ll meet Santa Claus and his reindeer in Shanghai and Dar es Salaam – a long way from the North Pole. ‘The story of the Nativity is loved even in non-Christian contexts. One of the best and most sensitive recent film retellings was made by an Iranian Muslim company.’
But some saw his comments as half-hearted. Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, queried his depiction of ‘right-thinking people’, adding: ‘There is an attempt to move nativity plays off the public stage. It is part of an attempt to marginalise Christiniaty. This is not right-thinking.’
SOURCE
Australia: Santa fired from Victorian pre-school so not to offend religious groups
THERE'S no holly in the halls, and Santa has been sacked. Christmas is out at a Victorian kindergarten, which is tiptoeing around any mention of the religious holiday.
Santa and his sleigh don't get a look in at Montessori Marvels Preschool in Greenvale which is striving to be everything to everybody. Children celebrate with an end-of-year party rather than a Christmas party and will part for the holidays wishing each other "Happy New Year".
Premier Ted Baillieu has warned Victorians not to let political correctness ruin Christmas with some schools and community groups imposing yuletide bans in recent years.
But the centre is not budging, saying it is abiding by Montessori's philosophy to be inclusive of all religious and cultural groups. "We are just trying to take an open approach to the holiday season," said spokeswoman Marlene Guclu, herself a Christian. "We run a non-denominational, non-religious program."
One parent is upset by what she said was effectively a Christmas ban. The woman, called Anna, rang up radio station 3AW to complain about a kinder in Greenvale, which she did not name. "My son is getting really frustrated because I'm singing one song, and he's singing the other," she said. "They sing carols but they change the words. "It doesn't have to be about religion."
But Ms Guclu said Christmas could still be discussed one on one with children. "We want all families to feel welcome, of all nationalities," she said.
Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria chairman Sam Afra said it could be a positive move if they were seeking to include all faiths in celebrating the festive season.
"If they are trying to do the right thing for everyone, we don't want to take that out of context," he said. "Different people coming around the table now saying maybe we should look at interfaith. I would like to encourage more debate, and to be more mature about our debate, where we are more understanding and respect each other."
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 December, 2010
British police not interested in shoplifters
(Or car theft, for that matter -- but a holocaust denier got 4 years in jail. What you say is more important than what you do, apparently)
High Street chains have launched 600,000 private legal actions against alleged shoplifters in ten years, it has emerged. Big names such as Boots, Tesco, Debenhams, Asda, TK Maxx, Wilkinson, B&Q and Superdrug are demanding a £150 penalty each time in civil actions against alleged thieves.
They adopted the policy after the last Labour government decided police no longer had to pursue criminal prosecutions against many shoplifters. Stores are angry that officers let many thieves go with a warning, while even persistent offenders often only pay a small fixed penalty fine.
The retailers’ ‘civil recovery’ move is designed to shame and punish those involved. People who refuse to pay up after receiving a lawyer’s letter are warned they will be pursued for payment in the county court, which is potentially embarrassing. The legal letters are often sent weeks after the event when the alleged thief involved thought the matter had been resolved.
However, the charity Citizens Advice says the big chains and their lawyers are targeting children and other vulnerable people. It is calling on stores to take a different and ‘fair’ approach to tackling shoplifting. The charity, which receives substantial grants from the taxpayer, claims some of those pursued are innocent, possibly having made a mistake at a self-service checkout.
Of 300 cases reported to Citizens Advice offices, a quarter involved teenagers, with most of those aged under 17. Others included the elderly, single mothers, carers and people with mental and physical disabilities.
The charity’s stance triggered fierce criticism from one of the biggest legal firms involved in ‘civil recovery’. Nottingham-based Retail Loss Prevention effectively accused the charity of wasting public money to support criminals. It said retail theft, including items stolen by employees, was £4.4billion a year and rising.
Retail Loss Prevention managing director Jackie Lambert said: ‘With spending cuts and the country struggling with a recession, are we, as a society, happy for public money to be spent defending in civil courts those caught stealing?’
Citizens Advice chief Gillian Guy said: ‘We do not condone crime of any kind or level, and do not underestimate the cost of retail crime, but in many of the cases the alleged theft is strongly denied.’
SOURCE
Offended by the Offended
Five Live Oak High School students’ First Amendment rights were challenged this year when they were asked to leave school because they donned American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo, an offense one official called “incendiary.” Other students could wear or wave the Mexican flag and any number of other potentially offensive messages, but wearing the American flag in America is just too “incendiary.” To their credit, the Morgan Hill Unified School District did not concur with the suspensions, but the “offended” still got their way.
Unfortunately, in America today, being offended works! It’s become an effective strategy for oppressing the freedom of those who disagree with the offended party. An Iowa Veterans Hospital is removing crosses and Christian symbols from its chapels because ”offended” atheist complainers have successfully intimidated hospital administrators with threats of a lawsuit.
On a more personal level, when a doctor informed a female patient that she was clinically obese and needed to lower her weight, she was offended. Instead of addressing her own weight issues, she attempted to get her doctor reprimanded.
Is this still America? “We the people” are supposed to be free to disagree, dislike you, and even offend you. Face the sad truth, in a free society, there will always be somebody out there who will be offended with anything, everything or at least something that you might say or do.
Don’t let name-calling get to you. Borrowing the words of the GEICO drill sergeant therapist, “Maybe we should chug on over to mambi pambi land and find some self confidence for you!” Grab some tissues instead of intimidating others into compromising our freedom of speech.
The French-born American historian, Jacques Barzun, said, “Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.” Political correctness is the enemy of freedom of speech. What may have began as a crusade for civility has soured into arguments over what is “offensive” and, even worse, censorship. To label someone a bigot or a racist for a comment that offends minimizes true racism. If being offended is enough to squander our freedom of speech, I’m offended by those who are offended.
Too many have forgotten that handy childhood saying: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me.” Words may hurt and even offend, but they need not have lasting impact. Even with the most hateful of comments, we’re dealing with strong statements, not physical blows.
After all, anyone entering into political discourse should wear a flak jacket and helmet. As a columnist, I’ve been called a simplistic f…ing clown, a right liar, narrow minded, a cruel joke, a two-faced hypocrite, and my favorite—a jackass trying to look like horse. I’ve been asked, “What planet are you living on?” I’ve been told that since I’ve “had enough” of President Obama, I ought to leave the county, the state, and even the country! Such comments go with the territory.
The best response to hateful comments is not a counter attack but to keep expressing your opinions. It’s healthy to learn that you can survive verbal attacks for your views and sleep soundly at night.
When you don’t like what is said, choose to disagree and let their attack slide by or get beyond their name calling and consider changing your opinion. Choosing to be offended is not a constructive choice.
Thankfully, some are protesting “offended” demonstrators. After “offended” students from Michigan State’s Muslim Student’s Association protested the publishing of Danish cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, professor Indrek Wichman protested the protest. He sent an e-mail to the association: “I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders,…the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims….” In spite of an immediate uproar from the association and CAIR, the university has stood in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private and, as a result, warranted no university condemnation.
So, instead of using the courts or the long arm of the government to ban, threaten, or otherwise punish those who refuse to agree with your views, try exposing the supposed “offending” comments. Treat what you consider “hate” speech with more speech, not legal maneuvering that limits one of our most treasured freedoms. Remember, people you try to silence may not get mad; they may get even and work to censor and control you! When it comes to taking offense, don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you
SOURCE
A really bizarre attack on photography
A Barbie doll is bad because it has got a camera in it
The FBI is warning that a new Barbie doll could be a gift -- to pedophiles. In an alert sent to investigators, the feds warned that the new Barbie Video Girl, which features a camera and an LCD screen, could be used to create child pornography. The camera is capable of filming clips as long as 30 minutes, according to CNN.
The FBI says that the doll is safe if used properly, and it has not encountered any instances of the doll being used to create pornography. "Law enforcement is encouraged to be aware of unconventional avenues for possible production and possession of child pornography, such as the Barbie Video Girl," the document read.
"FBI investigation has revealed instances where an individual convicted of distributing child pornography had given a Barbie doll to a 6-year-old girl," the alert said.
The doll, which retails for $49.99, comes with a USB cable to upload videos to a computer. Investigators say that the combination of a doll packaged with a video camera raises worries. "It's probably a great selling point for kids but something that a child pornographer could convert to his nefarious activities," said Sgt. John Urquhart with the King County, Wash., sheriff's office, according to local TV station KOMO 4. The doll's camera does not have the capability to stream videos online.
The FBI never intended for the alert to become public, but it was inadvertently sent to news media in Seattle.
The doll "plays into these people who prey upon our children's ideals. It frightens me," William Porres, a Tacoma, Wash., grandfather, told a local CNN affiliate.
Barbie Video Girl has been nominated for the 2011 Toy of the Year Award. It is aimed at kids aged 6 and up, according to toymaker Mattel's website. "Capture everything from a doll's-eye-view, then watch it instantly or upload to your computer," the website says. "There's an LCD screen on Barbie doll's back, and a camera lens hidden discreetly in her necklace. Talk about making movies in style!"
The company has downplayed the alert, saying that the danger is theoretical. "The FBI is not reporting that anything has happened," Mattel said in a statement, according to The Washington Post. "We understand the importance of child safety -- it is our number one priority."
SOURCE
Australia: Free speech for charities upheld
A High Court decision last week provided a big win for charities, and another big loss for the Tax Commissioner. At issue was whether an organisation can retain its charitable status and tax benefits while engaging in political debate. The High Court held that it could. This redefined what it means to be a charity, and provided a boost to freedom of speech.
The test case concerned Aid/Watch, a self-described "activist" group concerned with the relief of international poverty. It seeks to achieve its goals through unorthodox means for a charity. Rather than raising money for or engaging directly in anti-poverty initiatives, it campaigns for improvements in the delivery of Australia's overseas aid. It has been sharply critical of government, and has not been shy in proposing major reforms to aid policy.
Australian charities have tended to be wary of such advocacy. They have feared that engaging in public debate could jeopardise their charitable status, and so their entitlement to the income tax, fringe benefits tax and GST exemptions and concessions upon which their livelihood depends. This fear was realised in 2006 when the Commissioner of Taxation revoked Aid/Watch's standing as a charity.
Aid/Watch has spent four years seeking to have the decision overturned. Its legal battle has focused upon the meaning of the term charitable institution in federal tax laws.
In contrast to the modern practice of parliaments seeking to explain key terms with extraordinary precision, charitable institution is not at all defined. This leaves the courts to fill in an enormous gap in the law.
Fortunately, judges have a long history of working out what a charity is. As the High Court recognised, the "modern" starting point lies in the opening words of the Statute of Elizabeth of 1601 as distilled by a 1891 decision of the House of Lords. In that case, Lord Macnaghten found that "charity" in its legal sense comprises four principal divisions: trusts for the relief of poverty; trusts for the advancement of education; trusts for the advancement of religion; and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads.
