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. This site is updated several times a month but is no longer updated daily. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). See here or here for the archives of this site.


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

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

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





30 September, 2015

A hate-fest at the British Labour Party conference

Everything in Brighton seems to be turning pink, and not just the Moon. Labour’s conference is in the grip of red-threaded, Marxoid ab-dabs. The oratory here is hyperbolised in its fury, quite possibly a bit bonkers.

Broad-bellied blokes spank spadelike palms over their heads, so hard it’s a wonder they don’t bruise them. The Tories were more than once yesterday compared to Nazi concentration camp guards. Big business was slandered. Sloganeering was denounced – with slogans!

Cue numerous mentions of Mrs Thatcher and the Eighties. We had a 75-year-old man wearing a coal-miner’s helmet with ‘Coal Not Dole’ stickers. Did he get it from the wardrobe mistress at West End musical ‘Billy Elliot’?

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, in carmine-shaded tie, gave a speech so lacking in theatricality, it actually became rather fascinatingly theatrical. Mr McDonnell flexed his jaw muscles, ground his molars, stared at the TV cameras as though about to butt them. Alex Ferguson after a Man United defeat.

Gosh he was furious. Albanian newscasters in the Enver Hoxha days were more skittish.

He warned delegates that it was going to be a speech unencumbered by his usual ‘rants’. ‘There’s no jokes – they get me into trouble,’ he said. In truth, Mr McDonnell has never been Jimmy Tarbuck.

He proceeded to intone a brief, blunt statement of intentions, including an ‘aggressive’ (yet unspecified) balancing of the books. Menace swirled around him like cigar smoke.

He coldly said how ‘disappointed’ he was that some Labour MPs had declined to serve on Jeremy Corbyn’s frontbench. Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper & Co should maybe avoid any men with sharp-ferruled umbrellas.

Happily, other comrades were prepared to be heroes of the Revolution. Mr McDonnell named certain economists who would be assisting his great project. And all hail former Civil Service chief Bob Kerslake, who had agreed to look into firing squads at the Treasury to exterminate wrong thinkers, or something like that. Can this be the same bumbling, bungling Bob Kerslake whose recent departure from Whitehall was a source of hat-hurling relief to his fellow Permanent Secretraries? It can!

For all the stuff about ‘new politics’, the language was prosaic. Mr McDonnell envisaged a ‘concrete alternative for a green economy’. There was a lazy riff about ‘the skills, development and innovation critical to compete in a globalised economy’. ‘Let me make this absolutely clear,’ he said, before being opaque on his tax-raising plans.

The tone was that of a Soviet tractor factory superintendent. His final word? ‘Solidarity!’, shouted with a clenched fist.

Earlier we had heard from dimpled charmer Diane Abbott. She was wearing a Guantanamo Bay orangey-red trouser suit, possibly a size or three on the small side. Front row spectators would have been well advised to shield their eyes in case a button pinged off its moorings like a sniper’s bullet.

Sister Abbott, a supporter of private education, complained in pukka accent about the Tories’ ‘callous’ attitude to the poor, particularly with regard to foreign aid. Eh? David Cameron has spent billions on aid.


Abbott

As Miss Abbott stomped back to her chair she had her right ear nibbled by sometime swoon Mr Corbyn. And a woman with copper-washed hair, first name Sioux (as in Red Indians), announced that Jeremy Corbyn gave ‘wonderful hugs’. Of the Government’s proposal for a Bill of Rights she said, ‘we might as well walk into the gas chambers today’. Mr Corbyn enjoyed that remark so much, he snogged her, too. He’s a hands-on leader.

That was not the only Nazi allusion. Union heavy ‘Red Len’ McCluskey, the grey-stubbled Obi Wan Kenobi of Corbynism, fulminated about the ‘Fascist dictatorship’ of David Cameron. He compared Tory reforms on strike ballots to Hitler’s imposition of red-triangle badges on inmates of Dachau concentration camp. Having got that off his chest, Mr McCluskey came over all Basil Fotherington-Thomas and started to quote poetry by Emily Dickinson

Former MP Candy Atherton, in a red dress, hit some sort of pothole on stage with her wheelchair. ‘I’m stuck!’ she squealed. Miss Atherton had just given a speech which suggested that the Tories could take us back to the days of 18th century slavery. Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell attended her stalled vehicle like a couple of AA mechanics.

    The moment of the day? A speech by Lloyd Duddridge from Ilford, north London. Addressing delegates as ‘fellow fighters’, Mr Duddridge called for a social ‘safety net’ for workers who took risks. Who could he mean? ‘People trying to write a bloody book,’ he said. Writers of the world, unite. In a summons that will resonate with Mr Corbyn’s friends at the Guardian and the BBC, this Duddridge cried: ‘We need to take that fight to our dinner parties!

SOURCE






Gen. Dees: Social Experimentation is Degrading Our Military Readiness

The military readiness of the United States is being “degraded by social experimentation,” Maj. Gen. Robert Dees (U.S. Army-Ret.) said Saturday at the Values Voter Summit in Washington.

Dees said that the Obama administration’s use of the military for “social engineering” on controversial gay and gender issues is detrimental to the nation’s ability to defend itself.

“Not only are we losing physical readiness to fight, we have to fix the problem of moral readiness,” he said on a panel chaired by Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (US Army-Ret.).

“I think the moral readiness of our forces is even more important than the physical readiness, which is very low,” Dees later told CNSNews.com. “The moral readiness is degraded by social experimentation within our military.

“In fact, social experimentation is improperly named because it’s not an experiment at all. It’s a top-driven mandate for social agendas that occurs by this administration within the military, which is a captive audience.

“It is not enhancing our readiness; it declines our readiness. We’re spending more time on some of these social engineering projects than we are on developing and maintaining readiness in our force.”

CNSNews.com asked Dees what message President Obama’s nomination of an openly gay secretary of the Army sends to members of the military, especially those who are Christians.

“Well, I think it’s a very loud statement by the administration. It’s not an accident. We respect all people and yet, it’s tantamount to lighting the White House in rainbow colors,” he replied.

The general added that “even though there’s some guidelines in place, there’s guerilla warfare within the military in a similar way that there’s guerilla warfare within our culture.

“People who would seek to strike religion from our land are working very aggressively out in the various parts of the military to strike down religious freedoms even if it’s against the existing regulations. They will press and push for whatever they can get away with.”

The inevitable result of such conflict is “a rash of poor leaders, and in many cases toxic leaders within the military,” Dees said. “Young people are not seeing selfless servants…the very best of our officers are the ones who leave first.”

“Faith in the foxhole is critically important,” the general added. “We in the military know that [the troops] don’t want to be politically correct, they want to be God correct.”

SOURCE







US should never vote in the UN General Assembly

By Jeff Jacoby

EACH YEAR, THE United Nations General Assembly passes a resolution condemning the US economic embargo on Cuba. Each year, the United States, joined by a dwindling number of friends, votes against the resolution. Passage is a foregone conclusion. The vote last year was 188-2.

The resolution has no legal effect. It is merely a vehicle for inveighing against Washington, and for pretending that communist Cuba’s long record of economic failure and human-rights abuse is somehow the fault of the United States.

For 23 years, under Republican and Democratic presidents, the United States has opposed the antiembargo measure. But now comes word that the Obama administration may abstain from this year’s vote, an unprecedented step. “It is unheard-of for a UN member state not to oppose resolutions critical of its own laws,” the Associated Press reported last Monday, and some congressional leaders are aghast that President Obama would consider shirking his sovereign obligation to defend US interests before the world body. Even if he favors repealing the Cuban embargo (which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996), it remains the law of the land. Until that changes, says outgoing House Speaker John Boehner, the president has a “responsibility to defend US law, and that’s what [he] should do.”

An abstention on the UN vote would be in keeping with this administration’s practice of flouting, ignoring, or refusing to defend provisions of law it finds inconvenient, in matters ranging from immigration to health insurance to recess appointments to marriage. It isn’t only Republicans or conservatives — or lawmakers — who have objected to Obama’s presidential overreach. You can agree with the president’s position that a statute ought to be repealed or amended, while still expecting him to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” as the Constitution requires.

Yet on the General Assembly resolution, I would defend an abstention, even though I strongly oppose Obama’s Cuba policy. Indeed, I would go further. Were it my call, the US ambassador to the United Nations would never cast a vote in the General Assembly.

The suggestion isn’t original. It was proposed in the 1960s by the political theorist James Burnham, who died in 1987. To vote on General Assembly resolutions, he argued, is to lend them an authority to which serious countries like the United States know they aren’t entitled. If that was true in Burnham’s day, it is even truer now, when the General Assembly is dominated by corrupt, authoritarian, or tyrannical governments that are hostile to democratic liberties and contemptuous of human dignity. We should not indulge the pretense that there is moral significance to any proposition merely because a majority of the UN’s membership endorses it.

The United Nations was born 70 years ago this October with the ratification of a charter committing member-states to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights.” To be sure, those ideals were always aspirational. But what remains of them? Look at the UN today and what do you see? The world’s cruelest dictatorships seated on the Human Rights Council. A monomaniacal hostility toward Israel. Global financial and sexual scandals. Thundering applause for speeches by tyrants and terrorists. The General Assembly has become a moral wasteland and a monument to hypocrisy.

We cannot simply walk away from the UN. But we can at least decline to solemnize the farce by voting on General Assembly resolutions. The Security Council is different: Its resolutions can have legal force and we have veto power. But in the General Assembly, where cynicism reigns, we gain nothing by voting. Certainly America’s views should be explained and defended. But when the question is called, the United States should abstain. On every issue, every time.

SOURCE






Australia: Is Clueless Clemmie emulating that vicious British barrister feminist?





I want to say something about Clementine Ford's latest emission just to provide the balance that her Fascist thinking lacks but I am initially a little struck by her new photo.  See above.

Her old photo with its furiously red lipstick still accompanies her actual column but on the main page of the SMH there is now a much softer picture of her.  Is she hoping to trap rebarbative old reactionaries like me into praising her looks?  After the Charlotte Proudperson episode in Britain she should be so lucky!  NEVER praise a feminist's looks!  So what is the new image about?  Does she want a Lesbian bit on the side?  I guess that's it. Lesbian couples I have known did have one attractive female. 

But on to the important stuff:  In a typical Fascist way, she wants the government to solve our problems -- in this case the problem of violence against women.  But how CAN a government do that?  Turnbull has announced that he will spend a lot of money on it but that is just window-dressing.  Is he going to put a policeman in every home? Of course not.  Governments may be able to scratch at the margins of the problem but large and inherited  male/female differences will always be there and will in extreme and rare cases result in frustrations great enough to evoke violence.

All that the polity can reasonably do is provide refuges for threatened women and severe punishment for those men who do physically attack women.  But as far as I can tell, that is already pretty much in place.  Some problems will never be completely solved and a mature person learns to know when an  asymptote (limit) has been approached.

Just some excerpts from Clemmie below -- JR

Over the two, long years that Tony Abbott was Prime Minister, very little was done to address the scourge of men's violence against women. This sustained, brutal form of misogyny currently sees around 6 women killed per month while claiming the lives of just under 60 women this year*. Despite the arrogant appointment of himself to the office of Prime Minister for Women, Abbott's interest in issues affecting women's lives remained rooted in the retro ideology that assumes our greatest challenges lie in feeding our families and keeping our energy bills down.

Indeed, rather than direct even a skerrick of the attention given to combating fictional terror threats and desperate refugees fleeing war-torn countries, the Abbott government actually withdrew funding from organisations offering vital services to the victims of family violence. During the exit speech supposedly listing all of the successes of his government, Abbott reemphasised his disinterest in the impact of family violence when he said, "Then there's the challenge of ice and domestic violence, yet to be addressed."

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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






29 September, 2015

The forgotten First Amendment freedom

Freedom of the press is out of fashion across the Western world. Yet it is as important as free speech to a free society.

In the UK, the first state-backed system of press regulation for more than 300 years is about to begin – via the Royal Charter agreed by all of the political parties in a deal with the tabloid-bashing lobby Hacked Off. A new law will impose potentially punitive costs on publications that refuse to bend the knee and sign up – which so far includes all of the national press.

In the US, the First Amendment to the Constitution still prevents such legal regulation. Yet there, too, an influential lobby is pushing for greater state intervention to tame the press and media – for example, demanding that the Supreme Court afford less protection to ‘lower value’ forms of published speech, or government intervention to enforce a mandatory ‘right to reply’ on the press and even subsidise a more ‘serious’ (that is, sanitised) media.

Meanwhile, the creeping culture of You Can’t Say That seeks to impose more informal restrictions on the freedom of the press on both sides of the Atlantic.

The strange thing is that many of those who show such disdain for press freedom today would identify themselves as liberal supporters of free speech. They try to make a distinction between free speech for individuals (seen as a Good Thing) and freedom of the press (Not Necessarily So).

Those who want to separate free speech from freedom of the press only demonstrate that they don’t really support either. These two liberties are and always have been inseparable. There are good historical reasons why the First Amendment to the US Constitution has, since 1791, coupled them together to be jointly and equally protected from state interference, declaring that ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press’.

From the beginning, the demand for free speech was focused on freedom of the press – which meant the printing press. The modern struggle began in earnest from the seventeenth century in Britain and then America. It was not about an abstract wish for freedom of expression, but a specific demand for an end to state control of the published word.

The precursor to the fight for free speech — the demand for freedom of conscience — was about the liberty of the individual privately to believe what he thought true, not what he was told to believe by the political and religious authorities. The demand for freedom of speech went a step further, seeking the liberty to express those beliefs and opinions in public. And how was such public freedom of expression to be made effective? Primarily through the printing press, which made it possible to popularise ideas on a wide scale for the first time.

That was why the struggle for free speech focused, first in Britain and then in the American colonies, on attempts to end the system of state licensing. These laws gave the Crown control over everything that was printed, and could send those convicted of publishing unlicensed ‘seditious libels’ that criticised the government to jail or the gallows.

In the first wave of the free-speech wars in England, those demanding freedom of the press were religious heretics who wanted first a Bible printed in English rather than Latin, and then the liberty to express their Puritan and non-conformist creed. Their clash with the censorious power of central authority soon melded into a rising political clamour for freedom of the press. As the English Civil War broke out between the king and parliament in the 1640s, the demand for freedom of the press was at the forefront of the movement for political and social change, led by the ‘revolt of the pamphleteers’. John Lilburne of the radical Levellers demanded of parliament ‘that you will open the press, whereby all treacherous and tyrannical designs may be the easier discovered, and so prevented’.

Crown licensing of the press formally ended in 1695. Yet in the late eighteenth century, English radicals such as John Wilkes were still fighting for the freedom to publish what they saw fit, criticise the king’s government and report the proceedings of parliament without the threat of being sent to the Tower. The ‘liberty of the press’, declared the front page of Wilkes’ notorious newspaper, was ‘the birthright of every Briton’.

That belief in the freedom of the press as the lifeblood of a free society spread to America. The revolutionary demand for independence from Britain took hold thanks in no small part to the radical publications that Americans had fought for the freedom to print. Looking back on these momentous events, the second US president, John Adams, reflected that the war for independence that began in 1775 was not the real revolution. That, said Adams, had been the revolution in the hearts and minds of the people, the spark for which had been pamphlets and newspapers ‘by which the public opinion had been enlightened and informed’. Freedom of the press had proved the catalyst for the creation of a free nation. Little wonder that it was to be embedded in the US Constitution by the First Amendment.

Yet today, freedom of the press is often looked down upon in high-minded liberal circles, as if it were some sort of corporate trick that only serves the interests of the major media organisations. As the British comedian turned Hollywood actor and Hacked Off frontman Steve Coogan put it, ‘Press freedom is a lie, peddled by proprietors and editors who only care about profit!’. The former funnyman was not joking. If only those heroes of history who had fought and suffered for press freedom could have had access to the wisdom of Coogan/Alan Partridge, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble. Who would want to be locked up or hanged, drawn and quartered for the sake of ‘a lie’?

The power that a few large entities can exercise over much of the established Anglo-American media is a longstanding problem, which is likely to remain until we all become billionaires or the billionaires all become socialists. It will not be improved by encouraging the state to encroach further upon the freedom of the press and the media. Indeed, it is an argument for demanding that the media be made more open and free, not less.

Freedom of speech and of the press are not only inseparable. They are also indivisible liberties, that we defend for all or none at all. You cannot start tampering with it for one group – even if the group is press barons or PR executives – and expect it to remain intact for everybody else. Once the bulwark has been breached and the cultural support for the principle of freedom is compromised, everything is called into question. And once freedom of speech and of the press is openly called into question it ceases to be a universal right and becomes a privilege to be cherry-picked.

This is not a zero-sum game, where you somehow have to decrease the rights of others in order to increase your own. Freedom of expression is not a negotiable commodity that can somehow be ‘redistributed’ away from the rich and powerful towards the rest. To infringe on the right to free speech of others can only risk undermining your own capacity to exercise it. Those who fought for freedom of the speech and of the press through history demanded the extension of those rights to the lowest and ‘the meanest’ in society, not their removal from others.

For all of its anti-elitist posturing, the current to curb press freedom is at root often a coded attack on the masses who are supposedly ‘brainwashed’ by the mass media. We are far better off defending and extending press freedom, using the new opportunities provided by web publishing, to win a bigger audience for an alternative media.

No doubt there are many imperfections with the press and the wider media today. But history suggests there is always one thing worse than a free press, and that is its opposite. It is worth remembering that nowhere in the world is the problem that the media is somehow ‘too free’. It is high time that the forgotten First Amendment freedom came back into fashion.

SOURCE






Marines Push Back on Women in Combat

The Marine Corps' unique position among the armed services gives it a strong argument in favor of a waiver to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s plan to remove restrictions “excluding women from assignment to units and positions whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.” When the policy to include women in combat roles was first announced in 2013, the services were given a deadline of Oct. 1, 2015, to implement “gender-neutral” occupational standards and conduct studies related to the change. Any service that believed assignment of women to a particular position or specialty was detrimental could request an exemption to the policy and maintain its restriction.

The Marines plan to request a waiver based on their findings from a nine-month evaluation of the effectiveness of mixed-gender infantry units. Women were injured more frequently, were not as accurate marksmen as men, had trouble with combat duties such as removing the wounded from the battlefield and had a detrimental effect on unit cohesion. (We wouldn’t put a woman in a boxing ring with a man, so why would we throw them into combat?)

That didn’t stop Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus from opposing the waiver. He framed his opposition with the rebuttal that “the SEALs aren’t asking for one.” Given the general public’s perception of SEALs as the pinnacle of all things manly and military, this would seem to be a convincing argument. But lest anyone discount the opposition to Mabus as the work of sexist males who aren’t up with the times, a female Marine who participated in the study added that Mabus “completely rolled the Marine Corps and the entire staff that was involved in putting this [experiment] in place under the bus.”

And, in fact, Mabus' statement is the equivalent of showing us an apple to persuade us that we should like oranges.

In the unlikely event that any females survive (none has even been granted an opportunity to start at this point) the SEALs grueling rite of passage — the Basic Underwater Demolition Course or “BUDS” — the number will be so small that it will have minimal impact on the community. Not requesting a waiver is a win-win and makes sense for the SEALs. They’re seen as relatively open-minded and therefore score political points, and they incur very little risk that a significant number of females will join the teams and jeopardize readiness.

Given two female officers' successful completion of what’s viewed as the Army’s most physically demanding course — Ranger School — the Army would’ve had a difficult time persuading its civilian leadership that a waiver was warranted in its case.

This course-based approach to answering the question highlights a subtle but important distinction between the Army and Marine Corps. While the Marine Corps believes the small unit is the essential element on the battlefield and orients its training toward building esprit and cohesion within the unit, the Army’s philosophy is that unit performance will be maximized by filling it with individuals who have completed schools and earned certain qualifications — Ranger, Airborne, Sapper, etc. This is reflected in their respective uniforms: Marines — defined by their Eagle, Globe and Anchor — favor anonymity (not even requiring names to be displayed on uniforms until the 1990s) and interchangeability, while a soldier wears his credibility on his chest and sleeve. One approach is not necessarily superior to the other, and the differences make sense given the services' size and roles, but they are significant enough variables that they should be factored into the discussion.

In light of the distinctions, it’s easier to understand why the Army and Marines respectively sought to answer different questions in response to the policy. Whether other organizations are requesting an exception may be interesting, but it’s also irrelevant. Mabus' comments highlight his fundamental lack of understanding of one of the services he’s supposedly leading and should disqualify him from playing a decisive role in the exemption request process.

Then again, Mabus is merely a product of Barack Obama’s influence on the military. From rules of engagement to budget cutbacks to naming a homosexual Army secretary, Obama has had a devastating effect on military morale. And we can expect the beatings to continue until morale improves.

SOURCE






Australia: Mosque foes take aim at local council

The battle over Bendigo’s $3 million mosque took another menacing turn yesterday when a pro-mosque councillor found a threatening leaflet from right-wing extremist group United ­Patriots Front in his letterbox.

The bright red leaflet, with a picture purporting to be a Muslim holding a gun and with a big red cross through it, accuses Mayor Peter Cox and head of a not-for-profit, non-government emergency housing group Ken Marchingo of “corruption”.

Pictures of Mr Cox and Mr Marchingo are at the top of the leaflet with the words “What does corruption look like?” followed by a picture of a mosque with a large red cross through it.

“Mayor Cox & Ken Marchingo selling out Bendigo’s future,” it says under the pair’s pictures.

The leaflet also announces the details of another anti-mosque rally and a map highlighting where protesters should meet.

Pro-mosque councillor Mark Weragoda discovered the leaflet as he was mowing lawns at his home yesterday and said he took it as a “personal threat”.

“It wasn’t there on Saturday evening, so it must have been put in my letterbox overnight or early in the evening,” he said.

Mr Weragoda said none of his neighbours received the leaflet and he was concerned for the welfare of his wife and daughter, who were recently threatened during an anti-mosque protest at a heated council meeting at Bendigo Town Hall.

The meeting was abruptly adjourned and councillors were escorted out by police after protesters, most from outside Bendigo, swamped the council chambers.

The United Patriot Front is a breakaway group of extremists and a new anti-Islamic Australian group that has expressed political solidarity with far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Europe.

Bendigo residents and pro-mosque locals are outraged that members of extremist far-right groups, such as UPF, the Q society, which claims to be “Australia’s leading Islamic-critical movement”, and Reclaim Australia, have hijacked the local debate and used it to send anti-Muslim messages.

More than 400 anti-Islamic extremists were bussed into Bendigo from Sydney and Melbourne to an anti-mosque rally last month that saw violent scuffles between the anti-mosque group and an anti-racism group.

More than 300 police were sent to Bendigo for the rally in what one commander described as the biggest police operation he had seen outside of Melbourne.

Mr Weragoda believed the threatening leaflet was in response to an article in which he was named as pro-mosque published in the Weekend Magazine on Saturday that detailed the issues around the mosque debate and the involvement of right-wing extremist groups from outside town.

He said anti-mosque groups were active in trying to shut down any media seen as favourable to a mosque.

SOURCE






Famous Australian entertainer slams public broadcaster as Leftist

And says society has become too politically correct

Australia’s greatest comedic export, Barry Humphries, says the ABC has become an extreme left-wing broadcaster and the former prime minister Tony Abbott was correct to criticise it.

“The ABC has become increasingly left wing. Blatantly so. Indeed so has another notable Australian newspaper,” Humphries said in an interview with The Australian.  “And I was surprised that they (the ABC) can be so openly of the extreme left.”

During his visits to Australia, about four times a year, his esteem for the public broadcaster has diminished, although he thoroughly enjoyed Sarah Ferguson’s The Killing Season — while ­suspecting the ABC produced it to ingratiate itself with the government during a difficult time in their relationship.

Humphries said the criticisms of the ABC by the former prime minister were justified.

“They were getting very worried about their relationship with the prime minister so they made this program with Rudd and ­Gillard to ingratiate themselves, The Killing Season, one of the best things the ABC has done,” he said.

When Humphries reads the newspapers each day, he said he becomes “steamed up” and often finds himself angrily writing a ­letter to the editor.  But he rarely sends them in.

“Every day when I read the paper something occurs when I get steamed up or fired up, steamed up, whatever, irate and I write a letter and never send it,” he said. “I have a pile. I should publish the letters. There’ve been a few good letters of mine.”

Bureaucratic folly, stupidity in high places and sexual hypocrisy are among the things that ignite Humphries’ ire.

Reflecting on how the format of news has changed over the years, he said so had Australia’s values, and he deeply regrets the way society has become, in his view, too politically correct.

“We think we live in a liberated age but we don’t really. I mean it’s just the way these things are ­expressed publicly and how we wag our fingers at people, how we disapprove of them and how we’re living in an age of new puritanism,” he said.

“Things were much more ­liberal 20 years ago than they are today. I’m really the sworn enemy of all forms of political correctness. You can’t call something what it really is.”

Humphries was so “steamed-up” over the website New ­Matilda’s publication of the University of Sydney professor Barry Spurr’s racist emails that he did send that particular letter in.

In the letters to the editor page of The Australian, Humphries defended Professor Spurr, lamenting the fact Australia had lost its sense of humour.

“I did feel that this man who was engaging in rather elaborate and perhaps rather tasteless joke privately was hacked into and then excoriated,” Humphries said.

“I thought we do persecute people pretty ruthlessly in Australia. And particularly in the ­academic world; it’s a jungle, it’s cut throat.”

While Professor Spurr was slammed for being racist, Humphries’ view is that one should “call a spade a spade” when discussing race. Speaking of Australian teachers who instil political correctness in students, Humphries described them as: “These sort of bullies who forbid them to call a spade a spade.”

“If you look at any school magazine today, very often they are Chinese or they come from families outside Australia,” he said, while agreeing it was “wonderful” to have a multicultural society.

Humphries’ relationship with The Australian began 51 years ago, soon after the newspaper was launched and Humphries wrote a regular column in it.  “My column was really about whatever happened to me during that week. Sometimes it was funny and sometimes it was terrible. I look back on it now not really with vacuous self-satisfaction but really with a kind of nostalgia for the 1960s, which is when it all happened,” he said.

“I’ve always liked the paper, our first national paper after all, and it’s still going strong. I still read it. I get it online.”

Humphries knew The Australian’s founding editor, the late Max Newton, very well. “He was rather cynical, he was an old-fashioned, hard-drinking journalist,” he said.

“Of course now they don’t smoke or drink. Max used to say all you need to be a good journalist is a Samsonite briefcase, a bottle of scotch and a gold Amex and a spare pair of underpants.”

After a long history with News Corp, Humphries agreed to be part of News Corp’s advertising campaign to promote the tablet and mobile editions of the metropolitan newspapers, The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, TheCourier-Mail and The Advertiser.

His characters, Dame Eda Everage and Sir Les Patterson are prominent in the ad, created by firm Archibald Williams, and there is a cameo by model Jennifer Hawkins. It launched yesterday and will run for eight weeks on social, digital, television and print.

News Corp managing director metro and regional publishing Damian Eales said the team chose Humphries because he is a comedic icon and Dame Eda and Sir Les were national living treasures.

“They appeal to the spectrum of our readers and we were delighted they were both on hand to lend their irrepressible humour to our campaign,” he said.

SOURCE

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

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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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




28 September, 2015

Hospital told Royal Airforce sergeant to leave waiting room in case his uniform upset other patients

An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.

