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 January, 2012

Don't legalise gay marriage, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu warns David Cameron

Marriage must remain a union between a man and a woman, says the Archbishop of York, and David Cameron will be acting like a “dictator” if he allows homosexual couples to wed.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dr John Sentamu, the second most senior cleric in the Church of England, tells ministers they should not overrule the Bible and tradition by allowing same-sex marriage.

The Government will open a consultation on the issue in March and the Prime Minister has indicated that he wants it to be a defining part of his premiership. But the Archbishop says it is not the role of the state to redefine marriage, threatening a new row between the Church and state just days after bishops in the House of Lords led a successful rebellion over plans to cap benefits.

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” says Dr Sentamu. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

“We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.

“It’s almost like somebody telling you that the Church, whose job is to worship God [will be] an arm of the Armed Forces. They must take arms and fight. You’re completely changing tradition.”

It was widely assumed that the Church would have to accept same-sex marriage for fear of appearing out of touch. Dr Sentamu says the bishops in the House of Lords did not try to stop Labour introducing civil partnerships in 2004, giving homosexual couples improved legal rights.

The Church tolerates clergy who are in civil relationships but expects them to be celibate. The Archbishop says the Church was also content with last year’s move to allow civil partnership ceremonies in places of worship, as long as it is voluntary and agreed by the governing body of any particular denomination.

But Dr Sentamu is opposed to the homosexual civil marriage proposal, and says the Government would face a rebellion on any changes in legislation. His intervention may serve as a rallying cry for traditionalist Tories who oppose Mr Cameron’s plan.

“The rebellion is going to come not only from the bishops,” he says. “You’re going to get it from across the benches and in the Commons.

“If you genuinely would like the registration of civil partnerships to happen in a more general way, most people will say they can see the drift. But if you begin to call those 'marriage’, you’re trying to change the English language.”

“That does not mean you diminish, condemn, criticise, patronise any same-sex relationships because that is not what the debate is about.

“The Church has always stood out – Jesus actually was the odd man out. I’d rather stick with Jesus than be popular because it looks odd.”

Dr Sentamu, in Jamaica to mark its 50 years of independence, also says the Church’s leadership needs to become less middle class.

SOURCE




Lord Carey backs Christian psychotherapist in 'gay conversion' row

Leading church figures including the former Archbishop of Canterbury have sparked controversy by championing a psychotherapist who believes gay men can be 'cured' of their homosexuality.

Lesley Pilkington was effectively barred from her professional register after attempting to convert a homosexual man in a therapy session at her home.

Her patient turned out to be a gay rights journalist, who had secretly recorded the sessions and then reported her to her professional body. Mrs Pilkington, a committed Christian, was subsequently found guilty of professional misconduct.

The therapy practised by Mrs Pilkington had been described as "absurd" by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) and roundly condemned by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

But ahead of her appeal against the BACP ruling, Mrs Pilkington has received backing from the Rt Rev Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.

In a letter to her professional body, Lord Carey – along with a number of senior figures – suggests Mrs Pilkington is herself a victim of entrapment whose therapy should be supported.

His comments – in a letter co-signed by, among others, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester and the Rt Rev Wallace Benn, the Bishop of Lewes – will cause controversy in the gay community and beyond.

The joint letter states: "Psychological care for those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions has been shown to yield a range of beneficial client outcomes, especially in motivated clients ... Such therapy does not produce harm despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others maintaining the contrary."

It concludes: "Competent practitioners, including those working with biblical Judeo-Christian values, should be free to assist those seeking help."

Lawyers acting for Mrs Pilkington will argue at the appeal hearing on Wednesday that the counsellor did not get a fair hearing.

The case against Mrs Pilkington – first reported in The Sunday Telegraph a year ago – was brought by Patrick Strudwick, a journalist, who approached her at a largely Christian conference and asked her to treat him.

In May 2009, Mr Strudwick attended a therapy session at Mrs Pilkington's private practice, based at her home in Chorleywood, Herts, and recorded the session on a tape machine strapped to his stomach.

On the tape, Mr Strudwick asks Mrs Pilkington if she views homosexuality as "a mental illness, an addiction or an anti religious phenomenon". She replies: "It is all of that."

Last year, Mr Strudwick said: "Entering into therapy with somebody who thinks I am sick … is the singularly most chilling experience of my life.

"If a black person goes to a GP and says I want skin bleaching treatment, that does not put the onus on the practitioner to deliver the demands of the patient. It puts the onus on the health care practitioner to behave responsibly."

Mrs Pilkington said her method of therapy – Sexual Orientation Change Efforts – is legitimate and effective.

The therapy is practised by a handful of psychotherapists in Britain. The method involves behavioural, psychoanalytical and religious techniques.

Homosexual men are sent on weekends away with heterosexual men to "encourage their masculinity" and "in time to develop healthy relationships with women", said Mrs Pilkington.

Her legal defence is being funded by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), which has instructed Paul Diamond, a leading human rights barrister, to fight the case.

SOURCE






A Missed Opportunity

The official Republican response to the President’s State of the Union Address was fine—as far as it went. But Gov. Mitch Daniels missed a golden opportunity to put before the American people a better vision of family, faith, and freedom.

Interestingly, the only mention of family in Gov. Daniels’ response was his praise for President Obama’s own family. Let me stipulate: The Obama family is a model family, apparently devoted to one another. The president even lives happily under the same roof with his mother-in-law. Now, that’s devotion.

But Gov. Daniels could have noted that the policies of the Obama administration are the most antagonistic to the family of any administration in history. This is a fact. With 42% of American children born out-of-wedlock, a tragedy of fatherlessness is being visited on millions of homes. Bill Bennett rightly calls this “the broken hearth.” And broken hearths lead to broken hearts.

Does the president address this in his budget? No. Instead, he gives hundreds of millions to Planned Parenthood, the world’s leading trafficker in abortion. We know that the more sexual contacts young people have prior to marriage, the more likely they are never to marry, or to divorce after marriage. You cannot be pro-family and shovel money at this evil enterprise. This is one shovel-ready project we should reject.

Yet, President Obama has told Speaker Boehner that any cut in federal funds for Planned Parenthood is “a non-starter.” President Obama has relentlessly pushed abortion at home and abroad. Obamacare is the most massive expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. Under Obamacare, health care coverage will include abortion. Thus, we will all be forced to pay for the killing of unborn children.

The president is concerned, he tells us, about education. We must all share that concern. But he has taken over college loans, an unprecedented power grab. He does this even as his administration is menacing the liberty of every private and religious college in America. If your college does not want to push condoms in the dorms or dispense abortion-producing drugs at Student Health, the Obama administration threatens you with action.

Dr. Larry Arnn is president of Hillsdale College, a proud independent college founded by abolitionists in the 1850s. Hillsdale takes no federal funds. Dr. Arnn recently spoke of how the intact family undergirds limited government:

The principles of our country stem from the laws of Nature and Nature’s God. This word “Nature” is full of rich meaning. It comes from the Latin word for birth, so of course the nature of man, and natural rights must be understood to include the process of begetting and growth by which human beings come to be…If families do not raise children, then the government will. What then becomes of limited government?

I offer Dr. Arnn’s eloquent analysis to President Obama. That terrible figure of 42% out-of-wedlock births shows up the false promises of those who said that abortion-on-demand would end welfare and poverty. When they said that, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was less than half what it is today.

Social scientist Charles Murray has written a new book, Coming Apart, in which he shows that the dream of upward mobility for millions is being lost. In this important work, he shows that marriage and religion are central to the economic well-being of millions of Americans.

The Obama administration is actively hostile to marriage, refusing even to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. That law was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president. And Mr. Obama’s administration is seeking suppress the conscience rights of millions—including Catholics, Evangelicals, Lutherans, and Orthodox Jews. His radical demand that every federally-supported institution in the country dispense abortifacients is a grave threat to religious liberty.

To the fires of social discord this administration is adding fuel. To those on the lower rungs of life’s ladder, asserting their God-given right to rise, this administration is breaking the first rungs. These are the issues I’d like to see both of our major parties address in 2012.

SOURCE





Church-Burning Video Used to Promote Atheist Event at Ft. Bragg

Atheists are using a music video that celebrates the burning of churches and synagogues to promote an upcoming atheist-themed festival at Fort Bragg.

“Rock Beyond Belief” is scheduled to be held on the parade field at Fort Bragg in March. The event was created in part as a response to a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association event that was held last year.

Justin Griffith, who organized “Rock Beyond Belief,” said he was personally offended that a Christian evangelical event like “Rock the Fort” was held on the base.

“We felt it was entirely inappropriate for anyone to say your current religion is wrong,” Griffith told Fox News& Commentary. “We view all soldiers as already spiritually complete. Whatever their current religious preference is has no bearing on how fit they are as a soldier or anything related to military business.”

Griffith confirmed the lineup includes atheist speakers, a rapper who raps about evolution and a “kiddy pool” where boys and girls will be able to scientifically walk on water.

There will also be a number of bands performing – the most famous of which is Aiden. They are featured in a video on the “Rocky Beyond Belief” website that includes images of burning churches and bloody crosses.

Among the lyrics: “Love how the burn your synagogues, love how they torch your holy books.”

The group is no stranger to strong lyrics. Another of their songs says, “F*** your God, F*** your faith in the end. There’s no religion.”

Griffith said that particular song would not be performed at the festival, but defended the video of burning churches.

“You can buy their albums in Wal-Mart, a Christian-friendly store,” Griffith said. “If you have issues with bands that sometimes have swear words, or naughty words, or shocking imagery, that’s a part of the First Amendment.”

Benjamin Abel, a spokesman for Fort Bragg told Fox News & Commentary that they were launching a review of the bands scheduled to perform along with their content.

“This is a family-friendly event and we expect the entertainment will meet the standards of decency that would be typical on a top-40 music station,” Abel said. “We owe it to our soldiers and families on post to make sure it is.”

As for the graphic, anti-Christian lyrics – Abel said “I would have to think we would have to take a very close look at that kind of lyric.” “I don’t know how family-friendly that is,” he said.

Griffith said there is absolutely no controversy about Aiden’s upcoming performance.

“It’s a little shocking to hear some of this stuff,” he said. “I’m sure you understand that these types of shocking things are not going to be front and center for a rock concert that is on a military base. This is not controversy. This is not a real story.”

But if that’s the case, why is there a video of the band performing in front of burning churches on the “Rock Beyond Belief” website?

The military could not answer that question. “I can’t speak to somebody’s website,” Abel said. “We are reviewing the material and will ensure that event organizers understand that we will have to hold them to a certain level of decency.”

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. 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 January, 2012

Paedophile of 'the most sickening order' was able to film himself abusing girls in primary school classrooms because bosses did NOTHING despite 30 warnings

Behold the attitudes engendered by being a British public servant. They are an especially protected class who can be fired only under the most exceptional circumstances so they often just go through the motions of doing their jobs -- with the only important thing to them being what cake to have with their morning tea. This case was so extreme, however, that the most guilty party was fired. He should have been prosecuted for criminal negligence or as an accessory after the fact

A paedophile teacher filmed himself abusing girls in the classroom after school bosses failed over 14 years to act on 30 warnings about his behaviour. Nigel Leat, 51, was described by a judge as a ‘paedophile of the most sickening order’ when he was jailed indefinitely last year for abusing five girls, some as young as six.

Yesterday a damning report showed that the primary school where he worked had catastrophically failed to protect the children in his care. Over 14 years, concerns had been raised repeatedly about Leat’s behaviour with pupils, but his conduct was never investigated. He had abused children in the school’s computer room, resource room, staff room and even during lessons with other pupils present.

Leat also regularly filmed the pupils’ harrowing ordeals using a camera provided by the school, storing hundreds of films on more than 20 memory sticks labelled with his victims’ names.

Staff at Hillside First School in Worle, Somerset, first noticed Leat selecting girls who were ‘less academically able, emotionally needy or pretty’ as his ‘favourites’ a year after he started teaching there in 1996.

His inappropriate behaviour was so well known that staff tried to prevent children likely to become his ‘star pupils’ from being put into his Year Two and Year Three classes.

In 2004, a mother claimed Leat had been taking pictures of her daughter with a mobile phone but he denied the accusation and no action was taken. Four years later, two children told staff that Leat, a married father of two, had been touching their legs and kissing one of them – causing her to be sick – and a teacher twice reported him to the head. Another member of staff saw Leat projecting an indecent image of an adult on to a wall during a lesson.

Leat was also seen lifting up and groping young girls in the playground, tickling and cuddling pupils in class and sitting on cushions with a schoolgirl while visibly aroused.

But those staff members who reported Leat’s behaviour were told they should not ‘insinuate things’ and were bullied into silence, a report said yesterday.

It was later discovered that Leat would routinely hide a camera under his desk and then summon his victims, recording the subsequent horrifying images of the abuse. In many of the videos, which are up to ten minutes in length, other children can be seen or heard in the background.

When police finally became involved, Leat first denied wrongdoing but later admitted 36 sexual offences including rape, assault and voyeurism.

Yesterday a review by the North Somerset Safeguarding Children Board concluded that his appalling crimes could have been stopped much earlier if the school had not failed to act on the warnings. Instead, out of 30 disturbing incidents noted, only 11 were mentioned to the school’s headmaster, Chris Hood, and none was passed on to an agency outside the school.

Leat was only arrested in December 2010, when a schoolgirl told her mother he abused her ‘every day apart from when the teaching assistant was in the classroom’.

Police who raided the home he shared with his wife, also a teacher, found more than 30,000 images, including 61 pictures and 21 movies at level five, the most serious level. At least 20 children were victims of Leat’s abuse or witnessed it at the school, which caters for 128 children aged between four and eight.

Three Ofsted inspections undertaken during the time Leat was abusing his students graded it as ‘good’ and a report in 2009 noted: ‘Pupils feel exceptionally safe and secure because they know that staff have their well-being at heart.’

Tony Oliver, who chaired the serious case review, said: ‘There was a failure at every level within the school.

‘There was a culture which just did not empower people to voice their concerns. It could be interpreted as a culture of bullying.’ He said the headmaster had been sacked following a disciplinary process.

SOURCE





Ban on spanking behind London riots?

The ban on smacking children must be overturned to help prevent a repeat of last summer’s riots, according to a senior Labour MP.

Former Education Minister David Lammy, who represents the Tottenham area of North London where the disturbances started, says working-class parents need to be able to discipline their children physically to deter them from joining gangs and getting involved in knife crime.

Calling for a return to the Victorian laws on discipline, Mr Lammy said parents were ‘no longer sovereign in their own homes’ and lived under constant fear that social workers would take away their children if they chastised them.

The MP said it was easier for middle-class parents to control their children as they could afford to pay for private schools, which have tougher discipline than state schools, as well as activities such as tennis lessons.

Mr Lammy, 39, said he was smacked as a child and it taught him self-discipline and respect, adding that he had smacked his own sons, aged three and five – mainly to protect them from danger.

He called for a reversal of Labour’s 2004 decision to tighten up the smacking law. Previously parents could use ‘reasonable chastisement’, while the new definition prohibits any force that causes ‘reddening of the skin’. Mr Lammy poured scorn on that description, saying it was irrelevant to black children.

He said: ‘Many of my constituents came up to me after the riots and blamed the Labour Government, saying, “You guys stopped us being able to smack our children.”

‘When this was first raised with me I was pretty disparaging. But I started to listen. These parents are scared to smack their children and paranoid that social workers will get involved and take their children away.

‘The law used to allow “reasonable chastisement”, but current legislation stops actions that lead to a reddening of the skin – which for a lot of my non-white residents isn’t really an issue.’

Mr Lammy – who is married to portrait artist Nicola Green, the daughter of the founder of the British Lung Foundation, Professor Sir Malcolm Green – said the law was designed for middle-class families, not those who lived with ‘fear outside their windows’.

‘Middle-class families can find all sorts of ways to handle children, by putting them in tennis classes or using traditional private schools,’ he said.

Asked if he had smacked his own children he confessed: ‘I have smacked my kids, but it doesn’t happen very often – usually when they are in danger.’ The MP was pressed on the issue in an interview with Iain Dale on LBC Radio, after he had made a call on the Mumsnet website for smacking to be legalised.

Parents in his area had to ‘raise children on the 15th floor of a tower block with knives, gangs and the dangers of violent crime just outside the window’, he said.

‘They no longer feel sovereign in their own homes. And the ability to exercise their own judgment in relation to discipline and reasonable chastisement has been taken away.’

He added that ‘middle-class’ MPs and Ministers had no idea of the ‘realities of the single mum struggling with these issues. We should return to the law as it existed for 150 years before it was changed in 2004’.

The Children Act of 2004, introduced by Tony Blair’s Government, removed the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’, meaning injuries as slight as a bruise can result in an assault charge. Guilty parents can be jailed for up to five years.

Mr Lammy told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Parents in my constituency are frightened that if they smack their children, a social worker will come knocking at the door.

‘When the law changed in 2004, it was to deal with people who abused their children. The law at that time left judges to determine if a parent had used reasonable chastisement. Under the new arrangements it is left to social workers.

‘Single mums raising boys feel there are things that happen outside their front door – drugs, gangs or knife crime – where smacking is one of the things they should be able to do. They are confused about the law. We should allow 99 per cent of parents to determine how to help their children understand boundaries and learn right from wrong.

‘We have to distinguish between that and child abuse. No normal parent enjoys smacking their child. A lot do it from time to time and as children get older it stops. ‘I was smacked as a child. And I am hugely grateful for the role my mother played in my life. I wouldn’t be an MP if it were not for her.’

Mr Lammy was brought up in Tottenham by a single mother, Rose, and has previously spoken of his sense of ‘betrayal’ after his father walked out on the family when he was 11 years old.

Mr Lammy set out his support for scrapping the smacking ban in his book Out Of The Ashes: After The Riots.

He said that last year’s summer riots, which started after a man was shot dead by police in Tottenham, were ‘an explosion of hedonism and nihilism’, fuelled by police blunders – and not caused by Government cuts or joblessness.

His predecessor as Tottenham MP, Bernie Grant, famously said police got a ‘bloody good hiding’ in the 1985 Broadwater Farm riot, when PC Keith Blakelock was killed.

Mr Lammy’s constituency in the London borough of Haringey has witnessed two terrible child abuse scandals. In 2009, the mother of ‘Baby P’, Peter Connelly, and two others were jailed after he died, despite being seen by Haringey’s authorities 60 times. The council was also criticised after eight-year-old Victoria Climbie was starved to death in Tottenham in 2000.

SOURCE





Veterans Group Calls on West Point to Pull Speaking Invite for Anti-Islamist Retired Officer

A group of veterans is calling on the U.S. Military Academy at West Point to retract its speaking invitation to a retired Army officer known for his controversial views about Islam.

Retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin was the Pentagon’s senior military intelligence official until 2004, when he was reprimanded for remarks comparing the war against radical Islam to a Christian struggle against Satan and for saying Muslims worship idols and not “a real God,” according to the Washington Post. He has also said he believes no mosques should be built in America and has called Islam “a totalitarian way of life.”

Boykin, an ordained minister who speaks around the country, is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at a West Point prayer breakfast Feb. 8.

On Thursday, VoteVets.org, the self-described “largest progressive organization of veterans in America,” released a letter to West Point‘s superintendent asking for Boykin’s invitation to be rescinded.

“[Statements similar to Boykin's] remarks threaten our relationships with Muslims around the world, and thereby, our troops serving in harm’s way,” the letter stated.

Calling Boykin’s values “inconsistent even with current Army doctrine,“ the organization said it would be ”counterproductive for our future Army leaders to hear the views of Lt. Gen. Boykin.”

VoteVets.org has been joined by the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, a “community support network” that “responds to insensitive practices that illegally promote religion over non-religion within the military or unethically discriminate against minority religions or differing beliefs,” according to their website.

SOURCE




Australian tennis ace critical of homosexuality

TENNIS great Margaret Court claims homosexuality is often the result of sexual abuse. Amid a growing backlash over her opposition to same-sex marriage, the three-time Wimbledon champion told The Sunday Mail "many, many" gay and lesbian people she knew of had "been abused" and this had led to their sexual orientation.

Court, a senior minister at Perth's Victory Life Centre, has already sparked fury among gay and equal rights activists for recent comments, including that the push for gay marriage was trying "to legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices".

Mental health advocate Chris Tanti accused her of "spreading misery" and putting young gay people at risk of suicide with what he called her anti-gay comments, amid calls for her name to be removed from centre court at Melbourne Park.

But Court said: "We get them (homosexuals) in (at church) and you'll find that many, many of them have been abused". When asked if she felt such abuse led people to homosexuality, Court said: "Yes. You look at a lot of them, that's happened."

She would not be drawn on whether she felt same-sex abuse was specifically to blame, saying, "We'll start another can of worms if I start talking on all this."

Peter Rosengren, editor of the Catholic Church's The Record newspaper, batted away her claims, saying he had "never heard of any scientific study" linking abuse and homosexuality, and that "everyone has to be respected".

In a wide-ranging interview, Court also said:

"The word of God is our TV guide to life. It's not the fear book, it's a love book and it tells us how to live our lives."

"I would have won six Wimbledons not three . . . if I'd known what I know now from the scriptures, on the area of the mind."

Many migrants expected Australians "to change our laws to embrace what they have and I don't feel that's right".

"Christianity is a way forward" for Aboriginal people.

Court also said she did not regret speaking out against same-sex marriage. "I say what God says and that's why I've spoken out," she said. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. "I have a right as a minister to say that. You look at the decline in the world today. I think it's so important for values and morals and righteousness to come forth like never before."

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. 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 January, 2012

Heavy criticism for an academic who said those who display the Australian flag are likely to be racist

I think criticism of her is justified. She did apparently use the term "racist", which is very inflammatory. Many people would see it as including Hitler-type behaviour and she had no evidence that the people she described would endorse such behaviour.

There are many possible gradations of opinion about race-related matters. It may be noted, for instance, that the man who declared war on Hitler (Neville Chamberlain) was himself an antisemite of sorts -- so any implicit or explicit claim that there is such a thing as a monolithic entity called racism is unscholarly.

And any social scientist making or implying such a claim is ipso facto a very low-grade intellect. Though it might be noted that mean minds are common among sociologists. Many of them are still devoted to the writings of an obsolete economist and proven stimulator of hate named Karl Marx. The term "racist" of no use for anything except abuse. I use the term only in mockery of Leftist abuse.

I made some technical remarks about her research on 24th. but readers may also be interested in an alternative to her kneejerk reaction to the old "white Australia policy". See here for a more philosophically sophisticated look at the issues involved

A PERTH professor whose study found people who fly Australian flags on their cars are more racist than those who don't, says she has received over 70 critical emails which include demands that she go back to her "own country".

Brunei-born University of WA Professor Farida Fozdar [Judging by the name she is ethnically an Indian Muslim], who moved to Australia when she was seven, said she was shocked by the national reaction to her study which also spread as far India and the United States.

“Some emails have been quite polite and I’ve been able to reply and we’ve actually had quite a positive interaction out of it which, I really really value," Professor Fozdar said.

"But some are straight out lots of swear words and suggesting that I should go back to where I came from.

“I’ve also had a couple of emails from people implying that I’m the Grinch that killed Christmas and that now nobody is going to fly a flag because they think it shows that they’re racist.”

Professor Fozdar, a sociologist and anthropologist, said that although the study was reported “relatively accurately” in the media, some people have misinterpreted its findings.

“What has struck me most is that the media has reported the research relatively accurately in most cases, perhaps apart from some headlines, but people have taken it up in the wrong way,” Professor Fozdar said.

“People have taken it as though I was saying that anyone who flies a flag on their car for Australia Day is racist and that flying the flag generally is a racist thing to do and that certainly wasn’t what I was saying.”

Professor Fozdar said the study revealed flag-flyers were significantly less positive about Australia’s ethnic diversity than “non-flag flyers” but that the attitude is not shared by all Australians.

“The fact that there were significant differences doesn’t mean that everybody who flys the flag feel negative towards minorities but it means that a larger proportion of them did compared with people that weren’t flying flags,” she said.

Professor Fozdar said many people ignored her findings that the majority of both flag-flyers and non-flag flyers, interviewed by her research team, felt positive about Australia’s ethnic diversity.

“But that’s not what gets picked up by people,” she said. “That statistic was there, in a lot of media reports, but people took out of it that I’m saying they shouldn’t fly a flag for Australia Day because it’s racist and that we shouldn’t celebrate Australia Day. “That was just nowhere in the research and so that is what has surprised me.”

SOURCE






Hysteria and the moral battle to end welfare dependency in Britain

By Simon Heffer

This week’s row about welfare reform threw up several shocking facts. First, the £26,000-per-household cap on benefits that the Government seeks to impose is equivalent to a £35,000 pre–tax salary of someone in work.

Then there was the case of a parish priest who said he worked six days a week and earned £22,000 a year. Since he is in employment he does not qualify for any of the hand-outs (such as free public transport) given to some full-time welfare benefits claimants.

In a letter to a newspaper he rebuked the bishops of his own church who had voted in the Lords against the Government’s benefits cap, which would be set at £4,000 a year more than he earns.

To say that welfare is a perennially toxic subject is one of the great political understatements of our times. However unmerited some people’s financial support from the State is, the threat of its reduction or withdrawal always triggers hysteria from those unthinking elements on the Left — whether in the Labour Party, the Anglican Church or the BBC.

The truth is that, as a country, we have lost sight of the importance of every citizen striving to contribute to society, however modestly, as opposed to making a claim upon it.

As a result, perversely, those who won’t contribute are treated the same as those who do. This injustice means that they are given the right to live handsomely off the labour of the rest of us.

To sustain this grotesque state of affairs, which is an abnegation of society’s most fundamental values, would be unacceptable even in times of plenty. But in a time of economic crisis, it is simply outrageous.

Following this week’s Lords rebellion against the Coalition’s plans to cap the cost of benefit payments, the Mail has highlighted families living on small incomes who are determined to be self-reliant and to avoid becoming trapped in a cycle of welfare dependency.

Sadly, it has also been easy to find examples at the opposite end of the moral scale — people who are perfectly capable of work, but refuse to take or even look for it.

Indeed, earlier this month the media reported that some unemployed people were so idle that they couldn’t even bother to get out of bed in the morning to sign for their welfare benefits.

The fact that such behaviour is now tolerated without retribution is a shameful reflection of the attitudes of those who have governed this country over recent years.

Mercifully, there are influential figures such as Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey who are determined to end this State-sponsored moral degeneracy.

This week, Lord Carey wrote an article for the Mail in which he said the scale of Britain’s public debt was the ‘greatest moral scandal’ facing the country and warned that the welfare system is rewarding ‘fecklessness and irresponsibility’.

He criticised the bishops who led the Lords rebellion, saying the senior churchmen were encouraging the culture of welfare dependency that led to ‘poverty of aspiration’. He said that they could lay no claim to the ‘moral high ground’.

Meanwhile, Mr Duncan Smith is wrestling to cut the £100 billion annual welfare bill. His initial proposals are modest, not because he lacks radicalism (for he understands exactly what must be done to wean Britain off dependency) but because his party’s Lib Dem coalition partners refuse to concede that the drastic reforms are necessary.

However, Mr Duncan Smith has two advantages that ought to help him carry through his proposals.

First, he has spent years studying the problems of poverty and he knows what he is talking about; what is more, the public trusts him because of that expertise.

Second, the dire economic state of the country means welfare reform is not being embarked upon purely as an ideological exercise. It is an urgent necessity because we have a crippling £1 trillion debt, caused by the last Labour administration, and the Government must make huge savings.

The public understands this and supports attempts to reduce the debt. The Tory Party, which is driving the reforms, is ahead in the opinion polls. This means there has never been a better time to break the culture that makes welfare dependency, for some people, a lifetime career.

Mr Duncan Smith deserves the unqualified support of all taxpayers in his attempts to start the process. The tragedy is that he appears to be fighting an almost lone battle in Westminster.

It is time his fellow Tories gave their public support to his reforms and highlighted the scandal of the way those who refuse to work (being given lavish welfare hand-outs) are treated in comparison with those who do.

Meanwhile, one has only to read the Left-wing media’s coverage of the debate about welfare to see that blackmail is being attempted to get reformers to halt their programme.

First, their opponents argue that any restriction on benefits given to the workshy will inevitably harm the claimants’ children. Also, they warn that some claimants may turn to crime if they lose their benefits.

The way to defeat such specious arguments is to make clear the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. Although this is often considered to be a Victorian concept, it was, in fact, first properly defined in 1563, when magistrates were told to differentiate between various types of poor in their parishes.

The deserving were deemed to be those who wished to work but couldn’t find employment. A ‘poor rate’ was levied to raise money to provide them with clothes and food.

Also deemed to be deserving were those too old, young or ill to work. They would be supported in alms houses or orphanages, and children would be offered apprenticeships to ensure that their adult lives were not blighted by poverty.

On the other hand, the undeserving poor were those — such as sturdy beggars — who avoided work. A remedy was found in 1563 when it was agreed that these idlers should be whipped until they saw the error of their ways, or moved on to another parish.

This distinction between deserving and undeserving poor was enshrined in the Poor Law of 1601, which remained until it was revised in the 19th century.

Of course, today’s undeserving poor are no longer whipped. Instead, they are kept in idleness by a state welfare system that gives them little or no incentive to work. Their weekly benefit cheques relieve them of the necessity of begging. Their children, produced regardless of their parents’ ability to provide food and clothing, are used as human shields in the fight against any cuts in welfare.

Surely the Government can devise a proper system that ensures that widows, orphans, disabled and elderly receive the full compassion of the State, while those who live off taxpayers have their life of idleness halted.

There has often been talk of ‘workfare’, a scheme used successfully in America where benefits are paid in return for state-sponsored work. The main obstacle to such a system in Britain has been the trades unions, who feared work would be found at the expense of their members.

The truth is that there are plenty of socially useful and productive tasks that could be done as a condition of receiving benefits.

For some of these people, though, this may require a major change in attitude. For example, people such as the university graduate who recently claimed her human rights had been infringed because she’d been made to work for her jobless benefits as a shelf stacker in Poundland must be made to realise how lucky they are to have gainful employment.

As for the argument that children will come to harm because their parents might lose benefits, that is not true. They would not lose out financially. Their hand-outs would simply be replaced by payments from the workfare scheme. Neither would there be a rise in crime, for the same reason.

Politicians have talked for nearly 20 years, since the time when fellow Tory Peter Lilley did Mr Duncan Smith’s job in the mid-Nineties, of ending the something-for-nothing society.

Even if a few bishops support it, the rest of the country is fed up being taken for a ride. We cannot afford it, literally or morally. Now is the time to deliver on the promise.

SOURCE





Vilified for telling the truth: The Christian GP whose life was made hell after he questioned the legalise drugs campaign

Dr Hans-Christian Raabe is a man of gentle demeanour and firm principle who cares deeply about his patients in the deprived area of Manchester where he works as a GP. Indeed, he chose to serve a community where unemployment is high, drug problems endemic and gang warfare rife because he wanted to make a difference.

‘I wanted to care for people in areas of most need, so I opted to work in a disadvantaged community with a high prevalence of social problems,’ he says. ‘And at the root of many of these problems are drugs.’

‘Every day I see the devastation substance abuse causes to individuals, families and communities. I see huge numbers of patients whose lives — whether directly or indirectly — have been ruined by the misuse of drugs.’

As a result of this first-hand experience — and because he felt a public-spirited compulsion to help tackle a national crisis — Dr Raabe volunteered for an unpaid post on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).

However, he had barely taken up the three-year voluntary position as a Government adviser when a witch hunt against him began.

Disseminated by internet, the campaign swiftly gathered speed. Then the Home Office weighed in: in February 2011, Dr Raabe was dismissed before he had even had a chance to attend an ACMD meeting. He was given no right of appeal.

What happened? Had he committed a crime so heinous that no amount of self‑justification could exonerate him? Actually, he had not. Dr Raabe, 47, was merely guilty of holding unfashionably uncompromising anti-drugs views — namely that legalising drugs merely normalises their usage, and that we should instead try to create a drug-free society by focusing on drug prevention.

Incredibly, Dr Raabe was also criticised for being a Christian. He was stunned: ‘I was called a bigot, scum and a mad ba****d. I was accused of being a waste of space and of having no qualification to talk about substance abuse.

‘All I’d done was to offer a day or more of my time every week for three years to help improve the drug problem in the UK, and I was subjected to a vile stream of abuse and defamation. The Home Office caved in to pressure from the politically correct brigade. I believe it was spineless of them.

‘When they revoked my appointment I was not given a chance to refute any of the allegations against me. I began to feel as if I was living in a totalitarian regime — in Stalinist Russia or Ahmadinejad’s Iran — not in Britain in 2011.’

For months Dr Raabe, reeling from the shock of the onslaught, considered his position. And then he decided to fight back.

The German-born doctor has been granted permission for a judicial review against Home Secretary Theresa May, which is set to commence later this year, and is being represented by leading human rights lawyer James Dingemans QC.

He hopes to win back his committee post and, in so doing, stand up for Christians, who he believes are becoming increasingly marginalised and excluded from public office. ‘The attack on me was a confirmation that I was doing something right,’ he says. ‘The way I was treated strengthened my resolve to fight my corner.’

His determination was further bolstered this week when the Sentencing Council announced new rules under which heroin and cocaine dealers can be spared prison — serving community sentences instead. This week also saw Sir Richard Branson calling for the liberalisation of drugs laws, claiming three-quarters of young adults had tried cannabis.

The Virgin boss, who has admitted smoking the drug and using cocaine and ecstasy, said it was wrong to criminalise those with drug problems and argued that addicts should be given treatment, not sent to jail.

Dr Raabe fiercely contests this approach. ‘If you legalise drugs, you normalise their use,’ he says. ‘Do we really want to normalise the use of heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and all the synthetic drugs?

‘Those who suggest legalisation is the answer have not learnt from history. It has been tried before and failed disastrously. Sweden and Japan have had painful experiences with legal drugs and, as a result, they have chosen instead to focus on drug prevention. They now have very low rates of misuse.’

Such uncompromising views have earned Dr Raabe enemies, who, he believes, sought to dredge up reasons why he should be sacked from the ACMD.

From the maelstrom of accusations and insults whipped up when he was appointed to the council in January last year, another grievance against him emerged. His opponents exhumed an academic report he co‑authored in 2005, while he was living in Canada, linking homosexuality to paedophilia.

The report, a collaboration between several doctors, was written when the Canadian Parliament was debating whether or not to legalise same-sex marriage, to which Dr Raabe — while he is not against civil partnerships — is opposed.

‘The paper summarised scientific evidence, which was in the public domain, and it was one paragraph, mentioning homosexuality and paedophilia together, which — so the Home Office tells me — caused them “embarrassment”,’ says Dr Raabe.

The offending paragraph states: ‘While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there are a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles.’

However, the Home Office also made essentially the same point in a document it published, which states: ‘Twenty to 33 per cent of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature and about 10 per cent mixed.’

The irony of this is not lost on Dr Raabe. Even so, it was a Home Office civil servant who phoned him a couple of weeks after his ACMD appointment to question him about the report. ‘Three days later I received a letter from the Home Office saying it was “minded to reconsider” my appointment and asking for my response. I sent a detailed letter back and within two days my appointment was revoked.

‘I was told it was because I could potentially discriminate against gay people; something I have never done either in my professional or private life. I’m not anti-gay.’

There were other complaints against him. He had, it seems, compounded his ‘crime’ by holding firm opinions against legalising of drugs such as cannabis; views which set him at odds with former ACMD chairman Professor David Nutt, who believes that prohibition has failed and advocates a new approach based on teaching young people how to use prohibited drugs more safely.

Professor Nutt was sacked from the ACMD after claiming that ecstasy, LSD and cannabis were less dangerous than alcohol.

Dr Raabe, who has consistently opposed moves to reclassify cannabis from class B to C, holds the opposite view from Professor Nutt. He refuses to take the defeatist stance traditionally espoused by the ACMD — and echoed by the 30 celebrities who last year wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister asking him to consider decriminalising the possession of drugs — that the war against drugs is lost, and that children should be educated in the safest way to use them.

Instead, his aim is to try to create a drug-free society by teaching young people to say ‘no’. He is a member of an evangelical free church and his beliefs and opinions are in line with those of many of the Christian churches, which also seems to have raised hackles.

‘I take a very different view from the ones that have shaped the disastrously unsuccessful drugs policy in Britain,’ he says.

‘I’m a great fan of prevention, which is the approach used in Sweden, where the incidence of drug misuse is among the lowest in Europe. In contrast, Britain has among the highest rates of drug misuse, so current policies are patently not working.

Meanwhile, as an internet furore against Dr Raabe gathered pace, his own staff and patients — the people who use his surgery in the deprived Greater Manchester suburb of Partington and who know him best — rallied in support of him. ‘I’ve had not one negative comment, and many positive, encouraging messages,’ he says.

Meanwhile, the flurry of gratuitous insults from the legalise cannabis lobby continue. ‘It has upset me, but what worries me more is the fact that because I challenged the liberal Establishment, I was seen as a threat and had to be removed. ‘I was sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and have been discriminated against on the basis of my opinion and my faith.

‘However, something similar could happen to anyone of any faith or none if he or she dares to hold views that are not deemed to be politically correct.

The Christian Institute, which is supporting Dr Raabe’s High Court challenge to the ACMD, has called his removal from his post, ‘worryingly like some sort of anti-Christian McCarthyism.’

The Home Office meanwhile, has urged him to retract the views he expressed in the report on homosexuality that caused such uproar.
Should he not have done so?

‘I cannot retract scientific evidence,’ he says simply. ‘And if I did so, I would have to ask the Home Office to retract its own paper, too.’

More HERE






The War on Political Free Speech in the USA

Two years after the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, the campaign to silence opponents is becoming more censorious.

Two years ago the Supreme Court upheld the right of an incorporated nonprofit organization to distribute, air and advertise a turgid documentary about Hillary Clinton called, appropriately enough, "Hillary: The Movie." From this seemingly innocuous and obvious First Amendment decision has sprung a campaign of disinformation and alarmism rarely seen in American politics.

From the start, reaction to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has bordered on the hysterical. Rep. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.) called it the "worst decision since Dred Scott"—the 1857 decision holding that slaves could never become citizens. In his State of the Union message, within days of the ruling, President Obama lectured Supreme Court justices in attendance that they had "reversed a century of law" to allow "foreign companies to spend without limit in our elections." Neither statement was true.

In 1907, Congress passed a law—the Tillman Act, named for segregationist South Carolina Sen. "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman—prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns. This law was extended to unions in 1943, and in 1947 a provision of the Taft-Hartley Act extended the prohibition to cover spending done independently of campaigns.

Citizens United overturned only the 1947 independent-spending restriction, not the earlier prohibition on corporate contributions to campaigns. Not until 1990 did the Supreme Court uphold a prohibition on corporate political expenditures independent of campaigns. Citizens United, therefore, overturned not "a century of law," but a precedent 20 years old.

Moreover, the court specifically noted that it was not ruling on the viability of the prohibition on foreign political spending—and earlier this month it summarily upheld a lower-court ruling finding that the prohibition on foreign political expenditures was constitutional.

Meanwhile, regardless of the 1947 federal law, the majority of states—including many of the best governed, scandal-free states such as Virginia, Utah, Oregon, Florida and Washington—have long allowed unlimited corporate spending in state elections.

None of this has slowed the decision's critics. Then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) began a committee hearing in September 2010 by arguing that in his small state, "it's easy to imagine corporate interests flooding the airwaves. . . . The rights of Vermonters . . . to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending." Vermont has never prohibited corporate spending in state elections, yet it survived with its citizens' rights intact.

Mr. Leahy, at least, limited himself to foolish remarks. His junior colleague, Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), proposed a constitutional amendment last month that would not only prohibit corporations from speaking on political elections, but would prohibit any group of citizens organized "to promote business interests" from speaking about elections. Presumably, this could extend to everyone from the Heritage Foundation and the National Federation of Independent Business to the Republican National Committee and local citizens organizing against a sales-tax referendum.

Because most newspapers are incorporated, UCLA law Prof. Eugene Volokh believes that the Sanders Amendment and a companion bill in the House would even authorize the government to prohibit newspaper editorials about elections.

A national coalition, Move to Amend, seeks a constitutional amendment providing that "artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities . . . shall have no rights." The coalition seems oblivious to the fact that this would apply to campaign committees and nonprofits such as the NAACP and the Sierra Club, and would allow legislatures to make the advocacy of Move to Amend's goals illegal for most of the coalition's "endorsing organizations" (which are themselves corporations).

These amendments are based on the leftist cry that "corporations aren't people," but the Supreme Court has never said that they are. "Corporate personhood" is a legal fiction that allows natural people to sue and to be sued, to own and transfer property, and to carry on their affairs as a group. Corporations have rights because the people who own them have rights.

As Chief Justice John Marshall explained nearly 200 years ago in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, corporations allow "a perpetual succession of many persons . . . to manage [their] affairs and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity, of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand." The legal concept of a corporate "person" has been with the United States since its founding, recognized in literally hundreds of Supreme Court decisions.

If Move to Amend got its way, police could search businesses, unions, clubs and nonprofits at will, without a warrant. The state could seize business property without due process or just compensation, leaving pension funds and individual shareholders holding worthless stock. Partnerships and corporations would have no legal rights in court. Incorporated churches would have no right of worship.

The absurdity should be obvious. Yet city councils around the country, including New York and Los Angeles, have passed resolutions calling for such an amendment.

Super PACs have become the latest villain du jour of the anti-speech crowd, which plays off the general public distaste for the political rancor that surfaces every election year. Critics including Mr. Sanders say that Super PACs don't disclose their donors and rely on "secret" money. This is simply not true. Super PACs, like the traditional political action committees that have existed for decades, disclose all expenditures and all donors over $200.

There are organizations that spend on politics but don't disclose their donors: traditional nonprofits such as the NAACP, the NRA and Public Citizen. These groups have never had to disclose their donors—and the Supreme Court, over 50 years ago, upheld their right to keep supporters anonymous. But reformers intentionally seek to blur the lines between these traditional groups and Super PACs in order to whip up criticism of Citizens United.

The goal of this misinformation is clear. Reformers, who sit mainly on the political left, and their Democratic Party allies hope to silence voices that they perceive to be hostile to their political interests.

Two years after Citizens United, American democracy seems as robust as ever. This may be what its critics fear most—a vibrant debate that they cannot control and fear they will lose.

The U.S. government argued in Citizens United that it had the right to ban the publication of books, pamphlets and movies that advocated the election or defeat of a candidate if they were produced or distributed by unions or corporations, such as Random House, Barnes & Noble and DreamWorks. That position is the one that deserves scorn. Fortunately, no new amendment was needed to defeat it—only the First Amendment and a Supreme Court willing to uphold it.

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. 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 January, 2012

Stepmothers can be MORE loving than a real mum (that's why my stepson chose to live with me)

As a stepfather to three great kids, I can relate to this story. Luckily, I had no stresses like the ones reported below. All the people involved were kind and unaggressive people. And one result is that my stepson (now a man in his 30s) has always got on far better with me than with his own father -- even though his father is a perfectly nice man in my experience of him -- JR

Every woman knows, deep down, that the much-vaunted maternal instinct isn't nearly as 'natural' as society makes it out to be.

In fact in my experience - and I know I will be roundly condemned for this view - this means that some women can even be better at taking care of and understanding a child than his or her own mother.

I am a stepmother - one of a band of much-maligned women who have suffered a bad rap right through history, from the wicked stepmothers of countless fairy tales to TV presenter Christine Bleakley, who is currently wrestling with damned-if-she-does, damned-if-she-doesn’t attempts to integrate herself into the lives of her fiancé Frank Lampard’s daughters.

The latest anti-stepmother brickbat came in last week's Femail, when Kelly Rose Bradford explained that she will never let her son meet his father’s new girlfriend. Kelly wrote acidly about how the thought of another woman ever being a 'parent' to her eight-year-old son left a bitter taste in her mouth.

Her controversial views sparked a phenomenal online response from hundreds of readers condemning her as 'selfish' and 'manipulative' and, in at least one post, suggesting Kelly's child should be removed from her care.

Now, I'm sure Kelly would like me if we met. Beyond the vitriol she directs at her ex's new girlfriend, Kelly seems loyal, smart and kind - attributes many of my friends would also ascribe to me.

And yet, I am Kelly’s worst nightmare, because for seven days a week I am 'mummy' to a child I did not give birth to.

For the last two years, my 15-year-old stepson John has lived full-time with his father Stephen and me. Stephen is a carpenter with his own business, typically working ten hours a day, six days a week.

I run our household and I am raising Stephen's child. John’s mother is allowed access to her son for two weekends each month. There was no fraught custody battle between John's parents - it was all very simple: John just decided he wanted to live with his father and me.

He was seven when his parents separated: it was more than 18 months later that Stephen and I met.

Our early days were full of challenges. For a start, my relationship with John wasn’t always easy. I met him for the first time when he was nine, and remember him playing with his Game Boy throughout my attempts to bond with him over a Coke.

His father, who had made the initial awkward introductions, peered anxiously at us as I tried to make small talk. It was excruciating, so I was lucky that my sister - who is a mother - was there to help make conversation.

If my relationship with Stephen was to go the distance, I had to find a way to get on with John, particularly since Stephen had joint custody then, which meant his son lived with us for one week in two.

Faced with the frightening reality of my new role, I bought virtually every manual published on how to be the ideal stepmum. Do so-called 'natural' mums buy manuals on how to be a good mother, I wonder? I made plenty of mistakes at first. As a TV producer earning a good salary, for example, I showered John with expensive gifts - most of which John told me his mum threw in the bin. Extravagant on my part? Maybe. Unfair to John? Without a doubt.

It was around this time that John developed stress-related problems. During his many days off school - by this time I had gone freelance and spent more time at home - John and I grew closer.

'At times I wasn't sure if his biological mother's behaviour was rooted in genuine concern for her child’s welfare, or was merely an act of jealous spite'

Then Stephen and I got married when John was 11. We were in love - and still are - and beyond happy. The only blight on our relationship was John’s mother.

From the moment I moved in with Stephen and we became a family, I felt she wanted me out of her son's life.

At times I wasn't sure if her behaviour was rooted in genuine concern for her child’s welfare, or was merely an act of jealous spite. Sadly, John witnessed harsh telephone conversations between his parents, hot-headed reactions to emotionally fuelled text messages, and angry scenes at the door during hand-over each week.

As my stepson observed the dubious actions of his mother, he was also developing his own opinions about the situation.

He always turned to me for solace. I mopped his tears, cuddled him until he fell asleep and made his favourite hot chocolate.

The stress of the situation also had a devastating impact on my husband, who visibly aged as he was bombarded with insulting name-calling on change-over day.

My attempts to make peace proved futile. My husband's ex wouldn’t accept me, and refused even to refer to me by my name. Instead she called me 'the tart' - and still does.

We live in France, where the courts deem that, at 13, a child whose parents are separated or divorced is old enough to decide which parent they want to live with. A month before his 13th birthday, John said he wanted to live with us. We helped him engage a lawyer - my husband, his ex and I were not allowed to be party to their discussions - then he had his day in court.

He'd had enough of his mother bad-mouthing his father and interfering in our lives. Perhaps most poignantly of all, John said in his witness statement to the judge that he’d had enough of his mum’s spiteful remarks about me.

The court judgement ruled that John should live with his father and me.

It seems unjust that society regards stepmothers like me with fear and suspicion - especially since we’re on the increase, with nearly one in three households in the UK now a stepfamily.

Biological mothers complain about sacrosanct boundaries being crossed by stepmothers who, they argue, overstep the mark when caring for their children.

But I think they’re just picking a fight out of jealousy. It is ridiculous for biological mothers to claim they're the only ones with the know-how to love and mother their offspring.

In my own family, we've always lived by the belief that it takes a community to raise a child.

I had a happy upbringing: both my parents worked full-time, so I regularly stayed with aunts, neighbours, my uncle and grandmother. Things didn’t change when my parents divorced.

'It is ridiculous for biological mothers to claim they're the only ones with the know-how to love and mother their offspring'

My stepmother and stepfather are, and always have been, two of my biggest allies in life, and my parents wouldn’t have dreamt of imposing draconian restrictions on my relationships with them.

Step-parenting expert Dr Lisa Doodson has some simple advice. She says: 'Stepmums can be hugely beneficial to children, but biological mums can sometimes feel threatened by having someone so close to their children.

'My advice is to stop worrying. Stepmums can be an extra source of support to the children.

'We all have different skills, and children can benefit from having additional adults to guide and support them. Sometimes it can be an advantage for children to have an adult who isn't Mum or Dad, but who they can talk to.'

Don't think I’m gloating or sitting pretty with my ready-made family. I am 40, but for the last five years I’ve had to delay my desire for a family of my own because the situation with John’s mother has been so volatile.

I take my maternal role in John’s daily life seriously and, for me, his welfare and happiness comes first.

Now we have become a solid family. John finally feels secure, and is doing well at school.

It's only now that Stephen and I can think about adding to our family and, fingers crossed, bringing another life into the world.

Meanwhile, I am busy with John. Last year I counselled him through his first romance. If John's mum could find it in her heart to forge a relationship with me, I could share these precious memories with her.

What I probably wouldn't share with her is that it's me who ensures he buys his mother presents at Christmas, and who reminds him to call her on her birthday.

Now and again John has called me Mum, but I don't make a big deal of it. I don't correct him, or tell him not to.

I know he's not my child, but that doesn’t stop me loving and caring for him. A child has one set of biological parents, but I’d argue that I, and many stepmothers like me, bring something very special indeed to the lives of the children we 'inherit'.

And many of us make better mothers than the women who actually go by that name.

SOURCE







The Leftist gospel constantly preached in the schools and elsewhere ("There is no such thing as right and wrong") bears fruit

The other morning I woke to find a voicemail message on my mobile phone, beginning with the words: ‘This is the police station at Charing Cross. As it turned out, the message was to inform me that some honest soul had handed in my sister’s wallet, which she had dropped at Embankment Underground station on her way to her early shift at the BBC World Service that morning.

The police had looked diligently through her business cards, finding mine among them, and since my surname matched the one on Catherine’s credit cards, they guessed rightly that I would know how to get in touch with her.

My faith in human nature was instantly restored, and I felt a stab of guilt at having suspected our blameless boys of having got into trouble.

All the parties concerned had come out of the incident well — from the kind stranger, probably on his way to work, who had gone to the trouble of handing the wallet in, to the police who took such care to see it returned to its rightful owner.

As the cynics (or realists) among you may guess, there’s a depressing sequel to this story. But I’ll keep that until the end.

For now, I’ll just say that after my initial amazement that someone in central London had been honest enough to hand in a bulging wallet, I began to wonder why I should really have been surprised at all. After all, I know that if I found somebody’s wallet, I would certainly take it to the nearest police station.

I would have done so even before my own was stolen by a sharp-suited pickpocket in Rome this summer — when it came home to me what a devastating loss a wallet can be in this high-tech age, when our whole lives are encoded in electronic strips on plastic cards.

What’s more, I’d be 100 per cent happy to bet the entire contents of my new one — restocked with cash and plastic after days spent cancelling and reapplying for everything — that the enormous majority of people reading this article would do the same good turn for their fellow man, without so much as a passing thought to pocketing his property. (Well, perhaps just a nanosecond’s thought before our innate honesty kicked in.)

But it seems that we’re in a shrinking minority, you and I. For a disturbing report from the newly established Centre for the Study of Integrity at Essex University finds that honesty is going out of fashion in modern Britain, as increasing numbers of our fellow subjects think it acceptable to lie and cheat.

In my book, the two most striking findings of the survey are that the under-25s are twice as likely to condone dishonesty as the over-65s — and that while women are slightly more honest than men, integrity in both sexes bears no relation to social class, education or income.

I hope I’m not being too hard on my sons’ middle-class friends when I say that neither discovery surprises me in the least (while the second one should explode once and for all the patronising libel that the poor are more likely to be dishonest than the better off).

To illustrate what I mean, I remember one occasion when several of one of my son’s teenage friends came round to take him off to town for a party. I asked my boy if he had enough money for his train fare and one of his friends told me: ‘It’s OK. They leave the station gates open at this time of night and there’s never anyone around to check.’ He said this in a matter-of-fact way, to a stuffy middle-aged man he hardly knew, as if he was just passing on a helpful tip.

It didn’t seem to occur to him that he was proposing that my son should join him and the others in committing the crime of defrauding the Southern Railway Company of about £25. Or if it did, it simply didn’t occur to him that this was wrong. As far as he was concerned, it was a morally neutral matter — and if there was no chance of getting caught, it would be downright silly to pay.

It’s the same with internet piracy. God knows how many people are at it, each carrying around stolen albums worth hundreds or even thousands of pounds on their iPhones.

To them, it’s a victimless crime — and no doubt countless teenagers will tell you, with a look of insufferable piety, that they support Wikipedia’s protest against U.S. plans to crack down on ‘free information’.

But to those of us, musicians and others, who rely on our intellectual property to feed our families, it doesn’t feel victimless at all. Heaven knows, however, it’s not only the young who seem increasingly unable to spot the difference between right and wrong, between behaving with integrity and not-getting-caught.

Think of the legions of Incapacity Benefit claimants who are miraculously cured as soon as the summons to a medical check drops on to the doormat. Or the swelling numbers of motorists, encouraged by shyster lawyers, who claim for undetectable whiplash injuries after minor car crashes — so pushing up premiums for the rest of us.

As for why the nation seems to be losing its moral compass, I imagine the decline of religion — and with it, the fear of eternal damnation — must have something to do with it. So, too, must the increasing leniency of earthly punishments for dishonesty.

But shouldn’t we also lay much of the blame for its spread on the collapse of integrity in public life? I’m thinking, of course, of the orgy of larceny that was the MPs’ expenses scandal.

I’m thinking, too, of the vast rewards reaped by unpunished bankers for parcelling up bad debts and selling them on to the unsuspecting.

And I’m thinking of the endless lies — from the monstrous whoppers told by Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell when they took us to war against Iraq, to the knee-jerk fibs told by so many MPs, whose first instinct when they find themselves in a hole is to try to lie their way out of it.

But I’m in danger of sounding hideously priggish. Like most of us, I’ve told many a lie in my time, ranging from the white (‘I absolutely love the jumper you gave me’), to the off-white nod to the boss suggesting that, yes, I paid close attention to the Foreign Secretary’s interview on the Today programme this morning.

To be honest, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t even bother to hand in a sum of less than £20 if I saw it lying the street. I’d probably just leave it there — and let someone else wrestle with his conscience. But a wallet .... now, that’s different.

Which brings me at last to the sequel to my sister’s tale. When she lost her wallet at Embankment station, it contained just over £40 cash. When she collected it from the police station — you guessed it — the money had gone. I told you it was depressing.

SOURCE





Why I let my son dress like a girl for five years...and why for his sake I put a stop to it

By Lorraine Candy (Editor-in-chief of British Elle magazine)

As a toddler, my son Henry used to sleep in a nightie, after I gave up on trying to wrestle him into pyjamas. Later, he took to calling himself Stephanie, Jean, Olive or, most frequently, Miss Argentina.

His favourite game was wearing his elder sisters’ sequin party dresses while running his imaginary boutique ‘Slinx’ or greeting customers in his hairdressing salon ‘Slapchicks’ (God knows where he got that name from).

Once, aged three, his penchant for dressing as a girl even landed us in A&E, where a patient doctor had to remove Barbie’s earring from inside Henry’s ear canal. ‘Which one is it?’ asked the doctor, meaning which ear. ‘The pink one with gold round the outside,’ he replied.