The primary question in the Aid/Watch case was whether its public advocacy fitted into the fourth category as being for "other purposes beneficial to the community".
A majority of the High Court held that Aid/Watch did fit within the definition. The judges found that the group's generation of public debate about how best to deliver foreign aid was a beneficial purpose. Charitable status was not inconsistent with freedom of speech in matters of government and public policy.
The court reached this conclusion after recognising that, like other judge-made law, the definition of a charity can change over time to accommodate new thinking and new social needs. Of central importance was the fact that Australia's constitution provides people with a freedom to communicate about government and politics. This suggested that charities are also entitled to agitate for legal and policy change in pursuit of their goals.
The Aid/Watch decision is merely an interpretation of federal tax legislation. Parliament can change those laws to narrow the definition of what it means to be a charity. However, the High Court's reliance upon the constitution hints at a possible barrier. If the definition of a charity was altered to prevent bodies from engaging in public debate, this could run foul of the constitutional freedom of political communication and be struck down.
The Aid/Watch decision is a good outcome for democracy. It means that organisations such as World Vision, the Smith Family and the Cancer Council can take part in public debate with greater freedom and confidence.
Organisations dedicated to fighting poverty will be able to criticise governments where their policies are inadequate in areas like mental health and homelessness.
Organisations with years of on-the-ground experience of disadvantage, research and education have an important role to play in public debate. Having seen governments come and go, they can take a longer-term, non-partisan perspective on what needs to be done to fix problems and policy challenges. These bodies should not be muzzled by the threat that playing a public role could threaten their status as a charity.
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 December, 2010
Proof that work just doesn't pay in Britain: Child poverty among unemployed families is falling ... but INCREASING in working homes
Child poverty is rising among working families while generous benefits cut it for the unemployed, a report has revealed. The study by the respected Joseph Rowntree Foundation is an indictment of Labour’s record in power – and casts doubt on the Coalition’s ability to deliver its pledge to ‘make work pay’.
It reveals that while the policy of lavishing benefits on the unemployed has helped tackle some aspects of child poverty, many working families have fallen behind. Child poverty in workless families fell in 2008/9 to 1.6million, despite the impact of the recession. But during the same period child poverty among working families rose to 2.1million – the highest on record.
The figures continue a trend that began five years ago and mean that 58 per cent of children in poverty now live in homes where at least one parent works.
Tom MacInnes, co-author of the report, said ‘substantial’ increases in benefits had helped drag many children in workless homes above the poverty line. But he said there had been too little focus on the children of people in low-paid jobs. ‘The figures suggest that something is going wrong for people in this group – it is disappointing. It demonstrates that work alone is not always a route out of poverty,’ he said.
‘The current Government needs to take that into account. We have heard a lot of talk about making work pay, but it has all focused on the rate at which benefits are withdrawn. These figures show that it is also about rates of pay and hours. There is a significant problem with working poverty that needs to be addressed.’
Mr MacInnes said there were a number of factors behind the rise in poverty among children in working households. In some cases parents may have had their pay rates or hours cut. In others, one parent may have lost their job. Rising living costs, including council tax, may also have contributed.
The figures are adjusted according to the number of people in the family and are calculated after deductions for taxes, housing costs, water bills and insurance. In 2008/9 the poverty line for a single adult was set at £119 a week, while for a family with two school age children it was £289 a week.
The report will make worrying reading for the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, whose new Universal Credit scheme is designed to ensure that unemployed parents who decide to take a job will not be crippled by the immediate withdrawal of all their benefits. At present people can find themselves barely better off if they go from unemployment to a low paid job because they lose almost as much in benefits as they earn.
Under Government plans those returning to work will be able to keep at least 35p in every extra pound they earn.
But the study suggests that more may have to be done around the issue of low pay to reduce poverty. Ministers have already indicated they will take a wider view, rather than focusing on the precise income of individual families.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has also said it is more important to focus on a child’s life chances than on dragging them one pound above an artificial poverty line.
The Department for Work and Pensions said: ‘Over the last decade vast sums of money has been poured into the benefits system in an attempt to address poverty, but as today’s report shows, this approach has failed. ‘Work is the best way out of poverty which is why we are radically reforming the welfare system to ensure that work always pays and people aren’t trapped in a cycle of dependency and worklessness.’
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report found that between 2008 and 2009, 13million people in the UK were living in poverty. It also discovered that by mid-2010, the unemployment rate among those aged 16-24 was at 20 per cent – the highest in 18 years and three times that for other adults.
Last week respected Labour MP Frank Field called on the Government to end automatic increases in child benefit and tax credits to free up resources for better services to help the children of the poor.
SOURCE
Is capital punishment racist?
Jeff Jacoby
It is a passionately-held article of faith among death-penalty opponents that capital punishment is racially unjust. But the facts stubbornly say otherwise. Ever since the Supreme Court compelled the states to rewrite their death penalty statutes in the 1970s, white murderers have been more likely than black murderers to be sentenced to death, and more likely to actually be executed. Though blacks commit approximately half of all murders in the United States, they accounted for only 390, or 35 percent, of the 1,136 murderers executed from 1977 through 2008. (Whites made up 57 percent; the rest were Hispanic, Asian, or American Indian.)
The race-of-the-victim claim that so appalls Stevens collapses under scrutiny. The Washington Post's Charles Lane -- an admirer of Stevens, as it happens -- shows why in a new book of his own. Because the vast majority of the murderers who kill blacks are black themselves, he writes in Stay of Execution: Saving the Death Penalty from Itself, the fact that the murder of a black victim is less likely to be punished with death is another way of saying that fewer blacks are put to death by the state. That reflects not racism, but racial progress.
It isn't because prosecutors place a lower value on black life that they are more reluctant to seek the death penalty for black-on-black homicide, Lane explains. It is because prosecutors don't press for a punishment of death unless they think the jury can be convinced to support it. And in the largely black communities where most black-on-black crime is committed, "persuading a jury to sentence a defendant to death is relatively difficult." Similarly, "in jurisdictions where elected prosecutors must appeal to black voters, prosecutors are that much less likely to support capital punishment."
In short, says Lane, far from harking back to the awful era when legally powerless black Americans were murdered by lynch mobs, the race-of-the-victim disparity today shows how blacks have been empowered. Before the Civil Rights revolution, most blacks couldn't vote or serve on juries. "Now that they do, they appear to be using this power to limit capital punishment in the cases closest to them."
Reasonable people have disagreed about the death penalty for a long time, but there is nothing reasonable about smearing the modern capital-justice system as inherently racist. Stevens changed his mind on the death penalty, but most Americans continue to regard it as a legitimate tool of justice. To imply that there is a whiff of the lynch mob in their view may make a good story for the Sunday paper. It doesn't make a convincing argument.
More HERE (See the original for links)
Julian Assange treated like non-citizen by Australian government, says lawyer
THE lawyer representing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has attacked the Australian government for failing to offer help to his client. And Mr Assange’s London-based lawyer, Mark Stephens, has said sex charges against Mr Assange amounted to a "show trial".
As the fallout from the release of diplomatic cables spreads to Australia, Mr Stephens questioned the worth of an Australian passport. "He has had no assistance or offers of assistance ... by the Australian authorities in Sweden, or London or America," Mr Stephens told ABC radio. "One has to question what the value of an Australian passport is, whether you agree with what he has done or not."
"One would think that having an Australian passport you would get some assistance but thus far, I have to say, the high commissions and embassies have been shutting their doors to Julian Assange."
Asked if his client had broken any laws by releasing thousands of confidential diplomatic cables, Mr Stephens said "not that I can see”.
He dismissed suggestions that his client was a terrorist. "Julian Assange is giving out useful information, journalists, investigative journalists, have been doing that for years," he said. "What he got, unasked for, he didn’t hack for it, was the electronic equivalent of a brown envelope. Quality investigative journalists have been working with brown envelopes and material given to them to hold our governments to account, to ascertain whether what they are doing is what we want them to be doing.
"If Julian Assange is a criminal than every national newspaper that has published exactly the same stories is also a criminal. Are we going to lock up editors from all over the planet? I don’t think so."
On the charges his client was facing in Sweden, Mr Stephens said the original allegation of rape brought against his client had been dropped and that he had now been charged with "sex by surprise".
"Originally the allegation was one of rape and many will remember that but of course what has not been reported is that the Swedish court of appeal dismissed the case of rape and said the facts don’t support it," he said. "They are now investigating something called sex by surprise."
"It is the very first time Sweden has actually sought extradition for this charge … it is a fairly minor charge and usually carries something like a 5000 Krone penalty."
Yesterday, Mr Stephens, had expressed concern that the pursuit of Mr Assange had "political motivations", in comments to the BBC.
Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, who is handling the rape allegations in Sweden, said: "I can very clearly say no, there is nothing at all of that nature." "This investigation has proceeded perfectly normally without any political pressure of any kind," Ms Ny said. "It is completely independent," she added. [She would say that, of course]
Mr Assange is in hiding somewhere in the world, believed to be Europe. Interpol has issued a "red notice" against him alerting all police forces that he is a wanted person in Sweden, which wants to question him "in connection with a number of sexual offences". [Interpol issues a notice over something that is a crime in Sweden only?? Patently improper]
SOURCE
Australia: Bosses fearing parental leave burden not hiring women
Entirely foreseen but ignored by the Left
WOMEN of child-bearing age are in the firing line as struggling small businesses baulk at the cost of implementing the Gillard Government's paid parental leave scheme. Dozens of cases of pregnant women being bullied and unfairly sacked have already been lodged with authorities, fuelling fears of widespread discrimination once paid parental leave starts on January 1.
Business groups warn that the onerous cost of administering payments will force some employers to think again about hiring women. Queensland's Chamber of Commerce and Industry boss David Goodwin said small businesses - already hurting from the financial downturn - could not absorb the costs of filling out "welfare papers" and changing payroll systems. Some small businesses "probably" won't hire women of child-bearing age.
"If you've got three staff and one goes on maternity leave, that's 30 per cent of your workforce," he said.
Eligible women will be paid $570 a week for up to 18 weeks and, after July 1, businesses will receive money from the Government to administer the scheme for workers. Businesses will have to withhold tax under PAYG, provide pay slips and keep records for staff and the government.
In the past 16 months, the Fair Work Ombudsman has received 95 complaints from pregnant women, including many in Queensland. The Ombudsman said allegations included:
* Working hours reduced or work status changed to casual because an employer said the woman was unreliable because of her morning sickness;
* Receiving a written warning about inappropriate dress due to pregnancy;
* Being bullied and harassed because they were pregnant.
Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick said she did not believe paid leave would spark more discrimination but added: "Where there is a propensity for confusion there is a propensity for discrimination. "It is a right and not a privilege for women to work during pregnancy. Pregnancy is seen as a total inconvenience for some businesses."