Aircraft engineer Mark Prendeville’s treatment was condemned as ‘horrifying’ by military figures and Air Force veterans – but follows a string of incidents in recent years where service personnel were snubbed because of their uniform.

Sergeant Prendeville, 38, was taken to the A&E department at Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital in Margate, Kent, after chemicals from a fire extinguisher got in to his eyes during a training exercise.

He was then taken to an empty corner of the waiting room before being moved behind a corner by hospital staff, The Sun reported.

In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.

Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice.  The words they used were: “We’ve lots of cultures coming in”.  ‘Mark was quite annoyed, but he’s a quiet lad and didn’t want to cause a fuss.’

Mr Prendeville added: ‘He didn’t care about the burns, he felt worse about how he was treated. I was absolutely disgusted when I heard. I don’t know what is so offensive about a uniform.’

Veterans and military figures condemned Sergeant Prendeville’s treatment. Former Chief of the Air Staff Sir Michael Graydon described the incident as ‘disappointing’.

He said: ‘I would have thought, regardless of whether he had his uniform on or not, it was more important to deal with the situation, which was the chap had something very unpleasant happen to him, and he should be dealt with immediately. Moving him to other rooms in the danger of offending people strikes me of getting the priorities absolutely wrong.’

Former RAF navigator Flight Lieutenant John Nichol said he was appalled. ‘This is horrifying,’ he said. ‘You should not be treated differently for wearing a uniform – you should be lauded because you’re wearing uniform.’

A spokesman for East Kent University Hospitals NHS Trust apologised to Sergeant Prendeville for ‘any embarrassment’.

SOURCE





Animal rights nuts

Hundreds of animal rights activists covered themselves in fake blood and sprawled across a public square in Paris to protest against 'animal suffering and meat consumption' today.

The demonstration was organised by the 269 Life campaign group as part of the World Day for the Abolition of Meat, which has taken place every year since 2009.

It staged an 'open-air slaughterhouse' at the Place du Palais Royal.

Disturbing images showed one participant - covered in red paint - suspended from his legs as two pretend-butchers stand next to him.

The 269 Life group who staged the demonstration refer to the slaughter of animals as a 'holocaust' and claim 'veganism is is an essential step that any responsible and sensible person must take'.

A statement on their website reads: 'We aim to bring the pain and horror other animals face each and every day out of the suppressed darkness and into the realm of everyday life.

'Most people are well aware of what is being done to other animals, and yet remain apathetic in the face of the atrocities committed in their name, even after witnessing the utmost graphic evidence.'

In Britain, the Labour party's new shadow environment secretary Kerry McCarthy has said meat eaters should be stigmatised in the same way as smokers.

Ms McCarthy, who has admitted she is a 'militant' vegan, has worried countryside campaigners who warned that her veganism and strong opposition to hunting and the badger cull would harm Britain's farming industry.

The World Weeks for the Abolition of Meat (WWAMs) -held every year at the end of the months of January, May and September - are used to promote the idea of 'abolishing the production and consumption of the flesh of sentient beings'.The group's website wants the production and consumption of 'animal flesh' to be made illegal on 'ethical grounds'.

SOURCE






Abdicating parental responsibility

It emerged this week that Facebook reached an out-of-court settlement with a father from Northern Ireland after he sued it for failing to enforce its age-restriction policy. Apparently his daughter, aged 11 at the time the events took place, was exposed to messages and posts from men of an ‘entirely inappropriate sexual nature’. Facebook requires users to be over 13 years old to sign up for an account, but it has no way of confirming ages aside from the dates of birth users input themselves.

The girl had set up several accounts on which she posted suggestive photos of herself, and each time Facebook became aware that she was under 13 the accounts were closed down. But her father’s lawyers argued that Facebook should have done more to prevent her setting up new accounts after previous ones were deleted. The solicitor was quoted in the Daily Mail saying, ‘My own personal view is that Facebook isn’t suitable for under-18s, but the company isn’t even able to uphold its own policy of keeping under-13s out. An age check, like asking for a passport number, would be a simple measure for Facebook to implement.’

Could I propose a radical alternative? Why don’t parents actually go to the trouble of looking after their kids properly? The girl in question was only 11 years old. Never mind unsupervised internet access, when I was 11 I was barely allowed a say in what haircut I had. Admittedly, Facebook wasn’t around when I was a kid, but had it existed the onus would have been on my parents, not Facebook, to stop me using it.

If parents left a pack of fags and a lighter lying around the house where their 11-year-old child could reach them, and they then found their little bundle of joy merrily puffing away, no one would think that Marlboro should be held responsible. The case of an 11-year-old using Facebook is no different, and yet Facebook is being held responsible for a parental mistake.

The internet has done wonders for society, but it has also created new problems for us all, especially children. But these are problems that parents themselves have to take responsibility for tackling. In this case, the family even tried to sue the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on the grounds that it should have brought in legislation to enforce age limits. That really is a staggering abdication of parental responsibility.

Lawyers argued that Facebook had a duty of care to the girl but was ‘negligent in that it failed to have a proper system in place for registration of a Facebook account so that it was impossible, or at the very least difficult, for a child to register by misrepresenting her age’. In my view, Facebook fulfilled its duty of care when it deactivated the accounts after realising she was underage. The only people who failed in their duty of care were her parents. Corporations and governments do not and should not raise our children. Rather than trying to ramp up Facebook’s vetting procedures, parents should start taking responsibility for their kids.

SOURCE






Has Europe Been Cursed?

By Zalmi Unsdorfer, A Religious Zionist

The hordes of migrants overrunning European borders have reached epic, almost biblical proportions and show no sign of stopping. It is as if one continent is being decanted into another; a Third World poured into the First World.

Ironically most of these migrants have made their first landfall on the islands of Greece which so recently caused Europe’s greatest financial crisis and whose bailout has turned the Euro into confetti money.

I am thinking: why this and why now?

As a religious person I see divine intervention in all things and have learned that the G-d of Israel seeks His vengeance Middah K’Neged Middah. This principle was used to drown Pharaoh Ramses and his charioteers as the lex talionis for ordering the drowning of every newborn Jewish boy. There are many other examples throughout sc?ripture and our very laws are built on proportional punishment, right down to the eye-for-an-eye.

Another divine principle is ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? – that G-d will bless those who bless our people and will curse those who curse us.

The EU has been at the forefront of anti-Israel activism, supporting declarations of unilateral Palestinian statehood on sovereign Jewish land. Europe’s academia and trades unions are unashamed patrons of the world BDS movement. Their aims are twofold. To delegitimize Israel as a sovereign Jewish state and to destroy her economy with sanctions and discriminatory labelling of her exports.

How does the God of the Exodus judge a nation that denies the legitimacy of His people’s borders? Answer: He makes a mockery of their own borders.

How does the God of the Exodus judge a nation that seeks to destroy the economy of His people’s state?  Answer: He makes a mockery of their own money.

That’s my answer to “why this and why now?”   Middah K’Neged Middah.

Last year, at the height of his polling lead to win the UK general election, Jewish oppo?sition leader Ed Milliband demanded that his Labour Party MPs must support a parliamentary vote to recognize 'Palestine' as an independent state. Against all predictions he lost the subsequent general election in a major upset. If that wasn’t enough, he has now been replaced by a Marxist oddball who is tipped to keep Labour out of power for a generation.

Is it a coincidence that the Labour party which was so anxious to recognise the PLO as a state now has a leader who doesn't accept the legitimacy of the English queen?

If, on the eve of that Palestine debate with Milliband on sure course to win the election, you would have presented this scenario as a crystal ball to Labour Party members they’d have laughed at you.

But He who laughs last is usually looking after the Jewish people.

As I write these lines, EU states are scrambling all over themselves for the most sought-after commodity ... razor wire fencing. How rich that these are the same people who excoriated the Jews for building a security fence which stopped 95 percent of terror attacks on our people.

May He laugh the longest.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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







27 September, 2015

Another multicultural sex offender in Britain



A convicted sex offender cruises the streets in his car looking for his next victim - and locates a six-year-old girl riding her bicycle.

Imran Khan, 34, from Accrington, already had a conviction for a sexual offence involving a 12-year-old girl in 2008 and was on the sex offenders' register. He was jailed for nine years, but was released in 2013. 

But despite being under supervision, the paedophile was able to re-offend in this sickening incident. 

At around 4pm on March 26 this year, the little girl was playing on Nairne Street in Burnley when she was snatched by Khan and bundled into the boot of his black Vauxhall Astra car.

She was driven four miles to Scarth Lane, Hapton where Khan exposed himself and tried to force her to commit a sexual act.

He then dumped the girl in a wheelie bin and she was found in a traumatised state by some children playing nearby.

Khan now faces another lengthy prison sentence after he pleaded guilty at Preston crown court to charges of kidnap, kidnap with intent to commit a sexual offence and breach of a sexual offences prevention order. He was remanded in custody to be sentenced on October 23.

Detective Inspector Jim Elston said: 'This was a horrendous offence which would have been terrifying for any adult, let alone a young child.

'Imran Khan was a registered sex offender living in the community after he was convicted in 2008 of a sexual offence involving a 12-year-old girl.

'While we have rigorous systems in place to manage sex offenders who have served a sentence and been released into the community, this cannot happen 24 hours a day and unfortunately on occasion an offender may go on to commit a further offence as happened in this case. 'Thankfully that is relatively rare.'

He added: 'There is currently a review on going into this particular case and we will clearly look carefully at the results of that to see if there are any lessons we can learn.'

SOURCE






Houston nightclub accused of racial discrimination declares: ‘We’re not racist, we’re just a**holes’

“WE’RE not racist, we’re just a bunch of a**holes.”  That’s the takeaway quote from the lawyer for a Houston nightclub accused of racism after turning black patrons away at the door.

In a particularly frank video posted to YouTube, Gaslamp nightclub lawyer Tim Sutherland said the venue does not discriminate based on skin colour, but does discriminate based on class, gender and whether or not a customer is “a smoking hot babe”.

“We are not willing to be a business that is too timid to speak, that’s too eager to accommodate for fear of offending someone and too willing to throw out our private property rights and our freedom of association so that everyone has it their way,” Sutherland said.

“We are willing to hurt your feelings by telling you that you don’t fit the dress code. We will tell you that you need some girls and that this isn’t ‘bro’s night out’ because we don’t want you creeping out the girls that we already have inside.
The Houston nightclub making news around the world.

The Houston nightclub making news around the world.Source:Facebook

“We will tell you that you’re too cheap for our nightclub if you don’t want to pay a cover, because we know that if you won’t pay a cover, you’re probably not going to buy any drinks. This isn’t market square free bingo night, we’ve gotta make a profit.”

Gaslamp was accused of discriminating against Brandon Ball, a 32-year-old black man who tried to get in to the club on September 11.

On Facebook, Ball wrote he and two other African American friends were told to pay a cover charge when “white folks” were let in for free.

“When we walked up the guy at the door told us $20 each. We didn’t want to pay that amount so we decided to go to the next bar down, The Dogwood, which was free,” Ball wrote.  “After about 30 minutes we left The Dogwood and were walking back. As we passed the Gaslamp we noticed folks walking in without having to pay. Those folks who didn’t have to pay were white.”

Ball’s post was shared more than 11,000 times and local newspapers including the Houston Chronicle picked up the story.

As a response, Gaslamp employed a new policy. Management decided to post the dress code outside the front door so there was no confusion about why people were being refused entry.

A dress code that patrons can’t see, Sutherland said, “can blur the lines between whether someone is being mistreated because of their race or just because we’re a bunch of a**holes. We prefer it to be the latter.”

Sutherland says there’s a difference between being morally questionable and acting illegally.

“For those of you that are outraged, I say there is something you can do, because it’s not illegal until you, the voter, make it illegal. Do your job, get educated and make it so there’s common ground between your beliefs and the world you live in.”

He said Ball was asked to pay a cover because he was in a group of guys with no girls and he wanted to go to the rooftop terrace “where we charge everyone a cover”.

He admitted there was a problem with discrimination against black people generally that Gaslamp would do its best to address.

“If the Gaslamp has made any mistakes it’s a failure to take the time to consider what the customer is coming to the door with. Some customers may bring with them a lifetime of race based issues they’ve experienced and we certainly understand if somebody receives poor treatment it can be perceived at its worst as racism.”

The video may have missed the mark. Of those who had responded on Thursday, 978 gave it a thumbs down and only 139 gave it a thumbs up.

SOURCE






5 Judges: Forcing Contraception Reg on Nuns Like Providing 'Only Non-Kosher Food' to Jewish Prisoner

Five appeals court judges have joined in a dissenting opinion stating that the type of argument being used to justify the government's efforts to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to comply with an Obamacare regulation that requires their health-care plan to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs could also be used to force a Christian to work on Dec. 25 because the court had determined that “sources show that Jesus was actually born in March.”

Or, the judges said, the same type of reasoning could be used to justify providing a Jewish prisoner with “only non-Kosher food.”

The judges were objecting to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, on which they sit, which ruled that the Obama administration can force the nuns to comply with the regulation even though doing so compels the sisters to act against their Catholic faith.

The Little Sisters have asked the Supreme Court to take up their case, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued an amicus brief supporting the Little Sisters.  So, too, has a group of Orthodox Jewish Rabbis.

The mission of the Little Sisters is to maintain homes for the elderly poor, one of which--the Jeanne Jugan Residence--is located a few blocks from the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

In the petition they filed asking the Supreme Court to take up the case, the lawyers for the Little Sisters summarized their argument in defense of the sisters' religious liberty.

“The Little Sisters of the Poor are Catholic nuns who devote their lives to caring for the elderly poor,” said their petition. “The government has put them to the impossible choice of either violating the law or violating the faith upon which their lives and ministry are based.

“HHS insists that the Little Sisters must comply with a mandate that their employee healthcare plans ‘provide coverage’ for free contraceptives,” says their petition. “Although there is no dispute that the Little Sisters sincerely believe that all the available compliance methods would make them morally complicit in grave sin, HHS refuses to give them the exemption it has given other religious employers, and instead requires them to comply, either directly or by executing documents that authorize and obligate others to use the Little Sisters’ healthcare plans to accomplish the ‘seamless’ provision of contraceptive coverage.

“HHS does not dispute that the Little Sisters sincerely believe that their religion no more allows them to comply with the mandate via this regulatory mechanism than to do so directly,” says the petition. “But HHS disagrees with the Little Sisters’ moral analysis. In its view, the Little Sisters are ‘fighting an invisible dragon’ that can be vanquished with the ‘stroke of their own pen.’

If the Little Sisters follow their own moral compass instead of HHS’s, they face millions of dollars in penalties.”

In July, a three-judge panel of appeals judges ruled two-to-one against the sisters. Rather than ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to review the case, the sisters appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the full appeals court held a vote on whether to take up the case, and a majority of the twelve active judges on the court voted no.

Judge Harris Hartz wrote an opinion dissenting from this decision, and he was joined by four other judges on the court.  “The opinion of the panel majority is clearly and gravely wrong,” said the dissenting judges.

“When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion,” said the judges.

“All the plaintiffs in this case sincerely believe they will be violating God’s law if they execute the documents required by the government,” said the judges. “And the penalty for refusal to execute the documents may be in the millions of dollars. How can it be any clearer that the law substantially burdens the plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion?”

The five judges argue that the court’s majority seems to have second-guessed the Little Sisters’ interpretation of Catholic moral teaching and what it requires of them.

“This is a dangerous approach to religious liberty,” the judges said.

“Could we really tolerate letting courts examine the reasoning behind a religious practice or belief and decide what is core and what is derivative,” the judges said. “A Christian could be required to work on December 25 because, according to a court, his core belief is that he should not work on the anniversary of the birth of Jesus but a history of the calendar and other sources show that Jesus was actually born in March; a December 25 work requirement therefore does not substantially burden his core belief.

“Or a Jewish prisoner,” they said, “could be provided only non-kosher food because the real purpose of biblical dietary laws is health, so as long as the pork is well-cooked, etc., the prisoner’s religious beliefs are not substantially burdened.”

SOURCE






UN cancels Australia visit over Border Force laws

 Well-done!  Keeping creepy Crepeau out is a big win, judging by his absurd condemnations of the UK.  There is no doubt about what his judgment of Australia would be.  He compared Britain to Nazi Germany -- JR

The United Nations has postponed a planned visit to Australia because the federal government cannot guarantee legal immunity to detention centre workers who discuss asylum seekers and migrants.

The United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Canada's Francois Crepeau, was due to visit Australia on Sunday for about two weeks to investigate the plight of migrants and asylum seekers in offshore detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island, following an invitation from the federal government.

But Mr Crepeau said in a statement that the Border Force Act, which makes it a crime for immigration and border protection workers to disclose information about offshore detention centres, "serves to discourage people from fully disclosing information relevant to my mandate".

Under the law, such people face up to two years in prison for recording or disclosing information they obtain from their work.

 "This threat of reprisals with persons who would want to cooperate with me on the occasion of this official visit is unacceptable," he said. "The Act prevents me from fully and freely carrying out my duties during the visit, as required by the UN guidelines for independent experts carrying out their country visits."

It was impossible for Mr Crepeau to carry out his visit as an independent expert for the UN because the Australian government "was not prepared" to meet his request for a written guarantee that anyone he met during his visit would not risk being intimidated or face imprisonment under the law.

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Peter Dutton described the postponement as "disappointing and unfortunate".

"The government accommodated to the fullest extent possible the requests of the office of the Special Rapporteur as it has with past visits."

The spokesman declined to say whether the government would consider offering exemptions to the secrecy provisions of the Australian Border Force Act, saying: "The Special Rapporteur was briefed on the responsibilities and obligations of personnel under relevant Australian law.

"Australia remains ready to arrange a future visit by the Special Rapporteur."

Mr Crepeau said Australia had also denied his repeated requests for full access to offshore detention centres since March. "I was also extremely disappointed that I was unable to secure the cooperation needed to visit any offshore centre, given the international human rights and humanitarian law concerns regarding them, plus the Australian Senate Inquiries on the offshore detention centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, which raised concerns and recommendations concerning these centres," he said.

The Special Rapporteur said he had been planning the visit with the Australian government since January.   

Mr Dutton's spokesman said the Department of Immigration had worked closely with Mr Crepeau's office to organise a programme for his visit, which was to include visits to detention centres, and meetings with key government officials and service providers.

But he said the government had no role in organising access to offshore detention centres: "Access to Regional Processing Centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru is the responsibility of these sovereign nations and needs to be addressed with their governments."

Organisations including the Australian Human Rights Commission, UNHCR and Commonwealth Ombudsman, had visited both on and offshore detention centres "without the need to respond in this way," he said.

The Human Rights Law Centre's executive director, Hugh de Kretser, said the cancelled visit was "unprecedented for a western liberal democracy".

"This is extremely damaging for Australia's reputation – particularly when our human rights record will be reviewed at the UN in November and we're seeking election to the UN Human Rights Council in 2018. It's extremely damaging to our ability to advance our national interest on the world stage," said Mr de Kretser.

It was also a "huge missed opportunity" for newly-appointed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to pursue a "more constructive relationship with the UN".

"We urge the Australian Government to urgently provide the necessary assurances to the Special Rapporteur to enable the official visit to take place at a future date."

Doctors, and humanitarian workers have previously criticised the Border Force Act which was passed earlier this year with the support of Labor, saying it prevents proper public scrutiny of detention centres in line with their duty of care to asylum seekers.

The government has dismissed such claims, saying a separate federal law ensured officials were protected in making "public interest disclosures". But it is unclear which health or medical professionals would be required to comply with the new secrecy provisions.

Under the law, workers can only release such information legally if they have permission from the secretary of the department, if they are authorised by law, or if a court or tribunal orders or directs them to do so. The secretary would have to be satisfied that the information would help the person to perform their duties or powers to give them permission to release 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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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






25 September, 2015

Multicultural flasher in London



A SERIAL flasher, who exposes himself to women on trains in England, has been ordered not to travel in shorts or anything that exposes bare skin below the knee.

Mark Thompson, of Wimbledon, in southeast London, was on a train from the town of Epsom, known worldwide for The Derby horse race, that was bound for London Victoria when he exposed himself to four women, the Wimbledon Guardian reported.

The 48-year-old sat across from the women, who noticed that he had a bag on his lap and was wearing shorts exposing himself on Saturday, April 18.

Thompson was identified from CCTV and arrested on July 21.

He was sentenced to four months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, on Tuesday at City of London Magistrate’s Court, British Transport Police said in a statement.

Thompson was also banned from travelling in shorts or anything that exposes bare skin below the knee, and told he cannot travel on public transport unless using a travel card.

He must also participate in a sex offenders program, be placed on a sexual harm prevention order and register with Wimbledon police station for seven years.

“Thompson made the journey for these women extremely uncomfortable. I am pleased that they reported this incident to us as we take all reports of inappropriate sexual incidents seriously and will investigate them,” said British Transport Police Detective Constable Andrew Parkinson.

“I would like to commend the women in this case for telling us about this incident, and encourage others to follow their example.

“In this case we were able to utilise CCTV to help us find the person responsible.

“The message is clear unwanted sexual behaviour is not acceptable. If you commit an offence, we will do everything in our power to bring you to justice.”

SOURCE






French Patriot On Trial For Speaking Out Against Islam

Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s Front National (FN) party, will stand trial over historic comments she made comparing Muslim street prayers to the wartime occupation of France.

Marine Le Pen’s former lawyer and FN party treasurer, Wallerand de Saint Just, has confirmed prosecutors in Lyon will send her to trial on 20 October on charges of inciting racial hatred, reports the Evening Express.

Saint Just framed the issue as a question of freedom of speech, saying: “Political leaders must be able to speak without being afraid of being taken before a judge.”

Le Pen made the comments during her 2010 campaign to take over the FN’s leadership from the party founder, her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. According to France 24, when addressing a rally of supporters in Lyon she said:

“I’m sorry, but for those who really like to talk about World War II, if we’re talking about an occupation, we could talk about the [street prayers], because that is clearly an occupation of territory.

“It is an occupation of sections of the territory, of neighborhoods in which religious law applies – it is an occupation. There are no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it is an occupation nevertheless, and it weighs on people.”

After the initial investigation into Le Pen’s comments was closed in 2011, the case was reopened in 2012 following a legal complaint by a rights group. She was then put under formal investigation in July 2014, after immunity granted her as a member of the European Parliament was removed following a vote requested by French authorities in 2013.

The trial for “inciting discrimination over people’s religious beliefs” has been described as “a scandal” by Le Pen.

She said: “It is a scandal that a political leader can be sued for expressing her beliefs. Those who denounce the illegal behaviour of fundamentalists are more likely to be sued than the fundamentalists who behave illegally.”

Le Pen believes her views are those of the majority and that being stripped of her immunity brings “to the fore the issue of daily violations against secularism in France”.

As Breitbart London previously reported Le Pen has attempted to modernise the anti-EU, anti-mass immigration party her father once led in order to give her the best chance of presidential run in 2017. She wants the party to be defined by its opposition to the EU and a defence of secularism, not her father’s xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

December’s local elections were intended to maintain that direction, adding momentum to her presidential ambitions. Some commentators say the trial, taking place weeks before the local elections, could harm Le Pen’s chances of winning as expected in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region. Others have expressed doubts as to whether the trial is the right move.

“She will no doubt try to turn this to her advantage and make herself out to be the victim of some kind of plot between the mainstream parties, who have had her right to free speech taken away from her,” Jean-Yves Camus told The Local, “if they really wanted to deal with Marine Le Pen it would have been much wiser for the mainstream political parties to just concentrate on themselves and on what they say. For example, the more the centre-right party talks about Islam the more they give legitimacy to the National Front.”

SOURCE






Army rejects appeal from soldier discharged after confronting accused Afghan rapist

Even as the U.S. military denies reports that American troops were told to ignore Afghan child abusers, an 11-year Green Beret who was ordered discharged after he confronted an alleged rapist was informed Tuesday that the Army has denied his appeal.

Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland earlier this year was ordered discharged by Nov. 1. He has been fighting to stay in, but in an initial decision, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command told Martland that his appeal “does not meet the criteria” for an appeal.

“Consequently, your request for an appeal and continued service is disapproved,” the office wrote in a memo to Martland.

The memo was shared with FoxNews.com by the office of Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who has advocated for Martland’s case. According to Hunter's office, Martland learned of the decision Tuesday.

The memo, dated Sept. 14, comes as the Defense Department comes under criticism amid reports that U.S. soldiers were instructed to look the other way when Afghan troops and officers were sexually abusing boys.

Gen. John F. Campbell, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in a statement Tuesday that he is “absolutely confident that no such theater policy has ever existed here, and certainly, no such policy has existed throughout my tenure as commander.”

SOURCE






When political correctness stands in for morality

This week's visit by Pope Francis comes just in time. He is an apostolic missionary courageously reaching out to a once-religious country that now ruthlessly kills its unborn, mercilessly harvesting and selling their body parts. It is somehow fitting that our local witch doctors helpfully enshrine political correctness as a convenient substitute for morality. True Religion is mostly a phrase we use while adorning our butts in ever-widening swatches of denim. Otherwise our most devout beliefs are humanism, self-interest and relative morality. In God We Trust has been replaced by If It Feels Good Do It.

Now maybe you are neither Catholic nor Christian or even skeptical of all organized religions. Even so: Is it reasonable to believe that we can sacrifice as many as 60 million unborn infants since Roe v. Wade without somehow enduring the consequences for their deaths? That grim reality became visible only as the technology of covert video improved, allowing us to witness the real work of Planned Parenthood. And yet the technology of infant-murder-by-medicine has been enshrined since 1973, when the Supreme Court updated the Dred Scott decision for the 21st century.

The Bible calls that sort of thing "the shedding of innocent blood," matter-of-factly promising divine justice to right the scales. Speaking of which: threescore and 10 years ago at Nuremberg we harrumphed to the world that such mass murders were "crimes against humanity." Even the traditional argument, "I was just following orders," was no defense in the face of such evil. Six million died in Nazi death camps, horrific and intolerable, yet only 10 percent of the death toll from our domestic Holocaust. For an unsettling perspective, rent the classic movie "Judgment at Nuremberg" from Netflix. Every argument advanced by the implacable American prosecutors as former Nazis stood before the bar of justice has a deeply chilling effect if you ask the same questions today against the backdrop of sustained American infanticide.

But why am I telling you this when my usual function as a writer is to focus on national security issues? If you think we are somehow immune from divine or temporal retribution, then you probably don't understand the direct challenges to our national survival that are growing exponentially. Today the national security community - other than tenured professors sworn to uphold convenient and untroubled orthodoxy - is divided over the issue of which threat gets here first. Will technological hubris, strategic incompetence or economic collapse be listed as the proximate cause on our national death certificate?

Is it an EMP attack from Iran or North Korea that fries our electronic circuitry and reduces us to a pre-electrical society? (Poetic justice in a way since we did precisely the same thing to Iraq in Desert Storm.) Or possibly our national demise will take place after another cyber attack from China, the long-dreaded Electronic Pearl Harbor now known as "The Assassin's Mace" among Chinese military strategists. Or maybe our hyperinflated national debt ceiling - $18.5 trillion and counting - suddenly implodes, crumbling our national defenses. As a Texas oilman once told my cadets during his guest lecture: "At best, military power is just a violent form of economics."