Visitors to our house assumed I had three girls because he rarely wore boys’ clothing at home. He said he preferred to wear something ‘more comfortable’: dresses, skirts, tights or princess costumes.

At first I let him get on with it, because it seemed to make him happy. My husband rolled his eyes at the sight of his chubby, short-haired boy squeezed into a tutu. ‘He’s just in touch with his feminine side,’ I told him.

But essentially we were in agreement —‘banning’ anything in the early years is the route to rebellion later. So we let him dress as he pleased, and indulge his ‘feminine’ side.

And his love of all things girly started to colour other aspects of Henry’s life too. He refused to go to football club because he didn’t like the uniforms, despite my explanation that even the girls wore the club’s outfit. ‘Shorts are for boys,’ he would protest.

You may assume, from all this, that I’d be in favour of what has been termed ‘gender neutral parenting’ — raising a child as neither boy nor girl, but giving it free rein to express itself in whatever way he or she chooses.

That was the approach taken by Beck Laxton and Kieran Cooper. They’re the couple who made headlines last week for raising their five-year-old son, Sasha, as ‘gender neutral’. Like me, they allowed their little boy to dress in girls’ clothes and play with girls’ toys.

But unlike me, it seems Sasha’s parents’ ‘experiment’ formed part of their wider ideology, using it to examine whether ‘boy/girl’ stereotyping could be bypassed altogether.

I know, from my own experience, that some children do not conform to the conventional behaviour expected of their gender anyway. But I know also that there came a time when I had to put a stop to my boy’s ‘girlish’ instincts. I knew it was my duty as a parent to make it stop — for reasons I will come to later.
Little angel? Unlike Lorraine's son, five-year-old Sasha is being raised as 'gender neutral'

Little angel? Unlike Lorraine's son, five-year-old Sasha is being raised as 'gender neutral'

So where had my Henry’s love of girls’ clothes come from? To start with, my husband and I found it hard to understand. I turned to parenting books, they indicated that it was probably because Henry worshipped his two older sisters (now aged eight and nine) and wanted to be ‘in their club’.

Apparently, all children need to ‘belong’; they crave positive recognition as they develop between the ages of three and seven. They seek the approval of their peer group to make them feel secure so they can develop with confidence.

Before he started school, Henry’s sisters were his peer group. Dressing like them was his way into their world, where he felt safe. They wore nighties, so he wanted one too.

When he was a toddler, this was fine. Other toddlers pay no heed to what fellow miniatures wear. But older children do. When Henry was four, I noticed that the older children of some of my friends would laugh at his feminine attire.

I couldn’t bear to watch him run off red-faced to change. Of course, he didn’t fully understand why people laughed at him. But I did. And I began realise how, as he grew older, his cross-dressing would become a habit which enabled others to hurt him. I had to stop that happening.

My husband and I decided to wait until Henry’s fifth birthday in November to break the news to him that there would be no more sequins, no more Slapchicks or Miss Argentina. We tried building up to it gently, mentioning it every now and then so he would know what was coming.

Then one night last November, we packed away his nightie and the dresses for good. ‘From now on, you need to wear boys’ clothes and sleep in boys’ pyjamas,’ I told him.

He was mildly upset but not unduly worried. He didn’t fully understand why he could no longer dress in the clothes he loved, but since starting school in September, he had become more aware of the difference between boys and girls anyway.

‘Can I still do it on special occasions?’ he asked. We said he could — but he hasn’t asked since.

The fact he had a new baby sister helped. ‘These are Mabel’s things now,’ we told him.

Actually, it was me who grieved most. I was sad to say goodbye to the alter ego he’d created (and accessorised so stylishly) with such joy. I think my husband was relieved — and Henry’s two older sisters were pleased that he’d stop ferreting through their jewellery boxes.

Some may see my decision as pandering to convention. But I didn’t make this decision because I was scared of what the future holds for a boy happy in his feminine skin or because I believe cross-dressing is wrong. Remember, I work in fashion.

No, I made this decision because although I truly wish fashion’s liberal and inclusive attitude extended to all other industries, it just doesn’t. Allowing my son to continue down his feminine path would only incur ridicule and hurt.
A video of Sasha Laxton talking about how 'silly' it is to have girls' and boys' colours was put on You Tube by his mother

A video of Sasha Laxton talking about how 'silly' it is to have girls' and boys' colours was put on You Tube by his mother

This is what confuses me about parents like Sasha’s. He has been hailed as an experiment in breaking stereotypes, but who would want to expose their child to possible derision for the sake of their political beliefs?

Yet, they are by no means alone. Last year, the US parents of a five-year-old boy called Dyson wrote a book called My Princess Boy and appeared on live TV with him in a ballet outfit.

He was to be the poster boy for a radical change in gender thinking, they said — as he sat there supremely uninterested in the discussion. Meanwhile in Canada, another five-year-old called Storm is being raised gender neutral. In Sweden they have two-year-old Pop, while one Swedish nursery has instigated a ‘gender neutral’ policy referring to the children as ‘friends’ rather than him or her.

Of course, a more open-minded attitude to gender can be a positive thing — whether in childhood, to counteract Disney’s ridiculous glorification of Cinderella (a world where blondes are good, brunettes are bad and falling in love makes everything better), or in adulthood, to help challenge the ‘gender gap’ between male and female rates of pay in the workplace.

I would happily ban all those wretched pink-frilled dolls that fill the shelves of supermarkets across the land, mini ironing boards and kitchen utensils (who wants to be a indoctrinated into domestic drudgery that early, boy or girl?).

Perhaps if there were gender- neutral schools in every borough then Sasha, Dyson, Storm and Pop would be welcome trailblazers for a new way of thinking. But in the real world, schools separate boys and girls for many sensible reasons.

It’s a huge responsibility for children as young as five to be expected to change this thinking. And a little arrogant of parents, who don’t work in the field of child care or child psychology to assume they can do this through a lone child.

But perhaps the most important point is that many of these attempts to unburden children from the constraints of gender are misguided. Dressing up is what pre-schoolers do. You may think your toddler is striking a blow for feminism or his future right to wear women’s clothing in public but he’s not — he’s just playing a game.

You may think you are giving him the rare freedom of ignoring society’s expectations of his gender but actually he’s just thinking: ‘Whoa, sequins! They look cool’.

No child expert has advocated this as a resolution to gender stereotyping and its consequent inequalities. While they say it’s unlikely to be damaging (as long as the child is not forced to dress a certain way), it probably won’t have the effect these parents desire either.

But we should also remember that in today’s world of rapid, global information, these images of Sasha and all those YouTube videos of Dyson will live for some time. They’ll be there for all to see whether these boys like it or not. They have had no choice in the matter — is that really fair?

Wouldn’t it be better for parents to encourage schools and nurseries to talk more about gender and how it affects their charges as they grow rather than to put such a burden on very young children.

And perhaps more importantly, parents like Sasha’s should remember these precious early years belong to their children, not to them.

SOURCE






Israel's shameless Arabs

Arab parliamentarians endorse tyrants, terrorists while slamming 'undemocratic' Israel

“The shahid is honored throughout the history of nations. He is the one who blazed the trail for us. No value is more noble than martyrdom," Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi waxed poetic a few days ago on the occasion of “Palestinian Martyr Day.” Of course, he did not forget to present the obvious flip-side, whereby in Israel “the real terrorist murderer is considered a hero or a minister.”

Immediately after that, Tibi made sure to make it clear to all his fans that "Israelis are ignorant with regards to the term 'shahid' and misunderstand it. It refers to anyone who was killed by the occupation for the homeland or died for a national cause." That is, there is the active, bogus type of martyr, who seeks to slaughter as many Jews as he can. Then there is the real martyr, the passive, noble type, the most amazing and glorious of all human beings, which only incurable Israeli ignorance fails to appreciate.

Former Palestinian leader Arafat apparently only referred to them, the passive martyrs, when he spoke of Shahids, just like his former advisor Tibi, who did the same while serving in Israel’s Knesset.

The Talmud says that when a person keeps repeating an offence, it’s as though he receives permission to keep doing it. And so, Mr. Tibi can praise the qualities of the martyr while at most prompting weak journalistic protest, and then go back to that same Israeli media in the role of Dr. Tibi and express his amazement about the very question regarding his right to endorse Shahids.

Tibi can also slam others as if he was the lowliest chauvinist, while hurling crude sexual hints at MK Anastasia Michaeli, and at the best prompt a minor reprimand from the media and from various women’s rights groups, which on normal days would harshly slam any harm done to women, by certain men that is.

Gaddafi's friends

Similarly, Hanin Zoabi and other Arab parliamentarians can put their trust in the guardians of Israeli democracy in the media, High Court, academia and the cultural world every time they write a forward to venomous anti-Semitic books, as Zoabi just did in her forward to anti-Semitic British writer Ben White’s book. These Arab MKs also board various Gaza-bound ships or visit Hamas leaders or enlightened Arab rulers such as Gaddafi, may he rest in peace.

Indeed, Arab MKs use these opportunities to talk about Israeli injustice, the apartheid regime adopted there, and the racism that has spread everywhere. Mostly, they explain in their visits to such models of democracy like Hamas or Libya how un-democratic Israel is.

Yet nonetheless, even if only a handful of Israel’s Arabs crossed the lines (for example, “only” some 200 Arab Israelis were involved in terror attacks in the years 2001-2004 that claimed the lives of 136 Israelis,) the vast majority of the Arab sector regularly votes for the same representatives, who view the eradication of the Zionist enterprise and Jewish State as their utmost mission, while serving as members in the Jewish State’s parliament.

Still, we’ll always find the good Jews among us who will keep explaining to us that the involvement of Arab Israelis in terror, their hugely disproportionate share of crimes (in 2011, Arabs were involved in 67% of murders in Israel,) illegal construction or road accidents is all our doing. We are the ones who sinned and mistreated the Arabs. We are the ones at fault, rather than Tibi, Zoabi, or any other Arab victim.

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. 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 January, 2012

Archbishop blasts clerics who oppose welfare reform and declares REAL moral scandal is our £1 trillion debt

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey today launches an astonishing attack on the five bishops trying to derail the Government’s £26,000-a-year benefit cap.

In an article for the Daily Mail, Lord Carey insists the sheer scale of Britain’s public debt – which yesterday hit £1trillion – is the ‘greatest moral scandal’ facing the country and warns the welfare system is rewarding ‘fecklessness and irresponsibility’.

He is scathing about all opponents of the proposed limit on benefits – who include Labour peers and Liberal Democrat rebels – but reserves his most outspoken criticism for the Anglican bishops, who led the rebellion in the House of Lords.

He said they encouraged the culture of welfare dependency which led to ‘poverty of aspiration’, and warned them that they could lay no claim to the ‘moral high ground’.

‘If we can’t get the deficit under control and begin paying back this debt, we will be mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren,’ he writes.

Lord Carey hails Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith as a ‘committed Christian’ who is trying to reform a welfare system which is ‘fuelling vices and impoverishing us all’.

Downing Street insisted last night that its plan to impose an annual limit on welfare payments would be implemented ‘in full’ despite the dramatic defeat in the Lords. Labour leader Ed Miliband’s decision to try to derail Government plans for a cap, designed to ensure workless households cannot receive more than the average working family, was branded a ‘total disaster’ by his own shadow ministers.

Amid accounts of chaos and confusion in the run up to a crunch vote, several frontbenchers expressed despair that the party had appeared to put itself on the side of benefit claimants over working families.

Labour issued a tortured explanation of its stance, claiming it did not in fact support bishops’ plans to exclude Child Benefit from the cap, but wanted an opportunity to return the legislation to the Commons to make different amendments.

In his attack on the bishops, Lord Carey says it is clear that the welfare system ‘desperately’ needs to be reined in and insists it is ‘obvious’ that employment must pay more than a life on benefits.

‘Considering that the system they are defending can mean some families are able to claim a total of £50,000 a year in welfare benefits, the bishops must have known that popular opinion was against them, including that of many hard-working, hard-pressed churchgoers,’ he writes.

‘Yet these five bishops – led by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds – cannot lay claim to the moral high-ground.

‘The sheer scale of our public debt, which hit £1trillion yesterday, is the greatest moral scandal facing Britain today. If we can’t get the deficit under control and begin paying back this debt, we will be mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren.’

Lord Carey is particularly scathing about the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the Rt Rev John Packer, who led the Lords revolt by invoking the Bible and Jesus’s concern for children. ‘I can’t possibly believe that prolonging our culture of welfare dependency is in the best interests of our children,’ he writes.

The Cabinet discussed Monday night’s defeat in the Lords when it met yesterday. It agreed to reverse the amendment when the legislation returns to the Commons.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said: ‘I think the vast majority of people think it is fair to say that you can’t receive more in benefits than if you were to earn £35,000 before tax.

He added that the Government had already increased out-of-work benefits by 5.2 per cent for this year, saying: ‘We want to make sure that those who are vulnerable are properly supported but that at all times in the welfare system there are incentives to work and that it pays to work.’

But Enver Solomon, policy director at the Children’s Society, warned the Government not to ignore the Lords’ vote. He said: ‘Children should not be held responsible and penalised for the employment circumstances of their parents.’

Labour peers backed the bishops’ amendment, to exclude Child Benefit from the cap, despite the party saying it supported the principle. It said it would aim to add additional safeguards when the proposals return to the Commons.

But one Labour frontbencher said: ‘Do you imagine my constituents are going to understand the idea that we support a cap but have voted against it? They will just think we support unlimited handouts for people out of work. It is a total disaster.’

Conservative Deputy Chairman Michael Fallon said: ‘Ed Miliband has failed the key test of his leadership. He has promised to “take the tough decisions” on reforming welfare. But his party in the Lords supported a wrecking amendment to ensure that some families get thousands of pounds more in benefits than the average family earns by working.’

SOURCE




Eight out of ten Brits claiming benefits ARE fit to work, according to new incapacity tests

Eight out of ten people tested for new incapacity benefits were found to be fit for work, official figures revealed yesterday. The Department for Work and Pensions decided that 57 per cent of claimants were no longer eligible for the hand-outs. A further 21 per cent could carry out some sort of work with the right support.

Just one fifth of claimants – 22 per cent – were found unable to do any form of employment.

Around 1.5million people who have been claiming Incapacity Benefit are being reassessed for its replacement – the Employment Support Allowance – to see if they are able to carry out work.

The latest figures show the numbers claiming ESA and Incapacity Benefit have dropped to their lowest level since 1996 following the introduction of the tests.

There are still 2.6million people claiming the benefits, nearly a million of whom have been on them for more than a decade.

Figures relating to claims lodged between March and May last year show that 38 per cent were dismissed at the first stage – before face-to-face assessments were carried out – while 48 per cent were subjected to further consideration. A further 14 per cent of claimants are still being assessed.

The latest analysis also shows there has been a decrease in the number of people claiming for drug and alcohol-related conditions – from 105,110 in May 2010 to 100,120 in May last year.

Employment Minister Chris Grayling said: ‘These reforms are changing the landscape of our country. ‘By concentrating on what people can do, we will help people back into work and out of the trap of benefits that has blighted communities.

‘We want to help everyone who can be in work to get there, not just for themselves but for their children. It is clear that the majority of new claimants to sickness benefits are in fact able to do some work.’

But critics have warned that the new testing regime is flawed – and a report by MPs on the work and pensions select committee recently found that large numbers of seriously unwell claimants have been wrongly refused support and high numbers of appeals have proved successful.

Prime Minister David Cameron has insisted the new system is much better at putting people through their ‘paces’.

Claimants who pass the first stage of assessment are then placed in three groups: Those who need permanent support, those who might be able to work after a few months and those fit to work. If placed in the latter category they are told to resubmit a benefits application – but this time for Jobseekers Allowance.

SOURCE




Sisterhood beware - silencing ideas stymies progress

When debate is marked by personal vitriol, people opt out and keep quiet -- comment from Australia

I have long considered myself a feminist and been disturbed by the parts of the sisterhood who operate like the nasty in-group in primary school. You can't be our friend because you don't wear the right pink dress. You can't be our friend unless you toe the approved party-line on abortion, childcare or sexual clothing. It is astounding to watch grown women engage in exclusionary behaviour that most of us outgrew by age 10.

But they have been at it again in the debate over the feminist credentials of Melinda Tankard Reist.

Anne Summers wrote in The Sunday Age that Tankard Reist can't be in the feminist club because she is pro-life. Summers said the core principle of feminism is women's independence, financial and reproductive. That might be Summers' definition, but it's not mine, nor would it be many other women's. Definitions aside, why can't Summers just reiterate the arguments in favour of free, legal and safe abortion, instead of seeking to ostracise someone with whom she disagrees? "You're not my friend" does not counter any anti-abortion argument. It is a non-sequitur.

Kate Gleeson, an Australian Research Council Fellow in politics at Macquarie University, then called for Tankard Reist to explain herself in The Age - in particular her work for former senator Brian Harradine.

Gleeson said that many feminists were "suspicious" of Tankard Reist because she "identifies as a pro-life feminist". Lots of people have advised politicians with whose policies many of us disagree. Why Tankard Reist has to explain herself any more than any other adviser is beyond me. And why any of us should be "suspicious" of her just because she thinks differently from us beggars belief. I don't believe in god but I feel no need to be suspicious of those who do.

Like Tankard Reist, I have been on the receiving end of the self-appointed sisterhood's ire. I used to write about motherhood and childcare; about the importance of women having time away from work to care for their own children; about the need for child-friendly work practices, as opposed to employer-friendly long hours of care and short periods of leave. Ideas that are commonplace now, but 15 years ago, fresh out of '80s feminism, were rare, if not among mothers, at least in public forums.

I used to write about that, but not now. I stopped because along with other academics I know, I couldn't be bothered dealing with the vitriol, as opposed to refutation of ideas. The insistence on playing the player, not the ball. I stick to property law these days. My ideas on strata schemes don't seem to leave anyone reaching for their garlic and crucifix.

The problem with exclusionary vitriol is that it lowers the level of public debate.

First, many people, much smarter and more insightful than me, step out of the arena. Public debate is carried on by the small pool of people thick-skinned enough to weather, or perverse enough to like, the nastiness. Now that unaccountable bloggers, sneering and abusing from the safety of their bedrooms, have entered the fray, the pool of contributors to civil public debate is even smaller.

Second, shooting the messenger fails to engage with the question at hand. "You're wrong because you don't think like us" only convinces the converted.

Finally, silencing ideas stymies progress. The essence of any functioning democracy is the ability to get as many ideas on the table as possible and then thrash them out without fear or favour. The humility to admit that you might be wrong, that someone might be able to change your mind by presenting you with a new idea, is the hallmark of a healthy intellect.

The alternatives to democratic debate are cults or repressive religions. Devotees want to be told what to think and tenets of faith must not be questioned, on threat of excommunication. I have often thought this is what some women want from feminism.

I do not know Tankard Reist and I am not pro-life, but I defend her right to express her opinions, call herself a feminist and prosecute her beliefs. That includes her right to advise senators with whom I might also disagree.

The real test of tolerance is tolerating those with whom we strongly disagree. And we will never have a right to express our own contested ideas if we do not defend others' rights to do the same.

SOURCE





Australians love one thing more than beer - freedom

That must be sour news to Leftists

WE love our beer, we love our beaches and we love our barbecues. But, like the swaggie who sprang into the billabong back in 1895, we love our freedom most of all.

We asked you to name the three things that made it great to be an Aussie, and got more than 15,000 responses. Sam Kekovich can rest easy: barbecues, meat and mates all got significant support.

But freedom topped the list - and there was daylight between that and the second most popular response, beer.

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. 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 January, 2012

Hands off Hungary!

Brussels’ culture war against the ‘white savages’ of Hungary is destroying democracy and helping to boost reactionary right-wingers

By Frank Furedi, a reformed far Leftist who was born in Hungary

Thirty or 40 years ago, the way that the EU and the IMF are behaving towards Hungary would have been described as a classic example of neo-colonial pressure. Unlike Greece, Hungary is not simply being lectured about the need to sort out its economy - it has also been subjected to a veritable culture war. As far as the EU and the Western media are concerned, the real crime of the Hungarian government is not so much its inept economic strategy as its promotion of cultural and political values that run counter to what is deemed correct in Brussels.

The Brussels bureaucracy has long regarded Hungary as a society in danger of being engulfed by white savages. In 2006, when people in Budapest rioted against their corrupt government, the EU and sections of the Western media described the demonstrators as right-wing mobs posing a threat to democratic values. At the time, Brussels weighed in to support its man in Budapest, Ferenc Gyurcsany, the Socialist prime minister. The fact that Gyurcsany had lied to cover up the scale of Hungary’s massive budget deficit, and that he had admitted his dishonesty to some of his close colleagues, did not stop his mates in the EU from singing his praises. Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, president of the Party of European Socialists, was quick to rush to Gyurcsany’s defence, claiming he was the ‘best man to make the reforms that Hungary needs’.

What the Western media overlooked was that the corrupt Gyurcsany government was complicit in creating the conditions for mass demoralisation and cynicism. It was this EU-backed regime that did much to unravel and damage public life in Hungary. Gyurcsany’s humiliating electoral defeat in 2010, and the triumph of Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party, meant that the EU’s placeman was replaced by an autocratic nationalist and populist prime minister.

As has been widely noted by the media, the legislative programme of the Orban government is a product of autocratic ambition. Its economic programme is a confused mix of pragmatism and nonsense – privatisation of industry, slashing welfare benefits while nationalising people’s pension schemes, and so on. In the domain of politics, the Orban government’s key impulse is to centralise control over the key institutions of public life, including the media and the judiciary. The Orban government has also passed new electoral laws that seem designed to entrench its power for years to come. This authoritarian approach is justified by the government in the name of upholding traditional Hungarian values. The new constitution reads like a caricature of a 1930s Balkan autocracy. It is thoroughly anti-liberal (in the classical sense of that term) and appeals to the Christian heritage of Hungary, the family and the nation.

Critics of this illiberal constitution rarely acknowledge that, for all its flaws, it is the first Hungarian constitution to be enacted within a parliamentary framework after a free election. In other words, this constitution has been put together by a government with a massive democratic mandate. Moreover, the Western media overlook the democratic deficit that preceded the Orban regime - namely that the earlier constitution of Hungary lacked any democratic mandate. The pre-Orban constitution was enacted on 20 August 1949 as part of the consolidation of the Moscow-dominated Stalinist regime in Hungary. No one in the EU appears to think it odd that an undemocratically enacted constitution imposed on Hungary by a former superpower should be considered morally superior to one based on a democratic mandate.

But then, the EU itself has no inhibitions about imposing its values on to its target audiences. It, too, does not want its constitutional proposals held up to public scrutiny. Sometimes it rules by decree and refuses people’s requests to hold any referenda on EU-related matters, on the basis that the issues are far too complex for ordinary people to understand. Evidently, the EU commissioners have read their Voltaire. To recall – it was Voltaire who praised the Russian absolute monarch Catherine the Great’s invasion of Poland and celebrated her ability ‘to make fifty thousand men march into Poland to establish there toleration and liberty of conscience’. The EU does not have 50,000 men but it does have many other resources for executing its culture war. Voltaire was tragically mistaken in his belief that deploying coercion was a legitimate tool for forcing people to change their beliefs – but at least he actually believed in tolerance and freedom of conscience. In contrast, the EU technocracy has little time for genuine tolerance.

Moreover, a genuine democratic ethos is not something that the European Commission is particularly passionate about. Its offensive against the Hungarian government has little to do with defending democratic rights. When it finally decided to match its threats of sanction with action, Brussels appeared to be most concerned about the fate, not of Hungary’s electorate, but of its unelected central bankers, unelected judges and the technocrats who run the data-protection agency. On 17 January, Brussels dispatched three letters of formal notice, warning the Orban regime to alter or get rid of recently enacted laws which failed to guarantee the independence of these three institutions. It seems that Brussels technocrats, who cherish their independence from the electorate, are annoyed by the Orban government’s self-serving attempt to cut their colleagues down to size.
What’s next for Hungary?

Faced with enormous economic and political pressure from the EU and the IMF, it appears the Hungarian government is ready to compromise and is likely to alter legislation that undermines the independence of the central bank, the data-protection agency and the judiciary. However, such a compromise will neither solve Hungary’s domestic problems nor restrain the EU from continuing to wage its culture war against this nation.

The Hungarian economy is in dire straits and the Orban regime faces growing hostility from an increasingly desperate electorate. Numerous commentators have pointed out that as a result of the massive scale of economic dislocation and disquiet about the new draconian laws, the Orban government has lost some of its electoral support. The large anti-government demonstration held in Budapest in early January was presented as proof that the base of support for Orban has eroded.

The reality is that, at present, there is no credible democratic alternative to Orban. Opposition to the new constitution, and to the Fidesz regime more broadly, has been both opportunistic and incoherent. A placard on the January demonstration summed up the problem. Written in English, it said: ‘Hey Europe, sorry about my prime minister.’ Clearly, the author of this placard was not addressing the people of Hungary but rather the Western media. Similarly, a statement written by 13 former dissidents protesting against the Orban government’s actions was clearly intended for foreign consumption. It ended with the line: ‘The desperate situation of present-day Hungary should be a warning for all of us: if Europe is prepared to help Hungary, it will also help itself.’

Sadly, imploring Europe to help opponents of the Orban regime is really a statement of irresponsible impotence. Brussels has no political role to play in Hungary other than to use undemocratic coercive pressure against a freely elected government. Worse, by appealing to foreign institutions to sort out Hungary’s domestic problems, the opposition betrays the same democratic deficit that it claims to see in the Orban government. The most likely result of this call for help from Europe will be to reinforce nationalist resentment at external interference. At a time when a sense of national victimhood has widespread resonance, the opposition’s plea for external intervention is likely only to confirm this prejudice.

In the present circumstances, the main beneficiary of the Orban government’s difficulties is not the Socialist opposition but the very unpleasant xenophobic Jobbik Party. It is likely that Jobbik – ‘the movement for a better Hungary’ – now enjoys greater electoral support than the Socialist Party. Jobbik has succeeded in mobilising a significant section of the people who have lost out in the process of transition from the former Stalinist regime to the corrupt post-Communist one. Unlike the ageing constituency of the Socialist Party, many of the supporters of Jobbik are young and relatively energetic. Jobbik’s platform consists of a mixture of populist xenophobia - against Roma people and Jews - with a nineteenth-century reactionary embrace of parochialism and national self-sufficiency. However, when I talked to a group of Jobbik voters last October, what struck me was not their nationalist fervour but their powerful conviction that they had ‘lost out’, had been forgotten and treated with contempt by institutions they could not trust. They support Jobbik because this movement reminds them that they exist.

To a significant extent, the relative success of Jobbik is a legacy of the wasted years of the post-Communist era. During this time, successive governments refused to settle scores with Hungary’s Stalinist past. The new elite – which had strong links with the previous nomenklatura – had one priority: securing its self-interest. Its alliance with the EU technocracy helped to foster an illusion of a reforming prosperous liberal democracy… but as we now know, the reality was far more complicated.

The most useful contribution that Europeans can make to help Hungary is to resist the temptation to ‘help’. It is up to the people of Hungary to determine their political future and hopefully to embrace the values of an open society. Most important of all is the need to recognise the right of people to work out for themselves the norms and values they wish to live by. That’s why the advocates of EU cultural correctness need to be told: ‘Hands off Hungary!’

SOURCE





What We've Lost

Alan Sears

It’s the time of year when thoughts turn more concertedly to the ongoing tragedy – and travesty – of abortion. Activists count back to the January 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and produce new calculations on how many lives have been ended prematurely through the deliberate choice of their mothers—and with the often enthusiastic cooperation of medical professionals who have found their own ways of reconciling the destruction of life with their Hippocratic oath. (The latest addition tells us that a number roughly equivalent to the population of California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Arizona has been subtracted from the human race.)

Partisans of “a woman’s right to choose” rejoice, taking shelter in the assertion that the decision to abort a child is a personal one, between a mother and … well, really, no one. A father’s rights are no longer any more sacred than the life in the mother’s womb, parents are often legally required to stand aside, and doctors these days are on hand less to offer medical counsel than to facilitate the mechanics or chemistry of destruction.

On that score: chemistry is rapidly trumping mechanics, as the efficiency of the abortionists grows. Planned Parenthood is making new fortunes in blood money through the increasingly widespread use of “tele-med” abortions, which negate the presence or participation of medical staff. An expectant mother simply steps into a room, confirms to a doctor via a video chat her determination to abort, follows his directions to press a specific button, and – voila! – a drawer pops open with two pills inside. “Take one now and one tomorrow,” the doctor says. No muss, no fuss … no baby.

Such simplicities make it easier for the body count to accumulate, and there, too, the abortionists are at an advantage, for as Joseph Stalin reminded us, “One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” The more babies that die, the less unbearable the death of one more … a hundred more … a thousand more becomes. Abortionists know better than most that nothing succeeds like excess.

Stalin, though, had nothing on Shannon Dea, co-president of Planned Parenthood’s Waterloo Region, in Canada, who recently declared that “Medical science is irrelevant to the question of when a fetus becomes a human being – that matter is a legal and philosophical one, not a medical one.” But what, exactly, is to be gained by wading into debate with those who deem undeniable truth – and even facts – irrelevant?

Nothing, likely. But for the general benefit, let us consider one particular philosophical implication of all those lives, quenched in the womb. The roughly 53 million children aborted since 1973 equals about 17 percent of America’s current 312 million-plus population. Nearly one-fifth of us, simply taken out of the equation … the equation being our culture, our communities, our daily interactions, our myriad accomplishments as a people.

How would any of us begin to estimate the cost of losing not just the lives, but the extraordinary impact of one-fifth of our nation’s people? What diseases have gone untreated because the mind that could have isolated the necessary bacteria or virus never lived to see a laboratory?

Across those two lost generations, what outstanding leaders of business or industry, what eloquent voices of religion or politics, have been forfeited to a mother’s choice? What paradigm-shifting ideas and insights … what soul-stirring art and music and language … what heroic explorations and athletic accomplishments have never transpired because the unique imaginations and wills and endurances that would have achieved them were vacuumed from a woman’s womb?

How many of those aborted had within them the one-of-a-kind vision that might have accomplished peace … rolled back poverty … broken down racism … staved off tyrants and terrorists … translated, transformed, transcended some aspect of our civilization in a way no one ever had before?

A mind like Einstein’s … the eloquence of Martin Luther King, Jr. … the wisdom of Washington … the physical grace of Baryshnikov … these come along maybe once or twice in a generation. In our arrogance and near-sightedness, did we forfeit our most gifted ones to the expediencies of a self-centered, sex-obsessed culture?

We may never know – but we can wonder. In city after city, as child after child is destroyed without coming to fruition, what are we costing ourselves – and our own children and grandchildren? The abortionists are half right: abortion is as personal as a decision gets.

But it’s about far more – so very, very much more – than any woman’s “right to choose.”

SOURCE





Anti-social behaviour isn't a crime... it's just a nuisance: How lazy British police forces are failing to record and investigate offences

Muggings, burglaries and even rapes are being written off by police who wrongly record that no crime has taken place, a report says today. In some forces, up to one in four crimes is not being investigated properly because officers mistakenly choose to drop the inquiry.

Complaints of anti-social behaviour are being particularly badly handled with many crimes mislabelled as simply 'nuisance', a snapshot study has found. As a result, offences of harassment and disorder are airbrushed out, vanishing from official crime statistics with no hope of ever being solved.

Overall, officials discovered that most forces failed to record around one in ten crimes properly. In cases of anti-social behaviour, only a 'low number' of crimes were recorded and police remain poor at identifying repeat and vulnerable victims.

The failings come despite an outcry in the wake of cases such as the death of Fiona Pilkington and the murder of Garry Newlove.

Ministers want police chiefs to identify repeat victims and increase their response to low-level incidents which blight the lives of thousands. The latest figures are revealed after a review of police computer systems by officials at Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

It examined whether crimes were recorded properly in the first place and if cases were later incorrectly written off under the category 'no crime'.

A valid example of a 'no crime' would be when a motorist calls police to report vandalism but it is later found that masonry fell from a roof and damaged his car.

The HMIC review found that, on average, 87 per cent of 'no crimes' were correctly recorded last year, compared with 64 per cent in 2009.

Crimes considered included violent attacks, robbery, rape, burglary, vehicle crime and anti-social behaviour.

Decisions in cases of violence were correct 84 per cent of the time and in rape the average was far higher at 90 per cent. Officials found that some forces incorrectly recorded up to a quarter of all reports as 'no crime'.

These forces were the Metropolitan Police, Avon and Somerset, Leicestershire, Staffordshire and West Yorkshire. The best force was Thames Valley Police, where 100 per cent of 'no crime' decisions were appropriate.

The survey looked at almost 5,000 records from 43 forces in England and Wales and the British Transport Police.

Officials said they are concerned that police call handlers may be the weak link in the chain because it is not easy to check their decisions.

Fears have been raised that police may be tempted to record disputed incidents as 'no crime' to improve performance or simply because they are too hard to solve.

But that means victims are unlikely to receive the same level of support and police fail to build up a picture of repeat offences and crime hotspots.

Last night Tory MP Priti Patel said: 'The fact that police are prepared to write off serious crimes almost needs to be investigated itself – it is dreadful. How can they justify this to victims of crime?

'Clearly there are police forces out there failing in their duty to protect the public and give support to victims to protect them. They need to learn from those doing the right thing.'

Vic Towell, of HMIC, said: 'These results show that forces understand the importance of making correct “no crime” decisions, particularly for the more serious crime types. While the majority do well, the variation between the best and worst remains too wide and needs to improve.'

Policing Minister Nick Herbert said: 'We commissioned this report to shine a light on recording practices and there are issues in some forces which need to be addressed.'

Two years ago the head of HMIC, Sir Denis O'Connor, warned that police are failing to get to grips with a tidal wave of anti-social behaviour.

He said the true number of loutish incidents could be twice as high as the 3.6million estimated by the Government.

The problem was highlighted by the death of Miss Pilkington, who killed herself and her disabled daughter after being tormented by thugs.

Police were heavily criticised after it emerged she made 33 calls for help before setting fire to her car in a layby near her Leicestershire home in 2007.

The murder of Mr Newlove, who was kicked to death after confronting teenagers outside his Warrington home in 2007, also showed the terrible toll of yobbery.

The research comes hard on the heels of news that year-on-year crime fell in some of the cities worst hit by the August riots. Senior officers admitted that looting and disorder may have only resulted in a handful of offences because of the way crimes are recorded.

SOURCE






Fury as British Defence Dept. fires hundreds of troops in job cuts... but not one penpusher

Public servants are a specially protected class just about everywhere

Not a single penpusher has been sacked under Ministry of Defence job cuts despite the 'grotesque' axing of hundreds of troops, a damning report reveals today.

MPs say it is 'stark and shocking' that no bureaucrats have been made compulsorily redundant yet 40 per cent of the military personnel culled were forced out.

In a scathing attack on the MoD, the Commons defence select committee hints that civil servants might also have received a better voluntary redundancy package.

'The MoD should consider whether the terms offered to either the military or civilian staff [were] fair or appropriate,' the MPs' report says.

The committee also criticises the claim by top MoD mandarin Ursula Brennan that civilians were more likely to apply for voluntary redundancy because they were more 'flexibly employable'. The report says: 'This runs contrary to our experience.'

Under the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review, unveiled in 2010, the Forces must lose 17,000 personnel by 2015 – 7,000 from the Army and 5,000 each from the RAF and Royal Navy.

The MoD will eventually lose around 32,000 civil service posts. Ministers have been ordered to make £4.7billion of savings within four years and to plug a £38billion equipment overspend.

Some 2,900 servicemen and women were selected for the first tranche of redundancies last year, with the Army and RAF each losing 920 posts, and 1,020 being cut from the Navy.

But only 60 per cent applied for redundancy, meaning around 1,200 members of the Forces were sacked. A second round of 4,200 cuts was announced last week.

By comparison, not one civil servant has been forced to quit the MoD in the first two redundancy rounds, set to total 15,000 penpushers. Instead, all volunteered to leave.

The report says: 'For military redundancies to be compulsory in 40 per cent of cases, yet for civilian redundancies to be compulsory in none, is so grotesque that it requires an exceptionally persuasive reason, which we are yet to hear.'

MPs say Forces personnel should be retrained in areas of the military where there are shortages, such as bomb disposal, logistics and healthcare.

Labour defence spokesman Jim Murphy said ministers were treading a 'thin line between callousness and carelessness' over the job cuts. 'Thousands of service personnel are being unceremoniously sacked,' he said. 'It is essential that the painful impact of David Cameron's decisions is minimised wherever possible.

'The committee are right to suggest retraining for all those made compulsorily redundant.'

The MPs' report – into the MoD's annual report 2010–11 – also expresses dismay that the National Audit Office spending watchdog had refused to give the seal of approval to the department's accounts for the fifth successive year.

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. 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 January, 2012

Is Australian flag-flying "racist"?

The study below seems to have overlooked the origins of those who did not fly flags. Many may have been foreign-born. Perth has a very large contingent of Brits and whites from Southern Africa who may know little of Australian history. Had Australian-born people only been interviewed, there may have been no difference between flag flyers and others.

But the most important confounding variable would be social class. Middle class people are less likely to display patriotism and more "correct" in their expressed opinions

And it is after all reasonable to say that the long-term exclusion of blacks was beneficial -- given very high black crime-rates worldwide. It could be seen as rational rather than racist

DRIVERS who fly Australian flags on their cars to celebrate Australia Day are "more racist" than people who do not, according to research from UWA.

University of Western Australia sociologist and anthropologist Professor Farida Fozdar and a team of assistants surveyed 513 people at the Australia Day fireworks on Perth's Swan River foreshore last year to find out whether there was a link between car flag flying and racist attitudes, Perth Now reports.

Professor Fozdar said the team found that of the 102 people surveyed on the day who had attached flags to their cars for the national holiday, 43 per cent agreed with the statement that the now-abandoned “White Australia Policy” had “saved Australia from many problems experienced by other countries”.

She said that only 25 per cent of people who did not fly Australia car flags agreed with the statement.

Under the “White Australia Policy”, which was non-official government policy until after World War II, non-Europeans were barred from migrating to Australia.

The survey also found that a total of 56 per cent of people with car flags feared for Australian culture and believed that the country’s most important values were in danger, compared with 34 per cent of non-flag flyers.

Thirty-five per cent of flag flyers felt that people had to be born in Australia to be truly Australian, compared with 22 per cent of non-flag flyers. Twenty-three per cent of flag flyers believed that true Australians had to be Christian, while 18 per cent of non-flaggers agreed with the statement.

An overwhelming 91 per cent of people with car flags agreed that people who move to Australia should adopt Australian values, compared with 76 per cent of non-flaggers.

A total of 55 per cent of flaggers believed migrants should leave their old ways behind, compared with 30 per cent of non-flaggers.

“What I found interesting is that many people didn't really have much to say about why they chose to fly car flags or not," Professor Fozdar said.

"Many felt strongly patriotic about it - and for some, this was quite a racist or exclusionary type of patriotism - but it wasn't a particularly conscious thing for many.”

SOURCE




The futility and hypocrisy of the Occupy stragglers

Across her neck, the contradiction of a permanent tattoo shackle that reads: “Freedom.” Across one forearm, a tattoo that reads, “Liberate All Beings.” On the other arm, “Inside Job,” a reference to her belief that 9/11 was carried out by the US Government.

You can take my dignity… but you'll never take my freedom tattoo. Pic: Paul Toohey.You can take my dignity… but you'll never take my freedom tattoo. Pic: Paul Toohey.

Kanaska Carter is 26. She is a former hairdresser from Canada who came to the US to protest on the 10th anniversary of September 11 but got caught up in Occupy Wall Street, six days later. And now there’s the Google wars, another natural fit for a conditioned young protestor.

Kanaska has lived homeless on the streets of New York for five months. She makes some money busking and inking tattoos and knows various places about the city where she and her friends can get free dinners each night.

She has been sleeping in a church in Manhattan’s upper west side. The church lets around 100 people in at 8.30pm and kicks them out at 8am. Most of them lost their tents when their Occupy campsite at Zuccotti Park, near Wall St, was cleared out in November.

The church has toilets, but no showers. “You wash your hair in the sink and use baby wipes. It’s pretty brutal,” says Kanaska.

Kanaska and her friends are sitting on the steps of the church on a freezing morning, having been sent out to face the day. They’re wrapped in blankets against the incoming North American winter. There’s a hash oil pipe going around and the hard smoke causes wracking fits of coughing.

After four months living the protest life, none of the group sees an end of the line. Or, if they do, they’re not willing to admit it yet.

Today they are leaving New York for Washington. A friend is picking them up in a van and driving them down.

The Washington mission seems confused. Red, one of Kanaska’s friends, says they’re going to hang out at the White House, raise hell and show solidarity for Obama. Kanaska says: “Fuck Obama.”

“Do you know he only became a senator four years before he became president?” Red says, trying to argue that Obama is not a longtime entrenched political insider, like the ones they’re supposed to despise.

“Yeah, that was about the same time he became an American citizen,” says Kanaska, only half joking.

That’s the thing about the protestors. They take bits of Leftist rhetoric, they take bits of the Right. And they don’t like either.

Kanaska wears a badge that says: “If voting changed anything it would be illegal.” She has never voted. She doesn’t see the point.

They don’t seek media attention. They don’t have a discernable message. They don’t want a leader. They don’t even agree with each other. But they’re going to the White House anyway.

Commentators have struggled to understand how the Occupy protestors have been able to unite without a clearly stated quest or shared goal. But, as Kanaska says: “I felt I’ve been waiting my whole life for this kind of activism.”

Something dawned on me speaking to this group. Political protest is merely the thread that holds them together. It’s about lifestyle.

They missed the chance to turn on, tune in and drop out in the 1960s. They missed the 1970s antiwar movement and, in the 80s and 90s, they didn’t miss much at all.

The turnouts at the various Occupy sites gave them an instant society, an on-the-spot family who would look out for each other. It gave them a chance to become homeless, en masse, without the loneliness or the begging on the streets or the fear of being attacked or having to ride the freight trains south.

“My street family is here with me and they’ve got my back,” says Kanaska. She met this particularly group of three or four blokes about a week ago and they’ve been hanging out since.

They claim they’re liberating America but, really, it’s about liberating themselves.

“I’ve been homeless for a while,” Kanaska says, “on and off for two or three years. It’s a choice. I find it humbles you. I used to have my own apartment and I slowly lost my mind. I was in there with my two cats and I was just like going crazy.

“When I’m homeless I’m always surrounded by friends. There’s freedom without having to pay rent all the time to a system that’s broken, without having to work a nine to five job and being able to do what you’re actually passionate about. I’d rather live playing music, doing artwork and tattooing people.”

On this day, her entire cash reserve is one dollar. “Some days it’s hard to find food but I just put out the guitar case,” she says.

Kanaska says her parents back in Canada are divided on what she’s doing. “My mum supports me fully,” she says. “My dad, he wants me to go to school, but if I go to school I’m going to have tons of debts so I don’t see the point.”

This life cannot last and she knows it. Her US visa runs out in March and that will be her time of reckoning. She’ll have to make some choices.

They all will. Otherwise their chosen homelessness will not be enjoyable. It will be real.

SOURCE





A THIRD of inmates at British youth jail are Muslims... and more convert to get better food

A third of inmates at one of Britain’s most notorious youth jails are Muslims and the religion is attracting a large number of converts.

There are 229 Muslims out of a total of 686 youngsters detained at Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution in West London, according to Ministry of Justice figures.

There are now so many worshippers at Friday prayers that they have to be split between Feltham’s mosque and its gym.

Sources claim that converts are attracted by the chance of better food and a more comfortable regime.

But there are also fears that some are being radicalised.

During Ramadan, Muslim prisoners are given food in separate hot and cold containers so they can eat what they choose at the end of their daylight fast.

A source revealed: ‘Over the last few years there has been a huge surge in those attending Muslim services. ‘The popularity of the faith has surprised people. We are seeing a large number of inmates converting to Islam.'

He added: ‘There is a difference between mainstream believers and extremists, but the fear is that some in the jail are being radicalised. 'Others convert for protection or to have what they believe is an easier lifestyle.’

Prison insiders say most non-Muslims are locked up during Friday prayers because so many guards are needed to monitor the lunchtime service.

The Ministry of Justice said: ‘The Prison Service is committed to ensuring the religious needs of prisoners of all faiths are met.’

SOURCE






British millionaire wins right to ban official busybodies from nosing round his home

It is a country estate of such beauty that it inspired the composition of one of our best loved hymns. But the mansion behind ‘All Things Bright and Beautiful’ was the subject of an unholy row in court today over its modernised interior.

Conservation officials failed in their demand for access to Llanwenarth House to check on renovations and were told by the owner: ‘An Englishman's home is his castle.’

Millionaire Kim Davies, 56, told a court how planning inspectors had made up to 20 visits to the country mansion after they feared the Grade II listed property had been given a ‘footballer's wife-style’ makeover.

But he refused their request for an architectural historian to inspect the Elizabethan manor which is nestled in the idyllic Usk Valley in South Wales, and Brecon Beacons National Park Authority took him to court.

The home is currently for sale at £2.25million but work carried out Mr Davies has come in for close scrutiny.

National Park planning officer Clare Jones told the hearing she had visited the property at least 10 times and wanted to carry out further checks. She said: ‘The authority has now engaged a conservation expert who needs to advise us about the works that have taken place. ‘He will advise the authority if the history of the building has been compromised and on remedial work to put the building back to its original state.’

Mr Davies, a builder and car dealer, bought the house for £675,000 in 2007 and has since spent more than £1million on it. He admits that a new kitchen and bathrooms have been installed but claims the work falls outside the restrictions on listed buildings.

Planning officials were called in after it was compared to a ‘footballer's wife monstrosity’ which may have damaged the historic gem and an injunction was taken out to stop further work.

Mr Davies told magistrates in Abergavenny that he had always complied with the regular inspections by the National Park officials. But he opposed the application for a warrant to enter the property saying: ‘Enough is enough.’ He continued: ‘I have to take a stand. No further work has taken place since their last visit. ‘My sister is suffering from cancer and is convalescing at my home at the moment. ‘They have been there up to 20 times and I'm not prepared to let them come again.’

Dr Charles Mynor, representing Mr Davies, told the hearing: ‘There is no evidence of any new works or that anything extra has happened. ‘It seems that the National Park are coming back for another bite of a cherry that has already been bitten on many occasions.’

The magistrates refused to grant the Brecon Beacons National Park a warrant to enter the property and awarded £500 costs to Mr Davies.

Chairman of the bench Dr Christopher Rowlands told the court: ‘Mr Davies has said under oath that no further work has been carried out on the property and on those grounds the application is refused.’

After the case, Mr Davies said: ‘I have always welcomed the National Park people when they have visited my home. ‘But it is my home and there has to be a limit to the number of times they want to have a look around. ‘I would get a letter one day saying they were coming the next. I opposed the warrant because quite simply enough is enough.

‘An Englishman's home is his castle - only in this case it's a Welshman's home.’

Photographs used by the estate agent show the inside of the seven-bedroom house has changed considerably since the time of Mrs Alexander’s visit.

The kitchen has a large chandelier and granite tops while the bathroom boasts an ornamental Jacuzzi bath, and there is nothing Mrs Alexander would recognise about the high-ceilinged cinema room.

The estate agent description states: ‘Much of its character still remains yet the expansive home also embodies great comfort and ease of living.’

But the refurbishment work by property developer has not won universal songs of praise. Before the hearing Monmouthshire county councillor Christine Walby said: ‘The house is an architectural gem and the park authority has a legal obligation to ensure that listed buildings are preserved.

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. 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 January, 2012

Is Anyone Else Getting Tired of This Whole Politically Correct Bullying Thing?

David Cortman

Maybe it is just me, but I am getting a bit tired of reading about the left’s aggressive push on the whole bullying issue. I am no bullying expert, nor am I a child psychologist, but I have been bullied before (after all, I am vertically challenged and wore braces growing up). Haven’t most of us been bullied at one point or another? Maybe many of us still are. And isn’t that part of learning how to cope with adversity and challenges in this cold, cruel world that we live in?

So why all of a sudden this outrage for something that has been happening since the beginning of time? A loaded question, I know. Let me offer a concession, identify a problem or two, then a general assessment.

First, a concession (with a caveat): bullying is no good. People shouldn’t bully. It is a serious issue, but one that should not be hijacked for political gain or to push an agenda.

Second, let me point out a problem or two with trying to prohibit bullying. Perhaps you’ve never thought about it, but how is bullying to be defined? I am not just talking about a general description or definition, but rather one that permits a fair and even-handed application. (More difficult is an application that is even possible with young children especially.)

Here is what I mean. How do you draft and then enforce a bullying policy, say, in an elementary school? Would it look like this?

1. Students must be nice to each other.

2. Students may not say mean things to each other.

3. Students should tell their teacher if someone says something to them that hurts their feelings.

Mind you, I am not trying to make light of bullying but rather to point out the difficulties in identifying it. You see, when “bullying” crosses the line into physically threatening or hitting someone, you don’t need a bullying policy to prohibit that. But bullying policies usually have the added (and often unconstitutional) component of prohibiting “mean or hateful or offensive” speech. And if each child was punished every time they said something hurtful, the biggest class would be in the principal’s office. So when do you enforce it, and when do you chalk it up to children being children? And what about each time an adult said something hurtful or offensive? Where should we be sent?

And now the assessment. In the tone of the late Andy Rooney, one might say, “Have you ever noticed” that, when a bullying policy is pushed, it is usually accompanied by the promotion of the homosexual agenda? I have yet to see any major push to address bullying that was not tied to the left’s sexual vision for our children. The bullying outcry is not so much about students being mean to each other as it is about the left taking advantage of a volatile issue to promote their own agenda. I mean, after all, who is going to defend bullying? Not even those crazy right-wingers (although I am sure that is what some will say that I am doing in this article). So if someone dare oppose any anti-bullying measure, they must be really mean.

Just one recent example, among many, that was forwarded to me recently is located in the Huffington Post’s “Gay Voices.” The title: “Elementary School Climate, Anti-Gay Bullying Examined in New Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network [GLSEN] Report.” If that title alone doesn’t prove my entire point, then nothing does. And let’s look for a moment at the first line: “Given that more and more youngsters are self-identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) at younger ages, a new report hopes to shed light on school climate, biased remarks and bullying among elementary school students.” Really? Five-year-olds are “self-identifying” as “gay” or “transgendered”? Or are some groups (consisting of adults) pushing it on five-year-olds who, by the way, have no idea what any of that stuff is.

And what was the major finding of this “report?” That the number one reason students didn’t feel safe at school was…“personal appearance.” Sounds about right. But that won’t stop these groups from using this “report” to promote their sexual agenda. How do I know? The article goes on to state: “In conjunction with the report, GLSEN officials also released ‘Ready, Set, Respect!’ which they describe as ‘a new instructional resource informed by our findings to address homophobia, gender expression and LGBT-inclusive family diversity at the elementary school level.’”

Still think the anti-bullying push is really about stopping bullying?

SOURCE





The hypocritical Milibands -- Rather what you expect from the sons of a prominent Marxist theoretician

David Miliband takes lucrative new job with a Pakistan-based City firm backed by a Swiss playboy as brother Ed rails against Capitalist predators

David Miliband has taken a lucrative job with a Pakistan-based City firm which will push his post-ministerial earnings to £500,000 – at a time when brother Ed is campaigning against capitalist ‘predators’.

The former Foreign Secretary, who has picked up a string of highly paid positions since losing the Labour leadership battle to his brother, has been appointed as a senior adviser to Indus Basin Holdings.

The firm, set up last year to funnel investment into Pakistani agriculture, boasts a number of colourful backers, including a Swiss aristocrat playboy called Baron Lorne Thyssen-Bornemisza.

Mr Miliband, who will earn about £50,000 a year from the part-time position – which is not expected to occupy him for more than a few days a month – is starting to emulate the money-making success of his political patron, Tony Blair. And like Mr Blair, he has constructed his business affairs in a way that appears to limit tax liability.

Mr Miliband would pay income tax at the normal rate on his £65,000 salary for being an MP.

His non-parliamentary earnings, however, are paid into a company called The Office Of David Miliband Limited, which is subject to corporation tax of between 20 per cent and 27.5 per cent – substantially less than the 50 per cent rate of income tax for those earning more than £150,000. Last night, a leading City accountant estimated that using the company device would have lowered his tax bill by £127,000.

The accountant added that shares in the company were split 50-50 between Mr Miliband and his wife – a move usually deployed to ‘split incomes’ so both partners can exploit their lower tax bands to the full. Last night the former Minister’s office did not respond to questions about tax.

Earlier this month it was disclosed that Mr Blair’s firms had paid just £315,000 in tax on a £12 million annual income.

News of Mr Miliband’s latest job comes as his brother tries to turn around his sagging political fortunes by attacking ‘fat cat’ executive pay and joining cross-party calls for reckless former RBS banker Sir Fred Goodwin to be stripped of his knighthood. The Labour leader used last year’s party conference to condemn capitalist ‘predators’ who are ‘just interested in the fast buck’.

Indus Basin Holdings (IBH) was set up by Aamer Sarfraz, a merchant banker at London-based investment company Tigris Financial, to make money out of burgeoning farm businesses in Pakistan.

As Foreign Secretary, Mr Miliband had frequent contact with Islamabad – including personal visits – as part of anti-terror negotiations. Last night his office stressed that none of the contacts he made in his official work had helped him land the job.

IBH’s investors include Baron Thyssen-Bornemisza. The 48-year-old film-maker is the son of five-times-married billionaire art collector Heini Thyssen-Bornemisza and British fashion model Fiona Campbell-Walter. Known to have lost his virginity at 15 to a prostitute, in his youth he was linked to the models Koo Stark and Baroness Andrea von Stumm.

Another IBH investor is Tim Draper, a US venture capitalist known for being an early backer of Skype internet telephone technology.

Before securing his new job, Mr Miliband had already amassed more than £400,000 from speeches, lectures and consultancy work in the past 15 months.

The jobs include more than £92,000 a year from the Californian ‘clean energy’ firm VantagePoint, £75,000 a year as vice-chairman of Premier League football club Sunderland, and one-off fees including £24,000 for a week of teaching at a US university and lectures in the Middle East at £25,000 a time.

After losing the leadership battle in September 2010, Mr Miliband opted to walk away from the party front bench. By the next General Election in 2015, however, he is likely to have secured his financial future, putting him in a strong position for another run at the leadership.

He said in a statement yesterday: ‘I care deeply about Pakistan, the development of its economy and its future in the wider region. ‘I look forward to working with IBH in building support and investment in Pakistan’s agricultural capacity and productivity.’ His spokesman said the IBH job had been cleared by the relevant Government’s Advisory Committee.

And Red Ed isn't as green as his eco-bag proclaims

As he leaves for work, Ed Miliband looks for all the world like the eco-friendly politician he is supposed to be.

The Labour leader emerged from his house in North London earlier this month clutching a reusable bag bearing the slogan ‘My Green Bag’ – clearly advertising his environmental credentials.

But within seconds, Mr Miliband, who was Climate Change Secretary in the last Labour Government, was spotted climbing into the back of a powerful Jaguar XF as if worries over global warming were a thing of the past.

The Jaguar XF range goes from a £29,250 2.2-litre diesel version to a £63,780 five-litre petrol model capable of 155mph.

Last night, Labour defended Mr Miliband, insisting the car provided for the Opposition leader came from the same fleet used by Ministers.