She said businesses should be the paymasters of the scheme because it enabled worker and employer to maintain contact.
But raising fresh concerns, Opposition small business spokesman Bruce Billson said business groups had warned that having further administration burdens could have unintended consequences. "Small business recruit the best person for the job, but if it's a line-ball decision (between a man and a woman), I hate to think that the new paid parental leave pay clerk burden the Government is imposing on employers would discourage the employment of a woman," he said.
Mr Billson introduced a private member's Bill to keep the scheme's administrative responsibility with a government agency. It will be voted on in February.
A spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland said "recent events have highlighted that sexual harassment continues to be a widespread problem in the workplace" but the Government had strengthened workers' rights and protection in amended legislation.
Families Minister Jenny Macklin said the scheme would help employers retain skilled and valuable staff. [So the government knows better than the businessman what is best for business??]
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 December, 2010
Angry British boss walks through police cordon and grabs 'bomb' to prove it's just bag of old clothes (and is arrested under the Terrorism Act)
This is so typical of official British stupidity. How is it terrorism to show that there is no danger? It seems the opposite of terorism to me. In a decent country he would be praised. But "proper procedure" is all in Britain -- JR
A businessman has been charged under the Terrorism Act after he broke through a police cordon and tipped open two suspect packages to prove they were harmless.
James Mullan ducked under police tape and emptied old clothes and shoes from bags left in Ipswich town centre after become frustrated by the lengthy wait for a bomb scare to be resolved.
Mullan, a watch repairman, was given a conditional discharge at South East Suffolk magistrates' court after his 'reckless' behaviour last month.
Police closed the market on the Cornhill in Ipswich and evacuated nearby buildings and a market after the bags were found abandoned at 2.30pm on November 17.
Mullan, of Kesgrave, Suffolk, became upset about the closure continuing while police waited for an Army bomb disposal team to arrive from Colchester, Essex. And at 5.10pm he took the law into his own hands and dodged around police to open the bags in a council customer service centre beside the town hall.
The 62-year-old was arrested when he emerged from the office and told police that the bags were harmless.
The watch repairman said he had become frustrated by a perceived lack of police activity during the drama and wanted to resolve the situation himself. The court heard how a number of market traders had also become frustrated because they were losing trade.
Jeremy Kendall, defending Mullan, said: 'The defendant knew from previous experience that a bomb disposal team would have to come up from Colchester and he wanted to act sooner.
'He went through the cordon and into the building and opened the bags which were full of clothes and shoes. 'What he did was stupid,' Mr Kendall admitted. 'Had the device been explosive then he would clearly have endangered his own safety. But he felt there was an unexplained delay and wanted to help, not hinder. 'Ironically, he did help the operation by revealing there was nothing explosive there.'
Mullan admitted a charge of breaking through a police cordon, an offence under Section 36 (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000. District Judge David Cooper gave him a conditional discharge for a year and ordered him to pay £85 costs. Judge Cooper told him: 'You were reckless and impatient. As an upstanding member of the community you must abide by police cordons.'
The court heard how police reopened the area to the public at 5.30pm after Mullan's actions proved the rucksack and holdall did not contain explosives.
SOURCE
Sweden's justice system may become a laughing stock over the rape charges against Wikileaks figurehead Julian Assange
APPARENTLY having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That was the basis for a recent revival of rape allegations against Wikileaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.
Sweden's Public Prosecutor's Office was embarrassed in August this year when they leaked to the media that they were seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in their own words there was "no evidence". The damage to Assange's reputation is incalculable.
Three months on, and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seemed to be clear on their basis to proceed with a headline-grabbing international arrest warrant. If consensual sex that started out with the intention of condom use, and actual condom use ended up without condom, that's rape.
Statements by the two female "victims" Sophia Wilén and Anna Ardin that there was no fear or violence would stop a rape charge in any western country dead in its tracks. Rape is a crime of violence. Both women boasted of their of their respective celebrity conquests on internet posts and mobile phones texts after the intimacy they would now see him destroyed for.
Ardin hosted a party in Assange's honour at her flat after the 'crime' and tweeted to her followers that she was with the "the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing!" Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these and thereby destroy evidence of Assange's innocence. She has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends.
Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand, in order to maximise the damage to Assange. They belong to the same political group, and attended a public lecture given by Assange and organised by them.
The exact content of Sophia Wilén's mobile phone texts is not yet known, but their bragging and generally positive content about Assange has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors.
The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors. Niether Wilén's nor Ardin's texts complain of rape. These facts should make any normal prosecutor gravely concerned about whether a false complaint is being made.
But then neither Arden nor Wilén complained to the police. They collaboratively 'sought advice', a technique in Sweden enabling citizens to avoid being sued for making false complaints.
In any normal first world country, the prosecutor would know that her case is not just a deeply-flawed waste of time, but a dangerous perversion of the serious objectives of rape laws.
The womens' lawyer Claes Borgström was questioned by the media as to how the women themselves could be contradicting the legal characterisation of Swedish prosecutors; a crime of non-consent by consent. Borgström's answer is emblematic of how divorced from reality this matter is: "They (the women) are not jurists". You need a law degree to know whether you have been raped or not in Sweden.
How the Swedish authorities propose to prosecute for victims who neither saw themselves as such, nor acted as such is easily answered: You're not a Swedish lawyer, so you wouldn't understand anyway.
Make no mistake: it is not Julian Assange that is on trial here, but Sweden and its reputation as a modern and model country with rules of law.
SOURCE
Permanently entrenched liberalism for Britain?
Three parties sharing a liberal consensus
The monstrous birth of a new Liberal Conservative Party is now certain. One of its midwives is Sir John Major of Maastricht and Black Friday.
A few weeks ago I drew attention to the amazing remarks of Francis Maude, a close ally of David Cameron, who said he would prefer a coalition to a Tory majority after the next Election. I am sure Mr Cameron agrees with this. Now, Sir John – another close Cameron ally – has called for a permanent alliance of two of our three parties against the people of Britain.
Not that he put it quite like that. In a little-noticed but important speech in Cambridge, he said that he liked the Coalition and hoped some way could be found ‘to prolong co-operation beyond this Parliament’. This, he said, could lead to a realignment of British politics.
He recalled that the Tories had an informal pact with the Liberals in 1951, which probably saved that party from oblivion. He didn’t say – but most Liberals know – that they will need something similar to save them from massacre at the next Election.
This is revolutionary stuff. And I am grateful to Mr Major, whose strange, mealy, roundabout way of speaking often reveals more than he means it to. Because he also explained the attraction of coalitions – to politicians: ‘Two parties are more likely to enjoy a tolerant electorate for policies that are painful.’
Or, in other words, that a coalition can ram through unpopular policies (Mr Major is an expert on those) more easily than one-party governments.
This is, of course, even more the case when the third party actually agrees with the Coalition about almost everything, and is still trying to work out how to pretend to be the Opposition, when it doesn’t really want to oppose.
What a perfect outcome for the political class – two liberal parties in permanent power, pro-EU, pro-crime, anti-education, anti-marriage, warmist. And an Opposition that doesn’t oppose. A pity about the rest of us.
SOURCE
PETA forces game to add tofu character, designer gets last laugh
PETA is so often outraged that the animal rights group has become rather easy to ignore. It's only when their targets fight back that people sit up and pay attention. Such was the case this week when the makers of the hit videogame Super Meat Boy took a swing at the outspoken PETA.
Super Meat Boy, a self-described "tough as nails" platformer, stars an animated cube of meat who is on a quest to save his girlfriend. The game is as bloody as it is difficult, a fact which no doubt caught the attenion of PETA. The group released their own version of the game's hero, Super Tofu Boy.
The makers of Super Meat Boy were so flattered by the parody that they decided to add Super Tofu Boy as a downloadable character on the game's PC version. However, the Super Meat Boy peeps did express some concern that PETA didn't do its homework. Team Meat member Edmund McMillen explains that Super Meat Boy isn't really a cube of meat. He's "simply a boy without skin." Zing!
In a blog post, McMillen admits that he hoped PETA would react like this.. He writes that he "actually repeatedly made fake user names in Peta's forum pushing the game at them in hopes something like this would happen." McMillen goes on to thank PETA for helping us "turn Super Meat Boy into a household name and of course for making themselves look quite foolish in the process..."
This isn't the first time a company has decided to turn PETA's ire to its own advantage. Earlier this year, Dodge was in PETA's crosshairs for using a monkey in one of its commercials. Not surprisingly, PETA expressed outrage. But Dodge got the last laugh when they digitally erased the monkey in the commercial, making for a surreal and hilarious ad that ended up getting a lot more press that the original.
PETA -- if you can't beat 'em, mock 'em.
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 December, 2010
Southlake businessman told to remove donated Christmas tree from Chase branch
The annual attack on Christmas has begun
Chase Bank told a businessman to remove the Christmas tree he donated to a local branch because it could offend people.
Antonio Morales, owner of Bellagio Day Spa in Southlake, had assembled and decorated a 9-foot-tall tree in the lobby of the Chase Bank branch at 1700 E. Southlake Boulevard as a favor to the branch manager, who is one of his clients.
The tree remained in the lobby from the Monday before Thanksgiving until Tuesday. Morales said his friend called him Wednesday to tell him the tree had to go. She later showed him an e-mail from JPMorgan Chase saying that the tree had to be removed because some people were offended by it.
The bank referred questions to corporate offices. Greg Hassell, a JPMorgan Chase spokesman, said that the company's policy isn't anti-Christmas. "People wish their customers merry Christmas when it's appropriate," he said. However, to ensure that everyone who visits Chase branches feels welcome and comfortable, the bank's policy is to use only decorations supplied by the company.
"We appreciate the thoughtful gesture from Mr. Morales," Hassell said. "Unfortunately, we're unable to keep it [the tree] on display for the remainder of the holiday season."
JPMorgan Chase ensures that decorations are "something everyone is comfortable with, regardless of how they celebrate the season," Hassell said.
But others see the tree as a symbol of the season. A spokeswoman at Trinity Bank in Fort Worth said it has had a tree in its lobby since the Friday after Thanksgiving. "I've been in this business more than 30 years, and every place I've worked we've put up a Christmas tree the day after Thanksgiving," said Linda Robertson, assistant vice president.
Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, called Chase's decision absurd. "According to Advertising Age, 91 percent of American people celebrate Christmas," Fischer said. "That means that the single-most inoffensive thing you can do at this time of year is wish someone a merry Christmas."
Fischer said that companies that have gotten away from acknowledging Christmas claim that they do it because they want to be inclusive. "The most inclusive thing you can do is wish someone merry Christmas," he said. "This means that Chase is running the risk of offending far more people by disrespecting Christmas than they are by honoring it."