But why worry about our external defenses when the nation itself is rapidly unraveling? Now living in Texas, I recently witnessed the local malaise now accompanying those ominous macro-portents. Two weeks ago, the Friday night football game celebrated by Texans for generations suddenly became ugly when two players from a San Antonio high school blind-sided a referee. When the YouTube video of that incident quickly went viral, most people down here expected the prompt expulsion of both culprits. In order to reinforce the larger educational point, many San Antonians expected that the school district might even rule that the remainder of the team's season should also be forfeited. After such an incident, how can you stress teamwork and sportsmanship without taking strong practical actions to reinforce those threatened ideals?

Neither of those things happened, of course, since school administrators in Texas are as feckless as their PC colleagues elsewhere. Instead, both students now attend an "alternative high school" while the football season rolls on just as before. They both now claim as well that their gutless attack was justifiable retribution because the referee used "the N-word," an uncorroborated charge but one guaranteed to paralyze neurons, synapses and intestinal fortitude wherever that dread charge is invoked.

But that is the core problem with relative morality: There really are no absolute standards of anything. Even when the videotape provides the most damning evidence of spearing a ref or butchering a fetus, political correctness will always rescue us. Its only core value: Moving those troublesome goalposts whenever needed.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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






24 September, 2015

Another one of Britain's fine multiculturalists



A father of two is facing life in prison after stabbing his pregnant wife to death and killing their unborn baby in front of their six-year-old son.

Tariq Khan, 27, stabbed his 24-year-old wife Nadia to death at their home in Bradford, West Yorkshire, just one week after the pair split up.

He pleaded guilty to murdering his wife and destroying the life of their unborn child when he appeared at Bradford Crown Court today.

Speaking after the guilty plea, Mrs Khan's relatives said they were relieved he had admitted the crimes but hoped he would 'rot in hell' and never be freed from prison.

Nazma Khan, Mrs Khan's aunt, said: 'I think he should rot in hell and never be allowed out of jail.  'I'm happy he's pleaded guilty, we knew he did it.'

She said the killer deserved a 'double life' sentence as he had taken away the life of an unborn baby as well as the mother.

'The baby was due around now,' she added. 'That little angel could not be allowed to come into this world because of his father.'

She added that Nadia's two young children, particularly her son, now aged six, had been left traumatised by the loss of their mother.

'He asks me to write a letter to God to say "can you give our mum back". All the other children go to school with their mums and he asks "where's my mum?".

'He cries and doesn't want to go to school and he has nightmares and is awake all night.

'He witnessed the murder. He says he wants to go to sleep where his mum is.'

Mrs Khan said the couple's daughter, who is now four, had also been left confused by her loss.

'She doesn't know what is going on. She does talk about her mum,' she said.

Pakistani-born Khan, who speaks little English, was assisted by an interpreter for today's hearing.

The court was told how Nadia was about six months pregnant when she was found dead at the family home in the Manningham area of Bradford on June 14.

Friends of the couple said the pair had separated a week prior to the killing and described Bradford-born Mrs Khan as intelligent, cheerful, bubbly and happy.

At the time of her death, her sister Anisa, 20, said she was a happy woman who was looking forward to the birth of her baby.

'She was in Mothercare just a few days ago for a Moses basket and baby clothes,' she said. 'She was a really nice person who really loved her children.'

As well as pleading guilty to murdering his wife, Khan also admitted destroying with intent the life of a child capable of being born alive, by a willful act, namely stabbing with a knife, causing the child to die before it had existed independently of its mother.

He also admitted a further charge of assaulting Mrs Khan by beating her on May 16 this year.

Khan, who stood impassively in the dock before the Recorder of Bradford, Judge Roger Thomas QC, was remanded back into custody.

Tall and bearded with cropped hair shaved at the sides and wearing a brown long-sleeved jumper, he was told he will be sentenced on October 16.

His barrister, Ali Bajwa QC, told the court the legal team was not relying on any psychiatric evidence.

Mr Bajwa said there were no mental health issues and conceded Khan would get an automatic sentence of life imprisonment.

It will be up to the judge on the day to rule the minimum term he must serve behind bars before he can even be considered for parole.

Judge Thomas told Khan: 'The sentence that has to be passed in relation to the principal charge is fixed by law.

'That will be a sentence of life imprisonment, but other aspects of the case will have to be considered.'

SOURCE






Confronting evil and defending liberty

What should one do when confronted by evil?

Walk away, shunt your eyes to the side and pretend you never saw it? Whisper to your friends and neighbors about it in an astonished tone while never doing anything? Or be an antagonist against that evil, shining a light on it, and confronting it without reservation?

What if the evil is cast in a way that many, perhaps even a majority, view it as being politically acceptable or even desirable?

Should one remain silent and quietly work to change the culture that accepts evil through good hearted, private social welfare programs in the hopes that the love offered is enough?

These are the questions facing many Americans as we view an ever encroaching big government take a wrecking ball to what were once assumed freedoms under the false guise of tolerance.

Fundamental concepts like freedom of speech are being attacked by those who see hurts in every word or utterance, and from the role of manufactured victim demand that alternative opinions be censored.

This attack on speech is an obvious step toward tyranny, but other evil is more abstract and less easy to discern.

One example is the government produced expectation that people are owed an income whether they work or not, and that denial of unearned “benefits” is an attack on their fundamental rights. The net effect of this claim against the government is that it effectively puts a demand for payment against those who produce wealth whether as an electrician, retail worker or Fortune 100 CEO making those who work subservient to those who don’t.

The very benefits created to fulfill the expectations of those who choose not to work are used to gain political leverage an ever greater unearned piece of the pie has the perverse effect of making working in entry level jobs a bad economic decision. The very entitlement of those who could but won’t, effectively makes fools out of those who can and do, as the doers are compelled to take care of the dependents further eroding their net earnings.

Another pernicious assault on liberty is the grinding expansion of the regulatory state often at the expense of the poor through higher costs for basic necessities. The EPA power plant regulation stands as a primary, but far from the only, example of this regulatory onslaught. Borne out of a claimed need to address global warming, the EPA rule actually has a negligible impact on the problem it supposedly is designed to address. Instead its impact will be to increase electricity costs by 16 percent over time — a cost that will be disproportionately be borne by those who can least afford it.

Additionally, the higher electricity costs will have another profound impact on lower income wage earners — it will decrease the likelihood that they will find a higher paying job as the U.S. manufacturing sector recedes due to the higher energy costs. The irony is that the American energy boom, absent the Obama regulations, is expected to dramatically increase domestic manufacturing without the need to level wages with the rest of the world. It is the abundance of energy here in America that makes this possible, and if left alone, the lower costs for electricity this abundance produces will likely become a major job creator over the next decade. Yet, Obama’s regulatory assault on inexpensive electricity effectively negates this advantage.

Given the admission by the United Nation’s climate chief, Christiana Figueres that the real goal of the global warming push is not protecting the environment but instead to change the world’s economic structure, saying, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”

Global elitists attempting to change the world’s economic structure away from a system that has produced more shared wealth than any in history under the guise of climate disaster at the expense of America’s poor is exactly the kind of hidden evil that needs exposure. Yet, the cost of standing up against this liberty stealing power grab is ostracism and derision.

Is it worth it?

Is fighting to keep the fundamental principles of self-determination and free enterprise as the cornerstones of our nation’s economic system worth being attacked as an antagonist and naysayer?

The fight for freedom is never easy, and liberty only exists when there are those willing to push back hard against the natural slouch toward accepting government as the keeper of the least of these, rather than taking personal responsibility for that calling.

Freedom of speech only exists when the purveyors of political correctness are rudely cast aside by those willing to mock them and break the cycle of perpetual offense that they wield as a weapon, weathering their ridicule while defeating attempts to incorporate their language cocoon into law.

Economic mobility and freedom only exists when markets are allowed to grow or contract based upon their overall value. When the federal government chooses to increase the cost of basic economic necessities, like burning fuel to generate electricity with a goal of creating scarcity out of abundance, people everywhere suffer.

Some are called to help the poor by providing bread, others to fight for secular solutions where liberty prevails and people are lifted out of poverty through the proven formula of private sector wealth creation. The two work well together, but if either lose the other cannot be sustained, and both are equal callings to confront evil.

SOURCE






'War Room' Filmmaker: 'The God of Hollywood is Political Correctness'

Alex Kendrick, the Christian filmmaker whose recent movie “War Room” is a big hit at the box office, recently told a reporter that “the God of Hollywood is political correctness, and they are going to line up with whatever the politically correct view of the day is. For me, I’m lining up my worldview with the word of God. I hope to inspire and draw people to a closer walk with God by my films.”

“War Room,” which tells the story of a marital crisis helped by the power of prayer, was made for $3 million. After capturing the number one spot last week, this past weekend the film was the sixth most popular film in America, with total grosses nearing $50 million.

The writers and directors of “War Room” are Kendrick and his brother Stephen. The two are responsible for several Christian-themed hits, including “Fireproof” and “Courageous.” In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Alex Kendrick talked about the struggles of Christian filmmakers.

Kendrick was asked if he was being persecuted in Hollywood. “Yes,” he replied. “Right now it’s verbal, and it’s happening a lot. If we weren’t heavily criticized, I’d think something is wrong.”

Kendrick was then asked if there were individuals in the movie industry who had expressed a “personal bias against you and Christianity.” Kendrick: “I’d say you already know the answer to that question, but you’re wanting names and I can’t do that. The answer is an emphatic 'yes,' but that’s not a fight I want to pick. There are people who have called us vile names, told us we need to stop making films, and have ugly names for Christians. I’m not going to give you names, I’d rather reach out and minister them."

Kendrick was also asked about Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses wither name on them. "From what I understand," he said, "the Constitution in Kentucky that she was hired to support says marriage is between a man and a woman, but it gets really complicated when the Supreme Court votes the other way. Technically, her job is to uphold the Constitution in Kentucky, so it makes things complex. She is paying the price for standing on her faith, and I’d be willing to stand by my faith, as well. If I’m persecuted for being a Christian, I’m willing to accept that."

SOURCE






Rise of the supernanny feminists

Charlotte Proudman isn’t the only one trying to tell us what is and isn’t acceptable

It can’t have taken #fearlessfeminist Charlotte Proudman long to choose the best turn of phrase for her public scolding of Alexander Carter-Silk, the man who had the temerity to tell her that her LinkedIn profile picture looked ‘stunning’. In reaching for the word ‘unacceptable’, Proudman repeats the tip-of-the-tongue buzzword of today’s unappointed language police.

Earlier this summer, when Sir Tim Hunt made his now infamous joke about women in labs, his colleague and Nobel Prize co-winner, Sir Paul Nurse, led the stampede, declaring such remarks to be ‘not acceptable’. Channel 4 newsreader turned arbiter on all things feminist, Cathy Newman, suggested ‘he should keep his “girl trouble” to himself in future, to send a message that sexism is just as unacceptable as racism’. Back in January, former soap star Ken Morley was hoisted off Celebrity Big Brother after he was deemed to have used ‘unacceptable and offensive language’.

Unsurprisingly, this rush to label words – and, let’s be honest, the people who utter them – as ‘unacceptable’ breeds within universities. At Washington State University, cultural studies students risk failure if they use words their lecturer has decided are ‘unacceptable’. The list of outlawed expressions includes ‘the words “males” and “females” to refer to men and women’. Students studying women’s studies at North Carolina State University have been told they will be marked down for using ‘unacceptable’ vocabulary such as ‘mankind’ in their essays.

At students’ unions throughout the UK, Safe Space policies warn members of the need to ‘be aware of the connotations of your language’. At Goldsmiths, part of the University of London, ‘racism, homophobia, biphobia, sexism, transphobia, disablism or prejudice based on age, ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, gender presentation, language ability, immigration status or religious affiliation is unacceptable’. Students must not ‘make assumptions about anyone’s gender, pronouns, sexual preference, abilities, ethnic identity, survivor status, or life experiences’. For those wanting to remain within the limits of acceptability, conversation must be very difficult indeed.

Describing the words someone uses as ‘unacceptable’ can appear politically neutral, unemotive and simply commonsense. It allows the speaker to take the moral highground by suggesting there are ways of speaking and behaving that all right-thinking people agree upon. Those whose words are labelled ‘unacceptable’ are deemed to have crossed a line and committed a transgression against such normal codes of decency and politeness. As we have seen with Charlotte Proudman’s calling-out of the supposedly sexist solicitor, and all those who rushed to decry Tim Hunt’s joke, the biggest infringement against the acceptable is to commit speech crimes against feminism. The feminist war on unacceptable language now encompasses everything from jokes and compliments to mildly flirtatious comments.

The roots of this obsession with policing language began at least as far back as the 1980s. A social constructionist view of gender as performative rather than biological met an emerging postmodernism that assumed discourse constructs not just perceptions of reality but reality itself. This led feminist theorists, such as Julia Kristeva, to argue that it is language that constructs power relations and the conditions for oppression.

According to this view, women’s oppression could be challenged by changing the language and images through which people constructed the world. Today, when young women are seemingly quicker than ever to declare themselves victims of everyday sexism and casual misogyny, the notion that words are pre-eminently important in shaping reality has remained. Only now it has been joined by the notion that language can inflict mental harm on women, who are seen as vulnerable to everything from adverts on the Tube to clapping.

Offending words are now found everywhere. According to modern feminists, exposing them simultaneously challenges sexism and, perhaps more importantly, confirms that it still exists. The importance of language is overstated at the same time as the capacity of women, as autonomous individuals capable of taking responsibility and making independent choices about their own lives, is played down. This leads to an increase in what Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, writing in Professing Feminism, have termed ‘ideological policing’, both inside and outside of universities. Modern-day feminists have much in common with their bourgeois Victorian fore-sisters, whom Patai and Koertge suggest saw it as their job ‘to monitor language and enforce norms’ of what was socially acceptable.

Today’s constant calling-out of what is considered unacceptable to feminist sensibilities is a demand to censor language deemed threatening to women – who are presented as a homogenous and vulnerable group. It is a patronising way for a recently emergent social elite to dictate who gets to be heard as they enforce new values, social norms and codes of conduct. This is why the cry of ‘unacceptable’ is most often used against a generation of older white men whose very existence is a sin against the new etiquette.

The phrase ‘this is unacceptable’ was made famous a decade ago by television’s self-described Supernanny, Jo Frost. Frost’s parenting programme centred on the advice: ‘It’s important to give your child boundaries and let them know that certain behaviour is unacceptable.’ Weekly plotlines all revolved around parents being taught how to look their child in the eyes, point a finger and declare ‘That is unacceptable!’. Duly reprimanded, the guilty child would be sent to sit on a naughty step until they were prepared to proffer an apology for their misdemeanours. At this point, parent and child would hug and all was forgiven. Today’s feminists prefer to punish unacceptable behaviour through Twitter-led public humiliation rather than naughty steps. But the narrative arc of crying ‘unacceptable!’, followed by punishment, apologies and, occasionally, redemption, is all too familiar.

We need to stand up to the supernanny feminists before more careers and lives are ruined. The idea that young women are victims of a patriarchy that conspires to keep them low paid, powerless, objectified, sexually harassed and out of the top jobs is ludicrous. The idea that women are offended and their sense of self-worth shattered by jokes and compliments is far more demeaning than any unwanted flirtation. It’s time to turn the tables and call out the unappointed coterie who take it upon themselves to tell the rest of us what is and isn’t acceptable. And if we really want to police language, let’s start with the overused and ill-defined word, ‘misogyny’.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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






23 September, 2015

Who has the greatest freedom of speech in the world today?

It is of course blacks.  They can say almost anything without reproof, the n-word most notably. 

But homosexuals come a close second. I have noted many instances of indulgence extended to them over recent years -- with the most obvious example being that they can use "queer" to describe themselves.  Others use that word at their peril.

I haven't got the time or energy to do much more than note the phenomenon but I would like to mention two examples from Britain that stand out in my mind.  Two homosexual men, David Starkey and the recently deceased Brian Sewell.  See also here on Sewell.  As far as I can find, neither man has ever suffered any sanction over their "offensive" utterances, though complaints have of course been made.


David Starkey

Starkey has been called the "rudest man in Britain" and his rejection of homosexual marriage would probably have the British police after him were he not himself openly in a long-term homosexual relationship.  And he compared the Queen to Dr. Goebbels!

Other gems were when he insisted that a 16-year-old pupil could “groom” a 44-year-old teacher; stating that violence, not consent, should be the measure of rape; and saying that Princess Anne looked like a horse

And on black immigration to Britain he said: "I’ve just been rereading Enoch Powell – the rivers of blood speech. His prophecy was absolutely right in one sense.”  The speech is probably the most reviled in British history but you don't have to go far in Britain to find people who say (in private) "Enoch was right"

From Wikipedia: 

"Starkey's comments in August 2011 on the BBC's Newsnight programme, made during a discussion about the 2011 England riots, precipitated support and condemnation from several notable commentators. Starkey claimed that "the whites have become black", and that "a particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion". The leader of the Labour party, Ed Miliband, spoke about Starkey's remarks, saying "they are racist comments, frankly"....

 After stating in a debate in June 2012 that a Rochdale sex trafficking gang had values "entrenched in the foothills of the Punjab or wherever it is", he was accused by his fellow panelist, the writer Laurie Penny, of "playing xenophobia and national prejudice for laughs".

But he can also be offensive when he gets it right. For instance, he compared the Scottish National Party to the Nazis and likened the Saltire (Scottish flag) to a swastika.  He also likened the SNP's view of the English to Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitism. I have argued similarly.



Brian Sewell

Sewell was primarily an art critic but went on to become an outraged commentator on politics.  He was very outspoken about what he regarded as bad art.  In 1994, 35 prominent figures in the art world, including Bridget Riley and Maureen Paley signed a letter to the Evening Standard, attacking him for 'homophobia', 'misogyny', 'demagogy', 'hypocrisy', 'artistic prejudice', 'formulaic insults' and 'predictable scurrility'.  They spoke of  Sewell’s “dire mix of sexual and class hypocrisy, intellectual posturing and artistic prejudice”.

And he described his homosexuality as “an affliction”. Fighting words for anybody else these days

He also sheltered Anthony Blunt after Blunt’s exposure as the fourth man in the infamous Cambridge spy ring

An example of his art criticism:  “Any fool who can put paint on canvas or turn a cardboard box into a sculpture is lauded. Banksy should have been put down at birth. It’s no good as art, drawing or painting. His work has no virtue. It’s merely the sheer scale of his impudence that has given him so much publicity.”

Of the Turner Prize for contemporary art, he said: "Ignoring it is the kindest thing one can do."

And on women artists:  "There has never been a first-rank woman artist. Only men are capable of aesthetic greatness. Women make up 50 per cent or more of classes at art school. Yet they fade away in their late 20s or 30s. Maybe it's something to do with bearing children."  Can you hear the feminist shrieks?

And an odd one for the feminists:  "I have a theory that only men steal books, although when I proposed that to a woman a month or two ago she was absolutely outraged"


I haven't tracked when both men "came out" but that would be a formality in the British intellectual world that they both inhabited.  It would have been known informally from early on. Even in the early 20th century, many of the Bloomsberries were known as homosexuals, for instance.





Confederate flag flap isn’t an invitation to rewrite history

Who would have thought? A demented 21-year-old troll named Dylann Roof, accused of killing nine parishioners at a historic black church, has turned history upside down. Roof’s attachment to the Confederate battle flag has set off a dramatic reconsideration of how we remember the Civil War.

For example:

 *   Yale University may rename its venerable Calhoun College. Senator John C. Calhoun was the famous white supremacist whom historian Richard Hofstadter memorably called “the Marx of the Master Class.”

 *  The finger-in-the-wind leaders of the Democratic Party are abandoning their tradition of Jefferson-Jackson dinners, rubber chicken meetups named for Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, great presidents who happened to own slaves.

 *  There are moves afoot in Maryland to take down statues of native son Roger Taney, the chief justice of the Supreme Court who authored the 1857 Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to black Americans.

The banner is an emblem of the most poisonous ideologies in our national history.

On the one hand, I celebrate all historical revision. Every body of knowledge — physics, mathematics, medicine – has to be reexamined as often as necessary to stay honest and relevant. History enjoys no special privilege.

Yet I agree with Civil War historian Ernest Furgurson, writing in The American Scholar, who compares willy-nilly de-Confederatization in the South to de-Stalinization in the former Soviet Union, or the “destruction of ancient monuments by ISIS and Taliban fanatics. . . . Totalitarian states may decree that the painful past never happened, but any such official effort in our country . . . would be tragic.”

The problem with simplifying history to accommodate a set agenda — North good, South bad — is that the facts just won’t cooperate. OK Democrats, you want to toss Jefferson and Jackson into the ashcan of history. What about Abraham Lincoln? “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” Lincoln famously declared in an 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas. In that debate, Lincoln added that he didn’t want blacks voting, sitting on juries, or marrying white people.

So, Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton – you support tearing down the Lincoln Memorial, I assume? His words make him sound like a racist on a par with Jefferson and Jackson.

What about Roger Taney? Unlike Jackson and Jefferson, he freed his slaves. Inconveniently for the iconoclasts (literally: “those who destroy statues”), Taney declared that “slavery is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually . . . wiped away.”

At this fraught moment in time, it is received wisdom that the men who fought under the Confederate battle flag were racists battling to preserve slavery. I’ve recently become reacquainted with Edmund Wilson’s 1962 book “Patriotic Gore,” which took a jaundiced view of the jumped-up claims of moral purity on either side of the Mason-Dixon line.

“The institution of slavery,” Wilson wrote, “supplied the militant union North with the rabble-rousing moral issue which is necessary in every modern war to make the conflict appear as a melodrama.”

Wilson, channeling economic historian Charles Beard, thought the industrial North simply wanted to annex the agrarian South: “The myth that it was fighting to free the slaves is everywhere except in the South firmly fixed in the American popular mind,” Wilson wrote. “These pseudo-moral issues which aroused such furious hatred were never fundamental for the North,” he added.

I think Wilson would be pilloried for writing those words today. But history is a moving stream, not a stagnant pond of water. Today’s certainties are tomorrow’s doubts. By all means, rethink the past. But let’s not hide from whom we were.

SOURCE






Popular British broadcaster wades into row over 'sexist' professor: BBC presenter says he was 'appalled' at way Sir Tim Hunt was treated and says university bowed to 'intimidation'

Jonathan Dimbleby has launched an attack on the university that ousted scientist Sir Tim Hunt over his ‘feeble’ joke about women in laboratories.

The BBC presenter said he was ‘appalled’ by the way University College London treated the Nobel Prize winner, and accused the institution of bowing down to ‘intimidation’ by closed-minded students.

‘Too often university authorities are supine in the face of student intimidation. And it is intimidation,’ he said.

‘The scientist Tim Hunt was silenced by his university after he joked somewhat feebly that girls shouldn’t work with men in the laboratory because they fall in love and cry when criticised... Like a good number of the university’s alumni, I was appalled.’

Mr Dimbleby – who is himself a former UCL student – said he was so shocked by UCL’s decision to oust him that he had ‘taken the painful step of disowning’ his own honorary fellowship at the university.

Sir Tim, who is married to the eminent scientist Mary Collins, sparked controversy in June when he said that women distracted men in laboratories.

In an ill-advised joke to the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea, he said: ‘Let me tell you about my trouble with girls.

‘Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry.’

But although the remarks appear to have been a joke, the 72-year old was roundly criticised by his female colleagues, and sparked an online backlash from female scientists.

Many of them uploaded pictures of themselves kitted out in lab coats, filter masks or bulky boiler suits, accompanied by the hashtag #DistractinglySexy.

Sir Tim, who won the Nobel Prize in 2001 for his work on cell division, tried to mitigate the damage by apologising for the ‘light-hearted’ and ‘ironic’ remarks.

But his attempt to make amends backfired when he added that he was ‘only trying to be honest’.

UCL contacted Sir Tim’s wife, who is a UCL professor, insisting that he had to resign or face be sacked. The father of two obliged and emailed his resignation.

Criticising Sir Tim’s treatment by the university, Mr Dimbleby said he found something ‘peculiarly ugly about young minds so closed to alternative views that they block their ears and intimidate others into silence’.

However, the host of Radio 4’s Any Questions? programme did not reserve his condemnation exclusively for Sir Tim’s antagonists.

In a speech on freedom of expression published yesterday (Mon) and due to be delivered at the Prix Italia broadcasting awards in Turin tonight (Tue), the presenter also raises fears about online trolls and cyber-bullying.

He warned that criticism on social media quickly spirals into ‘witch hunts’ which are designed to ‘destroy’ people, and leave users ‘imprisoned’.

‘The revolution in global communications offers freedoms unimaginable until very recently. Online you can discover and learn, entertain and inspire. It is in almost every way a liberation for us all. Almost,’ he said.

‘You can also babble with impunity. Under the cloak of anonymity, you can express the ugliest of sentiments: you can join a witch-hunt to destroy a reputation of to assassinate a character. We are thus liberated and simultaneously imprisoned by social media.’

SOURCE






UK: Privately run NHS hospital near top of satisfaction league: But that couldn't save it from Left-wing 'stitch up'

The country's first NHS hospital to have been privately run is near the top of a satisfaction league despite being condemned by inspectors.

Hinchingbrooke was ranked fourth out of 160 NHS hospitals, receiving just 1.3 complaints per 100,000 times patients were dealt with.

The worst trust had 13 times as many grievances and the average was 6.2 per 100,000. Yet for the past nine months the Cambridgeshire hospital has been in special measures after the Care Quality Commission branded it inadequate.

A report by the watchdog identified 102 serious failings at Hinchingbrooke and shortly afterward Circle, the private firm that ran it, ended its contract.

There were widespread suspicions however that the firm had been stitched up by trade unionists and Labour activists opposed to privatisation within the NHS.

One of the inspectors was a member of the pressure group Keep Our NHS Public; another was in a doctors' trade union that had warned against private firms.

A leading teaching hospital has been placed in special measures after the official watchdog found high levels of laughing gas in the maternity wing.

Inspectors at the Care Quality Commission raised a number of serious concerns about Cambridge University Hospitals Foundation Trust, including a shortage of midwives and staff being out of their depth.

They also found that much of the equipment in the maternity unit was old and that vital machines to monitor babies' heart rates during labour were not always used.

But of particular concern were the high levels of nitrous oxide –gas and air – also nicknamed laughing gas or 'hippy crack'. It is given as pain relief but can also cause dizziness, unconsciousness and even death. The problem was caused by poor ventilation.

The chief executive and chief finance officer of the trust, which runs Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, both quit last month in anticipation of the report.

These suspicions gained credence in April when the CQC retracted dozens of concerns and upgraded the hospital to 'requires improvement'.

Even though Hinchingbrooke's grading is now on a par with the majority of NHS trusts it is still in special measures.

And the complaint figures show that only three trusts were better: Birmingham Children's Hospital, the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases in Bath and the Christie cancer centre in Manchester. None received any complaints.

At the other end of the scale the North West London NHS trust had 17 complaints per 100,000 times patients were dealt with.

The report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman looked at the complaints received by patients or relatives that were deemed serious enough to be investigated.

This was compared with the number of 'clinical episodes', to take into account the size of the hospital, which include outpatient appointments, admissions, operations and scans.

Around a third of complaints were about poor communication, another 30 per cent due to the wrong diagnosis and a fifth concerned staff attitude.