The party said: ‘The car is from the Government Car Service. It’s what Coalition Ministers are given.

‘As it is with the official car service, they meet high environmental standards.’

The spokesman said that Mr Miliband was not always given the same car, but the models used were always diesel.

SOURCE





Evil British social workers again

Under the pretext of "caring", they do all they can to hurt and frustrate people

An elderly couple were banned from going on holiday together after their local council said it was too risky. In an astonishing example of the nanny state at work, Norman Davies and Peggy Ross were told by Cardiff Council that they could not go on the planned Mediterranean cruise, just days before they were due to leave.

Over-zealous social workers claimed Mrs Ross, who suffers from dementia, was in danger of wandering off or falling overboard.

But the 82-year-old woman and her 81-year-old husband fought the court order and were eventually able to set sail from Southampton on the 16-day holiday of their dreams.

Despite the dire predictions of the interfering council, the couple enjoyed the trip of a lifetime and Mr Davies said the break had in fact benefitted Mrs Ross's mental alertness.

In October, after the council learned about the £3,200 holiday the pair had planned, it tried to use mental health laws to prevent from Mrs Ross leaving her care home.

Furious Mr Davies, a former engineer who lives near Newport, told ITV Wales: 'I'm with her 24/7. The cabin is a self-contained unit and we go down for meals together - she's just never left on her own.'

The couple have been together for around 20 years and have often gone on around 30 cruises.

They were horrified when jobsworths at the council obtained a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisation and then applied to the Court of Protection for a declaration to say Mrs Ross was unable to travel.

'They just didn't want me to go,' said Mrs Ross. She admitted she sometimes gets confused. but added: 'I do look after myself, and we're usually in the same room together, so he notices if I try to go out. It's not often.'

She had been admitted to the nursing home in July 2010, suffering from memory loss, and her social worker claimed she lacked 'capacity to make a decision' about the holiday because her 'ideas/beliefs are not based in reality'.

Luckily, Mr Davies and his daughter Gaynor Lloyd moved quickly and instructed a solicitor to challenge the order, with days to go until they were due to set sail from Southampton.

The case was heard at Cardiff Regional Court a mere three days before they were set to go away, and to the couple's great relief, the judge ruled that it was in Mrs Ross's best interests to go.

Judge Crispin Masterman said that even if others believed Mrs Ross’s decision to go on the holiday was 'unwise', that did not show she was unable to make it.

He said the social worker and care home staff obviously had her safety in mind, but were too concerned with 'trying to find reasons why Mrs Ross should not go on this holiday rather than finding reasons why she should'.

The judge concluded that she did have capacity to make the decision and the couple sailed away on their holiday.

His lawyer said the victory revealed that the over-cautiousness of modern life had to be tempered with common sense. Lawyers from Essex Street chambers said the case highlighted 'a tendency among local authorities to focus on risk-prevention at the expense of emotional wellbeing.'

Previous cases have seen councils and health bodies try to prevent a man having sex, force a woman with a low IQ to take contraception and even stop a man bringing his grandmother home for Christmas.

A Cardiff Council spokesman said: 'The council has always had Mrs Ross's best interests at heart and we worked with her to find an alternative holiday where we could be confident that the required level of care which she requires on a daily basis could be provided.'

Her care home manager said that nothing stopped Mrs Ross leaving the care home and she was 'free to have a lovely life with her partner.' But she said she was concerned over the 82-year-old being away for 16 days.

SOURCE





Pro-life push in Australian Leftist ranks

LABOR'S anti-abortion forces are rallying behind a new ginger group that will promote and campaign for candidates who are against abortion and euthanasia.

Labor for Life was formed last month to link members with conservative views and, partly, in response to the party's official recognition of gay marriage.

The move is being seen by progressive MPs as a sign Labor's socially conservative rump is muscling up for a fight on issues such as abortion.

Federal MPs who have given their support to the organisation include the Tasmanian senator Helen Polley, who opposed the push for gay marriage at the national conference.

The group's Facebook page also lists the 29 politicians and organisations it views as sympathetic including Senator Polley, the NSW senator Ursula Stephens and the Minister for the Environment, Tony Burke.

"It's really important that members of the ALP who have these views have a group and have people they can connect with," the group's convener, Simone McDonnell, who has previously been a federal Labor candidate in South Australia, said.

"It's really important that we support a diverse range of views, particularly on moral issues."

The group also has links to the largest union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, and its staunchly anti-abortion boss Joe de Bruyn.

In 2008, Mr de Bruyn described abortion as the "deliberate destruction of human life" when he clashed with former prime minister Kevin Rudd over a decision to drop a ban on foreign aid funds spent on family planning services.

Labor for Life received a boost at last month's Labor Party national conference where members who spoke against the proposal to recognise gay marriage, including Mr de Bruyn, begged for tolerance for their views.

Ms McDonnell said it was important Labor remained a "broad church". This was an argument made repeatedly by delegates to the national conference who fear support for progressive issues such as gay marriage and abortion will alienate Labor's more conservative supporters.

Senator Claire Moore, a long-time campaigner for reproductive choice within the party, said she had been expecting a formal anti-abortion group to establish itself for some time.

"It's a message to those of us who feel differently, that we can never be complacent," Senator Moore said.

"We have an increasingly conservative number of parliamentarians. There's a lot of people with less progressive views [than before]."

She noted that Labor for Life also campaigned against the death penalty, making it hard for pro-choice MPs to condemn it out of hand.

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. 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 January, 2012

The Growing Science of Sex Difference

The headline at the online magazine Miller-McCune.com just about says it all: "Sex on the Brain Proves Costly for Men."

In an intriguing set of empirical studies just published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, a team of social scientists led by professor Sanne Nauts shows that the mere prospect of speaking with an unknown woman reduces men's (but not women's) performance on cognitive tasks.

In the first study, 71 college students at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands were asked to complete a "lip-reading task" while supposedly being observed on a webcam by an unseen researcher who would instant message them. When the alleged researcher messaging them was named "Lisa," the men performed worse than when the purported observer messaging them had a male name.

In a second study -- this one involving 90 students -- the researchers decided to create even more distance between actual interaction with a woman to see if merely imagining that they were about to interact with a woman could affect men's cognitive performance.

As in the first study, participants were escorted to a cubicle by an experimenter of their own sex, ostensibly to collect stimulus materials for a study on lip reading.

Then the students were merely told they were being observed by a researcher named either Danielle or Daan, who would turn on the webcam and send them an instant message. That never happened. Nonetheless, the mere idea they might soon be messaging with an unknown woman whose attractiveness they could not evaluate caused in the men what the researchers call "cognitive impairment."

The authors attribute this to the cognitively costly effect of impression management, which leaves less brain energy for other tasks:

"Men seem so strongly attuned to mating opportunities that they were influenced by rather subtle cues to a woman, even in the absence of clear information about her," they note. "Casually mentioning a female instead of a male name was sufficient to impair men's cognitive performance."

It may just be that firing up the reward systems of the brain makes men less focused on the task at hand. The authors cite a 2004 study led by Bram Van den Bergh, intriguingly titled "Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice." After men were shown photos of women in lingerie or swimsuits, they became generally more impulsive -- e.g., they tended to prefer a little cash now to more cash down the road.

When women enter the room, reason flees?

The most interesting thing is that the inverse is not true for women. On average, women who were told they would interact with men did not perform any differently on cognitive tasks than women who were told they would be interacting with women.

Gender simply matters less to women. I've always suspected this is the root of much feminism, as well as women's sexual confusion, and the deepest source of the endless human sexual comedy.

Unlike men, women have a category called "human" in which gender (while recognized) is relatively unimportant. As a hypothesis for future busy research scientists, I offer the suggestion that this may be due to the primacy of maternity in women's evolutionarily adapted brain structure. The category "my baby" is way more important than the gender of a child to the mother.

When I sent a copy of "The Mere Anticipation of an Interaction With a Woman Can Impair Men's Cognitive Performance" to my husband, his response was: "They need scientific studies for this stuff?"

Well, yes, apparently these days we do. Men and women really are different. Not only our bodies, but our brains react differently.

Suppressing reality in the interests of ideology doesn't help women -- it just makes us all act in dumber and dumber ways.

SOURCE





Tens of thousands of criminals in Britain commit a new crime within a month of receiving a caution

Tens of thousands of criminals go on to reoffend within days of being let off with a caution. In one year, 21,000 offenders – including 6,000 teenagers – broke the law within a month of being given what is effectively a ‘slap on the wrist’.

It means that every day almost 60 criminals – a third of them youths – offend again less than four weeks after being let off for crimes from theft to violence.

The figures are yet another illustration of Britain’s soft justice system and will raise further fears over the ‘caution culture’.

Just weeks ago it emerged that more than half of those involved in the August riots had been let off with a caution for earlier crimes.

The latest statistics were revealed days after Prisons Minister Crispin Blunt called for fewer young criminals to be sent to jail. Mr Blunt faces an overcrowding crisis as prison numbers rocketed to more than 87,000 this week.

Last year police handed out 235,600 cautions to thugs instead of passing the cases to prosecutors to administer justice in court. Critics say the penalties – which carry no other punishment than remaining on their record – undermine the message that ‘crime does not pay’.

The figures revealed that in one year, 6,007 children and 14,994 adults committed further crimes a month after being handed a caution.

Almost a quarter of all under-18s given reprimands end up reoffending within a year. The average adult reoffender commits more than two offences after a caution.

The totals emerged after a parliamentary question from Priti Patel, a Tory backbench MP, who said last night: ‘This shows the scale of the problem ministers have inherited.’

The figures, from 2009 – the most recent available – show 17.6 per cent of all adults handed a caution reoffended within a year, as did 23.3 per cent of juveniles.

A total of 85,750 adults reoffended within a year as did 39,697 juveniles who were issued a reprimand or final warning – the under-18 equivalent of a caution.

Some 52,442 adults and 22,648 children reoffended within six months; 23,403 adults and 9,572 juveniles did so after two months.

Separately, Miss Patel found that every year, hundreds of adult criminals receive cautions despite having been convicted of offences more than 15 times before.

From 2005 to 2009, there were 2,347 occasions on which a cautioned adult offender with 15 or more previous convictions received another caution within a year.

Despite these figures, Mr Blunt said earlier this week he wanted to see fewer children being locked up, with more being told to say sorry to their victims instead.

He said he did not believe ‘offending should automatically lead to prosecution’, adding: ‘In some cases, particularly involving young children, restorative justice can satisfactorily resolve incidents.’

Criminologist David Green, of the think-tank Civitas, said: ‘The thousands who are reoffending within a month are only those who are caught – which will be a tiny proportion of the real number.

‘These figures show cautions are being inappropriately used. If these are career criminals, they should be given more serious sanctions.’

Last month the Daily Mail revealed 50 people a day suffer a violent or sexual attack by a convict spared jail in the soft justice system. Official figures showed every year more than 18,000 convicts given a community punishment commit a sexual or violent crime within 12 months of being sentenced.

SOURCE





Dodgy British crime statistics again

They would make Stalin proud

The riots that left whole neighbourhoods up and down the country in a state of ruin last August were the worst civil disturbances for a generation. But reading crime figures released yesterday, it is almost as if the five days of widespread looting and violence never took place. Nearly half of the areas worst-affected by the riots saw crime fall during that month, according to Home Office statistics.

In Croydon, where a 144-year-old furniture shop was one of dozens of buildings burned to the ground and a photo of a woman jumping from a first-floor inferno became one of the defining images of the riots, police recorded just seven disorder offences.

Seven disorder offences. Rioting by hundreds of mostly-masked youths in the south London borough saw dozens of shops burned, including a 144-year-old furniture store.

The disparity comes down to the way officers recorded the avalanche of offences committed during the unrest. Some forces classified hundreds of feral thugs rampaging through different streets in the same city as just one incident of public disorder.

Similarly, mass looting in which one person broke into a shop only to be followed by dozens more was recorded as a single offence.

And not one force reported the offence of rioting, officially defined as '12 or more people who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose'.

In a statement, the Home Office said: 'It is important to understand the basis of crime recording to appreciate the impact of the disorder incidents on crime statistics. 'Police record crimes according to the number of specific victims, rather than the number of offenders.'

But Trevor Reeves, the owner of the 144-year-old Reeves Furniture Store in Croydon that was destroyed in an arson attack, slammed the police's method of recording crime as 'crazy'.

'You would expect a great big blip in the crime statistics after those five days of rioting,' he told the Telegraph. 'It is crazy to put down something like looting as one crime and is unnecessary. The whole world saw what was happening and to record it like this will just make them look ridiculous.'

Police in the London borough of Southwark recorded just one public disorder offence despite five days of unrest and 314 other offences. Officers in Manchester also said crime fell during August, despite recording 11 public disorder offences and 386 related crimes. A total of 184 incidents of violent disorder and 5,112 connected offences were recorded by police forces across England. Despite this, nine of the 15 worst affected councils recorded more crime in August 2010 than a year later.

The figures did show that knifepoint robberies rose by 10 per cent last year and that one victim is held up by a knife-carrying criminal every 35 minutes. Senior officers have warned the attacks are carried out by muggers determined to steal smartphones and cash.

Separate figures show a double digit rise in the number of pickpocket thefts – the biggest increase for nearly a decade.

Across England and Wales, robbery rose by 4 per cent in the year to September 2011 compared with the previous 12 months.

There were 15,313 knifepoint robberies in the same period – up 10 per cent from the 13,971 offences a year earlier, the crime statistics showed.

Around half of all robberies took place in London and the most common items stolen were smartphones, bags and cash.

The Metropolitan Police recorded a 13 per cent rise in robberies in the capital and West Midlands Police recorded a 10 per cent increase.

Former Met commissioner Lord Stevens, who is chairing a commission into the future of policing set up by Labour, said the rise in crimes against the person was ‘a bit alarming’. He said: ‘I’m not surprised. It’s really worrying. We’ve got to get on top of them really quickly or you could run out of control.’

The British Crime Survey, based on a poll of more than 40,000 victims, suggested a 5 per cent rise in burglary, and a 7 per cent increase in car theft.

Pickpocket thefts rose by 12 per cent to nearly 600,000, while garden shed break-ins fuelled a 15 per cent rise in other thefts of personal property. However, overall recorded crime fell fractionally. The number recorded was down by 4 per cent to 4.1million.

Chief Constable Jon Murphy, from the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: ‘While incidents in violence against the person fell, a continued cause for concern was the increase in pickpocketing, robbery and robbery with knives.’ ‘This has been driven by a rise in robberies of personal property and police will want to focus on tackling these offences and offering crime-prevention advice.’

Meanwhile, the number of murders and other killings rose by 5 per cent in the year to March 2011, said the Home Office. That is a rise of 28 – taking the total number of violent deaths to 636, up from 608 in 2009/10. The latter includes the 12 victims of the Cumbrian shootings in June 2010 by Derrick Bird.

Ministers are set to introduce a ‘tough’ law meaning automatic jail for anyone caught carrying a knife with the intention of using it to commit a crime. Currently just one in five of those caught carrying a knife is given a jail term. The rest are handed community sentences, fines or other punishments.

Policing minister Nick Herbert said: ‘Today’s crime figures cannot be used to show there is a long-term change in either direction. There are areas of concern and, as we have consistently said, crime remains too high. ‘We know good policing makes a difference.’

SOURCE





Power to the people? British Liberals have other ideas...

As you would expect -- JR

People sometimes accuse me of being too hard on MPs. Why, they say, are you so sceptical? Well, just look at what the Establishment has done to the election promise to give voters the right to sack their MPs in the middle of a Parliament.

Here was a strong idea, widely endorsed. Now it is being strangled.

Two independent-minded Tories, Douglas Carswell and Zac Goldsmith, went before the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee yesterday to cry foul. The Whips long ago gave up on pukka Mr Carswell (Clacton) and tanned Mr Goldsmith (Richmond Park). That is greatly to the credit of both men.

Both support ‘parliamentary recall’ – the term for allowing constituents to call a by-election if they feel their MP has erred badly. However, they loathe the way the Government is pretending now to fulfill its promise to bring in recall. A White Paper has emerged from Nick Clegg’s office. It certainly suggests something rather greasier than what was expected.

Many of us imagined an arrangement under which, say, 20 per cent of an MP’s constituents might have to sign a demand for a re-election, which would then be held if 50 per cent of voters opted for that in a local referendum.

Cleggy and his Tory ministerial sidekick, clean-fingernailed Mark Harper, had a different idea. Their draft Bill hands the power of triggering the re-election process to – oh no! – a committee of parliamentary grandees.

Madness. The whole point of recall is to empower poor, ruddy electors fed up with MPs for fiddling their expenses, reneging on promises, failing to attend the Chamber (Gordon Brown, ahem) or Heaven knows what.

David Cameron’s guru Steve Hilton was hot for this idea. Alas, it was given to mad monk Oliver Letwin, a minister who complicates everything. Then it passed to Mr Clegg, who must have thought about his U-turn on college fees, contemplated voters’ sentiments and done a big gulp.

Out of the Whitehall sausage machine we now have this White Paper which, disgustingly, would give the political party system all the power originally envisaged as going to the voters. Classic.

‘This is a 180-degree wrong proposal,’ chomped Mr Carswell out of one side of his mouth. ‘It has been messed up by the people in charge.’ He argued that under the Clegg idea, the party bosses would be able to threaten rebellious backbenchers.

Mr Goldsmith said the Government’s Bill was so terrible it needs to be opposed by the very supporters of parliamentary recall it supposedly set out to assure.

The committee’s chairman, Graham Allen (Lab), was concerned about elected politicians, who may already be too weak, facing constraints on their power. There are also worries that recall could be abused by pressure groups and vexatious obsessives. Mr Carswell met this argument by saying that the public are not fools. They would soon spot anyone playing silly games.

So what has gone on? ‘Sir Humphrey would like to keep the people at bay,’ reckoned Mr Carswell, a punchy performer and empirical thinker. ‘Most governments fear the impact of democracy,’ added Mr Goldsmith.

Some people recoil from Mr Goldsmith because he is stonkingly rich. Actually, he is proving a better tribune of the people than many MPs who are supposedly closer to their voters.

An academic from Reading University was wheeled on to provide opposing arguments. He was all in favour of more panels of the great and good. These people usually are. They seem to regard the populace as something unwholesome. The attitude of Paul Flynn (Lab, Newport W) to tabloid newspaper readers was, alas, similarly snooty.

But Mr Flynn perhaps had a fair point when he wondered if electors are sufficiently outraged by MPs’ misbehaviour ever to crowbar them out of office.

Do you feel you should have the right to bin dishonest MPs? If so, get writing to 10 Downing Street, specifically our ally Mr Hilton. Fight for your rights. The Establishment will not surrender them lightly.

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. 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 January, 2012

Is homosexuality now a human right?

It's not in any bill of rights that I know of

On December 6, President Barack Obama’s support for the demands of the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender” agenda rose to the next level when he issued a memorandum directing federal agencies abroad to “improve protections for LGBT asylum seekers and to strengthen opposition to criminalization of LGBT status or conduct.” The key phrase in the directive was Obama’s claim that so doing is but another part of the “United States’ commitment to promoting human rights.”

This shift in characterizing the sexual and political demands of those who engage in homosexual behavior as a “human right” is as purposeful as it is dangerous to liberty, marriage, and the family. And if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech last week in Geneva was any indicator, the appeal to “human rights” is the new moniker for silencing and punishing any person, organization, or state that will not support the homosexual agenda.

In Geneva, Clinton said:

"Our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. (No, this is not a typo.) For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human."

She then went a step further, intertwining what it means to be “fully human” with human rights: “It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.”

In other words, Clinton presented things dear to each of us—love and family, our faith and who we are—and then used them to play on our heart strings and further the administration’s contention that a denial of these things to anybody, for any reason, is a violation of the highest order for it is a violation of “human rights.”

Clearly these arguments, both President Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s, are framed in such a way as to make those whose experience has not been “universal” in embracing sexual behavior appear insensitive, if not outright cruel, toward same-sex couples who only want to fabricate new ways to share “the bonds of love and family” heterosexual couples share. Here we must remember that our culture does not rest on some momentary, politically correct expression of “human rights,” but on the eternal bedrock of natural rights, fixed and ordered by the same God who joined man and woman together as one flesh in the Garden of Eden.

Throughout history we have had enlightened elites demanding a reordering of such rights and the result has been death, in culture and in life. (Just think of what the reordering of natural rights did in the 20th century, where millions more Jews and Christians died than in prior history.) Or consider the enlightened pursuit of new human rights amid the eugenics movement which led to “three generations of imbeciles being enough” (Oliver Wendell Holmes). Now, the states with mandatory sterilization laws deal with restitution payments while the new human right to slaughter one’s own child for any reason has led to nearly 54 million missing among us.

If “caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human,” then it’s all the more reason to contend for natural marriage, regardless of the emotional pleas to the contrary. Marriage is the one and only relationship that is absolutely essential to the future of humanity: at all times and in all places. It naturally builds family—mom, dad, and children—and gives hope that the next generations will carry on into the future.

Therefore, society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it. And while Americans should certainly stand up to defend God-given rights for all, they should reject deceptive calls to redefine our future based on the demands of the moment.

SOURCE




End of the Line for Bullet Trains

High-Speed Rail is Coasting to a Stop, and Not Just in California

The way high-speed rail projects have been collapsing around the world, you’d think they were corrupt, outrageously expensive, fiscally ruinous, poorly planned government efforts to build a 19th century means of transportation for which there’s no demand.

The Obama Administration’s bullet-train dream is dead. Florida Gov. Rick Scott last year rejected $2 billion in federal funds rather than commit the Sunshine State to such an expensive project. California’s high-speed rail effort is in turmoil, recently suffered a purge of top management, and is unlikely to meet its September deadline to break ground on a federally mandated leg universally termed the “train to nowhere.”

New York State’s effort to build a Buffalo-New York City line is also stalling out. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) trekked out to the village of Bergen in Genesee County the other day only to face hostile questioning from reporters and the local mayor. Schumer’s photo opp by the side of an existing CSX track highlighted a trait the Empire State’s project shares with California’s: It proposes to destroy a proven business – freight rail – to make room for a bullet train that would not be self-supporting even according to the rosiest estimates.

Don't trust SEIU colors. Bullet trains are having even less luck outside the United States – where, the cognoscenti never tire of reminding us, international sophisticates are way ahead of us Yankee bumpkins. Spain’s high-speed rail system, until recently a model for new bullet train construction (and, to be fair, a line that replaced one of the slowest railways in Europe), is sinking under low ridership and dragging that kingdom even deeper into a swamp of bad public debt.

The unkindest cuts of all are occurring in China, whose bullet train once drew hosannas from California governors and bully-worshipping toadies like New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman. Rail minister Liu Zhijun, the putative “Father of High-Speed Rail,” was removed from office and arrested last year; Liu’s deputy, “Grand Designer” (and owner of a five-bedroom home on 30,000 square feet in Los Angeles County) Zhang Shuguang, is also facing corruption charges. An early investigation by the Ministry of Rail revealed that the Chinese bullet train’s budgeting is extremely murky (with some parts of the initiative costing two or three times as much as projected); its ridership is low (after only two months of operation, the Beijing-Fuzhou line was quietly shut in 2010); and ticket prices are beyond the means of lower-income people who actually use mass transit. HSR-related debt increased by a factor of 22 over only three years, from 77.1 billion yuan in 2007 to 1.68 trillion in 2010. In July a bullet-train crash in Zhejiang killed 32 people and injured more than 200.

Railroads have always been favorites of dictators. (Note that nobody was ever brought to a concentration camp on a bus.) But they somehow retain their fascination for popularly elected politicians as well.

A substantial majority of Californians oppose the bullet-train in its current form. That’s a remarkable turnaround in a state where 53 percent of voters approved $9.95 billion in high-speed rail bonds during the high-turnout 2008 election. It seems like just a month ago that the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was an object of wonder for its reality-distorting public relations influence and political strength. Now even the left-leaning media treat with scorn the CHSRA and its plan to make a non-operational Bakersfield-Fresno run the great project’s first phase.

Meanwhile, the CHSRA’s CEO and board chairman have both fled the collapsing project, in a move that neither the Brown nor the Obama Administration appears to have seen coming. The authority is in a dispute with its former PR firm, which was unable to distract public attention from the glaring truth that since 2008 the estimated cost of the project has more than doubled, from around $40 billion to $98.5 billion. (The suspiciously steep increase in projected costs has prompted calls for a new referendum on railway debt, on the grounds that the voters were hoodwinked the first time around.) The authority’s own peer review group and the Legislative Analyst’s Office have strongly recommended delaying and rethinking the project. A larger percentage of voters would now vote No on HSR bonds than voted for them in 2008.

These are all steps in the right direction, but there’s another intellectual hurdle for the populace to clear. These failing, costly high-speed rail catastrophes are not cases of a good idea poorly carried out. Failure is built into the concept. There is neither need nor demand nor real popular will to bring trains back in a spiffier form. In this respect, one part of Jerry Brown’s speech was accurate: High-speed rail is not a new idea. Passenger railroads had their day. To pretend otherwise is truly to believe our civilization is in decline.

SOURCE





There are 30,000 job vacancies in London but young Brits don't have the right work ethic, says Mayor

Unemployed young people need to learn lessons from the hard-working immigrants who have taken their jobs, Boris Johnson said last night.

The Mayor of London said that the younger generation are missing out on jobs because they do not have the same ‘energy to go out and get them’ as the foreigners being employed in this country.

Speaking a day after youth unemployment broke records, Mr Johnson said that there are vacancies, but British young people do not have the right work ethic.

He pointed to successful sandwich chain Pret a Manger, noting native Londoners are rarely seen behind the till. ‘London is a fantastic creator of jobs – but many of these jobs are going to people who don’t originate in this country,’ he said.

‘They are hard-working, good people, and we need to learn from them and understand what it is that they have got that makes them able to get those jobs that young Londoners don’t have.’

Figures released earlier this week showed that more than one in five of those between the age of 16 and 24 are unemployed, hitting a total of 1.04million.

But Mr Johnson, who is hoping to beat Ken Livingstone in the mayoral race in May, said that there are around 30,000 mid-market and lower-skilled vacancies in London alone. He said: ‘There are large numbers of job vacancies. Why are young people not taking up those jobs? How can we help them? That is the key problem for our economy.

‘In this city there are jobs going. It’s vital that Londoners have the skills and the aptitude but also the energy and appetite for work as well.’ He went on to suggest that British young people do not have the same determination as many of the foreign workers in hotels, coffee shops and shops in this country.

‘Let’s talk about work ethic,’ he said in the interview with The Sun. ‘I don’t want to stigmatise young people because many of them do have the aptitude. But we need to face up to these issues. ‘In some cases it can come down to the fact that the jobs are there and people need to have the energy to go out and get them.’

Unemployment figures this week showed that the overall jobless total has reached a 17-year-high of 2.69million.

Mr Johnson also criticised unemployed graduate Cait Reilly who claimed earlier this month that she is suing the Government for making her taken an unpaid work placement at Poundland in Birmingham. He said she 'sneered' at hardworking Britons by saying the work was 'forced labour', telling newspaper: 'She should not turn down the opportunity to do work of a kind that many, many people do and value'.

He recalled his first job as a trainee reporter at The Times saying he could not believe how hard everyone worked when he first started and insisted Miss Reilly would learn from her work placement.

SOURCE





Britain pays more than £2 BILLION in welfare payments to foreigners each year

More than £2billion is being claimed in benefits by foreigners every year, including thousands of illegal immigrants, figures reveal.

The Department for Work and Pensions announced a fraud investigation last night after it emerged 5,000 illegals claimed handouts worth £42million to which they are not entitled.

Ministers acted after the first-ever study of claimants’ nationality, which found 371,000 foreign nationals are on out-of-work benefits.

The study by the DWP found 6 per cent of all benefit claimants were foreign nationals when the data was collected in February last year.

Of those claiming benefits, 258,000 were from outside the European Economic Area, which includes the 27 EU countries as well as Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

But a follow-up exercise found 2 per cent of all claims by foreign nationals were made by those without the immigration status to justify the payments.

The DWP said last night: ‘Two per cent of cases appeared to have no lawful immigration status and the legitimacy of their status for benefit purposes is being investigated.

‘The DWP is co-ordinating with UK Border Agency to review the small number of cases where it appears benefit is being claimed illegitimately. 'Where this is the case, benefit will be stopped and enforcement activity considered.’

Employment Minister Chris Grayling said: ‘It is not acceptable that people from other countries can claim our benefits if they have not worked or paid tax in the UK. ‘We will root out those claimants who cannot prove their immigration status and in turn they will be stripped of their benefits.’

Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘These findings uncover a worrying issue we have inherited, which is why we’ve ordered urgent work to pursue claimants suspected of abuse and to withdraw their benefits if they cannot prove they are entitled to claim.’

According to the figures, 54 per cent of non-EEA claimants went on to secure British citizenship. But the survey also suggests many are moving to the UK to take advantage of our generous benefits system.

Last year £35billion was paid to 5.5million people in out-of-work benefits, including Jobseeker’s Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and its replacement Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support, Disability Living Allowance, Carer’s Allowance and Bereavement benefit. Of that, 6 per cent, or £2.1billion, goes to foreigners.

Under current rules, those given leave to enter or remain in the UK may be eligible for income-related benefits, including anyone granted refugee status, exceptional leave to enter or remain, or Humanitarian Protection.

EEA nationals with ‘worker status’ who have left their job but are looking for alternative work are eligible for income-related benefits.

Those who can demonstrate they are seeking work are eligible for Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Robert Oxley, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: ‘With billions at stake the proper controls need to be in place to prevent benefit tourism from swallowing up taxpayers’ money.

Taxpayers will rightly worry the rules designed to prevent benefit tourists are steadily being eroded by a meddlesome EU, leaving Britain to pick up a bigger welfare bill than it needs to.’

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. 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 January, 2012

A modern man or just a cowardly Italian?

Is Captain Schettino just the latest example of modern society's lost values? He was not alone in displaying ungallant behaviour

Theodore Dalrymple

Courage is a virtue and heroism is admirable, but do we have a right to demand them? Which of us cannot look back on his or her own life and remember decisions, or compromises made, or silences kept because of cowardice, even when the penalties for courage were negligible?

If we are cowardly in small things, shall we be brave in large? Have we the right to point the finger until we have been tested ourselves? When we read of the seemingly lamentable conduct of the captain of the Costa Concordia, Francesco Schettino, who left his passengers to their fate, do we say, "There but for the grace of God go I"?

I have witnessed some very fine instances of bravery. Once, as a junior doctor, I was walking through the hospital grounds when I noticed a patient sitting on a bench slashing his wrists with a broken bottle of vodka whose contents he had just drunk. I asked him to come into the hospital where I could sew him up (sobering him up was beyond my powers). He climbed up the fire escape and clambered over the railings on to a narrow ledge, on which he was swaying drunkenly. A porter and I went up the fire escape: the man threatened to jump if we came nearer.

We decided we had to make a grab for him; as we did so, he jumped. We held him suspended by his arms three storeys up. First he shouted, "Let me go, you bastards!" and then, "Help, I'm falling!" - a metaphor for the whole of human life, when you come to think of it.

By the luckiest chance, two policemen arrived at the hospital and rushed up the fire escape to our assistance. Without a moment's hesitation, they climbed on to the ledge themselves and hauled the man to safety. They brushed away my commendation, and even my thanks; in their own opinion, they had only done their duty, what they were expected, and expected themselves, to do.

I witnessed another instance of great bravery many years later, when times were changed. It was in the prison in which I worked as a doctor. A prisoner set fire to his mattress in his cell, and years of research by the British Home Office seemed to have gone into disproving the old saying that there is no smoke without fire, for the mattress produced the thickest, most acrid, black smoke that I have ever encountered, without much in the way of flame.

With no thought for his own safety, a prison officer entered the cell and pulled the prisoner to safety. As I sent the officer to hospital to be treated for possible smoke inhalation, I praised him highly and said I expected he would receive an official commendation.

He smiled pityingly at my naivety and said: "A reprimand more likely." And so it proved: he had not followed procedure, which was to leave it for the fire brigade.

A world in which a man can be reprimanded for bravely saving another's life is not propitious for the widespread practice of bravery. Virtues tend to disappear in the dissolving acid of rationality.

What might Captain Schettino say in his defence? Let us, for the sake of argument, leave aside the possibility that the whole disaster was an error of his seamanship, and suppose instead that it was what some people call "one of those things".

In a world used to the utilitarian Zeitgeist, he might say that if he had stayed on board and gone down with his ship, nobody who died would have been spared. We imagine a captain on his deck, as he slips under the waves, but this is quixotic romanticism if in fact no one is saved.

Can we be sure that if Captain Schettino had kept calm and carried on, fewer people would have died? Can it be wholly his fault if the crew were not properly trained and not even able to communicate with each other, let alone with all the passengers?

All this is special pleading, ex post facto rationalisation. Before the event, the captain accepted his own authority without difficulty or reservation. He was, however, tried and found wanting, perhaps for reasons partly cultural: not because he was Italian but because he was modern - that is to say, without an unthinking allegiance to a standard of conduct that in some circumstances might be, or might appear, ridiculous or counterproductive but in others is essential to the performance of difficult duty.

Hard cases make bad law and even worse sociology, though they are the stock in trade of philosophy, and there is no wickedness or weakness under the sun that is without precedent. Captain Schettino's story appears human, all too human: possibly a vainglorious man (but there are worse crimes than vainglory) who panicked at the one crucial moment of his career, and who will now spend the rest of his life in a state of bitter remorse and regret.

I hope it is not taken for lack of sympathy for the victims and their relations to say that, on the scale of human monstrosity, the captain does not climb very high. His place on the scale of human weakness is another matter.

As it happens, one of the great books of our literature, Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad, deals with a similar case. The hero, if that is quite the word for him, is mate on an old rust-bucket that is taking 800 Muslim pilgrims to Arabia. The boat sinks and Jim saves his skin, an act of cowardice for which he pays for the rest of his life. Marlow, the narrator of the story, describes his fate in words that resonate today:

"Nothing more awful than to watch a man who has been found out, not in a crime but in a more than criminal weakness. … from weakness that may lie hidden, watched or unwatched, prayed against or manfully scorned, repressed or maybe ignored more than half a lifetime, not one of us is safe."

SOURCE







Can You Say That On TV? The Supreme Court Debates the Use of Nudity and Profane Language On Broadcast Television As Justices Defend an Array of Positions On the Controversial Topic

In colorful give and take, the Supreme Court recently debated whether policing curse words and nudity on broadcast television makes sense in the cable era, one justice suggesting the policy is fast becoming moot as broadcast TV heads the way of "vinyl records and 8-track tapes."

The case involves programming that is available to all viewers free over the air — even though many now receive it through paid cable connections — during hours when children are likely to be watching. Some justices said they were troubled by inconsistent standards that allowed certain words and displays in some contexts but not in others.

One example frequently cited by the networks was the Federal Communications Commission's decision not to punish ABC for airing "Saving Private Ryan," with its strong language, while objecting to the same words when uttered by celebrities on live awards shows. Justice Elena Kagan said the FCC policy was, "Nobody can use dirty words or nudity except Steven Spielberg," director of the World War II movie.

Other justices seemed more open to maintaining the current rules because they allow parents to put their children in front of the television without having to worry they will be bombarded by vulgarity. Chief Justice John Roberts, the only member of the court with young children, hammered away at that point.

Roberts wondered why broadcasters would oppose FCC regulation, especially when cable and satellite service can offer hundreds of channels with few restrictions. "All we are asking for, what the government is asking for, is a few channels where ... they are not going to hear the S-word, the F-word, they are not going to see nudity," he said, an AP news release reports.

Justice Antonin Scalia placed himself on the side of the government. "These are public airwaves. The government is entitled to insist upon a certain modicum of decency. I'm not sure it even has to relate to juveniles, to tell you the truth," he said, according to the release.

But at least one justice, Samuel Alito, talked about how rapidly technological change has effectively consigned vinyl records and 8-tracks to the scrap heap, suggesting that in a rapidly changing universe, time will take care of the dispute. Already nearly nine of 10 households subscribe to cable or satellite television and viewers can switch among broadcast and other channels with a button on their remote controls, reports the news release by AP writer Mark Sherman.

"I'm sure your clients will continue to make billions of dollars on their programs which are transmitted by cable and by satellite and by Internet. But to the extent they are making money from people who are using rabbit ears, that is disappearing," Alito said.

The First Amendment case involves programming received by antennas on top of a television set, a house or building. Much of that programming now also is available through cable and satellite connections, but only the over-the-air transmissions are at issue.

The case pits the Obama Administration against the nation's television networks. The material at issue includes the isolated use of expletives as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue."

The broadcasters want the court to overturn a 1978 decision that upheld the FCC's authority to regulate radio and television content, at least during the hours when children are likely to be watching or listening. That includes the prime-time hours before 10 p.m.

At the very least, the networks say the FCC's current policy is too hard to figure out and penalizes the use of particular words in some instances but not in others.

The administration said that even with the explosion of entertainment options, broadcast programming remains dominant. It also needs to be kept as a dependable "safe haven" of milder programming, the administration said.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. said that if the court were to overrule its 33-year-old decision, "the risk of a race to the bottom is real."

But Carter Phillips, representing the networks in connection with the awards shows, said that little would change because broadcasters would remain sensitive to advertisers and viewers who don't want the airwaves filled with dirty words and nudity.

Phillips and former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, arguing on behalf of ABC, noted that broadcasters could face fines from thousands of pending complaints, including some relating to the broadcast of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. The opening ceremonies "included a statue very much like some of the statues that are here in this courtroom, that had bare breasts and buttocks," Waxman said, the release reports.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is not taking part in the case because she served on the appeals court during its consideration of some of the issues involved.

SOURCE






Dear Nanny

Peter Saunders

In England, where I live now, I let a house to a group of students. In 2004, the Blair Labour government passed a new Housing Act which, among other things, required landlords like me to install a hand basin in every bedroom, ‘where practicable.’ This clause is now operative, so just before Christmas, I met at the house with my tenants, a qualified plumber, and an inspector from the local Council to determine whether it was ‘practicable’ to install basins in the five bedrooms.

I admit I wasn’t much in favour of the idea; it is an expensive job and I have visions of drunken students heaving basins off the wall and flooding the whole house. My tenants didn’t like the idea either. They thought basins would take up valuable wall space that could be better occupied by desks, book cases or Che Guevara posters. The man from the Council thought the new rule was ridiculous, too, but his hands were tied. And my plumber had to admit that, with a soil pipe immediately outside two of the windows, it would be quite ‘practicable’ to install basins in two of the five bedrooms.

So we all agreed that in two of the five rooms, basins would have to be installed to comply with the Act, even though it made no sense to do so. The tenants promptly asked me to delay this ‘improvement’ until after they move out.

At the last election, the Tories promised to scrap all unnecessary red tape, so I wrote to my local Conservative MP and suggested that this particular provision of the 2004 Housing Act might be a good place to start. She forwarded my letter to the (Liberal Democrat) Minister responsible for such matters (the Tories are in coalition, remember, and all the boring jobs have been given to Lib Dems). He has just replied to me.

He tells me that the law requiring a hand basin in every room is necessary ‘to ensure that standards are decent.’ The implication seems to be that, unless we are tightly controlled, we avaricious landlords will condemn students to live ‘indecently’ (in my experience, many students manage this quite nicely with no prompting from me).

I have written back to the Minister asking why he thinks a politician in Westminster is a better judge than the landlord who owns the house, the tenants who live in it, and the local council that regulates it, to determine whether or not a bedroom requires a hand basin. I’ll let you know if I get an answer.

Meanwhile, on the same day that I received the Minister’s letter, I had an email from a certain Ben Plowdon, who tells me he is ‘Director of Surface Planning’ at something called ‘Transport for London’. I don’t know Ben, but he seems to know me, for he addresses me personally. He writes: ‘Dear Mr Saunders, I am writing to both drivers and cyclists reminding them to take care on London’s roads.’

I can’t remember the last time I drove or cycled in London. Nevertheless, I was so touched by Ben’s concern for my welfare that I decided to write back immediately:

Dear Mr Plowden,

Thank you for your email telling me to “take care on London’s roads.”

Up until now I did not realise it was necessary to take care when driving in London.

I will do my best to follow your advice in the future – just as soon as I have taught my grandmother to suck eggs.

Yours sincerely

Peter Saunders

PS How many GCSEs do you need to do your job?

SOURCE (GCSEs are a middle school qualification, well short of a degree)




Victimhood has its privileges

To Obama Justice, only underdogs of history are worthy of equal protection

The U.S. Justice Department is ever-vigilant against signs of “voter suppression” these days, most recently blocking - on the grounds that it would hurt blacks - a South Carolina law that would require voter identification. But the voting rights of some minorities, it appears, are more worth protecting than others.

The territory of Guam, for instance, has called for a plebiscite on the territory’s relationship with the United States that could provide momentum for an independence movement. But the only people allowed to vote will be citizens who were native inhabitants in the year 1950 and their descendants. The provision limits the franchise to a group made up overwhelmingly of indigenous Chamorro people and excludes nearly all whites, Filipinos and other racial and ethnic groups who have moved to the island in the past six decades.

When presented with a complaint in 2009 by a white resident, retired Air ForceMaj. Arnold Davis, the Justice Department declined to intervene. In response late last year, the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) and former Justice Department Attorney J. Christian Adams filed suit in Guam federal district court to block enforcement of the voter restriction.

“The Obama administration shows hypersensitivity to race in South Carolina,” Terence J. Pell, president of the CIR, told me last week. But in Guam, where a racial agenda permeates the politics of the island and government action points to intentional race discrimination, he says, “the Obama administration can’t be bothered to look into it.”

I agree with Mr. Pell’s assessment, with one caveat. In Guam, the issue isn’t race - it’s ethnicity. Blacks living on Guam will lose their voting rights just as surely as whites, Asians and non-native Pacific Islanders. The common impulse behind Obama administration policy is its proclivity for favoring what it deems to be historically victimized minorities.

Guam was colonized by the Spanish in 1668 and then ceded to the United States in 1898 after the Spanish-American war. Organized as a U.S. territory in 1950, the island was granted increasing rights of self-governance in succeeding years. Guamanians are U.S. citizens, and their island of 155,000 residents sends a nonvoting representative to Congress. The United States lavishes the island with hundreds of millions of dollars in transfer payments, but collects no taxes in return.

But Chamorros were never given the right to vote on the constitutional measures affecting them, and some still feel like victims of colonial oppression. One obsession is the continuing demand for reparations to compensate for the depredations committed by the Japanese during World War II. Apparently, some Chamorros resent the Americans for permitting the island to be conquered - never mind that it was the Americans who subsequently liberated it.

Chamorros nurse other grievances. They worry about the erosion of their cultural identity as the U.S. continues expanding its military presence on the island and outsiders swamp the natives. Leaders felt snubbed not long ago when a major congressional delegation stopped on Guam to refuel on the way to Asia without doing the courtesy of meeting with them, and again when President Obama did the same.

To borrow the anti-colonial rhetoric of the left, native Guamanians were despoiled by an imperialist United States and were powerless to stop their country from being overrun by outsiders who now outnumber them. Chamorros make up only 37 percent of the island’s population today. They are a minority, and they are victims. Therefore, the Obama Justice Department reflexively sides with them.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a measure that allowed only native Hawaiians to vote when electing trustees to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Reasoned the court: “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”

The Guamanian measure seeks to circumvent that ruling by making the voting restriction based on residency, not race or ethnicity. However, the measure clearly imposes what liberal legal theorists might term a “disparate impact.”

The Associated Press cites numbers showing that 30 percent of South Carolina’s registered voters are nonwhite, while 34 percent of voters lacking state-issued photo IDs are nonwhite. The Justice Department deemed that 4 percentage point difference jarring enough to warrant overturning the law.

The “disparate impact” of the Guamanian law would be immeasurably greater. Chamarros may make up 37 percent of the island’s population, but it is likely they would account for 95 percent or more of the electorate voting on the plebiscite.

Clearly, the Obama Justice Department applies the principle of proportionality only when it suits it. At some point, the rest of us have to say, “We’re sorry about what happened in the past, but get over it. We’re all American citizens now. We all have equal rights. End of story.”

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. 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 January, 2012

Racist Norwegian child protection authorities

Indian couple have children taken away by Norwegian social workers because they were feeding them by hand. Behaviour that is good enough for a billion Indians is not good enough for tiny Norway, apparently. There is a lot of authoritarianism in the Nordic countries

An Indian couple have had their children taken away by Norwegian social workers because they were feeding them with their hands and sleeping in the same bed as them.

Anurup and Sagarika Bhattacharya lost custody of their three-year-old son and one-year-old daughter eight months ago after authorities branded their behaviour inappropriate.

The drastic measure led to intervention from the Indian government who contacted Norwegian authorities in an a desperate attempt to return the children.

Norwegian Child Protection Services removed the youngsters from their home in May, 2011, leaving their parents horrified with the outcome of the report.

Father Anurup told Indian television channel NDTV: 'They told me ‘why are you sleeping with the children in the same bed?’. '(I told them) this is also a purely cultural issue. We never leave the children in another room and say goodnight to them.'

Anurup added: 'Feeding a child with the hand is normal in Indian tradition and when the mother is feeding with a spoon there could be phases when she was overfeeding the child. 'They said it was force feeding. These are basically cultural differences.'

Mrs Bhattacharya said: 'My son was sleeping with my husband. They said he should sleep separately from your son.'

The parents have been told that they can only see their children twice a year, for an hour during each visit until the kids turn 18 when they will no longer be bound by the current restrictions under current Norwegian law.

Despite the Indian government's intervention, Norwegian officials are refusing to meet the request for any further explanation.

Norway's Child Protective Service has come under much scrutiny in the past for excessive behaviour in their handling of child cruelty. Lawyer Svein Kjetil Lode Svendsen said: 'There has been a report in UN in 2005 which criticized Norway for taking too many children in public care. 'The amount was 12,500 children and Norway is a small country.'

With the Bhattacharyas' visas set to expire in March, they have revealed that they will be forced to stay against their will until the return of their infants.

SOURCE






Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism?

Appearing at Harvard University shortly before his death in 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. responded to an apparently hostile question from an audience member about Zionism, saying, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

Is this universally true? Does criticism of Zionism always equal anti-Semitism?

On the one hand, the answer is no, criticism of Zionism does not always equal anti-Semitism. There are Israeli Jews and American Jews who are critical of the modern State of Israel, and they can hardly be called anti-Semites (unless we are willing to brand all of them self-hating Jews). Similarly, there are Christians who love the Jewish people and believe that, in a unique way, God is with them, and yet take strong exception to many Israeli policies. They too can hardly be called anti-Semites.

On the other hand, it is quite often true that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same ugly coin, especially in the Muslim world. The recent comments of Mufti Muhammad Hussein, the religious leader of the Palestinian Authority, serve as a stark reminder of just how deeply anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are often intertwined.

In a speech celebrating the 47th anniversary of Fatah and aired on Palestinian Authority TV on January 9th, the Mufti cited a well-known Hadith (an Islamic tradition attributed to Muhammad): “The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: ‘Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’” (As reported by Palwatch.org, a July, 2011 poll sponsored by the Israel Project indicated that a staggering 73% of Palestinians “believe” this Hadith.)

These sentiments are enshrined in the Hamas charter, with Article 7 citing the identical anti-Semitic Hadith, prefaced by this comment: “Hamas has been looking forward to implementing Allah’s promise [to annihilate the Jews], whatever time it might take.”

In the Mufti’s speech, and in keeping with Islamic tradition, Hussein also stated that the only tree behind which a Jew will be able to hide himself is the Gharqad tree (since it will keep silent). “Therefore,” he explained, “it is no wonder that you see Gharqad [trees] surrounding the [Israeli] settlements and colonies.” (We can assume that the Mufti actually believes this.)

So, the hostility expressed towards the Israelis is simply the continuation of historic, Islamic anti-Semitism.

The moderator who introduced the Mufti stated (with passion) that, “Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs [meaning the Jews] is a war of religion and faith,” basing himself on another anti-Semitic tradition found in Islam, a tradition often cited by contemporary Muslim leaders.

For example, “in a weekly sermon in April 2002, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, [then] the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, called the Jews ‘the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs’,” while in 2001, “Saudi sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam and preacher at the Al-Haraam mosque – the most important mosque in Mecca – beseeched Allah to annihilate the Jews. He also urged the Arabs to give up peace initiatives with them because they are ‘the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.’”

Similar examples, from recent years and from past centuries, could easily be multiplied. In fact, the Nazis were able to exploit the Jew-hatred found in many Islamic traditions in forming a coalition with prominent leaders in the Arab world, the most important being the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. (Remember that this predates the reestablishment of Israel in 1948.)

This deep, historic hatred of the Jews continues to fuel anti-Zionism in the Muslim world today. And so, during the demonstrations in Egypt’s Tahrir Square in last year’s so-called Arab Spring, Yehudit Barsky noted that protestors brandished pictures of former President Hosni Mubarak with a Star of David on his forehead, invoking the “image of a conspiracy by Jews to control world leaders, including their own.”

The alleged conspiracy Barsky refers to is, of course, the notorious anti-Semitic forgery known as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” The book remains a perpetual bestseller in the Muslim world and has also been dramatized for Islamic viewers, most notably in the 41-part series titled “Horseman Without a Horse,” broadcast on Egyptian state television in 2002. In the final episodes of the series, “the Jews are portrayed as leading a conspiracy to form a Zionist state in Palestine while taking the lives of anyone who stands in the way. The series comes to a close with an inscription: ‘Who fights the occupation is not a terrorist’ and contains other thinly veiled political comment on the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Whole books could easily be written on this subject with almost endless examples cited, but the lesson should be clear: While not all anti-Zionism can be fairly equated with anti-Semitism, in the religious Muslim world, the two are deeply intertwined.

SOURCE




Shopkeeper in Britain upsets jobseekers by demanding Polish language skills

Shopkeeper Naveed Hassamin has infuriated jobseekers in Cornwall by turning away anyone who doesn't speak Polish. Mr Hassamin placed an advert in the window of Costcutter in Bodmin, Cornwall, stating that a "knowledge of Polish" was "preferable" for the position. But he has been forced to withdraw the advertisment after a string of complaints from unemployed local people desperate for work.

Paul Baynon, 23, a jobseeker from Bodmin, said: "They asked me if I spoke Polish, and when I said no, they said that is what they were looking for, so I didn't have a chance. "They didn't say in the ad that they wanted a translator."

Unemployed local Robert Mill, 27, said: "I would have liked the job at Costcutter because jobs are hard to come by in the town. "I enquired about the position but I can't speak Polish."

The supermarket has a Polish food section and sells the Poland Express newspaper.

Store manager Mr Hassam said he had a lot of Polish customers and required someone who could order the products for him.

The number of Polish migrant workers living in Bodmin - population 13,000 - is not known. But according to Cornwall Council's local education authority, there are currently only 23 primary and seven secondary school children attending schools in the area whose first language is Polish.

Mr Hassam said: "I have had complaints but the advert was not intended in a bad way, I have got rid of it now. "We have a lot of people from Poland coming into the shop and I wanted someone who could understand Polish so they could order products for me and read what they are because I can't read Polish.

"I didn't mean it to sound like we only wanted someone from Poland to get the job, it could have been someone from Britain who could speak Polish. "I just thought employing someone with a knowledge of Polish culture would mean we could provide them with a better service."

A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said: "An employer can say it needs someone who can speak a specific language to do a job if that is a genuine requirement, for example for a translator role. "This is lawful if the focus is on the skill needed to do the job, not the nationality of the person sought."

SOURCE





Moldovan squatters and a week that showed how good British citizens suffer while parasites flourish

For society to work, we need to believe that it is reasonably fair — not absolutely fair, because nothing is, but broadly decent in apportioning rewards and penalties.

Nothing does more to breed anger and disaffection among law-abiding British people than a belief that good citizens are exploited, while the bad ones flourish.

Whenever a householder is arrested by police for rough handling of a burglar, gypsy encampments defy eviction orders or an illegal immigrant is granted asylum; when school pupils receive absurdly inflated exam grades or an ambulance-chasing lawyer screws an insurance company for a client’s phoney whiplash injury, our trust is severely damaged.

Most of us instinctively want to believe in our politicians, judges, teachers, police, doctors. We would like to suppose that they know what they are doing, and act broadly in our interests.

But there are times when such faith is hard to sustain, and this week is one of them. We might start with the least serious, though nonetheless deplorable, case which has hit the media.

Janice Mason owns a house in Walthamstow, East London, which had been her childhood home and she was about to sell. She suddenly discovers that it is occupied by a family of Moldovan squatters — four adults and four children — who have changed the locks.

The police say they are powerless to intervene, because squatting is a civil, not a criminal matter. Mrs Mason therefore faces a huge bill for securing these people’s eviction.

Yet any of us can see the injustice of her being obliged to pay a penny to get back her own property. In a properly ordered society, the Moldovans would be summarily removed by the police as soon as it is plain they have no legal title.

Beyond that, since the squatters have breached the code of behaviour we should expect to be observed by all newcomers here, they should be marched smartly aboard a plane back to Moldova. However, nothing of the kind will happen, of course.

Mrs Mason will pay one set of lawyers to get her unwelcome interlopers removed, if she is lucky. Another set, who parade themselves as crusaders, will leap to the Moldovans’ defence, their fees paid by us.

Before long the squatters will probably be ensconced in a detached house in Kensington, living on benefits and sending their children to Eton.

The next case up is that of a 27-year-old Romanian woman named Firuta Vasile, to whom Bristol City Council denied housing benefits — she has already claimed £25,500 on other pretexts, and has four children aged from two to 11.

This week a judge overturned the council’s decision, saying that Ms Vasile must be given housing benefit, since she has established a status as a self-employed person, claiming to earn £100 a week selling the Big Issue.

Her lawyer, another of the multiplying plague culture of defenders of the oppressed, trumpeted outside court: ‘This is a victory for people struggling to work to support their families’.

What nonsense! British taxpayers ask: why do we pay out thousands of pounds of our hard-earned money to support a woman who should properly be claiming benefits from Bucharest City Council, not Bristol? Why did not the judge display the common sense of a gnat?

Then there is a matter of Victor Akulic. He is a 44-year-old Lithuanian who might reasonably be described as a career rapist, since he has served several terms of imprisonment for sexual offences back at home, before committing a further appalling sex attack here in 2010. A judge sentenced him to a minimum eight years of imprisonment, reduced in the Appeal Court this week to seven years.

Lady Justice Hallett inquired how it was possible for a man with Akulic’s record to stroll into Britain unchallenged. The answer is that since he has EU identity documents, he is free to travel from country to country, choosing where to commit his next atrocity from a lavish menu of choice.

The Appeal Court was told that Mr Akulic has applied to serve his sentence back home in Lithuania, closer to home comforts, so he may not be a burden on the British taxpayer for too long. This seems a trifle optimistic. It is more plausible that the Lithuanians will leave us stuck with him.

The last of this week’s cases is the gravest. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has upheld the appeal against deportation of Abu Qatada, a radical cleric who has been described as one of the most dangerous sponsors of terrorism in Europe.

The British government went to great lengths to secure from the Jordanian government — which wants to try Abu Qatada — formal assurances that he would not face torture.

The ECHR accepted these assurances, but nonetheless upheld the man’s appeal on the grounds that evidence obtained by torture might be used against him at his trial.

This wicked man, an unashamed jihadist, has already cost Britain £1 million in benefits, legal and jail costs. His wife and children are living in London at public expense.