Hassell said that the Southlake branch was supplied with stickers that resemble Christmas lights. Company-supplied decorations vary at other branches, he said. "Normally they're small, not intrusive. I'm not sure this [Morales'] Christmas tree was intrusive. That's not really the issue here. It isn't a company-supplied decoration."
Hassell said the policy has been around for a few years, and that decorations change every year.
Morales said that he enjoys the Christmas season so much that he decorated 35 trees at his home. "I'm known for my Christmas trees," he said. In fact, Morales shared his talent this season with his landlord, a plastic surgeon.
"I put a tree up in his office," he said. "It doesn't offend him, and he's Jewish."
SOURCE
Shock Art and "Social Dignity"
Brent Bozell
The curator elites at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery were happily abusing the trust of the American taxpayer, with radical gay activists pushing a gay agenda, replete with the religiously bigoted, sadomasochistic and homoerotic fare, all under the auspices of "art." Then something happened. The public complained. Now these radicals are shocked -- shocked! -- that the "censors" are out to destroy their "artistic freedom."
It's like a bad rendition of "Groundhog Day." How many times must we relive this foolishness?
The sponsors tell us that "Hide/Seek" is "the first major exhibition to examine the influence of gay and lesbian artists in creating modern American portraiture," and how these gay and lesbian artists have made "essential contributions to both the art of portraiture and to the creation of modern American culture."
But that isn't enough. Theirs is a political message as part of a political agenda. To quote from their program, they want to strike a blow for "the struggle for justice, so that people and groups can claim their full inheritance in America's promise of equality, inclusion, and social dignity."
"Social dignity?" I suspect those are not the first words most Americans would use to describe a video that was part of the exhibit that featured images of ants crawling over Jesus Christ on a crucifix. It is simply imperative that any "art" display by gays insult, in the deepest way possible, the sensibilities of Christians.
But apparently, this gay and lesbian "art" needs to push more, more, evermore. So we have depictions of homoeroticism, including images of male genitalia on display, pinups of naked men and paintings of two brothers, buck naked, making out. Still there must be more, so we have sadomasochistic themes, like imagery of mummified human remains and a portrait of a man devouring himself. Each has a "deep" meaning, see. Each is "art."
And you, American taxpayer, you are making it possible. Your $761 million annually to the Smithsonian, and $5.8 million annually to the National Portrait Gallery makes it possible for these gay activists to pitch their tents inside, put up their displays, call it "art," invite the world -- even children on "Family and Friends Day" on Nov. 21 -- and then scream bloody murder when someone complains.
Yes, there were complaints, with the Republican leadership in the House condemning this abuse of taxpayer funds. (The Democrats continue to be silent, no surprise.) The curators conceded there was an avalanche of complaints -- so many that they finally agreed to remove the offensive video with bugs on Jesus Christ.
Horrors! Censorship of the highest order! Stop the madness! Washington Post art critic Blake Gopnik protested that in America, no religious group "gets to declare what the rest of us should see and hear and think about. Aren't those kinds of declarations just what extremist imams get up to, in countries with less freedom?"
It's mind-boggling that the same people who so quickly screech at the first sign of a religion near a government building don't get the point that it should be equally wrong to have a sign of anti-religion in a government building.
And don't they see the richest irony of them all? There is that which they find offensive -- a creche with the Baby Jesus on government property -- and that which they celebrate and defend as "art" -- a sacrilegious defamation of Jesus Christ, crucified. If it's wrong to promote the Christian religion with tax dollars, isn't it many times worse to trash the Christian religion with tax dollars?
Like the public broadcasters, the public gallery operators hunger to rise above the dreary, pedestrian tastes of those rubes in middle America who revere Jesus and aren't captivated by the "creative resistance" of the gay artistic vanguard. They demand "equality" and "inclusion" for the gay lobby, but there is no inclusion for the rest of us when it comes to what art they will declare advances the cause of "justice." Curators ought to be wise enough to know there are limits of government-funded art.
So the curator announced finally that he was pulling the video of ants walking over the crucifix. But he offered no apology. In fact, he insisted that contrary to allegations, this "art" was not "meant to offend." That's simply dishonest. Anyone with an IQ greater than that of a potato chip knows this was precisely what they intended. This to them is the Christmas spirit.
SOURCE
This week's false rape claim from Britain
A pregnant woman who took part in an alcohol-fuelled sex session with three men has been jailed for a year after lying to police that she had been raped. Sabrina Johnson, 25, performed sex acts on the three strangers she had met while walking home from a night out, Chelmsford Crown Court in Essex heard.
The following morning when she woke up, hung over and late for work, she told her boss that she had been dragged into a park by two strangers and forced to perform oral sex on them. Horrified workmates urged Johnson to report the attack to police, and detectives spent 311 hours investigating the alleged crime, at a cost of some £6,753.
The investigation continued until one of the men involved came forward with a voice recording that he had made on his mobile phone of Johnson consenting to the sex game.
Judge Anthony Goldstaub QC jailed the three-months pregnant supermarket worker for 12 months after she pleaded guilty to a perverting the course of justice. He said her lies had caused fear: 'This was an allegation of a terrifying nature. There was heightened public fear of rapists, an atmosphere of fear that was created wholly unnecessarily.' He added that it was only thanks to the mobile phone voice recording that the men were cleared.
He added: 'You had sexual relations with them and played some kind of sex game. One of the males, a prudent gentleman, recorded your consent on his mobile phone, including your image. But for his doing so he would have been very likely in deep trouble.'
The court heard that one of the men involved, none of whom have been named, contacted police when he saw an e-fit which resembled him. Judge Goldstaub said: 'The men had to make statements and supply their DNA to police officers, and it must have been a frightening experience, particularly for the man you identified. 'All he could say was that you had consented, but defendants often say so in rape cases, and juries are often invited not to believe them. 'The effects on the victim wrongly accused can be appalling, and might well have been in this case.'
The court heard Johnson had downed five gin and tonics, a glass of wine and Sambuca shots on a night out in her home town of Chelmsford on June 4 this year. She was walking home when she met three men in the street and they invited her for a drink in a nearby flat. The brunette played a drinking game with the men before performing oral sex on all three of them.
The court heard that the trainee assistant supermarket manager woke up the following morning with a hangover and was due to start work at the Co-op supermarket at 6am. She did not get into work until 12.45pm and told her boss it was because she had been attacked.
Prosecuting, Samantha Lawther told the court that Johnson had already received a warning from work for being late and her boss asked if she had a crime reference number. She later called the police and repeated her lies.
She told police that two men had dragged her from a cycle path into a wooded nature reserve area in Central Park, Chelmsford, and forced her to perform oral sex on them. She underwent a medical examination and specially trained officers interviewed her on video.
Johnson took officers to the park and showed them where the 'rapists' had attacked her. She claimed a group of women had walked past on a nearby path and scared off the attackers. Detectives cordoned off part of the park, put up yellow boards appealing for witnesses and publicised the bogus attack in a bid to bring witnesses forward. In the appeals Johnson was described as a 'defenceless young woman' and said to be 'badly traumatised by her ordeal'.
A team of 21 officers worked on the investigation and extra detectives and police officers were were drafted in to patrol the area in order to allay community fears.
CCTV cameras from the town were scoured for the bogus rapists. Johnson gave police detailed descriptions of the men including their clothes and helped officers create e-fits which resembled two of the innocent men. One of the men saw the e-fit and contacted police. All three men were questioned and had DNA swabs taken but they were never charged because one of them had a damning recording on his phone of Johnson consenting to the sex game.
Johnson confessed when she was confronted with her lies, the court heard. She told officers: 'Things just started getting bigger and bigger and I could not stop it. 'I realise what I have done. It's appalling, I'm ashamed of myself. I'm really sorry.'
Her solicitor, Peter Barlex, told the court in mitigation that Johnson only had a vague memory of what had happened because she had been drinking. He added that she had been badly affected by a diet which restricted her to 410 calories a day and prohibits solid food. Mr Barlex said Johnson was very sorry for lying and apologised to police and all victims of rape.
He told the court that the defendant had only contacted police at the urging of her ex-partner and workmates. He said 'It was a situation that got out of hand and she could not get out of it.'
Speaking outside court Detective Chief Inspector Mark Wheeler from Essex Police said he hoped Johnson's lies would not stop genuine victims coming forward. He added: 'Stranger rape is a very rare offence in this county. Essex Police will do everything possible to support the victims and bring the offender to justice. 'We encourage victims to contact the police and they will be interviewed by specially trained officers and dealt with sensitively.' [Will the accused men also be dealt with sensitively? There is every reason to]
SOURCE
The pushy parents of modern-day radicalism
Showbiz mothers who make their daughters do tapdance don’t have a patch on the middle-class parents dropping their kids off at student demos
It has become de rigueur in recent years to look down one’s nose at pushy parents. To be snobby about those mums (it’s mostly mums) who make little Olivia do 20 hours of tap a week in the hope that she’ll grow up to be a twenty-first century Ginger Rogers or at least the new Bonnie Langford.
But those parents with stars in their eyes don’t have a patch on a far more respectable breed of pushy parent: the political pushy parent, who sends their kids on anti-government demonstrations, complete with packed lunches, in the hope that they’ll grow up to be a twenty-first century Sylvia Pankhurst or at least a new Tariq Ali. These mums and dads are ‘living through their kids’ in a far more serious and sad way than the showbiz ones.
Probably the most striking thing about last week’s student demo against the Lib-Con government’s cuts and tuition fees agenda was not the protest itself – which, like all youth protests, was loud, bracing and had some good points as well as bad ones – but rather the sad-dad effect.
It was the way in which university lecturers, teachers, journalists and middle-class parents – the respectable adult world – gave a vigorous nod of approval to the demonstration, fantasising that it was some kind of genetic or educational extension of their own inner youthful radicalism. It is a shocking indictment of contemporary adult society that it is now effectively pushing forward children – what it rather patronisingly refers to as ‘the Harry Potter generation’ – to do its dirty work for it.
Like that fortysomething uncle who insists on wearing skinny jeans, or the greying dad who quotes N-Dubz (‘As Dappy wisely says…’), certain sections of adult society couldn’t resist bopping awkwardly on the sidelines of last Wednesday’s protest in central London. The results were often highly embarrassing. ‘Wow’, said one newspaper reporter, ‘the atmosphere in Trafalgar Square is fantastic’. ‘The excitement of bunking off school AND climbing public statues AND swearing in front of police is very obvious’, she continued, sounding for all the world like that drama teacher we all had – maxi-dress, ridiculous earrings, penchant for Victoria Wood – who’d say things like: ‘In my class anything goes, even rude words!’