The Ombudsman, Julie Mellor, received 21,371 inquiries from patients and families about NHS trusts last year – including complaints – and 1,835 were deemed serious enough to be investigated.

She said: 'We know that there are many factors that influence the number of complaints hospitals receive, such as organisational size, demographics and whether they actively encourage feedback from patients.

'I strongly believe that NHS leaders should welcome feedback from patients and recognise the opportunities good complaint handling offers to improve the services they provide.

'We are publishing this data to help hospital trusts identify problems and take action to ensure trust in the healthcare system remains high.'

The report covers 2014/15, which spans the time when Circle was in charge at Hinchingbrooke. It pulled out of the contract in April. But the future of the hospital is uncertain and it may be taken over by a failing trust nearby, leading to the loss of its A&E and maternity units.

The hospital, which serves 160,000 patients, is being run by the NHS Trust Development Authority, a regulator which oversees smaller or less well performing trusts.

It is due to be inspected by the CQC next month.

SOURCE

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

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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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





22 September, 2015

A multicultural flight attendant



A video has appeared online of a flight attendant on a Southwest Airlines flight appearing to slur his words and have trouble remembering his script.

The footage posted to Live Leak shows the shocking moment that the seated employee seems to fall asleep mid-sentence while making a passenger announcement.

A few seconds later, he opens his eyes and returns the microphone to its holster.The incident was filmed by a concerned passenger on a flight between Birmingham, US and Dallas. 

According to a report in the Mirror, SouthWest Airlines said the employee may have been affected by 'new medication'.

The airlines statement on the incident was: 'Due to a concern raised by a customer, we had supervisors meet flight 464 upon arrival into Dallas from Birmingham to assess a flight attendant onboard.

'Although the Captain onboard the flight and supervisors on the ground did not witness or detect any unusual behavior, the Employee acknowledged a potential reaction to new medication prescribed by his physician.

'We made the proactive decision to remove the Employee from duty for the remainder of the day.'

SOURCE






Je Suis Toujours Charlie

Yes, we must also defend their freedom to publish cartoons about drowned Syrian refugees.

The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is in trouble again – this time for publishing two cartoons about drowned Syrian refugees. And anybody who believes in unfettered free speech needs to stand up for Charlie’s liberty to offend the pro-refugee and anti-racist lobbies just as staunchly as its right to offend Islam.

It is barely nine months since people across Europe and America marched behind those ‘Je Suis Charlie’ banners, for the scurrilous mag’s right to freedom of expression after the murderous attack on its editorial office by Islamist gunmen who shot dead eight cartoonists and journalists and four others. Now the online footsoldiers of the You Can’t Say That lobby are marching across the internet, denouncing Charlie on social media and threatening it with prosecution, if not actual execution, for crimes against humanity.

Peter Herbert of the Society of Black Lawyers – one of the UK’s leading offence-taking outfits – has made headlines after announcing via Twitter that his group will consider reporting the Charlie Hebdo cartoons ‘as incitement to hate crime and persecution before the International Criminal Court’.

Herbert’s tweets continued in the same vein, declaring that ‘Charlie Hebdo is a purely racist, xenophobic and ideologically bankrupt publication that represents the moral decay of France’. Good to see such racially sensitive souls avoiding national stereotypes. Meanwhile, many others have denounced the ‘disgusting’ Charlie, said they have ‘lost all respect’ for the magazine, and that, in the words of one tweeter, it was time to ‘Draw the line’.

As it happens, some of us might fail to see anything ‘racist [or] xenophobic’ about the new Charlie Hebdo cartoons. One uses an image of a toddler in shorts and a t-shirt face-down on the shoreline, like the infamous photo of the drowned Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi, beside an advertising billboard that offers two children’s meal menus for the price of one. The headline says ‘Welcome migrants! So close to his goal…’.

The other one – also by a cartoonist who survived the January attacks – depicts a Jesus-like figure walking across the sea saying ‘Christians walk on water’, while a smaller figure wearing shorts is upside down in the water, saying ‘Muslim children sink’. The caption concludes ‘Proof that Europe is Christian’.

You surely do not need to be an expert in French satire to see that the target of the cartoons is European society rather than Muslim migrants – a familiar-looking attack on consumerism and hypocrisy over here. That makes no difference, however, to those constantly on the prowl for any words and images to take offence at and demand action against.

In fact, it does not matter what you think the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are trying to say, or whether you find them funny or offensive. Defending unfettered free speech is both a non-negotiable principle and a practical necessity today. It means defending the freedom of Charlie Hebdo, or anybody else, to offend who it chooses whether we like it or not. You don’t have to be Charlie, read Charlie or chortle at Charlie in order to defend it. Free speech is always primarily about defending what a US Supreme Court justice once called ‘freedom for the thought that we hate’.

The new backlash against Charlie Hebdo has exposed the truth behind the free speech fraud we witnessed after the January massacre. The false image projected then was of a Western world united behind the ‘Je Suis Charlie’ banners, defending freedom of expression against the barbarians at the gate. The truth, as we argued from the first on spiked, was that the more powerful and insidious threats to free speech came from within the citadels of civilisation itself. Indeed, those freedom-hating Islamist gunmen were not alien imports so much as products of the prevailing mood in Western society, where free speech is increasingly out of fashion and we spend far more time discussing how to limit our most precious liberty than defend and expand it.

As I put in the prologue to my book Trigger Warning: ‘We need to face the hard fact that the Islamist gunmen who attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo acted not just as the soldiers of an oldish Eastern religion but also as the armed extremist wing of a thoroughly modern Western creed. From the official censors of the police and political elite to the army of unofficial censors online, the cri de coeur of these crusaders is You Can’t Say That. The Islamist gunmen took that attitude to a murderous extreme.’

France is of course the land of Voltaire, whose classic defence of free speech and tolerance is summarised as ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. The latest backlash against Charlie Hebdo confirms that we are now living in the age of those I call the reverse-Voltaires, whose slogan is ‘I know I will detest what you say, and I will defend to the end of free speech my right to stop you saying it’.

In response, we must insist on the freedom to think what we like and say what we think, and defend the freedom of Charlie Hebdo or anybody else to publish what they believe to be true or just funny, whether it offends Muslims or Catholics, Tories or transgender activists, racists or the refugee campaigners. Je Suis Charlie, not just in January, but Je Suis Toujours Charlie.

SOURCE






Rapper: Caitlyn Jenner Is ‘Rebuking God’ By Becoming A Woman

He has a point

Waka Flocka Flame thinks Caitlyn Jenner is “rebuking God” by trying to become a woman.

During an interview with “The Breakfast Club” Friday morning, the rapper called Caitlyn Jenner “Bruce” and said that in today’s world, women are afraid to be wives and young men are afraid to be men.

“You are who you are when God made you, not who you became after that,” the 29-year-old told the hosts of the radio show.
Special: New Probiotic Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm

“That’s how I just feel. You’re rebuking God. God ain’t put them feelings in you, man. That’s the devil playing tricks with your mind. That’s a test from God.”

“They don’t market husbands and families and wives no more. Transgenders — they’re marketing evil.”

SOURCE






Richard Dawkins lays in to Texas schoolboy Ahmed Mohamed for claiming the clock was his invention... as Sarah Palin says he was asking to be arrested

Richard Dawkins has provoked outrage by belittling the 14-year-old Texas teenager who was arrested on suspicion of building a hoax bomb that turned out to be a homemade clock.

The scientist and writer slams Ahmed Mohamed for claiming the clock was his 'invention' and hits out at tech firms that have rushed to offer him invitations and freebies.

Dawkins also questions whether the teenager was, in fact, trying to get arrested.

'He disassembled & reassembled a clock (which is fine) & then claimed it was his "invention" (which is fraud),' Dawkins wrote on Twitter.

While conceding that the police should not have arrested Ahmed, he questions: 'what was his motive?'

'If the reassembled components did something more than the original clock, that’s creative. If not, it looks like hoax,' he adds.

His words come three days after Ahmed became something of a national star as the country rallied round him in praise of scientific intrigue.

The teenager was arrested and refused the chance to call his parents after he brought the clock into school in Irving, Texas, and teachers believed it to be a hoax bomb.

President Obama led the stream of supportive messages to Ahmed, tweeting: 'Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It's what makes America great.'

Microsoft has delivered a box of state-of-the-art freebies including a Surface Pro 3, a Microsoft Band and a 3-D printer.

Facebook and Google have invited him to their respective headquarters; MIT said they would 'love' to have him as a student when he reaches college age. 

But Dawkins mocks the encouragement as 'mistaken adulation' for something that he did not create.

It comes after Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol hit out at Ahmed's 'dangerous wired-up bomb-looking contraption' and criticized Obama for inviting him to the White House.

Sarah Palin posted her controversial opinion on her Facebook page and slammed Obama and the 'reactionary-slash-biased media' for defending Ahmed's clock.

'Yep, believing that's a clock in a school pencil box is like believing Barack Obama is ruling over the most transparent administration in history,' Palin wrote in the Facebook post in which she shared pictures of her kids' pencil boxes.

'Right. That's a clock, and I'm the Queen of England.'

Palin, who's daughter Bristol one day earlier criticized Obama of egging on racial tension by inviting the teen to the White House, compared the incident against Mohammed to other incidents in which students were suspended even though they were apparently innocent.

She brought up an example of a student being suspended for bringing a squirt gun to school or for accidentally having ammo on school property because he'd recently gone deer hunting with his dad.

'Friends, consider the kids disciplined and/or kicked out of school for bringing squirt guns to school or taking bites out of a pop tart until it resembled (to some politically correct yahoo) a gun. Or the student out deer hunting with his dad early one morning who forgot he had a box of ammo in his truck when he parked in the school's lot later that day,' she wrote.

'Whereas Ahmed Muhammad, an evidently obstinate-answering student bringing in a homemade "clock" that obviously could be seen by conscientious teachers as a dangerous wired-up bomb-looking contraption (teachers who are told "if you see something, say something!") gets invited to the White House.'

The former Alaska governor said the invitation to the white house was out of line.

'By the way, President Obama's practice of jumping in cases prematurely to interject himself as the cool savior, wanting so badly to attach himself to the issue-of-the-day, got old years ago,' she wrote.

'Remember him accusing police officers doing their job as "acting stupid"; claiming if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin; claiming he needed to know who was at fault in an industrial accident so he'd 'know who's a** to kick'; etc., etc. Those actions are about as presidential as his selfie stick,' she added.

Similarly, Bristol Palin has slammed President Obama for 'egging on' racial divisions by inviting the 14-year-old boy to the White House after Wednesday's incident.

The nation has rallied round Ahmed Mohamed since he was accused by his teachers of building a hoax bomb on Wednesday.

The Texan ninth-grader has received invitations from Google, Facebook, Space Camp, and his dream school MIT amid widespread concerns he was singled out for being Muslim.

Obama tweeted: 'Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It's what makes America great.'

But according to mother-to-be Bristol, an invite from the White House is a step too far - as 'the police clearly made a mistake'.

'This is the kind of stuff Obama needs to STAY out of,' Palin wrote on her blog on Thursday.  'This encourages more racial strife that is already going on with the "Black Lives Matter" crowd and encourages victimhood.

'The police made a mistake, clearly. But why put more people against them? Why egg it on?  'Childish games like this from our president have divided our country… even more today than when he was elected.'

Palin is in a minority as leaders across the nation rush to encourage Ahmed after he was handcuffed and accused of criminality.

Ahmed confirmed to Good Morning America that he has accepted Obama's invitation to come to the White House and meet the president, saying, 'I hope to see him soon.'

Asked if he was planning to bring his now-infamous clock with him, Ahmed revealed that Irving authorities have yet to return it to him.

'The clock is still in custody with the police,' he said. 'I want it back with my humility.'

Ahmed also confided that of all the prominent figures who have reached out to him offering their support, including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and NASA officials, he was most thrilled to hear from MIT.  'I dream of going there,' he said.

SOURCE

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

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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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









21 September, 2015

More proof that male/female behavior is genetically based, with hormonal mediation

A natural experiment from the Dominican Republic

We came across Johnny when we were filming for a new BBC2 series, “Countdown to Life”, which looks at the consequences of normal, and abnormal, developments in the womb.

Johnny is known as a “Guevedoce”, which literally means, “penis at twelve”. And the reason he’s called that is because, like 1 in 90 of the boys in the area, he first started to grow a penis when he was going through puberty.

Guevedoces are also sometimes called “machihembras” meaning “first a woman, then a man”. When they’re born they look like girls with no testes and what appears to be a vagina. It is only when they near puberty that the penis grows and testicles descend.

Johnny, who is now in his 20s, was once known as Felicita. He was brought up as a girl and remembers going to school in a little red dress.  When he was young he would happily play with other little girls, but after the age of seven he started to change

“I did not feel good, I no longer liked to wear a skirt, and I was no longer drawn to play with girls. All I wanted to do is play with toy guns and boys”

When he turned obviously male he was teased at school because”, as he put it, “it is hard to imagine a girl that is now is a boy”.

One of the first people to study this unusual condition was Dr Julianne Imperato, a Cornell endocrinologist. She travelled to this remote part of the Dominican Republic in the 1970s because of strange rumours about girls turning into boys

She eventually unraveled the mystery of what is going on and by doing so helped make a surprising medical breakthrough. 

At conception we all inherit a set of genes from our parents that will, in time instruct our bodies to make us male or female. But for the first few weeks of our lives human embryos are neither. Instead we have a protrusion called a tubercle. If you’re genetically male the Y chromosome instructs the gonads to become testicles.

They also send testosterone to the tubercle, where it is converted into a potent hormone called dihydro-testosterone This transforms the tubercle into a penis. If you’re female and don’t make dihydro-testosterone then your tubercle becomes a clitoris.

When Dr Imperato investigated the Guavadoces she discovered the reason they don’t have male genitalia at birth is because they are deficient in an enzyme called 5-?-reductase, which normally converts testosterone into dihydro-testosterone. So they appear female when they are born, but around puberty, when they get another surge of testosterone, they sprout muscles, testes and a penis.

Apart from being slightly undersized everything works and the Guavadoces normally live out their lives as men, albeit with wispy beards and small prostates.

By a quirk of chance Dr Imperato’s research was picked up by the American pharmaceutical giant, Merck. They used her discovery to create a drug called finasteride, which blocks the action of 5-?-reductase. IT is now widely used to treat benign enlargement of the prostate and male pattern baldness. For which, I’m sure, many men are truly grateful

Since he’s become male Johnny has had a number of short term girlfriends, but he is still looking for the love of his life. “I’d like to get married and have children, a partner who will stand by me through good and bad”, he sighs wistfully.

SOURCE





UK: Muslim politician says top Labour party people are antisemitic

New Labour Party leaders Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell were last night sensationally accused of risking inciting terrorist and anti-Semitic attacks in London.

The claim was made by the Labour candidate for London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, in a devastating assault on Corbyn and the man he has made Shadow Chancellor.

Khan, who is Muslim, suggested that Corbyn's refusal to sing the National Anthem showed he was unfit to be Prime Minister.

And he denounced the Labour leadership duo's links to terror groups. He said McDonnell's claim that IRA killers should be 'honoured' could encourage terrorism in London, and Corbyn's support for Arab extremist groups could inspire anti-Semitic attacks.

Khan's comments were echoed by fellow Labour MP Chuka Umunna, whose Streatham constituency includes Brixton, hit by riots in the 1980s.

Umunna said Corbyn's leadership could leave Labour out of power for years and trigger a repeat of the 'Tory injustice' of the Thatcher era which had 'boiled over' in the Brixton riots. Asked if he meant it could spark violent unrest, Umunna said: 'I wouldn't dismiss it.'

Khan said anyone aspiring to be Prime Minister should sing the Anthem. He said he sang it regularly and spoke with pride of kissing the Queen's hand when he was made a Privy Counsellor in a ceremony the Labour leader is threatening to boycott. His comments are all the more pointed given his Pakistani roots.

Khan said: 'My family has always been proud of being British. My cousins in Pakistan say, 'You are one of the Queen's advisers'.'

Asked if he could stomach McDonnell's comment about 'honouring' IRA terrorists, Khan said: 'No. You cannot condone terrorism. You are giving credibility to a view that is perverse and that is wrong.'

It was 'particularly dangerous' in London, which had been the target of IRA and militant Islamist outrages. Khan also backed claims that Corbyn's links with Palestinian terror groups could fuel anti-Semitism in the UK.

Asked to comment on Corbyn's Hamas and Hezbollah connections, he said Labour had to ditch its 'anti-Jewish' image, which was not acceptable' in Britain.

Khan said there was a direct link between Middle East tension and anti-Semitic attacks in London, saying synagogues and Jewish schools in London needed 24-hour guards as a result.

Khan also disowned Corbyn's and McDonnell's policies including a 'ridiculous' 60p top tax rate, scrapping nuclear weapons, leaving Nato and nationalising banks, and said he would not take orders from Corbyn if he became mayor. 'I will be my own man,' he vowed.

SOURCE







Huckabee: Why Does U.S. Make Religious Accommodations to Muslim Detainees But Not Christian Clerks?

During the Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Presidential Library on Wednesday night, former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) asked why the United States is willing to make religious accommodations to Muslims detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison and not to Christian county clerks who do not want to sign same-sex marriage licenses.

Huckabee made the observation after CNN’s Jake Tapper asked him about Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis, who was put in jail for not executing same-sex marriage licenses.

“You've called what happened to Kim Davis, that clerk, ‘an example of the criminalization of Christianity,’” said Tapper. “There are several people on the stage who disagree with you.”

“I am here to fight for somebody who is a county clerk elected under the Kentucky constitution that 75 percent of the people of that state had voted for that said that marriage was between a man and a woman,” said Huckabee.

“The Supreme Court in a very, very divided decision decided out of thin air that they were just going to redefine marriage,” he said. “It's a decision that the other justices in dissent said they didn't have and there wasn't a constitutional shred of capacity for them to do it.

“I thought that everybody here passed ninth-grade civics,” said Huckabee. “The courts cannot legislate. That's what Roberts said. But heck, it's what we learned in civics.

“The courts can't make a law. They can interpret one. They can review one. They can't implement it. They can't force it,” he said.  “If the court can just make a decision and we just all surrender to it, we have what Jefferson said was judicial tyranny,” Huckabee said.

“We made accommodation to the Fort Hood shooter to let him grow a beard,” said Huckabee. “We made accommodations to the detainees at Gitmo. I've been to Gitmo, and I've seen the accommodations that we made to the Muslim detainees who killed Americans.

“You're telling me that you cannot make an accommodation for an elected Democrat county clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky?” said Huckabee. “What else is it other than the criminalization of her faith and the exaltation of the faith of everyone else who might be a Fort Hood shooter or a detainee at Gitmo.”

SOURCE






Study Finds Happiest Parents Have Four or More Kids

Parents of large families were found to have the most life satisfaction, according to a study by Australia’s Edith Cowan University. Dr. Bronwyn Harman, of the psychology and social science school at the university, spent five years studying what types of families are most content.

“[The parents] usually say they always wanted a large family, it was planned that way, and it was a lifestyle they’d chosen,” Harman told The Sydney Morning Herald.

During her five-year study, Harman interviewed hundreds of parents from different family makeups. Her findings are based on resilience, social support, self-esteem, and life satisfaction.

Her research points out that parental happiness relates to how much effort has been put into growing the family.

“What is important for kids are things like consistency, boundaries and [to] know that they are loved, no matter what,” Harman tells ABC Australia.

Prior to the study, Harman thought parents with more children would be less happy.

Though larger families may have more chaos and expenses than a smaller family, Harman’s research shows that these issues are balanced by the amount of joy received from having more children.

Her findings show that children who grow up in large families learn independence at a young age and always have someone to play with.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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






20 September, 2015

I am a multiculturalist


I am a multiculturalist but I don't believe that all cultures are equal.  A Leftist has to believe the absurdity that they are equal because he believes that all men are equal -- despite all the evidence to the contrary all around him.

I am a multiculturalist because I grew up as one.  I grew up in a town in the Australian tropics that even has a rather multicultural name. "Innisfail" is Irish (Gaelic) for "Isle of Destiny" -- which is a romantic name for Ireland. And since I do have substantial Irish ancestry that bothers me not a bit.  And you will never hear a bad word about Ireland from me.

But, more germanely, Innisfail was only about half Anglo-Celtic.  Most of the rest of the population was Italian but there were substantial numbers of Spaniards, Greeks, Chinese and Maltese,  And I also knew a few Sikhs, Danes, Russian and Germans.  No Muslims or Africans, though. And guess what?  It all worked perfectly well.  Recent imigrants who spoke little English were not included in much but they were not harassed in any way either.  So I have seen a very multicultural society work well in my own lifetime.  I KNOW it is perfectly possible.

So let me tell a little story about why I don't believe that all cultures are equal. 

I was recently at an Indian restaurant that did not sell alcohol but I decided that I would like some beer.  Beer goes well with Indian food.  There was a liquor shop nearby run by a Scotsman -- but it was 5 minutes past his closing time.  He was still there, however, so I knocked on his door and asked if I could buy some beer.  He refused.  He was too proud to bend his rules for a mere customer. Very British!  If you have ever been shopping in Britain, you will know what I mean.

Then, last night, I dined at another Indian restaurant which also was a sort of general store.  I was rather taken with the unusual spoons they gave us with our dinner and decided that I would like to buy some.  So I asked about that.  They said that they  did not stock them for sale.  After consultations, however, they sold me some from their own working stocks.  They went out of their way to do business. Very Indian.

So when I walked out of the restaurant, I had the spoons I wanted and they had my money in their till.  A perfect arrangement.  Capitalism embodied.  Why can't everybody be like that?

So, you see, cultures are different and some (not all) of those differences can be to our advantage.  What I have said here is merely anecdotal and, as such, is no proof of anything but, having spent time in both Britain and India, I can assure all and sundry that the two experiences I have described are abolutely typical of the two nations concerned. 

It's a sad day when Indians are more capitalist than the British but it is so.  Jaguar cars have been going from strength to strength recently -- since the firm was taken over by an Indian.  India is poor  because of its socialist politics but individual Indians are great businessmen.

But, as I started out saying, not all cultures are the same -- as we see below.






Multiculturalist casually murders good kid



The grieving family of a popular 15-year-old murdered in a horrific street stabbing have described him as 'amazing' and 'the best'.

Joshua Williams, 18, stabbed Alan Cartwright in the chest in an 'utterly senseless' attack as he cycled along a busy street in Islington, North London, with friends.

College student Alan was at the head of a group of four youngsters when they were set upon by three robbers.

Williams was today found guilty of killing the bike enthusiast by plunging a blade deep into his chest as he cycled by, a charge he denied.

Speaking after the trial concluded this afternoon, tragic Alan's heartbroken parents Alan Cartwright and Michelle Watson, and older sister Cherrie Ives, paid tribute to the much-loved teen.

Ms Watson, who is a bus driver, said: 'Alan was just a normal 15-year-old boy - loved his bikes, his family, being out with his friends. He was just a funny little kid, at the end of the day.'

His sister added: 'His friends have always said he never liked confrontation and was always polite - just a happy person.

'He was amazing, honestly. I know everybody says about their little brothers they're little rats.

'We wouldn't change him for the world. The best brother.'

Alan, who they described as a 'cheeky' joker who also had passions for music and go-karting, had been on his way to a monthly Critical Mass cycling event with his friends when he was set upon by Williams in February of this year.

The 18-year-old was part of a group of robbers who deployed a ruthlessly effective 'pincer movement', which helped them steal the bikes of two of Alan's friends in an attack that was described as 'brazen and swiftly executed'.

CCTV footage of the scene showed how Alan, known to his family as 'Little Al', made a desperate attempt to escape on his bike after the knife punctured his lung but collapsed a few yards up the road.

Paramedics rushed to his aid but could not save him. He was pronounced dead less than an hour later on the street in Islington, North London.

Five days later Williams was taken to Islington police station by his parents, who told an officer that their son was responsible for the boy's murder.

At the time of the attack, Williams had been on police bail on suspicion of possessing a four-inch lock knife although he was never charged.

Williams claimed to have an alibi but now faces a life sentence after he was convicted of murder and conspiracy to rob following a trial at the Old Bailey.

On the evening of February 27, Alan was cycling with friends when Williams and two other youths intercepted them in front of motorists and pedestrians, the court heard.

In just seven seconds, they stepped out in front of the cyclists and took two bikes before Williams approached Alan in the road and swung a knife at his chest in a 'deliberate and gratuitous' stabbing.

As his two friends were robbed of their bikes, a mortally-wounded Alan managed to cycle on before collapsing a short distance up the road. Bystanders rushed to help before paramedics arrived.

Meanwhile, Williams hopped on the back of one of the two stolen bikes, leaving Alan for dead.

Shaquille Roberts, 19, and a teenager who cannot be named for legal reasons, have since pleaded guilty to the robbery.

Malcolm McHaffie, CPS London Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor, made clear that the 'horrifying' stabbing was a planned act of 'devastating' violence.

He said: 'This was a completely unprovoked attack on a young teenager who was spending time having fun with his friends.

'The three defendants had clearly made a plan to rob the group of friends of their bicycles, however, Williams decided to take this further and use a knife in a deliberate attack on one of the cyclists, with catastrophic consequences.

'This case shows the horrifying results of knife crime and how a life can be lost and a family devastated in a matter of seconds.

'CPS London is committed to tackling knife and gang crime in the capital and we will continue to work with our criminal justice partners to robustly prosecute offenders.

'I would like to express our sincere condolences to Alan's family, our thoughts are with them at this time.'

In the days that followed the attack, Alan's parents made emotional public appeals for witnesses. They described a teen who 'always made you laugh' and was a member of the cadets.

On March 4, Williams went to Islington police station with his parents to hand himself in, the prosecution said.

When asked why they were there, his mother told an officer it was about the incident in Caledonian Road, saying: 'Yes, he's involved, he did it.' 

And as he was taken into custody, Williams, was heard by another officer to say: 'It's the right thing to do, isn't it?'.

But in his defence, Williams claimed he was at a youth club that night and he only went to the police station to tell them that he was not involved in the incident.

The court heard that the defendant, nicknamed Slimzy, was identified as the third robber in a comment about the CCTV footage which was released by police and posted on YouTube.

SOURCE






Appeals Court Sides With Religious Liberty

This isn’t a situation where working out reasonable accommodations is the preferred solution. Unlike its case against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who, as a government employee, has a duty to issue marriage licenses, the state has no legitimate reason to compel private companies and workers to violate their religious beliefs.

On Thursday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate, even with its exemption for religious organizations, violates Americans' religious Liberty.

Three schools and one ministry based across Iowa and Missouri had sued the federal government, arguing that its workaround — requiring that religious employers make contraceptive services available for their employees although not forcing them to pay for it directly — still violated their consciences.

Circuit Judge Roger Wollman, who wrote the court’s opinion, agreed, writing that the government must respect the religious groups' “sincere religious belief that their participation in the accommodation process makes them morally and spiritually complicit in providing abortifacient coverage.”

Religious Liberty won this round. But as Reuters reports, this question will eventually arrive before the Supreme Court.

SOURCE






5 Reasons The “Antisemitism or Anti-Israel” Distinction Is Irrelevant

SINCE WHEN IS HATRED BASED ON NATIONALITY ANY MORE ACCEPTABLE THAN ETHNICITY??