Home Secretary Theresa May asserts that the Home Office will not let the matter rest there, but what can she do? Even if more hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent on further appeals, the ECHR has shown itself an impregnable bastion of folly, indifferent to the most conspicuous national security interests.

The ECHR predates and has nothing to do with the EU. The poor quality of its judges, some of them from Europe’s least reputable societies, is common knowledge among governments.

Britain has been lobbying to improve the quality of Strasbourg justice, and David Cameron proposes to make a speech on this theme soon at the Council of Europe. But it is hard to believe anything will improve within the present structure.

British justice, and the interests of British society, have suffered so much at the hands of the ECHR that there seems a powerful case — though massive legal and political obstacles — for severing our bonds to it.

The Court is largely discredited, and does us much more harm than good. Why should we indefinitely suffer its nonsenses, often damaging to our security, merely in the name of European solidarity?

Meanwhile, here at home, we are weary of hearing of abuses of both our national hospitality and laws.

A friend of mine served for several years as an interpreter at an immigration appeals tribunal. She eventually resigned in disgust, because she could no longer bear being party to systemic malpractice.

The case that triggered her departure was one in which a European woman carelessly told her: ‘I have two children but my lawyer says I must claim five, so I will get more money.’

As an interpreter, my friend was barred from revealing her knowledge of this remark to the tribunal, as it would have been a breach of client confidentiality. We, as citizens, are asked to swallow such betrayals almost daily.

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. 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 January, 2012

US Supreme court rules prayers at government events unconstitutional

The court is obviously still taking a very expansive view of what constitutes the establishment of a church

THE US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take on two cases in which lower courts ruled public prayers at government-sponsored events were unconstitutional.

The court rejected an appeal of a US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said the predominantly Christian prayers that began meetings of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners in North Carolina were unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment's prohibition on government endorsement of a single religion.

The justices also refused to weigh the merits of a US Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision that ruled the recitation of a religious invocation at a monthly school board meeting in the Indian River School District in Delaware was unconstitutional.

The decision to reject the appeals means both lower court rulings will stand.

The Supreme Court previously held in 1983 that legislative bodies, such as Congress and state legislatures, may open their sessions with prayers. But the court has not explicitly ruled on whether other government bodies may do so at public events.

The court rejected the appeals without comment Tuesday.

"I'm surprised and disappointed," Mike Johnson, who argued Forsyth County's case at the Supreme Court, told the Winston-Salem Journal. "We really were expecting that the court would want to take a look at the case. I think that this leaves a very important constitutional law issue essentially unresolved. We believe that sometime soon, the Supreme Court will have to hear one of these cases to resolve the issue."

Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said he agreed with Tuesday's decisions.

"One of the most basic rights guaranteed to all Americans is a government that does not pick sides on matters of religion," Mach said in a statement. "Government-sponsored sectarian prayer is needlessly divisive, and with the end of this case, religious liberty has prevailed."

SOURCE




The anachronism of public service broadcasting

In last week’s Spectator, Charles Moore bemoaned the dumbing down of BBC Radio 3. In this week’s issue, several letters to the editor make the same point. Now, you may dismiss this as the snobbery of classical music afficionados. Or you might agree that Radio 3 presenters are indeed ruining the listening experience by telling you how you should feel about particular pieces of music (e.g. “blown away”) and entreating you to to email, text or tweet about what you are hearing. Frankly, I’m too much of a musical moron to have an opinion on the subject.

What this story really highlights is the futility of compulsorily funded “public service broadcasting”. The point of public service broadcasting is, one would assume, to address some failure in the broadcast market – to produce and air content which benefits the public, and which would not otherwise be produced or aired by commercial players. But if you buy this market failure argument, you have to concede that ‘public service broadcasting’ is likely to be a fairly elitist project. The intention may be to bring high culture to the masses, but in reality you will probably end up subsidising the tastes of the relatively wealthy and well educated with a tax paid largely by those who have no interest in such things. This is clearly a rather perverse outcome.

On the other hand, if you “dumb-down”, if you chase market share with populist programming, then the rationale for compulsorily funded public service broadcasting disappears. By way of illustration, let’s look at tonight’s broadcast schedule for the BBC 3 TV channel.

At 7pm, we get Pop’s Greatest Dance Crazes, “a top 50 countdown of the hippest, sexiest, quirkiest and campest dance crazes of the last 40 years.” At 8pm, it’s Don’t Tell the Bride, a reality TV show in which a man gets £12,000 to arrange his wedding, but isn’t allowed any contact with his wife-to-be while he does it: “Four weeks apart will push their relationship to the limit.” At 9pm, it’s How Sex Works, which is a documentary about twenty-somethings who get around a bit. At 10pm, it is time for Eastenders (a miserable soap opera), followed by documentary Bizarre Crimes (self-explanatory), and a series of cartoons imported from the US. If you are lucky enough to still be awake at 4.25am, you get to watch Cherry Healey look for “essential truths amongst the tales of sex and debauchery to see if losing your virginity is about more than just having sex for the first time.”

Can anyone really argue that programming like that justifies forcing television-owners, on pain of imprisonment, to pay £145.50 a year to a government agency? It’s a rhetorical question.

Public service broadcasting is caught between a rock and a hard place. If it sticks to its ‘market failure’ remit it will appear elitist and lose public support. If it chases a larger market, it will undermine any reasonable case for public funding. Ultimately, public service broadcasting and the licence fee that sustains it are an anachronism – something which might (just) have been appropriate when we had two TV channels and limited broadcasting spectrum, but no longer make sense in a world of thousand-channel satellite television and high-speed internet streaming. With almost limitless choice available at the click of a button, we don’t need government to entertain us, inform us, or filter our cultural diets for us. Curiously enough, the way that technology has democratized the media means that democracy itself no longer has any valuable role in broadcasting. It’s time the BBC and the government realized that.

SOURCE





Church of England faces court battle by dressup queen who claims he was blocked from becoming a bishop



A gay senior clergyman who claims he was blocked from becoming a bishop has threatened to take the Church of England to court.
Church sources say the Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, believes he could sue officials under the Equality Act 2010, which bans discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. He has instructed a leading employment lawyer after being rejected for the role of Bishop of Southwark in 2010.

The dean is one of the most contentious figures in the church. In 2003 he was forced to step down as Bishop of Reading by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams after it became known that he was in a gay, though celibate, relationship. The furore fuelled a bitter civil war within the Anglican Church that has dominated Dr Williams’s decade in office.

The dean was again a cause of infighting in 2010 when he was a candidate for Bishop of Southwark.

A respected theologian and former canon at Southwark Cathedral, he had strong backing from senior Church liberals and it was said even David Cameron was supportive.

But the Crown Nominations Commission, whose members are responsible for selecting bishops and include Dr Williams, appointed another candidate.

Dr John was said to be furious and his supporters’ anger was stoked by a memo by another member of the commission, the late Dean of Southwark Colin Slee, claiming Dr Williams was one of those who tried to ‘wreck’ Dr John’s chances.

Dr John has instructed Alison Downie, partner and head of employment at London lawyers Goodman Derrick, to write to the Commission to suggest it risks breaching gay equality laws if it is blocking the dean over his homosexuality.

Ms Downie previously acted for a gay youth worker who successfully sued the Church in 2008 after the Bishop of Hereford Anthony Priddis refused him a job.

It is understood there has been a lengthy correspondence between Ms Downie and Church lawyers in an attempt to resolve the dispute. No legal action has been launched but it is thought Dr John has not ruled out the possibility, although one source said Dr John suggested he would drop his legal threat if he felt he would not be ruled out for future posts.

Church lawyers published new guidelines last summer which said that under the Equality Act, candidates cannot be barred from senior Church posts because they are gay as long as they do not have sex.

The guidance added that candidates could be blocked if they were regarded as divisive because their views or behaviour had angered a significant number of their flock.

Ms Downie refused to comment last night. A Church spokesman also refused to comment.

SOURCE




Catholic midwives challenge British ruling on abortions

Two Roman Catholic midwives are taking a health board to court for allegedly failing to recognise their conscientious objection to supervising staff involved in abortions.

Mary Doogan, 57, and Concepta Wood, 51, told NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde they were not prepared to delegate, supervise or support staff who were looking after patients through “the processes of medical termination of pregnancy”. Their position was rejected by officials and they hope to have the ruling set aside in a judicial review.

The women claim the refusal to recognise their entitlement to conscientious objection violates their rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

They say they “hold a religious belief that all human life is sacred from the moment of conception and that termination of pregnancy is a grave offence against human life”. Their involvement in the process would be wrongful and “an offence against God”.

Miss Doogan and Mrs Wood, both midwifery sisters at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, are seeking a ruling at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on their entitlement to conscientious objection under the 1967 Abortion Act. David Johnston QC, for the women, said the matter became an issue for the midwives, who were long-standing employees, in 2007.

They had both previously given notice of conscientious objection to any involvement in abortions and said they were not expected to participate in such treatment. But in 2007 the health board introduced changes that meant patients undergoing medical terminations were cared for in the labour ward, where the women worked. They were not expected to administer abortion-inducing drugs but management said requiring conscientious objectors to provide care for patients through a termination was lawful.

According to the court papers, Mrs Wood, of Clarkston, Glasgow, had to provide direct care to a patient undergoing the termination process, which caused her “considerable distress and anxiety” and resulted in her obtaining a transfer. Miss Doogan, of Garrowhill, Glasgow, has been absent from work through ill health since 2010 as a result of the dispute.

The hearing continues.

Last year, two Catholic nurses who had been told they could not refuse to work at an abortion clinic had the ruling dropped after claiming that the sanctity of unborn life was a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act 2010.

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. 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 January, 2012

All war has desecration

It is hypocritical to punish US soldiers filmed urinating on dead Taliban fighters



THE video that emerged in recent days appearing to show four US marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters has outraged many people in America. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defence Secretary Leon Panetta have condemned the act, the military has promised an inquiry, and some experts are even suggesting the act could qualify as a war crime.

Mainly, however, people seem simply to not understand it. Why would America's warriors - for that matter, why would anyone - urinate on a dead body?

I spent a year, off and on, with a platoon of US soldiers in the Korengal Valley of eastern Afghanistan. There was a lot of fighting, a lot of casualties and an enormous amount of stress on the men I was with. I never saw anyone do anything like this, but then again, I never saw any dead Taliban fighters; the enemy always recovered their casualties before we could get there.

Nevertheless, the things the soldiers shouted during combat were very revealing of the state of mind that war produces. (For the record, I'm sure the Taliban was screaming pretty much the same things about us.) At one point a Taliban fighter had his leg shot off during a firefight and was crawling around on the hillside, dying, and the men I was with cheered at the sight. That cheer deflated me. I liked these guys tremendously, but that celebration was just so ugly. I didn't want them to be like that.

Later, I asked one of them about it, and he explained that they had been happy because they were that much closer to all going home alive. They weren't cheering the enemy's death; they were cheering their own lives. That particular fighter would never again be able to kill an American soldier.

In a statement issued last Thursday, General James Amos, the marine corps commandant, said that "the behaviour depicted in the video is wholly inconsistent with the high standards of conduct and warrior ethos that we have demonstrated throughout our history."

Yet, I can't imagine that there was a time in human history when enemy dead were not desecrated. Achilles dragged Hector around the walls of Troy from the back of a chariot because he was so enraged by Hector's killing of his best friend.

Three milenniums later, Somali fighters dragged a US soldier through the streets of Mogadishu after shooting down a Black Hawk helicopter and killing 17 other Americans. During the frontier wars in the US, white Americans routinely scalped Indian fighters, and vice versa, well into the 1870s.

The US military should be held to a higher standard, certainly, but it is important to understand the context of the behaviour in the video. Clearly, the impulse to desecrate the enemy comes from a very dark and primal place in the human psyche. Once in a while, those impulses are going to break through.

There is another context for that behaviour, though - a more contemporary one. As a society, we may be disgusted by seeing US marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters, but we remain oddly unfazed by the fact that, presumably, those same marines just put .30 calibre rounds through the fighters' chests. American troops are not blind to this irony. They are very clear about the fact that society trains them to kill, orders them to kill and then baulks at anything that suggests they have dehumanised the enemy they have killed.

But, of course, they have dehumanised the enemy - otherwise they would have to face the enormous guilt and anguish of killing other human beings. Rather than demonstrating a callous disregard for the enemy, this awful incident might reveal something else: a desperate attempt by confused young men to convince themselves that they haven't just committed their first murder, that they have simply shot some coyotes in the bush.

It doesn't work, of course, but it gets them through the moment; it gets them through the rest of the patrol.

There is a final context for this act in which we are all responsible, all guilty. A 19-year-old marine has a very hard time reconciling the fact that it's OK to waterboard a live Taliban fighter but not OK to urinate on a dead one.

When the war on terror started, the marines in that video were probably nine or 10 years old. As children they heard adults - and political leaders - talk about their enemies in the most inhuman terms. The internet and the media are filled with self-important men and women referring to enemies as animals that deserve little legal or moral consideration. We have sent enemy fighters to countries such as Syria and Libya to be tortured by the very regimes that we have condemned for engaging in war crimes and torture. They have been tortured into confessing their crimes and then locked up indefinitely without trial because their confessions, achieved through torture, will not stand up in court.

For the past 10 years, American children have absorbed these moral contradictions, and now they are fighting US wars. The video doesn't surprise me, but it makes me incredibly sad; not just for them, but also for us. We will prosecute these men for desecrating the dead while maintaining that it is OK to torture the living.

I hope someone else knows how to explain that to our soldiers, because I don't have the faintest idea.

SOURCE





Amid the talk of Scottish independence, it’s now time to answer the English Question

The reawakening of national identity south of the border will have major consequences

During a relatively brief radio interview at the weekend, Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP deputy leader, used the phrase “the people of Scotland” at least a dozen times. You don’t have to listen for long to a US politician, from the president downwards, before you hear the words “the American people” uttered. Yet can you imagine a mainstream political discussion here in which the “people of England” are routinely invoked?

While others proudly assert their nationhood, Englishness is the identity that hardly dares to speak its name. As Richard Wyn Jones, professor of politics at Cardiff University and author of a report on Englishness to be published by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), said yesterday: “The British political class is very uncomfortable in dealing with England as England.”

However, this reticence is no longer sustainable in view of the debate about Scottish independence and the prospect of a break-up of the United Kingdom. As a couple of polls have shown recently, resentment is growing rapidly in England over what is perceived to be the special treatment of Scotland. In particular, the so‑called West Lothian Question has started to make itself felt, with more than 50 per cent of English voters of the view that Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote in the Commons on laws that affect only England.

This week, the Government is due to announce the membership of a constitutional commission to see how this anomaly can be addressed. In some ways, it feels a bit like a sideshow to the main event, the debate over the future of the Union. But since this process will either fracture the UK or, more likely, see Scotland remain within the structure but with enhanced powers, it cannot be ducked any longer.

It was in 1977, during the devolution debates in the Commons, that Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP for West Lothian, asked: “For how long will English constituencies and English honourable members tolerate honourable members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics, while they have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?” Enoch Powell, in the same debate, gave Mr Dalyell’s puzzle the status it now enjoys: “We have finally grasped what the Honourable Member for West Lothian is getting at,” he said. “Let us call it the West Lothian Question.”

To call something a “question” conjured up those great issues that once preoccupied parliamentarians, like Schleswig-Holstein or, more pertinently, the Irish Question. But this was never really the West Lothian Question – it is the English Question. How does England fit into the post-devolutionary settlement? This has been ignored, largely because the English have not indulged in an all‑consuming narrative about national identity as the Scots have done. Symbolism is important. Next week, for instance, the rituals of Burns Night will keep the nationalist flames alight. But where is the English equivalent, a Shakespeare feast of Lancashire hotpot or shepherd’s pie, followed by readings from the works of the Bard and accompanied by pints of bitter and glasses of mead? On March 1, St David’s Day, the Welsh will happily sport a daffodil, but if an Englishman turned up at work on April 23 wearing a red rose in his lapel it would be assumed he was on his way to a wedding, not celebrating his national day.

The English, by dint of their nation’s long history and its disproportionate size within the Union, have never felt it necessary to expend much, or any, political energy on matters of identity. Yet this has meant that many of its people have become estranged from the history, literature and symbols that are quintessentially English, as opposed to British. A poll in this newspaper several years ago found that a quarter did not know the date of St George’s Day, even when it was included in a list of options.

Moreover, while the Scots and the Welsh have never had any compunction about parading their nationalities while abroad, a significant proportion of people from England tended to describe themselves as British. But this is changing (and I write this as an Ulsterman brought up in England for whom the only available national identity is British).

More than 10 years after devolution, the IPPR report detects a fundamental shift in English attitudes and a politicisation of English identity that spreads far beyond fringe nationalist groups. How will this manifest itself in our institutions? Even if Scotland does not split away, pressure for an English parliament within a loose federation of four constituent states will become harder to resist. At the very least, a new system of debating English-only laws will have to be introduced, something that has so far been resisted for fear of stoking up anti-Union feeling in Scotland. That genie is now out of the bottle. The other option, that of regional devolution – a sort of balkanisation of England – was tried by Labour and shot down in the North-East referendum.

The irony is that devolution was supposed to halt the march to separatism. When he was prime minister, Gordon Brown sought to promote Britishness as a concept, in the expectation that it would bring the peoples of the United Kingdom together. Instead, there has been a resurgence of national identities. A new English iconography is developing, with the cross of St George – which became associated with the working-class populism of the far Right – much more in evidence. The heightened debate about Scotland’s future means that the time is coming for the people of England to have a say in their future as a nation. As Chesterton said, they have not spoken yet.

SOURCE





British bureaucrats' lavish spending reined in under the Tories

Civil servants have started to dine out at McDonald's and Burger King after a spending purge at a department run by Eric Pickles


Mr Pickles looks like he knows a thing or two about pickles

Officials at the Communities and Local Government department are using their Government credit cards to pay for meals at fast food restaurants rather than four star establishments, new spending figures show.

In 2010/11, officials spent £17.95 at McDonald’s, £23.60 at Nando’s and £11.48 at Burger King on their Government Procurement Cards. None of the restaurants appeared in GPC bills in any of the previous four years, according to a Parliamentary Answer.

Overall, spending on the cards by CLG officials fell from £515,000 in 2007/8 and £535,500 in 2008/9 to £210,000 in 2010/11.

A large proportion of the savings were in hotels, bars and restaurants. In 2007/8 and 2008/9 CLG officials spent around £120,000 a year on their cards in hotels. In the first year of the Coalition – 2010/11 – they spent just £18,000.

Similarly spending in restaurants and bars by CLG officials on their cards fell from £54,000 in 2007/8 to just £5,425 in 2010/11. In the first six months 2011/12 the figure was just £180.

Many of the restaurants which featured regularly in the GPC statements under Labour – such as the Cinnamon Club in Westminster – no longer appear in the GPC statements under the Coalition.

Thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money was also spent at a host of upmarket hotels such as the Hyatt in Philadelphia, the Grand Hotel Karel V in the Netherlands, the Grand Hyatt in Dubai and the Balmoral Hotel in Edinburgh before the last election.

Local Government Minister Grant Shapps said: “We are cracking down on the abuse of Government Procurement Cards, which saw Labour spend people’s hard-earned cash on lavish restaurants, hotels and even pampering at a spa.

“At DCLG we are embracing total transparency, putting as much data as possible into the hands of the people. Transparency saves taxpayers money and we urge local authority users of the cards to take similar steps to end this abuse.”

Some examples of profligate spending did get through however. Stays at Avon Gorge Hotel in Bristol and the Hyatt Regency in Birmingham were charged to the taxpayer on GPC cards under the Coalition.

Officials also spent £217.23 at MC Chauffeurs, a executive chauffeur driven car hire firm in Leeds, despite a ban by Prime Minister David Cameron on using official cars, in July 2010.

The department also organised an away day for “senior management” at the Boy Brigade in September 2010, costing £223.

SOURCE




British Liberal leader hits out at Israel

Israel doing 'immense damage' to peace process Nick Clegg says

Nick Clegg tilted Britain’s Middle East policy sharply towards the Palestinians on Monday with an attack on Israel’s settlement policies in the West Bank.

The Deputy Prime Minister drew a hostile reaction from Israel by saying the government’s continued construction on internationally recognised Palestinian land was “an act of deliberate vandalism” that undermined the basis of the Middle East peace process.

In some of the most critical language ever used by a senior European politician in government, Mr Clegg accused Israel of making the likelihood of a negotiated settlement to the conflict impossible to deliver. “It is an act of deliberate vandalism to the basic premise on which negotiations have taken place for years and years and years,” Mr Clegg said.

He said there was “no stronger supporter of Israel than myself as a beacon of democracy in the region”, but added: “The continued existence of illegal settlements risks making facts on the ground such that a two-state solution becomes unviable.

“That, in turn, will do nothing to safeguard the security of Israel itself or of Israeli citizens. That is why I condemn the continued illegal settlement activity in the strongest possible terms.”

He was speaking alongside Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, who is on a visit to London.

Mr Clegg’s comments reflect growing European impatience with the government Benjamin Netanyahu, the hawkish Israeli prime minister, who is seen by many Western officials as an obstacle to peace because of his refusal to freeze settlement building.

But while European and even American government officials regularly criticise Israel’s settlement policies, few have done so quite as bluntly, a fact that will strain the Government’s increasingly tense relations with Mr Netanyahu.

Israel reacted with predictable hostility, with a foreign ministry spokesman accusing Mr Clegg of “gratuitous bashing”. “It would be much better to contribute to peace by encouraging the fragile revival of Israeli-Palestinian talks,” the spokesman said.

Mr Abbas was delighted by so strong an endorsement of the Palestinian position. “That is exactly what we wanted to hear officially from the government of the United Kingdom,” he said.

Officials in Jerusalem say they now view Britain as one of the most hostile states to Israel in Europe, although the Government bowed to Israeli pressure by agreeing to abstain if a vote on Palestinian statehood was held in the UN Security Council.

The Palestinian Authority has refused to join peace talks with Israel unless Mr Netanyahu agrees to halt all settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, seen by the Palestinians as the capital of their future state.

With more than 600,000 settlers living on land occupied by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967, any further expansion of Jewish construction would make a Palestinian state unviable, Mr Abbas says.

Palestinians also claim that previous peace talks have led to an escalation of settlement construction as a result of Israeli leaders having to pacify the powerful Right-wing in the Jewish state.

David Cameron, who also met Mr Abbas in Downing Street yesterday, signalled his support for his deputy. “We think that time, in some ways, is running out for the two-state solution unless we can push forward now, because otherwise the facts on the ground will make it more and more difficult, which is why the settlement issue remains so important,” the Prime Minister 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. 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 January, 2012

An Alarming Trend Across the Continent

Last Thursday the emeritus Norwegian Labour politician Thorbjørn Jagland, now an apparatchik in the EU superstate, expressed his concern “that other countries, and not just Norway, will start to demand to govern themselves.” The horror!

Our Norwegian correspondent The Observer has kindly translated Mr. Jagland’s piece. The translator includes this note:

"Have a look at this op-ed authored by Thorbjørn Jagland, former Norwegian Labour Prime Minister, now current Secretary General of the Council of Europe and Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel committee. It was published a couple of days ago, and gives us an insight into the totalitarian mentality of diehard EU fanatics."

An excerpt from the translated op-ed from Nye Meninger:

In the current political climate in Europe he can expect the support of the nationalist right to break up not only the vast open European market which Norway is part of through our EEA membership, but also the euro and the entire EU cooperation.

This will be the starting point of a renationalizing process of politics in a wide range of areas, including human rights policies. Politicians would then be able to emulate the behavior of Prime Minister Orban in Hungary when he answered the critics of the new Hungarian constitution: “Nobody has the right to tell us which laws we adopt.”

Yes, we do. This is precisely why we built the new Europe after the war: the obligation and the right to interfere in each other’s internal affairs. European countries accepted the commitments stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights which requires us to do so. A court was even established in order that citizens could take their own countries to court. The European nations are collectively responsible for ensuring that the verdicts are upheld.

The single market of which Norway is a part through the EEA agreement, is an expression of the same: mutual rights and obligations.

I see an alarming trend across the continent at the moment: more and more people are talking about taking back the decision-making processes from the EU. Ørnhøi’s wish may come true, but perhaps not in the way he had intended, namely that other countries, and not just Norway, will start to demand to govern themselves.

In an age when Wilders, the True Finns and Le Pen’s daughter appear in the shadows, it’s simply too dangerous to jeopardize what is built through agreements and legislation.

SOURCE




Judge: NJ Church Illegally Banned Homosexual Ceremony

A New Jersey judge says the Methodist Church violated a state law in refusing to allow a same-sex ceremony on its property in 2007.

On Thursday, Administrative Law Judge Solomon Metzger said the decision made by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association violated New Jersey's discrimination laws.

Metzger ruled the pavilion area where the couple wanted to hold the ceremony is a public space and is advertised as a wedding venue without any religious pre-conditions. The church argued that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, an argument that the judge rejected.

Jim Campbell, the attorney representing the church, says they may appeal the decision. "The government should not be able to force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs," he said in a statement.

The plaintiffs in the case are not seeking monetary damages, and the judge did not impose any penalties when he made his ruling.

SOURCE




Straight Talk About Economic Inequality

Occupy Wall Street and dozens of offshoot groups have proven far more adept at moral theater than policymaking. Yet their operative assumption – economic inequality is reaching crisis proportions – has become the coin of a wider realm. Governments, beginning with our own, thus must “do something.” President Obama, for one, is listening – and acting.

Call it “class envy” or “a cry for justice,” but outrage toward the highly affluent, personified by the perfidious “1 percent,” is real, large and growing. This impulse, in nuanced tones, also can be found in respectable venues. While mass squatting in public spaces grabbed headlines last year, the more significant news for the long run may have been the release of various reports pointing to a widening gulf between rich and poor, both here and abroad. Advocates of redistribution have seized upon the findings as a justification for higher taxes upon a presumably insular plutocracy unwilling to part with its morally suspect gains. Without such action, they argue, the poor will continue to grow in number and desperation, while the middle class will continue to edge toward the precipice of poverty. Almost everyone, in the end, will revolt. In this neo-Marxist view, the rewards of global capitalism are not only uneven, but positively destabilizing.

“Inequality” can be defined in many ways. One of the most reliable and common measurement tools is the “Gini coefficient.” Named after early-20th century Italian statistician-sociologist Corrado Gini, author of the landmark paper, “Variability and Mutability,” the Gini coefficient, in an economic context, measures income distribution. A coefficient of “zero” represents a situation in which everybody has an identical income; “1” represents an opposite situation in which all income goes to one person. In the world of nations, the closer a country approaches “1,” the more likely its upper economic tier operates as an oligarchy.

Yes, it’s hypothetical. But like “perfect competition” and “Pareto optimality,” the Gini coefficient is a mental construct intended to summarize broad social tendencies, not achieve some ideal result. The problem, from a pro-market standpoint, lies not with the coefficient itself but with its interpretation. Egalitarians use it to call for extracting income from persons not needing it to persons who do. America apparently is in need of redistribution therapy.

Last May the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a consortium of nearly three dozen advanced nations founded in 1961 to promote social progress and free trade, released a widely publicized study, “Growing Income Inequality in OECD Countries: What Drives It and How Can Policy Tackle It?” From the mid 1980s until the onset of the current global financial crisis, noted the authors, real disposable household incomes in OECD nations (the U.S. being one) increased annually on average by 1.7 percent. But growth hasn’t been evenly distributed, say critics. Too many people are being left behind, a reality owing heavily to increased foreign direct investment in OECD countries and rapid adaptation of new technologies that render long-valued skills obsolete.

America is now beset with inequality, the study noted ruefully. Indeed, our Gini coefficient not only increased, it increased to nearly 0.35 by the late 2000s, becoming in the process the least equalized of all surveyed OECD-member nations, second only to Mexico, whose figure was 0.45. Among nations with rising inequality, the Scandinavian countries and the Czech Republic had the least disparities. France, Hungary and Belgium exhibited negligible change. If it’s any comfort to us, the only countries experiencing less inequality over time were Turkey and Greece, with Greece winding up by far the more equal of the two. As an aside, most Greeks these days don’t seem impressed....

The view that inequality in America is reaching crisis proportions, however, goes well beyond the White House. Many leading pundits take it as given. Rana Foroohar’s recent cover story for Time magazine (November 14, 2011), “What Ever Happened to Upward Mobility?,” opined, “(I)nequality is rising, now reaching levels not seen since the Gilded Age.” Atlantic magazine associate editor Max Fisher argued in September that without initiatives such as the Buffett rule, our latter-day robber barons might lead us toward oblivion.

These assumptions need to be challenged. Here, then, in abbreviated form, are several reasonable retorts.

First, affluent households didn’t get that way off the backs of others. “Income is not a zero-sum game,” notes economist Steven Kaplan of the University of Chicago. “Somebody else’s income does not come at your expense. It could…but in general these numbers don’t have automatic implications for the 99 percent.” In 2011, the number of millionaire households in the U.S. was 8.4 million, an 8 percent rise from the year before. Can anyone argue that this increase caused suffering among non-millionaires? By the logic of zero-sum economics, non-millionaires should have done very well in 2008, a year in which the millionaire population dropped by 27 percent. As we all know, it was a bad year across the board.

Second, the number of households in income quintiles for any given year will be identical, but the roster is constantly changing. Those in the top income brackets in 1979, or for that matter 1999, weren’t necessarily the people who were there in 2007. Let’s have a look at the millionaires so reviled by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. The Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation recently went over IRS tax returns for 1999 of 675,000 millionaire households and followed them on a year-by-year basis through 2007. Just one year later, in 2000, only 338,000 of these households had remained millionaires. And only 38,000, a mere 6 percent of the total, had retained their millionaire status for the entire period. Even more crucial were advances in upward mobility. The Tax Foundation study revealed that three-fifths of the households in the bottom quintile in 1999 had moved to a higher quintile by 2007. And about a third in that lowest quintile had moved to the middle quintile or higher. “The land of opportunity” remains more than a cliché.

Third, income is related to family structure. Non-elderly husband-wife families have higher incomes than other households, if for no other reason, than the fact that married couples have two potential full-time earners. But they constitute a progressively falling share of U.S. households. In 2010, they represented 48 percent of all households, down from 53.8 percent in 2000 and 56 percent in 1990. In constant (2009) dollars, the median income of married-couple families in 1990 was $63,469, rising to $71,627 in 2009. For female-headed households, no spouse present – which has accounted for about 30 percent of all households for the past two decades, but more than double from 1970 – the respective figures were a mere $26,937 and $29,770. Related to this, 40.7 percent of female-headed households in 2010 lived below the poverty line; for married couples the figure was 8.8 percent.

Fourth, immigrants, legal or otherwise, constituted 40 million of the nation’s population in 2010. That was up from 19.8 million in 1990 and 31.1 million in 2000. As a proportion of the total population, the respective figures for 1990, 2000, and 2010 were 7.9 percent, 11.1 percent and 12.9 percent. A little over half in 2010 consisted of Hispanics. Though not necessarily immigrants, Hispanics do serve as an effective proxy for research purposes when detailed ethnic breakdowns on immigration are not available. And the Hispanic population increased during 2000-10 by a whopping 43 percent, whereas the non-Hispanic population as a whole rose by about 5 percent. Moreover, Hispanic incomes in 2010 were only $37,759, well under the $54,620 for non-Hispanic whites. Putting these things together – rapid population growth and far lower incomes among Hispanics – an inconvenient truth comes out: Widening inequality is largely driven by an “inclusive” immigration policy. Don’t expect any presidential candidates, Democrat or Republican, however, to make this point.

Fifth, inasmuch as other countries, especially in Europe, have less income inequality than us, it is largely because their larger welfare state edifices rest heavily on high taxes and bank debt. Many European Union parliaments lately have passed, or are considering passing, tough austerity packages to avert pending disaster. Here is one disturbing indicator: EU nations have a composite 20 percent unemployment rate for persons under age 25. For Italy, Greece and Spain – each in deep financial crisis – the respective figures are roughly 28 percent, 38 percent and 45 percent. European investment advisor Patrick Young puts it this way: “The eurozone bailout fund is on the verge of running out of money as soon as one of those major economies such as Spain or Italy defaults.” Even governments that pursue economic equality, in other words, are coming to grasp its inherent limits. They have no other choice.

There are other arguments against aggressive equalization of incomes, such as the Census Bureau’s non-inclusion of in-kind benefits (e.g., Medicaid, housing vouchers, food stamps) as reportable income. The larger point is that economic equality, beyond a certain point, can be achieved only at a high cost. It’s true that a nation can’t afford to leave segments of its population behind. But way to inclusion, here or elsewhere, shouldn’t burden the most productive members of society with high taxes in order to cover the bills of those who can’t or won’t pay them. Inclusion instead ought to be achieved through such means as economic growth, low taxes, enforceable property rights, free flows of information and limited immigration. Liberty shouldn’t be expendable.

More HERE

The writer above is too polite to mention it but America has two very large minorities with very low average ability levels. Very few of them are capable of high achievement so will always weigh down America's overall performance economically. Jesus could well have been talking about blacks and Hispanics when he said: "The poor ye always have with you". The only really valid comparison would be between the populations of European ancestry in the various countries surveyed





Tory unreconstructed 'modernisers' want to go back to the future

This is like "Life on Mars" in reverse. A bunch of new Conservative MPs seem to have crashed their cars in 1998 and woken up in 2012. This 301 Group as it calls itself will apparently meet with David Cameron today at No 10 in order to impart an urgent message: the party needs to modernise its image. In order to do that, it must go beyond the old obsessions – Europe, immigration and "cuts" – in order to embrace the more fashionable themes of the environment, poverty and the benefits of the welfare state. What? Hello?

Where have these people been for the past two years? Has nobody told them that immigration was the number one issue on the doorstep in the last general election – and that putting it at the top of your priorities does not require being a bigot? Or that it is now the economy which is at the top of the list of ordinary voters worries – and that they are overwhelmingly persuaded of the need for spending cuts as a way of dealing with the present crisis? Are they aware that "the environment" (which is to say, global warming) is electoral death as an electoral issue: that even if voters are not positively scepticial about climate change itself, they are furiously resistant to the idea of green taxes and put environmental issues way back in the queue of their concerns?

On the matter of poverty, have they taken in the fact that Iain Duncan Smith has inaugurated a whole new Conservative approach which involves a far deeper understanding of its causes – among them being welfare dependency and the breakdown of the family – as well as a more compassionate view of the plight of the poor? Good grief. What are these people thinking? Do they not realise that the glossy and superficial image obsession of the Tory modernisers was what made the party seem shallow and opportunistic, and effectively cost the Conservatives the majority they should have won at the last general election?

I do hope that the meeting today goes well and that Mr Cameron treats this delegation from the past with the kindness that deranged people require.

SOURCE





Easily offended? You really should be

A Jewish writer thinks Jews have something to learn from Muslims

Why is antisemitism so popular and prevalent all over the world? Why does it continue, unchecked despite the horrors of 70 years ago? People who care about the fate of the Jews are always searching for subtle, indefinable reasons to explain the continuing intensity of anti-Jewish hostility and hatred. The answer is far from mysterious.

As a matter of fact, the truth is so obvious that you'd have to be brainless not to see it.

My honest view is that as Jews we do little if anything to fight back against such prejudice. It seems to me that everyone knows that whatever the crime committed against a Jew, the only price you'll pay will be that of the ride to the crime scene and back. Then, instead of blaming the criminals, Jews will get involved in an orgy of self-reproach and guilt. And after blaming themselves, they'll start blaming each other.

Somebody will be screaming: "It's your own fault. Why would you be walking in that neighbourhood at two in the morning?". The other one will argue: "Why would I think they would recognise that I am Jewish?" and another voice will yell: "At least you could've been smart enough to wear trainers."

If people really thought that Jews could represent any kind of risk, they would cower before expressing hostility

Then somebody says: "Let's report this to the police," while somebody else is saying: "Are you crazy? What if they find out we reported it? Do you want to get us all killed? Right now they don't know who we are. Let's just get out of the neighbourhood".

It's because antisemites are aware that these are the typical reactions of Jews to any violence committed against them that they feel free to launch their attacks whenever they please. Is it any accident that in Britain and Europe you hear about a rising tide of anti-Jewish attacks, but you rarely hear about the same thing against Muslims? (I know that even right now, you the reader are trembling in fear of what I might write about the Muslims.) And the sad truth about Israel is that its very existence serves as either a cloak or a spur for such bigotry.

While I defend anyone's right to censure the Israeli government, the fact is that too often such criticism is either a coded means of attacking Jews or it has the unintended consequence of feeding and encouraging antisemitism.

Take the former MP for Birmingham Ladywood, Clare Short, who has attacked Israel as the main cause of violence in the world, when it is obvious that for her and her like the only real crime is that the country still exists - something she seems to consider an offense to human decency.

What right do Israelis have to try to live in peace with the Arabs and constantly thwart every attempt of the Palestinian suicide bombers to annihilate their whole population, she seemed to ask? Ms Short claims that the Jews in Israel practice an even more egregious form of apartheid than that which existed in South Africa. Why does she and others call it "apartheid", when every Arab has equal access in every school, to every job, every health-care service and every unemployment benefit? When Arab citizens even hold office in the Israeli parliament and in every other branch of the Israeli government?

Are these people so ignorant that they don't know that none of these opportunities would be granted to any Jew living in an Arab nation? Besides, how would a Jew be able to achieve any of these same opportunities in Arab countries when, in most cases, it wouldn't even be safe for them to live there?

When they attack Israel in such unbalanced, irrational and extreme terms, they simply give licence to thousands of antisemites to peddle the kind of bigotry and hatred from which Jews have suffered for so many hundreds of years.

But these people are likely aware, as are antisemites all over the world, that you suffer few consequences by attacking Jews, particularly if you do so under the cover of attacking Israel.

If people really thought that Jews could represent any kind of risk, they would cower before expressing such hostility, as I believe they now do with Muslims. When was the last time that an Englishman made a hateful speech against Muslims? Not that I'd approve of that. On the contrary - but it seems to me that people are so fearful of Muslims that there are afraid to even say "hello" without apologising. British and American people are now begging forgiveness from Muslims for things they don't even remember doing.

And don't get me started on George Galloway, who makes Clare Short look like Simon Wiesenthal. Mr Galloway is yet another person who attacks Israel while making nice with terrorists, dictators and some of the most vicious antisemites on the planet.

The point is this: when you criticise an Israeli administration, you express views (rightly or wrongly) about the policies of a particular party or group of politicians. When you attack Israel, you express hostility towards an entire population, a nation whose founding and continuing purpose is to provide sanctuary to one of the most oppressed peoples in the history of mankind.

Of course, if you don't think they should be given such sanctuary, then that's another matter - but bear in mind that you'll find yourself in the good company of a host of despots and tyrants.

Hostility to Israel is often used as a blanket prejudice, a blunt instrument with which to attack Jews in place of any reasoned criticism of the Israeli government, which - just like any other government - cannot be exempt from censure or disapproval.

However, such bigotry is far from new. Take one of my country's former presidents, Harry Truman, in the White House at the time of Israel's independence. Jews still wax lyrical about his love for the Jewish people. Whenever two Jews get together and mention Truman, out comes the story of his Jewish business partner, Eddie Jacobson. What they forget is that Truman actually found Jews distasteful and treated his partner with utter disdain. This is evidenced not least when Mr Jacobson pleaded with his former associate, by now the US President, to recognise the state of Israel. Truman's reaction does not bear repeating on the pages of a family newspaper.

As reprehensible, if not worse, was another recent president - Franklin D Roosevelt. At the height of Hitler's atrocities many Jews died needlessly because Roosevelt ignored their plight and, in some cases, even helped Hitler along by refusing to open up US borders, thus sending thousands back to their deaths in the camps.

Was this born out of antisemitism? Or plain indifference? In the end, is there any distinction?

And just the other day the US Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, came awfully close to finding antisemitism excusable in some circumstances. Calling modern Muslim hatred of Jews a "different phenomenon" from other kinds of antisemitism, he declared: "It is a tension and perhaps hatred largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian territories and neighbouring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem."

And this coming from the son of a Holocaust survivor.

But of course, instead of firing him, President Obama remained mute. And as a result, whether by design or just by plain stupid omission, my president has given a quiet thumbs up the idea that it is "OK to dislike Israel".

Unfortunately, as America goes, so goes the world. But sadly, as the Haggadah says, "in every generation one rises up to destroy us".

Unlike Britain's Jewish community, which spends much of its time trying to blend into the background, many self-proclaimed Muslim leaders spend time demanding respect. We dare not paint the wrong cartoon, sing the wrong song, write the wrong book, look the wrong way, or even laugh without an explanation.

The Jewish people will never survive if we don't learn a great lesson from the power of the Muslim population.

If this world had the same fear of offending Jews as it has of offending Muslims, attacks on the Jews would never occur. Outside Israel, people never feel threatened when attacking a Jew, because he's a little guy with glasses carrying a briefcase who, in case of an attack, will pull out a fountain pen rather than a gun. He won't be ready to shoot the attacker; he'll be busy looking for a piece of paper to write his name down.

"The attacker" always knows that when his victim is a Jew, he won't get hit or hurt. The Jew won't fight. He'll cry, beg, scream or run. The attacker knows he can't lose life or limb because the victim can't fight; he's only preparing to sue.

As I said, this applies to the Jews outside of Israel. If we in the Diaspora continue to follow this pattern of traditional helplessness, instead of emulating the Israelis, who are ready to fight and survive at any price, we will continue to be hounded by antisemitism for the rest of our lives.

We must stand up and be counted, we must show how proud we are to identify with a people surrounded by nations who are committed to their destruction. Even if it infuriates the Claire Shorts, George Galloways and Howard Gutmans of the world.

It invariably takes more courage to stand up against prejudice that than to join in with it, but is it too much to ask that our leaders display such courage from time to time?

And by the way, in case you think that- despite everything I'm saying - the battle has been won and that we no longer need Israel to fulfil its historic purpose, take a look at what is happening in Hungary right now.

Respected public figures- newspaper editors and journalists, judges, political commentators, human rights campaigners (a number of them Jews) - are being removed in favour of members belonging to the ruling, extreme right-wing party. Only last week Istvan Marta, director of Hungary's National Theatre, was forced out by the government and told he would be replaced by an actor who recently campaigned for the right-wing extremist, antisemitic Jobbik Party and by a playwright who is a professed antisemite.

If that doesn't sound horribly familiar and frighten the hell out of you, it should.

But in spite of all that, consider this: if the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.

His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are also very out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers.

He has made a marvellous fight in this world in all ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him.

He could be vain of himself and be excused for it. The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendour, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.

The Jew saw them all, survived them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert but aggressive mind.

All things are mortal but the Jews; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

Good question. And no, those aren't my words. They were written in 1897, by another American, the great Mark Twain.

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. 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 January, 2012

South Africa as a harbinger of things to come

In South Africa the cliché, “truth is stranger than fiction”, is heard almost every day. More recently, the country has become so bizarre in its zealous pursuit of multiculturalism and affirmative action that some days one feels as if this must be another planet where normal terrestrial principles no longer apply.

As everyone knows, South Africa is the most Western and European country in Africa. The other day I was walking through the military museum in Johannesburg where tanks, cannons and aeroplanes are lovingly preserved, even German ones belonging to our former enemy in two world wars. South African military aircraft from the First World War onwards used to have the old Dutch “Prince flag” on the tail, the orange white and blue banner brought here by the father of our nation, the Dutchman Jan van Riebeeck who arrived on 6 April 1652.

We Afrikaners have therefore been living in this country as long as the Americans have in America. Like Americans, albeit on a smaller scale, we have been involved in European affairs and wars for hundreds of years. Until 1994, as the famous Harvard political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington, also observed, we imagined ourselves being “part of the West”.

Next to the war museum is an imposing sandstone memorial built by the British for their dead during the Anglo-Boer war of 1899-1902, causing a young man in our company to remark: “This could have been in Europe! It reminds me of the Brandenburg Gate.”

However, the coming to power of the ANC in our country has changed all that. We have one of the most anti-Western governments in the world, consistently voting with China, Africa and the Arab countries at the UN. Not only that, but people of European descent like Afrikaners or the English South Africans have been legally and otherwise defined as foreigners in their own country.

Whereas non-Western minorities in Europe or North America enjoy special privileges, protection and subsidies from taxpayers, exactly the converse applies in South Africa. We, the Western minority in our formerly Western country with its European architecture, laws and system of government, are being punished for not being truly African, really black. In the Orwellian terminology of the new government, we are the “non-designated group”. Designated people are blacks, coloureds (of mixed race) and Indians.

The myriad laws that place restrictions on whites represent the culmination of American affirmative action, which is also being applied in some European countries such as Britain and France. The difference is that whites are still the majority in most of the Western world. So the injustice of these affirmative-action laws - or “positive discrimination” as the French call it – only affect a minority of whites, unlike here where all whites have to bear it.

Many people in the world today wonder what it will be like for Europeans to become minorities in their own countries, given present demographic patterns. Recently in Japan more nappies were sold for the elderly than for babies and that day surely cannot be far off in Germany, Italy and many other European societies where the indigenous populations are set to age and decline.

South Africa today represents a laboratory for a future world, predicted by UN demographers, in which whites will find themselves in the minority in most countries. That future planet in which Africans will number two billion and Europeans less than 500 000 will come soon, in about 30 to 40 years.

For one thing, it will be world of racial quotas, as in South Africa. Sports teams will only be allowed to have a small percentage of whites. Places at university will be limited for whites and there will be “racial verification” to make sure that people do not lie about their race when applying for university or for jobs in both the government and the corporate sector.

I predict this because a few weeks ago a student who had gained admission to the medical school of Stellenbosch University lost her place after it was ascertained that she was white and had mistakenly crossed the box for “coloured”. The Stellenbosch medical school reserves only 30% of all places for whites; the rest must go to the “designated groups”. The town of Stellenbosch was founded by our forebears in the seventeenth century and the university dates from the nineteenth. The university there was built, developed and funded by Afrikaners through their taxes and private donations. And yet today the children and grandchildren of Afrikaners are not allowed to study there or study there in large numbers, simply because they are of European descent.

Does that not seem like the ultimate irony? Or the grossest form of injustice, far grosser than, say, segregation as it existed in the American South or in many parts of British-colonial Africa including, of course, South Africa? After all, to study at a segregated university, as many blacks had to do in apartheid South Africa, was something of an insult, a kind of psychological wounding. On the other hand, to this day many American blacks prefer to study on their own at so-called “black colleges”.

At least the segregated student is still allowed to study. But under a system of affirmative action or racial preferences, such as exists in South Africa, many members of the white minority are excluded from education because the black majority must dominate in all fields, regardless of its talent, its performance or its merits.

South Africa is also the most violent peace-time country on earth. Seventy percent of all women are raped in their lifetimes. The murder rate is about 50 times that of Germany. In some parts of the country, such as downtown Johannesburg, the murder rate is 500 times that of Germany! It is routine to encounter people who have been attacked or have relatives who have been murdered, often in the cruellest manner possible. Children, even babies or toddlers are not spared, such as the two-year old Willemien Potgieter who was picked up by her hair, almost like a doll, and shot point-blank in the head by a black man. Her parents too were massacred in the town of Lindley, in the Free State.

Sometimes the media carry stories about such incidents, but generally they are likened to natural disasters that “simply happen”. And then life goes on.

South Africa is also extremely corrupt. According to a recent international survey, 56% of people who encountered state officials last year had to pay a bribe. The effects of corruption and government profligacy can be seen in clubs and bars, in luxury shops and on the streets of Johannesburg where tens of thousands of South African blacks parade their large, expensive German cars, supplied by Mercedes-Benz and BMW. Normally these cars are black too, as if there is some secret quota for car paint, as there exists elsewhere in society.

The burden of all this falls mainly on the white middle-class who strain under the costs of their security, education and high taxes meant to finance the ostentatious lifestyle of the ruling class.

Growing accustomed to the “new South Africa” is hard. If ever our system had to be extended world-wide, as seems likely to happen, we would have to talk about “a new earth”, a radically new planet where Europeans would have become a dwindling minority suffering discrimination and calumny, as well as random violent attacks.

SOURCE






The Lords are the only decent politicians left in Britain



It’s always a poor day for politics when the House of Lords becomes not simply the nation’s second Chamber but its conscience, as it did with the Welfare Reform Bill this week. Does it take being ennobled and stuck in an anachronistic institution to be able to speak up for the very poorest and sickest among us?

Anyone who had glibly assumed that Cameron’s own family experience of disability may make his Government less keen to cut the benefits of those who really can’t work was wrong. His experience is of profound disability, not profound poverty.

As the Bill unravels, few deny the need for reform or cutting the deficit. What we cannot stomach is picking on the ill or dying. Is a child born with multiple disabilities, never able to work or pay National Insurance, a ‘something for nothing’ scrounger? Should those with a terminal diagnosis have to worry if they have enough money to get through the week? This is the cruel reality of what was proposed.

Classifying all those on benefits as workshy semi-criminals will not wash, if we get back to basics. We care for the weakest out of decency, not statist ideology. Cuts to the Disability Living Allowance mean the disabled and their families living on less money, and continual assessments.

Lord Patel put it forcefully in the debate: ‘I am sympathetic to cutting the deficit, but I am highly sympathetic to sick and vulnerable people not being subject to something that will make their lives more miserable.’

What does he know? Aren’t the Lords just a bunch of inbred toffs?

Actually, I have had to reassess my view. Lord Patel is an expert on the rights of the disabled. The British-Tanzanian son of Indian immigrants, he is an obstetrician who has specialised in high-risk pregnancies, foetal-growth retardation and standards in health and clinical provision. He may indeed know a thing or two in a way the average supine MP doesn’t.

Indeed, I’ve been impressed the last few times I’ve been to the Lords. Yes, there are elderly hereditaries and pompous bishops – but also people with all types of expertise who would never have been MPs.

As the political class narrows to comprise privileged clones who have done nothing but PR, law or media, we need a Lords full of those who have lived differently. If political success is won only by thrusting, photogenic youthful people with perfect families, we are all poorer for it.

SOURCE






Another hate-filled Muslim in Britain

Ed Miliband's professional look-alike has been suspended from the Labour Party after allegedly sending offensive messages on Twitter. Police are investigating claims that Shereef Abdallah sent death threats and racist comments to two young women – one of whom is Jewish.

At one point he was sending up to 90 tweets a day. At first the women responded, but as the replies became more threatening they stopped. If the victims tried to block the tweets, Mr Abdallah is said to have simply varied his Twitter address.

When one of the women, who runs a blog called Julie's Think Tank, expressed support for Tony Blair, he tweeted: 'Your nightmare is just starting... it will only get worse for you every day 24/7 till you leave twitter... Zionists can't save you... Racist Tory anti-Islamic scum.'

The blogger, who asked for her full name not to be published, became even more concerned when Mr Abdallah turned up at her university in London.

Other messages to the two women in the past three months included: 'I am in a war to the death. Stay well clear for your own safety,' and 'It will be the worst year of your life. C U in first week in January. I can't wait to see the fear in your eyes.'

The matter was reported to the police after a former Labour Party press officer, who complained about the remarks, is also said to have been threatened.

The affair is particularly embarrassing for Labour as Mr Abdallah spent several weeks as a volunteer in the office of senior MP Glenda Jackson, canvassing voters and distributing leaflets in her Hampstead and Kilburn constituency during the General Election. The double Oscar-winning former actress narrowly held on to the seat.

With his dark, slicked-back hair and large, staring eyes, Mr Abdallah, 37, looks so similar to the embattled Opposition leader that he is on the books of an agency that provides impersonators for parties and corporate events.

Ms Jackson's constituency office manager, Rebecca Henney, said: 'Mr Abdallah was one of a multitude of volunteers who worked for us during the Election campaign. He was in the office for two or three weeks on a semi-regular basis. 'He displayed none of these tendencies while working for Glenda. If anything, he was slightly shy. This has come as a complete surprise.'

A Labour Party spokesman said Mr Abdallah's membership had been suspended with immediate effect.

Mr Abdallah, who lives in North London, said his remarks had been taken out of context and that he had been provoked by comments, aimed at him, that he found offensive. But he did admit using the phrase 'racist Tory anti-Islamic scum'. He said: 'If you take it in isolation, I accept that it looks very, very bad.'

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the probation union Napo, which is campaigning for a tightening of the law on stalking, said: 'Stalking is a serious crime – it can take lives. These and many other victims in the recent past have received direct threats of violence through the social media.

'Social media providers must take steps to block offensive or threatening emails or tweets and the police must act against alleged perpetrators in the light of the evidence.'

A Scotland Yard spokesman said last night: 'Officers in Camden are investigating malicious communications following anti-Semitic comments being placed on Twitter. The alleged victim was targeted in a series of tweets and there were several threatening messages between November 2011 and January 2012. 'Officers believe there could be further victims.'

SOURCE






The improbable mystique of the Army

Héloïse Goodley thought she had a dream job when she started work as a City banker. But at the age of just 27, she traded it in for four-minute meals, ironing her own bed and singing in Nepalese – all part of British Army officer training at Sandhurst. Here, the first woman to write about life at the world-famous military academy reveals some of the bizarre practices she encountered there...

The training at Sandhurst is particularly demanding but, like all military training, is designed to build toughness, esprit de corps and other militarily-important attributes -- attributes which are generally advantageous in civilian life too



There was a deathly silence while my father pulled himself together. He is of the generation where people joined a company for life. My mother, ever savvy and in touch with today’s youth, was worried I was a lesbian (I’m not). Until now, I had still kept the whole process a secret, unconvinced that I’d actually make such a radical career leap, but I couldn’t conceal it any longer. I had to tell them. At the age of 27, I was throwing away a perfectly respectable City career. To enlist.

I had managed to go through life in the right order. I worked hard at school, went to university, where after three years of avoiding responsibility, I graduated and took a job at a bank in the City that paid well and made my parents proud.

I bought sharp suits, wore power heels, sat finance exams and spent two hours of my day at the clemency of London Transport, commuting to a desk at HSBC in the shiny glass and chrome of Canary Wharf.

I went along with it for a while, squandering my enviable wage in bars and clubs on the Kings Road, soaking up the bright lights of London with little to show for it.

But it was soul-destroying. The coveted job? It turned out I didn’t want it. Sitting on the train, I scrolled through my BlackBerry and looked for Life Plan B.

I found it at dinner, sitting next to some ghastly hedge-fund manager braying about his assets. He wasn’t the only contemptible idiot at the table; I was surrounded by them. Their pallid, lifeless faces, overworked, bloodshot eyes and thinning hair revealed that their bodies as well as their personalities were destroyed by their jobs.

But there was another dinner guest that night who didn’t fit in either. He was fresh, bright-eyed and energetic, entertaining us with stories of his life in the military, in Kenya, Brecon and Basra. He relished what he did and I was envious. Very envious. As he talked on, he leaned towards me and casually tapped my knee.

‘Héloïse,’ he said with a cheeky grin, ‘you should join the Army.’ The die was cast.

It was January 2007 when I joined the commissioning course at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, immodestly described as ‘the finest command and leadership training in the world’.

One month earlier, I’d attended a familiarisation visit. An opportunity for me to experience Army food, scratchy blankets and unnecessary shouting, be measured for the uniform and collect a new pair of military black leather boots to wear in. When I came back a month later to start the course, my feet would already be blistered and raw. Big, heavy, clumpy, boots. We were shown like four-year-olds how to lace them up (there is a specific technique to reduce pressure and injury).

The favoured way to break them in is to protect your feet with medical tape. Then there are those who try to soften the leather by standing in the bath or use leather conditioner, dubbin, or urine. If the whole process is simply too painful, we were told, there is always the Navy, where they wear shoes.