Lots of adults were explicitly trying to recapture their own youths through their effusiveness over Wednesday’s demo. One mum, approving of her daughter Alice’s decision to bunk off school, told the Observer that it stirred ‘memories of her own radical youth’ – all those ‘Greenpeace sit-ins and Free Nelson Mandela marches’. Yet for other overexcited, presumably older adult observers, the protesters were like the ‘angelic spirits of 1968’: these youth have given us ‘pictures of revolution, the real thing, in its romantic and large-minded soixante-huitard form’, said one, no doubt teary-eyed hack. This is pure projection, with variously aged adult cheerleaders insisting ‘it’s just like the Eighties!’ or ‘it’s just like the Sixties!’.
Most embarrassing of all (certainly for any self-respecting young radical) was the open involvement of parents and other adults in facilitating and bringing to a conclusion the youthful demonstration. One newspaper says that the parents of some of the younger protesters, the 14- to 17-year-olds who bunked off school, ‘had dropped their children, by car, at the start of the demo’. These kids reportedly had ‘snack lunches and bottled water thoughtfully provided by their parents’.
When the children were kettled by the cops, their parents ‘frantically’ texted them advice and phoned both the Metropolitan Police and the BBC to complain and to get updates. One mother says a ‘very sympathetic policewoman’ on the Met’s helpline offered her ‘reassurance’. I remember when it was considered embarrassing if your mum phoned a mate’s house to check if you were okay during a sleepover. But to phone the cops to find out, in the words of one demo-approving dad, ‘when our children will be home’? That’s the death-knell of radicalism right there.
The institutions of adult society effectively gave children permission to be on the demo. Some headteachers made no effort to prevent their pupils from leaving school premises, with the head of Camden School for Girls even hinting that she admired her school’s 200 bunking protesters. For some in the teaching and university worlds, it seems, this was less a 1968-style revolution than a kind of educational field trip, an extension of those citizenship classes in which children are taught about the importance of voting and community activism. As one adult observer said, ‘many un-enfranchised schoolkids showed virtually no interest in politics’, but this demo ‘changed everything’. Maybe they’ll get that A* now.
What this adult sanctioning and glee over Wednesday’s demo really reveals is an adult world that now pushes its children to do its political work for it. Teachers, university workers and journalists, like many others, are concerned about the Lib-Cons’ cuts agenda and the future of British society more broadly. But lacking any serious ideas, bereft of an effective language in which to articulate and pursue their concerns, they hide behind groups of children instead, hoping that the young ones’ fresh-facedness, their energy, their implacable anger (at least as excitedly talked up by the adult observers), will land a political blow where their own ideas and ideals have failed.
So journalists describe the protest as a ‘children’s crusade’, a combination of innocence and anger, in an attempt to present it, and the specific anti-Lib-Con ideas that they hope are driving it, as beyond question, as an utterly un-ignorable stand against Cameron and Co. After all, who would want to challenge, far less mistreat, ‘the Harry Potter generation’, with their cute placards saying ‘Dumbledore wouldn’t stand for this shit’?
A group of academics and journalists wrote to a newspaper about the importance of protesting against the government’s ‘cuts to state support for higher education’ – but they presented themselves as ‘parents of sixth-form school students concerned at the tactics adopted by the police at the demonstration’. Here, grown-ups are trying to turn kids into ventriloquist’s dummies for their own political agendas – and trying to warn off the state and the Lib-Con political machine by effectively saying: ‘Don’t touch the kids, their protest is pure and childlike!’
At the same time there’s a large serving of self-loathing in some of the baby-boomers’ booming praise for the youthful protesters. Many of the adult observers of the current student demos are really saying that youngsters are right to kick back against us, the selfish, planet-destroying adults. The reason the youth are angry, said one commentator, is because we, ‘their parents’ generation’, have ‘handed them a global meltdown: global warming, global debt and global insecurity’.
This dynamic – where adults effectively welcome what they see as youthful punishment of the adult world for its numerous sins – captures what lies behind today’s broader anti-boomer outlook: not so much a serious or independent youthful questioning of contemporary society, as a kind of internal corrosion of adult authority itself, a collapse of commitment to old ideals like liberty and risk-taking. Another reason many of today’s adults love the look and sound of the current student protests is because, like political S&Mers, they think they deserve a good kicking.
Of course cross-generational solidarity is no bad thing. But this isn’t that. This is pretty vacant adult actors sanctioning and flattering youthful protesters for their own fairly narrow political benefit. The kids may be all right, but the adults aren’t.
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 December, 2010
Employers WILL be allowed to favour women and blacks in Britain
Employers are to be allowed to discriminate in favour of women, black and disabled job candidates under controversial new laws. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone insisted the shake-up announced yesterday was not about ‘political correctness’ but making the workplace fairer.
The legislation was drawn up by Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman but has been adopted by the Coalition. Other elements of Labour’s Equality Act, including compulsory ‘gender pay audits’ for firms, have been scrapped.
But the Government’s decision to press on with so-called ‘positive action’ will alarm business leaders and Right-wing Tories.
The change in the law, designed to address under-representation of certain groups in the workplace, will enable firms to choose women, ethnic minorities or disabled people ahead of equally qualified white male, able-bodied applicants without the risk of being sued.
It will also apply to gay and transgender people. In theory, men could also be favoured in some areas where they are under-represented, such as primary teaching.
Miss Featherstone said the changes would give women and others a fairer deal in the workplace. ‘These plans are absolutely not about political correctness, or red tape, or quotas,’ she said. ‘It is about giving employers the choice to make their workforce more diverse.’
From April next year, employers will be allowed to start to use the measure as part of their recruitment process. Formal guidance will be published in the new year.
Ministers said they would ‘apply voluntary positive action in recruitment and promotion processes when faced with candidates of equal merit, to address under-representation in the workforce’.
But it emerged that when determining whether candidates are equally qualified, employers will not have to judge solely on the basis of qualifications. They will also be able to take into account ‘general ability, suitability, competence and experience’. That will raise concerns that employers’ judgments could be highly subjective and trigger legal action for unfair discrimination by rejected candidates.
The Government’s equalities strategy said the change in the law did not mean that employers could introduce ‘quotas’ or give someone a job simply because they are female, disabled or from an ethnic minority.
But David Green, director of think-tank Civitas, said the legislation imposed ‘illiberal requirements on employers’. ‘For centuries liberals have fought for individuals to be judged on their own merits not according to their class or race,’ he said. ‘The Government is now to require employers to discriminate on grounds of “group identity”, not personal qualities.’
The equality strategy also proposed schemes to promote equality for homosexuals, such as ‘gay-friendly’ workplaces.
Ministers are also in talks over allowing same-sex couples to register civil partnerships in church, a crackdown on ‘irresponsible’ and sexualised advertising, and clothing that forces children to grow up too young.
SOURCE
Generations 'damaged by too-soft parenting', says British poverty tsar who wants marriage lessons for children
A collapse in ‘tough love’ parenting means many children’s chances of succeeding in life are wrecked before they even start school, David Cameron’s poverty adviser says today.
Former Labour minister Frank Field says marriage and parenting lessons should be introduced in schools, developmental checks brought in for every child at two-and-a-half and benefits withdrawn from feckless mothers and fathers.
In a major report for the Prime Minister, he highlights ‘horrifying’ research showing it is possible to predict whether children will hold down jobs and how successful they will be as adults by the age of two-and-a-half.
He says the decline in parental standards began in the late 1960s with the ‘loss of deference’, leaving children increasingly confused about what was acceptable behaviour. Speaking to the Daily Mail, Mr Field said there was clear evidence that two parents are generally more successful than one at bringing up children – and argued that pupils should be taught so in schools.
The MP launched a scathing attack on his own party’s record in determining poverty purely in cash terms, arguing that the approach has been counterproductive.
He also criticised Chancellor George Osborne for increasing child tax credits for less well-off children. The £2.5billion cost would have been better spent boosting the work of children’s centres to try to improve parenting, Mr Field said.
A key recommendation of his report is that Sure Start centres – currently run by local authorities – should be handed over to GPs, groups of parents and charities, who would run them as co-operatives. They should, in future, play host to ante-natal and post-natal classes, registration of births and applications for child benefit so that all parents engage with them. Parents would be offered midwifery and maternity advice, a home visiting service and a wide network of voluntary support.
Health visitors, Mr Field says, should conduct compulsory checks on all toddlers’ cognitive, language, social and emotional development.
Mr Field said free nursery care – or even welfare payments – should be withdrawn from problem parents who refused to co-operate. ‘I think we have to move to a welfare contract,’ he said. ‘When you go to work, you have an employment contract. When you get benefit, you should have a welfare contract.’
Mr Field said that ethnic minority youngsters often do far better than their white counterparts as their families have retained traditional values. He said while most children brought up in poor families stay poor, ‘Chinese children from poor families as a group do better than all other non-poor children, except non-poor Chinese children. ‘Growing up in an ethnically Chinese family in England is enough to overcome all the disadvantages of being poor.’
On the theme of ‘tough love’, Mr Field added: ‘We used to set clear boundaries, and we loved children but they also knew what the rules were.’
Mr Field, whose attempted reforms were thwarted when he was Labour’s welfare minister, added: ‘A child might have thought they were the most important person in the world, but there were, say, four other people in a household and so to get along, you had to negotiate that. ‘But that was all swept away in the whole, wider loss of deference.
‘At the same time we also decided to do this gigantic experiment in world history where we didn’t insist that fathers who begat children had to pay for them and that taxpayers would take over.
‘We need to rethink. When you look at young children at two-and-a-half, at that point and then at five years you can predict where children can be in their 20s – whether they are going to have jobs and what sort of jobs.’ At school, parenting would be taught across the curriculum.
‘Children should come through school with quite a lot of knowledge about parenting. We don’t want it as a subject – it should be taught as parts of other subjects,’ Mr Field said. ‘So in science, children would learn about the importance of those early years on a child’s brain, and in English, they’d read books contrasting different styles of parenting.
‘One of the things that would be taught at schools is that all other things being equal, two parents do a better job than one parent. ‘That doesn’t mean to say that some one-parent families don’t do brilliantly, or that some two-parent families aren’t hopeless. But as a group, it does make a difference.’
Today Mr Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg will write to Mr Field saying his report ‘marks a vital moment in the history of our efforts to tackle poverty and disadvantage’.
SOURCE
Making Parks Decent Again
John Stossel
America is filled with parks that are filthy, dangerous and badly maintained. The governments in charge plead: We can't help it. Our budgets have been slashed. We don't have enough money!
Bryant Park, in midtown Manhattan, was once such an unsavory place. But now it's nice. What changed? Dan Biederman essentially privatized the park.
With permission from frustrated officials who'd watch government repeatedly fail to clean up the park, Biederman raised private funds from "businesses around the park, real estate owners, concessions and events sponsorships. ... (S)ince 1996, we have not asked the city government for a single dollar."