So I give you the following 5 reasons trying to “catch the antisemite in a room full of Israel haters” is irrelevant.

1. Nationality Based Hate Is Just As Bad

China has a horrible human rights record. From its executions, to lack of freedom of expression, to its one-child policy, to its annexation of Tibet, there are a lot of misdeeds to protest.

Now take a group of about 50 friends, draw up a couple of placards, make some gruesome props and head down to your local Chinese-owned grocery store on the corner of the street. Shout as loud as you can, “FREE TIBET!” and hold up signs of torture victims and vandalize the store.

Seems ridiculous, right? What does this Chinese mom and pop store owner have to do with Tibet?

Chinese shop owner: “Dude, I’m from Chicago.”

Well, that is exactly what is happening with Israeli-owned businesses around the world.

Suddenly people claim “freedom of speech” and “I’m not antisemitic, I’m anti *insert whatever buzzword you’re accusing Israel of here*.”

Nationality-based discrimination is illegal in many countries in which these protests are taking place.  What’s going on here? Is “Israeli” somehow not defined as a nationality? Whatever one’s personal thoughts may be, as long as your country has diplomatic relations with Israel, “Israeli” is legally defined as a nationality and is subject to these discrimination laws.

2. It’s A Gateway Hate

Famous Israel haters such as George Galloway, Roger Waters and Ali Abumination are clearly documented to carefully avoid the “J” word when spewing their hate. But every now and then it slips out, then BAM! Busted!

George Galloway even makes sure to respond to all his followers who use textbook antisemitic language to tell them that’s not OK. Roger Waters has to explain to major news outlets he is not antisemitic.

Has George Galloway ever stopped to wonder why so many of his not-blocked followers just so happen to be textbook antisemites? Has Roger Waters ever stopped to wonder why ADL has awarded him the dishonor of bona fide antisemite?

Then we have Helen Thomas, late White House reporter, Israel critic. In a now famous video, she says the Jews must all leave Palestine and go “home” which she calls Poland and Germany. The very countries where 1/3 of the Jewish population was culled. Why did she not say, Syria, Iraq, or Egypt? Or any of the other Arab countries completely emptied of Jews which now make up half of the Jewish Israeli population?

Because the Holocaust meant nothing to her. The depopulation of Jews from Arab lands where they’ve lived for thousands of years meant nothing to her. And worst of all, the 3,000 year uninterrupted presence of Jews on an almost completely empty and barren wasteland they called home meant nothing to her.

This is the embodiment of Israel critics. This has nothing to do with Zionism or Israel. This is only about Jews. This is antisemitism. The source of Israel hate always leads to antisemitism. And eventually, as hard as you try, your argument will always lead to Jews, because you’ll have to explain why you have no animosity towards 20% of Israelis who are not Jewish yet receive the same rights as everyone else.

3. They Don’t Even Try To Hide Their Hypocrisy Because No One’s Looking

Remember when they tabled a resolution at the UN condemning Israel of abusing women’s rights? We all had a good laugh at the absurdity until it passed. Earlier this year, the United Nations passed one of its most absurd resolutions ever, condemning Israel as the worst violator of women’s rights in the world proving that no matter its absurdity or complete disregard for truth, anything anti Israel will pass in the UN. 

Soon after, Israel was condemned as the worst violator of health rights.  If Qatar tabled a resolution calling for the condemnation of Israel for unleashing killer bees on unsuspecting disabled Palestinian children, it would probably pass without anyone actually reading it.

Those responsible for this joke are the UN Human Rights council members who include Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Qatar. Saudi Arabia. The world’s champion of women’s rights if only they let them drive and work or leave the house without their guardian’s consent. Qatar where 4,000 migrant workers are expected to die in order to build a stadium meant to be used once.

Israel receives almost global condemnation over its handling of refugees. Now we see how the rest of the world handles their own refugee crisis. In comparison, Israel has done more for refugees despite limited resources than most European countries, including providing health care, temporary shelter and sending representatives to assist in emergency relief. 

Now, not to say people aren’t upset about the handling of refugees by these countries, but do you see any “Boycott Hungary” campaigns?  When is Saudi Apartheid Week?  For the first time in their lives, Palestinian “refugees” by UNRWA definition are actually refugees by normal people definition and nobody knows what to do with them.

So why is it all these countries get away with doing exactly what it accuses Israel of doing and to a much larger scale? Because nobody’s looking at them. They only look at Israel expecting her to be absolutely perfect, otherwise, boycott.

The same goes when Israeli reactions are reported while the Palestinian actions that caused them are either not reported, minimized and/or justified – but that’s a whole topic that has been covered to death.

4. If Hating Country “X” Was A Full-Time Career…

In every anti-Israel argument I face online, I try to imagine if it had been with any other country. Why does Israel, a country that just wants to provide its citizens with education, health, recreation, and to help the world in times of need, get hit the hardest with protests, boycotts and slander?

The answer is simple. There are countless organizations all over the world and thousands of people who have devoted their entire careers who put all their concentration to one cause. To vilify the only Jewish State.  Countries have based their entire foreign policy on this same cause.

Now imagine if half this effort was done against, oh… I don’t know say… Belgium.

Believe me, every day we’d find reasons to protest and boycott those guys. Did you know they practiced apartheid against the Flemish and their treatment of asylum seekers is sub-par? Boycott Stella Artois!!

If oh… say… Belgium was threatened with annihilation every day since its founding, and faced multiple wars aimed at the extinction of their population, oh… say… Belgium would also be forced to make some difficult decisions where striking the right balance between security and human rights is required – and this full time career of Belgium bashing would be so much easier.

So how does this relate to Jew hate? Well. When the effects of this full-time job of coercion and brainwashing is ingrained in the minds of people, it becomes simply understood that all Jews are associated with Israel’s deeds. Then you get this case where a horrific murder of Jews in France leads a BBC reporter to say, “Yeah, but Palestinians…” without a moment’s thought.

5. The Accusations Are Downright Psychopathic

We all know the Mossad trains aquatic creatures specifically for the purpose of eating Palestinian children. Because no plan is as realistic and well thought-out like a 1960’s James Bond villain plot.  But when you really have nothing left to accuse Israel of doing, you exaggerate or make it up.

Past actual accusations of Israel include:

    A wide range of animal conspiracy theories.

    IDF does not rape anybody because they’re racist.

    Israel only sent aid after the devastating earthquake in Nepal so they could steal babies for gay people.

    Israel sterilizes black people.

    Israel harvests organs of Palestinians

    Israel breaks into people’s homes rearranges stuff and steals shoes.

To anyone familiar with the history of antisemitism, let’s recap.  Jews were accused of:

    Causing the Black Death

    Killing children to use their blood for making Matzot.

    Host desecration

    Writing a guide on how to be a caricature of an evil Jew.

These ancient accusations of the days of yore are just as ridiculous as the ones they are throwing around today.  They even personify Israel as one single-minded evil being. One Israeli’s actions mean all of “Israel” did it.

A Jewish terrorist committed an act of terror against a Palestinian family. The terrorists are being treated as any other terrorist. They were condemned universally by all walks of life in Israel. Israelis rushed to provide aid to the survivors of this incident. Arguably, more so even than many Jewish victims of Palestinian terror.  But still. According to Abdul, Israel did it.

To wrap this up, in order to hate a country THIS MUCH you need an extra push. An extra push that can only come from the oldest hatred. Nobody on Earth says they don’t hate Hindus, only India and then proceed to protest Hindu owned businesses around the world.

Standards applied on Israel are unattainable, and are broken on a larger scale even by Israel’s accusers. Nationality-based hatred is bad. For every country. Including Israel, no matter what your crazy misguided thoughts may tell you about her.  The Israel hater is an antisemite. 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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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





18 September, 2015

New British Leftist leader is no populist - he's an old Left elitist in shabby disguise

The new Labour leader's old-fashioned Marxism may appeal to a socialist elite, but it is missing a key ingredient — nationalism
           
Despite a disastrous first few days, many Left-wing activists are still convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will deliver the goods. Their thesis is as simple as it is deluded: they believe that their hero will keep Labour’s existing voters, reach out to many of those seduced by the SNP’s and Ukip’s populism, attract non-voters and lead a new Left-wing coalition to victory.

It won’t work. Far from being a populist, Jeremy Corbyn is a Left-wing elitist who doesn’t really understand the new politics. He lacks the three ingredients required to take on Ukip and the SNP: a willingness to tap into nationalist sentiment, defined broadly (and not necessarily illiberally); the ability to understand, relate to and empathise with ordinary voters, as opposed to minority interests; and a strong, appealing personal brand buttressed by a brilliant communications effort.

Corbyn’s inability to come to terms with the first of these alone will prove to be fatal. It is almost impossible to be a successful populist and not embrace some sort of nationalism. The SNP’s rise has been primarily fuelled by its stoking of Scottishness and depiction of England as the source of all evil; its Left-wing demagoguery was always secondary and had already been matched by Ed Miliband, to nil effect. Nigel Farage’s rise can be attributed to his ability to harness anti-immigration and Eurosceptic sentiment.

The Marxist hard Left by contrast, is pacifist and internationalist: as far as it is concerned, nationalism, together with capitalism, is tantamount to racism. It also loathes traditional manifestations of British patriotism. Elements of the old Left opposed the EU on democratic grounds but Hilary Benn, the new foreign secretary, has promised that Labour will back membership of the EU.

The party thus continues to differ fundamentally from all the genuine populist groups to have emerged in recent years. Greece’s Syriza is stridently anti-German, anti-EU and anti-IMF; Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement in Italy, otherwise quite Corbynite, is Eurosceptic; ditto Spain’s Podemos, at least in the sense that it believes EU institutions to be fundamentally broken. France’s National Front party hates foreigners; America’ Donald Trump is a flag-waver who wants closed borders.

Almost all successful populist movements, be they from the “Right” or the “Left”, eventually pit themselves against foreign foes. Of course, there is a difference between these brands of nationalism: Marine Le Pen’s party is rabidly anti-immigration, while Syriza isn’t.

The idea that Ukip’s patriotic, royalist, pro-defence, anti-terror and anti-immigration white working class voters will suddenly switch to Corbyn is nonsensical. The cultural chasm is too large.

Sure, some of these voters will like his attacks on bankers and multinationals – but they will be appalled at his refusal to sing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain anniversary, a disastrous decision which will come to define him. Values matter, even if the Marxists arrogantly dismiss them as a form of false consciousness, a case study in how people vote against their class interest.

The new Labour leader’s only chance of truly becoming a populist leader is to call for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. But this would split the Left and destroy his party – and in any case, thanks to his views on the army, the Queen and the IRA, he will never convince the patriotic classes the he is one of them.

The public does crave authenticity: it is sick of bland, identikit politicos. Voters respect those who feel and look different, and who aren’t scared to say what they think. Many believe that their views are ignored by an out of touch, professional Westminster class that doesn’t understand them.

But like all phenomena in our modern, consumerist society, this one is complex. Authenticity per se isn’t enough: it needs to be accompanied by competence and, paradoxically, be stage-managed. Successful insurgent politicians throughout history have always mastered complex communications. Corbyn is scruffy and dishevelled in all of the wrong ways: rather than finding his eccentric ways endearing, voters see somebody who doesn’t care. Greek populists don’t wear ties either, but they are stylish.

An anti-brand is still a brand, as the proto-Corbynite “No logo” movement of the late 1990s discovered. The new politics doesn’t imply the death of spin: it is merely its next, logical step. Voters want a different, more distinct product to which they can better relate. It’s like the appeal of micro-breweries: the successful ones are smart, professional, well-managed businesses. People would never buy foul-tasting, dirty products from a disorganised, useless firm. Being authentic in the beer business is no guarantee of success, and neither is it in politics. The despicable BNP was authentic – but thankfully it has all but vanished.

Corbyn’s problem is that he is an elitist masquerading as a populist, a campaigner stuck in a 1980s-style brand of Leftism. The confusion is easy to explain: he has hundreds of thousands of vocal grassroot supporters, which on the face it suggests that his views have massive resonance with the public.

But his base is dominated by the highly educated, often privileged young people who turned up at Occupy London events, who picketed Starbucks, who spend all day berating those who disagree with them on Twitter and who read Left-wing polemics. It also includes the ageing hippies and revolutionaries who, unlike most of their erstwhile comrades, haven’t succeeded in taking over established institutions in return for a big salary, as well as a few thousand trade union activists.

There are lots of such people; they are even the majority in a dozen or so constituencies. But they are nevertheless a small minority of the public and are shockingly unrepresentative. Their obsessions are largely irrelevant to both aspirational Middle England and Ukip voters.

Can Corbyn get a grip? Can he focus on mainstream issues and hire a proper spin doctor? Can he attract a few previously alienated non-voters? Perhaps, but it won’t be enough. If the Left is looking for a populist saviour, Corbyn isn’t their man.

SOURCE






Some career women get a liking for motherhood. "Motherhood makes me happier"

When Emma Bird announced her pregnancy last year, she was determined to return to her career within six months. She had never been the 'maternal type' and simply couldn't picture herself doing the rounds at mother-and-baby groups and infant music classes.

'It just wasn't me,' she says. More to the point, she loved her job. Aged 35, she owned a graphic design business and earned as much as £60,000 a year, making her the main breadwinner. She and her husband, Simon, a project manager, led a very comfortable life with a stunning home set on a private estate in Buckinghamshire, a shiny new BMW and several exotic holidays a year.

Motherhood would do nothing to change that...or so Emma thought.

Then, last December, she gave birth. And from the moment Ottilie was placed in her arms, she experienced a shift in mindset so dramatic that it surprises her to this day.

She explains: 'From the second I held Ottilie, I realised nothing was as important to me as this little girl. The love I felt for her was overwhelming.

[Ottilie is a German nickname.  Below is  a picture of a grown-up Ottilie.  It's Anja Katharina  Wigger in the operetta "White Horse Inn" at Moerbisch] 



'During my maternity leave, I was still getting calls from clients, but I'd switch my phone off - something I'd never done before. I didn't want anyone to ruin the time I had with my daughter.'

Not only did she not want work to encroach on those first precious months, but as time passed and Emma fell more in love with motherhood, she felt compelled to make a life-changing decision.

'After eight months, I got so far as booking a nanny but the day before she was due to start I couldn't do it,' she says. 'I was in tears and couldn't bear to be apart from Ottilie. I just wanted to be a mum. You get your head bitten off by feminists if you admit it, but even though I was great at my job, motherhood makes me happier.'

Becoming a mother had changed her priorities in ways she could never have imagined: the 'non-maternal' Emma even found herself practising attachment parenting, which meant on-demand breastfeeding, sleeping by her baby's side at night, and wrapping Ottilie in a papoose during the day.

And she did indeed take her daughter to music and swimming classes.

Most significantly, she gave up her job - a move that obliterated their hefty household income and will eventually mean the family has to downsize to a smaller home.

Although her clients were supportive, many who knew Emma couldn't believe the U-turn. 'This isn't the career-focused Emma they all knew, and I can't believe I'm like this either.'

So, is this proof that becoming a mother blunts ambition? It's a question that will no doubt ruffle many feathers - and strike horror into the hearts of employers.

For although Emma was her own boss, she isn't the only high-flier to have found herself rejecting a much-loved career in favour of staying at home with her baby.

No wonder 40 per cent of managers surveyed last year controversially admitted that they were reluctant to hire women of childbearing age. The cost and disruption to their businesses, as they are forced to cover maternity leave, plus the training involved in replacing key members, make many see women as a bad bet.

Under British law, women are entitled to 52 weeks' maternity leave - yet they can leave it until the 52nd week to tell their employer whether they'll be back. And it is illegal for an employer to ask.

Although more women than ever are returning to work after having a baby, Britain still has one of the lowest rates of working mothers in Europe.

If parenting forums are anything to go by, more and more mothers, despite their intentions, admit that returning to their career after giving birth fills them with horror.

Inflexible working conditions or long commutes are often cited. But as educated career women such as Emma admit, the mother/child bond is stronger than they ever imagined. Emma explains: 'There was no way I wanted to miss so much of Ottilie's life.

'I don't want a nanny or anyone else to bring up my child. Nothing is more important to me than being a mum.  'I used to think nothing of buying clothes and have a wardrobe full of shoes, but that's in the past. None of that matters to me any more. It's just “stuff”, whereas I'll never get these years of my daughter's life back.'

But as with most families, Emma cannot give up work entirely because there are still bills to be paid. 'I fit in a bit of design work when she's sleeping or at the weekend when Simon is here. I'll probably earn £15,000 - a quarter of my old salary - but that's fine.

'My life is all about what Ottilie needs, not what Simon or I want.'

It's not just new mothers with babies who are giving up their careers. Women with older children are also admitting they would rather forgo their salaries to be there for their children....

It's not only mothers earning big salaries who make the decision to ditch their careers. Aimee Foster, 34, was earning just above the £26,500 average UK salary in the civil service and intended to return after she had her daughter, Susie, who is now six.

'I could have a holiday every year, and pretty much buy what I wanted, so I couldn't imagine not having a salary,' says Aimee, who lives in the New Forest with her husband Frank, 37, a firefighter, and their two children, Susie and Freddy, one. 'After nine months' leave, I went back to work, but it was a nightmare.

'Susie would scream when I dropped her off at the nursery, which broke my heart. I'd grown up with my mum staying at home and I wanted the same for my own daughter. I wanted to see the little milestones she was achieving.'

Aimee quit after a month and the couple dipped into their savings, which afforded them a year without her having to work.

'When the savings ran out, I looked around for part-time office work, but when we added up how much I'd be earning and how much we'd be paying for childcare, I'd have ended up with something like £100 a month,' says Aimee.

'It's been tough and we've had to tighten our belts. We've had to cut down on food. We haven't had a holiday in five years and Frank and I never buy clothes for ourselves.'

But she has no regrets: 'I've never been happier. It's all been worth it because I've been able to spend these formative years with my children. I know that not every woman has that choice.'

SOURCE






Country campaigners demand the BBC sack wildlife presenter Chris Packham over 'slanted and extreme' animal rights views

Countryside campaigners are calling on the BBC to sack Springwatch presenter Chris Packham over his 'slanted and extreme' animal rights views.

Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, accused the BBC of letting Springwatch presenter Packham use the corporation to push his own views.

Veteran nature presenter Mr Packham, an outspoken critic of fox hunting, recently wrote an article for the BBC Wildlife Magazine in which he accused the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts of failing to oppose the return of fox hunting.

He also claimed conservation charities were 'guilty of fence sitting' when it came to looking after wildlife.

The Countryside Alliance, which campaigns on behalf of hunting, shooting and fishing groups, has now accused Mr Packham of abusing his position to promote 'blatant political propaganda.'

As a result Mr Bonner has written a strongly worded open letter which says: 'We call on the BBC to take action as Chris Packham uses it as a platform from which to promote an animal rights agenda.

'Chris Packham is a BBC presenter - we know that because he tells us so in his Twitter biography and because he appears on nearly every BBC programme with any link to wildlife.

'He is a disciple of the animal rights movement and signs up to its creed by voicing his opposition to all the usual activities from badger culling to grouse shooting and, of course, hunting.

'But he has continued to happily use the fame given to him by his work for the BBC to promote an increasingly extreme agenda.

'We are lucky live in a liberal democracy where people are able to hold any number of bizarre views.

'There is no issue with people voicing such opinions, but using the position granted by a public service broadcaster to promote an extreme agenda is a different thing entirely.'

The Countryside Alliance then accused Mr Packham of abusing his position to promote 'blatant political propaganda.'

Mr Bonner continued: 'The new edition of BBC Wildlife magazine carries a column by Chris Packham which is remarkable in that it picks a fight with practically everyone.

'Fox hunters and game shooters, obviously, but also, the National Trust, the Wildlife Trusts and even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which he is vice-president, because they will not join his obsessive crusades.

'This is the clearest possible abuse of the position the BBC has given Chris Packham and as it is an on-going behaviour, rather than an isolated incident, it is difficult to see how the situation can change.

'If it does not, then the BBC's only answer can be to remove the BBC from Chris Packham's biography by refusing to employ him any more.'

Matt Swaine, editor of BBC Wildlife, told The Times: 'Chris Packham is clearly expressing his own views in the column and part of the magazine's role is to be a forum for exactly this kind of discussion.'

He added the magazine will invite the charities mentioned by Mr Packham in his column to reply in their November issue.

A BBC spokesman also told the newspaper: 'If Chris Packham wishes to express his personal views outside of his employment on BBC natural history programmes, he is entitled to do so.

It is not the first time Mr Packham's views have got him into trouble.

In 2013 he found himself in hot water with BBC bosses for using 'intemperate' language when he used social media to describe farmers involved in the badger cull as 'brutalist thugs, liars and frauds'

BBC bosses launched an investigation into the tweets following a complaint by the Countryside Alliance which claimed they went against BBC impartiality rules.

It found that Mr Packham breached a BBC voluntary code of conduct as the tweets were not politically neutral.

He once warned the only way to protect the future of the planet is to curb population growth and suggested offering Britons tax breaks to encourage them to have smaller families.

He also called for the giant panda to be allowed to die out, claiming the species is not strong enough to survive on its own and that the millions spent preserving it could be better spent elsewhere.

SOURCE






The feminist trials of Miss Piggy

How can a Muppet be a role model for women?

It’s a story so ridiculous it’s hard to believe it wasn’t scripted. The Muppets are making headlines, not because of their new show, but because of their political opinions. It seems the Marilyn Monroe of felt, Miss Piggy, has been in and out of favour on the internet due to her relationship with feminism.

The first scandal began after Miss Piggy made a joke in response to the question most female celebrities have come to dread: are you a feminist? The puppet told the Telegraph in 2014: ‘I don’t mind being called a feminist, as long as I get top billing.’

However, her noncommittal attitude to feminism didn’t last long. In June, the Elizabeth A Sackler Center for Feminist Art in New York announced it would be presenting Miss Piggy with its annual award to celebrate ‘more than 40 years of blazing feminist trails with determination and humour, and for her groundbreaking role inspiring generations the world over’. To top it all off, Miss Piggy was praised at the awards ceremony for reminding us that ‘beauty comes from the inside’.

We’re talking about a pig puppet in slap, right? But it seems that, it in our contemporary political climate, fictional characters must kowtow to political correctness as much as real people must. It’s bad enough that entertainers and celebrities are expected to spend as much time expressing their political opinions as they do prancing around on red carpets – do we also have to listen to imaginary characters wax lyrical about women’s rights?

The irony of a pig puppet being used to voice feminist principles is evidently lost on some. As Piggy remarked in an op-ed for Time magazine: ‘I am a Porcine-American. How can a… ahem, pig… be a feminist? After all, the p-word has long been associated with the very antithesis of feminists.’

This feminist imposition on kids’ entertainment is nothing new. Disney has become extremely self-conscious in ensuring each of its recent films contain at least one strong female character. I suppose this its attempt to make up for the lingering, misogynistic legacy of all of those princess films.

But I for one wasn’t scarred for life by Cinderella, and I doubt anyone else was, either. More importantly, entertainment must be free to deviate from reality and portray the world in any way it likes. Making every kids’ show adhere to a politically correct script would make for really boring television.

Despite Miss Piggy’s conversion to feminism, the Muppets aren’t in the clear just yet. Following the announcement that Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy, one of TV’s longest-running relationships, was at an end, the producers created a new love interest for Kermit. Denise, the latest pig on the block, has attracted vast amounts of criticism for her appearance and her ‘homewrecking’ ways.

First, there were claims that the new puppet was a symbol of the producers’ misogyny. Denise’s younger, skinnier appearance indicated to some feminists that the show was behind the times. A critic in the Guardian argued: ‘The audience of the 1980s might’ve… understood and supported men’s urge to date their exes’ younger, dumber plasticine lookalikes – the situation has changed in 2015.’

Then came the final twist to the story. Some commentators decided that, in fact, Kermit was the victim – due to the domestic abuse he suffered under Piggy. The New Republic, favoured mag of American liberals, published an article declaring the frog-pig duo to be no more than ‘a comedy spectacle which mocked both men and women for violating traditional gender roles’. In under a year, Miss Piggy has gone from self-hating anti-feminist to award-winning female role model to man-beating tyrant? What is the world coming to?

It is easy to dismiss these bizarre thinkpieces as products of the echo chamber of Twitter and the blogosphere, but the politicisation of Piggy seems too familiar to ignore. People are increasingly looking to culture to change social norms and opinions. The constant suggestion that the depiction of women in popular culture, especially in kids’ entertainment, has a long-drawn impact on the political development of young people is startling. Entertainment simply can’t carry that burden.

Never mind the fact that there is absolutely nothing sexist about The Muppets, the introduction of political correctness would kill the show. Like most entertainment, it relies on stereotypes for humour and material. That doesn’t mean anyone takes it seriously.

Miss Piggy is not a feminist, nor is she an enemy of feminism. She is a puppet. And fair play to the show’s producers for remaining ever-so-slightly tongue-in-cheek about the whole debacle, as summed up in this classic Piggy one-liner: ‘What is the future of feminism? The answer is obvious — feminism’s future must be proud, positive, powerful, perseverant, and, wherever possible, alliterative.’

Feminists can’t seem to trust us to engage with popular culture without becoming brainwashed, sexist morons. But popular culture is not intended to serve a political purpose - it is meant to entertain. It tells us something about the state of contemporary feminism that its proponents are now staring up the asses of puppets in order to get their daily dose of moral outrage.

Then again, perhaps feminists have more in common with Piggy than we think. Indeed, their demand that their politics be reflected in all aspects of life echoes the notorious self-obsession of TV’s most glamorous pig. As Piggy rounded off her Time piece: ‘[Feminism] must believe in itself, share its triumphs, overcome its setbacks and inspire future generations. It must, in other words, be a lot like… moi.’

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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





17 September, 2015

How many are genuine? As Europe locks down its borders, eye witnesses claim fewer than a third of refugees who have made it to Germany are Syrian – and some are even ISIS infiltrators

Chain-smoking outside a coffee bar in Germany’s capital, young Syrian Mohammad Al-Abaan bangs his hand loudly on the table as three teenage girls walk past in Islamic robes.

‘Look at them!’ he says. ‘They pretend to be migrants from my country, but they lie. Their skin is blacker than ours. I know they are Arab-speaking Muslims from Sudan in Africa. Every day, more Africans, Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese, and lots of others, slip through the door opened by Germany to us Syrians.’

These are strong words, particularly as Mohammad has only just set foot in Europe himself, arriving in Berlin a week ago by train from Hungary with his friend Ismail Gannom.

They are civil engineering graduates, both 25 and from middle-class families, who fled Syria to escape military service in President Bashar Al-Assad’s army as it wages a civil war against rebels, including Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists.

In Berlin, a government bus whisked them with 150 others to a reception centre in Neukolln, a bustling multicultural district in the south of the city. Charity workers, city officials and local well-wishers waved welcome signs and pink and blue balloons were hung on lamp-posts outside. ‘The Germans love us, and we love Germany,’ said Mohammad.

Until Sunday, migrants at 2,000 reception centres in cities from Munich to Hamburg were met with the same greetings. The scenes followed Chancellor Angela Merkel’s declaration that all arriving Syrians should be treated as war refugees, offered asylum and — turning a blind eye to EU rules — not be returned for fingerprinting and registration to the country where they first entered Europe.