The visit concluded with a question-and-answer session about what to expect at Sandhurst, including lots of helpful little tips like ‘bring lots of sports bras’ and featuring my favourite question of all time from a fellow recruit: ‘Can I bring my horse?’ The answer to which was an even more surprising ‘Yes’.

Along with new boots, I had been given an extensive packing list. The longest section came under the heading ‘Cleaning Kit’ and included: Flash, Cif, J Cloths, Brillo pads, furniture polish, dusters, glass cleaner, Duraglit, Brasso, a silver-cleaning cloth, brushes, cloths, black shoe polish (plain and parade gloss), brown shoe polish, tan shoe polish, an ironing board and a good-quality steam iron. The hairnets, hairpins, grips, plain slides, black elastics, strong hair spray and hair wax didn’t fill me with joy either.

‘Get on parade!’ It was shortly after 5am, ‘death o’clock’, and echoing voices could be heard shouting urgently. I shuffled into slippers and dressing gown, drifting into the stark fluorescent lighting to line up alphabetically for the ‘water parade’, a morning ritual.

It entailed singing the National Anthem before each drinking a litre of water so that later, on parade, we would be bursting for the loo. If ever there was a lesson in self-control, that was it.

We were also required to learn all six verses of the British National Anthem and those too of our foreign cadets. (Nepalese before breakfast is especially demanding).

Then we were dismissed to shower, dress and race to breakfast. In four minutes we had to consume as many calories as possible to sustain us through a morning of standing to attention in the freezing cold.

More than 800 cadets a year walk up Old College steps to assemble for the commissioning course, which is split annually into three intakes. I was one of 32 girls who started that winter, a motley collection of graduates, some school-leavers, serving soldiers, two foreign cadets and me.

From plump to petite, wealthy to working class. Almost a foot separated the tallest and shortest among us. Some could run the mile-and-a-half Army fitness test in eight minutes; others took more than 12.

The umbilical cord with my old life was cut; my midwife for the traumatic process was a female staff sergeant, the pugnacious Staff Sergeant Cox.

Although not tall, SSgt Cox more than compensated with a powerful punch and terrifying pitch in her raised voice. It could make hounds whimper. Her uniform was pristine. A career surrounded by men had sharpened her tongue to a razor.

Her first repressive rules were bans on chocolate and mobile phones. Morale plummeted.

The first five weeks mimic the basic training undergone by the thousands recruited into ordinary soldier ranks (except they endure 14 weeks of hell). It involved a draconian regime of continuous harassment, borstal-like practices and hours of toil: cleaning, ironing, scrubbing and polishing.

My femininity was stripped away, as my tailored suit was replaced with drab khaki coveralls (until my uniform arrived), my long hair was pinned back into a face-liftingly tight bun, while jewellery, perfume and make-up were forbidden.

On field exercise a little later, I smelled and looked like a tramp; we washed with a flannel from a mess tin of tepid water. The appalling reality was revealed to me when, under ‘enemy fire’, I flung myself to the ground, my body armour crushing to my chest, squeezing out a warm puff of noxious air from the depths of my clothing.

Life became a daily struggle for survival; every action seemed punishable. Slouching was forbidden, no hands in pockets, no leaning against walls. Being late was the most grave of offences. Press-ups were the favoured punishment and as the weeks went by I got quite good at them.

My room in Old College was simply furnished with a wardrobe, desk, chest of drawers and bookshelves, which were empty except for a Bible. A white porcelain sink hung from the wall below a mirror. The cream walls were bare apart from a safe where I hid contraband chocolate given to me by my grandmother. Prison cells contain more. The bed comprised a single iron frame with plain wooden headboard, firm mattress and Army-issue rough cotton sheets. Everything had to be ironed, then the bed made for morning inspection with angled ‘hospital corners’. There was to be no evidence that the bed had been slept in – so many slept on the floor.

I, like others, persisted in ironing my sheets while they were still on the bed. This went disastrously wrong for one girl who dropped her hot iron on to her bare foot.

Everything had to be displayed in a specific way with shoes aligned and drawers progressively pulled out, revealing a sequence of T-shirts, jumpers and ‘smiling socks’ (with the bundle-fold facing up in a smile). We worked into the night polishing anything that could be forced to shine. A radio had to be tuned to BBC Radio 4. Clothing had to be folded to the dimensions of A4 paper. On the bed where our uniforms would be laid out. Then, after breakfast, we would stop and scurry into position at SSgt Cox’s arrival, outside our rooms.

Misdemeanours were slight (such as a trace of mud on a running shoe) but punishments severe. All my hard work would come crashing out into the corridor, pulled down off shelves, flung out of drawers or thrown from the window into puddles below.

The woman ruled my every waking and sleeping hour. Just to speak to her we had to go through a pantomime of formalities. If she was in her office, we had to march up to the doorway, arms straight and outstretched, shoulder high, coming to a halt exactly at the office entrance with a ‘check, one, two’, foot stamp, then freeze to attention. And then request: ‘Leave to enter, Staff Sergeant, please.’

I simply could not do it. I had advised on FTSE 100 companies and here I was about to be torn to shreds (again) by a small woman from Hull. ‘Go back and try that again, Miss Goodley,’ she would say as I did a Michael Flatley hopping skip.

Her voice would be pitching higher with each of my attempts. Until finally, she popped, her scream now in full falsetto, the veins in her forehead pulsating: ‘MISS GOODLEY, GET AWAY FROM ME AND DON’T COME BACK UNTIL YOU CAN SHA**ING WELL DO IT PROPERLY!’

I was especially dreadful at drill. I moved like an ill-disciplined robot. The most feared exercise was the ‘mark time’. This was a pointless punishment, which had us all marching on the spot, legs burning with pain as the lactic acid built up. Steam would rise from us in the chilly January air as we willed it to stop. As we were put through our paces, SSgt Cox would strut up and down picking out errors.

‘What are you doing, Miss Goodley? You lunatic. Get in step with the rest of the platoon.’ ‘Come on, Miss Goodley. Left. I said left. All those qualifications and a university degree and you can’t tell left from right.’

On the drill square, SSgt Cox wasn’t the only demon. Company Sergeant Major Porter was a pocket-sized pugilist. He was intensely proficient and had years of experience of training clumsy-footed soldiers. Shrouded in a long heavy overcoat, pace stick swinging in hand, he would peacock around the fringes.

One morning, as I unwittingly performed a Prussian goose step, he swooped in. He swung his pace stick a hair’s breadth from the tip of my nose and forced his scrotum through a mangle as he released the most high-pitched squeal. ‘What the f*** was that, Miss Goodley? If you can’t sort out your legs, I’m going break them both. Then I’ll ram this pace stick up your nose and use it to flick you into the lake. You useless idiot.’

As the spittle of his anger landed on my cheeks I felt my bottom lip curl. I wanted to cry. I wanted to be anywhere but this godforsaken, wet parade square. I wanted my easy London life back.

I am a slow eater and struggled to consume enough calories to get me through the long days. Three meals a day were simply not enough so a fourth was provided to get us through late nights of ironing and polishing

Another member of the training staff, Colour Sergeant Bicknell, fussed terribly over inspection and would exclaim: ‘I want you to dazzle out there, ladies. I want you as smart as carrots you hear? Smart as carrots.’

With drill over, it was non-stop until lunch. Each meal time at Sandhurst involved a mass stampede to the dining hall to make the most of the precious time allocated. Known in the Army as a ‘cookhouse’, the dining hall could seat 300 at the long oak tables, on tall-backed chairs worn smooth from years of bottoms.

The walls were adorned with armour, swords and Royal portraits. Chandeliers hung from the arched ceiling, where narrow stained-glass windows allowed shafts of light to shine down. And, for a reason I never understood, a glass cabinet took pride of place in the middle, containing a sprawled tiger skin. We wolfed down whatever was on offer while the sergeants at the door counted down the seconds.

Quantity and carbs were a priority, with potatoes always on the menu: new, roast, mashed, sauteed, boiled, croquettes and chips, chips, chips. I am a slow eater and struggled to consume enough calories to get me through the long days. Three meals a day were simply not enough so a fourth was provided to get us through late nights of ironing and polishing.

Having already been on the go for eight hours, we would then be marched off to another lesson; fieldcraft, map reading, first aid, foot care and weapon training, which was called ‘skill at arms’.

Sunday mornings we went to chapel – inside, men had to remove their hats but we ladies wore ours, to great advantage. When tipped forwards the forage cap peak masked your eyes, so with head bowed in prayer no one ever knew I was taking a sneaky nap. I was waking even earlier now than when I had worked in the City. I was certainly getting shouted at more.

Sunday nights brought a slice of faux-freedom as we were allowed to run our cars for half an hour to prevent the batteries from going flat. I would savour this moment, singing along to my Girls Aloud CD, and biting heads off jelly babies I found in the glove compartment.

I’m back behind ‘enemy lines’ in the City where I used to work and I have convened with friends for cocktails and gossip in a bar overlooking the Bank of England.

I’ve come straight from having wriggled into jeans (the devil’s cloth and banned at college) behind the wheel of my VW Polo in the Tesco car park in Camberley, Surrey. I’d dusted off the make-up bag and blow-dried my hair.

There is nothing attractive about being a girl in the Army. Out of uniform, I embraced florals and pastels like never before. Reds, pinks, silk and lace. But I could no longer stand in my towering City high heels, as my toes had been allowed to comfortably spread in boots.

I catch the attention of Rupert, a Savile Row-suited fund manager. He is busy leaning into my ear (and peering down my top) telling me about himself. ‘Which bank do you work for?’ he asks.

‘I don’t any more,’ I reply. ‘I’m in the Army.’

He recoils. ‘Really? So are you a lesbian then?’ He looks incredulous as I shake my head. ‘Why on earth would a pretty little girl like you want to go and do something like that?’

I am woken by bagpipes at 05.27 in the corridor. Today is our last day at Sandhurst. Friday, December 14, 2007. The day we are finally commissioned. Hours have been spent pacing the parade square, rehearsing and practising until every step of the final Sovereign’s Parade is in our muscle memory.

Royalty arrives, foreign dignitaries, politicians and military chiefs take their places in the front row to watch the spectacle – a stately display with a brass band and 500 cadets marching around Old College parade square.

My parents, brother and friend Deborah are seated in the stands in the square, huddled in the cold, cameras primed. My father is busy clicking away but when I get home I am disappointed to see that I’m not in a single shot. He had snapped photographs of another girl, thinking she was me.

Sandhurst was the best and worst experience of my life. So much of what I was taught there seemed irrelevant: the marching, crawling and trench-digging. Yet there was other stuff I learned at Sandhurst: the personal pride and stubborn resolve to keep going, to hold my head high and carry on because I can do it. The standards and morals to make the right decisions.

My biggest challenge would come later: dealing with soldiers. Real soldiers who I was expected to command and lead. Soldiers that would make me proud and let me down. Soldiers who would teach me more about command, leadership and the pornography industry in five minutes than any Sandhurst lecture.

I was commissioned into the Army Air Corps and in January 2009, I was deployed on the first of two tours of Afghanistan. I am now a Captain undertaking the role of adjutant for an Apache helicopter regiment. I had known nothing about the military when I joined. I just knew I needed to get a grip and do something with my life, and fortunately I landed on my feet on the other side of a 12ft wall. For me, the Army fits. I have rediscovered the passion that I lacked. It defines who I am. And I’m proud to be part of it.

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. 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 January, 2012

Britain's finest again. Nobody can tell them anything. All they know is political correctness. Do they even learn first aid any more?

Woman driver dying from a stroke was arrested by traffic police who thought she was drunk

Traffic police arrested a woman for drink driving when she was actually dying from a stroke, an inquest heard today. Julie Hawkins, 55, crashed her car and was tended by another motorist who noticed the side of her face was drooping.

But when police arrived on the scene they arrested her on suspicion of drink driving - even though another driver told them Mrs Hawkins was displaying the classic symptoms of a 'catastrophic' stroke.

The officers breathalysed the mother-of-three because her speech was slurred and she could only give them one-word answers.

The inquest heard mother-of-three Mrs Hawkins collapsed as she was taken from her car in Pontyclun, Wales, on October 14 and died of a stroke less than five hours later. A post mortem examination showed Mrs Hawkins, from nearby Pontypridd, had no alcohol in her blood or urine at the time of the accident, as she drove home for a 50th birthday party.

Driver Jonathan Sharpe told the inquest how he went to help after seeing Mrs Hawkins’ Peugeot 107 swerve into an oncoming car. He said: 'I opened the car door and at first I thought maybe she had too much to drink. 'But then I saw her face was drooping, I think on the left-hand side. 'They were the classic symptoms of a stroke. I would liken it to the advert on TV.'

Mr Sharpe said as soon as police arrived he told them about Mrs Hawkins' symptoms but they went ahead and arrested on suspicion of drink-driving. After Mrs Hawkins collapsed and an ambulance arrived paramedics noticed her lips were purple.

Pc Rhodri Wilson told the inquest Mrs Hawkins gave only single word answers to his questions and he arrested her on suspicion of drink driving. He said her speech was slurred and she replied 'no' when he asked if she had been drinking.

A spokeswoman from South Wales Police said: 'The officers acted in good faith based on the information presented to them in difficult circumstances.' [Rubbish!!]

The Cardiff inquest heard Mrs Hawkins was taking painkillers for headaches in the weeks before the crash. She died at 3.30am on October 15 at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, after a scan revealed a stroke.

Mrs Hawkins is survived by sons Kristian and Nicholas and daughter Laura, all in their twenties.

Pathologist Dr Allen Gibbs told the hearing: 'In my opinion she lost control of the car when she began to have a stroke which later became catastrophic.'

The jury returned a narrative verdict that Mrs Hawkins, of Llanharan, near Pontypridd, South Wales, died of a stroke.

SOURCE





British scientists preparing to fight to keep mean time at Greenwich

British scientists are prepared to launch a defence of Greenwich Mean Time ahead of an international decision on whether the world should move to strict atomic time instead.

The move would eliminate the need for 'leap seconds', which are quietly added to global timekeeping systems every few years to ensure we remain exactly in sync with the rotation of the Earth.

At a meeting of the International Telecommunications Union in Geneva next week, representatives from 190 countries will gather to vote on whether or not to stop using this system and align ourselves strictly with atomic time.

This would mean that every 80 years or so we would move about a minute further away from GMT, the method first adopted in Britain in 1847 and used by the rest of the world before the introduction of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) – essentially the same measurement – in 1972.

It would cut the link between our time and the rising and setting of the Sun, and cause us to gradually drift away from Greenwich Mean Time, judged by when the Sun crosses the Greenwich Meridian.

The problem lies in the fact that the Earth's rotation is irregular and is gradually slowing down by about two thousandths of a second every day.

This means that atomic clocks, which measure the length of a second with extreme accuracy based on reactions in caesium atoms, are ever so slightly out of kilter with astronomical time.

Additional seconds are added to the time signal when needed to account for this deviation, with 24 having been used since they were first introduced in 1972.

Britain remains determined to defend the traditional method of timekeeping, insisting that the inconvenience of adding leap seconds is nothing compared with the difficulty of adding additional minutes or hours further down the line when our gradual deviation from astronomical time would become noticeable.

But a host of other countries including the USA and China are set to vote in favour of the move because it would eliminate the need to regularly update the world's clocks.

Debate on the issue has been rife for many years but it is thought that this meeting could finally mark the demise of GMT with the majority of nations favouring the move.

Peter Whibberley of the National Physical Laboratory, who will represent the UK at next week's meeting, said the switch would mean we could no longer refer to UK time as GMT. "One you break that link UTC would just drift away from GMT and you would have to refer to it as UTC", he said. "The problem is, once you have broken that link there is no way to restore it, it is just too difficult.

"We have had leap seconds for the last 40 years so we can handle them, but there is no equipment in the world that could handle a leap minute or hour ... it could be 200 years down the line but it would be just impossible."

SOURCE





'Shut your mouth... war is hell': Ex-Army state politician attacks 'self-righteous' critics of Marines caught urinating over Afghan bodies on video

I see nothing wrong with being contemptuous towards people who were trying to kill you

A state politician who served in the U.S. Army for two decades today slammed those from outside the military who have criticised the four Marines seen in a video urinating on dead Afghan bodies.

Florida Rep. Allen West, an ex-Army lieutenant colonel, insisted the Marines were wrong but fumed: ‘As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.’

His comments follow reports that all four men could imminently face criminal charges of bringing dishonour to the armed forces. Two men have been interviewed but not detained, reported CNN.

‘All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill,’ Mr West told the Weekly Standard of their 'self-righteous indignation'. But he said the men must face a ‘maximum punishment’.

In addition he suggested they all receive a reprimand letter, issue a public apology to God, the U.S. and their fellow servicemen - and then sing ‘the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter’.

The Iraq and Afghanistan veteran spoke after California military psychologist Eugenia Weiss suggested the soldiers involved may have been 'stressed' or 'pranksters with extremely bad taste'.

Meanwhile a conservative radio host said she wants 'a million cool points for these guys' and would be willing to join them. 'C'mon people, this is a war,' CNN contributor Dana Loesch told FM News Talk 97.1 in St Louis, Missouri. 'Do I have a problem with that as a citizen of the United States? No, I don't.'

The Navy's law enforcement arm is heading the main inquiry, which is expected to weigh evidence of violations of the U.S. military legal code as well as the international laws of warfare.

Separately, the Marine Corps is doing its own internal investigation. Pentagon officials said the criminal investigation would likely look into whether the Marines violated laws of war.

These include prohibitions against photographing or mishandling bodies and detainees. It also appeared to violate the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs conduct.

Thus, some or all of the four Marines could face a military court-martial or other disciplinary action.

The psychologist's advice came as U.S. officials spoke out against the footage yesterday and scrambled to maintain damage limitation and avoid another Abu Ghraib scandal.

The four were members of the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines out of Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, reported CNN. An unidentified official said that some of the four are no longer in that battalion.

The 40-second clip, which has been described a 'recruitment tool for the Taliban', shows four men in combat gear standing over the three corpses with their genitals exposed as they relieve themselves.

There were no further details on their identities. The men can be heard joking 'Have a great day, buddy', 'Golden like a shower' and 'Yeahhhh!' as they groan with relief whilst urinating.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called it 'utterly deplorable' and ordered a high-level probe into the incident, which has drawn condemnation from Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai.

'Those found to have engaged in such conduct will be held accountable to the fullest extent,' said the Secretary of Defense, who has told the commander of western troops in Afghanistan to launch an investigation.

Secretary of State Mrs Clinton expressed 'total dismay' at the video and said it was 'absolutely inconsistent with the standards of behaviour that the vast majority of Marines hold themselves to.'

A spokeswoman for the Marines said: 'While we have not yet verified the origin or authenticity of this video, the actions portrayed are not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps'

It is not clear if the corpses in the video belong to civilians or insurgents engaged in combat, although the film does appear to have been shot in Afghanistan.

The video has sparked anger across Afghanistan, with the top negotiator from Mr Karzai's High Peace Council, Arsala Rahmani, saying it will have a 'very, very bad impact on peace efforts'.

He added: 'Looking at such action, the Taliban can easily recruit young people and tell them that their country has been attacked by Christians and Jews and they must defend it.'

The three corpses are all male and are wearing civilian clothes. The youngest lies on his front with an overturned wheelbarrow dumped by his side. The other two are on their backs and one has a large blood stain on his chest.

Lieutenant Colonel Stewart Upton added: 'Allegations of Marines not doing the right thing in regard to dead Taliban insurgents are very serious and, if proven, represent a failure to adhere to the high standards expected of American military personnel.'

The footage emerged on Liveleak.com where some people left comments in support of what the soldiers had done. One commenter wrote: 'We're all proud of you guys', while another put: 'The first bath they have had in years!' and 'cut their heads off and bury them with a pig'.

More HERE





British ice rink which put up sign banning travellers is accused of inciting racial hatred

"Travellers" (Gypsies) are notorious scofflaws. Almost ANY business would like to exclude them but that is illegal in Britain

Staff at an ice rink have been accused of inciting racial hatred after placing a sign in the reception stating: 'No travellers'. Managers said they put up the notice following a series of incidents at the Ice Arena in Blackburn, Lancashire.

Hughie Smith, life president of The Gypsy Council, said the sign was 'inflammatory, illegal and in danger of inciting racial hatred'.

Bosses have now apologised and have launched an investigation.

Mr Smith said: 'This manager has definitely got it wrong. It is very rare to see this because people have learned it is discrimination. It is sad in this day and age.'

A duty manager at the rink put the sign up following a series of incidents and it remained on display for five days.

The sign has also infuriated ethnic minority groups who said it breached race relations law.

Arena bosses said it went up without their permission and have apologised for any offence caused.

A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said refusing to serve someone because of their race, including their colour, nationality or ethnicity, was an offence under the Equality Act 2010.

He said: 'Consumers have the right to be treated fairly and without discrimination by shops or services. Refusing to serve someone because of their race would usually be unlawful, but only a court can decide if the law has been broken.'

One skater said: 'I am disgusted. It is like saying no whites or blacks. It is discrimination. 'Anybody can cause trouble, not just people from the travelling community. I won't be going there again.'

The notice was put up after police were called to the venue in Lower Audley last Thursday night by staff after a group of youths refused to leave. Four youths who were inside the ice rink opened the fire exit doors to let their friends in without paying. Staff were alerted by the alarm going off and the youths were asked to leave. But the group demanded a refund, which was denied, and a row broke out in the reception area.

Officers arrived and the nine youths left at around 8.44pm. No arrests were made during the incident. A police spokesperson said: 'We attended as there was a group being hard work. They left after police advice.'

Arena bosses said there had also been a number of incidents over Christmas and the New Year involving travellers.

In a statement from senior managers, they said: 'Police were called on several occasions to quell public order offences by groups of youths. 'This led to a duty manager erecting signage at the entrance to the Arena to advise that members of the travelling community were not to be admitted due to these problems which had arisen.

'Senior Arena management were not aware such a sign had been erected and on discovering it immediately took steps to remove it and the management wishes to apologise for any offence caused. 'The Arena does not seek to discriminate against any persons as a category and the management does not condone any form of discrimination.

'The Arena management reiterate that it has no policy of discrimination for users of the Arena but it will seek to exclude known trouble-makers who violate the rules of using the Arena premises in the future.'

Joe Dykes, head of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Achievement Service for Lancashire County Council, said if the sign had not been removed, legal action could have been taken. He said: 'There is case law behind this under the Race Relations Act. Many years ago, a pub put up a sign up saying no travellers which went to court. 'The groups protected under the law are Roma gypsies or travellers of Irish heritage. 'Travellers is such a global word but it would be unlawful to place a sign like that.

'People do put signs up in frustration after incidents happen but I would hope in this day and age some people would think carefully beforehand. 'It is unfortunate that it has happened. I hope the management taken appropriate action and it won't happen again.'

A Blackburn Council spokesman said the issue was a police matter.

Yesterday police said they had not received any formal complaints.

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. 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 January, 2012

"Worse than Apartheid" in the new South Africa

While South Africa has seen steady economic growth in the 17 years after apartheid, it has also experienced an abiding racial divide. That partition is expressed in enduring prejudice on both sides and persistent economic segregation. Remarkably, income inequality rose after apartheid ended: redistribution programs have mainly benefited a politically connected elite. Most whites and a few blacks live in the first world. But out of a total population of 50 million, 8.7 million South Africans, most of them black, earn $1.25 or less a day. Millions live in the same township shacks, travel in the same crowded minibuses (called taxis in South Africa) and, if they have jobs, work in the same white-owned homes and businesses they did under apartheid — all while coping with some of the world's worst violent crime and its biggest HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The ANC blames apartheid's legacy and, as party spokesman Keith Khoza describes it, "the reluctance of business to come to the party." But 17 years is almost a generation. The government's failure to transform South Africa from a country of black and white into a "rainbow nation," in Archbishop Desmond Tutu's phrase, means black poverty is still the key political issue. A second, related one, however, is the ANC's dramatic loss of moral authority. At 93, Mandela is still among the most admired people on earth. But his party has become synonymous with failure — and not coincidentally, arrogance, infighting and corruption. Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and, at 80, still the nation's moral conscience, encapsulated South African political debate last year when he came out of retirement to give two speeches. In the first he asked whites to pay a wealth tax in recognition of their persistent advantage. In the second he called the ANC "worse than the apartheid government."

Africa is littered with liberation movements that, upon victory, forgot the people in whose name they fought. That era is coming to an end as the continent becomes more democratic and prosperous. The International Monetary Fund says seven of the world's 10 fastest growing economies are African, despite holdovers like Zimbabwe. Is South Africa, the continent's economic and political powerhouse, a gateway to this bright future or a window on its unhappy past?

The national Special Investigating Unit, which targets corruption, reckons that up to a quarter of annual state spending — $3.8 billion — is wasted through overpayment and graft. The Auditor General says a third of all government departments have awarded contracts to companies owned by officials or their families; in December it found that three-quarters of all tenders in one ANC-ruled province, the Eastern Cape, rewarded officials in this way. Those being investigated for suspected corruption include two ministers, the country's top policeman and the head of the ANC's Youth League, Julius Malema. (All deny the charges.)

Since [President] Zuma was elected, the DA says the state has spent $50 million on refurbishing his homes. Tellingly, Zuma goes after those who would check his behavior. In November the ANC-led Parliament passed a law known as the "secrecy bill," which penalizes whistle-blowers or journalists in possession of secret documents and allows no public-interest defense. He has installed unqualified allies in top positions across the justice system. Meanwhile, internal party politicking, particularly Zuma's rivalry with Malema, has overshadowed government, something that will only increase in the run-up to a party conference in Bloemfontein in December at which Zuma is running for re-election as ANC President.

More HERE





Europe's war on British justice: UK loses three out of four human rights cases, damning report reveals

Unelected Euro judges are making a relentless attack on British laws laid down over centuries by Parliament, a devastating report warns today.

A group of Tory MPs are demanding action by the Prime Minister over figures which show the UK loses three out of every four cases taken to the unaccountable European Court of Human Rights.

The explosive research will reignite the row over Europe’s demand for rapists and killers to be given the vote in prison, and intensify calls for Britain to withdraw from the court’s jurisdiction.

The ten backbench Tory MPs say there is a need to ‘end rule by judges and reinstate Parliamentary democracy’. Their challenge follows a succession of sickening cases in which terrorists, murderers and sex offenders have been awarded cash after gaining judgments against the Government.

The report, commissioned by the MPs from legal researcher Robert Broadhurst, says that since Britain subscribed to the jurisdiction of the ECHR in 1966 there have been more than 350 rulings on whether the UK has violated convention rights.

The number of judgments made against the UK is 271, against only 86 in which it was successful. In a further 50 cases the UK reached a settlement with the claimant, typically agreeing to pay out in return for an agreement to drop the case.

In the 1980s, the average number of cases concluded by the ECHR concerning alleged UK violation of human rights law was 2.6 per year. In the 1990s it tripled to 7.8 – and in the 2000s it almost tripled again to 29.3.

This came after the rules were changed, in 1998, to allow individuals to take cases directly to the ECHR rather than go through the British courts.

The judgments have been blamed for allowing scores of foreign criminals and terrorists to claim they have a ‘human right’ to remain in the UK.

The European court has 47 judges, representing every member state of the Council of Europe including Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Andorra.

A recent report estimated that 20 of them have no judicial experience. Many cannot speak English. The timing of the report is crucial as Strasbourg prepares to pass judgment in three controversial cases.

In the first, prisoner voting will come before the Grand Chamber, Strasbourg’s final court of appeal. Britain is fighting an ECHR ruling that the government must allow convicts to take part in elections – in clear defiance of the wishes of the UK Parliament, which last year voted overwhelmingly to maintain the current ban.

In the second, preacher of hate Abu Hamza is resisting extradition to the U.S. to face trial on terror charges, and the ECHR will rule on whether he can be sent for trial. If it refuses, the British authorities face the prospect of having to release the fanatic back on to the streets.

The final case involves three killers given ‘whole-life’ tariffs by the British courts, which have ruled their crimes are so grave that they can never be released and must die behind bars.

If Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter win their case, it will force the Government to give regular reviews to every one of the 40 or so prisoners locked up for ever – and allow them to petition for their release.

In their foreword to Mr Broadhurst’s report, the MPs, headed by ex-MEP Chris Heaton-Harris, say: ‘The main problem with current human rights law is that we all have to accept judges’ interpretations of human rights, even when those interpretations strike us as a gross distortion of such rights. Who really believes that some or all convicted prisoners have an inherent right to vote while they are behind bars for their crime? Not us.’

The report calls for the UK Parliament to be given the power to overturn ECHR judgments. Such a move would require the approval of all other signatories to the ECHR. Should this not prove possible, ‘the only viable option would be for the UK to extract itself from the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court altogether’.

The report says that, by introducing a British Bill of Rights, the country could still meet its obligations to respect human rights. The author claims this would most probably prevent Britain from being ejected from the Council of Europe – parent body of the ECHR.

David Cameron promised at the weekend to take personal charge of the issue, during Britain’s presidency of the Council of Europe.

He is planning to make a speech in Strasbourg calling for rule changes which would stop the ECHR being able to deal with cases if they have already been dealt with ‘properly’ by national courts.

SOURCE





Racism and Media Double Standards in Britain

The mainstream media (MSM) have devoted a great deal of space to the Stephen Lawrence case of late. Many journalists have commented that whilst Britain was a racist country in the recent past, the Britain of today is a much more tolerant place. This may well be the case with regard to white-on-non-white racial crime, but what about the violent crime committed by non-whites on whites, and what about the way this is treated by the MSM?

The ruling elites would rather we remained ignorant of such matters, so there is little information out there apart from the British Crime Survey of 2004 which stated:

"…people from black or minority ethnic communities suffered 49,000 violent attacks, with 4,000 being wounded. The number of violent attacks against whites reached 77,000, while the number of white people who reported being wounded was five times the number of black and minority ethnic victims at 20,000."

Bearing in mind that whites account for 90% of the population, simple maths suggests that non-whites attack and wound whites at a rate forty-five times higher than whites wound non-whites. This is a truly shocking figure and one that should be of enormous concern to the race relations industry, the government and the media, who purport to be intensely interested in both racial crime and “community cohesion”. However, this appears not to be the case at all.

For those aware of what has been happening in Britain (and all over the West), this media silence should come as no surprise, understanding as they do that the racial and cultural dispossession of the indigenous peoples is the greatest weapon the hard left possesses in its unfinished war against the traditional Western Nation State.

It makes perfect sense, of course. The only defence against becoming an ethnic minority in our homeland before 2060 is to draw attention to our predicament. If the left can make such a defence not just immoral but evil, then they have removed the one and only obstacle that could possibly resist their racially-driven agenda, and if they can capture the means of disseminating information (such as the BBC) then they can continue unopposed — which is exactly what they are doing.

The left divides society into the oppressed and the oppressors. The working-class man of Britain was supposed to represent the historically oppressed masses awaiting the Marxist revolution, but unforgivably — in the eyes of the revolutionaries — the working class became too affluent, preferring to queue for beer in Ibiza, rather than queue for the bare essentials of life in a Sovietised London.

Hence the importation of a new immigrant underclass, which is then deliberately under-educated in order to retain its status as the useful oppressed. Its members are deliberately subjected to propaganda under the guise of Multiculturalism, which constantly reminds them they are eternal victims and the whites eternal oppressors. This is why their varied misdemeanours are overlooked or excused. To allow the truth to be revealed would ruin the leftist plans. How else to explain the climate of fear that surrounds criticism of non-whites?

Take for example the case of black-on-white gang rape. Back in 2004 the Daily Telegraph reported on daily gang rapes taking place in London. The majority of the victims were white, the majority of the gang rapists black. Scotland Yard was treating this topic with great care because of the racial “sensitivity”, and refused to label the crimes as “gang rape”, because to do so would draw attention to clearly-defined youth gangs. The police service is apparently much happier using the term “multiple-perpetrator rape.”

As has been said for many years, if you import the Third World, you become the Third World. In 2009 The Guardian admitted that a staggering 25% of black South African males had committed single or multiple rapes in the previous year alone, which correlates to the ever-rising number of rape cases involving children unfortunate enough to attend schools in the increasingly diverse inner cities of Britain.

In 2011 the MSM finally came clean about the Muslim grooming and rape of young white girls in Northern towns and cities. In a quite shocking admission the police chiefs reiterated what their London colleagues had previously stated, which was the hushing up of such racial crimes in the interest of community cohesion. Really? Do they not think that our knowing about it, and knowing the police are doing little about it will enhance community cohesion?

But then perhaps the police and the MSM are not really interested in community cohesion at all. If they were, they might be slightly more reticent about plastering reports of white-on-black crime across the newspapers and airwaves. Community cohesion only seems to work when old whitey is kept in the dark whilst the non-whites are made fully aware of white transgressions.

And the same standards apply to racial murder, where some murders are more prominent than others, as in the case of Stephen Lawrence. In 2006 the Guardian reported that Home office Freedom of Information figures showed whites as the victims in half of all racially motivated murders over the previous decade. The Guardian went on to say:

Senior police officers have admitted that ‘political correctness’ and the fear of discussing the issue have meant that race crime against white people goes under-reported. One chief constable has claimed that white, working-class men are more alienated than the Muslim community.

How wonderful! As our kith and kin are raped and murdered by racially motivated non-whites, the police “service”, whose sole remit is to protect the population from such crime, sweep it under the carpet through fear of criticism, and gets itself into “a bit of a state about it.” Such a reprehensible and disgusting attitude stems no doubt from the chief requirement necessary for becoming a police officer in the first place, which is not an ability to catch criminals, so it seems, but to exhibit a “respect for diversity.”

Everyone in Britain has quite rightly heard of Stephen Lawrence and the white savages who murdered him, but how many have heard about Mary-Ann Leneghan? This poor white girl was only sixteen years old when she and a friend were abducted, tortured, and raped by Joshua and Jamaile Morally, Indrit Krasniqui, Llewellyn Adams, Michael Johnson and Adrian Thomas. Mary-Ann was eventually murdered (her friend survived).



The Guardian tells us the girls were forced to strip naked, raped vaginally and orally, burned, cut with knives, hit with a metal pole and told repeatedly that they would be murdered. At times some of the men would ask Thomas for permission to do things, asking if they could burn or stab the girls. He gave that permission, saying ‘Yes, go on, I don’t care. It’s too late now. Nobody is going to help them now.’“

After hours of abuse, the girls were then taken to Prospect Park with pillows over their heads, where prosecutor Richard Latham QC stated:

“It was Johnson who then stabbed Mary-Ann in the abdomen with a large brown kitchen knife. He had her by the neck and hair; she was begging him to stab her in the neck….Mary-Ann then fell on her side and Johnson was stabbing her everywhere. She fell over in a ball trying to protect herself but he rolled her over trying to find a new place on her body to stab her. They said they wanted her to die slowly. She became unable to move and just lay there crying, when she cried or made any sound she was stabbed again.”

In America there have been two cases similar to the Mary Ann Leneghan atrocity. Both involved gangs of blacks raping, torturing and murdering whites. They have been dubbed the Wichita Massacre and the Knoxville Horror. I mention these American cases simply to highlight the warped and perverse attitude of the British MSM.

The BBC was very enthusiastic in its reporting on the particularly gruesome and racist murder of a black American in Texas called James Byrd, but if you go to the BBC website and search for any of the names of the white victims in the Wichita Massacre or the Knoxville Horror, you will find not a single word, not a single acknowledgement of the two greatest racial crimes committed in America in the last century. Why the inexplicable double standards, which seem utterly dependent on skin colour? ...

More HERE




Litigating for Liberty

Move over, ACLU. Chip Mellor, president of one of America's most influential law groups is expanding freedom on political speech, organ transplants and other economic frontiers

The Republican presidential campaign is at full boil, and among the biggest players are so-called super PACs, political-action committees that can raise and spend as much money as they like. Mitt Romney's version helped ruin Newt Gingrich in Iowa, for example. For that right to free speech (not the ads), you can thank or blame Chip Mellor, who runs the most influential legal shop that most people have never heard of.

Mr. Mellor is the 61-year-old chief of the Institute for Justice, which has been celebrating its 20th anniversary of guerrilla legal warfare on behalf of individual freedom. He's worth getting to know because he and his fellow legal battlers are behind a larger campaign to restore some of the Constitution's lost rights. And they're often succeeding.

Take political speech. The Supreme Court's January 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC restored the First Amendment rights of corporations and unions to assemble to influence elections. That was followed in March 2010 by SpeechNow v. FEC, in which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said that political committees may accept unlimited contributions for the purpose of independent political spending.

"That's not to downplay the importance of Citizens United," Mr. Mellor says, "but SpeechNow is the decision that lets people (and corporations and unions) pool their money in Super PACs." Mr. Mellor's outfit represented SpeechNow with the Center for Competitive Politics and IJ argued the case before the court.

The campaign finance reform lobby is going to fight relentlessly, Mr. Mellor says. "There continues to be the false premise that the problem in politics is too much money, when in fact the problem is too much government for sale." Besides, he points out, "these campaign finance laws are really treating only a symptom, not the disease. Until you get to the root cause, which is too much government, you are really not doing anything productive and in many cases you are doing harm."

Sitting in the IJ's brightly colored office in Northern Virginia, Mr. Mellor recalls the satisfactions and challenges since he founded the institute with Clint Bolick in 1991. The best part, Mr. Mellor says, "is that we find these people around the country who are already standing up for the principles we want to help vindicate. They say: All I want to do is earn an honest living, get a good education for my kids, own my home or business [or] speak in a political campaign without being subject to restraints."

In many of its cases, IJ will lose at the trial court and then win on appeal. That was the story in the group's latest foray into medicine, in which it represents cancer patients in their fight for access to bone-marrow donations that can save their lives. Under the 1984 National Organ Donor Transplant Act, Congress made it a felony for anyone to give or receive compensation for donating an organ, sweeping bone marrow into the net along with organs like kidneys and lungs.

IJ filed suit against the U.S. attorney general to challenge the law and saw the case dismissed in the trial court. When the case got to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, the judges reversed unanimously, in effect ruling that most bone-marrow donations can be treated like blood donations, making a pilot compensation program legal and handing IJ's clients a major victory.

"Blood can be sold, sperm can be sold, ova can be sold" so this shouldn't be any different, Mr. Mellor explains. Providing a modest stipend for those who donate to the National Bone Marrow Registry could exponentially improve the chances of terminally ill patients finding a donor that could save their life.

As with many of IJ's economic-liberties cases, Mr. Mellor explains, the point is to undo the damage done by courts acting as a rubber stamp for whatever the Congress and executive branch do. "Judicial activism is an empty pejorative invoked by both liberals and conservatives to criticize outcomes they don't like," he says. The more appropriate role of the courts is judicial engagement. "They would start with a presumption of liberty and strike down those laws that exceed constitutional power delegated to the other branches."

The Institute's cases often deal with the burdens of government regulation on the common man and in doing so bring national attention to the core principles of constitutional government. Listen to the GOP presidential debates and "economic freedom" is an idea every candidate invokes to appeal to a sizeable segment of American voters alarmed by the big-government encroachments of the Obama administration.

It wasn't always thus. "I think it's not being immodest to say that when we started the Institute for Justice in 1991, the term [economic liberty] was confined pretty much to libertarian academics," Mr. Mellor grins. "Today even [Supreme Court Justice] Stephen Breyer talks about it, if only to disparage it."

Ironically, the institute's most visible case, 2005's Kelo v. New London, was a loss. Susette Kelo and other homeowners in New London, Conn., had resisted the use of the government's eminent domain powers to take their homes and give the property to a development corporation for condos and other private development adjacent to a new Pfizer plant. The Supreme Court found against them.

But in the national backlash against the decision, they arguably won the war. Since Kelo, 44 states have strengthened their laws protecting property rights from eminent domain and Kelo has become shorthand for insensitive, overreaching government not respecting the rights of ordinary people.

Mr. Mellor is an optimist about the outcome of future private property cases before the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, he notes, "just recently said that there have been three cases that have been wrongly decided by the Supreme Court, and that two of them have been undone and one of them soon will be. He cited Dred Scott, Plessy, and Kelo."

The Institute's first client was not famous at all but what Mr. Mellor calls a "paradigmatic" one who framed an injustice with crystal clarity. IJ represented Taalib-Din Uqdah, who wanted to make his living braiding hair in Washington, D.C. But he couldn't do that without becoming a licensed cosmetologist, a requirement that would have cost him thousands of dollars. IJ got the city council to back down and allow Mr. Uqdah and his wife to get back in business without the onerous regulation.

"The constitutional principle was very, very important, it went far beyond hair braiding," Mr. Mellor says. "So it really was a perfect platform to start awakening people to what's at stake and what the solutions are."

In the years since, IJ has taken on regulations that suffocate entrepreneurs from ferry operators, taxi drivers and stadium vendors to food-truck operators, tour guides and interior designers. Behind each is a small business owner suffering under government regulations that, in most cases, aren't about protecting the public or some general interest—but about awarding anticompetitive privileges to an influential company or interest group.

If entrepreneurs are often the good guys, at the top of IJ's hit list are corporations looking for government favors and handouts. "We do recognize that there is a profound difference between being pro-free enterprise and being pro-business," Mr. Mellor notes. "When it comes to businesses, Adam Smith recognized that it will only be a matter of time before business interests get together and try to monopolize to achieve some kind of control over the market. But without government, they can't do that for any length of time."

Mr. Mellor traces his political evolution back to his days as a student protester at Ohio State University in the late 1960s. This was the time of the Vietnam War and Mr. Mellor, while marching against it, had the "epiphany of my life," he says. "It became undeniably obvious to me that both the left, which I was a part of, and the right were really after the same thing, which was power. And I didn't want any part of that."

So began an intellectual odyssey that took him from Whittaker Chambers to Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek and led to law school at the University of Denver. He went into private practice "in hopes that I could be an independent Clarence Darrow type," but he "quickly became disabused of the notion that you could ever control your own schedule," let alone do it all pro-bono. He went the public interest route and met legal eagle and school-choice specialist Clint Bolick in 1982, founding IJ in 1991.

The language of student protest became a key part of the IJ way. The group—it consists of some 33 lawyers and 65 staffers—is fighting not just to overturn precedents and restore constitutional jurisprudence, but to frame the debate in a way that educates and embeds those ideas in the national consciousness.

"We learned our lesson from the NAACP," Mr. Mellor continues. "Back in 1934 if you look at their annual report, there is a paragraph to the effect that the goal of the campaign must be to affect broad public opinion as well as [to win] individual cases. So every case we take is an educational vehicle designed to manifest the constitutional principles and how they apply to countless other people around the country."

Public interest law is traditionally practiced by liberal groups like the ACLU and the NAACP. Adapting the model to the kind of libertarian goals espoused by IJ has a unique set of challenges. The left fights to pass laws and create new bureaucracies to enforce them, which in turn fosters a permanent interest group to defend the left's gains.

"Groups on the left can fight for their goals through statutory law, and then count on an army of other activist groups to continue to build on their work . . . The left has tremendous advantage," Mr. Mellor explains.

In a broader legal context, Mr. Mellor notes, restoring the Privileges or Immunities Clause, a portion of the 14th Amendment which was intended to protect the economic freedom of freed slaves and other Americans, is at the core of IJs mission when it comes to economic liberty. When the Supreme Court dismantled its protections in what were known as the "Slaughter House cases" in 1873, he says, it began "the whole progressive era of economic regulation and property regulation." If you have a recognition of enumerated powers, "the potential for expansive mischief or creating new rights out of whole cloth is limited if not nonexistent," he says.

"The Supreme Court is really the culprit in creating a lot of the problems we have today," he adds. "They gutted provisions of the Constitution that were intended to constrain government or transformed them, like the Commerce Clause, into an affirmative grant of power."

If the Supreme Court is the problem, then it is also eventually the solution, and Mr. Mellor sees promise in today's court. Justice Clarence Thomas, he says, has "developed a very coherent and consistent constitutional philosophy," Chief Justice John Roberts has "said some amazingly powerful things in the campaign finance cases." And "Justice Kennedy has also evidenced some libertarian streaks over time."

As for IJ, he says, don't worry about them becoming victims of their own success. "We're not going to run out of arrogant and avaricious officials out there." he smiles. "We're going to have lots to do for a long time."

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. 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 January, 2012

The Failure of the Century's Grand Experiments

If there is one obvious condition associated with the last century, it is the lack of government humility. Among the century’s leadership there was the self confident belief that “good ideas” will trump tradition, customs, history, even instinct. There were scarcely limits to political ingenuity. Here was the triumph of positivism, the assumption that rationality can subdue emotion. The engineers were in history’s driver’s seat and the lights appeared to be synchronized in green. Somewhere along the way things went wrong and the lights turned crimson.

For public policy sophisticates, the imperfections in the free market suggested a reliance on planned capitalism. Former President Clinton embodied this view when he said “we can pick the winners in the economy and encourage them with appropriate incentives.” Erstwhile President George W. Bush referred to his domestic policy as “compassionate conservatism,” a belief predicated on government acting as a charity. And President Obama outdid his predecessors by actually inserting government as a partial owner of private enterprises, e.g. AIG, General Motors.

Each of these presidents was persuaded that government intervention was necessary to address market failures. But the most significant failure of all was not recognizing the debilitating influence of active government. For example, the notion that home ownership should be extended as a way to ensure social stability led to decisions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that perverted the real estate market across the globe. Instead of relying on standard collateral estimates as a home buying prerequisite, banking rules were suspended. After all, the government could guarantee losses and the valuation of housing inexorably rises…until it doesn’t and the government cannot absorb the enormous debt. Now the failure is clear, but instead of taking responsibility for a misguided policy, the pols point accusatory fingers at Wall Street brokers who were given “make rich” arrangements through government securitization. In a curious revision of history, the market became the culprit and government officials the saviors.

At the end of World War II European planners argued that continental stability can be achieved through integration. The model was the United States of America, a nation cobbled together through a unifying Constitution and transactions designed to bring order to the new nation. Western Europe had to overcome centuries of independent national evolution, language barriers and idiosyncratic policy perspectives. These impediments did not deter the continental dreamers. Their catalyst for the union was a common currency, the euro.

While recommendations about fiscal policy abounded and rules (the Maastricht Accord) were advertised, observance occurred in the breach. Cradle to grave security was guaranteed and governments were elected on the premise that unproductive labor can be bailed out and supported through debt instruments and inflation. However in 2011 the dream became a nightmare as Greece became the first of several European nations to display the ugly side of insolvency. Not only do the banks require refinancing, but sovereign debt threatens to destabilize several major nations, i.e. Italy, Portugal, Spain.

The unraveling of the euro is a plausible outcome and integration probably has less of a chance of success than a return to what I would call “deharmonization,” the breakup into individual states. The Euroskeptics of the last fifty years realized something the planners overlooked: arrogance cannot overcome nationalism, especially when the will of the public is overlooked.

Last and most tellingly is the view that democracy can be imposed without regard to the institutional infrastructure needed to sustain it. Voting is a slim reed on which to keep democracy afloat, albeit a necessary condition. Democracy requires individual rights, minority rights, private property guarantees, the rule of law, etc. The expression of the citizenry – while desirable – is often fickle and mercurial. It must be placed in a framework of guarantees. When the Arab street released the shackles of dictatorship, many analysts assumed the results would be flourishing democracies. At the moment these high hopes are being converted into Islamist codes of shariah that defy the framework for democracy. Ataturk may have been successful in imposing a form of democracy on Turkey, but this case appears to be the exception. Talk of democracy does not yield democratic infrastructure, as China among others indicates.

Clearly democratic institutions are more likely to instill stability than tyranny, but free elections can result in unfree conditions. While generalizations about Arab nations are foolhearty since Morocco, to cite one example, is very different from adjacent Algeria; I believe it is fair to say that for many the Arab Spring is emerging as the Arab Winter.

What these three illustrations have in common is an abiding faith in planning, notwithstanding history’s agnosticism about this subject. The planners believe they know more than the citizens they represent; they are more insightful than the “invisible hand” and they can use the power of their prodigious intelligence to overcome the traditions passed on through centuries. These grotesque failures prove a different point: hubris will inevitably lead to defeat. The grand schemes of the twentieth and twenty-first century have ended up on the rocky shoals of despair. False prophets are ultimately unmasked and what we observe at the moment isn’t a pretty picture.

But the beat goes on as yet another generation of dreamers schemes to reshape the world without regard to human impulses. It is as if the lessons of the past are to be ignored. Alas, that is the one matter I am confident will reoccur.

SOURCE





What's the matter? Half a million children aged under 15 in Britain are unhappy

Over 64 pages, it sets out to provide a detailed analysis of what makes children in modern Britain happy. Yet the traditional family unit is given such little importance in the report by the Children’s Society that the word ‘marriage’ does not merit even a single mention.

The charity insists it is the quality of the relationships within a family, rather than its structure, which has the biggest impact on a child’s well-being. But last night family campaigners expressed dismay that the importance of marriage could be so casually dismissed by an organisation with close links to the Church.

The report – called Good Childhood – studied 6,000 youngsters aged eight to 15 to provide a snapshot of modern childhood and suggest how their life prospects could be improved.

Worryingly, it concluded that at any one time one in every 11 – equating to half a million across the country – were unhappy with their lives.

The research, endorsed by the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, one of the charity’s presidents, states the roots of happiness lie in stability and calm at home.

But it also said material possessions have a significant impact, with iPods, designer trainers, satellite TV and ‘the right clothes’ regarded as vital elements of a child’s well-being.

The findings run counter to its previous studies. Three years ago the Children’s Society published a report in which it said children do best when brought up by two parents with a long-term commitment to each other, and warned that co-habiting relationships were more likely to break up and damage children.

Yesterday’s report, however, said it was not important that children lived with their birth parents. It declared: ‘It is not the structure, but the relationships within a family that children care about. Loving relationships between a child and their family are ten times more powerful than family structure in increasing well-being.

‘Our research shows that the quality of children’s relationships with their families is far more important than the particular structure of the family that they live in.’ But it continued: ‘Stability is important. Children who experience a change in family members they are living with are twice as likely to experience low well-being.

'The quality if children's relationships with their families is far more important than the particular structure of the family they live in'

‘In general, children living with both birth parents in the same house have higher levels of well-being than children living in other family arrangements. However this is not necessarily comparing like with like.

‘Children not living with both birth parents are also much more likely to have experienced recent family change, which is also an important factor associated with levels of well-being.’

The report also found material factors were of deep importance. ‘Children in families who have experienced a reduction in income are more likely to have low well-being,’ it said.

‘Children who do not have clothes to “fit in” with peers are more than three times as likely to be unhappy with their appearance. Around a third say they often worry about the way they look.’

The society produced an ‘index of material well-being’ to measure ‘items and experiences which children feel are important for them to have a “normal” childhood’. The list included designer trainers and cable or satellite TV at home.

Launching the report yesterday, Dr Sentamu said: ‘We should see this report not as simply an interesting piece of research but an urgent clarion call to action. Can we move beyond narrow measures of human success such as health and financial security to ask harder questions about personal fulfilment or what is known as subjective well-being – in other words people’s contentment with their life as a whole?’

But there was criticism from campaigners for family life. Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘It is disturbing that a report published by a charity dedicated to encouraging policies that promote the welfare of children should have nothing to say about the positive and protective value of marriage.

‘There is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates that children living with their own married parents tend to have fewer emotional and behavioural problems, enjoy better health, do better academically, and have lower levels of stress, depression and anxiety.

‘Since subjective well-being is notoriously difficult to define and even harder to measure, there is no basis for asserting on the basis of a study of this nature that family structure has little or no effect on a child’s well-being.’

Researcher and author Jill Kirby said: ‘The best guardian of stability for children is having two married parents. The Children’s Society is ignoring that in favour of a materialistic disposable society.’

SOURCE





Egyptian Christian Media Mogul Put on Trial for ‘Insulting Islam’ With Cartoon of Bearded Mickey Mouse, Burqa-Clad Minnie‏



You may recall that back in June of 2011, The Blaze reported on a prominent Christian Egyptian media mogul who elicited widespread outrage by Islamists over tweeting cartoon images of Mickey and Minnie Mouse clad in Islamic-garb. In the tweet, Minnie donned a burqa while Mickey sported a traditional Islamic beard.

Now, that man faces trial on a charge of insulting Islam, lawyers said Monday, based on his relaying the cartoons on his Twitter account.

The case dates back to June, when Naguib Sawiris posted a cartoon showing a bearded Mickey Mouse and veiled Minnie. He made a public apology after Islamists complained, but his action set off a boycott of his telecom company and other outlets. He said it was supposed to be a joke and apologized, but lawyer Mamdouh Ismail filed a formal complaint against him.

After investigation, the prosecution set the trial for Jan. 14. Sawiris was not available for comment.

The case is linked to developments in Egypt after the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak last February. Sawiris and Ismail belong to competing political parties, and sectarian violence between Christians and Islamists has been on the upswing. In Egypt’s parliamentary elections, Islamist parties have won a large majority, leaving liberals far behind.

Sawiris co-founded a liberal party, and Ismail heads a party representing ultraconservative Salafi Muslims.

The case has added to fears among many that ultraconservative Islamists may use their new found powers to try to stifle freedom of expression.

Ismail countered that, saying he took legal action against Sawiris because he wants the law to be respected by all, even a famous businessman and politician, in the post-Mubarak era. “The revolution came about because we all are seeking the rule of law without any exceptions,” he said. The charge is punishable by up to one year in prison.

Rights lawyer Gamal Eid said the contempt of religion law, in place even before Mubarak came to power, has been used against scholars and activists whose comments about Islam angered conservatives. He warned that the wording of the law is vague, and it can become a tool in the hands of prosecutors to punish opponents and appease authorities. “Contempt of religion is a very vague term, and the prosecution has taken the radical interpretation,” he said, “raising questions of whether this is a legal or a political matter.”

Last week, a Coptic Christian student was arrested and referred to trial for posting a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad on Facebook. That triggered two days of violence in southern Egypt.

Muslims generally oppose any depiction of the prophet, even favorable ones, for fear it could lead to idolatry. This drawing showed four women asking for the prophet’s hand in marriage.

SOURCE






And now a word for our sponsor

Ezra Klein

Advertising has helped stock the storehouse of human knowledge

For much of the 19th century, newspapers were financed by political parties. It was a transparent, transactional relationship: the newspaper would officially partner with a political party, and in return it received direct infusions of cash, customers and even news.

The cash would come from the party's budget, the customers from the party's base and the news from the party's politicians. In return, the party had total control over what the newspaper did and didn't publish.

Yet by the end of the 20th century, there were hardly any party-affiliated newspapers left. Many people assume it was a triumph of journalistic ethics over partisan politics. But in a paper published in the November 2011 edition of the American Political Science Review, Maria Petrova suggests that the real story is less inspiring.

"Newspapers' independence was positively related to the local profitability of advertising," she writes. "In the areas with faster-growing advertising markets, newspapers were more likely to be independent. The effect of advertising worked both through the entry of new newspapers and through changes in the affiliation of existing newspapers."

In other words, the news found a more lucrative patron than political parties: advertisers. This business model, though, required a different news model. "If the profitability of advertising is high, then it is costly for media outlets to distort their news coverage in the direction desired by a subsidising group," Petrova writes. "Any deviation from the coverage that maximises audience means the loss of audience and the loss of corresponding advertising revenues."