Sounds good to me. But not to Shirley Kressel, a Boston journalist. I asked her what's wrong with getting the money from private businesses, as Dan does. "Because it goes into private pockets," she said.
So what? "Because it's very good (for Dan) to use the public land for running a private business, a rent-a-park, where all year 'round there's commercial revenue from renting it out to businesses. He keeps all that money. People don't realize that."
So what? I don't care if they think the money is going to Mars. The park is nice, and people don't have to pay taxes to support it. The park is certainly more "commercial" now. The day I videotaped, there were booths selling food and holiday gifts. The public seemed fine with that.
Biederman is not finished with his efforts to save public parks. He next wants to apply his skills to the Boston Common. The Common is America's oldest public park, and like many others, it's largely a barren field. Biederman doesn't want to seek business funding, as he did with Bryant Park, because the area is not as commercial. Instead, he would combine the Bryant Park and Central Park models. I know something about Central Park because I'm on the board of the charity that helps manage it. When government managed Central Park, it was a crime zone. Now it's wonderful. Those of us who live near it donated most of the money that renovated and now maintains Central Park. It's not a business arrangement.
Kressel says she'll fight Biederman's plan for Boston. "(W)e don't need ... to teach our next generation of children that the only way they can get a public realm is as the charity ward of rich people and corporations," she said. "We can afford our public realm. We're entitled to it. We pay taxes, and that's the government's job." The Central Park model "doesn't work for 98 percent of the country," she added.
I don't know what'll happen to the rest of the country, but it's working in Central Park. Why not try it in Boston? It's working for the public.
"It's not, because these people, the money bags, get to decide how the park is used and who goes there and who the desirables are and who are the undesirables. Undesirables are primarily homeless people. ... Homeless people have to be somewhere. If we don't make a system that accommodates people who don't have a place to live, they have to be in the public realm."
Biederman has a ready answer: "We have the same number of homeless people in Bryant Park today as we had when it was viewed by everyone as horrible in the early 1980s. What we didn't have then -- and we have now -- is 4,000 other people. The ratio of non-homeless to homeless is 4,000 to 13 instead of 250 to 13. So any female walking into Bryant Park who might have in the past been concerned about her security says, 'This doesn't look like a homeless hangout to me.' The homeless people are welcomed into Bryant Park if they follow the rules. And those same 13 people are there almost every day. We know their names."
Once again, the creative minds of the private sector invent solutions that never occur to government bureaucrats. If government would just get out of the way, entrepreneurship and innovation, stimulated by the profit motive, will make our lives better.
SOURCE
Australia: A police attack on people's freedoms
A PERSON'S "right to remain silent" with impunity after being arrested will be effectively abolished under a police campaign to be taken to the next state election. Instead of what a person says being used against them in a court, police say a person's refusal to speak should also be able to be used against them in some circumstances.
The NSW Police Association will launch a campaign against the current laws in an effort to pressure both parties ahead of March's poll. Police say professional criminals are exploiting the right to silence, making it harder for police to obtain convictions.
However, civil libertarians said the move would result in more innocent people in jail.
Police association president Scott Weber said the changes would make it harder for criminals to dodge the law and protect innocent people.
He called on the State Government to adopt laws similar to those in the UK. "The British parliament changed the application of the right to silence over 15 years ago to combat the growing misuse of this right, and to deal with the rise of organised crime and terrorism," Mr Weber said. "The British model still gives people the right to stay silent but allows for courts to draw an inference of guilt from a person's silence in certain situations."
NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said being pressured to answer questions that might incriminate them would result in countless innocent people going to jail. "It doesn't serve any benefit," he 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.
***************************
2 December, 2010
Why SHOULD mothers on welfare have countless children when I can only afford two?
Asks British mother
My daughter Sasha, five, was puzzled. ‘Mummy,’ she said. ‘You know you say you work so you can buy us nice things?’ ‘Yeees,’ I replied, wondering what argument she about to skewer me with. ‘And you know you say I can’t have another brother or sister because we don’t have enough money?’ ‘That’s right.’
‘Well, I don’t understand. Kayla’s mummy and daddy don’t work. But Kayla has far more things than me. ‘She’s got a Nintendo and a Wii and a trampoline and a dolly with her own potty. And Kayla’s got three brothers and her mummy’s having another baby. So how do you explain that?’ Sasha folded her arms and gave me her most piercing Rumpole Of The Bailey stare.
How could I explain? Kayla’s mum and dad can afford endless luxuries because they’re all paid for by the generosity of the state.
Last week, the newly appointed Tory peer Howard Flight was forced to apologise after declaring cuts in child benefit for higher taxpayers were unjust. ‘We’re going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it’s jolly expensive, but for those on benefit there’s every incentive. That’s not sensible,’ he said.
The Government disowned his comments and the bleeding hearts went wild. How dare the nasty man say the poor should not be allowed to ‘breed’? This was eugenics, the first sign of a totalitarian state. Yet, in middle-class houses across the land, abodes populated by two hard-working adults and two or three children, the question niggled — isn’t a totalitarian state one where people aren’t allowed to speak their minds? And wasn’t Mr Flight just voicing what many of us were thinking?
Of course, not only the middle classes should be allowed to become parents. But forget about the style: what about the substance?
My husband James and I have two daughters. We’d love a third child, but we’ve decided we can’t afford one. This may sound ridiculous. We live in a lovely house and our children are well-fed and clothed. What is stopping us? Well, we are both self-employed, meaning our earnings vary wildly from year to year. With such uncertainty, we feel having another baby would be irresponsible. Yes, it would be cute and we would adore it, but the extra expense would also leave us no financial cushion.
In the trendy London suburb where we live, few people seem to share our scruples. Thanks to the crazy rise in house prices, we’re surrounded by the very rich — who can afford the six-figure sums needed to buy a family home. But we’re also bordered by a less salubrious suburb, so my children also go to school with many children whose parents live in council accommodation.
Both these groups have no worries about mortgages. In wealthy circles, having four or more children is a status symbol — like having a villa in Barbados. Meanwhile, women who have never worked a day in their lives know ‘the social’ will pick up the tab. It may not pay much, but when compared to many jobs on offer it appears an easy option. This crazily entitled point of view is one a huge chunk of the population subscribe to. Six million Britons are living in homes where no one has a job and where, according to a report by MPs, ‘benefits are a way of life’.
Meanwhile, middle-class couples are feeling pinched by mushrooming utility bills and taxes — taxes benefit claimants don’t pay, but which support their families. It’s incredibly unfair.
Some tell me I’m crazy to limit my family because of financial concerns. They say that ‘we’d manage’, and when presented with a new life, money worries would seem petty.
But I don’t think it’s superficial to worry about money; it’s sensible. If we had another child, we would want a bigger house and car. Note my use of the words ‘want’ not need — I realise children can share bedrooms and cars aren’t vital. But our council appears to think otherwise. Just the other day, Sasha’s friend Uma suddenly left her school because her mother was pregnant with her fifth child.
Neither of Uma’s parents has ever worked, but they drive an enormous people carrier and now, I learn, ‘the council has moved them to a bigger house at the other end of the borough’.
‘How can I work?’ a mother of four who’s been on benefits since she left school asked me recently. ‘I’ve got all these children to look after.’ But her children weren’t dropped on her doorstep by the stork. She may have got pregnant accidentally the first time, but after that it was her decision to get pregnant again and again. Without benefits, would she have had such a cavalier attitude?
The average UK childbearing age now stands at 29.3 years, the highest level since records began in 1938
Our welfare system was set up as a safety net for the needy — disaster can strike any family. The fact short-term help is available is something to celebrate. That’s what makes the abuse of the system so depressing.
Don’t get me wrong. I count my blessings to have two healthy children, rather than mourn those that never were. I would far rather know the satisfaction of working hard and contributing to society than sit back and be spoonfed. I’m relieved that I graduated before the introduction of tuition fees and I got on the housing ladder 20 years ago when a flat in a good area was within my means.
The people I feel desperately sorry for are young couples who would rather scrub lavatory floors than be dependent on the state. They are the ones deferring having children — how can they not when they have student grants of £30,000 to pay and it’s impossible to buy their first home because they cost an average £135,000, more than four times the average salary.
According to a survey by the BabyCentre website, only one in 25 women imagined having just one child, but that’s what nearly a third end up with — and 45 per cent say they couldn’t afford a larger family.
The irony, of course, is that such women would make excellent mothers. But by the time they are able to support a family, they will be in their 30s — their most fertile days long behind them. Meanwhile, their peers who had their first children at 16 are debt-free and living in council accommodation.
It’s those same middle-class couples who contribute most in terms of taxes, but take least from it. Alarmed by the state of our schools and hospitals, we tend to pay twice to give us access to the private option.
Told we should be self-reliant, we went out and organised virtually worthless private pensions.
Now we’ve learned that university tuition fees are to be trebled. Again, the extra bills won’t trouble the rich and the poor will be subsidised, but the grafters in the middle will be expected to make yet more sacrifices if we’re to help produce the next generation of diligent professionals.
Wanting a child is an all-consuming urge. It would be cruel to limit children to high earners. But how many children should any mother have? Once we’ve produced one or two, most keep our broodiness in check. But this argument holds no water with the brigade who insist it’s their ‘right to have a baybee’.
Babies aren’t a right, they’re an enormous responsibility. My three-year-old would love a pet giraffe. My five-year-old, as we know, would love her busy parents to be more like Kayla’s mummy and daddy, at home all day and still able to buy her a trampoline and a dolly with a potty. But we can’t have everything we want.
Sasha will get the dolly for Christmas — paid for from my post-tax earnings rather than by other taxpayers.
SOURCE
Teach us about family values, say British teenagers: How to be a parent is their sex education priority
Teenagers would rather be taught about family values than about sex, a survey has found. They see the responsibilities of being a parent as the number one ‘fact of life’ – ahead of sexual intercourse, contraception and sexually-transmitted infections.
The findings suggest the current emphasis in schools on the mechanics of sexual intercourse including how to use a condom does not match the priorities of youngsters. Nearly half of girls say they want sex education to focus on the consequences of pregnancy, not the biology of sex.
The survey of 13 to 16-year-olds also found that more than a third of boys want to know what ‘being a parent’ is all about and that no issue was deemed more important by so many.
Experts from Hull University said they were surprised the majority of teenagers they surveyed support ‘moral’ ideas about having sex. Most believe their first sexual relationship should be special and that sex should only take place in long-term serious relationships.
The survey was carried out by Dr Julie Jomeen and Dr Clare Whitfield of the university’s faculty of health and social care. Dr Jomeen said the findings were important because a national strategy to cut teenage pregnancy had failed, while sexually-transmitted infections among young people are rising.
Labour pledged in vain to halve the rate of teenage pregnancy while in government – spending £246million in pursuit of its target – and the UK still has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe.