Now, the Merkel dream is unravelling: the relentless flow of migrants has overwhelmed the EU mainland. On Sunday afternoon, Germany temporarily shut its borders with Austria, later introducing tougher vetting of migrants.

The dramatic U-turn reinstated border controls that had not been in place for two decades, placing Europe’s prized Schengen Agreement — allowing passport-free movement across much of the Continent — under real threat.

Yet Mrs Merkel had insisted ‘we can do it’ when she welcomed migrants to the country last week, criticising other states, including Britain, for not doing enough to help.

With a shrinking and ageing population — and a desperate need to expand its workforce — Germany’s original welcome call to Syrians is viewed by some as not purely selfless.

Whatever its true motives, Germany has left the fabric of the European project in jeopardy. Yesterday Austria, Slovakia and Holland pledged tighter border controls. Hungary completed a razor-wire fence to keep out migrants from beyond the EU, and declared a state of emergency on its southern borders with Serbia. Hungarian officials said they had denied 16 asylum claims at the frontier within hours.

Joachim Hermann, the interior minister of Germany’s Bavaria (coping with enormous arrivals from Austria), said stricter rules were needed. ‘We have established in the past few days that many en route here are not really refugees,’ he said.

‘It has got about . . . that you are successful [in claiming asylum] if you pretend to be Syrian.’

Along the well-trodden route from Turkey across the Aegean Sea to Greece, Macedonia to Serbia, into Hungary, Austria and, finally, Germany, there are rising fears that thousands of migrants are blagging their way into Europe as Syrians.

The situation is a huge embarrassment for Mrs Merkel, who wants to force migrant quotas on each EU country, including the UK.

This is rejected as ‘unacceptable’ by Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

In Britain, David Cameron has promised to take 20,000 directly from refugee camps in Syria and neighbouring countries. On Monday he visited a camp in Lebanon to highlight this strategy, intended to stop trafficking gangs from exploiting migrants.

But he was warned by a Syrian minister that two in every 100 people in the camps are ISIS jihadists trying to slip into Europe undetected.

In Berlin, Mohammad and Ismail told me less than a third of migrants in Germany, or on their way there, are from Syria. When I questioned this astonishing claim, they insisted they were right, calling over three friends who had travelled with them, who all said the same.

Concerned about a misunderstanding, although their English is good, I drew a pie chart and asked them to mark on it the percentage of migrants arriving in Germany who are genuinely Syrian.

Mohammad, watched by the others, took my pen and clearly drew a line showing they really did mean 30 per cent. If these young men are right, it makes a laughing stock of Mrs Merkel’s grandiose open-door plan.

Ismail said: ‘In our reception centre there are many, including the three Sudanese girls, who pretend to be from our country. Yet these people have different hair, different faces and speak Arabic in a different accent to us.

‘We first realised back in Turkey, when we waited to get a boat to Lesbos in Greece, migrants from other Arab-speaking countries were claiming to be Syrian,’ he adds.

‘The traffickers were selling them identity cards, either stolen from us Syrians, or faked, ready to show the Germans.’

Trade in these documents — produced by trafficking gangs in forgery factories — is booming.

In the Greek capital Athens, a dealer and people smuggler nicknamed ‘Abu Karem’ (it means generous one) sells Syrian and European passports from a cafe down an alleyway. Some, costing £150 each, are brand new, printed in Bulgaria, and are unlikely to pass muster.

Others, stolen from Syrian migrants, bear official registered numbers and sell for £2,000 or more, ready for their new owner to place a photo inside. Abu Karem’s sales pitch is that these will ‘guarantee’ entry into Austria and then Germany.

As Fabrice Leggeri, head of the European border agency Frontex, last week told French radio: ‘Trafficking in Syrian passports is an extremely lucrative trade for smugglers. People who use them mostly speak Arabic, they may come from Africa or the Middle East, but they have the profile of economic migrants, not refugees.’

He added: ‘A lot have fake Syrian papers because they know they’ll get asylum in the EU more easily.’

Just this week, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees estimated that only half of the 381,000 people who have landed this year in Italy and Greece — the two main entry points for migrants — are Syrian. Others come from all over the Middle East and Africa.

The proportion of genuine Syrians among the migrants drops further as they make their way northwards towards Europe and more pretenders join in.

By the EU border into Hungary, there are Macedonians, Albanians and Bosnians posing as Syrians, too. The bogus Syrians have even been found on the journey memorising street maps of the Syrian capital Damascus to try to fool the German authorities about their nationality when they arrive. Despite being aware of the problem, governments are struggling to combat it.

On Monday, Ivo Kotevski, of the Macedonia Interior Ministry, said: ‘There are so many people travelling through our country that we don’t have the capacity to investigate those with fake documents.
more videos

‘Of the 75,000 who have arrived so far, only 50 have asked for asylum here. They don’t want to stay, but to travel into the EU.’

In Serbia, almost 90 per cent of the 3,000 migrants entering their country from Macedonia each day claim to be Syrian, although most have no documents to prove it.

Miroslav Jovic, a Serbian border official, reports that Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Iraqis deliberately throw away their identity documents in fields or ditches so they can pretend to be Syrians.

In the Serbian capital Belgrade, a local newspaper last week interviewed a young man — Kamal Salah, from Damascus — who was among the hundreds of people waiting to get into neighbouring Hungary.

‘Everyone here says they are Syrian, even those who are obviously not,’ he said. ‘That is not good for us Syrians when we get to Germany, because there must be some limit to the number who get asylum.

‘They are getting away from poverty or want a better life. We are fleeing from war.’

In a further alarming twist, Islamic State has seized a cache of 3,800 blank Syrian passports, with registration numbers, from former Syrian government buildings in Raqqa, the city it now controls.

There are fears these may be used to get ISIS jihadists into Europe pretending to be Syrian refugees.

The other day a dangerous ISIS terrorist, posing as an ‘asylum seeker’, was discovered at a refugee centre in Stuttgart, Germany. The 21-year-old Moroccan — wanted in Spain, where he is accused of recruiting terrorists for ISIS — was using a ‘fake identity’, thought to be Syrian.

And German customs authorities have intercepted packages posted from Bulgaria containing 10,000 fake and stolen Syrian passports, destined to be sold for £1,200 each.

As a smartly dressed German woman, passing by an overwhelmed asylum processing centre in Berlin, said to me pointedly: ‘It seems that everyone wants to be Syrian now.’

Whatever the truth of this, Europe is witnessing the biggest inward migration since World War II.

In the first six months of this year, 450,000 migrants registered with the German authorities.

There were 105,000 asylum applications in August, and 37,000 in the first week of this month. Germany says it expects these to reach a total of 800,000, or even more, by the end of 2015.

And still they try to come. In the age of the internet, social media and mobile phone, Germany’s invitation to Syrians is common knowledge in tea houses across Africa and the Middle East, luring more migrants to set off. Visiting a Berlin asylum processing centre, where she was cheered by migrants, Mrs Merkel promised last week that Germany would give a ‘good future’ to everyone.

It is a far cry from five years ago, when she said a multi-cultural society in Germany had ‘utterly failed’. Now, she tells her citizens: ‘Being a country to which so many want to migrate should be a source of pride.’ The irony is that she’s unlikely to be understood by many migrants, even those who have been in Germany for some time.

Take Syrian Muslim Mohamad Dugmush, once a Damascus restaurant manager, who is struggling to speak German after arriving in February 2014.

Mr Dugmush, in his 40s, moved to Berlin when his asylum application was approved. In July this year, he brought in his wife Amani, their daughter and four young sons.

The family have been allocated a three-room apartment, near the coffee bar where I met Mohammad and his friends in Neukolln, where 40 per cent of residents are of non-German origin.

Mr Dugmush and his wife get more than £500 a month, plus free housing and extra benefits, for their five children. It is far more than he earned in Syria.

‘I live on a street with a German name, which is nicknamed locally as Arab Strasse,’ he told an American TV channel proudly last month. ‘When I go outside, and everyone speaks Arabic, I smile.

‘Near my house, I have a mosque. My wife is wearing a veil. When she goes out, nobody speaks badly to her because she is among Muslims. I feel thankful for Germany.’

As for young Syrian arrivals Mohammad and Ismail, they are already frustrated by the badly over-stretched German migration system. Two days had gone by and they had not been registered as asylum seekers, although a charity worker was — bizarrely — assigned to take them on a tour of the city.

Back at the Neukolln coffee bar, the two again complain that Germany’s generosity to Syrians is being exploited.

Ismail tells me: ‘Today the Berlin officials came to our centre and asked a Lebanese migrant, who was pretending to be Syrian from Aleppo, if he could name any street in that city. He ran off, he could not answer. He still plans to claim asylum.

‘We are now worried that these cheats will make the asylum queues longer for us. If they behave badly, it will tarnish the image of real Syrians needing help here.’

Outside their reception centre, the balloons put up by the welcoming party hang limply from the lamp-posts. Word has come that Saudi Arabia is offering to finance the building of 200 mosques in Germany to cater for the new generations of Muslims.

One can only wonder if the spirits of ordinary Berliners will deflate like those balloons when they realise what Mrs Merkel has done in their name.

SOURCE






Purging America's Heroes

With that kumbayah moment at the Capitol in South Carolina, when the Battle Flag of the Confederacy was lowered forever to the cheers and tears of all, a purgation of the detestable relics of evil that permeate American public life began.

City leaders in Memphis plan to dig up the body of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who is buried in a city park that once bore his name. A statue of the great cavalrymen will be removed.

"Nathan Bedford Forrest is a symbol of bigotry and racism, and those symbols have no place on public property," said council chairman Myron Lowery, "What we're doing here in Memphis is no different from what's happening across the country." Myron's got that right.

Panicky Democrats are terminating their tradition of Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners, as both presidents were slaveholders.

Other slaveholders include Presidents George Washington, James Madison, who authored the Constitution that equated slaves with 3/5ths of a person, James Monroe, of Monroe Doctrine fame, John Tyler, who annexed Texas, and James K. Polk, who tore off half of Mexico.

Jefferson, Jackson and Madison are also the names of the state capitals of Missouri, Mississippi and Wisconsin, and Washington is the capital of the United States. Is it not time to change the names of these cities to honor more women and minorities who better reflect our glorious new diversity?

Washington, Jefferson and Jackson are on the $1, $2 and $20 bills. Ought they not all be replaced?

In Baltimore and Annapolis, calls are heard for the removal of statues of Chief Justice Roger Taney of the Dred Scott decision. In Fairfax County, Virginia, J.E.B. Stuart High may be headed for a name change. Can George Washington and Washington-Lee, rivals of my old high school, be far behind?

But it is Statuary Hall, beneath the cupola of the U.S. Capitol, where each state is represented by statues of two of its greatest, that really requires a Memphis-style moral cleansing.

Mississippi is represented by Jefferson Davis and Georgia by Alexander Stephens, the president and vice president of the Confederacy; South Carolina by John C. Calhoun, who called slavery a "positive good," and Confederate Gen. Wade Hampton.

Kentucky is represented by slave owner Henry Clay; Florida by Confederate Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith; North Carolina by Confederate colonel and Civil War governor Zebulon Vance; Texas by Stephen Austin and Sam Houston who seceded from Mexico to create a slave republic that joined the United States as a slave state in 1845.

Utah is represented by Brigham Young, founder of a Mormon faith that declared black people unfit to belong; Virginia by Robert E. Lee and Washington. California is represented by a statue of Fr. Junipero Serra, who established the missions that became the cities of California and converted and disciplined pagan Indians to Christianity.

Among the men revered by the generations that grew up in mid-20th-century America, five categories seem destined for execration:

Explorers like Columbus who conquered the indigenous peoples. Slave owners from 1619 to 1865. Statesmen, military leaders, and all associated with the Confederacy. All involved in the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Native-Americans, like Gens. William Sherman and Phil Sheridan who said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian," and acted on that maxim.

Lastly, segregationists. There is a move afoot to take the name of Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia, an opponent of civil rights laws, off the Senate Office Building to which it has been affixed for 40 years.

As there are thousands of schools, streets, highways, buildings, towns and cities that bear the names of these old heroes and men like them, the purging is going to take decades. Yet, make no mistake, a Great Purge of American heroes of yesteryear is at hand.

What did all those named above, who would be Class-A war criminals at the Southern Poverty Law Center, have in common?

All were white males. All achieved greatly. All believed that the people whence they came were superior and possessed of a superior faith, Christianity, and hence fit to rule what Rudyard Kipling called the "lesser breeds without the Law."

Acting on a belief in their racial, religious and cultural superiority, they created the greatest nation on earth. And people who got in their way were shoved aside, subjugated, repressed and ruled.

As for the Confederates of the Lost Cause, they yielded to superior force only after four years of fighting, but their battle flag has ever after been seen as a banner of rebellion, bravery and defiance.

And those tearing down the battle flags, and dumping over the monuments and statues, and sandblasting the names off buildings and schools, what have they ever accomplished?

They inherited the America these men built, but are ashamed at how it was built. And now they watch paralyzed as the peoples of the Third World, whom their grandfathers ruled, come to dispossess them of the patrimony for which they feel so guilty.

The new barbarians will make short work of them.

SOURCE






Army Soldier ‘Kicked to the Curb’ From Restaurant for Having Service Dog

A soldier who served more than three decades in the U.S. Army and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was denied service at a restaurant for having a service dog.

CBS Chicago reported that Maj. Diggs Brown, who served in Afghanistan and returned home with PTSD, attempted to eat breakfast with his service dog Arthur at Cochon Volant during a weekend in Chicago, Illinois. He was asked to leave.

“When my service dog and I walked in, the hostess took us to the table, and the young lady named Hannah, she said you can’t have a dog in the restaurant,” Brown recalled. “I kept my cool and I said you know it’s the American Disabilities Act. This is my service dog, he can go wherever I go, it’s the law. So I was seated, placed my order then Hannah came over again and said I have to leave. I said it’s my service dog and she said I don’t care, you need to leave, we don’t have dogs in the restaurant. I could go to the Department of Justice with this if we continue down this path.”

Embarrassed, Brown returned to his home in Fort Collins, Colorado, and posted to his Facebook account on Sept. 12 that he and Arthur, his service dog of two-and-a-half years, had been “kicked to the curb.”

“I posted to my Facebook page, this is what happened to me and it went viral,” Brown explained. “The manager of the restaurant then called me personally and then emailed me apologizing.”

The restaurant followed with its own post to Facebook, apologizing for the “unfortunate situation” and deeming it “not a true representation of our company policy.” The restaurant claimed to be conducting an internal review and said it would make donations to Puppies Behind Bars and Colorado Disabled Veterans.

Brown credited the restaurant for its response.

“It’s not my intent to destroy a restaurant, but it is my intent to make them aware that they have violated a law that not only affects veterans with dogs, but other people with disabilities with service laws and that they need to be aware that it’s discrimination,” the soldier explained.

“They’ve stepped up to the plate and they are going to make some changes at the restaurant so I’m happy in my mind that it is resolved,” Brown added.

As for Hannah, the restaurant worker who refused to serve him, Brown said he hopes that she would not be fired for not understanding the law.

“She just needed to be educated. That’s the restaurant’s discretion,” Brown said.

Brown said that the incident represented the first time he was denied service because of Arthur, whom he credits with saving his life.

“He does a lot of things. He wakes me up from nightmares when I have them. When I have anxiety attacks, he calms me down. He saved my life and I’m even off the drugs,” Brown said.

SOURCE






UK: Welfare claimants are deliberately failing interviews by wearing shellsuits and giving 'high fives' so they don't have to work, claims care home boss


Shellsuits

Benefits claimants are deliberately behaving ridiculously in job interviews because they don't want to get off the dole, according to a small business boss.

Care home manager Shaun Drury says that many of the unemployed people he has interviewed have turned up in a shellsuit, given him high fives and spoken in one-word sentences.

The job-seekers' performance has in some cases been so weak that he has concluded they are looking for an excuse to avoid giving up their benefits.

Unemployed people must sign up for job interviews even if they don't actually want to work, because otherwise they face having their handouts withdrawn.

Job centres offer interview coaching to ensure that those looking for work know how to conduct themselves in a professional environment.

But Mr Drury - the general manager at Quality Lifestyle Ltd in Plymouth, Devon - said: 'The problem is that many of them, in my experience, don't actually want a job.

'They turn up in shellsuits, high-five you like the comedy character Ali G, or express themselves in mono-syllabic non-sequiturs so that even the most desperate employer wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. 'And that's even if they bother to turn up.

'No one seems to notice, or care, if the supposed job-seeker submits an intentionally dreadful application guaranteed to ensure he won't even be short-listed or he simply fails to turn up for interview.'

If job centres conclude that claimants are not actively seeking employment, they can have their £112-a-week Jobseeker's Allowance removed.

However, Mr Drury insisted that employees just 'tick a box' without checking whether employees turned up to interviews or how they performed.  He added that he had heard them discuss going on luxury holidays and using their benefits to buy new cars.

'I've heard them boasting about their lifestyle and saying they've every right to spend their money however they like as they've saved up,' he said.

'All that lounging about is an expensive hobby, at least for the rest of us who pay for it.'

Sarah Ball, an employment engagement officer at the Plymouth JobCentre, said of the claims: 'We would take people's word for it [that they have attended interviews].  'But it wouldn't be left that they would be continually failing at interviews.

'If an employer has a complaint we would welcome that. I cannot recollect this employer contacting us with feedback.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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






16 September, 2015

Rural anger as militant vegan MP who dubbed livestock farming 'dirty and cruel' is the British Left's spokesperson on farming

How to lose both the farming vote and the meat-eating vote.  Do these guys WANT to win elections?

A vegan who has attacked livestock farming as ‘dirty and cruel’ has been appointed to connect with Britain’s farmers as spokesman for the environment, food and rural affairs.

Bristol East MP Kerry McCarthy says farming causes ‘immense suffering to animals’, and has condemned the ‘burden’ placed on the NHS by those who eat meat and dairy products.

Her views will no doubt please vegetarian boss Jeremy Corbyn, but will infuriate farmers – who last night called her appointment a ‘retrograde step’.

The 50-year-old, who has been a vegan for more than 20 years, refuses to wear leather or wool and is the vice president of the League Against Cruel Sports.

She has campaigned against all ‘shooting sports’ and opposed the badger cull – which was demanded by many farmers to stop the spread of bovine TB.

‘The meat, dairy and egg industries cause immense suffering to more than a billion animals every year in the UK alone,’ she has said.

She has also accused farmers of causing world hunger by using crops to feed livestock rather than people.

Last night Mike King, vice chairman of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers, said: ‘We feel this is a retrograde step. Her ideals are based on emotion rather than scientific fact.

‘It ignores mixed farming’s contribution to producing a healthy, balanced, nutritious diet. It also ignores the huge contribution of family farming towards a sustainable rural economy.’

On the effects of ‘top killers’ meat and dairy products, Miss McCarthy previously said: ‘Loaded with artery-clogging cholesterol and saturated fat, these products have been linked to cancer, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and obesity.

‘These top killers burden the NHS and necessitate that billions of pounds be spent searching for cures and medications to relieve disease symptoms.’

The National Farmers’ Union yesterday gave her a lukewarm welcome. President Meurig Raymond said: ‘We look forward to working with Kerry McCarthy MP in her new role as shadow Defra Secretary.’

But he added: ‘The food and farming industry employs more than 3.8million people and agriculture contributed nearly £10billion to the economy between 2008 and 2014.

‘These are just two statistics which highlight the importance of backing British farming. We would like to invite Ms McCarthy to pledge her support to the NFU’s Back British Farming campaign.’

Ukip’s agriculture spokesman Stuart Agnew said: ‘Only Jeremy Corbyn could select a vegan to represent the Labour Party on agricultural matters.

'Kerry McCarthy will have little in common with either the producers or consumers of food.’

SOURCE






Office Depot Retreats from Refusal to Print Pro-Life Prayer it Said Was ‘Hate Material’

Office Depot has retreated from its refusal to make 500 copies of a flyer featuring a pro-life prayer—that calls for the conversion of Planned Parenthood—that was written by a Catholic priest.

The company had initially refused to make the copies, according to a letter written by a lawyer for Office Depot, because language in the prayer “falls within the definition of ‘graphic material’ and/or ‘hate material’” under the company’s internal policy.

Office Depot’s reversal came after a lawyer for the Thomas More Society, a nonprofit law firm, sent the company a letter arguing it had “unlawfully discriminated” against Maria Goldstein, the customer who had asked that it print the flyers.

The prayer was written by Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life.  “Bring an end to the killing of children in the womb, and bring an end to the sale of their body parts,” says part of the prayer, which was printed in full on the flyer.

“Bring conversion to all who do this, and enlightenment to all who advocate it,” says the prayer. “Close the doors of the death camps in our midst, and open the doors of your mercy and healing! Close the grisly trade in body parts. And open the abundant gifts of your salvation and life.”

As explained in a Sept. 10 letter that Thomas Olp of the Thomas More Society sent to Office Depot CEO Roland C. Smith, customer Goldstein had asked the company’s Schaumburg, Ill, store to make 500 copies of a flyer featuring this prayer.

“We believe that by allowing and ratifying your employees’ refusal to serve Ms. Goldstein because of their hostility to and disagreement with her flyer, you have unlawfully discriminated against Ms. Goldstein because of her religion and religious expression within the meaning of the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance and Illinois Human Rights Act,” Olp said in his letter to Office Depot CEO Smith.

The company explained its decision in a letter its assistant general counsel, Robert A. Amicone, sent Olp on Sept. 11.

“You also say that [the flyer] is ‘religious throughout in tone and content’ and ‘contains a prayer’ seeking an end to abortion,” said the Office Depot attorney in this letter. “You do not mention, however, certain language within the prayer that discusses ‘the killing of children in the womb’ and ‘the grisly trade in baby body parts.’

“Nor do you address the strong language presumably condemning those who perform and obtain abortions,” said the Office Depot letter. “Indeed, the prayer characterizes those individuals as ‘evil,’ and it advocates for the closure of the ‘death camps in our midst.’ It is this type of language that led to the decision to refuse you client’s copying request.”

“There are two provisions [of the company’s policy] applicable to this dispute,” explained the lawyer. “The first prohibits the copying of ‘graphic material,’ which can include descriptions of dead or dismembered bodies. The second provision prohibits the copying of ‘hate material’ that advocates for the persecution of groups of people, regardless of the reason.”

Goldstein’s flyer did not contain any illustrations—and called for the “conversion,” not persecution, of those who advocate aborting unborn children.

As reported by Lifenews.com, however, before the end of the day Friday Office Depot had reversed its position and apologized for its initial refusal to print the flyers.

“Upon a more detailed review, we have determined that the content of Ms. Goldstein’s flyer is not a clear violation of the company’s policy,” said a statement from Office Depot spokeswoman Karen Denning published by Lifenews.com.

The statement included an apology from Office Depot CEO Smith.

“We sincerely apologize to Ms. Goldstein for her experience and our initial reaction was not at all related to her religious beliefs,” he said. “We invite her to return to Office Depot if she still wishes to print her flyer.”

SOURCE







Marine Corps Study: Male Combat Units Safer, More Efficient and Lethal Than Mixed-Gender Units

According to a study produced by a special task force of the United States Marine Corps, a combat unit comprised of both males and females is a much less effective fighting force than a unit comprised entirely of men.

The study, “The Marine Corps Force Integration Plan,” found that the mixed-gender unit was injured twice as often as an all-male unit, was less accurate with infantry weapons, and was less efficient at removing wounded troops from the battlefield. A summary of the study was released September 10.

The research for the study was conducted over nine months at both Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Twentynine Palms, Calif. 400 Marines, including 100 women, volunteered to join a special unit, the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, which was created to evaluate how men and women compare in a combat environment.

All-male ground combat units clearly outperformed mixed-gender units. The study reported the following findings in its summary:

*    Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews. Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events.

*    Speed All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS [Military Occupational Specialty], were faster than the gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew-served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-served weapons and ammunition.

*    Lethality: All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

*    Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%.

*    All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

*    All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties.

The military has a January 2016 deadline to open all combat jobs to women, but the services can ask for exceptions to the order.

SOURCE






Refugee crisis: treating Hungary as a Heart of Darkness

Frank Furedi

With no hint of irony, Western observers defend Syrian refugees while demonising Eastern Europeans

The tragic refugee crisis engulfing the world has been seized upon by culture warriors as an opportunity to moralise against and discredit various targets of their opprobrium. The tendency to dehumanise migrants has been widely noted in the media. But what is rarely questioned is the way the refugee issue is being used as an opportunity to demean the moral status of others too, especially Eastern Europeans, and Hungarians in particular.

According to sections of the Western European press, the people who inhabit the Eastern part of this continent have failed to adopt the civilised and enlightened values of the EU. Commenting on this ‘East-West split’ in relation to migration, an editorial in the Guardian condemned Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia for supporting Hungary’s rejection of the EU plan for national migrant quotas. As far as this editorial is concerned, Eastern Europeans, particularly Hungarians, inhabit a different moral universe to that of the EU; it contrasts the ‘generous-spirited, pan-European approach’ of the EU to the ‘awful’, mean-spirited policies of Hungary.

Considering recent events, it is clearly an act of bad faith for an editorial in a London-based newspaper to enthuse about a ‘generous-spirited, pan-European approach’ to refugees. The UK government’s response in recent months has been to build fences in Calais and police the Eurotunnel, in order to keep out the ‘swarm’ of refugees. It seems that when a Western European government builds a fence to protect its borders, it’s a gesture of generosity; but when Hungary does something similar, it’s an act of unparalleled depravity.

At least the Guardian made a distinction between the government of Hungary and the people of Hungary. Thankfully, it doesn’t cast every Hungarian in the role of xenophobic monster. That’s more than can be said of Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent for the Independent. In his historically illiterate anti-Hungarian diatribe, he draws an analogy between the behaviour of Hungarians towards refugees today and the horrific experience of the victims of the Holocaust. He mobilises references to how Hungarian police forced ‘tens of thousands of Jews on to trains out of Budapest, desperate to get them to Auschwitz on time’ to imply that 21st-century Hungarians are engaged in an act of virtual genocide.

However one interprets events in Budapest over the past week, it is a malign distortion to draw a moral equivalence with what happened during the Holocaust. As someone of Hungarian-Jewish heritage who lost most of his family in the Holocaust, I find Fisk’s casual references to the dark days of 1944 a cheap manipulation of historical memory. The only connection between recent events in Budapest and what happened in 1944 is that trains were involved in both cases. Sealed wagons steaming towards concentration camps should not be confused with trains sitting stationary in a Budapest railway station. Even Fisk should get that.

This ‘multiple award-winning’ journalist’s inability to make a distinction between the impulse to control the movement of people, or keep migrants out, and the wilful policy of human extermination is symptomatic of the moral malaise afflicting EU cheerleaders today. It appears that trivialising the Holocaust is okay if it is in the service of a noble cause.

What’s particularly disturbing about Fisk’s polemic against Hungary is the tone it adopts towards the Hungarian people. ‘And don’t think that Hungarians were unwilling tools of Germany’s march into Hungary towards the end of the war’, he writes. The implication is that this is a people who are morally inferior to the rest of Europe. So when denouncing Hungary and its Christian culture, Fisk places quote marks around the word ‘culture’, clearly calling into question the legitimacy of this nation’s traditions and beliefs. Without a hint of irony, he attacks Hungarians for their racism but never reflects on how he himself dehumanises this people.