That was, in many ways, a good thing. The "objective" newspaper was certainly preferable to the propaganda outlets that preceded it. But objectivity wasn't just about the news. It was also about keeping audiences large and advertisers happy. It was part of a business strategy. That meant it could often induce a kind of studied inoffensiveness, an unwillingness to speak truths that audiences didn't want to hear. Still, the post-advertising newspapers were trustworthy, independent sources of information. Before moving to the advertising model, they weren't.

The news is not the only form of mass information that appears free while actually supporting itself through advertising. One of the most mind-bending facts of our information culture is that almost every major medium of information supports itself by advertising.

Radio? Advertisers. Magazines? Advertisers. Television? Advertisers. Google? Advertisers. Facebook? Advertisers. Twitter? Advertisers. Perhaps the only major exceptions to this rule are books, which are supported by sales, and Wikipedia, which is supported largely through donations.

From an economic standpoint, most information is simply a vehicle for advertising. We see the advertising as a distraction. But so far as the media company's bottom line goes, the advertising is the point. Without the advertising, the information wouldn't exist. So the history of information is the history of platforms that could support advertising.

That doesn't make advertising evil, or platforms that rely on it untrustworthy. In important ways, advertisers are the ideal sponsors for information. There are many of them, so no individual advertiser wields total power. They are, themselves, trying to convey information that consumers often find useful. And their interests are sufficiently narrow that it's rare for the information they're sponsoring to truly pose a problem for them - Myer, for instance, has few opinions on defence policy.

They blend into the background so well that we can occasionally forget that they are there. Technology optimists like to say that "information wants to be free". Perhaps the truer way to put it is that consumers want information to be free. And advertising makes it look free. But being free and looking free are not the same thing. In fact, they can be even more different than being free and being expensive, because at least in that comparison, the difference is obvious.

This is truer on the internet than it ever was in newspapers or on television. At least with newspapers and television, the advertising was directly in front of you, and your interaction with it was straightforward. In the case of newspapers and, later, cable television, you were paying something - you knew the information wasn't free.

Online, you not only are exposed to advertisements, but the data on what you search, where you go and what you do are fed to advertisers so they can better target their appeals. You're often paying nothing for the experience, at work or in a cafe. As the information appears ever more free, the hidden costs are growing correspondingly greater.

The point of this column is not to warn against the dangers of advertising. It's that our informational commons is, for the most part, built atop a latticework of advertising platforms. In that way, it's possible that no single industry has done as much to advance the storehouse of accessible human knowledge in the 20th century as advertisers. They didn't do it because they are philanthropists, and they didn't do it because they love information. But they did it nevertheless.

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. 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 January, 2012

An orgy of hatred

Atheists in America hate Christians. Atheists in Israel hate the ultra-Orthodox



In recent days I’ve been quarreling with all my friends. They are good people, these friends – liberal, tolerant, moderate and sensitive to any injustice. These are people that in our complex reality were never confused between good and bad. This is why I love them, among other things. I’d like to think that we are cut from the same cloth. That’s why I’m so amazed to see how uncaring and hateful they become when a group of people known as the haredim comes up for discussion.

My liberal friends propose various steps against the haredim and religious: A cadet who cannot bear female singing will not be an officer in the IDF, said one friend. As simple as that (“as simple as that” or “at once” are words that always accompany discussions about the haredim.) A segregated bus shall be stopped! The driver and bus operators should be sent to jail. A yeshiva that will not teach the core curriculum shall be closed at once! We shall not allow primitive ignoramuses to be raised here, and at our expense no less. A neighborhood that features separate sidewalks for women shall immediately lose its municipal services! They can go ahead and choke in their own garbage.

There are more proposals that are even more terrifying. Disconnect haredi neighborhoods from electricity, water and whatnot. The same people who would quiver, and rightfully so, if such proposals were made about Gaza, forget that behind the dark clothes, odd views and challenging (and annoying) behavior lie human beings. They are different than us, but they are human beings.

I’ve been following haredi society for many years yet I don’t remember such anger. And that’s odd, because the secular fury comes at a time when secularism is winning while the haredim are on the defense. Once upon a time the haredim sought to educate us. They made pretenses of telling us where and what to eat, what to do on Shabbat, where and how to be buried, and how to get married. Some time has passed, and the seculars won most battles.

Today it’s the seculars who wish to educate the haredim. The seculars are upset by the segregated bus routes. This doesn’t upset haredi women, but it does upset the secular Tania Rosenblit. The seculars are upset that math is not being taught at yeshivas. They know better than haredi parents what’s good for their sons. The seculars are upset by the relationship between men and women in haredi society. Why can’t the haredim be like us?

Wild incitement

I look at the holy secular anger and fail to understand it. It lacks the modesty of one who looks at another society from the outside. It has no hesitation – maybe we are wrong after all? Perhaps we failed in understanding the other?

I, for example, very much want the haredim to study the core curriculum, I will try to convince them this is needed, but I won’t enforce it upon them. Why? Because somewhere in my head I’m not certain that the core curriculum is truly important for the life meant for a haredi child. Perhaps for him math and English are less necessary than another Talmud class? In all such matters I will hesitate, because in my view when a civilized liberal looks at someone who is different, this should be done with the required modesty.

However, the seculars are furious and are unwilling to show any modesty in the way they look at the haredim. Had I been a religious Jew, I would be concerned. I would take this fury seriously and understand how I contributed to it. I would try to calm the atmosphere through some concessions.

And here I get to the heart of the matter: We need a new social covenant. The old status-quo may have secured political calm, yet caused a flare-up in secular-haredi relations. Both sides must be brave and go for a new covenant premised on a simple principle: Life in the country will be secular in every way. The haredim will let go of their need to care for our secular souls. This means buses on Shabbat, civil marriage and everything associated with a modern state.

On the other hand, the secular majority would allow the haredim to have full cultural autonomy within their neighborhoods. This means letting go of the need to education them and allowing them to live their life as they see fit. And yes, this means segregated buses in haredi population centers and tolerance to haredi education.

That’s the principle. Implementing it isn’t simple because there would be red lines, of course. If the haredim want to educate their children by beating them up, we won’t agree to. However, within the boundaries of logic, we must make every effort to accept the differences of the other.

In my arguments with my liberal friends, one of them sometimes places a hand on my shoulder and asks in a concerned voice: “Amnon, what happened to you? After all, you are secular, a devout atheist; what’s happening to you?” So here is the answer: It appears to me that being a liberal, progressive and humanist today means resisting this blatant incitement against the haredim; standing up against the bon-ton and saying: I’m not taking part in this orgy of hatred.

SOURCE





ADL: Fighting Yesterday's Battles

Charles Jacobs

The ADL is now caught flatfooted by its own paralysis

Republicans are all over national TV, arguing passionately over which (and whose) approaches - given the sorry state of American society - might best set things right. They know Democrats will use the best barbs they throw at each other against the eventual GOP nominee; even so, the most thoughtful among them value sharp debate about our serious problems - to test and clarify ideas. So if Republicans can do this, why not the Jews?

World Jewry is under significant strain. Iran presents an existential threat to Israel; the age-old virus of anti-Semitism has morphed into anti-Zionism - more difficult to fight; Muslim clergymen on every continent rage against the Jews; much of the far left loves "Palestine." The media and academe daily assault the Jewish state. Indeed, the story of our epoch is that the Jews live in a new time defined by a new threat: a Left/Muslim alliance - that attacks both Israel and Jews. This alliance menaces Europe's Jews and has spread to parts of the American elite, especially on our campuses.

Do Jews have the right leadership and organizations to deal with this threat? Why is public discourse on such vital issues absent? Who would try to block such a critical conversation? The ADL, for one.

It was sad to read the Anti-Defamation League's letter to The Advocate ("ADL fires back," Dec. 16 - see below), not solely for its personal attack, but also because it reflects how a once respectable and important Jewish organization has now reached new lows. The problem for the ADL, and this is not restricted only to this group, is that it has been unable - decades - to adjust to the new reality, and is now caught flatfooted by its own paralysis.

For decades, as Israel was defamed in the media, I watched ADL choose not to be the Anti-Defamation League for the Jewish state. (That's precisely why CAMERA was born.) For years, as Islamic Jew-hatred and leftwing anti-Zionism overtook rightwing anti-Semitism as the bigger threat to Jewish life, we've seen the ADL flinch. Students from around the country told me that ADL did not answer their calls as they were harassed and intimidated by anti-Israel faculty, students and administrations. (That's precisely why the David Project - and Stand with Us - were established.) But sure enough, when ADL found a swastika on some bathroom stall in Iowa, my mother-in-law got a fundraising letter.

Shifting the focus away from skinheads, neo-Nazis, and Christian bigots and onto radical leftists and Muslim Jew-hatred would be extraordinarily difficult. It would require a massive and unpopular effort: leading the Jews to think difficult thoughts about their new situation, thoughts that put them at odds with their comforting universalist theology of Political Correctness. And it would be costly: ADL would forfeit loads of leftwing money - and its liberal bona fides. The organization would hardly ever get a letter published in The New York Times. It would be viciously attacked by Islamist leadership. CAIR would be relentless. Abe Foxman, ADL's head, acknowledges that Islamic Jew hatred is the biggest threat we face (he's still shy about the radical left) - yet ADL spends much, much more time, effort, resources and focus on the older, less dangerous threats while practically ignoring the new, more ominous ones.

Stuck between a rock and hard place, the response of Ken Jacobson, ADL's national director, to our criticism (with an arrogance that only a $50 million budget might explain) could do nothing but call me names (the Defamation League?!) and skirt the issues.

Jacobson calls our study of ADL press releases - showing they are all but silent on Muslim anti-Semitism - "amateurish." But in the absence of information about ADL's internal budget - what proportion of funds is spent on Christian, Nazi, leftist, skinhead vs. Leftist/Islamic anti-Semitism - the data on ADL's press releases was the best statistical stand-in we could find. We strongly recommend that ADL's donors review its budget for a true understanding of the organization's priorities.

Jacobson suggested better indicators of ADL's deep concern about Islamic anti-Semitism. He cited its Center on Extremism. But see for yourselves that the center seems stuck in another world, almost totally devoted to Nazis and skinheads - with not one Islamic group named. In his letter last week to The Advocate, Professor Barry Rubin of the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Israel, wrote that a visit to ADL's Web site might leave you thinking that left-wing anti-Semitism, "the most significant form of Western-origin anti-Semitism," just doesn't exist.

Jacobson says ADL issues more reports today on Arab anti-Semitism. Yes, ADL loves to monitor and issue reports. In the age of video, who is reading these reports? For the most part, Jews and the public don't have a clue about the nature and extent of Islamic hatred. Finally, he says ADL trains law enforcement officials. Can he mean about the theory and practice of Islamic Jew-hatred in the West?

Jacobson mocks our concerns about ADL's backing a sale of a Michigan school building to the radical Islamic Cultural Association (ICA). He says we're "playing six degrees of Islamic separation." Actually, it's one degree: the ICA was originally funded by the North American Islamic Trust, identified by federal officials as a Muslim Brotherhood front.

Most tellingly perhaps, ADL's letter is silent on the shocking matter of its continued presence on a Detroit interfaith committee that includes CAIR, a Hamas front. ADL's excuse is that the NAACP and law enforcement groups also sit on the committee. But aren't Jews funding ADL to do the hard work of exposing our enemies? Shouldn't the ADL chapter quit the committee and then educate black leaders as well as law enforcement officials about the menace of Islamic anti-Semitism? Isn't that what the ADL is supposed to be doing?

The transformation of ADL into to a politically correct, liberal organization creates a leadership vacuum for the Jewish community. This, combined with the lack of public debate on the Islamist-Leftist threat, increases our vulnerability.

SOURCE




A brave, noble campaign. But I still don’t believe a man should stand trial twice for the same crime

Peter Hitchens

I can’t rejoice over the conviction of David Norris and Gary Dobson for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I wish I could.

I am sure that both these men have done bad things. It may be that they are guilty of this awful murder, but I fear that their guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. And I am revolted by the fact that the authorities were so shamefully negligent that Norris was severely beaten up by other prisoners while on remand.

If we set out to achieve justice – and I will come back to that – then we must be sure that justice is what we actually get. A show trial in which justice seems to have been done, and hasn’t been, actually makes all our lives worse. If these are the wrong culprits, locked up to make us feel good about ourselves, then we have responded to evil with evil.

Much worse for me, a British patriot intensely proud of our centuries-long struggle for freedom under the law, this whole prosecution is a violation of our heritage. The rule against trying anyone twice for the same crime is essential for liberty. And it is absolute. It must apply even when it makes us weep or vomit to obey it. The rule of law is only any use if it stops us doing things we would really, really like to do. If laws can be overridden by convenience, desire or because of effective campaigning, they are not laws.

Remember Thomas More’s great defence of law in Robert Bolt’s wonderful drama A Man For All Seasons. More’s accuser says he would 'cut down every law in England' to go after the devil. More retorts: 'Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man’s laws not God’s, and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?'

Then he says quietly: 'Yes, I’d give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.'

We too must give the devil – and the devil’s friends, Norris and Dobson – the benefit of law, for our own safety’s sake.

I am sure of this because I have been to many of the worst places in the world, and the thing they all have in common is that there is no rule of law. They may pretend to have democracy (easy to do; our own democracy is increasingly a pretence). They may claim to have 'human rights'. But with no rule of law, nobody is safe, ever.

Now, the campaign to get justice for Stephen Lawrence and his bereaved, dignified family has been a noble one. When our sister newspaper, the Daily Mail, bravely accused a group of low-life crooks of being his murderers on its front page and dared them to sue, I rejoiced.

This was a good and courageous use of the power of a free press, one that my trade can always be proud of.

It also blew into fragments a smug slander, ceaselessly directed at conservative popular newspapers by ignorant and malicious media Leftists. They sneered from their state-subsidised desks that we were 'fascists' – racial bigots who believed in repression of free debate.

After that front page, this libel simply could not be advanced any more by any thinking or informed person. Better still, it was clear that what really motivated conservative popular journalism was a thirst for justice. But at that stage, thanks to the 1996 failed private prosecution of several of the alleged killers, that was as far as it went. The courts had failed. The guilty must therefore be marked as what they were and shamed.

Others, with quite different aims, then sought to use the case for their own ends. They wanted a politically correct inquisition into the police, already weakened by Left- liberal attacks in the Eighties but still a deeply conservative institution.

And the Blair Government, which despised British liberties, saw an opportunity to smash the ancient double jeopardy rule.

The Macpherson report, a bizarre document that few of its fans have ever read, never found any actual evidence of racial bigotry in the police. That is why it had to dredge up the old Sixties revolutionary slogan of 'institutional racism'. This is a presumption of guilt that has been used ever afterwards to enforce political correctness in the police force.

Thanks to this case, and what followed, have racial killings ceased? On the contrary, they are more common. Are murders and other crimes investigated more thoroughly? Hardly.
This country contains many families, as deeply wounded as the Lawrences, whose losses have also gone unavenged by justice, and who have no hope.

SOURCE




At last: Britain prosecutes MUSLIMS for "homophobia"

The Muslims had to be pretty blatant for it to happen but it has happened. They'll get a slap on the wrist at most, of course. A white holocaust denier got 4 years jail for things he said on his website so it will be interesting to see what this lot get

Five Muslims who distributed leaflets calling for gay people to be executed have appeared in court accused of inciting hatred. One leaflet said the death penalty had been passed against all homosexuals and showed a mannequin hanging from a noose. Another showed a figure burning in a lake of fire with a list of punishments for homosexual acts.

The five defendants, all from Derby, are the first to be prosecuted under new laws banning the stirring up of hatred due to sexual orientation.

Ihjaz Ali, 42, Razwan Javed, 28, Kabir Ahmed, 28, Umar Javed, 38, and Mehboob Hussain, 44, were arrested following complaints about leaflets distributed in Derby before a gay pride parade in July 2010. The material was handed out in the street as well as posted through letterboxes.

The first, called Death Penalty?, claimed that Allah permitted the destruction of gay people and ‘the only question is how it should be carried out’.

The second, called Turn or Burn, featured the figure in a blazing lake with the warning that the decriminalisation of homosexuality was ‘the root of all problems’. A third, GAY – God Abhors You –told of severe punishment for homosexuals.

Bobbie Cheema, prosecuting, told Derby Crown Court the pamphlets were threatening, offensive, frightening and nasty and had been ‘designed to stir up hatred and hostility against homosexual people’.

Gay men who received the leaflets told the court they feared they had been personally targeted. One witness, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said he was handed one leaflet in person and received three more in the post. ‘Being a gay man, I thought it was meant for me,’ he said. ‘I felt like I was being targeted. I thought it meant I was going to be burned or something like that.’

Another, who received two of the leaflets in the post, said: ‘I felt threatened. I wondered whether I would be getting a flaming rag through my letter box.’

The jury heard that in the weeks before the gay pride parade, Ihjaz Ali approached police about staging a protest against it.

Ali, who the prosecution say organised the distribution of the leaflets, showed officers a list of slogans intended for use on placards and literature. The slogans included ‘paedo gays, you will pay’, ‘turn forever or burn forever’ and ‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’.

His request was refused and he was later arrested on the back of the welter of public complaints about the leaflets.

Ali allegedly told the officers who questioned him that it was his duty to express laws laid down by Allah.

Miss Cheema told the jury: ‘These five defendants were part of a small group who distributed horrible, threatening literature, with quotations from religious sources and pictures, which were designed to stir up hostile feelings against homosexual people.’

The court heard that all five defendants accept they distributed the leaflets but deny charges of intending to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation under laws introduced in March 2010.

The maximum penalty for the offences is seven years in jail. Ali faces four charges while Hussain and Umar Javed are charged with two counts each. Razwan Javed and Ahmed are charged with one count each. The trial, which is expected to last three weeks, continues.

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. 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 January, 2012

Opponents of homosexual marriage to be discriminated against?"

The hostility below is undoubted but it is unlikely to convert into action because the biggest critics of homosexuality are Muslims. And discriminating against Muslims would be deemed unacceptable. Muslims seem to be higher on the hierarchy of political correctness than are homosexuals -- otherwise Muslims would long ago have been condemned for their "homophobia"

One of my superstar former students, writing about his experience at one of our nation's premier law schools, sent me a note after reading my MOJ post on marriage, religious liberty, and the "grand bargain." Here is the text, with names removed to protect the innocent:

I had a first-hand experience with this reality in law school. One of my constitutional law professors taught the section of our course relating to same-sex marriage under the "inevitability" banner. I met with him in office hours later to talk to him about something else, but I brought up a question that I have been wrestling with: if the SSM advocates are right and opposition to SSM becomes analogous to racism in our society, what will happen to Catholics and others whose views on SSM cannot and will not change? Are they to be excluded from public office, political and judicial appointments, or places of trust and responsibility within private institutions (e.g., law firm partnerships)? I posed the question to him because I was curious to hear his response, since he is generally a kind and reasonable person who seemed open to other viewpoints.

His response was very disappointing, and it shook my confidence in him. He responded to me by saying something along the lines of:

"Well, they [Catholics and others] will either have to change their views or be treated in the same way that white supremacists and the segregationist Senators were treated. They were excluded from the judiciary entirely for decades because of the South's views on race."

He evinced no sympathy for the traditional marriage position or those who hold it. They were to be relegated to the ash heap of history. He said all of this to me knowing full well (because I had foolishly just told him) that I was a Catholic who opposed SSM.

Is anyone prepared to say that the view expressed by the professor is merely a fringe opinion in the contemporary academy? Is anyone prepared to say that it is the view of only a small minority, or a minority at all, in what University of Virginia sociologist Jonathan Haidt calls the liberal tribal-moral community of contemporary academia? Would anyone deny that there is a significant element in the elite sector of the culture---an element with real power over the lives and careers of people like my former student---that wishes to penalize or discriminate against those who refuse in conscience to yield to the liberal orthodoxy on issues of sex and marriage? Consider the professor's own words. He made no effort to hide his goals and intentions. On the contrary, he made it abundantly clear that Catholics and others who persist in their dissent are to be treated the way we treat white supremacists. They are to be stigmatized, subjected to discrimination, and denied the right to hold certain offices.

And this professor, as my student observed, is a "generally a kind and reasonable person who seems open to other viewpoints." What are we to expect, then, from those who are even less "open to other viewpoints"?

SOURCE






Hong Kongers resist idiotic photo ban

Should be more of it

More than a thousand people protested outside a Dolce and Gabbana store in Hong Kong on Sunday after the Italian clothing store allegedly prevented people from taking photographs of its shop front.

The protest followed reports that a Dolce and Gabbana security guard had stopped a photographer taking pictures of its shopfront from the pavement outside. More than 13,000 people had protested over the incident on Facebook.

People gathered Sunday outside the fashion brand's flagship Hong Kong store taking photos while some carried placards denouncing the store's actions. Dozens of police were deployed to maintain order.

"Trying to ban us from taking pictures in a public space, shame on them!" one protestor said on Cable News television.

Dolce and Gabbana Hong Kong did not immediately return calls for comment.

On Saturday, local politician and lawmaker Frederick Fung reportedly created a stir in the store by calling out slogans and confronting the manager while customers browsed among the luxury goods. Fung, who belongs to a pro-democracy political party in Hong Kong, had said the Italian brand needed "to make an announcement and apology".

SOURCE





A wretched 'reform' that could put a lame-duck into the British Prime Ministership

Precisely because the two most boring words in the English language are ‘constitutional reform’, people tend to ignore the subject. This is a pity, because such reforms normally have huge implications that are very far from boring.

For example, until a few weeks ago, if the Prime Minister chose to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call a General Election, he could easily do so.

This was a vital power — particularly at times (like now) when the country was ruled by an unstable coalition, with Cabinet members at each other’s throats to some degree or other.

However, as a result of the new 2011 Fixed-term Parliaments Act, a prime minister has lost that device. For this most offensive and self-serving law of modern times has removed the Queen’s prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. Instead, the power has been placed in the hands of Parliament itself.

Parliamentary terms are now fixed at five years. This means that the next General Election is scheduled to be held in May 2015. Of course, there are circumstances in which an election could be called earlier, but they are dependent on a complex set of events.

For example, Parliament can be dissolved if two-thirds of the House of Commons votes to do so on a no-confidence motion. But unless 434 of the 650 MPs currently in the House vote for the end of the Government, that won’t happen. Even the Blair government, after its landslide in 1997, did not have support on that scale.

Alternatively, the government may resign at any time: but an election is triggered only if, after 14 days, no one else can form an administration.

This could be a means of David Cameron getting an immediate election. However, the process would be messy. It might accidentally put a lame-duck, unelected Miliband government into power.

What’s more, trying to engineer an election in this way would be construed as an act of cynicism and would damage the Conservative Party hugely.

The truth is that very few people seem to be aware of this new Act, and that a major constitutional change has happened. Certainly, no one voted for it.

The new law — which can keep a government in power long after it has passed its sell-by date — has put a sizeable hole in the hull of the glorious ship that used to be called British democracy.

It could, one day, mean this country is ruled — and I use that term advisedly — by a succession of rocky minority governments, or coalitions, that try to stagger on to complete the requisite five-year term. That would be a travesty of democracy.

However, lumbered as we are with five-year Parliaments, we must get used to the notion that when a government runs out of steam it cannot be removed by a simple Commons vote of confidence (as happened to Jim Callaghan’s decrepit Labour government in 1979).

Nor can it resign and ask the country for a new mandate (as Edward Heath did in February 1974). Instead, Britain can become saddled with incompetent, and unrepresentative, governments until the five-year term elapses.

Tragically, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is but the latest example of the inevitable problem that comes with any attempt to change, or rig, the British constitution: that such changes, or riggings, always have serious unintended consequences.

Often, these are plain to see; but another feature of constitutional reform is that the politicians who legislate for such changes are usually acting out of cynical motives and care little about the effects.

SOURCE







Shackle the free press? Crikey, it just doesn't bear thinking about

Gerard Henderson comments from Australia

As the saying goes: "Can you bear it?" In much of the Western world, the established media is under threat from social media. It is at this time that some who once benefited from old media become critical of all journalism.

Take the Crikey publisher, Eric Beecher, who is a former newspaper editor. In his submission to the independent media inquiry, headed by Ray Finkelstein, QC, Beecher declared that there was not enough focus on "quality journalism" in Australia, which he regards as central to "civilised society".

All well and good. Except for the fact Beecher's Crikey newsletter is not the embodiment of quality journalism. For starters, it does not engage a fact-checker. Indeed, the online publication actually proclaims the fact it publishes undocumented "tips and rumours". Crikey also, on occasions, publishes the home addresses of people who are targets of its occasional contributors.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Last month, Crikey reported on my (alleged) poor behaviour while attending an ABC TV pre-record function in Sydney. I was in Washington DC at the time. On another occasion, Crikey published an article by Mark Latham containing my home address. Both pieces were followed by after-the-event apologies. Neither would have got through in the first instance if Crikey had proper editorial checking. Yet Beecher sees fit to call for more government regulation of the print media and to lecture-at-large about quality journalism.

Then there is Latham himself. The former Labor leader has lodged a complaint with the Press Council concerning recent reports in The Sunday Telegraph about his behaviour at a public school swimming program in Camden. The newspaper reported he vehemently criticised Bev Waugh, mother of the cricketers Steve and Mark Waugh, about the program.

These days Latham apparently believes he is a victim of media intrusion and that his utterances in public places should not be reported. If the Press Council upholds this complaint, media freedom will be severely curtailed. Latham is a columnist with The Spectator Australia and The Australian Financial Review and appears as a commentator on Sky News (part-owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd). In addition, Latham receives an indexed superannuation benefit of around $75,000 a year, due to his time as a federal parliamentarian. In other words, he is the beneficiary of taxpayer funding.

As the Transport Workers Union official Wayne Forno pointed out in the AFR in 2003, virtually all the jobs Latham held, up to and including becoming Labor leader, were "provided by the ALP". His employment after politics is a consequence of his time as a Labor MP.

In recent years Latham has been banging on about the primacy of privacy. In August last year he wrote that "no matter one's standing in society, a basic right of citizenship is the capacity to enjoy the quiet pleasures of a private life".

The problem is one of double standards. The Latham Diaries (Melbourne University Press, 2005) named a married Labor parliamentarian as having had a "long-running relationship" with a female lobbyist in Canberra, who was named. Latham also identified a female journalist in Sydney with whom he "once had a fling". And he cited a former ALP staffer whom he claimed had an affair with the "missus" of a senior Labor official in Melbourne. And now Latham is pleading with the Press Council to prevent a newspaper from reporting a public exchange he had with a swimming coach.

In August 2002, Latham issued a release of a speech he planned to give in a grievance debate in the House of Representatives. He misjudged the time limit, and only the first half of the speech was delivered. In the second half, Latham attempted to defend his actions in breaking the arm of an East European-born taxi driver, who had a wife and dependent children, during an altercation. Latham named the taxi driver and then asserted that the man "aspired to workers' compensation and that's what he's now got". It is a callous and cruel comment that also took no account of the taxi driver's right to privacy.

The call for greater regulation of the print media does not just come from former editors and ex-politicians. In his decision in Eatock v Bolt last September, Judge Mordecai Bromberg made findings concerning not only what the News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt wrote about "fair-skinned Aboriginal people" but also what he did not write. Bromberg objected to Bolt's "tone" and said it was important "to also read between the lines". This, despite the fact the law is supposed to be about establishing facts - not making inferences.

There is good reason for the media to act responsibly. But there is also good reason to preserve a free media, independent of excessive regulation. And there is no reason to listen to the likes of Beecher and Latham on what constitutes responsible media behaviour. It's just not bearable.

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. 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 January, 2012

Victory for pro-life nurses in lawsuit against NJ hospital

UMDNJ agrees not to force nurses to assist with abortion cases

As a result of a federal court hearing Thursday, a New Jersey hospital has agreed that it will not force nurses to assist with abortion cases. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys represent 12 nurses who filed suit against the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey after the hospital sought to require the nurses to help with abortion cases in violation of federal and state law.

“No pro-life medical personnel should be forced to assist or train in services related to abortions. The hospital has finally done the right thing in agreeing to obey the law and not force our clients to do any work on abortion cases in violation of their beliefs,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, who represented the nurses before the court Thursday. “The hospital agreed not to penalize our clients in any way because they choose not to participate in abortion according to their legal rights.”

The hospital agreed not to replace the pro-life nurses or reduce their hours. The nurses affirmed that if a woman suffers a true emergency from an abortion, they will help protect her until other staff, such as the emergency team, arrives moments later. Because the abortions are all elective, outpatient surgeries, and the court is requiring the hospital to fully staff all abortion cases with non-objecting medical personnel, the pro-life nurses should never actually be needed in any such case.

At Thursday’s hearing, the judge warned the hospital that the nurses can return to the court if the hospital penalizes them, assigns them to work abortion cases, or pretextually attempts to require them to assist with abortions.

Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order, with the hospital’s temporary consent, that prohibited the hospital from coercing the nurses until the court could further consider the case at Thursday’s hearing.

Federal law prohibits hospitals that receive certain federal funds from forcing employees to participate in abortions. UMDNJ receives approximately $60 million in federal health funds annually. In addition, New Jersey law states, “No person shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion or sterilization.” The lawsuit requests that the hospital be ordered to obey these laws and to return part of the federal taxpayer money it has received in light of its violation of federal conscience laws.

SOURCE






Turnabout in Britain: How Cameron and Clegg vowed to hand back our liberties but are instead planning illiberal changes to justice system

What a difference 19 months makes. Speaking in the sun-lit Downing Street gardens as he launched the Coalition back in May 2010, Prime Minister David Cameron promised it would be ‘committed to civil liberties and curbing the power of the state’.

Nick Clegg added that after years of Labour authoritarianism, theirs would be a government ‘that hands you back your liberties’.

Now, however, almost unnoticed, this same Government is planning to enact highly illiberal changes to the justice system.

If, as Mr Cameron intends, they become law later this year, the consequences will be an unprecedented growth of secret hearings in both civil court cases and inquests; to deny ordinary citizens the ancient Common Law right to challenge evidence against them; and to make it far more difficult to call wrongdoing by government agencies to account.

Greater secrecy in court would have a further by-product: the stifling of investigative journalism, for which information rev-ealed through the legal process is often critically important.

‘Many of the biggest recent scandals were exposed through a combination of journalism and litigation,’ says Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty. ‘These proposals would bring the shutters down for ever.’

The key points, set out late last year in a Green Paper on Justice and Security, include a sweeping power to allow Ministers to withhold evidence they deem ‘sensitive’ from any civil open court hearing or inquest, if the Minister thinks disclosure would cause ‘damage to the public interest’.

The courts would not be able to weigh such assertions against the need for open justice, while the terms ‘sensitive’ and ‘public interest’ are not defined.

The key points, set out late last year in a Green Paper on Justice and Security, include a sweeping power to allow Ministers to withhold evidence they deem ‘sensitive’ from any civil open court hearing or inquest, if the Minister thinks disclosure would cause ‘damage to the public interest’

But lawyers say the types of material that could be concealed are likely to embrace not only national security, but policing, relations with foreign governments, and government commercial contracts. In most cases, the Minister exercising this power would also be a party to the case – an extraordinary conflict of interest, which breaches another Common Law principle, that ‘no one shall be a judge in his own cause’.

The Green Paper also states that in cases where this ‘closed material procedure’ was invoked, the only person apart from the judge and the lawyers representing the Government who would be allowed to see the secret evidence would be a ‘Special Advocate’.

These advocates are security-vetted barristers of the type already used in immigration hearings involving national security – such as that of Ekaterina Zatuliveter, the Russian Commons researcher who MI5 claimed was a spy.

Special Advocates are not only forbidden from talking to their clients, they may not even speak to their ‘normal’, open-court lawyers.

‘The Government can make an allegation, but you have no way of countering it because you can’t find out what the client’s response might be,’ one former Special Advocate says. ‘They might claim your client had been identified doing something incriminating by their beard. You can’t even ask whether they had a beard at the time.’

A further key point from the Paper is that in cases where the evidence was secret, all or part of the court’s eventual judgment would remain secret too.

One result would be that a citizen who lost a case against the Government would never find out why. Another would be the steady accumulation of secret legal precedents: case law hidden from the public.

Whitehall sources say the Green Paper proposals are the direct consequence of the efforts of this newspaper and others to expose British Government complicity in the ‘extraordinary rendition’ and torture of terrorism suspects such as the former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Binyam Mohamed. Two years ago, we persuaded the Court of Appeal that hitherto redacted details of his treatment, contained in a High Court judgment, should be published.

After the 2010 Election, say the sources, MI5’s Director-General, Jonathan Evans, began a Whitehall lobbying campaign, arguing that the scrutiny Mr Mohamed’s case had directed at his agency had caused severe damage. He was also trying to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court, made after former Guantanamo prisoners sued the Government for damages.

Although the Government had already settled the case by paying them millions, MI5’s lawyers tried to get the court to agree that even without legislation, they should have the right in future to have evidence heard in secret, concealed from all but Special Advocates.

The Supreme Court’s response was withering. In the words of one of its judges, Lord Kerr: ‘The right to be informed of the case made against you is not merely a feature of the adversarial system of trial, it is an elementary and essential prerequisite of fairness.’

Lord Kerr also rejected the Government’s argument – repeated in the Green Paper – that allowing the judge to see all the evidence would protect individuals’ rights.

This was ‘deceptively misleading ..... To be truly valuable, evidence must be capable of withstanding challenge. I go further. Evidence which has been insulated from challenge may positively mislead’.

Mr Evans was undaunted. Months ago he was boasting that if he could not get his way at the Supreme Court, he would persuade Mr Cameron to grant it through an Act of Parliament.

But though the new proposals’ origins may lie in Guantanamo, their scope is far wider. What price the 7/7 bombings inquest if Ministers could conceal evidence merely by classifying it as ‘sensitive’? What would be the chances of the recent case filed by female Green campaigners, who discovered they had been seduced by undercover police officers?

‘It’s incredibly dangerous,’ says one leading QC. ‘All too easily, “sensitive” can mean simply embarrassing, or inconvenient.’

In a foreword to the Green Paper, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke claims these ‘commonsense proposals’ would merely ‘better equip our courts to pass judgment in cases involving sensitive information’.

The Paper asserts that the existing use of secret evidence and Special Advocates in immigration cases has proven them ‘capable of delivering procedural fairness’.

Interestingly, the Special Advocates themselves disagree. On Friday, 59 of them – of a total of 69 – submitted a response. They said: ‘Contrary to the premise underlying the Green Paper, the contexts in which closed material procedures are already used have not proved that they are “capable of delivering procedural fairness”.’

In fact, their experience had shown that they ‘represent a departure from the foundational principle of natural justice, that all parties are entitled to see and challenge all the evidence relied upon before the court . . . They also undermine the principle that public justice should be dispensed in public.’

Yet all three main parties have indicated they support the plans, and to date, only one MP has publicly opposed them, the Conservative David Davis.

‘They are a disgraceful assault on the principles of open justice,’ he says. ‘When it comes to curbing misbehaviour by the executive, we would end up with the least effective courts in the English-speaking world.’

‘When you think about it, it is rather ironic,’ adds Ms Chakrabarti. ‘The Green Paper has emer-ged as a result of terrible scandals. And yet the Government’s answer is not to ensure greater public scrutiny, but less.’

SOURCE






Australian government doles out tough love for unemployed teenage parents

COOKING classes will be among the life skills programs offered to teen parents in the Federal Government's tough-love welfare trial.

The first 1000 teens to join the trial, which ties Centrelink payments to efforts to finish year 12, have been sent letters telling them what they have to do. From next Monday, teenagers who have children between six months and six years old must book a meeting with welfare staff to discuss their education plans.

If they fail to meet appointments and do not have a valid excuse, they could lose parenting payments.

During the first Helping Young Parents meetings, discussions will also cover free support measures, such as childcare, that can be used to allow more study time. Other support measures include cooking tuition, parenting classes and budgeting advice.

The classes are separate from the requirement young parents must try to finish year 12 or its equivalent.

Human Services Minister Brendan O'Connor said the trial, which in Victoria will run in Hume and Shepparton, had been designed to give young people a range of skills. "This is about equipping them with the education that will help them enter the workplace," he said.

He said cutting off parenting payments would be a last resort, and that a reprieve was possible. "If parents do have their payments suspended, as soon as they get back in touch with Centrelink and start up their activities again, they will have their payments back-paid," he said.

The back-pay rule will help placate concerns from social services groups' that cutting welfare could lead to more problems for young families.

To coincide with the first Centrelink meetings, a new blog site will go live on January 16, allowing young parents to talk directly to other participants.

Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten said encouraging teens to finish school would help them later in life.

SOURCE




Muslims in Norway and the dishonest Left-run Norwegian government

Like all Leftists, the Norwegian Left hates their own society so crippling it by importing a large number of hostile immigrants turns them on. Some excerpts below from a very comprehensive article

So far I've listed three separate incidents in which Muslims in Norway have expressed their willingness to have individuals they believe are guilty of offending Islam killed. Zahid Mukhtar has gone on record twice, expressing the desire to have Salman Rushdie killed, and expressing sympathy for the killing of Theo Van Gogh. Again it's necessary to point out that in his capacity as spokesperson for the biggest Islamic organization in Norway, Zahid Mukhtar simply reflects the views of the other members of the organization, eighty thousand of them, to be exact.

Upon hearing these comments, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg felt compelled to implore Mukhtar to retract his statements, as Stoltenberg felt that Mukhtar's statements would portray the rest of the Muslim community in Norway in a less than flattering light. Notice here that Mr. Stoltenberg acknowledges that Mukhtar acts in his capacity as an official spokesperson.

"It has devastating consequences for Muslims in Norway when their spokesperson expresses sympathy for the horrible murder that occurred in the Netherlands. Such attitudes make it so much harder to combat racism and xenophobia. I'm a strong proponent for a society where different religions and cultures can co-exist, but I absolutely do not condone violations of basic human rights. The right to live and the right to express oneself freely are part of those basic human rights, and when they are violated we need to have a zero tolerance policy," says Stoltenberg.

Mr. Stoltenberg equates criticism of Islam and Muslims with racism. He claims that statements like the one made by Zahid Mukhtar severely damage the fight against racism and `Islamophobia' in Norway. A more correct assertion would be that such statements give Norwegians a better insight into the twisted ideology that espouses such values. Mr. Stoltenberg's statement also gives us a good insight into the mentality of the political establishment in Norway, and it explains why the political establishment is so reluctant to criticize Islam. They deliberately refrain from doing so because they believe it will create a massive backlash against Muslims in the country, and that it would be detrimental to the political establishment's efforts at creating a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society in Norway. Mr Stoltenberg clearly stated here his and the government's intentions in this regard.

The statement made by Mr. Stoltenberg in this case is also completely contrary to the reaction from the political establishment in Norway in the aftermath of the 2011 Oslo attacks, when the political Left systematically targeted anyone who had ever dared to write anything negative about Islam. The Left feverously attempted to incriminate those they perceived had contributed to the creation `Breivik the terrorist'. Honest and law-abiding individuals who had never in their lives advocated violence were all of a sudden the targets of a massive smear campaign, and unlike Zahid Mukhtar - who indeed expressed sympathy for terrorism on several occasion - these conservatives were indirectly blamed for the Oslo attacks.

Bashim Ghozlan was also in the media spotlight in 2009 when he refused to denounce infamous statements made by Yusuf al-Qaradawi in 2009 in which Qaradawi stated:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption.The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was a divine punishment for them.Allah willing; the next time will be at the hand of the believers."

Bashim Ghozlan told Dagbladet:

"I do not wish to comment on those statements. I know Qaradawi as a respected religious scholar and we watch his TV programs. But I do not wish to comment on his political statements."

If Bashim Ghozlan was appalled by these statements, which most sane people would be, he would have categorically distanced himself from such vile rhetoric and condemned it. These despicable statements both condone previous genocides and express the desire to commit future genocides. By refusing to distance himself from them, Ghozlan has already indicated that he doesn't find them offensive. He doesn't believe that the pogrom in the past perpetrated against the Jews and potential new ones in the future perpetrated by the hands of the Muslims is `such' a bad thing. It's sad to think that these are the people that the political establishment in Norway incorrectly labels as `peace-loving' and `democratic'.

But this wasn't the only controversial view that the Muslim leadership advocated. The Islamic Council Norway was also unwilling to oppose death penalty for homosexuality, because the answer of this question hadn't been finalised by the European Fatwa Council, which is headed by none other than Qaradawi. The very same vile anti-Semite who expressed the desire to eradicate the Jews of the face of the planet:

The leader of the Islamic Council Norway, Shoaib Sultan, confirms that the matter is still being looked at by the Fatwa Council, and that they don't know when they'll get an answer. Sultan does not wish to comment on the statements made by Qaradawi, and referrers to the leader of the Islamic Council and its leader Senaid Kobilica, who also doesn't wish to comment. Kobilica refers to Basim Ghozlan, leader of the Islamic association of Oslo.

Another example of the Norwegian Muslim community's unwillingness to embrace traditional Western values occurred in 2006 during the Mohammed cartoon crisis, which resulted in worldwide Islamic riots and several dozen fatalities. The artist who drew the cartoons has been the victim of Muslim revenge attacks since then, and today has to live under 24/7 police protection.

Norway was affected by these incidents due to the actions of a small Norwegian periodical called Magazinet, which decided to publish the cartoons. This led to the attack on the Norwegian embassy in Iran and the attack on Norwegian soldiers in Afghanistan by a large mob of armed Afghani civilians. Norway was also strongly condemned by Islamic nations and by Muslims living in Norway for having laws guaranteeing freedom of speech, which allowed Magazinet to print these cartoons.

One would assume when taking all of these factors into consideration that the Norwegian Government would defend Vebjorn Selbekk, the editor of Magazinet and make it obvious to Muslims that in Norway freedom of speech and freedom of expression are rights that we're not willing to compromise on. But, sadly, that was not the case. The Norwegian Government sided with the Islamic nations and practically forced Selbekk to make a humiliating apology for having exercised his obvious right to express himself freely.

This is just another incident which clearly exemplifies the undemocratic nature of the Muslim community, and its inability to reconcile its views with modern Western democratic principles. And there is no way that the political establishment wasn't able to see this undemocratic side. It wasn't simply hatred directed at Norway from beyond its borders; it was also hatred directed at the country from inside its borders, from members of the Norwegian Muslim community. Several Islamic organizations in Norway actually filed police reports against Vebjorn Selbekk for having printed the cartoons:

This incident took place just over a decade after the assassination attempt on William Nygaard. But even so the political establishment yet again failed to criticize the Muslim community for advocating views and values that ran contrary to Norwegian and Western values. Instead the Government tried to convince the Norwegian people that we have to exercise our freedom of speech sensibly. In other words we shouldn't use our freedom of expression to offend Islam. And once again we get a glimpse into the world of double standards exposed by the very same establishment that chastised Norwegian conservative commentators in the wake of the Oslo attacks.

But this wasn't the end of the Mohammed cartoons controversy in Norway. Things flared up again when the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet decided to publish a cartoon depicting Mohammad as a pig in 2010. This led to more Muslim demonstrations. And this time specific threats were directed at the Norwegians because of `perceived' insults. Again, this was done by members of a community that Norwegian authorities portray as democratic. One of those present at the demonstration was Mohammad Mohyeldeen, who stated that:

"When are the Norwegian government and media going to understand the seriousness of this? Maybe not until it's too late. Maybe not until we get an 11 September on Norwegian soil. This is not a threat, but a warning."

What is worth noting here is that Mohyeldeen was able to utter this threat without being corrected by the other Muslims who were present at the demonstration. No one in the crowd tried to stop him or to criticize him for making these threats, which raise the questions whether the other Muslim were in agreement with him. The fact is that several thousand Muslims were appalled and moved to demonstrate to get their message across when Dagbladet printed the cartoon, but the same individuals did nothing when these threats were made against Norway. This would indicate support for Mohyeldeen's statement, which again lays bare the undemocratic nature of the Muslim community in Norway.

The episodes mentioned above are just a few out of many, but they are incidents that should really have prompted the political establishment in Norway to change their attitudes towards the Muslim community. It cannot be denied that the Muslim community in Norway espouses an ideology that is hostile to Western values and that many of its members hold views that are deeply offensive to people who cherish democracy.

Another thing worth noting is that the Muslim community in Norway are highly organized, and that they often speak with one voice. The authorities in Norway will concede if pressed sufficiently that there is only a tiny minority of the Muslim populace that exhibit undemocratic views, but evidence suggests that the opposite is true. Both during The Satanic Verses protests and the two Mohammad cartoon protests the Muslim community managed to muster several thousand people, which would tend to indicate that these protests were not spontaneous displays of displeasure, but rather staged occasions of political and religious dissent.

The fact that Muslims are over-represented in assault rape cases would tend to indicate that they have a lower regard for women than the average Westerner, and there is evidence to back up this claim. In Oslo newly released figures indicate that 70 percent of all domestic abuse in the capital is perpetrated by non-Westerners. Another claim that brings weight to the assertion came in 2006 when reports presented by special investigators working for the UDI estimated that more than two thousand young women of non-Western ancestry in Norway were forcibly married between 2004 and 2006. Forced marriages are common in Muslim countries, so it's reasonable to assume that the majority of these young women were indeed Muslims.

Now sit back and take some time to think about this fact. To force a person to marry a complete stranger is one of the cruellest things that anyone can do to another human being. Choosing a partner is a crucial life decision. It will to a large extent determine the level of happiness that this person will experience. It will also determine the future of his/her children, and what opportunities are made available to the individual. To take this choice away from someone is cruel beyond words, and there is absolutely no place for it in a civilized society.

The people who perpetrate these crimes have absolutely no respect for the most basic human rights, so how can the authorities allow it to happen? Prime Minister Stoltenberg was quoted earlier in this essay saying that controversial statements made by Muslims could jeopardize the work of combating racism and xenophobia. Does he also believe that publishing less desirable facts about Muslims also increases the level of `Islamophobia' in Norway?

Failing to criticize this gross abuse of human rights is highly disrespectful towards the victims of this practice. Claiming that the people responsible for such abuse are just as democratic as any other ordinary Norwegians is a punch in the face of the victims. A more honest description would be that Muslims who engage in this kind of cruelty view women as a mere commodity, which can be traded in order to obtain certain benefits, such as money or a permanent residence permit. And realising that this is a common practice within the patriarchal Muslim community in Norway gives us a better understanding of why Muslims are over-represented in Norwegian assault rape statistics.

And when we analyse all the statistics and facts that are available to us, it appears that violence is more commonly accepted within the Muslim community in Norway than among the rest of the population. In 2007 an imam in the city of Drammen (approximately 40 kilometres west of Oslo) was arrested by police after reports of children as young as seven being physically abused at various Koran schools in the city. The imam was accused of beating the children with a cane if they failed to recite verses from the Koran correctly. This abuse took place over a period of several years at three different Koran schools in the city before the police eventually intervened. I'm not even going to mention what would have happened if this abuse had taken place in a Norwegian school and the children were beaten because they failed to correctly recite various passages from the Bible. Needless to say it would have been a media bombshell. However, the news about the Imam in Drammen wasn't a big news story at all and it hardly generated any media attention.

All of these episodes, combined with the opinions expressed by the leadership of the big Islamic organizations in Norway, give us an insight into the mentality of the average Muslims residing in the country. When we start putting the pieces together, the picture that emerges shows us that members of the Muslim community have values and views that are at odds with those of the majority population. And the fact that Muslims keep showing up in the media for all the wrong reasons indicates that the behaviour displayed by them as a group is pretty static.

However, despite the extremely undemocratic behaviour exhibited by Muslims in Norway, there is very little negative media scrutiny of the community. The political establishment constantly attempts to tone down any criticism.

It's worth noting that Norwegian Christians are not being accorded the same treatment. Conservative Christians in Norway - i.e. individuals who don't accept the official socialist government's interpretation of the Bible, and who reject homosexuality and abortion, etc. - are referred to in Norway as `Morkemenn', literally meaning `the dark men', or as Christian fundamentalists. This derogatory term is meant to silence the opinions of this group, and it is often used in newspaper articles and public discourse. It's the equivalent of calling someone a Nazi in a debate over immigration. Unlike their Muslims counterparts, Christian conservatives are also always asked to explain their views and opinions by supporters of the Left. Sadly, Islam does not face the same demands, which is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

This pattern of exculpating dark forces in Norway - which is exactly what Islam is - will not be able to continue indefinitely. Sooner or later something will have to give, and when it does all the emotions that have been held in check by the very strict use of propaganda and political dishonesty will no longer have any effect.

I believe that we will see major political and ideological changes in the next few decades in Europe. The sad part is that the tumultuous times that are ahead of us could have been avoided if the elected representatives of the European peoples had been able to show more integrity and moral courage.

When the Norwegian authorities tell us that Muslims in Norway are peaceful, hardworking, and democratic, they don't really have any hard evidence to back up this claim. As a matter of fact, there is ample hard evidence and empirical data that can be used to refute all of their claims. The authorities' arguments are basically empty shells, and will eventually collapse.

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. 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 January, 2012

If we go by the daft definition of racism proffered by Diane Abbott's own social set, then she *is* a racist

Brief background on the Abbott story here. She is a black British Leftist politician and something of a loose cannon

Is Diane Abbott racist? By any reasoned, rational assessment, of course she isn't. There's far more to being a racist than writing the occasional clumsily worded tweet. But if we go by the definition of racism proffered by Abbott's own social and political set – particularly by the Labour Party – then she is a racist. After all, who was it who redefined racism to include speech and action that is not even consciously bigoted ("unwitting racism") and to include "any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"? Yep, it was Labour and its various cliques. Abbott has fallen victim to her own mates' ruthless relativisation of what constitutes racism.

One of the most destructive legacies of the New Labour years was the racialisation of everyday life: the way in which all of us were encouraged to see racism in every off-the-cuff remark, tense encounter in the workplace, and even playground scuffle (last year more than 20,000 under-11s in British schools were punished for "racist" or "homophobic" behaviour). By turning the hunt for racist behaviour into a new moral crusade for a chattering class that was seriously bereft of one, New Labour did not defeat the scourge of racialised thinking. Rather it did the very opposite, inviting us all to think in increasingly racialised terms and to have our Offence Antennae permanently switched to High so that we might spot anything even remotely racist. The end result was a more divided, tense and racialised society, which is a far cry from the kind of equality and peace fought for by generations of anti-racists.

Under New Labour, racism was most clearly relativised through the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. It was Macpherson's report, published in 1999 and enthusiastically backed and adopted by New Labour, which introduced the idea of "unwitting racism" – the idea that one can be racist without even knowing it – and which defined as racism any incident that is deemed to be racist by the victim of it or by any other person. In short, almost anything – any dumb remark or thoughtless comment – could now be labelled a "racist incident". New Labour divorced racism from power and politics and reconceptualised it as a form of bad manners that was allegedly widespread in impolite society.

Abbott's daft tweet conforms very well to the surreal New Labourite definition of racism. She may not have intended to be racist, but so what, you can still be an "unwitting" racist. And as other people have judged her tweet to be racist, that apparently means that it is racist. The bizarre furore over Abbott's tweeting should remind us that, sadly, racial thinking has not been defeated but rather has been intensified in the post-New Labour era. Perhaps it's time to go back to having a serious definition of racism – which is after all a very serious thing. We should aspire to live in society of equals, not one in which both whites and blacks alike are continually invited to play the victim card.

SOURCE






ACLU Demands W. Virginia County Stop Funding Annual ‘Jesus Fest’ Event

A battle is brewing in Charleston, West Virginia, between the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Harrison County Commission.

Every August, a two-day festival called Jesus Fest takes place in Clarksburg. And each year, the county provides $2,000 in funding to the initiative — support that the ACLU is claiming must end.

In a Dec. 20, 2011 letter, the state’s ACLU office asked county commissioners to stop funding the festival, as it is an initiative which promotes Christianity. In the eyes of the ACLU, this is clearly a constitutional breach. Below, find a description of Jesus Fest:

The event is a family oriented festival with a focus on creating unity in the Body of Christ, which is accomplished through an interdenominational approach utilizing ecumenical leadership and the involvement of local area churches. The event focuses on evangelism and outreach to the unsaved by means of family oriented activities and events in an atmosphere of interdenominational praise and worship and the preaching of the gospel. Reaching out to the hurting and oppressed is a biblical mandate for us as a redeemed people.

In the letter (it can be read in its entirety here), the organization charges that the funding of the festival directly violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as West Virginia’s constitution. Here’s a portion of it:

The ACLU claims that it is acting on behalf of Harrison County residents who have complained and are bothered by the county’s support for the Jesus Fest. The commission has not yet made a decision regarding funding and is waiting for a recommendation from Prosector Joe Shaffer before taking any action on the matter.
Click here to find out more!

Commissioner Ron Watson says that the group is “waiting to see what kind of legal ground” it stands on in addressing the matter.

Watson also clarified some misconceptions about the monies being used. Rather than coming from taxpayer dollars, Jesus Fest is funded from video lottery and table game revenue. This money comes from the state and is, thus, distributed to the county. According to Watson, this money funds other festivals and community events as well.

“Fairs and festivals its not taxpayers money,” Watson explains.”It’s money we fund all fairs and festivals regardless of what the subject manner is. It is usually open to the public. And doing so that money does not come from property tax money. It comes from what I call devil’s money which is gambling money from video lottery and table games that the county has received.”

B.K. Vanhorn, who organizes the Jesus Fest, says that the festival gets the same privileges as other local celebrations. For instance, the commission also provides funds for the Italian Heritage Festival and the Black Heritage Festival.

Watson, like Vanhorn, doesn’t see any problem with the funding of the Jesus Fest. Another commissioner, Michael Romano, who is a member of the ACLU, is standing up against the organization’s stance on this matter as well.

The Commission has given Jesus Fest $2,000 each year for the past five years.

SOURCE




Wave of shootings baffle Swedish police

Baffled? They shouldn't be. It's just Muslims doing what Muslims do. Malmo is Muslim-dominated. It's probably Sunnis shooting Shias or vice versa. No mention of the M-word below, of course

A new wave of execution-style shootings in Sweden's third largest city has left police puzzled, raising concerns that Malmo has become a magnet for gang-related killings.

On Thursday dozens of police took to the streets in the southern Swedish city of 250,000 to try calm the public and to collect tips about the attacks, which come only a year after a suspected serial shooter was arrested there.

"We've never experienced anything like this before. It's exceptional that there have been so many murders in such a short period of time," police spokesman Lars-Hakan Lindholm said. "People are worried of course and want to talk about it."

In less than six weeks, five people have been shot dead in execution-style killings, prompting local police to ask for back-up from national investigators and for Malmo Mayor Ilmar Reepalu to call on the country's justice minister to implement tougher gun laws.

Sweden's gun control laws are fairly strict. Penalties for possessing illegal arms typically involve fines or up to one year in prison, but serious breaches of the law can result in a four-year sentence.

Lindholm said that due to the fast escalating death-toll police presence has now been bumped up by about 30 extra officers in the city on weekdays and by around 40 on the weekends. Malmo is an eclectic city, where about 40 percent of its residents are first- or second-generation immigrants.

The latest murder occurred on Tuesday, when a man in his late 40's was shot dead in broad daylight on an open street near his Malmo home.

Two days earlier, a 15-year-old boy was killed in the midst of the Malmo New Year celebrations.

"They're almost like executions," Lindholm said of the killings, but noted that there are still no suspects in the slayings and police remain baffled to what the motives might be.

The killings have upset many Malmo inhabitants who, just last year, saw the end of a near seven-year shooting terror by a lone gunman that targeted immigrants.

That suspect, 39-year old Peter Mangs, is currently facing charges for allegedly killing three people and attempting to murder another 13 victims in a series of sniper-like attacks.