Dr Jomeen said: ‘There is quite clearly sexual activity in school age children. Knowledge obtained from sex and relationship education and other sources might not stop that activity but it does seem that those children with a greater insight are more likely to use safe sex practices, such as seeking advice about contraception, and to engage more with health services.’
The survey of sex and relationships among 2,036 teenagers from nine schools in both affluent and deprived areas found 46 per cent of girls and 38 per cent of boys rated being a parent as the most important topic to know more about.
In second place for girls was the morning after pill, with 41 per cent wanting to learn more, while 34 per cent of boys wanted more information about sexual intercourse.
Ways in which HIV can be passed on was the third most important topic for 33 per cent of girls and 28 per cent of boys.
In fourth place was sexual feelings for around one-third of teenagers, followed by abortion for one in three girls and the morning after pill for one in four boys.
The survey, commissioned by East Riding of Yorkshire Council and NHS East Riding of Yorkshire, also questioned attitudes about sex and relationships.
Around three-quarters of boys and girls agreed ‘you don’t have to have sex to keep a partner’ and a relationship doesn’t have to include sex.
More than two-thirds of boys and girls said ‘first sex should be both special and planned’.
Three out of five girls and almost half of boys said they would only have sex in a long term serious relationship.
Fewer than one in six boys said sex was the only way to be satisfied in a relationship, with just one in 20 girls agreeing.
Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘Young people are clearly tiring of the negative messages they are receiving about pregnancy and parenthood from sex educators obsessed with contraception. ‘For too long, government policy has all too often been encouraging and facilitating casual sex.'
SOURCE
SPLC: The Wolf Who Cried ‘Hate’
Prior to November's secular-socialism rollback, America's ever-shrill "progressive" machine contorted in a desperate effort to paint the Tea Party movement as a horde of hateful, inbred racists. Judging by the results, it was an epic failure.
Instead, and thanks at least in part to the left's overreaching smear campaign, the grass-roots Tea Party groundswell - representing every facet of traditional American values - grew to become a political force of nature.
Now the frays of the fanatical fringe have done it again. These so-called "progressives," led by the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center SPLC, have gifted the American mainstream with yet another teachable moment. The SPLC is a small, hard-left political activist outfit known for promoting a panoply of radical liberal causes. The center holds itself out as an objective monitor of potentially violent or subversive hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, skinheads and other white supremacists. But in recent years - and with increasing abandon - the SPLC has leveraged (abused, really) its rapidly decreasing political capital and waning credibility to target and undermine organizations that, rather than dealing in the business of genuine "hate," instead pose a direct threat to the advancement of postmodern secular-socialism generally - and to the Democratic Party specifically. This is what we in "the biz" call "political hackery."
In sum, the SPLC has become an extremist wolf in "watchdog" clothing. Mark Potok, a columnist with the liberal Huffington Post, doubles as SPLC director. When he's able to find time away from long walks on the beach, reading poetry and maligning Grandma Ann, Uncle Dan and other Tea Party patriots as "right-wing extremists - shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism" - Mr. Potok can usually be found, like a yappy little pug, chasing after some of the largest and most reputable conservative and Christian "mail trucks" in the country. Apparently having become frustrated with the relative ineffectiveness of the SPLC's more subtle "guilt by false association" scheme, Mr. Potok evidently has decided to gather his last remaining credibility chips and go "all in."
Following to the letter Saul Alinsky's admonition to "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it," the SPLC, in its most recent Intelligence Report, has "officially" labeled a number of highly influential mainstream conservative and Christian organizations as "hate groups."
Most notably, the SPLC has placed alongside the Klan and other neo-Nazi organizations, the Washington, D.C., based Family Research Council (FRC) and the Mississippi-based American Family Association (AFA). Their crime? "Anti-gay ... propagation of known falsehoods" (read: recognition of stubborn, politically incorrect scientific and theological facts that are beyond serious debate). I say "most notably" because these two groups alone contain membership rolls in the millions.
Moreover, the FRC and AFA play host to presidential candidates, lawmakers and top conservative leaders from around the world at Washington's annual Values Voters Summit - one of the largest conservative political gatherings of the year.
OK, so the yappy little pug finally has latched onto the bumper. What now, champ? I guess this means nobody will come next year? Can't be caught consorting with an "official hate group" now that the SPLC has picked, frozen, personalized and polarized the opposition target.
Or not.
So, center-right America: If you happen to believe in the sanctity of natural marriage and that, as a culture, we're best served by honoring the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic of our forefathers, you're now an official "hater." Officially - a hater. It’s official.
Of course, the tired goal of this silly meme is to associate in the public mind's eye mainstream conservative social values with racism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism. The ironic result, however, is that, as typically occurs with such ad hominem and hyperbolic attacks, the attacker ends up marginalizing himself and galvanizing his intended target (I'm rubber, you're glue and all that). Hence, beyond a self-aggrandizing liberal echo chamber, the SPLC - and by extension the greater "progressive" movement - has become largely, as it stews in its own radicalism, just another punch line.
It's often said that the first to call the other a Nazi has lost the argument. Congratulations, conservative America: They're calling you a Nazi. Carry on.
SOURCE
Racist political party planned in Australia
But black racism is OK, of course
AUSTRALIA'S first indigenous political party will be officially registered early next year and could one day form government, the man behind the move says. Indigenous rights campaigner Maurie Ryan has applied to have the First Nations Political Party registered with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).
The former Labor party member says the new party will eventually field candidates in federal, state and territory elections and "it will grow". "Political parties are created to govern and I hope one day this political party will be in power," Mr Ryan said today.
"There are first nations political parties all around the world. "But in Australia there hasn't been any representation of indigenous people except the times of Neville Bonner, Aden Ridgeway and now Ken Wyatt."
Mr Ryan said that fact was an indictment on mainstream politics. He ran as an Independent in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari at the 2007 and 2010 federal elections. The seat is named after his grandfather, early land rights activist Vincent Lingiari, and presently held by Labor minister Warren Snowdon.
"Warren's been there 20 years and done nothing," Mr Ryan said. "I'll be contesting against him next time and I'll have a political party behind me."
Mr Ryan said First Nations was needed because both major parties proved they were racist by suspending the Racial Discrimination Act in order to roll out the NT intervention. The new party would be open to everyone and campaign on wider issues than simply indigenous rights.
To date First Nations had more than 2000 members, Mr Ryan said. The AEC advertised the party's application this week. Any objections have to be lodged by January 4. Mr Ryan hopes the party will then be officially registered in the following weeks.
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.
***************************
1 December, 2010
Leftist class chatter no longer matters in UK
INTELLECTUALS love to peddle the myth of an unfair, privileged society, but they're wrong.
I WAS recently invited to be on a panel at a conference in London, debating the relevance of social class in contemporary Britain. The topic was prompted by the fact Britain has just elected its first Old Etonian Prime Minister since 1964. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, was also at Eton, and the Deputy PM, Nick Clegg, attended Westminster, another exclusive public school. Does all this mean the traditional ruling class is staging a comeback?
British commentators love discussing this sort of thing, for they are obsessed by class divisions. When television producers are not busy filming Edwardian upstairs-downstairs dramas, movie-makers are working on tales of plucky steelworkers being made redundant by Margaret Thatcher, colliery brass bands stoically playing on after their pit has closed, or miners' sons trying out as ballet dancers as their fathers go on strike. As economist Peter Bauer put it in a pamphlet 30 years ago, British intellectuals have "class on the brain".
So, nowadays, do British politicians. In the last three years of the Labour government, three official reports were commissioned on class inequality. They all concluded that Britain is an unfair society where lower-class children are blocked from realising their potential. Former cabinet minister Alan Milburn claimed in one of these reports: "Birth, not worth, has become more and more a determinant of people's life chances," and he concluded that Britain was "a closed shop society". Not to be outdone, the Tories (then in opposition) produced a report of their own, which proclaimed: "Social mobility has ground to a halt."
Similar claims were made by my fellow panellists at the conference. One was a journalist from the left-wing tabloid, The Daily Mirror. He told the audience: "Your parents' occupation will almost determine your occupation." Another was a sociologist at a further education college. He asserted: "Upward social mobility in Britain is a total myth."
I recently published a review of what the evidence on social mobility actually tells us. I found that movement in Britain is extensive, both up and down.
If we divide the population into a professional-managerial class at the top, a manual working class at the bottom, and an intermediate class in between, more than half the population is in a different social class from the one it was born into. One third of professional-managerial people come from manual worker backgrounds, and one in seven sons born to professional-managerial fathers end up as manual workers.
Even though Brits believe other countries are much more open than theirs, this degree of social mobility is similar to that found in other advanced, market-based societies. One study ranks Britain eighth of 15 countries; a bit more open than Germany, France and the Netherlands, a bit less than Sweden, the US and Australia. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development similarly puts Britain in the middle of its rankings of downward mobility (the best test of openness is downward mobility, for this tells you how far successful parents can pass on their privileges to their children).
Recruitment into social classes in Britain takes place largely on meritocratic principles, which is hardly surprising given that sensible employers will select bright and hard-working applicants ahead of posh ones. Your class origins do still have some influence on where you end up (given the importance of early years parenting, it would be extraordinary if they didn't), but raw ability and gutsy hard work count for much more. Your score on an IQ test at age 11 is three times more powerful than your parents' social class in predicting the occupational class you will achieve as an adult (and that is after controlling for any "class bias" in the IQ test).
Why, given this evidence, do intellectuals continue to claim Britain is an unfair, class-ridden country? And does this chatter matter?
The resilience of the myth may have something to do with the survival of the monarchy and aristocracy at the top of British society. This upper-class froth gives credence to left-wing claims that birth matters more than worth, even though this doesn't apply to the other 99 per cent of Britons.
This is why the doomsayers have seized on David Cameron's alma mater, for having an Old Etonian PM fits the stereotype of Britain they want to peddle.
These misleading claims matter, because they send out such a negative and counterproductive message to working-class children. The evidence tells us that, if you are bright and you work hard, there is nothing to stop you from succeeding in Britain, no matter where you start. But working-class kids are repeatedly being told by politicians, journalists and Marxist further education lecturers that it's all hopeless and their future is pre-determined.
Nothing is more likely to prevent lower-class children from succeeding than being told by opinion-formers that there is no point in them even trying.
SOURCE
Actually, we women do want men to be men
On Saturday afternoon, I emerged from the supermarket with two large bags packed to the brim, which my nine-year-old son then insisted on carrying to the car. As we had parked a good five-minute walk away, I spent some time trying to dissuade him.
‘My arms are strong,’ I said. ‘You’re younger and smaller than me and the bags are too heavy for you to carry that far.’ ‘But you don’t understand!’ he exploded. ‘I want to help you! I don’t want you to have to carry them!’
Without pausing to rest for so much as a second, he staggered with them all the way to the car and then, for good measure, heaved them into the boot. The look of triumph on his face as he did so said it all. Mission accomplished.