He also shows a remarkable level of ignorance about Hungarian history and culture. He finds it difficult to comprehend why Hungarian patriots look back on their nation’s occupation by the Ottoman Empire with ‘extreme distaste’. Yet one need not be a patriot to recall the historic significance of the Ottoman occupation of Hungary. The loss of national independence to a foreign empire is imprinted in Hungary’s historical psyche. The wars fought in the sixteenth century to regain Hungarian self-rule serve as a reminder that national independence cannot be taken for granted. Subsequent occupations of Hungary by a variety of empires have reinforced the nation’s sensitivity to the dictates of foreign powers.

At times, Fisk comes across like a modern-day personification of Kurtz in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. At the start of that novel, Kurtz believes he can help primitive Africans see the light and become civilised. However, he soon gives up on this project and sees only depravity and darkness. Perhaps a few years ago, Fisk also believed that the much-damaged and, in his words, ‘politically unreconstructed’ nations of Eastern Europe could be educated to become worthy members of the EU. He laments that, ‘I always thought we were a bit too quick to open our arms to them’. But now ‘we are beginning to discover what the Hungarian state looks like’ – that is, we see the Heart of Darkness that is Hungary.

Fisk is selective about who we should open our arms to. He believes ‘we were a bit quick to open our arms to’ Hungarians, but it is okay to open our arms to his chosen people – Syrian refugees. Double standards and raw hostility towards cultures whose values do not have the EU bureaucracy’s approval indicate that spiteful prejudice can even emerge in the newspaper offices of ‘enlightened’ Western capitals. Those who want to argue for a generous and humane approach to refugees should do so by drawing on the moral resources provided by Enlightenment values. They must eschew dishonest analogies with historical tragedies, ethnocentric biases towards the people of Eastern Europe, and the double standards that continue to distort this crisis.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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




15 September, 2015

Britain's deranged animal welfare charity again

Like PETA in America, it has no compunction about killing animals it is supposed to be caring for.  It has got into the hands of Leftist animal rights types, whose real motivation is hatred for people

The RSPCA ordered the killing of 11 healthy horses after they were rescued from appalling conditions, despite the fact some could have been rehomed, a Mail on Sunday investigation can reveal.

Astonishingly, Britain's largest animal charity had the horses shot – but went on to claim thousands of pounds for stabling expenses as well as veterinary bills for animals which were already dead, leaked documents show.

The scandal is the latest in a series of controversies to engulf the charity, which critics say has lost sight of its core mission to protect animals.

In total, 12 out of 14 horses were killed after being 'signed over' to the ownership of the RSPCA when they were rescued from a farm in Lancashire in March 2013, raising fears that it is now the charity's policy to kill large numbers of such horses.

Our investigation revealed that:

    Four were put down shortly after being rescued from the farm, despite veterinary assessments diagnosing them with no life-threatening conditions.

    Most were killed after they were assessed by a vet as being 'bright, alert and responsive'.

    Of 14 horses signed over to the RSPCA's care, only two were rehomed – the rest dispatched by a slaughterman's bullet.

    A mare was shot on arrival after breaking its leg while being transported to a 'rescue yard' by the RSPCA.

    The charity then claimed £200,000 in prosecution costs, which included more than £10,000 in spurious stabling charges, but later withdrew the claim, blaming an administrative error.

    In several cases, the charity claimed more than 100 days' costs for stabling some of the horses – although they were already dead.

An independent vet who has seen the evidence in our disturbing dossier confirmed none of the horses' conditions justified euthanasia.

Even the man who shot the horses for the RSPCA told the MoS: 'Some of those horses could have been rehomed, but I was told I wasn't allowed to. I could have rehomed four of them.'

Last night the RSPCA insisted the horses had 'no realistic prospect of being rehomed' at the time, yet the MoS saw ample evidence that horse-lovers were desperate to give the animals a loving home.

Last week in an online chat forum for the Arab Horse Society, one member told how, after repeated enquiries to the RSPCA, she was told no information could be given about the horses because of the Data Protection Act.

And a woman describing herself as a previous owner of one of the horses wrote that she intended to write to the RSPCA although she feared 'my poor mare is long gone'.

Another user wrote: 'Is there a suggestion that the RSPCA have destroyed horses who could have recovered with good care and decent food? Something truly stinks in this whole case.'

In all, 31 horses and seven dogs were removed from the farm of project manager Rachelle Peel, near Clitheroe.

No caring person would question the RSPCA's intentions in rescuing the animals or prosecuting their owner. Six dead horses and skeletons were found around the fields at Brookhouse Green Farm and horses and dogs were found in filthy conditions.

After a lengthy trial, Peel, 56, was convicted of four offences of animal neglect. The court heard the animals' welfare had suffered after her husband was diagnosed with dementia and she was fined £2,200 with £8,000 costs at Blackburn Magistrates' Court earlier this month.

But it is what happened in the days following the raid on the farm – and particularly the fate of the 14 horses which Peel 'signed over' ownership of to the RSPCA – which will raise serious concern among animal lovers.

Only two horses were rehomed. The rest were dispatched by the slaughterman's bullet after, according to the RSPCA, 'assessing the welfare and temperament of the horses and the likelihood of them being able to be rehomed, given that over 800 equines in the RSPCA's care at that time were also needing new homes'.

The first to die, a mare named Taz, broke her leg while being driven to the livery stables in Whenby, North Yorkshire, run by Adrian Cooper Wilson, 54.  She was shot by Mr Wilson after her injury was discovered shortly before midnight on the day of the raid.

Mr Wilson, who describes himself on his website as an 'animal communicator, healer and reiki master' – but fails to mention he is also a licensed slaughterman – then shot ten more of the horses within a month. The last to die, a bay Arab gelding called Pip, was despatched on June 26.

Yet when the case came to trial this year, the RSPCA initially tried to claim more than £200,000 in costs from Peel. They submitted hundreds of documents in support of their claim, suggesting either spectacular incompetence or something worse.

The example of one horse, Cresh, a 16-year-old grey Arab stallion, shows a pattern repeated over and over.

All the horses were taken to stables approved by the RSPCA. On arrival at the Equine Support Centre in Whenby run by Mr Wilson, Cresh was examined by a vet with seven other horses, four days after arriving.

On an official form, the vet described the horse's condition as: 'BAR [bright, alert, responsive], quiet. Unshod, slight splaying, overgrowth on all 4 feet. Rainscald [a skin disease caused by bacteria] over dorsum [upper side].' The diagnosis was not ideal, but treatable.

It added: 'Feet need trimming, passport note to say mechanically lame after hoof injury in 2005.'

Cresh was given wormer and other treatment, with a charge of £65.70. But the next day he was shot by Cooper Wilson, who told the court he was 'ordered' to do so by the RSPCA.

But while Cresh's stabling lasted just five days, the RSPCA Animal Welfare Database claimed he had been stabled for 106 days, at a charge of £13.20 a day, totalling £1,399.20.

The RSPCA documents also contained another claim for worming treatment for Cresh, costing £16.44, supposedly dispensed on August 13 – almost five months after Cresh had been killed. The total in the documents we have seen for false stabling charges alone is well over £10,000.

The RSPCA said there was a 'difference of opinion' with Mr Wilson about the suitability for rehoming of the horses he didn't want to shoot.

When we showed our dossier to Norfolk vet Colin Vogel, who has frequently testified in defence cases against the RSPCA, he said: 'The contemporaneous notes do not suggest any of the horses had a veterinary problem that required euthanasia. Two horses were difficult to handle, but that is a completely different matter.

'Horses had overgrown feet that were not causing lameness, but that would not justify euthanasia.'

During the court case, another vet, Peter Green, appearing as an expert witness on behalf of the RSPCA, expressed surprise at the case of Midge, the second horse to die, who according to the RSPCA vet was 'very hard to handle'.

Mr Green told the court: 'I am surprised Midge was killed in the way she was.' The RSPCA was accused in court of trying to keep the death of the horses secret – even during the trial.

An internal spreadsheet was repeatedly exhibited, but a column showing that the horses had been put to sleep (PTS) was not shown until midway through the trial after much questioning about the fate of the horses.

In her notebook, RSPCA inspector Kat Hamblin, 36, who had led the original raid to rescue the animals, refers to a telephone call on March 28 with the centre where horses Heron, Pip and Anna were sent: 'Doing ok. Their vet has also examined. Unsure of rehoming prospects for HS9 [Anna] as grumpy temperament.' Five days later, Heron and Anna were shot. Miss Hamblin also told Peel's solicitor in May 2013, when 11 of the 12 signed over animals were dead, that the animals were 'improving in our care'.

Challenged in court, she said she was referring to animals owned by the family which had not been signed over to the RSPCA.

The RSPCA said the 'erroneous' stabling fees were due to an 'administrative error'. It added: 'When the error was highlighted… [the RSPCA] decided not to make a claim for any boarding fees... The care of animals rescued by the RSPCA is of utmost importance to us.'

And the invoices from Howells Veterinary Services in Easingwold were 'allocated to the incorrect horses due to an administrative error' said the charity, on the firm's behalf. An RSPCA spokesman added yesterday: 'The accusation that the RSPCA tried to keep the fate of the horses secret is strongly refuted.

'The inspector was cross-examined on her conversation on March 28 with the Peels and explained under oath that her comments related to the animals still owned by the Peels. The issue referred to about the spreadsheets was also fully dealt with at the trial.'

The spokesman added: 'In his judgment, District Judge Clarke commented, 'This was an expansive investigation and the amounts of records and documentary evidence was huge. Record keeping was not perfect and some documents were not retained as they should have been. I am not satisfied that there was any bad faith in this investigation, merely shortcomings and human error.' '

Last night, Tory MP Sir Edward Garnier called for an inquiry into the revelations, adding: 'The RSPCA needs to provide all the documents relating to these shootings and they need to provide a full, frank and urgent explanation.'

Mrs Peel's daughter Evie, 20, who was not implicated in the neglect, said: 'When I found out during the trial that so many of the rescued horses had been shot by the RSPCA and looked through the documents I was horrified.'

SOURCE






Do aliens think humans are SEXIST? Experts debate whether pictures sent into space on Pioneer 10 spacecraft make women look 'submissive'

With recreational space travel an ever closer possibility, you might expect a discussion at the British Science Festival to involve the prospects of colonising the Moon or Mars.

But for one group of scientists there were more pressing matters – whether images we have already ‘sent’ to aliens reflect gender equality.

In a bizarre discussion, a group of scientists said that already-existing pictures that have been put in space to educate aliens about how we look should be updated.

A 1972 plaque on the Pioneer 10 spacecraft displayed a picture of a nude man and woman, hoping to educate our extraterrestrial friends about what humans look like.

But experts have now claimed the image is outdated and shows ‘a man raising his hand in a very manly fashion’ while the woman appears ‘meek and submissive’.

Dr Jill Stuart, an expert in the ‘politics of outer space’ at the London School of Economics, also called for more ‘diversity’ in messages aimed at aliens.

She pointed out the figures in the 1972 image were both white and said she was ‘uncomfortable’ sending out Western-centric pictures.

 She added: ‘We really need to rethink that with any messages we are sending out now. Attitudes have changed so much in just 40 years.

‘I would be uncomfortable with sending out any images or messages that include Western-dominated material.’

The idea to send an updated message to aliens was proposed by UK SETI Research Network – a group of academics across various universities and research centres who are actively on the hunt for extraterrestrial life.

It was their idea as part of a competition founded by Russian billionaire Yuri Milner. His Breakthrough Initiative is a 100million dollar project to listen for alien communications, with a one million dollar prize up for grabs for the best idea for a message.

Not all SETI members, however, are keen about sending messages. Some fear they might attract the ‘wrong kind of alien’.

Anders Sandberg of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford – part of the SETI group – told The Guardian: ‘The thinking was that the silence in the skies might be because alien civilisations are hiding from us, and that it might be stupid to attract attention.’

Dr Sandberg admitted that ‘we don’t know if any aliens out there have eyes’, so any images could in fact be useless.

The 43-year-old Swedish-born space expert added that the nearest star that could hold life is ten light years away – meaning it could take up to 200 years to hear back from any other life forms.

SOURCE






Men are the REAL oppressed sex today

By Amanda Platell

One minute Charlotte Proudman was an unknown 27-year-old barrister finishing a PhD on female genital mutilation and the law. The next she was at the centre of a global media storm, hailed a martyr by the sisterhood and a ‘Feminazi’ by her many detractors.

Ms Proudman believes she has given a voice to women in the battle of the sexes and will not be silenced. Well, she certainly does not speak for me — nor for any women I know, young or old.

Her supposed male oppressor has been labelled a sexist dinosaur but, in truth, it is Ms Proudman who is stuck in the ancient past.

She is fighting old feminist battles that women of my age fought — and won — decades ago.

If she’s truly concerned about gender inequality in today’s world then she should take a long, hard look at the facts, which suggest that it is men, not women, who are struggling in almost every area of life.

There are now more young female graduates in law and medicine than male. More women than ever are starting up their own businesses.

Girls did better than boys in their most recent GCSE exams, and a higher percentage of females are now going to university.

Full-time working women earn more than men until their mid-30s, when they take time off to have children. (Their choice, incidentally, not a misogynist conspiracy.)

By contrast, the most under-performing group of people in our society today are boys and young men.

They are more likely to be illiterate, to attempt suicide, to take drugs and to be excluded from mainstream education.

But then I suspect Proudman and her fellow militant harpies aren’t interested in equality for men and women, but in female supremacy.

I’m only surprised she hasn’t changed her name to Charlotte Proudperson.

SOURCE






FL Pro-Life Activist: If Gay Pride Flag Can Fly Over City Hall, So Can Pro-Life Flag

For the second year in a row, a Florida activist is asking his mayor to fly a pro-life flag at City Hall.

Scott Mahurin is president of Florida Preborn Rescue, a pro-life group in St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg mayor Rick Kriseman has flown the gay pride flag at City Hall on two different days over the last two years to honor St. Pete Pride, a month-long gay festival in the city. In the name of “true diversity” Mahurin is petitioning to fly a pro-life flag on the same grounds.

Mayor Kriseman has turned down Mahurin's request both years.

The mayor's office did not respond to a request for comment from CNS News. Mahurin offered the following statement:

"For two consecutive years, St Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman has raised the gay pride flag over City Hall. Both times, he has spoken eloquently about St Petersburg’s commitment to diversity and tolerance. In 2014, for example, he said, “We are a city of diversity, of inclusion and a city of tolerance. Everyone is welcome.”

On September 5, 2014, I wrote to the mayor and asked him to fly the pro-life flag as a commitment to diversity. I asked him to raise it during the 40 Days for Life campaign which was to begin September 24. I received no response from the mayor or his office. I also enclosed a petition, circulated online with 150 signatures from across the country, made 20 phone calls, and six email requests, but none of them were returned or dignified with a single, solitary comment.

In June of this year, I went before the St. Petersburg City Council and asked them for a response. I received none. In July of this year, I went before the St Petersburg City Council again, with several other citizens who spoke about the pro-life flag and the need for the mayor to at least respond to our request.

The mayor did make an appearance at this meeting briefly. He told us that he had responded (or someone from his office) when I can assure you, he has not. In fact, his staff has taken to social media to ridicule our cause. So, we are beginning again with the petition. True diversity involves a willingness to allow for differing opinions.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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





14 September, 2015

Incredibly evil British social workers again

More use of bureaucratic power to inflict hurt and distress

A mother has won back her newborn son after social workers who 'disliked her from the outset' took him away when he was just three hours old.

The woman's baby was put into care for seven months amid concerns for the child's welfare.  But the young boy has now been returned to his mother after a court ruled he had been taken away 'on the basis of unsubstantiated and frankly incorrect information'.

According to the Daily Record, Sheriff Elizabeth McFarlane said social worker Caroline Ferrier gave 'confused and confusing' evidence as she tried to justify her actions.

But she added that Ms Ferrier had clearly 'disliked the mother from the outset'.

North Ayrshire Council has now apologised to the mother. But the woman - who cannot be named for legal reasons - said she is still struggling to bond with her child as a result of the furore.

She told the Irvine Herald: 'They snatched him from my arms three hours after he was born by Caesarean and said I wasn't allowed to feed him.

'I feel utterly harassed. They said I was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. That was a lie.

'My dad tried to take his own life the night my son was born too – the situation was utterly unbearable. And they did it all just because they didn't like me.'

A child protection order was granted at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court after the social workers took him into their care last year.

But the order was overturned at a later hearing after Sheriff McFarlane described the evidence as 'confused and, in some parts, plainly wrong.'  Sheriff McFarlane, who said the case was 'alarming', added that she was 'extremely concerned' about the answers Ferrier gave the court.

She said: 'I formed the clear impression that Mrs Ferrier had disliked (the mother) from the outset and had not taken the necessary steps to fully investigate previous allegations about her.

'Information presented was at best mistaken and at worst complete fabrication.'

Sheriff McFarlane also said that an unnamed social worker may have committed perjury.

The baby was finally given back to his mother just before Christmas last year.

North Ayrshire Council reportedly told the woman in a letter that Ferrier and another social worker no longer worked for them. The letter apologised and said the conduct 'did not mirror the professional standards expected of them as social workers'. 

A council spokesman said they could not comment on individual cases but added that it had 'robust policies and practices' in place.

'We are working closely with staff and partner agencies to reinforce these. We would reassure service users and their families that each client's case is subject to regular review,' they said.

'If poor or inappropriate practice is uncovered, the council will always take swift action to address this.'

Ferrier was suspended from social work in July while the Scottish Social Services Council investigates.

SOURCE






Leftist hate

Police in Washington state are searching for two anarchists who attacked an Air Force officer with mace and a baseball bat after a protest got out of hand.

During the protest Sept. 5, the officer was forced to stop his motorcycle by a group of anarchists, Air Force Times reports. Upon seeing that there were two confederate flags on his motorcycle, two men dressed in black and camouflage clothing jumped forward and sprayed the officer in the face with mace. They also used a baseball bat to hit him in the back. A bystander tried to intervene and help the officer, but the bystander was also sprayed with mace.

The name of the officer, who is a pilot from Joint Base Lewis-McChord, is not being released at this time. He suffered eye irritation and bruises on his shoulder and back from the baseball bat.

The so-called peaceful protest also resulted in major damage to city hall in Olympia, Wash. Olympia police stated that while people have the right to speech under the First Amendment, the message of hatred spread at the event lead to violence against person and property.

Police said that the hate group is known locally as the “anarchists” and the two males who assaulted the officer are reportedly both approximately 6 feet 4 inches tall.

SOURCE





Atheist Group Says Football Team Chaplains at Public Universities Are Unconstitutional

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist group, has sent a report to public universities claiming that providing chaplains to their football teams is unconstitutional.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a non-profit legal organization that advocates religious liberty, sent letters to universities in response to the atheist group’s claim.

“Public universities should be commended, not attacked, for making chaplains available to student athletes who want them, especially since hectic team travel schedules often prevent students from participating in weekend worship services,” ADF Legal Counsel Travis Barham said in a statement.

“Simply making these chaplains available does not somehow mean the schools are unconstitutionally endorsing any particular religion or even religion in general. The universities should simply ignore these unfounded demands from anti-religious groups, especially since the courts have upheld similar chaplain programs in a wide variety of other contexts for decades.”

SOURCE





Black lives don't matter:  To blacks

Thomas Sowell

“What’s painfully tragic already, and it’s going to get worse if it continues, is this notion that only black lives matter, because black lives are the ones that are being lost, more so than any other lives, in this great crusade against the police. Just the number of blacks killed, additionally, compared to last year, in Baltimore alone, is up by some amount far greater than the number of policemen killed.” And “about a decade ago, Heather MacDonald did a book called ‘Are Cops Racist?’ And she points out that after the demagogues come out, and they start trashing the police, and so on, the police pull back, and the net result is the criminal element then has a freer hand, and more blacks will be killed, than there were before. So I don’t know why you would keep going down that same road, when it produces these same results, again and again.”

Sowell also said the Black Lives Matter movement is “a movement which has its desire to have power and prominence, and logic doesn’t mean much to them. And I’m afraid that no lives really matter very much to them, if they can do this” after seeing a clip of Democratic presidential candidate former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley being booed for saying “All lives matter.”

Sowell added that President Obama has driven races further apart, because “It’s part of the whole political polarization. You’ve got to turn women again men, blacks against whites, workers against employers, the whole bit. Because that’s how you get more votes, and you try to convince as many people as possible that they’re victims. And that only by turning to them, can they be safe, because they’re — other people are their enemies. And this — to the extent that this works, there will be more votes.”

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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





13 September, 2015

Another one of Britain's wonderful multiculturalists



A violent robber led police on a high-speed 10-minute car chase through London.

Joel Law, 28, from Enfield, carried out two robberies in Barnet and Haringey, targeting jewellery shops while staff were alone, stealing around £22,000 of goods and cash.

Snaresbrook Crown Court was told that Law walked into Georgy's Jewellers on Ballards Lane in Barnet armed with a wrench. He grabbed a 51-year-old man by the throat, before stealing gold necklaces and other jewellery and running off.

The victim told police that they feared for their lives. An impact statement said: 'He pushed me behind the counter and to the back and at that moment I thought I was going to be killed. 'I was scared for myself and my family and that if something did happen to me, no one would find me.'

Eight days later, on June 18, Law entered Zeyno's Jewellers on Green Lanes, Haringey, carrying what looked like a weapon wrapped in clothing.

He grabbed the 26-year-old male shop assistant by the throat and forced him back against a wall, before stealing jewellery and cash. The victim at Zeyno's Jewellers told police: 'At the moment he grabbed my throat during our struggle, I thought to myself that I would be killed at this point.

'I was frightened. I couldn't physically press the alarm; my brain locked down and all I wanted to do was get him out of the shop.'

Law was seen leaving in a dark blue Peugeot 208 and inquiries by the Metropolitan Police's Flying Squad established that he had been using the car.

Analysis of CCTV footage at the jewellery shops confirmed that he had carried out both robberies.

On 21 June, local officers in a patrol car in Haringey spotted Law in the Peugeot and a high-speed pursuit began through the streets of London, lasting around 10 minutes.

Law drove at more 70mph down the wrong side of the road, at one point swerving in front of a bus and down a pavement.

Officers following him during the high-speed chase were ordered to stop the pursuit because of the risk to the public.

But his movements were followed by a police helicopter, which directed colleagues on the ground.

Law was seen parking the car on Manor Road, Barnet, and ran off through residential gardens, eventually hiding next to bins, behind a garden gate.

Police on foot smashed their way through the gate and handcuffed him.   He was arrested and subsequently charged.

On August 21, Law pleaded guilty to both robberies, in which he took around £22,000 of cash and jewellery, possession of an offensive weapon and dangerous driving.

At Snaresbrook Crown Court yesterday he was jailed for five years and four months for the offences.  The sentence is the total for all these offences.

Investigating officer, Detective Constable Paul Weaver of the Flying Squad, said: 'Law targeted lone jewellers and used physical violence and the threat of weapons to frighten them into submission.

'The victims continue to deal with the trauma of the robberies today, but I hope they find some reassurance in knowing that this man is now in prison.

'The pursuit of Law shows police work at its best, with officers collaborating to ensure we stop and hold to account those who would seek to harm our communities.'

SOURCE






Alleged unpleasant behaviour from a feminist

An article appeared here about Charlotte Proudman, a female British legal eagle who wrote an abusive note to barrister Alexander Carter-Silk after Mr Carter Silk had praised her looks. She has asked that the article be taken down and I have done so. The point of the article was that Ms Proudman (an assumed name and a strange name for a feminist) was said by her aunt to have written an abusive note to her own elderly grandmother. The aunt,Lynda Searancke, was also contemptuous of Ms Proudman's note to Carter silk.





Rep. Black: ‘You Don’t Get Livers and Hearts and Brains From a Blob of Tissue – That’s a Baby’

At a rally in support of ending federal funding to Planned Parenthood, Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said Thursday that the group’s characterization of abortion as a “blob of tissue” is completely false and that the undercover videos recently released that show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the harvesting and selling of organs for aborted babies prove it.

“For too long, [women] have been told this is just a blob of tissue,” Black said at the rally, which was held on Capitol Hill. “Well, let me say this: You don’t get livers and hearts and brains from a blob of tissue – that’s a baby.”

Black has introduced legislation – the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 or H.R. 3134 – that would suspend all federal funding to the nation’s largest abortion provider until the investigation by House committees into the videos released by the Center for Medical Progress is complete.

The House Energy & Commerce Committee is investigating Planned Parenthood’s activities. The House Oversight & Government Reform Committee is investigating how Planned Parenthood gets its funding, and the House Judiciary Committee is investigating the Justice Department’s enforcement of the law, according to Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) press office.

“I know that Planned Parenthood is not about women’s health,” said Black, who is a registered nurse. “It’s about deceiving women in the most difficult and vulnerable moments of their life.

Black noted that Congress has a busy month ahead, including approving a continuing resolution to keep the government open that could include funding for Planned Parenthood.

“It values convenience over truth, and it values profit over life,” she said.

“We’ve got big challenges in Congress this fall, but nothing, in my opinion, nothing could possibly be more important than how we treat an innocent life,” she said.

SOURCE






Lucky old gutless Europe

An eye-witness account from Kamil Bulonis, a Polish travel blog writer, who was present on the Italian-Austrian border on September 5, 2015, as swarms of Third World nonwhites  poured across the border to invade Austria and Germany (A translation from Polish):

“Half an hour ago on the border between Italy and Austria I saw with my own eyes a great many immigrants …

With all solidarity with people in difficult circumstances I have to say that what I saw arouses horror … This huge mass of people – sorry, that I’ll write this – but these are absolute savages … Vulgar, throwing bottles, shouting loudly “We want to Germany!” – and is Germany a paradise now?

I saw how they surrounded a car of an elderly Italian woman, pulled her by her hair out of the car and wanted to drive away in the car. They tried to overturn the bus in I travelled myself with a group of others. They were throwing faeces at us, banging on the doors to force the driver to open them, spat at the windscreen … I ask for what purpose? How is this savagery to assimilate in Germany?

I felt for a moment like in a war … I really feel sorry for these people, but if they reached Poland – I do not think that they would get any understanding from us … We were waiting three hours at the border which ultimately could not cross.

Our whole group was transported back to Italy in a police-cordon. The bus is damaged, covered with faeces, scratched, with broken windows. And this is supposed to be an idea for demographics? These big powerful hordes of savages?

Among them there were virtually no women, no children—the vast majority were aggressive young men … Just yesterday, while reading about them on all the websites I subconsciously felt compassion, worried about their fate but today after what I saw I am just afraid and yet I am happy that they did not choose our country as their destination. We Poles are simply not ready to accept these people – neither culturally nor financially.

I do not know if anyone is ready. To the EU a pathology is marching which we had not yet a chance to ever see, and I am sorry if anyone gets offended by his entry …

I can add that cars arrived with humanitarian aid – mainly food and water and they were just overturning those cars …

Through megaphones the Austrians announced that there is permission for them to cross the border—they wanted to register them and let them go on—but they did not understand these messages. They did not understand anything.

And this was the greatest horror … For among those few thousand people nobody understood Italian or English, or German, or Russian, or Spanish … What mattered was fist law… They fought for permission to move on and they had this permission— but did not realize that they had it!