Police say they see few links between Mangs and the latest shootings however, having largely ruled out that they're dealing with a copycat.

Instead, they indicate the incidents could possibly be gang-related, as the victims seem to have been carefully picked out.

"There is nothing pointing to that these are random shooting acts. There have been specific targets and the targets have been hit," Superintendent Borje Sjoholm told reporters at a newsconference earlier this week. "There are some common denominators between the five murders," he added. [Like what? Sunnis shooting Shias?]

In the light of the shootings, demonstrators will stage a protest against organized crime and illegal arms in Malmo on Friday. Some 4,800 people have so far signed up for participation.

SOURCE





Official anti-racism: the new British nationalism?

I must say I was rather surprised by the explosion of self-congratulation when the white killers of a black guy were convicted. Blacks attack whites all the time in Britain and it gets only minor attention. Is it wrong for whites to attack blacks but not wrong for blacks to attack whites? Very strange. Perhaps you have to be a guilt-ridden Brit to understand it -- JR

Once the British state and establishment used the politics of race to boost its authority. Today, in pursuit of the same self-serving ends, they are instead engaged in a phoney moral crusade behind official anti-racism. Is that anything to celebrate?

The conviction of two men for the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 has sparked a national celebration of this apparent victory over the evils of racism. Every section of the media and political elite has jostled to line up behind Lawrence’s parents and sign up to the official anti-racist consensus. As one leading press figure put it, the guilty verdict is ‘a triumph’ not only for the Lawrences but for British justice, policing, politics and the media.

For those of us who campaigned against racism in the bad old days of the 1980s, this looks like so remarkable a turnaround in attitudes that one might almost wonder if we are living not just in another century but on a different planet. Thirty years ago when I joined a group called Workers Against Racism, there was no sympathetic media coverage or mainstream political support for the Asian families being burnt out of housing estates or the black youth being routinely brutalised by the police. The national debate was all about the scourge of ‘immigrant scroungers’ and black ‘muggers’. Those who fought against racists were branded extremists, the flipside of the fascists.

Let’s be clear. This was not the ‘unwitting’ prejudice described by the Macpherson inquiry into Lawrence’s murder as the basis of ‘institutional racism’ in the UK. It was deliberate, politicised and vitriolic racism, popularised from the top down and enforced by the state as a weapon to divide the working class and consolidate white support for the authorities.

Living in Moss Side, Manchester during the 1981 riots, I remember police vans cruising the streets while riot cops beat their batons on the side and chanted ‘Niggers, niggers, niggers – out, out, out!’. A veteran comrade of mine recalls being arrested in east London around the same time while carrying some Workers Against Racism pamphlets, and being repeatedly asked by the police ‘Do you like monkeys?’ and ‘Why do you live in a monkey cage?’ (that is, his largely black council estate in Hackney). After the Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham exploded in a riot sparked by police brutality in 1985, in which an officer was killed, the Metropolitan Police arrested hundreds of youths and told the white kids to cooperate because ‘we only want the blacks’. And so it went on. The incompetent police investigation into the Lawrence murder should have come as little surprise.

And the problem went far beyond police ranks. Tory prime minister Margaret Thatcher is remembered for her declaration about British culture being ‘swamped’ by immigrants. But there was little more sympathy for the victims of racism among leaders of the Labour Party and trade unions. In 1982, we marched from London to Brighton to call on the TUC to take a stand against racial discrimination and violence. Our message was not well received.

Now look at the contrast with the carnival of official anti-racism around the Lawrence murder verdicts this week. What has brought these remarkable changes about? New Labour home secretary Jack Straw summed up the widespread view that, ‘if Britain has changed for the better in the intervening 19 years… that’s above all down to two extraordinary people, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, Stephen’s parents’. Are we really to believe that the Lawrences have magic powers to transform a nation?

What has happened over the past two decades is that Britain has undergone a major cultural shift as the old politics of nationalism and race have lost their grip on public consciousness. This would have happened whether or not Stephen Lawrence had been murdered by racists. Indeed, the fact that his killing remains the benchmark for racist violence 19 years on shows how rare such incidents have become.

But here is the thing. The truth is that the less overtly racist British society has become in recent times, the more the authorities have started preaching about the evils of racism and launching new crusades against it. What has altered most is the perception of racism. Where once it was society’s guilty secret, now there is a concerted effort to trawl for and publicise any hint of racially incorrect language or behaviour from the school playground to the football pitch. The less racism is in evidence, the more everything appears to have been racialised. Why?

Official anti-racism has become the beleaguered elites’ political weapon of choice. The old British Establishment used the traditional politics of nationalism, race and empire to assert its authority. Those days are long gone. Instead, today’s political and cultural elites have seized upon the new orthodoxy of official anti-racism to try to give them a sense of moral purpose. Official anti-racism has also become a tool both to demonise and to discipline the white working-class people whom the elites fear and loathe.

The Lawrence case has indeed played a big part in this process, though not in the way widely assumed this week. The key was not so much the murder itself, but the publication of the 1999 Macpherson report into the case, which formally rewrote the state’s doctrine on the politics of race.

Macpherson introduced two landmark changes. First, it introduced a new official definition of a race crime. A racial incident is now ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’. Such a sweeping subjective definition of a race crime has inevitably confused debate and fostered the view that racism is everywhere and that ever more laws and initiatives are required to police it.

Second, Macpherson defined the problem of ‘institutional racism’ at the heart of British society, leading to the reorganisation of the police and other public institutions around this assumption. But whereas the Sixties radicals who coined the phrase were talking about the deliberate wielding of power by a racist state apparatus, Macpherson explicitly rejected any such link between institutional racism and the exercise of power. The report stated that the Metropolitan Police was not racist; the problem was more the ‘unwitting words and actions’ of individual officers acting together.

Once racism is reduced to a problem of the individual rather than the state or society, the solution becomes re-education to alter individual attitudes. This is an open invitation to the state to intervene to police people’s words, actions and even thoughts – particularly those of the white working class now seen as the source of the problem. Macpherson even proposed that the use of racist language in your own home should be made an explicit criminal offence. The report led to an explosion of race-based codes of conduct, awareness training and surveillance measures throughout British institutions.

New laws have made it possible to charge people with ‘racially aggravated’ offences, rather than just old-fashioned assault or criminal damage, and sentence them more stiffly on conviction. The law has thus extended into punishing an individual, not just for what he had done, but for what he was assumed to be thinking when he committed an offence - his supposed ‘racial motivation’. This was reflected in the sentencing of those two men for the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Redefined on this individualised basis, racism has been taken up as the cause of the moral crusade. Declaring that you are not a racist has become the bottom line that helps mark you out as one of the ‘right-thinking people’, in the words of one police chief. In an age when many of the old moral certainties have been badly eroded, distancing yourself from racist remarks and following the new etiquette is seen as one of the few ways to draw a clear line between Good and Evil.

That is why every British leader and institution is now so keen to swear their abhorrence of racism, as a pass to the moral high ground that might once have been provided by declaring their belief in God. As the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission boasted after the Lawrence verdicts, racial prejudice is now seen ‘as a secular sin that is not to be tolerated’. And the worst sinners are now deemed to be the white working classes, who must have the new catechism/etiquette of official anti-racism drummed into them at every opportunity. That is why, for example, any hint of racism around football, patronisingly seen as a modern opiate of the masses, is made such a public example of today.

It was against this background that the killing of Stephen Lawrence was belatedly singled out by the authorities as so important. It became more than a murder inquiry; not just a criminal case, but a political cause, as the Met’s deputy commissioner Cressida Dick effectively admitted this week: ‘All murder cases are absolutely dreadful, but this case for reasons you will all understand is extremely important, not just for the Metropolitan Police, but for society at large.’ It had become a way for the state to regain some moral authority around official anti-racism.

I have little sympathy for the two men jailed for the killing of Stephen Lawrence. But for some of us who campaigned against racism on the basis of a belief in freedom, equality and democracy, the wider changes the case has become a vehicle for have not been for the better.

Indeed, some of the most worrying political and legal trends evident in recent years have been promoted in the name of official anti-racism post-Lawrence. These include the rewriting of the law along subjective, arbitrary lines through the redefinition of a race crime; the spread of conformist codes of conduct that police language and thought and suppress open debate; the institutionalisation of mistrust and mutual surveillance; and the notion that people are to be judged on their private attitudes at least as much as their public actions.

In the name of ‘zero tolerance’, the codes of official anti-racism have turned intolerance of offensive views into a ‘value’, even a virtue. Indeed, such is the intolerance of those suspected of harbouring sinful thoughts today that anything can apparently be justified to get them – up to and including, as Brendan O’Neill argues on spiked today, the abolition of such an historic principle of the justice system as the law against double jeopardy. This is the modern elite’s version of the old corrupt copper’s mantra – if they’re wrong’uns, anything goes to get them.

On spiked, and even before that in LM magazine, we have argued from the start that there is no benefit for those who believe in freedom in the phoney moral crusade of official anti-racism launched around the Lawrence case. As I wrote here 10 years ago, ‘It is the new thought police, rather than the old racist ones, who are running riot through Britain today’. The exploitation of the Lawrence verdict this week confirms that official anti-racism is now every bit as authoritarian and intolerant as the state racism of old.

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. 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 January, 2012

Ten per cent of all murders in Britain are carried out by bail bandits

More than 10 per cent of murders in are committed by criminals released on bail for another crime. In the last five years, more than 350 killings were carried out by so-called ‘bail bandits’. It means that more than one violent death a week could have been prevented if the suspect had been locked up instead of being
let out.

Despite the worrying scale of serious crime by bailed suspects, ministers are planning a huge rise in the use of bail for suspects. Thousands more could be released every year before their cases reach trial in an effort to save millions in prison costs.

But the move is raising concerns that more innocent people will be victims of suspects who would otherwise have been behind bars.

Javed Khan, chief executive of Victim Support, said: ‘It’s traumatic enough being a victim of serious crime. It adds insult to injury when a victim finds out that the offender was on bail at the time. ‘These figures are a cause for concern and could further undermine confidence in the justice system.

‘We know that victims want an effective criminal justice system that cuts crime and stops reoffending. ‘That is why justice agencies need to work harder at stopping people committing serious offences while on bail.’

The Tory MP for Witham, Priti Patel, said: ‘The Government has to look at these figures carefully and address how the public can be protected from these individuals. ‘They should also look at how they can clamp down on bail order breaches and, most importantly, make sure these individuals are properly prosecuted. ‘This is making a mockery of the criminal justice system.’

Official figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that over five years, 11 per cent of murders were committed by offenders bailed over another offence. Between 2006 and 2010, some 238 murders were committed by in England and Wales by bailed suspects out of a total of 2,107. Bail bandits committed 125 offences of manslaughter in the same period out of a total of 1,305. They were also responsible for 446 rapes, or nearly 90 every year. That is four per cent of all rapes carried out in the period. In addition, more than 900 sexual offences were committed against children by bailed criminals.

Overall, suspects who could have been locked up were responsible for seven per cent of all serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, serious assault, rape and sex offences against children.

Bailed suspects commit one crime every four minutes, including a fifth of all burglaries and one in six robberies.

Cases where bailed criminals have committed horrific crimes are among the most notorious in recent years. Father-of-three Garry Newlove, 47,was kicked to death in 2007 after confronting drunks who damaged his wife’s car. His killer, teenage thug Adam Swellings, had been released on bail that morning after being convicted of assault.

Other cases include Jonathan Vass, a 30-year-old ex-bouncer, who slit the throat of his former girlfriend while on bail for raping her.

The figures are the latest to provoke fears that too many criminals are escaping with ‘soft justice’. Last month the Daily Mail revealed that 50 people a day suffer a violent or sexual attack by a convict who has been spared jail.

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has proposed a huge increase in the use of bail. Thousands more suspects could be released on electronic tags that alert the authorities if they do not comply with their curfew. Around 9,200 fewer criminals every year will be remanded into custody before trial.

Officials insist the measure will be used only when the alleged offence means there is ‘no prospect’ of the suspect being jailed if found guilty. They say prosecutors will be given the power to challenge bail decisions if they fear the public may be at risk.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘Dangerous offenders who pose a threat to society should always be remanded into custody while they await trial.

‘To strengthen this, the Government recently signalled its intention to allow prosecutors to challenge a Crown Court bail decision where they feel a potentially dangerous prisoner could be bailed. 'Bail is only being modified for minor offences where the defendant would not receive a jail sentence if convicted. ‘The decision to grant bail is taken by the police and courts based on the full facts of each case.

'They take extreme care, particularly when making decisions about cases involving violent crimes.

‘The overwhelming majority of people bailed do not reoffend and are often given strict conditions such as electronic tags and curfews. ‘Anyone who reoffends while on bail will usually receive a longer sentence as a result.’

SOURCE





Divorced British parents will have right to see their children under new law

This is already in place in Australia

Ministers are drawing up new rules to put courts under a legal duty to ensure divorced parents are guaranteed access to their children. Parents who refuse to accept the orders will be in contempt of court and risk serious penalties or even jail.

The move will delight fathers’ rights campaigners who believe dads are penalised under the present system which usually grants mothers custody.

The Coalition is hoping to succeed where Labour failed. In early 2005, it tried to force mothers to let partners see their children by threatening to impose penalties such as night curfews and electronic tagging.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Tory work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith have apparently agreed a different approach which they hope will be more successful.

Around 3.8million children - one in three - live without their father.

Last night children’s minister Tim Loughton said: ‘Our vision is to establish that, under normal circumstances, a child will have a relationship with both his or her parents, regardless of their relationship with each other.

'We must do everything we can to improve the system so that it gives children the best chance of growing up under the guidance of two loving parents.

'All the evidence tells us that children genuinely benefit from a relationship with both parents, with the potential to make different contributions to their child’s development.

'The culture has shifted away from the traditional view that mothers are primarily responsible for the care of children. Increasingly society recognises the valuable and distinct role of both parents.

'We are looking closely at all the options for promoting shared parenting through possible legislative and non-legislative means.'

Mr Loughton’s comments indicate that ministers have gone against a key finding of November’s family justice review, which rejected equal access for mothers and fathers, saying it would put too much pressure on judges. It is believed that the law could be changed by amending the 1989 Children’s Act to include presumption of shared parenting.

Another option would be for the Government to support a backbench bill by Tory MP Charlie Elphicke, which will be debated later this month. The bill requires courts and councils which are enforcing contact orders for children ‘to operate under the presumption that the rights of a child include growing up knowing and having access to and contact with both parents involved’.

Nadine O’Connor, campaign director for Fathers4Justice, said a Government move would be a ‘massive step forward’. 'It is saying that dads have as many rights as mums,' she said. 'I will believe it when I see it, but the reform has to apply across the family justice system.'

SOURCE





Free yourselves from the lefty ghetto

Lefties, as a rule, only read other lefties. This seems to be the case with George Monbiot. His attack on libertarianism (This bastardised libertarianism makes ‘freedom’ an instrument of oppression, 19 December) is the usual mix of unwillingness and inability to understand anything outside the intellectual ghettoes of the left.

He claims to have asked: “Do you accept that some people’s freedoms intrude upon other people’s freedoms?” - as if that were some knock-down refutation never made before. Of course we do. Our difference with him isn’t that we are against courts and the other modes of dispute resolution. What we deny is that social peace requires an enlarged and omnicompetent state run by his friends.

He claims we “pretend … that only the state intrudes on our liberties. [We] ignore … the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free.” Not quite. We do believe that the state is the foremost violator of our right to life, liberty and property. But we also observe that banks are licensed and regulated creatures of the state, and that big business in general is only big because of state-granted privileges like limited liability, infrastructure subsidies, and tax and regulatory systems that cartellise costs and flatten competition from outside the magic circle. There is a difference between believing in free markets and supporting actually existing capitalism.

You could have published an attack on libertarianism that didn’t border on misrepresentation. Or perhaps not. That would have meant exposing your readers to genuine libertarian positions. And that might, in a few cases, have opened the gates of their intellectual ghetto.

SOURCE





Australia: Political correctness kills a black kid

Authorities could not intervene in neglectful childcare arrangements for "cultural reasons"

The Department of Child Protection has admitted to not intervening on behalf of an eight-year-old girl, who has since died in the desert under questionable circumstances, despite knowing she was living with a convicted child snatcher.

The girl, whose name and photograph has been suppressed for cultural reasons, died from severe dehydration on Tuesday after she was found more than 12 kilometres from the Tjirrkali Aboriginal Community, 180 kilometres north-west of Warburton.

She was in the company of Augustine Winter Miller, 38, who was the partner of the girl's carer Tania Little, who was also no relation to the girl.

Ms Little made headlines when she admitted to stealing a three-day-old baby from Perth's King Edward Memorial Hospital in 2007 and was given a suspended sentence by the Kalgoorlie District Court the following year.

The department said it had paid Ms Little to care for the girl through its family crisis program since 2010. But it said it was not culturally appropriate to intervene in the girl's care because it was common practice with Aboriginal children to leave living arrangements up to the extended family.

But Goldfields community leader Daisy Ward said the little girl was abandoned to two people who were not related to her or from her country. This was despite the girl having family, including both parents, a brother and aunties and uncles on both sides, who lived in the alcohol-free and traditional community of Jameson, Ms Ward said.

Ms Ward said that the girl should have gone back to her family instead of strangers. "I feel sick thinking about it. The duty of care goes back to the parents," Ms Ward said. "The carer that was looking after her should not have let her go [hunting]. There was a big responsibility [over her care].

"Only family should have had her. They should have had her in the first place, when she was little. It still goes back to parenting and the parents did wrong."

It is not known whether the girl's family were even notified that she had gone to live with a stranger since the community is not speaking to media.

The girl's mother Ann-Marie Lane had given up custody of her daughter and a son, when they were young, because she was not coping. The older boy went to live with his father in Jameson and her then two-year-old daughter went to live with a grandmother, Nola Grant. Ms Grant eventually died from kidney failure when the girl was aged about six.

The girl then went to live with Ms Little but details are sketchy about what arrangement was made between the grandmother and Ms Little over the care of the little girl before Ms Grant died.

It appeared that Ms Little had helped the older woman care for the girl when Ms Grant became increasingly unwell. Ms Little then took over custody and sought financial assistance for her new ward from the department in May 2010.

The department provided payments to Ms Little through Centrelink for more than a year but did not question the appropriateness of the convicted child snatcher to be her carer or seek out the girl's actual family.

"The department is unable to comment on the specifics of individual cases for reasons of family privacy," it said in a written statement. "...The department responds to notifications of concern regarding the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. Where necessary, the department will make alternative arrangements for children whose parents are not able to care for them. "However, if the extended family makes arrangements to ensure the safety and wellbeing of a child, the department will not need to intervene.

"These sorts of arrangements made by extended family are culturally appropriate and not uncommon in Aboriginal communities."

It said the type of financial assistance it provided was to pay for food, utilities and any undertaking of urgent travel, as well as provide bereavement assistance where applicable.

The department has denied any knowledge of the girl having gone to live in the Tjirrkali Aboriginal Community, 180 kilometres north-west of Warburton, where Mr Miller resided.

Mr Miller was known to police because he was a convicted child sex offender after forming a relationship with 14-year-old girl who he said had been promised to him as a wife. Mr Miller is not considered a traditional man except that he has gone through traditional men's business as an adult.

Since April last year the Laverton man and Ms Little formed a relationship and she joined Mr Miller in the Tjirrkali Aboriginal Community, where he hunted and operated as a bush mechanic.

It was his skills as a mechanic and his knowledge of bush survival that have caused the Warburton community to question how he and the little girl came to be lost in the desert for four days.

The girl died despite valiant efforts of police and a Warburton nurse to try and resuscitate her when she was found unconscious at 2pm on Tuesday.

The pair had been on a hunting trip since Saturday and were found halfway between their abandoned two-wheel drive car, which was 25 kilometres into the remote desert, and the community.

The girl's death is still being investigated by police for the state coroner and is being treated as suspicious as a precautionary measure.

In the meantime the Warburton community is baying for Mr Miller's blood in the way of pay back, which under tribal law allows the men to spear him for failing to ensure the girl's safety.

It is understood that the mother, Ms Lane, has flown to Warburton to collect the body, which is to be laid to rest in Jameson.

Mr Miller is meant to reside in Kalgoorlie until his next court hearing for firearm charges. He was released from custody by the Magistrates Court on the condition that he was to report to local police every day from Monday to Friday.

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. 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 January, 2012

In Defense of PRIVATE Affirmative Action

In order to put together a “diverse” student body, it is standard practice for many colleges and universities to use race as a factor in admissions. An unintended consequence of this policy is that some students who otherwise qualify for admission are denied because of their race.

These race-factor admissions programs are invariably Affirmative Action programs like those that give special consideration to certain minorities in employment and contracting decisions.

Abigail Noel Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz allege that they were denied entrance to the University of Texas because they are white. After they were denied enrollment in the fall 2008 semester, Abigail went on to Louisiana State University, where she will graduate this spring; Rachel attended St. Edward’s University in Austin (also the home of the University of Texas), graduated after three years, and is now a law student at Southern Methodist University.

But the girls did something in addition to attending other schools — they sued the University of Texas, challenging the constitutionality of its admissions process. Since then, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks in Austin dismissed the lawsuit, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans affirmed the decision, and, in an en banc rehearing and by a 9-7 vote, the full Fifth Circuit refused to consider an appeal.

Opponents of Affirmative Action are hoping the Supreme Court will take up the case. A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on September 15. Six amicus curiae briefs were then filed with the Court, which has asked the University of Texas to provide a reaction to the new challenge to its admission policy. (Rachel Michalewicz is no longer part of the case, since she has graduated from college already.)

On December 16, the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society co-sponsored a debate on the case featuring two advocates for each side, including the original counsel for the University of Texas in the case.

There hasn’t been this much attention to a college admissions Affirmative Action case since Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, both in 2003.

In Gratz, an undergraduate admissions policy at the University of Michigan with a point system awarding 20 points to members of “underrepresented groups” on the basis of race alone was struck down as unconstitutional by a vote of 6-3.

In Grutter, a preferential admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School that was based on race and had no specific point system but admitted less-qualified minorities over more-qualified whites was ruled constitutional by a vote of 5-4 because “the Law School’s race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants.”

Both of those cases harken back to the first Supreme Court Affirmative Action case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). In that case, Alan Bakke, a white man, was twice denied admission to the medical school at the University of California at Davis even though his qualifications exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years since his applications were rejected.

Although the Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 5-4, that the university’s admission plan was unconstitutional and ordered that Bakke be admitted, it also ruled, by a vote of 5-4, that the use of race as a factor in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutional. In the words of Justice Lewis Powell, who cast the deciding vote in each case, “The judgment below is affirmed insofar as it orders respondent’s admission to Davis and invalidates petitioner’s special admissions program, but is reversed insofar as it prohibits petitioner from taking race into account as a factor in its future admissions decisions.”

It is interesting that both California, in 1996, and Michigan, in 2006, had successful ballot initiatives that ended Affirmative Action in admissions to state universities and other public institutions, although the Michigan initiative was recently overturned by a federal court.

Affirmative Action had its beginnings not as a federal program, but as two words in a sentence. In 1961, John Kennedy, in Executive Order No. 10925, created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity to end discrimination in employment by the government and its contractors. Every federal contract was required to include this pledge:

The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The Contractor will take affirmative action, to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.

Applicants for positions would be judged without any consideration of their race, religion, or national origin.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in title VI, sec. 601, reinforced that idea:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Lyndon Johnson, however, expanded that goal. In a 1965 commencement address at Howard University, he said,

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates. We seek not just freedom, but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity, but human ability; not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result.
He then issued Executive Order No. 11246, which laid the foundation for a federal program that would later develop into what is known as Affirmative Action:

It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all qualified persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency.

Under Richard Nixon, the Department of Labor in December 1971 issued Revised Order No. 4, requiring all contractors to develop “an acceptable affirmative action program,” including “an analysis of areas within which the contractor is deficient in the utilization of minority groups and women, and further, goals and timetables to which the contractor’s good faith efforts must be directed to correct the deficiencies.”

So after beginning as two words in a pledge by federal contractors to employ people without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin, “affirmative action” morphed into a program enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Headquartered in Washington, D.C., but also working through 53 field offices in every part of the country, the EEOC has 2,500 employees and a $367 million budget.

Affirmative Action is usually seen as a divisive issue, with liberals generally supporting it and conservatives generally opposing it, but such shouldn’t be the case at all.

It is clear that government and public institutions have no business giving adverse or preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ethnic group, sex, age, et cetera. But that doesn’t mean that affirmative action, quotas, discrimination, or preferential treatment based on those characteristics aren’t viable options in a free society — as long as it is a matter of individual liberty and private property instead of government decree.

For the libertarian, the issue is not divisive at all, because, as Jacob Hornberger explains,

A person has the fundamental right to associate with anyone he chooses and on any basis he chooses. He might be the biggest bigot in the world, choosing only to associate with white supremacists, but that’s what freedom is all about — the right to make whatever choices one wants in his life, so long as his conduct is peaceful — i.e., no murder, rape, theft, fraud, or other violent assaults against others.

In a free society, private schools, businesses, organizations, and individual persons would be free to practice or not practice affirmative action. In fact, it couldn’t be otherwise and still be a free society.

If a private school wanted to grant preference in admissions to students of a particular race then so be it. If a parent or student thought the school was too white, too black, too Latino, or too Asian, then he could look for another school.

If a private business wanted to give discounts only to customers of a particular religion, then so be it. Customers of other religions could still continue to shop there or take their business elsewhere. (Strange that no one complains about the widespread prevalence of senior-citizen discounts, that is, age discrimination.)

If a private organization wanted to limit its membership to a specific sex, then so be it. No persons of either sex have the right to force any private organization to admit them.

If a person wanted to associate or not associate with people from particular ethnic groups, then so be it. It doesn’t matter if it is illogical. It doesn’t matter if it is based on false stereotypes. It doesn’t matter what the reason, and it’s no one’s business what the reason is.

“Anything that’s peaceful” means anything that’s peaceful. That is the difference between a free society and one overseen, managed, or controlled by government bureaucrats at the EEOC and the myriad of other federal agencies that infringe upon liberty, property, and the freedom of association.

SOURCE





Prime Minister Cameron pledges to 'kill' health and safety culture

The Prime Minister faced down criticism from small business owners over Government solar tariff and taxation today as he launched a campaign to “kill” the UK’s "excessive" health and safety culture.

David Cameron used his first public engagement of the year to stress to an audience of business owners in Maidenhead, Berkshire, that the Coalition would do “everything we can to help” in what would be a “tough” year for the economy.

He also declared “war” on what he described as the “excessive health and safety culture that has become an albatross around the neck of British businesses”.

The number of existing health and safety regulations is to be cut in half by the end of the year and a cap imposed on the legal fees that can be charged on employer and public liability claims worth less than £25,000 to reduce costs and discourage vexatious claims.
However, the Prime Minister was attacked for the Government’s handling of the solar panel tariff debacle and for HM Revenue & Customs apparent failure to collect £25bn in tax from large companies like Vodafone and Goldman Sachs.

Erica Robb, who runs Sprit Solar in Reading, told the Prime Minister that the decision to give the solar panel industry six weeks notice of the reduction in the feed in tariff in December was “disgraceful”.

Referring to the Prime Minister’s earlier claim to understand business because he had worked in companies, she said: “A container [of solar panels] takes 12 weeks to arrive; planning permission takes 12 weeks. David Cameron has PR experience, not industry experience. He has not run an order book that runs out 12 weeks or more.”

Mr Cameron said the Government could have handled the “timing” of the tariff cut better, but defended the need to cut the tariff after more people installed solar panels than expected.

Julie Meyer, founder of venture capital firm Ariadne, also raised HMRC’s decision to write off tax owed by large companies while at the same time fining small businesses for failing to maintain adequate records.

The Prime Minister said “a tougher approach” to tax collection was needed to ensure that all businesses paid their “fair share” of tax and that the Government was considering an “anti-avoidance power” to address the issue.

SOURCE





African ignorance in London

A TEENAGE boy was tortured and drowned on Christmas Day 2010 by his relatives after they accused him of practising witchcraft, a court has been told.

Kristy Bamu, 15, suffered 101 different injuries from being attacked with a chisel, a hammer and a metal bar, and was in such pain that he begged to die, prosecutors told the Old Bailey in London.

The victim had travelled with his two brothers and two sisters from Paris, where they lived with their parents, to stay with their older sister Magalie Bamu at her flat in east London.

Prosecutors said Magalie Bamu's partner, Eric Bikubi, had started the horror by accusing Kristy and his two sisters of witchcraft and Bikubi then launched a campaign of torture.

Kristy's siblings were forced to join in the attacks on him during their four-day ordeal before they were all placed in a bath and hosed down with cold water on December 25, 2010, the court heard.

Paramedics were called when Kristy fell unconscious but he was pronounced dead and an autopsy found he died from a combination of being beaten and drowning.

"Kristy had been the victim of a prolonged attack of unspeakable savagery and brutality," prosecutor Brian Altman said.

"Wickedly, the defendants also recruited sibling against sibling as vehicles for their violence. In a staggering act of depravity and cruelty, they both forced the others to take part in the assaults upon Kristy."

Several calls were made to the children's parents in the French capital but their father did not realise what was going on, Altman said, adding: "He had sent his children on holiday, not to a torture chamber."

The defendants were both originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

SOURCE





Amazing Leftist stupidity over Australia's most solemn day of commemoration

Leftists just don't get it. They are emotionally stunted

ANZAC Day, arguably the most sacred day on the Australian calendar, is in danger of being "branded" by the Federal Government.

War veterans say the 2015 centenary of the Australian landing on Gallipoli will speak for itself, without the need for hype, slogans or motifs, The Daily Telegraph reported. But federal bureaucrats have spent $100,000 on focus groups to determine how to "brand" the big day.

A market research company was paid $103,275 to conduct focus groups nationwide, including in Melbourne, last year.

Former premier Jeff Kennett said it was "an abject waste of money". It should be clear to the Government what the day means, and the idea of "branding" it was ridiculous, he said. "Anzac Day has come to mean so much that increasing numbers of young people are participating in dawn services and other commemorative services around Anzac Day," he said.

"It is a political intervention which should be snuffed out immediately, not just because it's a waste of money but because Anzac Day ... (is) profoundly celebrated and commemorated."

World War II veteran and ex-PoW Frank Holland-Stabback, who will march for the last time this year, agreed, saying Anzac Day allowed him to show his pride in serving his country. "I think Anzac Day is known well enough as it is."

Victorian RSL boss David McLachlan said he did not want to comment until he had seen the plans.

A Department of Veterans' Affairs spokeswoman said the idea for "a national brand or motif" emerged from an Anzac Centenary Advisory Board meeting on October 14. It was "not unusual for the Australian Government to undertake focus testing for a project of this scale and importance", she said.

The Government was tendering for a design, and she said concepts were "focus tested by a market research company" with defence force members and people from various age groups. They were asked how well each motif gained their attention and which they considered would best represent the Anzac centenary. "This was important to determine resonance with the Australian community," she said.

Ray Brown, from the Injured Service Persons Association (Peacetime), said the Government's approach was inappropriate, and Anzacs who fought at Gallipoli would have been stunned.

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. 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 January, 2012

Surprise! Men and women really ARE different: Sexes share just 10 per cent of their personality traits

Ever suspected that the opposite sex comes from another planet? It seems they might as well. Men and women really are different, according to a study – and while the differences between them may not come as a shock, the scale of them might.

Researchers found that the average man and woman share only 10 per cent of their personality traits.

Psychologically, they concluded, the sexes may as well come from different worlds – along the lines of the bestselling book Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.

Psychologists at Manchester University and in Italy analysed the results of personality tests which were given to 10,000 people and measured 15 traits. In keeping with age-old stereotypes, women scored more highly on sensitivity, warmth and feelings of apprehension, while men fared better on emotional stability, dominance and rule consciousness, or sense of duty.

The researchers concluded that there were ‘extremely large’ personality differences between the sexes which could have implications in the workplace.

Co-author Dr Paul Irwing, of Manchester University’s Psychometrics at Work Research Group, said: ‘It was a really surprising finding. ‘The conventional view, and my own view, was that there would have been much greater overlap, but actually there is an extremely large difference.

It sounds highly stereotypical, but you find a huge proportion of women in the caring and socially related professions such as teaching and nursing and administration. ‘People self-select professions in which they will feel happy and satisfied and that is no bad thing.’

In the study, published today in journal PLoS One, the researchers conclude that it is ‘difficult to overstate the theoretical and practical importance’ of their findings.

But Dr Irwing stressed that there are still ‘massive individual differences’ between men and women, partly due to personal variations in hormone levels.

And Janet Hyde, Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, argued that other studies based on millions of people showed men and women are ‘very similar on most psychological variables’

SOURCE




Half of the British workshy would give up their benefits rather than get out of bed

Half of those claiming unemployment benefits would prefer to lose their handouts than do a stint of unpaid work. Figures show that 20 per cent of those ordered to take part in four-week community projects stop claiming immediately and another 30 per cent are stripped of their benefits when they fail to turn up.

Officials suspect many of those who stop claiming benefits are working in the black economy and would rather lose their welfare than give up their undeclared earnings.

Government sources say the results of a trial scheme are so striking that ministers are preparing to roll it out nationwide in a programme hitting up to 50,000 unemployed. Job Centre staff have been given the power to force anyone claiming out-of-work benefits to take part in ‘mandatory work activity’ – unpaid posts designed to get them used to working from nine to five.

Those who appear unwilling to look for work can be referred to the scheme at any stage, even on the first day of their claim. The placements are typically with charities or involve some kind of community service, such as helping to maintain parks.

Those who refuse to take part, or agree but then fail to turn up, have their £67.50-a-week unemployment benefit stopped until they agree to do so.

A source close to the programme told the Mail that the results so far had been ‘extraordinary’. ‘This has started on a relatively small scale, to see how it would work, but nobody expected the results we are seeing,’ he said. ‘More than half of those people referred are coming off benefits. Around a fifth sign off straight away after being referred for mandatory work activity. ‘Another third simply don’t turn up, and then have their benefits stopped unless they are prepared to re-engage with the programme at a later date.

‘They have to spend a month working in a charity shop or with various voluntary organisations. The idea is that they have to get up, go out and come away with some sort of work ethic. ‘Instead, for the majority it is proving to be a push that gets them off benefits. What this demonstrates is that there is really a hardcore of claimants who have absolutely no intention of working come what may.’

Employment Minister Chris Grayling will announce a major expansion of the scheme next month. It will cost around £5million because officials have to arrange work placements and monitor claimants’ attendance. However, ministers believe it will produce big savings to Britain’s £100billion benefits bill in the long term.

The expanded scheme will focus particularly on the young amid concern that the number of young people not in employment, education or training – so-called Neets – has passed the one million mark. Figures show that more than a fifth of 18 to 24-year-olds are Neets. One in seven 16 to 18-year-olds, more than 250,000 teenagers, is on the dole.

The Coalition plans a £1billion package designed to take thousands of youngsters off the dole.Employers are to be offered subsidies worth £2,275 a time to take on 160,000 youngsters who have been unemployed for more than six months. The cash will effectively subsidise half of the cost of paying someone the youth minimum wage for six months.

Funding has also been released to pay for an extra 250,000 work experience places. And employers will be offered ‘incentives’ of £1,500 a time to create an additional 20,000 apprenticeships.

Under the youth jobs initiative, unemployed youngsters will be required to sign a new ‘youth contract’ committing them to accept the offer of a job or work experience. Those who refuse will have to go on to the mandatory work activity, or face losing their benefits. The mandatory work scheme has been piloted at job centres all over the country.

SOURCE





Postcard From Islamic London

by Ben Shapiro

I’ve been spending my Christmas vacation with my wife in Rome and London. We arrived in London on Christmas Eve. It’s truly an amazing city – everywhere you look, there’s history, from the Tower of London to the Churchill Museum. But everywhere you look, there is a more ominous presence: Islam.

Now, no less a personage than Prime Minister David Cameron has already admitted that the integration of Muslims into British society has failed dramatically. In February 2011, Cameron stated:

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.

That failure of integration is clear from the get-go. There are official signs translated into Arabic for those who do not wish to speak or read English. The chatter of Islamic languages is as prevalent as the mother tongue. The hijab is omnipresent.

Perhaps all this might be a charming byproduct of multiculturalism if it weren’t for the fact that so much of the Islamic population of Great Britain is radicalized. That radicalization is not difficult to spot.

With all the major official sites closed the day after Christmas, my wife and I headed over to Madame Tussaud​’s to take in the famed tourist trap. As we strolled the halls filled with famous cultural figures, most from the 20th century, we came across the wax doll for Albert Einstein. And there, crowded around the figure, stood five young Muslims – two male, three female. While other guests stood next to the model and smiled, or put an arm around it, these Muslim worthies stood next to the wax model – and put their hands around its throat, simulating strangling it. At first, I couldn’t believe what I was watching – did Einstein do something to offend these people? – but then it dawned on me that they were doing this because Einstein was a Jew. In fact, Einstein was the only prominent Jew in Tussaud’s. And who wouldn’t want to strangle a prominent Jew, after all?

That suspicion was confirmed a few minutes later when we reached the wax statue of Adolf Hitler​. Britons and Americans tried to choke the figure, or pointed their fingers at it in imaginary guns, or yelled at it. These young Muslims happily stood next to it, and took smiling photographs with it as though they’d stumbled upon a friendly uncle. Which, in a way, they had.

And, of course, nobody said anything to these delightfully diverse young people. Mustn’t show evidence of that old, imperialist spirit, you know.

But that old imperialist spirit hides beneath the surface nonetheless. While visiting the Tower of London, my wife and I followed a Beefeater on a tour. He was former British military, and acted it. Great Britain, he announced, was the greatest country on earth. It had civilized half the globe. There was a reason, he said, that Great Britain was the only country to preface its name with the word “Great.” When an Australian audience member asked about the Great Barrier Reef, he answered slyly, “You only know about it because we bumped into it on the way to founding your country.” These comments were accompanied by a slightly uncomfortable laughter amongst the natives – but it was good to hear that somewhere, deep down, the British are still British.

But that Britishness is buried rather deep. The day after Christmas in the United Kingdom is Boxing Day, a sort of Black Friday in this country. It’s a nightmare to navigate the crowded streets, and the shops are packed solid.

It was precisely this day that the British Tube employees – workers of the British subway system – chose to strike for 24 hours. This meant that everyone was now obliged to use taxis, which were charging double rates, or take a bus – and the traffic was snarled more horribly than Matthew Pocket’s hair. What were these employees striking for? Triple pay on holidays – and an offset day to make up for having to work on Boxing Day. They were already slated to make double pay.

In any rational society, the British government would fire these ne’er-do-wells forthwith and hire scabs to replace them. But Britain’s post-WWII bargain with the devil has been the same as the rest of the West’s: go Marxist and remove your imperial aggression by doing so. Capitalism, in the Marxist view, leads to imperialism; breed the capitalism out, and so too will the imperialism fade into history. And so Britain has castrated itself, both economically and socially.

But deep in the British soul, there stirs the echo of heroism: the echo of Churchill and Henry V, the echo of Elizabeth I and Cromwell. As time passes, that echo will grow ever louder. The question is whether the echo will restore Britain’s fortitude before it descends into a self-imposed dark night of final decline.

SOURCE




Money trumps Islam

Spas ban lifted after prostitution claims dismissed

The Maldives president said yesterday he had lifted a ban on spas in the upmarket tourist destination after establishing they were not being used for prostitution, as alleged by Islamist protesters.

The tourism ministry ordered all massage and beauty treatment centres to close six days ago in response to public demonstrations in the capital against spas organised by the hardline Islamist opposition Adhaalath party.

"There was a huge demonstration in Male against spas, saying they were brothels," President Mohamed Nasheed said. "We had to respect the crowd so we ordered a quality control regarding their use.

"We found that they are perfectly healthy and places where families can obtain top class treatment. We feel comfortable that we can now open the spas."

The private tourism industry in the Maldives had also sought the intervention of the Supreme Court to lift the ban, saying it was unnecessary and would deprive them of business.

The tourism industry is a vital foreign exchange earner and employer in the Maldives, a popular high-end destination for well-heeled honeymooners and celebrities where luxury rooms can cost up to $US12,000 a day.

The Indian Ocean country last year received more than 850,000 tourists, drawn to its secluded islands known for turquoise blue lagoons, corals and reefs filled with multi-coloured fish.

The move to shut the spas was seen by some observers as being politically motivated, with the government keen to turn the tables on the Islamist opposition.

Key opposition figure Gasim Ibrahim, head of the Jumhoory Party, is also a major owner of resort hotels and his businesses were set to be affected by the ban.

Nasheed said the government move had jolted the country's "silent majority" which favours a moderate form of Islam practised in the nation of 330,000 Sunni Muslims.

Despite the Islamic republic's reputation as a laid-back holiday paradise, burnished by frequent international marketing campaigns, there is growing concern about the influence of a minority of religious fundamentalists.

There have been anti-Semitic protests recently about the transport ministry's decision to allow direct flights from Israel, while a restaurant that hung up Christmas decorations in 2010 was also targeted.

Also in 2010, a marriage celebrant was filmed abusing a Western couple as "swine" and "infidels" in a religious-tinged hate speech during a ceremony conducted in the local Dhivehi language.

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. 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 January, 2012

British Labour Party lurches to the right on welfare payments: Senior left-wing MP admits for first time system HAS to change

The welfare state has drifted too far from its founding principles and must be overhauled, a senior Labour MP has said.

Work and pensions spokesman Liam Byrne said the benefits system has 'skewed social behaviour' and provides too much 'unearned' support.

Byrne argues that William Beveridge’s 70-year-old system was not designed to accommodate extended mass unemployment. He writes: ‘Beveridge would have wanted reform that was tough-minded and asked everyone to work hard to find a job.

‘He would have worried about the ways his system had skewed social behaviour because he intended benefits to help people who had their earning power interrupted because of illness, industrial injury or the capriciousness of the trade cycle. He never foresaw unearned support as desirable.’

Mr Byrne hints at being keen on a requirement for the unemployed to work after a fixed period. He points out that Beveridge himself wrote: ‘Unemployment benefit after a certain period should be conditional upon attendance at a work or training centre.’

His view is a significant redrawing of Labour's current position on the provision of welfare. Party leader Ed Miliband has been reluctant to engage in anti-welfare rhetoric, despite it being seen by many as a key policy area that could help win back votes.

But over the next few months Mr Byrne will seek to reposition Labour. He claims that to win back support the party must recast the welfare state to meet the original intentions of its founder. He admits the choices are 'difficult' but that they are necessary for Labour to be taken seriously on the issue.

In an article for the Guardian, marking the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge report, Mr Byrne suggests the ever-increasing housing benefit budget and benefits for long-term unemployment are major flaws in the system.

He also highlights the lack of proper incentives to reward responsible long-term savers as helping fuel the benefit culture. He writes: 'Beveridge would scarcely believe that housing benefit alone is costing the country over £20billion a year. That is simply too high.’ ‘One more heave behind our old agenda won’t do.’

He would like to see the contributory principle once again restored so there is a more defined link between what people put in and what they in turn receive from the system.

Mr Byrne believes the centre ground of politics has shifted to the Left on issues such as bankers and equality, but that many voters – even traditional Labour supporters – believe there needs to be a tough line on welfare.

Labour believes that as the Tory cuts bite through 2012 people will look at how the pain is distributed through society and Labour must not be seen to be protecting what Mr Byrne describes as the appalling benefits bill.

And he suggests the time is right as the Government is 'simultaneously presiding over an exploding welfare bill while cutting back on contributory benefits and services like childcare - vital if we are to ensure that the rhetoric on making work pay becomes a reality for all'.

SOURCE




Chorus of support from MPs and campaigners for top judge planning a pro-marriage crusade

MPs and campaigners yesterday lined up to back a High Court judge and his plans for a pro-marriage pressure group. Sir Paul Coleridge, one of the country’s most senior divorce judges, said his campaign would be aimed at promoting marriage and discouraging divorce.

He said marriage was better for children than cohabitation and condemned divorce and its effects. Sir Paul told couples contemplating divorce: ‘My message is, mend it, don’t end it.’

The initiative, made at a time when David Cameron’s pledge to give tax breaks to married couples remains a promise rather than a reality, was praised by campaigners who say politicians and the state have spent the past 20 years trying to reduce marriage to a lifestyle choice.

Julian Brazier, Tory MP and a longstanding advocate of greater public support for marriage, said: ‘This can only help make the political and legal establishment aware of the importance of marriage.

‘Too much family law has been driven by judges for the past two generations – the courts brought in no-fault divorce, marginalising the rights and wrongs of the behaviour of husbands and wives, well before Parliament considered it.’

Author and researcher Jill Kirby said: ‘It is very good news that an eminent family judge can make such a stand on the importance of marriage and family structure. He has seen many of the victims of family breakdown going through his court. He is one of the best people to make the point.

‘It is a change after years in which we have seen so many judges and lawyers try to undermine the status of marriage.’

Sir Paul, who sits in the High Court Family Division as Mr Justice Coleridge, will launch The Marriage Foundation in the spring.

It will be backed by influential legal figures and aims to provide information on the strengths of marriage, commission research and organise conferences. It will eventually lobby for pro-marriage policies. Sir Paul, who has made a series of outspoken speeches on the reasons for family break-up, said: ‘You are four times more likely to break up before your child is five years old if you are not married.

‘Over 40 years of working in the family justice system, I have seen the fallout from these broken relationships. There are an estimated 3.8million children currently caught up in the family justice system. That is a complete scandal. My focus is on the children. I am unashamedly advocating marriage as the gold standard for couples where children are involved. I desperately want to avoid a moral crusade.

‘And this is not a cosy club for people who are happily married and can say, “look how well I have done”. It will, I hope, appeal to people of every background, including those who are divorced.’

His move comes at a time when leading politicians are at odds over the legal status of marriage. Mr Cameron remains pledged to encourage the institution by giving tax breaks to married couples, but Labour leader Ed Miliband and Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have derided the idea.

The view that ‘stable relationships’ and cohabitation are just as good as marriage has taken root across much of Whitehall, to the point where the effects of marriage are being dropped from official statistics.

Sir Paul said: ‘Governments cannot legislate stronger relationships into existence. ‘Ultimately, more and stronger marriages will result from individual choices, behaviour and culture. We will seek to influence those choices.’

Among figures said to be backing his plans are Baroness Butler-Sloss, the former chief family law judge, Baroness Deech, a family lawyer and academic who has given a series of lectures calling for more support for marriage, and Baroness Shackleton, the divorce lawyer who acted for Prince Charles and Sir Paul McCartney.

SOURCE





The worst 10 assaults on freedom in Britain during 2011

From bans on songs and leafleting to war against gossipy tabloids, 2011 was a bad year for free speech

If one had to pick an image to sum up the British attitude towards free speech in 2011, it would have to be the three monkeys in the Japanese proverb who ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’. This year, we were treated like a nation of chimps, who had to be protected from certain words and images - for our own good, of course. Here are the Top 10 most annoying erosions of free speech in the UK this year.

No.10: Twitch Hunts
Far from being, as Twitter CEO Dick Costolo likes to put it, ‘the free-speech wing of the free-speech party’, Twitter has proven to be an intolerant and conformist sphere, often used to mobilise followers to grass people up to the authorities for committing ‘speech crimes’. Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson felt the self-righteous wrath of Twitterers more than most this year. When he made a bad joke about striking workers in November, trade-union leaders went from campaigning to save jobs to joining with the Twitterati to demand that Clarkson lose his.

No.9: Leafleting bans
In many towns and cities across the UK, it’s becoming a criminal offence to hand out leaflets without first getting them vetted and authorised by local councils. Councils such as Leicester, Birmingham, Brighton and Leeds have introduced ‘leafleting zones’ where anyone wanting to hand out leaflets must first fork out cash to the council and wear a special badge. It’s a sad day for free speech when such a long-standing, primary form of public communication is curtailed in this way.

No.8: Superinjunctions
The war against gossip intensified in 2011 with the rise of gagging orders – aka superinjunctions. When an injunction is taken out, usually by the rich and famous, it becomes a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment, for anyone to publish the offending claims. So-called hyperinjunctions went further, preventing people even from discussing the subject of an injunction with their MP. As Brendan O’Neill observed, this represents a ‘flashback to the feudal era, when badmouthing the upper classes was a risky endeavour for mere plebs and peasants’.

No.7: Criminal ASBOs
Since New Labour introduced them in 1999, anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) have been used to regulate individuals’ behaviour. Now they’re being used to clamp down on the freedom to protest. In March, English Defence League (EDL) member Shane Overton received a Criminal ASBO banning him from attending or helping to organise any demonstration, meeting or gathering held by the EDL, and even from visiting its website for 10 years. Later in 2011, police tried to slap an ASBO on EDL leader Stephen Lennon that would have prevented him from having any involvement with his own organisation. This was rejected by a judge as being a bit OTT.

No.6: The censorship of Human Centipede 2
Horror movie Human Centipede 2, with its gruesome scenes of people having their mouths stitched to other people’s anuses, probably isn’t to everyone’s taste. But for a time in 2011, people in the UK were denied the right to decide for themselves whether or not it was to their liking. The British Board of Film Classification denied the film a certificate, effectively meaning it was banned, on the basis that it might ‘corrupt’ audiences. Director Tom Six rightly asked: ‘How can it be that adults are not allowed to choose whether or not to see a film? This kind of censorship is ridiculous.’

No.5: The banning of sectarian songs in Scotland
The mere act of singing certain songs in Scotland will soon be enough to have you locked up for up to five years. The SNP’s Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communication Bill was passed in December, criminalising ‘offensive’ songs and chants by football fans – especially fans of the two Glasgow clubs that dominate Scottish football, Celtic and Rangers. As Kevin Rooney argued on spiked, ‘In Scotland, the idea that football fans are a thick-skinned bunch who can put up with abuse from rivals for 90 minutes every Saturday has been replaced by the assumption that the majority of fans are potential victims at permanent risk of suffering offence or psychological damage’.

No.4 The Advertising Standards Authority’s antics
From its censure of an allegedly racist chocolate advert to its ban on airbrushed make-up ads for being ‘misleading’ to its chastising of a lighthearted Phones 4 U advert which featured a winking Jesus, the officious, censorious quasi-government group the ASA was working overtime in 2011. It also expanded its mandate to cover online ads, meaning there is now even more material the British public is prevented from seeing just because a small board of unelected officials has deemed it ‘offensive’.

No.3 The banning of protest marches
Lib-Con home secretary Theresa May casually banned protesters from marching this year. Responding to campaigns by certain illiberal left-wing groups who wanted the EDL banned from marching in Tower Hamlets in London, May decided to outlaw all marches in six London boroughs for a period of one month. You might think this would have encouraged left-wing activists to question their tactic of placing faith in the state to decide which groups should be allowed to protest. But no, and sadly their liberty-related naivety looks set to continue in 2012.

No.2: The jailing of ‘Facebook rioters’
During the English August riots, 20-year-old Jordan Blackshaw set up a Facebook ‘event’ entitled ‘Smash Down in Northwich Town’. It was an event only he showed up to (he was promptly arrested) and yet he received a four-year jail sentence for his FB antics. The judge justified the jailing on the basis that this ‘happened at a time when collective insanity gripped the nation’. Other youngsters were also imprisoned for Facebook speech crimes. It seems this ‘collective insanity’ extended to the judges, who evidently didn’t realise they were eroding a fundamental democratic freedom by jailing people for doing nothing more than publishing words online.

No.1: The Leveson Inquiry
The post-hacking scandal closure of the News of the World, a paper of 168 years standing, was a dark day for press freedom. As Karl Marx warned, ‘you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its thorns!’ The subsequent Leveson Inquiry into the ethics of tabloid press, cheered on by celebs and broadsheet journalists, could well lead to the establishment of an authority ‘with teeth’ designed to tame the feral tabloids. Some anti-tabloid types have even proposed a system of licensing journalists, who could then be struck off if they do something bad. It seems clear that the tabloids have already been found guilty, and in 2012 we, the British public, will be further instructed on what we should and shouldn’t read.

SOURCE





Aunty's leftish drift still needs to be corrected by its deeds

The ABC is Australia's version of the BBC. It is sometimes called "Aunty" because of its preachy Leftist ways

When minding grandchildren at the beach in shallow water, there is not much to do except listen to the radio. And so it came to pass that on Christmas Day, with earpiece attached, I switched on the ABC Radio National Artworks program.

There was a discussion about the latest inner-city fashion of yarnbombing, whereby a certain sect of radical feminists engage in adorning public places with graffiti of the knitted genre. Artworks' sympathetic coverage concluded with a certain Casey Jenkins telling the program how she recently travelled to Vatican City and attached her home-knitted "lesbian fling-up" to the Basilica. The ABC reporter and presenter appeared to approve of such action.

Apparently Jenkins is on a campaign to advocate the use of what she terms "the C word" and to proclaim the "loveliness of non-reproductive sex". Which is all well and good, provided that she was more catholic (in the universal sense of the word) in her targeting. Artworks' favourite yarnbomber took her campaign to the Vatican and the Pope. She did not protest at the Haj in Saudi Arabia or outside Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's office in Tehran. Catholicism is an easy target. Islam is not. The program was so terribly twee. And so predictably Radio National.

On Christmas Day, Radio National also re-ran Julie Rigg's MovieTime review of The Iron Lady, which is directed by Phyllida Lloyd. Rigg described Margaret Thatcher, the subject of the film, as "a tyrant". Rigg also expressed her disgust that, during the Falklands War, a British submarine sank an Argentine ship, the Belgrano. But she expressed no concern about the British sailors who had died when the Argentine air force, controlled by the military dictators in Buenos Aires, sank Royal Navy ships.

When reviewing The Iron Lady on ABC 1's At the Movies earlier in December, Margaret Pomeranz also felt the need to declare that "most of us" thought that Thatcher's decision, when prime minister, to change Britain "wasn't a good idea at the time". David Stratton, the co-presenter of At the Movies, concurred. It was another example of an ABC program in which everyone agreed with everyone else, in a fashionable leftist sort of way.

The likes of Jenkins and Pomeranz and Stratton have a right to be heard. It's just the overwhelming voice of the public broadcaster is left-of-centre, or leftist, and so few right-of-centre, or conservative, voices are heard.

Maurice Newman, who was the best ABC chairman in recent memory, stepped down at the end of 2011 after the Gillard government declined to extend his term. When ABC chairman, Newman drew attention to what he described as a "group-think" within the public broadcaster. Not surprisingly, Newman's critique was criticised by ABC types, led by ABC's Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes. However, any sample of ABC programs will reveal an over-representation of left-of-centre views and a gross under-representation of conservative positions.

The ABC managing director, Mark Scott, is a distinct improvement on his predecessor. However, as one of Australia's highest paid public sector employees, who earns significantly more than the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, his performance should be critically assessed.

In October 2006, shortly after he took up his position, Scott addressed the Sydney Institute. While defending the public broadcaster, he did concede that there was "a sense that the organisation has issues with balance and fairness". Most importantly, Scott acknowledged that "there needs to be a plurality of opinion" on the ABC. In 2006, the ABC did not have one conservative presenter or executive producer on any of its key TV or radio programs - although many on the left held such positions. Five years later, nothing has changed.

In 2006 Scott called for "further diversity of voices" on the ABC. Recently the public broadcaster announced a range of new talent as presenters for its TV and radio programs in 2012. The list includes academic Waleed Aly, The Chaser's Julian Morrow, journalist Andrew West and comedian Josh Thomas. All are talented. Not one is a conservative.