I thought of this yesterday morning on hearing the news that the MoD has decided that women will not be allowed to fight on the front line. The reason is not so much physical — though it is true that only a few women have the brute strength necessary — as psychological. On the front line, soldiers fight in small teams and the fact is, says the MoD, that a man who sees a woman injured would instinctively try to save her. The hard truth is that doing so in battle might endanger more lives.
The past few decades have seen men mired in confusion about their role in society. The fight for women’s equality was — and still is — essential. But it has left men unsure of their identities in a way that is damaging to both sexes.
No one wins if we pretend men don’t need to protect women; it is an atavistic instinct and to deny that — whether by insisting on equality on the battlefield or refusing to let them carry the shopping — is foolhardy and dangerous. Sadly, we’ve reached the point where it’s commonplace to mock men.
It’s instructive to chart how this has come about. The Sixties and Seventies saw men throw off their Fifties suits and begin their feminisation by growing their hair long and wearing flowery shirts.
In the Eighties, they evolved into New Men capable of cooking quiche and changing a nappy.
And by the Nineties and the new millennium, the same men were becoming metrosexual or ‘just gay enough’ to appreciate the finer points of a woman’s wardrobe and understand all her mood swings, too.
Now, in 2010, the ideal man doesn’t even have a label, arguably because he’s widely assumed not to be significant enough. In popular culture, men are often depicted as gormless dolts (Homer Simpson) or well-meaning idiots (Ben Harper in My Family).
Meanwhile, the music charts are dominated by strong, raunchy women — Beyonce, Rihanna — whose songs are full of sexual innuendo in which they make the running and the demands.
And yet there is no doubt at all that despite all this, every modern woman — from Beyonce and Rihanna to Marge Simpson and Ben Harper’s feisty wife Susan — still wants, indeed expects, her man to step up and protect her and their children from danger, whether from a strange noise in the middle of the night or, God forbid, war.
What both sexes want is to feel useful and needed. Today, this is easier for a woman to achieve than a man: we care for our children, run our homes, feed our men and often do all that while holding down a successful job as well.
For men, the sense of duty done and sacrifice made is far harder to achieve. Understandably, they are terrified of being told they are not wanted or, worse, not needed. They genuinely don’t know if giving up their seat or offering to pay will cause offence. They worry they’re not manly enough and at the same time they worry they don’t understand us. They’d like to sweep us off our feet and into the bedroom, but are afraid they’ll be found wanting if they do.
By banning women from the front line on the grounds that men would instinctively put a female colleague’s life before their own, the MoD has done us all a favour by reminding us of an age-old truth: men need to be men — and actually, women want them to be men.
I have no problem with a man walking on my outside on the pavement, keeping his sword arm free. I’m happy to admit he’s likely to be stronger than me — and even if he’s not, as my nine-year-old son patently isn’t, I’m still happy for him to want to look after me. It’s the thought that counts, after all.
SOURCE
Want To Raise a Good Person? Stop Nurturing Your Child's Self-Esteem
Dennis Prager
By now, most people (with the exception of many psychotherapists) recognize that the self-esteem movement officially launched by California in 1986 has been at best silly and at worst injurious to society, despite whatever small benefit it may have had to some individuals.
The movement was begun by California Assemblyman John Vasconcellos. As The New York Times reported, "Mr. Vasconcellos, a 53-year-old Democrat, is described by an aide as 'the most radical humanist in the Legislature.'"
In an interview at the time, Vasconcellos told me he had personally benefited from therapy. It enabled him to improve the poor self-esteem he had inherited from his childhood. He therefore concluded that improving other people's self-esteem would greatly help society.
And so, California created its Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility, whose guiding principle was to raise young people's self-esteem in order to increase the number of socially responsible people in society.
This belief -- that increasing self-esteem among the members of society will increase goodness in society -- spread through the rest of America like proverbial wildfire.
It turns out, however, that the premise was entirely misguided. There is no correlation between goodness and high self-esteem. But there is a correlation between criminality and high self-esteem.
Florida State University Professor Roy Baumeister (Ph.D. psychology, Princeton University) has revealed that in a lifetime of study of violent criminals, the one characteristic nearly all these criminals share is high self-esteem.
Yes, people with high self-esteem are the ones most prone to violence.
The 1960s and '70s ushered in what I refer to as the Age of Feelings. And one of the most enduring feelings-based notions that came out of that era was that it was critically important that children feel good about themselves. High self-esteem, it was decided, should be imparted to children whenever possible -- no matter how undeserving. That is why boys on losing teams are given trophies, why more and more high schools have ceased naming a valedictorian (lest the other graduates feel bad about themselves), why some states have abolished winning and losing in children's soccer games (lest those on the losing teams suffer low self-esteem), etc.
A friend of mine provided me with a perfect illustration. At a Little League baseball game, he saw a pitch thrown a few feet above the batter's head. Needless to say, the batter didn't swing. But to my friend's amazement, he heard both the batter's father and coach yell out, "Good eye!" For those who don't know baseball, it does not take a "good eye" not to swing at a ball thrown over one's head. It takes a functioning eye.
One result of all this has been a generation that thinks highly of itself for no good reason. Perhaps the most famous example is the survey of American high school students and those of seven other countries. Americans came in last in mathematical ability but first in self-esteem about their mathematical ability.
But it turns out that feeling good about oneself for no good reason -- as destructive as that is -- is not the biggest problem. The child-rearing expert, psychologist John Rosemond, recently opened my eyes to the even more troubling problem: High self-esteem in children does not produce good character, and in fact is likely to produce a less moral individual.
This flies in the face of perhaps the deepest-held conviction among the present generation, as well as the baby boomers: That it is a parent's fundamental obligation to ensure that their child has high self-esteem.
Though I always opposed undeserved self-esteem, I, too, had bought into the belief that self-esteem in children is vital. But as soon as Rosemond said what he said, I realized he was right.
And since he said that, I have analyzed the finest adults I know well. It turns out that none had high self-esteem as a child. In fact, virtually most of them "suffered" -- as it would now be deemed -- from low self-esteem.
To cite one example, one of the finest human beings I have ever known -- an individual of extraordinary courage, integrity and selflessness -- had a father who constantly berated this person as worthless and stupid. Now, this father was, to put it mildly, a sick man. And he did indeed have a negative psychological impact on his child -- to this day, this person has low self-esteem. But it had no negative impact on this individual's sterling character.
The more I have thought about it, the more I have put Baumeister's and Rosemond's insights together.
If Baumeister is right, and violent criminals have higher self-esteem than most people, and if Rosemond is right, and people who do not grow up with high self-esteem are more likely to be among the finest human beings, then society has the strongest interest in not promoting self-esteem among children. Society's sole interest should be creating people of good character, not people with high self-esteem. And good character is created by teaching self-control, not self-esteem.
Now, let me be clear. No one is recommending that parents never praise a child or that parents seek to cultivate a low self-image in their child. And we assume that the child knows his parents love him/her. But, if raising good adults is the primary task of a parent -- and it surely must be -- trying to give one's child high self-esteem is not helpful, and it can easily be counterproductive.
If you don't agree with this conclusion, do the following: Ask the finest people you know how much self-esteem they had as a child. Then ask all the narcissists you know how much their parent(s) praised them.
SOURCE
Another Mysteriously Motivated Attack
A couple of weeks ago, on the occasion of the annual hajj, in which 2.5 million Muslim pilgrims fulfill their obligation to travel to Mecca, prominent Muslim clerics from Asia, Africa, and Europe, along with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iraq denounced violence in the name of Islam and issued a manifesto, signed by all, declaring that "murder of innocents is never justified and violates the teachings of Islam."
If you haven't heard about this, it's because it never happened. I conjured it to clarify the nature of the problem. Well-intentioned non-Muslims never tire of asserting that Islam is a religion of peace. Muslims themselves are a lot less forthright. (The Council on American-Islamic Relations has issued formal denunciations of terrorism, but coming from an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing case, such pious declarations are worthless.)
Still, before considering the response to the latest outrage perpetrated by a jihadi convinced that mass murdering Americans gathered to light the Portland, Ore., Christmas tree would land him in Paradise, it's important to pause and notice that while Muslim leaders leave a lot to be desired, average Muslims are heroes in this story.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the FBI was alerted to 19-year-old Somali-born Mohamed Osman Mohamud's increasing radicalization by someone who knew him well. Other sources suggest that Mohamud had quarreled with his family and felt "betrayed" that they did not support his violent ambitions. Reading between the lines, it seems likely that one or both parents (both of whom, by the way, are described as loving America) alerted the FBI.
Further, the elaborate sting orchestrated by the FBI had to involve agents posing as Islamic radicals. I'm guessing here, but it seems unlikely that the agents were non-Muslims. There are probably too many subtle things a non-Muslim would get wrong. So kudos to whoever tipped the FBI to the danger, and to the (presumably) Muslim agents who saw the thing to fruition and arrest.
On the other hand, those Americans who think that respecting the majority of non-violent Muslims requires a mealy-mouthed denial of reality are doing no one any favors.
Some criminal lit a fire at a Corvallis, Ore., mosque a day or so after Mohamud's arrest. This elicited a scolding declaration from the U.S. Attorney, Dwight Holton. Did he denounce the resort to violence by anyone? No. He intoned, "The fact is that violent extremists come from all religions and no religion at all. For one person to blame a group, if that's what happened here, is uniquely anti-American and will be pursued with the full force of the Justice Department."
Of course whole groups should not be blamed for the actions of individuals. Yes, the Justice Department should pursue the arsonist. And, yes, violent extremists can be motivated by all sorts of things. But it is fatuous to pretend that Islam is no more likely than Buddhism, Christianity or Judaism to produce mass killers. When a Christian says "Praise God," people nod politely or in agreement. When a Muslim shouts "Allahu Akbar," everybody ducks.
If a Christian or a Jew suddenly becomes more devout, there is very little chance that he or she will become violent. Quite the contrary. By contrast, religious zeal among Muslims is often expressed with bombs and the blood of innocents. Thousands of imams worldwide preach violent jihad, Islamic schools instill contempt for other faiths, and terrorists actively recruit killers willing to commit massacres for Allah.
Yet Attorney General Eric Holder cannot bring himself to say, under questioning before Congress, that terrorists might be motivated by "radical Islam." The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security banned the words "jihad" and "mujahadeen" from official statements about terrorism. And the president removed the term "Islamic extremism" from the National Security Strategy.
Why is it so hard to tell the truth? The truth is that while the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding, there is a powerful strain within the religion that encourages murder and mayhem. Muslims, sooner or later, must deal with this, along with the rest of the world. But to suggest that acknowledging Muslim extremism amounts to bigotry, as this administration seems to, is both dishonest and cowardly.
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