There is no conspiracy here. It's just that in the ABC, as in universities, politically like appoints like. Mike Carlton, who is not a critic of the public broadcaster, last August depicted ABC functions as events "where almost everyone seems to be married to, living with or divorced from somebody else in the room".

Nor is it a case of the ABC being pro-Labor. In fact, as K.S. Inglis documents in his 2006 book Whose ABC?, the prime minister who was most critical of the ABC's lack of political balance was Labor's Bob Hawke - not the Coalition's John Howard. At issue was the public broadcaster's coverage of the first Gulf War.

Scott's view that the ABC should engage in "soft power", and represent Australia's international interests through broadcasting, has been sanctioned by the Gillard government. It awarded the Australia Network contract to the ABC in perpetuity without competitive tendering. The problem with the existing service is not merely that it is boring. It also reflects the ABC house culture of criticising both Labor and the Coalition from the left.

Regular ABC viewers/listeners know that the predominant position heard on the public broadcaster is to criticise Labor or the Coalition on human rights matters (asylum seekers, same sex marriage, anti-terrorism legislation), on foreign policy (the Australian-American alliance, Israel) and on economic reform (labour market deregulation).

The appointment of even one prominent conservative as a presenter of even one significant ABC program would not resolve this long-standing imbalance. But it might indicate that Scott's promise was about to be implemented, albeit half a decade after it was made.

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. 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 January, 2012

Fury of Moscow over bid to call Estonian SS soldiers 'freedom fighters'

Having the vast bulk of Russia on the other side of the border has always been alarming to the small nations at the East end of the Baltic and that alarm has been well justified by various Russian invasions -- dating back to the year 1030 in the case of Estonia. So they are drawn to the old dictum that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They therefore saw Nazi Germany's invasion of Russia as a Godsend and willingly co-operated with German forces. But that collaboration was not pro-Nazi. It was anti-Russian and Estonia now wants to make that clear

Estonia has caused outrage with plans to honour hundreds of Nazi collaborators.

The EU country is expected to give official ‘freedom fighter’ status to veterans of the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division.

The veterans say they allied with the Nazis to defend their country from the Soviets but anti-Nazi campaigners claim the troops were involved in war crimes against civilians.

Johan Backman, of World without Nazism, said: ‘The Estonian SS legionaries did not fight for Estonia. They fought for Hitler.’

Russia described the move as ‘blasphemous and unacceptable’.

Several hundred men who fought in the Estonian SS still gather every year to commemorate their role in battles against Soviet forces.

The division was founded in 1944 by the occupying Nazis - three years after Germany launched Operation Barbarossa and invaded Russia with the most powerful invasion force in history.

More than three million German troops attacked in three parallel offensives. Despite warnings that Germany could not fight a war on two fronts, Hitler saw the Russian invasion of Romania in 1940 as a threat to his Balkan oil supply and invaded with 3,000 tanks, 2,500 aircraft and 7,000 artillery pieces. The Red Army was disorganised and the Germans were able to push 300 miles into Russia before the winter hit and the advance slowed.

The war on the Eastern Front went on for four bloody years and arguably resulted in the eventual defeat of the Nazis.

At the last gathering of the Estonian veterans in August last year, they were promised the Tallinn government was moving to officially recognise them in 2012. The move is being spearheaded by powerful Defence Minister Mart Laar, the country's ex-premier.

'If Mart Laar makes any promise, he will move to his goal like a tank, and you will be freedom fighters as early as next year,' said Tarmo Kruusimae, activist of ruling party Union of Pro Patria and Res Publica. Legislation is now being drawn up in Tallinn which now aims to keep this promise to all those who fought in Estonia against the USSR.

The SS veterans claim they only allied with the Nazis to defend their country from Soviet invasion. In the event, their efforts failed and the Baltic state was swallowed up by the Soviet Union for more than four decades.

But anti-Nazi campaigners dismiss this and claim the Estonians were collaborators involved in war crimes against civilians. Mr Backman, a leader of the international human rights group World Without Nazism, added: 'The government is trying to create a new history of Estonia, which is very dangerous for the young generation.'

The Russian embassy in Tallinn claimed legislation to name them 'freedom fighters' was a bid to 'cover the atrocities committed by Estonian Nazi collaborators'. This was 'blasphemous and unacceptable' and should be abandoned, said Moscow. 'We hope that in this case common sense, conscience and a feeling of responsibility will prevail.'

SOURCE




The Santa Killer Was a Religion of Peacer

Doug Giles

If I wanted to murder my family or destroy a historic university and yet not give my faith a bad name in the press, I would convert to the Religion of Peace.

Yep, if you belong to that lovely creed, you can snap on Christmas and execute your entire clan or burn down a famous college, and the media won’t say shizzle about your faith or your motivation for mayhem. Sa-weet, eh, mass murderers?

Case in point. Aziz Yazdanpanah, known only as the “Santa Killer,” was a follower of this “amazing faith” who slaughtered his family on Christmas Day after his wife dumped him and his 19-year-old daughter wouldn’t stop dating a non-Religion of Peacer. The adherents of said faith refer to this act as an “honor killing,” and when it occurs police and the press reckon it unworthy of unearthing and condemning publicly.

For those not familiar with the term “honor killing,” allow me to explain: An honor killing is a murder wherein a man from the Creed of Calm can give his wife and/or daughter(s) the axe if he deems that they have embarrassed him or their peaceful community. Step lightly, lasses.

Oh, and I nearly forgot this. It’s not only okay to kill the ladies, according to their doctrine, if they make the faithful self-conscious, but adherents may also slay flaming gays who sully the Cult of Tranquility’s public image. I’m guessing Adam Lambert will not be converting anytime soon.

So, how did the truth revealing journalists report this Christmas Day carnage enacted by a male member of the Peace People? Here’s how: They called Aziz the “Santa Killer” who was down on his financial and relational luck whom his neighbors regarded as a decent gent who loved his family and liked to do yard work.

In others words, he was a Mr. Rogers with a tan who had a bad day. And haven’t we all had a bad day? Of course we have, and that’s why Daniel Powter wrote his now famous song.

Look, folks, it is obvious: If you want to commit heinous acts and not have your faith called out for your despicable crimes, you probably ought to seriously think about switching religions to the Sect of Serenity because they always get a free ride in the free press. Indeed, precious few of the mainstreamers said this massacre was carried out by a “you know who” for “you know what” reasons. Y’know what I’m saying?

Indeed, the “Santa Killer” got the same treatment from reporters that Nidal Malik Hasan, also a member of the Communion of Calmness, received after the Ft. Hood bloodbath—I’m sorry, the Ft. Hood “workplace violence” situation. Wink, wink.

For those interested, here’s a laundry list of some recent honor killings carried out by the fathers, brothers and leaders within the Religion of Peace.

SOURCE (See the original for links)






They eat their greens, don't throw tantrums and go to bed on time... How French mothers' 'tough love' means their children never step out of line

French women are tougher on their children who have fewer tantrums than British and American youngsters, according to a new book.

American mother-of-three Pamela Druckerman, who lives in Paris, claims French children sleep through the night at two months, don't squabble or create scenes in public, are not fussy eaters and go to bed without any problems.

Now, after spending months observing mothers across the Channel, she has revealed their secrets in the book French Children Don't Throw Food.

In it she also notes that while French children tow the line, mothers 'continue looking so cool and sexy' unlike their British and French counterparts.

Revealing the secret to the French's apparent success in raising children, she says French parents are tougher, opting to use discipline and the smacked bottom over 'mollycoddling' and gentle persuasion and encouragement.

Ms Druckerman told The Bookseller the French's attitude to raising their children puts the parent in the driving seat and summarised it as 'it's me who decides.'

She said she began looking into how French parents raise their children following a challenging experience on holiday when took her 18-month-old daughter into a restaurant twice a day and noticed French children were far better behaved, sitting nicely at the table while they ate their food.

She said: 'I found this society of children who sleep extremely well, eat extremely well and are very well behaved and I worked backwards to figure out how they got that way. So I was certain of the result; I just wasn't sure how parents got those results so consistently.'

France's approach to their education system may also influence children's behaviour as it tends to place creativity and expression below manners and mathematics, The Observer said.

French schools also place huge importance on a child's ability to perfect grammar and writing over more pastoral aspects of their education.

In addition, French children are not considered equal but small human beings, while one French child psychologist believes French mothers view and define themselves more as 'women' rather than 'mothers' and have an increased sense of detachment from their children compared to mothers in America and Britain.

Lise Fuccellaro, mother of four children aged eight, 12, 14 and 16, lived in England for seven years before returning to live near Paris. She told the newspaper that she was struck by how patient and gentle English mothers were compared with French parents. She said: 'It's remarkable how British children just don't sit nicely and aren't taught any respect for people around them. It would be unthinkable to most French parents to inflict their children on other people.'

In addition, Bénédicte Justan, 37, who lives in west London with her three boys under 10 agrees there is a different approach in France and said she feels like she is often the only parent shouting at her children in the street in Britain.

Another parent believes the tide turned against the laissez-faire attitude which emerged following the student riots in France in 1968 which she said led to children being bought up without certain vital boundaries. She said children in France blossom 'because of, not in spite of, authority'.

SOURCE





Chinese don't mess around

Fighting broke out between crowds of Muslims and police when a mosque was demolished - for being an 'illegal religious place'. Violence erupted in the town of Hexi, in China's northwest Ningxia region, after 1,000 officers arrived to help police the knocking down of the building.

More than 50 protesters were injured and 100 arrested after several hundred members of China's Muslim Hui minority tried to stop the demolition. Sources from the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said two people died in the clashes.

An employee who answered the phone at the town police station confirmed officers had fought with protesters and said 80 people were detained, but denied any deaths. The employee added that police demolished the mosque after the violence.

The Communist government closely monitors religious activity and is said to be worried that mosques and other houses of worship might become centres for anti-government agitation.

The Hui are one of several Muslim minority groups in China. They include descendants of Muslim immigrants from Central Asia, members of China's majority Han ethnicity who converted to Islam and several other groups.

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. 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 January, 2012

We won't eat halal meat, say MPs and peers who reject demands to serve it at Westminster

The Palace of Westminster has rejected demands to serve halal meat in its restaurants.

Muslim MPs and peers have been told they cannot have meat slaughtered in line with Islamic tradition because the method – slitting an animal’s throat without first stunning it – is offensive to many of their non-Muslim colleagues.

The stance has infuriated some parliamentarians who have eaten meat in the Palace’s 23 restaurants and cafes, having been assured that it was halal. Lord Ahmed of Rotherham said: ‘I did feel misled. I think a halal option should be made available.’

In 2010, The Mail on Sunday revealed schools, hospitals and restaurants were serving halal meat to unwitting customers.

Alison Ruoff, a member of the Church of England, said: ‘It’s a bit hypocritical that the Houses of Parliament, which have allowed other people to provide halal food, have ruled it out on their own premises.’

Spokesmen for the House of Lords and the House of Commons confirmed that halal meat was not served in their restaurants.

SOURCE







The Nauseating Moral Cowardice of the Liberal-Left Trenderati

The left laugh heartily at jokes ridiculing Christianity, but if they can savage one religion, why do they lose their sense of humor when it comes to one particular faith?

James Delingpole

Did you hear the song Aussie comic Tim Minchin wrote savagely satirising Islam for Channel 4's Eid special? No, I didn't either. It didn't happen and it never would happen: first because no broadcast station in its right mind would ever allow it; second because I don't believe that Minchin would be stupid enough to write it.

And I'm not calling Minchin out for physical cowardice on this issue. From the Danish cartoons to the Paris bombing, we've seen far too many cases of artists testing the right to free speech – only to find that where certain religions are concerned, such matters are strictly verboten. But what I am definitely accusing him of is hypocrisy and moral cowardice, as regards the banned song he wrote for a Jonathan Ross Christmas special likening Jesus to a blood-drinking zombie.

Personally, I'm sorry we didn't get to hear the song. As one of those typical, laissez-faire, occasional churchgoing C of E types, I have no problem with having my religion being satirised. Also, the points he apparently made in it sound not just funny but also quite astute: yes, there definitely is something very weird about the New Testament story.

In the performance Minchin likened the resurrection of Jesus to the 1978 horror film 'Dawn of the Dead', singing: "Try that these days you'd be in trouble, geeks would try to smack you with a shovel."

"Jesus lives forever, which is pretty odd, but not as odd as his fetish for drinking blood," he sang while playing the piano before a studio audience and fellow guests including Tom Cruise and the cast of Downton Abbey.

In a reference to the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth, Minchin sang: "Jesus' mother gave birth to him without having sex with a dude, no she would never be that rude, never even been nude with a dude."

When I Tweeted this morning in response to this "Really looking forward to hearing Tim Minchin's fearless comedy song about Mohammed", some members of his fan club – including the ephebically pouty-smile-tastic Prof Brian Cox, no less – Tweeted back that he had written a funny song sending up Islam called "Ten Foot C*** And A Few Hundred Virgins."

Actually, though, when you examine the lyrics, you realise that the title is about as daring as it gets. Nor is it directed specifically at Islam. It's an equal-opportunities offence number, which also has a dig at Christianity, rapture-based cults and religion generally. Sure, it's brave even to broach Islam at all. But no way does it criticise Mohammed – or indeed, even mention him – with the same unbridled satirical glee Minchin deploys on Jesus (above) and has done in the past on the Pope. Had he done so, he'd be needing a bodyguard this Christmas.

Again, let me stress, this isn't a plea to Minchin to acquire set of cojones and commit suicide through the medium of satire. I wouldn't write a rude song about Islam if you paid me a million quid. Or even ten million. But what I equally wouldn't do is compromise my integrity by laying heavily into one soft-target religion while treating a rival one, far more ripe for satire, with kid gloves. To do so would, I think, make me look a hypocrite and a fraud.

But hey, why single out Minchin? The problem I describe is absolutely endemic among the liberal left trenderati. You find it with the 'comics' on Radio 4's beyond-dismal The Now Show; with the team that fronts the even-more-beyond-dismal-if-that's-possible-but-yes-it-is-it-really-is 10 O'Clock Live; with the creators of the daringly satirical Jerry Springer: the Opera; with that rag-bag of Paul-Nurse-worshipping, Establishment lickspittles who call themselves "Skeptics" – the Ben Goldacres; the Simon Singhs; the Brian Coxes; the that-comic-who-does-those-science-shows-saying-how-true-man-made-global-warming-is-whose-name-I-keep-forgetting; and the rest…

Sorry. I know it's the season of goodwill to all men and stuff, but really: have these faux-edgy lightweights ever actually stood up for any cause in their lives which requires an ounce of moral and intellectual courage or originality of insight? I don't mean showing solidarity with Palestine or boldly declaring how fraudulent they find homeopathy or saying how ridiculous they find Christianity or being rude about Tories or supporting student protests or any of that predictable, career-safe, spray-on-credibility tedium. I mean actually, for once in their lives doing something that puts them out on a limb, that doesn't tick all the usual green-left-liberal trendy boxes,that runs the risk of them never getting invited back as one of the resident lefty chortlemeisters on Radio 4's News Quiz? Course not. For all their pretence at out-there dangerousness, these guys are as safe and cosy and establishment as you could get. Truly, they are the veritable IKEA, the World Of Leather, the Mister Byrite of popular culture. I'm sure it pays the rent – but at what cost to their shrivelled souls?

SOURCE




Maldives Closes Hundreds of Resort Spas After Muslims Complain of ‘Anti-Islamic’ Activities -- Activities also known as spas

Too bad about their tourist industry, I guess

Maldives ordered hundreds of its luxury resorts to close their spas nearly a week after a protest led by opposition parties demanding a halt to “anti-Islamic” activities, the government said Friday.

A statement from the president’s office said “the government has decided to close massage parlors and spas in the Maldives, following an opposition-led religious protest last week calling for their closure.”

An official from the president‘s office said the tourism ministry notified the resorts Thursday but hasn’t confirmed if the spas have been closed. He spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak on the matter.

The Indian Ocean archipelago with 1,192 tiny coral islands is known for its exquisite resorts.

Thousands at last week’s protest called on the government to halt what they called “anti-Islamic” activities. Sunni Islam is the official religion in the Maldives and practicing any other faith is forbidden.

Last week’s protest was called by the opposition Adhaalat, or Justice, Party and several other groups that accuse President Mohammed Nasheed’s government of compromising principles of Islam and want strict Islamic law.

The protesters also want authorities to stop the sale of alcohol in the islands, shut down brothels operating in the guise of massage parlors and demolish monuments gifted by other countries marking a South Asian summit last month because they see them as idols.

They also wanted to halt a plan to allow direct flights to Israel.

Though the country does not allow stoning or executions, it is under scrutiny for its absence of religious freedom and for punishments such as public flogging.

Debates on religious issues have emerged since a group vandalized a monument gifted by Pakistan marking a South Asian summit last month with the image of Buddha. Buddhism was part of the present Islamic republic’s history.

An angry protest last month followed a call by U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay for the Maldives to end floggings of women being punished for adultery.

SOURCE




Political Correctness - Our Titanic

Pandering will sink us, will weaken our foundations and our unique culture; a culture of tolerance yet of logic, of equality but also of independence.

It is our behavior (and not our thoughts) that should be the real issue. How we treat each other, whether we abuse or respect each other, whether we acknowledge all people with equality and fairness. That is the American way.

It is not the American way to become more like Saudi Arabia or Iran. There they have public dress codes, Shariah law and other niceties like stonings, beheadings and honor killings. Ours is a modern society based on humanistic behavior, on accommodating the individual - not serving the Sheik, the Imam, the police or local thugs.

Here we protect and nurture the individual, not subvert our freedoms in the service of the "greater good" as defined by Allah's unblemished representatives here on earth, or by a dictator's goons, as the case may be.

When the Irish, the Jews, the Indians and the Hindus applied for jobs, they chose their workplace and accommodated to the rules accordingly. When was the last time a Hasidic Jew with full length black coat and fur hat demonstrated outside Miami City Hall for the right to wear their preferred dress in any job of their choosing? When did Hindus demand new cafeterias to accommodate their dietary needs? When did Mormons require separate prayer facilities or Buddhists their temples? What of vegetarians, anorexics, Rastafarians?

Now Disney must accommodate the Hijab. And what if these Hijabs morph into the Taliban style Burkas? Why do the needs of the wearer, to hide all but the eyes, trump the sensitivities of the paying public, the understandable focus of the employer? Why does the Islamic disdain of certain Minnesota taxis for dogs and alcohol take precedence over the cab rider's normal and standard needs? Why install at our universities footbaths, Shariah compliant toilets, Hallal cafeterias and private prayer areas for a vociferous minority when every other minority (and there are many indeed) managed for decades in peace and mutual tolerance without demonstrations or violence? How many businesses can afford 5 prayer breaks a day? The religious Jew prays comfortably before and after work. Christians, Bahai, Buddist and the majority of Muslims meld rather than seek to dominate or separate?

I suspect the difference is either insecure or exaggerated victimization or possibly an imperialistic belief in religious and cultural domination. The truth is that whether a Muslim is a radical fanatic or merely strongly Shariah compliant and traditionally observant, many committed Muslims today would prefer Sharia law to have a stronger role in our laws, our mores and our social structures. They would prefer Islam to become the dominant or the sole World religion, for the Muslim Caliphate to once again reign supreme. They believe, as their dominant version of the Koran is clearly interpreted across the Muslim world, that their God is the only God, that their way is the only way and that domination is their right and their goal, whether by creeping Shariah, by internal change of their adopted country or by violent Jihadism.

This is not personal conjecture - this is the current predominant Wahabi view as exported by much of the mosques and madrassas worldwide, courtesy of our Saudi friends who have spent more than 2 billion dollars annually on their outreach program. Ahmadinejad's version of his own Shia caliphate (world domination) is not difficult to discern. This essential difference of our time is not well understood by the West. In the past, various cultures and religious expressions were happy to share the world with all others, a certain "live and let live" tolerance, where multiple paths lead to God, many lifestyles to happiness. Just honor my boundaries and I will in turn honor yours. No longer.

The new imperialism is no longer British riflemen marching into the Punjab, or Catholic missionaries and Spain's armies devastating the Indians of the South and Central Americas. No, the new imperialism is as insidious as it is subtle. It uses our laws, our freedoms, our delicate tolerances and passionate fair play to open our societies to all, to endlessly accommodate all, even those who would subvert, dominate and abuse our world and all its largely moderate citizens.

We should draw a line in the sand and say, enough. Why allow our hard earned freedoms and unrivalled refinements to be subverted by the fundamentalisms of the 7th century Middle East? For those who love and respect our freedoms we welcome you, members of all faiths, all religions, all cultures - for those who wish to push us back into the Dark Ages, we invite you to return to those dozens of countries, those nonexistent democracies, that practice these inanities, that specialize in the subjugation of women, the subversion of the individual.

We have freedoms worth fighting for, worth preserving. And many, hopefully more with time, are prepared likewise to do so. We should be a beacon for all the unfree, the abused, the disenfranchised. We already have a surfeit of tolerance in the West - we need to ensure our privileges are preserved and then shared more freely, more visibly amongst all those countries where freedom remains just a distant mirage.

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 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 January, 2012

Is this the most PC council in Britain? Green man on pedestrian crossing becomes gender neutral 'green figure'



It is the symbol that has helped us cross the road for decades - a striding green man.

But for one council the term appears to be a little too gender-specific. Lincolnshire County Council is introducing new signs at pelican crossings in Boston telling pedestrians to 'cross with the green figure' in a move branded politically correct.

Alan Bell, senior engineer at the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership, said: 'We need to do all we can to help keep people safe on the county’s roads. 'These signs remind people to cross only when the green figure is lit.' He added that the wording of the signs varies across the county.

While some crossings retain the traditional green man, the crossing at John Adams way in Boston has been resigned, now asking baffled residents to 'cross with the green figure'.

Boston borough councillor Ossy Snell said: 'It seems a little bit like it’s seen as sexist. Women might think men are controlling if a green man tells them to cross the road.

'There’s so many of these silly things that people are bringing up, which nobody has ever thought about being offensive to anybody when they were brought in.'

Local residents reacted with confusion at the decision. Geoff Bradley, 64, said he could not understand the move. 'This must have cost money to do,' said the retired metal worker. 'They must have better things to do than waste our money on needless changes.

'It can’t have offended anyone, it’s a picture of a man, so people called it the green man, it makes no sense at all not to keep calling it that.'

Anne Bristow, who uses the crossing every day, was perplexed by the decision. 'I didn’t see a problem with it,' said the 30-year-old bank worker. 'I cross the street with the same people here every day and no one else had a problem with it, I can’t imagine why anyone would have a problem with it.

'You hear people talking about political correctness going mad and that has always seemed like an overstatement before but this really seems like it has.'

SOURCE





Not so europhoric now: How the BBC has changed its tune after ten years of the single currency

What a difference a decade makes. Ten years ago, the BBC announced ‘Euphoria in Euroland’ as it hailed the birth of the euro.

But with the single currency now facing collapse, the Corporation’s coverage of today’s anniversary has been notably more restrained, as senior executives prepare to defend their ‘pro-Brussels bias’ during a showdown meeting with Eurosceptics.

On January 1, 2002, the day that the euro currency first entered circulation, BBC presenters were gushingly enthusiastic.James Naughtie, presenting Radio 4’s Today programme from Paris, talked of ‘a sense of occasion, a genuine excitement, a sense of change in the air especially among young people, a sense of breaking away from the past’.

The opening line on BBC1’s Ten O’Clock News was ‘Euphoria in Euroland’, while a Today reporter in France talked about the ‘feeling that this is a country very much at ease with this latest engagement with Europe’, adding, in an apparent swipe at Eurosceptics: ‘For people here, the euro has got little to do with loss of sovereignty or superstates. It’s about money, pure and simple.’

The BBC’s website found it equally hard to control itself, with headlines including ‘Dawn of a new era’ and ‘Leaders hail currency’s success’.

In 2010, the BBC’s former Brussels correspondent Jonathan Charles candidly admitted he and the BBC had got carried away by the euro launch. He said: ‘Even now, I can remember the great air of excitement.

‘It did seem like the start of a new era... for a few brief days, I suppose I and everyone else suspended their scepticism and got caught up in that euphoria,’ added Mr Charles, now director of communications at the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which is part-funded by the EU.

An analysis of Today’s output in the nine weeks leading to July 21, 2000, when the euro argument was dominating domestic British politics, showed that of 121 speakers on the topic, 87 were pro-euro and 34 against.

Rod Liddle, then Today’s editor, has said: ‘The whole ethos of the BBC and all the staff was that Eurosceptics were xenophobes.’

He recalled a meeting with a senior BBC figure over Eurosceptic complaints of bias in which the executive said: ‘Rod, the thing you have to understand is that these people are mad. They are mad.’

The BBC’s bias appeared to re-assert itself last month in its reporting of David Cameron’s veto of a new EU treaty at a Brussels summit. No. 10 was infuriated by the BBC’s ‘funereal’ coverage in the hours after the veto, which they claimed portrayed the action as a national disaster rather than a political triumph.

The euro anniversary has coincided with a period of unprecedented strain for the eurozone, with many leading economists describing 2012 as its ‘make-or-break year’.

The Corporation’s one-sided coverage of the euro’s birth has been highlighted by Eurosceptics planning to present a dossier of evidence of alleged pro-EU bias to Helen Boaden, the BBC’s director of news. Conservative MP Philip Hollobone is expected to join Labour’s Kate Hoey and Eurosceptic peer Lord Pearson at a meeting with Ms Boaden in the coming weeks.

In 2005, after an internal BBC report admitted that it had promoted a pro-EU bias across its output, the Corporation pledged to make its coverage ‘more sophisticated’.

But an analysis by Lord Pearson’s think-tank, Global Britain, to be presented at the meeting, claims that over the past six years, just 0.04 per cent of Today’s output has been devoted to the potential benefits of withdrawing from the EU.

Last night Mr Hollobone said: ‘We want to know what the BBC is going to do about the findings of its own independent report, which concluded that it was institutionally biased against the withdrawalist perspective. ‘It is noticeable that the BBC seems a lot more subdued about the euro a decade later, as it has finally sunk in that there is nothing to celebrate about the single currency.’

Last night, the BBC said today’s coverage of the euro anniversary would be ‘appropriate’. A spokesman said: ‘We don’t recognise the 0.04 per cent figure or claims that our news coverage has been one-sided. Our reporting of the eurozone has reflected the story as it has unfolded and featured a wide range of voices.

‘As with any news story, appropriate coverage will be given to the tenth anniversary of the eurozone examining the past and the future of the single currency.’

SOURCE




Australia: Adelaide preachers testing free speech provisions

ADELAIDE'S controversial street preachers are taking their hate messages aboard city trains.

The preachers came to blows with drinkers this week after shouting their message to patrons at a Victor Harbor hotel. And now they want police to fine them for their behaviour on trains so they can challenge free speech laws in court.

Members of Street Church Adelaide have polarised the community in recent years with vocal Friday night protests in Rundle Mall in which they shout slogans at passing shoppers such as "you are all sinners and will be killed by God".

Preachers spokesman Caleb Corneloup said the group had been taking their message aboard city trains over the past fortnight in an effort to spread their word further.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Transport said police had been called to remove preachers from trains on the Noarlunga line in two separate incidents on December 21.

Transit staff reported that two male preachers were "abusing" passengers with slogans such as "homosexuals are sinners and women are all sinners" while the third recorded the incident on a mobile phone.

Police met the train as it arrived at Adelaide railway station and the preachers left the train.

"Preaching on public transport is of concern to the Department, as it would be likely to cause discomfort for customers on board and in prescribed areas such as stations," the spokeswoman said. "In the event of such an incident, the Department will consider the options available under the Passenger Transport Act."

The spokeswoman said fines could be issued by either police or Passenger Service Assistants.

Mr Corneloup said no fines had been imposed as yet, but he was eager for police to issue a member with an expiation notice so they could challenge the laws in a criminal court. "I think if a police officer issues a fine that is the best way to do it, so that we can test the laws in front of a magistrate," he said.

Mr Corneloup denied preachers were hassling commuters and claimed their methods aboard trains were conducted in a "more gentlemanly" way than the Rundle Mall gatherings. "It is a really good environment for preaching," Mr Corneloup said. "You have got a captive audience and it is much easier to get your message across. You are able to preach in a lower voice."

The preachers challenged a ruling by Adelaide City Council that the gatherings were unlawful. In August, the Full Court of the Supreme Court ruled they had a right to continue their controversial sermons. Mr Corneloup said the previous court ruling gave him confidence his group had every right to preach on public transport.

Public transport regulations stipulate people cannot act in a manner that "is likely to interfere with the comfort of, or disturb or annoy, another person". "Let's say you had a really smelly guy come on the train," Mr Corneloup said. "His presence could be annoying or interfering with someone else's comfort but does the law extend to that? I don't think so."

While the group's Rundle Mall preaching has sparked clashes between group members and pro-gay rights protesters, Mr Corneloup said few people had objected to their presence on trains.

"Almost everyone just sits and listens," he said. "One or two people out of the blue might say they don't want to hear about religion but there have been no real problems."

People for Public Transport SA spokeswoman Margaret Dingle said while the organisation had no formal policy about preaching on trains, she was concerned commuters may be unnecessarily bothered.

"It is a difficult issue because people have the right to put their point of views across, but they should not do it in such a way that bothers other passengers," Ms Dingle said.

SOURCE




Europe's Inexorable March Towards Islam

Post-Christian Europe became noticeably more Islamized during 2011. As the rapidly growing Muslim population makes its presence felt in towns and cities across the continent, Islam is transforming the European way of life in ways unimaginable only a few years ago.

What follows is a brief summary of some of the more outrageous Islam-related controversies that took place in Europe during 2011.

In Austria, an appellate court upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for "denigrating religious beliefs" after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The December 20 ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Also in Austria, the King Abdullah Center for Inter-Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue was inaugurated at the Albertina Museum in downtown Vienna on October 13. The Saudis say the purpose of the multi-million-dollar initiative is to "foster dialogue" between the world's major religions in order to "prevent conflict." But critics say the center is an attempt by Saudi Arabia to establish a permanent "propaganda center" in central Europe from which to spread the conservative Wahhabi sect of Islam.

In Belgium, it was revealed that Muslims now make up one-quarter of the population of Brussels, according to a new book published by the Catholic University of Leuven, the top French-language university in Belgium. In real terms, the number of Muslims in Brussels -- where half of the number of Muslims in Belgium currently live -- has reached 300,000, which means that the self-styled "Capital of Europe" is now the most Islamic city in Europe.

Also in Belgium, the most popular name in Brussels for baby boys in 2011 was Mohammed. It was also the most popular name for baby boys in Belgium's second-largest city, Antwerp, where an estimated 40% of elementary school children are Muslim.

Separately, the Islamist group Sharia4Belgium intensified a propaganda and intimidation campaign aimed at turning the country into an Islamic state. In September, the group established an Islamic Sharia law court in Antwerp, the second-largest city in Belgium. Leaders of the group say the purpose of the court is to create a parallel Islamic legal system in Belgium to challenge the state's authority as enforcer of the civil law protections guaranteed by the Belgian constitution.

In Britain, a Muslim group launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities -- including what it calls "Londonistan" -- into independent Islamic states. These so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

Separately, it was revealed that more than 2,800 so-called honor attacks -- punishments for bringing shame on the family -- were recorded by British police last year, according to the first-ever national estimate of the problem. The highest number of honor crimes -- which include murder, mutilation, beatings, abductions and acid attacks -- was recorded in London, where the problem has doubled to more than five times the national average.

The data comes on the heels of another report which shows that tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants in Britain are practicing bigamy or polygamy to collect bigger social welfare payments from the British state.

The September 24 report shows that the phenomenon of bigamy and polygamy -- which are permitted by Islamic Sharia law -- is far more widespread in Britain than previously believed, even though it is a crime there, punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The rapid growth in multiple marriages is being fueled by multicultural policies that grant special rights to Muslim immigrants who demand that Sharia law be reflected in British law and the social welfare benefits system.

Meanwhile, a Christian worker in Britain filed a lawsuit after losing her job when she exposed a campaign of systematic harassment by fundamentalist Muslims. In a landmark legal case, Nohad Halawi, a former employee at London's Heathrow Airport, sued her former employer for unfair dismissal, claiming that Christian staff members, including her, were discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

Halawi's case is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), an organization that provides legal support for Christians in the United Kingdom. CLC says the case raises important legal issues, and also questions over whether Muslims and Christians are treated differently by employers.

In Denmark, a Muslim group launched a campaign to turn parts of Copenhagen and other Danish cities into "Sharia Law Zones" that would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic law. The Danish Islamist group Kaldet til Islam (Call to Islam) said the Tingbjerg suburb of Copenhagen would be the first part of Denmark to be subject to Sharia law, followed by the Nørrebro district of the capital and then other parts of the country.

Call to Islam said it would dispatch a 24-hour Islamic "morals police" to enforce Sharia law in those enclaves. The patrols would confront anyone caught drinking alcohol, gambling, going to discothèques or engaging in other activities the group views as running contrary to Islam.

Also in Denmark, the city council of Copenhagen approved the construction of the first official "Grand Mosque" in the Danish capital. The mega-mosque will have a massive blue dome as well as two towering minarets and is architecturally designed to stand out on Copenhagen's low-rise skyline.

Unlike most mosques in Europe, which cater to Sunni Muslims, the mosque in Copenhagen pertains to Shia Islam. The mosque is being financed by the Islamic Republic of Iran; critics say that theocrats in Tehran intend to use the mosque to establish a recruiting center for the militant Shia Muslim group, Hezbollah in Europe.

Meanwhile, the president of the Denmark-based International Free Press Society, Lars Hedegaard, was found guilty of racist hate speech for comments he made about Islam. He was ordered to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner (about $1,000). Hedegaard's legal problems began in December 2009, when he remarked in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.

Although Hedegaard has insisted that he did not intend to accuse all Muslims or even the majority of Muslims of such crimes, and although he was previously acquitted by a lower court, Denmark's thought police refused to drop the case until he was found guilty.

The European Union, bowing to pressure from Muslim lobby groups, quietly abandoned a new measure that would have required halal (religiously approved for Muslims) meat products to carry a label alerting consumers that the animals were not stunned, and therefore conscious, just before slaughter.

With the exponential growth of Europe's Muslim population in recent years, thousands of tons of religiously slaughtered halal meat is now entering the general food chain, where it is being unwittingly consumed also by the non-Muslim population.

The EU decision shows that Muslims have the right to choose halal foods, but non-Muslims do not have the right to choose not to eat the ritually slaughtered meat.

In France, it was revealed that Islamic mosques are being built more often than Roman Catholic churches, and that there now are more practicing Muslims in the country than practicing Catholics.

Separately, Muslim groups in France asked the Roman Catholic Church for permission to use its empty churches as a way to solve the traffic problems caused by thousands of Muslims who pray in the streets. The request, which was variously described by French political commentators as "alarming," "audacious" and "unprecedented," was yet another example of the growing assertiveness of the Muslims in France.

In October, it was also reported that the country's decrepit city suburbs are becoming "separate Islamic societies" cut off from the state, according to a major new study, "Banlieue de la République" (Suburbs of the Republic), that examines the spread of Islam in France.

Muslim immigrants are increasingly rejecting French values and identity and instead are immersing themselves in Islam, according to the report, which also warned that Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law in many parts of suburban Paris.

The authors of the report show that France, which has between five and six million Muslims (France has the largest Muslim population in European Union), is on the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society.

France's much-debated "burqa ban" entered into force in April. The new law, which prohibits the wearing of Islamic body-covering burqas and face-covering niqabs in all public spaces in France, came amid rising frustration that the country's estimated 6.5 million Muslims are not integrating into French society.

In Germany, it was revealed that thousands of young women and girls in Germany are victims of forced marriages every year. Most of the victims come from Muslim families; many have been threatened with violence and even death. The revelations shocked the German public and added to the ongoing debate in Germany over the question of Muslim immigration and the establishment of a parallel Islamic society there.

Also in Germany, a best-selling book published in September revealed that the spread of Islamic Sharia law in Germany is far more advanced than previously thought, and that German authorities are "powerless" to do anything about the Muslim shadow justice system in Germany.

The book says Sharia courts are now operating in all of Germany's big cities. This "parallel justice system" is undermining the rule of law in Germany because Muslim arbiters/imams are settling criminal cases out of court without the involvement of German prosecutors or lawyers before law enforcement can bring the cases to a German court.

Separately, the number of potential Islamic terrorists currently living in Germany jumped to around 1,000, according to new information provided by the German Interior Ministry.

In Greece, the Parliament approved a controversial plan to build a taxpayer-funded mega-mosque in Athens. The move came amid thinly veiled threats of violence by thousands of Muslim residents of the city who have been pressuring the government to meet their demands for a mosque or face an uprising.

In Holland, it was revealed that 40% of Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands between the ages of 12 and 24 have been arrested, fined, charged or otherwise accused of committing a crime during the past five years, according to a report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Interior.

In Dutch neighborhoods where the majority of residents are Moroccan immigrants, the youth crime rate reaches 50%. Moreover, juvenile delinquency among Moroccans is not limited to males; girls and young women are increasingly involved in criminal activities.

The "Dutch-Moroccan Monitor 2011" also revealed that most of the Moroccan youth involved in criminal activities were born in Holland. This implies that the children of Moroccan immigrants are not integrating into Dutch society, and confirms that the Netherlands is paying dearly for its failed multicultural approach to immigration.

Also in Holland, a mob of Islamists stormed a debate in Amsterdam that was featuring two Muslim liberals, the Canadian writer and Muslim feminist Irshad Manji and the Dutch-Moroccan Green Left MP Tofik Dibi.

The December 8 debate on how liberal Muslims can prevent Islam from being hijacked by Muslim extremists was held at the De Baile venue in downtown Amsterdam, and was sponsored by the Brussels-based European Foundation for Democracy. The event resumed after police arrested several of the Islamists.

The incident highlighted the increasing frequency with which Muslims are using intimidation tactics -- including harassment and even murder -- in an effort to silence free speech in Europe and to impose Islam on the continent.

On a positive note, a court in Amsterdam acquitted Geert Wilders -- the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants -- of charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam.

In June, the Dutch government said it would abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands.

In Italy, it was revealed that 44% of Italians are prejudiced or hostile towards Jews, according to a new research study released by the Italian Parliament on October 17. The report, titled "Final Document: Investigation on Anti-Semitism," was commissioned by the Committee for the Inquiry into Anti-Semitism of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the Italian Parliament. The 50-page document shows that anti-Semitism in Italy is also being fomented by Muslim immigrants who have established links with left-wing and right-wing extremists to carry out attacks on local Jewish communities, synagogues, schools and cemeteries.

In Spain, Muslims were accused of poisoning dozens of dogs in Lérida, a city in the northeastern region of Catalonia that has become ground zero in an intensifying debate over the role of Islam in Spain. All of the dogs were poisoned in September in Lérida's working class neighborhoods of Cappont and La Bordeta, districts that are heavily populated by Muslim immigrants and where many dogs have been killed in recent years. Local residents say Muslim immigrants killed the dogs because according to Islamic teaching dogs are "unclean" animals.

Also in Spain, two radical Islamic television stations began 24-hour broadcasting to Spanish-speaking audiences in Spain and Latin America from new studios in Madrid. The first channel, sponsored by the government of Iran, will focus on spreading Shiite Islam, the dominant religion in Iran. The second channel, sponsored by the government of Saudi Arabia, will focus on spreading Wahhabi Islam, the dominant religion in Saudi Arabia. The inaugural broadcasts of Islamic television in Spain were deliberately timed to coincide with the Christmas holidays, and represent yet another example of the gradual encroachment of Islam in post-Christian Spain.

In Sweden, police in the third-largest city, Malmö, reported a significant uptick in the number of reported anti-Semitic hate-crimes perpetrated by Muslim immigrants against Jews in 2011. The data came as the Swedish government on September 20 set aside 4 million kroner ($600,000) to help boost security around the country's synagogues, after accusations that Sweden has not done enough to protect its Jewish population.

Sweden has been accused of complacency about the growing problem of anti-Semitism in the country and the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center advised Jews to avoid traveling to southern Sweden.

In Switzerland, where the Muslim population has more than quintupled since 1980, a Muslim immigrant group based in Bern called for the emblematic white cross to be removed from the Swiss national flag because as a Christian symbol it "no longer corresponds to today's multicultural Switzerland."

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 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 January, 2012

The year when the word ‘progressive’ lost all its meaning

After the events of 2011, radical humanists will have to fight hard to reclaim the p-word

After the experiences of the past 12 months, it is difficult to give meaning to the idea of a ‘progressive worldview’. Throughout history, progressives came in many shapes and sizes, but whatever their differences might have been, their convictions were similar - they were driven by a positive view of change, innovation and experimentation and by a belief that the world could be a better place tomorrow than today. Despite clashes of opinion over what progress would look like, they assumed that the future could be influenced by political action.

In 2011, the classical ideal of progressivism died, having been displaced by a zombie version that has little to do with the forward-looking, transformative outlook of progressives of the past. The only practical context in which the term progressive is used today is in relation to taxation. Progressive taxation makes sense, of course, because society is entitled to expect greater material contribution from those who earn more than others. But in recent times, progressive taxation has been transformed from a sensible fiscal policy into a naive instrument of social engineering. Historically, the aim of progressives was to realise a positive transformation, whereas today their objective is merely to rearrange the status quo through redistribution.

In recent years, the zombie version of progressivism has become closely linked with the idea of ‘social justice’. Social justice can be defined in many different ways, but in essence it expresses a worldview committed to avoiding uncertainty and risky change through demanding that the state provides us with economic and existential security. From this standpoint, progress is proportional to the expansion of legal and quasi-legal oversight into everyday life. From the perspective of those who demand social justice, the proliferation of ‘rights’ and redistribution of wealth are the main markers of a progressive society.

Paradoxically, the idea of social justice was historically associated with movements that were suspicious of and uncomfortable with progress. The term was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840. His aim was to reconstitute theological ideals on a social foundation. In the century that followed, ‘social justice’ was upheld by movements that were fearful of the future and which sought to contain the dynamic towards progress. Probably one of the best known advocates of social justice was Father Charles Edward Coughlin. This remarkable American demagogue and populist xenophobe set up the National Union of Social Justice in 1934. Through his popular radio broadcasts, which regularly attracted audiences of 30million, he became one of the most influential political figures in the United States. Coughlin praised Hitler and Mussolini’s crusade against communism and denounced President Roosevelt for being in the pocket of Jewish bankers. Here, ‘social justice’ was about condemning crooked financiers and putting forward a narrow, defensive appeal for the redistribution of resources.

Today’s campaigners for social justice bear little resemblance to their ideological ancestors. They’re far more sophisticated and middle class than the followers of Fr Coughlin. But they remain wedded to the idea that the unsettling effects of progress are best contained through state intervention into society. They also maintain the simplistic notion that financiers and bankers are the personification of evil. The current Occupy movement would be horrified by Coughlin’s racist ramblings, yet they would find that some of the ideas expressed in his weekly newspaper, Social Justice, were not a million miles away from their own.

The confusion of social justice with progressivism is symptomatic of today’s implosion of classical political vocabulary. Although this trend transcends left-right political affiliations, its most striking manifestation is in the disintegration of the language of the progressive. Recently, Francis Fukuyama, in his essay ‘The Future of History’, remarked that ‘something strange is going on in the world today’ - which is that despite the intensification of the global crisis of capitalism, anger and frustration have not led to an ‘upsurge in left-wing alternatives’. This ‘lack of left-wing mobilisation’ is down to a ‘failure in the realm of ideas’, he argued.

What 2011 has confirmed is that the way in which the term progressive is used today has little to do with how it was used in the past. The most striking manifestation of this can be seen in the utter estrangement of the left from the idea of progress. The left, classically a movement that was associated with change and progress, has gradually lost its capacity to believe in the future. For most of its existence, the left looked upon the future as a place that would probably be significantly better than the present day. Social change was perceived to be, on balance, a positive thing, and the left tried to harness it towards the realisation of progressive objectives. The present was seen as something which had to be improved upon, reformed or transformed. Today, by contrast, what remains of the left is just as uncomfortable with the future as are other sections of the political class.

Sadly, the confused state of the political lexicon was turned into a virtue in 2011. Political illiteracy came to be celebrated as ‘the new radicalism’. This was the year when commentators extolled the strength of a movement that ‘defies simple characterisations’ - that is, the Occupy movement. Many claimed that the virtue of these occupations is that they refuse to communicate a distinct political message. Instead of serving as a reminder of contemporary disorientation and confusion, political illiteracy was rebranded as a new and subtle form of communication.

2011 was the year when Hal Ashby’s 1979 comedy-drama movie, Being There, provided the model script for political communication. The film follows Chance, a simpleton played by Peter Sellers, whose banal words are interpreted as wise insights springing from a powerful mind. Suddenly, through a series of accidental events, this former gardener becomes a celebrity whose confused musings are held up as a new brand of prophetic insight. Today, ‘being there’ forms the entire basis of the new radical politics. And it is those who question the incoherent ramblings of the characters of ‘Being There 2011’ who are dismissed as hopeless simpletons. ‘Those who deride [Occupy] for its lack of concrete demands simply don’t understand its strategic function’, lectures Gary Younge of the Guardian. Apparently, its strategic function is to ‘create new possibilities’. One can almost hear Chance wowing his audience with inane talk of ‘creating new possibilities’.

The tendency to dismiss clarity of purpose and objectives as old-fashioned and unnecessary represents an acquiescence to confusion and ignorance. It is one thing to lack the political and intellectual resources necessary to formulate a new visionary politics - it is quite another to depict this deficit as a positive thing. When the American political consultant George Lakoff said ‘I think it is a good thing that the Occupy movement is not making specific policy demands’, he gave expression to a zeitgeist that is pleased just to ‘be there’.

But of course, being there is not enough. Public life needs to be refocused around the future, and the reconstitution of progressive politics and ideals is the precondition for making this happen. In the end, what matters are not the words we use to describe ourselves; no, the differences that really matter today are where one stands in relation to the past and the future. Those who are interested in the reconstitution of progressive politics must help to free humanity from its fixation with the present. They need to reacquaint the younger generations with humanity’s history and the lessons of the past, and also adopt a more robust and active orientation towards the future. In 2012, let’s not just pass time being there…

SOURCE






British Labour Party is led by the privileged class

A close ally of Ed Miliband has attacked Labour’s leadership for being too elitist – meaning it fails to connect with working-class people. Lord Glasman, a leading academic and friend of the Labour leader, said senior politicians in the party were drawn from ‘too narrow’ a group of Oxbridge graduates. He warned that their privileged backgrounds had become a ‘crucial’ problem for the party.

Mr Miliband and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls both have degrees in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford.

Lord Glasman’s comments will add to Mr Miliband’s woes following a series of disastrous polls showing that his support is falling. A recent ICM survey gave the Conservatives a six-point lead over Labour, putting them on 40 per cent, up two points in two weeks.
Labour had fallen by two points to 34 per cent, meaning the Conservatives are enjoying one of their biggest poll leads since the 2010 General Election.

In an interview with the Labour Diversity Fund website, Lord Glasman said: ‘One of the crucial problems we have as a party is that we have brought our leadership in from much too narrow a group.

‘Basically Oxbridge graduates, in particular economics graduates, politics graduates, social scientists and lawyers. We need to reconnect to working-class communities, we have to reconnect to ethnic minority communities and bring up real leaders from within the people we represent.’

However, Labour sources hit back, pointing out that the Shadow Cabinet is more diverse in background than the Cabinet. More than half of the 23-strong coalition Cabinet went to Oxford or Cambridge and the majority were privately educated.

Eight members of the Shadow Cabinet had an Oxbridge education.
Maurice Glasman has been dubbed Mr Miliband’s ‘de facto chief of staff’ by party insiders and has written speeches for him.

But he has made a series of attacks on Labour, accusing the party earlier this year of having ‘lied’ to the British people about the extent of immigration.

His comments about the Oxbridge backgrounds of Labour’s leaders came after a leading Tory policy thinker warned that the working class is being excluded from politics. David Skelton, deputy director of the No 10-friendly thinktank Policy Exchange, said: ‘Politics today is notable for its absence of leaders and leading figures from working-class backgrounds. 'Working-class people are again being shut out from Parliament’s long corridors.’

SOURCE






Lessons from Dharavi, India

This long front-page report in today’s New York Times is fascinating. Here’s a list, in no particular order, of some of the lessons that careful readers take away from it:

- The relevant question to ask about any social situation – including that of the slum dwellers in Dharavi – is “compared to what?” By the standards that even the poorest of us in the 21st-century west are accustomed to, living and working conditions in Dharavi are worse than appalling; by the standards of the people living and working in Dharavi, their living and working conditions are better than their alternatives.

- Social order is spontaneous. The order – the complex and nuanced pattern of interactions – that prevails today in Dharavi was not designed by any overlord or sovereign; this order evolved and changes spontaneously. And again, while that order appears to western observers to be unacceptable, it is working for the people of Dharavi: that order and what it provides to Dharavians is superior to what Dharavians left behind – and, hence, to what would be available to these people if they were forced out of Dharavi and back into their villages.

- At least large numbers of people – at least at very low levels of income – care less about not lowering their relative economic standing and status than about raising their absolute level of material well-being. Better to be very poor in a city boasting nearby opulence than being very, very poor in a village where incomes are ‘distributed’ more equally.

- People peacefully and cooperatively, and with little or no encouragement or direction from the state, create and seize opportunities for mutually advanageous production and exchange.

- Even illiterate, dirt-poor parents will sacrifice to ensure that their children have better opportunities than they, the parents, have. Such parents even often pay for their children to attend private schools.

- (Following from the previous point:) The relevant time-horizon for judging the merits or demerits of any social arrangement is not just one generation. Mama and papa frequently are willing to endure risks that make their lives worse if the result of accepting those risks is a significant enough increase in the prospects for their children’s lives being made better. (This theme, btw, is beautifully woven throughout Russ’s book The Choice.)

- A great deal of recycling occurs when it is economically profitable.

- The greedy, crony-capitalist, rent-seeking itch that gave rise to the property seizure theft at issue in the odious Kelo decision is not unique to America or to the west; it is, sadly, universal.

- The familiar mantra “poverty causes crime” is far too simplistic; perhaps it’s incorrect.

- America’s unemployed poor people are vastly wealthier than are many employed, hard-working people in ‘developing’ countries such as India.

- Being desperately poor – poor to the point of being physically debilitated – does not necessarily cause people to surrender to the fates; to quit; to do nothing save beg either directly or indirectly (by pleading for government handouts). Even the poorest of poor people often find peaceful and productive ways to make themselves (and their children) less poor.

- To make the previous two observations is not at all or in any way to imply that current unemployment in America is acceptable or that unemployed or poor Americans should be grateful. To make these observation, though, is to highlight one of the many fruits of sustained economic growth. The ability to remain unemployed for long stretches of time without suffering genuinely severe economic hardships such as malnutrition and no access to indoor plumbing reflects the benefits of capitalist growth (which itself is possible only because of capitalist dynamism and change). Better to live in a society in which if you are a discouraged worker you remain unemployed for a long stretch of time than to live in a society in which any sustained period of unemployment means your death.

Meanwhile, India’s government throws another noose around the neck of that country’s formal economy – a noose that slows and shrinks the prospects for Dharavians to improve as much as possible their and their children’s lives – a noose that can serve as Exhibit A in the case for why Indians still have in their midst informal-economy slums such as Dharavi.

SOURCE (See the original for links)





Australian law does allow legal reprisal against online defamation and hate speech

But it is difficult, time-consuming and expensive. And the ultimate defendant may not be worth suing

Welcome to the world of hate blogging. A reported defamation payout of $13,000 by the TV book show celebrity Marieke Hardy gives us an inkling of the dark side of the blogosphere.

Hardy has been the victim of some poisonous blog posts for more than five years by someone assuming the name of "James Vincent McKenzie".

It's distressing stuff and naturally Hardy is offended. Her error was accusing, in one of her own blog posts, the wrong person as being the author of these "ranting, violent" attacks.

Under a naming and shaming exercise with the Twitter hashtag of #mencallmethings she pointed to her own blog, which said Joshua Meggitt was the person responsible.

Meggitt had posted critical remarks about the First Tuesday Book Club on ABC TV, where Hardy is a regular member of the panel, but he was not the author of the extraordinarily nasty "James Vincent McKenzie" blog. Hence, the payout and apology to Meggitt.

So who is James Vincent McKenzie? The comments on his blog make all sorts of helpful speculations - Kyle Sandilands, a jilted lover, Jack Marx, even Hardy herself.

The blog appears recently to have changed URLs, which adds to the trickiness of the enterprise. Presumably, if McKenzie's true identity could be revealed, Hardy might be on her way to getting back her $13,000. After all, she is just as much a victim as Meggitt.

What is alarming is the propensity for hateful and anonymous blogs to continue publishing after the online host would be aware of the content.

How safe can the identity of McKenzie remain? The blogspot.com site which he uses is operated by Google, based in California and registered in Delaware. It requires a Google account and gmail address.

One person posted an online comment about this yesterday, saying they had tried to report the McKenzie blog to Google, which replied that it is not responsible for any allegedly defamatory content and it does not remove defamatory, insulting, negative or distasteful material from US domains. It claims that under US law internet services, such as the blogger site, are republishers and not the publisher.

That's all very well, but increasingly Google finds it cannot hide behind these waivers of responsibility. In this country, republishers can be liable for defamation when they have notice that what they are republishing is actionable.

If she had the time, a small fortune and determination, Hardy could apply to bring discovery proceedings in a US court.

McKenzie is in breach of the blogspot terms and conditions, which require compliance with the laws of the country in which the blogging takes place. In any third-party proceedings, the offender also would be required to indemnify Google.

Proceedings overseas may not be necessary. In October, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered Google Australia to cough-up the details of the identity behind a blog that called a Gold Coast self-help guru a "thieving scumbag".

Last year, a judge in Ireland gave permission to the Irish Red Cross to start proceedings against Google in California in order to obtain the identity of an anonymous blogger who had posted what the charity claimed was "distorted confidential" material. Italian and French courts have held Google liable for defamations that arose from "autocomplete" search requests.

In England, the Demon internet service provider was found to be liable for defamation after a judge held that the "innocent disseminator" defence didn't wash once an ISP had notice of the offensive content.

The principles of the Demon case got an airing in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Ives v Lim. There, the material under consideration was published on a blog site owned somewhere in the Russian Federation. Justice Rene Le Miere said: "In principle, a person who creates a website that hosts an interactive blog may be liable for defamatory material posted by third parties."

Further, courts have ordered the identity be revealed of people who have made unpleasant comments on newspaper websites or on internet travel sites.

It may not be a real identity but at least the IP addresses of the computers used to post the comments can be located.

The NSW Supreme Court judge Robert Hulme in October found that Google and other global publishers, such as Facebook and Wikipedia, were not out of reach as far as internet take-down orders were concerned, in relation to a pending criminal trial.

In the Gutnick case, the High Court decided a defamation by an offshoot of The Wall Street Journal occurred where it was read, Melbourne, not where it was uploaded. [In the Gutnick case an Australian businessman who has been convicted of no crime was portrayed as "a schemer given to stock scams, money laundering and fraud", with no evidence adduced to support such a scurrilous accusation]

Despite the internet looking like a game of Twister, Hardy is not without a remedy. However, at the end of the rainbow she may find "James Vincent McKenzie" doesn't have a cracker to bless himself.

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 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