They opened the luggage hatches of a French bus—and everything that was inside was stolen within short time, some things left lying on the ground …

Never in my short life had I an opportunity to see such scenes and I feel that this is just the beginning.”

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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








11 September, 2015

A foolish feminist: Or how to destroy your career with one short message

When a pleasantry gets vitriol as a reply, who would want to work with such a b*tch? She is a barrister (trial lawyer) and, as such, depends entirely on solicitors giving her work.  Few will now. How can she have been so stupid?  A case of raging hormones, maybe

Step forward young Charlotte Proudman, 27, an award-winning barrister at the chambers of Michael Mansfield QC and a PhD student at Cambridge.

Clever girl, our Ms Proudman. Good at her job, too. Because, of course, the key to success as a barrister is knowing how to spot your enemy’s weaknesses — and having the guts and chutzpah to exploit those weaknesses ruthlessly.

In the dock, ladies and gentlemen, one Alexander Carter-Silk, a middle-aged, married father of two and a senior partner at the London office of solicitors Brown Rudnick.

Mr Carter-Silk, 57, stands accused of the most heinous of crimes. Of an act so foul that I hesitate to share it with you, dear reader. But share it I must. For this is a salutary tale of our times.

You may or may not know that there exists on the internet a tedious website called ‘LinkedIn’. It’s a networking site designed for thrusting professionals to be able to interact and do business with other thrusting professionals.

Being one of these creatures, Ms Proudman ‘reached out’ (as I believe it’s called these days) to Mr Carter-Silk, whom she didn’t know. He, being an accommodating sort, replied that he would be happy to ‘connect’.

He then took the liberty of expressing, by way of an ice-breaker, admiration for her photograph.

Now, most normal women would have thought: ‘What a nice man.’ Indeed, many of us would be delighted; compliments are few and far between these days.

But not Ms Proudman. ‘Alex,’ she typed, by way of reply (note, not ‘Dear Alex’, or Mr Carter-Silk, just ‘Alex’, as though she were his superior, and not a junior speaking to a seasoned expert). ‘I find your message offensive. I am on LinkedIn for business purposes, not to be approached about my physical appearance or to be objectified by sexist men.’

Warming to her theme, she continued. ‘The eroticisation of women’s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women. It silences women’s professional attributes as their physical appearance becomes the subject.’

Signing off with a feminist flourish, she concluded, ‘Unacceptable and misogynistic behaviour. Think twice before sending another woman (half your age) such a sexist message.’

Blimey, you might think. What exactly did he say? What could this repulsive specimen of the patriarchy possibly have done to her? What vile and perverted acts did he suggest to earn such a passionate rebuke?

Er, he said he liked her picture. Specifically, he wrote: ‘I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect but that is a stunning picture!!!! You definitely win the prize for the best LinkedIn picture I have ever seen.’

That’s it. That is the extent of his indecent proposal. Of his ‘eroticisation’ of her physical appearance. A simple, straightforward compliment: you look nice in your picture.

If that is what counts as ‘objectification’ and ‘misogyny’ these days, then the human race is in deep trouble. Not only does it beggar belief that Ms Proudman could have inferred any slight from such an innocuous missive, it also makes me fear for the next generation of women.

After all, heaven help the poor man who actually tries to ask her out on a date, let alone try to get her into his bed. He’d have better luck propositioning a porcupine.

As if her *hysterical and laughably pompous* reaction weren’t bad enough, she then decided to post their exchange on Twitter, thereby escalating the entire debacle to a state of war.

Instantly, the armies of Feminazis, permanently stationed at their computers ready to pounce at the slightest hint of a politically incorrect utterance, mobilised. Righteous indignation and sisterly solidarity streamed forth from their keyboards.

‘Will endure misogynistic backlash that accompanies calling out sexism in hope it encourages at least one woman to feel she doesn’t need to take it,’ Ms Proudman went on to declare on Twitter, her *self-righteousness* gathering steam as she labelled the networking website nothing more than a white-collar dating agency.

Poor Mr Carter-Silk. He may be beginning to know how Tim Hunt feels — Hunt being the Nobel Prize-winning professor booted out of UCL after making a supposedly sexist joke about female scientists during a conference speech earlier this year.

For hell hath no fury like the feminist mob in full cry. No doubt there will be calls for Mr Carter-Silk to lose his job. He’ll certainly have to issue some sort of grovelling apology, and his poor wife and family will be hounded. And all for daring to pay a woman a virtual compliment.

In fairness, he must bear some responsibility for the pickle he currently finds himself in. Because if he’d bothered to check Ms Proudman’s Twitter profile, he’d have known she might be trouble.

A fearless feminist is how she describes herself — ‘because rape, prostitution & pornography are problems of male dominance’. Indeed. But paying a woman a compliment — surely that’s not yet a crime?

Let’s face it, it’s not as if he sidled up to her in a bar and pinched her bum, or thrust his unwanted attentions on her on a bus. This alleged act of sexism happened in the ether. Even if it had been genuinely fruity, it was definitely harmless.

Some women might even have found it a little bit funny. I certainly would. Men, especially men of Mr Carter-Silk’s vintage, can be such clots when it comes to women they find vaguely attractive. It can even be rather endearing.

A few weeks ago, for example, I received an email from a gentleman reader in response to something or other I’d written. Quite a long disquisition, as I recall, and rather serious. He made several good points. And then at the end of it, a P.S: please could he have a picture of me in my nightie.

Sadly I was unable to oblige (I’m more of a pyjama girl); but was I offended? Certainly not. Tickled pink, in fact. After all, what’s not to like about a harmless compliment?

But then Ms Proudman is a different creature from me. Women my age had to learn how to roll with the punches fairly early on in our careers. We never had the luxury of equality legislation to protect us, or quotas to ensure we got ahead in the workplace, regardless of our actual ability. We did not grow up in the era of state-sponsored entitlement.

We had to work hard and without much recognition to be taken seriously — which, somewhat ironically, meant not taking life too seriously. Something that women like Ms Proudman just don’t understand.

By demonstrating such a monumental lack of humour and making such a gigantic fuss about something so trivial, she just makes herself look weak and pathetic. Isn’t she supposed to be some hot-shot feminist human rights lawyer? Well, go and defend some real victims of inequality, dear, instead of bleating on about some slighty off-colour message.

But then this is not really about helping other women overcome sexism, is it?  It’s about Ms Proudman making sure she’s the absolute centre of everyone’s attentions.

Perhaps Mr Carter-Silk was being a bit racy. Perhaps he should not have commented on her photo (although I can see why he did: she’s an attractive woman who’s clearly made a huge effort to look her most enticing); but if Ms Proudman thinks she’s doing anything other than indulging in a show of self-promotion at his expense, she’s deluding herself.

And if you want proof, I shall leave you with a quote from an interview she gave to a newspaper yesterday. Yes, Ms Proudman, so shy and retiring she could not even bear to suffer a compliment from a colleague — but perfectly willing to be interviewed by a newspaper.

‘My partner gets messages asking if he wants a job at hedge funds, I get propositions from men asking me out. I want a public apology.’

One thing’s for certain, Ms Proudman. You’ve sure got the public’s attention. Job done.

SOURCE







"The class hatred that still tears this country apart"

Sarah Vine is unusually frank below:

Let’s be honest, I’m no one’s idea of a rabid revolutionary, but every now and then something comes along to stir my inner Jeremy Corbyn.

It first happened a few years ago when I had the misfortune to sit next to Earl Spencer — then about to be married for the second time — at a dinner.  I won’t reveal exactly what was said — it was a private conversation — but let’s say I suddenly realised that not all aristocrats are amiable old buffers with gentlemanly manners and dodgy plumbing. Instead, they can be ruthless, arrogant and unkind.

I’ve felt the same red flag stirrings this week reading about the extraordinary goings on at Longleat, the £190 million estate owned by the Marquess of Bath, which is becoming better known for its poisonous family feud than for its world-famous lions.

For those who have missed it, the Marquess’s 41-year-old heir Ceawlin Thynn’s mother did not attend his wedding amid allegations she had suggested that marrying his half-Nigerian wife would damage the family’s aristocratic pedigree.

Her exact alleged words? ‘Are you sure about what you’re doing to 400 years of bloodline?’ Poor Ceawlin was reportedly so upset that, as well as banning her from the wedding, he hired security guards to ensure she didn’t try to gatecrash it.

Since then, apparently there has been no communication and the couple have reportedly refused to let her see her grandchild for fear of ‘contamination’. For her part, Lady Bath says her absence was due to a prior engagement to which she had to accompany her husband.

In truth, a bit of casual racism is the least of it. All his life, the Marquess — who styled himself as a hippy eccentric, a libertarian with a penchant for brightly coloured ethnic kaftans — has behaved like a seedy spoilt brat.

Having inherited Longleat — an Elizabethan gem set in 900 acres of Capability Brown landscaped gardens — he had the arrogance to add to its exquisite Flemish tapestries, fine French furniture and priceless paintings (including a Titian) his own obscenely pornographic daubings.

It was when his son — who admits they gave him nightmares as a child — had the temerity to tear some of these down that the feud started.

Then there are the Marquess’s notorious ‘wifelets’ — such a disingenuously cosy term for a group of live-in concubines who have ranged from Sri Lankan teenagers to minor Bond girls to outright prostitutes.

Truly, if this family lived in a council house — instead of enjoying a staff of 300 plus 400 paying tenants — the social workers would have come knocking months ago. Now they are to be the subjects of Britain’s latest reality show — All Change At Longleat, which starts on BBC1 on Monday — which by focusing on this thoroughly dysfunctional family will doubtless provoke much mirth.

Does any of this matter? Yes, because the problem with toffs like Bath — and others like him, from the Marquess of Bristol (a degenerate who inherited pots of money and a beautiful house only to descend into drug addiction, lose it all and die young) to the 12th Duke of Marlborough, Jamie Blandford (a former drug addict, convicted forger and now custodian of that architectural gem, Blenheim Palace) is that they play into the hands of the class warriors.

They corrode and undermine an institution that while by no means fair is nevertheless part of the fabric of British society.

Because there is much that is worth preserving about the upper echelons of British society. The Duke of Westminster alone, with his work for the Territorial Army, is testament to that.

Or look at the Queen — living proof that belonging to an ancient ruling family does not necessarily mean for one second resting on one’s laurels.

But as Her Majesty proves, it’s not the crown that makes a monarch or the title that confers nobility. It’s showing that you understand that with great privilege comes great responsibility.

If more toffs could just grasp that fact, then perhaps it would go some way to abating the class hatred that still tears this country apart.

SOURCE






The left’s deranged attack on Clarence Thomas

Black lives matter - unless, apparently, you're Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The left is renewing its venomous, racist attacks on Thomas in the aftermath of his dissent in the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in favor of gay marriage.

Actor George Takei smeared Thomas as a "clown in blackface." The Huffington Post called his dissent "beyond ridiculous" and tarred him as a hypocrite for opposing a court-created "right" to gay marriage:

"Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman - something that would be illegal today, if it weren't for the Supreme Court's historic Loving v. Virginia ruling." As if his personal life is fair game.

Last Friday, in another low blow, New York Times reporter Adam Liptak portrayed Thomas as a lightweight whose opinions are cut-and-paste jobs from briefs submitted to the court.

But in truth, all the justices refer liberally to briefs. Thomas borrows about 11.3 percent of his judicial prose from briefs, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor lifts 11 percent and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 10.5 percent. It's not "cribbing" or plagiarism, as Liptak's hatchet job implies, but simply the way decisions are written.

In fact, Thomas appears to be the most productive justice, having written 37 opinions this past term, more than any other Justice. That fact's enough to dispense with New Yorker writer Jeffrey Toobin's bogus claim that Thomas has "checked out" and "is simply not doing his job."

The trigger for these latest attacks is Thomas' view that the legality of gay marriage should be decided by state legislatures rather than enshrined as a right by the Supreme Court.

Thomas is no homophobe. In 2003, when the court struck down a Texas ban on same-sex sodomy, Thomas expressed his personal disagreement with the law, calling it "uncommonly silly." He said "if I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it." But he explained that it was up to the Legislature, not the court, to right that wrong.

That's the same argument he made in Obergefell, the gay-marriage case decided in June. The court's majority ruled that same-sex marriage is a "right" protected by the Constitution's guarantee of due process.

But Thomas, and many conservative jurists, worry that judges have turned due process into a vehicle for inventing rights from the bench. Thomas warns that "treating the Due Process Clause as a font for substantive rights" allows judges to make policy, instead of waiting for legislatures to do it.

You can disagree with that reasoning, but Thomas is anything but a lightweight.

His life proves that. Thomas was born in 1948 to a family that spoke only Gullah, an Afro-English dialect. He grew up in the South in a rural shack without plumbing, and yet made his way through Holy Cross College and then Yale Law School. By comparison, President Obama was a silver-spoon baby.

When Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991, the left attacked him, largely because he had already taken stands as an appeals-court judge against judicial activism and affirmative action.

Columnist Maureen Dowd said she was "disgusted at someone who could benefit so much from affirmative action and then pull up the ladder after himself." But Thomas had learned the hard way that affirmative action can hurt recipients. After Yale Law School, prestigious law firms didn't want to hire him because they assumed he hadn't really done the work.

During confirmation hearings, Thomas fended off hostile questions about accusations of sexual improprieties with Anita Hill, and his insistence that upholding the Constitution is better than adhering to precedents that violate it.

Twenty-five years later, the mean-spirited attacks continue. But at age 67, Thomas isn't likely to leave the bench anytime soon. Of course, the Obergefell decision is also probably here to stay. Few people will worry about the weak legal scaffolding on which it was built.

Most Americans care about outcomes, not process. But they should recognize Thomas' important role in defending the Constitution. That is his duty as a judge.

SOURCE






Britain's lazy municipal employees again

Any excuse to avoid work



Jobsworth council bosses have told a 96-year-old widow they can't provide her with carers because the farm track to her home is 'impassable for normal vehicles'.

Retired music teacher Joyce Adkins, who cheered up Londoners by playing violin during The Blitz, was promised regular visits after she suffered a fall.

But the social services department then decided that the three-quarter mile track to her isolated farmhouse near Lampeter, Ceredigion, South West Wales, was a health and safety risk for its staff.

'They seem to be making an awful fuss about this,' said Mrs Adkins.

'They suggested it should be levelled off, drainage put in, and cemented wheel tracks laid, but that would cost an absolute fortune.

'It's a typical west Wales farm track and, provided you stick to five miles per hour, you shouldn't have any problems.

'But then maybe that's just me - when you've spent two years living in a reinforced cellar in east London while bombs are raining down from above a rather rough farm track is not exactly going to put you off!'

A reporter for her local paper, Cambrian News, said he paid her a visit in his Renault Clio without incident.

Mrs Adkins, a former member of the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, learnt to play the violin at the age of eight.

She has lived on the farm of her eldest daughter since the death of her husband, Bruce, a retired diplomat, in 2000.

Following a recent fall she spent three weeks in Bronglais Hospital and a further fortnight at Min y Môr care home in Aberaeron before returning home at the end of last month.

'I was told social services would visit me three times a day for up to six weeks,' she said. 'In the end, a home carer came down exceptionally at lunchtime for four weekdays in a council van.

'She did a wonderful job looking after me and helping me cook, but I think that's finished now.  'They said they wanted me to stay in a nursing home until the track was repaired.

Mrs Adkins' other daughter, Helen - who has lived in Berlin since 1977 - said they could not understand social services' attitude.

'Everyone else comes down that track without any problem, but the carers drive their own cars and have to pay for their own wear and tear on their vehicles,' she said.

'I understand that there is a problem, but I have mentioned the situation to many people and it seems to be a generalized problem in this area.

A Ceredigion County Council spokesperson said the authority's social services department could not comment on specific concerns relating to individual cases.

'However, when access to a property is of concern, the department aims to work pro-actively with the person to ensure the safety of all concerned,' she added.

'A full risk assessment is undertaken and acted upon and steps to mitigate risk may include asking people to undertake repairs, assisting with transporting carers from the roadside and in some instances, assisting with road repairs.'

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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






10 September, 2015

Multiculturalist versus Multiculturalist: African attacks a Muslim woman



This shocking video shows the moment a 16-year-old girl wearing a hijab was struck in the head in an unprovoked attack on an east London street.

Tasneem Kabir suffered broken teeth and a smashed lip after she was hit by Michael Ayoade, 34, as she walked to college in Plaistow, Newham, on the afternoon of November 13, 2012.

He was arrested after police released CCTV footage of the horrific attack, which showed Ayoade jogging away from the scene as Miss Kabir lay unconscious on the ground.

Ayoade, who is originally from Nigeria, was jailed for four years in February 2013 after pleading guilty to two 'vicious' attacks on Tasneem and another young woman.

Miss Kabir's assault is an example of the Islamaphobic attacks being investigated in Inside Out London Special, which will be aired on BBC London tonight.

It comes as police revealed there has been a sharp rise in the number of hate crimes against Muslims in the capital, with women who wear a headscarf or hijab accounting for some 60 per cent of victims.

The 13-second video of Miss Kabir's attack shows the victim walking near the Black Lion pub in High Street, Plaistow, before Ayoade jogs up behind her and punches her in the head.

She immediately falls to the pavement, where she was left lying unconscious.

Ayoade had followed the teenager, who is 5ft 5in, for around 800 metres before he struck. The security camera also captures him fleeing the scene.

Islamaphobic attacks are becoming increasingly common in the capital, police figures reveal.

There was a 70 per cent increase in the number of attacks recorded between July 2014 and July this year compared with the previous 12 months, according to the Metropolitan Police.

But some London boroughs saw figures more than double. Merton witnessed the biggest increase, rising 262 per cent from eight to 29. Meanwhile, nine crimes were reported in Richmond-upon-Thames, compared to just one in the previous year.

Fiyaz Mughal, from Tell Mama, an organisation with monitors Islamophobic incidents, said around 60 per cent of victims are women who wear a headscarf or hijab.

He told the BBC: 'We also realised quite early on that women who wear niqab, the face veil, suffered more aggressive incidents - there was something about the face veil that in a way brought out the worst in the perpetrator.'

The Metropolitan Police attributed the increase part to a willingness of victims to report crime and an awareness of police staff in being able to identify those particular offences.

The force said events around the world and holy days can also 'influence a rise in hate crime incidents' as more officers are on patrol and victims may be more likely to report crime.

Commander Mak Chishty said: 'We will not tolerate hate crime and take positive action to investigate all allegations, support victims and arrest offenders.

'Victims of hate crime must be assured that they will be taken seriously by the police. 'We have more than 900 specialist officers across London working in our community safety units who are dedicated to investigating hate crime.

'We are always seeking ways to increase reporting and work with a number of third party reporting sites so that victims who feel unable to approach police direct can report crime to non-police organisations and individuals.

'Victims of hate crime can in addition now report online on the Met's website. No one should suffer in silence, so please report hate crime to us as soon as possible so we can act.'

SOURCE






Judge Orders Kim Davis Released From Jail

A judge has ordered that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis be released from jail on the condition that she does not try to prevent her office from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

According to U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning’s order, issued Tuesday, “the Court’s prior contempt sanction against Defendant Davis is hereby lifted.”

The order states that since the plaintiffs “have obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk’s Office,” the court “is therefore satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.”

Five of the office’s six deputy clerks have testified that they will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The order also requires that Davis does not “interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.”

It cautions that “[i]f Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.”

The Daily Signal previously reported that Davis became the center of a national controversy after she refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Davis has been in jail since Thursday, when she was held in contempt of court for defying Bunning’s order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Davis testified that she believes in the biblical definition of marriage between one man and one woman and doesn’t want her name on same-sex marriage licenses.

Liberty Counsel, an organization that provides free legal assistance in religious liberty cases, is representing her in court.

In a statement, Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said:

    "We are pleased that Kim Davis has been ordered released. She can never recover the past six days of her life spent in an isolated jail cell, where she was incarcerated like a common criminal because of her conscience and religious convictions. She is now free to return to her family, her coworkers and the office where she has faithfully served for the past 27 years. We will continue to assist Kim and pursue the multiple appeals she has filed."

Dan Canon, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told the Louisville Courier-Journal:

    "The goal was to get Ms. Davis to issue licenses, and to stop imposing her religious beliefs on the citizens she was elected to serve. That goal has been achieved, for now. We are hopeful that Ms. Davis will comply with the Court’s orders and let her deputies continue to do their jobs".

SOURCE






Judge Who Jailed Kim Davis Ordered Students Who Opposed Homosexuality to Be Re-Educated

Following yesterday’s jailing of a county clerk for stating that it is not possible for her to obey an order to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals against God’s law, it is now being noted that the same federal judge also once ordered Kentucky students to be re-educated about homosexuality despite their objections.

In 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—the same group that filed suit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis—sued the Boyd County Board of Education to force it to agree to allow a “gay-straight” alliance club to meet at Boyd County High School. A number of parents had strongly opposed the group following its initial formation, with approximately 70 attending a school council meeting to speak out on the matter.

The school board temporarily suspended the meeting of all student groups due to controversy over the matter, but the Bible and drama clubs allegedly continued to meet despite the ban. Students with the alliance subsequently contacted the ACLU, which filed suit over the matter.

Bunning then ordered Boyd County education officials to allow the alliance to meet on campus, declaring that they must be granted the same privileges as other groups, including using the intercom during school hours.

“Absent a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs will be unable to meet at school, unable to benefit from a forum for discussion with other students who are suffering the effects of harassment based on sexual orientation, and unable to work with other students to foster tolerance among all students,” he wrote.

But Bunning also required the school district to implement training as part of a settlement, which mandated school staff and students to undergo diversity education, “a significant portion of which would be devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.”

However, a number of students objected to being forced to watch a video that asserted that it is wrong to oppose homosexuality and that a person’s sexuality cannot be changed. They discovered that they could not opt-out of the training without being penalized, and contacted the legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) for assistance.

ADF then sued the Boyd County Board of Education over the matter on behalf of student Timothy Morrison and his parents, who said that the re-education requirement “effectively forces the students to speak in agreement with the school district’s view that homosexuality is a safe and healthy lifestyle that cannot be changed.”

But in 2006, Bunning again ruled that the students must watch the video and could not opt-out because of their Christian identity, stating that the education “rationally related to a legitimate educational goal, namely to maintain a safe environment.” He said that the training wouldn’t mean that students would have to change their religious beliefs, therefore, an opt-out was unnecessary.

“Plaintiffs are not requesting that a student absent from the training be considered an ‘excused’ or that the Board offer an alternate assignment on the issue of diversity. Rather, they seek to opt-out of the training altogether,” Bunning wrote.

“Given the requirements of the consent decree, the Board cannot meet this demand. Moreover, as there is no burden on plaintiffs’ freedom of speech, free exercise or other constitutional right, there is simply no basis for an opt-out,” he said.

Bunning pointed to a First Circuit ruling in making his decision.

“We think it is fundamentally different for the state to say to a parent, ‘You can’t teach your child German or send him to a parochial school,’ than for the parent to say to the state, ‘You can’t teach my child subjects that are morally offensive to me,'” the noted ruling stated.

“If all parents had a fundamental constitutional right to dictate individually what the schools teach their children, the schools would be forced to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moral disagreements with the school’s choice of subject matter,” it reasoned.

Bunning’s decision was then appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned his ruling in October 2007 and sided with Morrison. It stated that the student could seek damages from the school district because the policy and training “chilled” his ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.

“Although a favorable decision cannot provide Morrison an opportunity to travel back in time and utter the speech he withheld, it can provide him with nominal damages,” the three-judge panel ruled in the 2-1 decision. “Even though these damages amount to little, they serve to vindicate his rights.”

SOURCE







Black social breakdown recent

By Walter E. Williams

Academics and public intellectuals, who should know better, attempt to explain the highly visible and publicized pathology witnessed in cities such as Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Ferguson and others as a legacy of slavery. The argument is made that the problems encountered by many black Americans are rooted in white racism, greed and income inequality. They are able to get away with these untruths because most people believe that what is seen today has always been. A bit of history would belie such a vision.

It would be foolhardy to argue that slavery has had no effect or that racial discrimination, greed and income inequality are nonexistent. The relevant question is: How much of what we see today can be explained by slavery, discrimination, greed and income inequality? The answer to this question is vital for public policy and resource allocation, a matter that I shall return to later.

Let's examine a few of the most crippling problems in the black community. Chief among them is the breakdown of the black family. Actually, "breakdown" is the wrong word; the black family doesn't form in the first place. As late as 1950, female-headed households were only 18 percent of the black population. Today it's close to 70 percent. In the late 1800s, there were only slight differences between the black family structure and those of other ethnic groups. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households were two-parent households. In 1938, 11 percent of black children were born to single mothers; today it is close to 75 percent. In some cities and neighborhoods, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births is over 80.

Faced with the evidence that black families were healthier at a time when blacks were just a generation or two out of slavery, at a time when there was far greater racial discrimination and there were far fewer opportunities, how much credence can be given to the legacy-of-slavery argument to explain today's weak family structure? Does the effect of a legacy of slavery somehow skip five generations?

Female-headed households, whether black or white, are a ticket for dependency and all of its associated problems. One of the best-kept secrets is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994.

Another devastating problem for blacks is the high unemployment rate in general, but particularly among black youth. Nationally, black youth unemployment is nearly 40 percent. In some cities, it is over 60 percent. But high black youth unemployment is entirely new. In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teens was slightly less than that of their white counterparts — 9.4 percent compared with 10.2. During that same period, black youths were either just as active in the labor force or more so than white youths. Today black teen labor force participation is a fraction of that of whites. Even during the early 1900s, black males were either just as active in the labor market as whites or more so.

So what explains the employment statistics of yesteryear compared with those of today? Would one argue that the reason that black teens had a lower unemployment rate and higher labor force participation rate than whites was that there was less racial discrimination in the 1940s than there is today? Would one argue that blacks had greater skills than whites in earlier periods? Whatever explains the differences, racial discrimination is not part of the answer.

I have only addressed three major problems confronting a large segment of the black community — family structure, illegitimacy and unemployment. Which one of them can be tackled by expending resources on what white people are doing or not doing? The weak family structure and illegitimacy are devastating problems, but they are not civil rights problems and have nothing to do with racial discrimination. The black unemployment problem is different. Much of it is the result of the labor market's having been rigged by powerful vested interests aided, perhaps unwittingly, by much of the black political structure.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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






9 September, 2015

Out With 'Redskins' — and Everything Else!

Autumn, season of mists and mellow fruitfulness, also is the time for The Washington Post and other sensitivity auditors to get back on — if they will pardon the expression — the warpath against the name of the Washington Redskins. The niceness police at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have won court approval of their decision that the team’s name “may disparage” Native Americans. We have a new national passion for moral and historical hygiene, a determination to scrub away remembrances of unpleasant things, such as the name Oklahoma, which is a compound of two Choctaw words meaning “red” and “people.”

Connecticut’s state Democratic Party has leapt into the vanguard of this movement, vowing to sin no more: Never again will it have a Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. Connecticut Democrats shall still dine to celebrate their party’s pedigree but shall not sully the occasions by mentioning the names of two slave owners. Because Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners have long been liturgical events for Democrats nationwide, now begins an entertaining scramble by states' parties — Georgia’s, Missouri’s, Iowa’s, New Hampshire’s, and Maine’s already have taken penitential actions — to escape guilt by association with the third and seventh presidents.

The Post should join this campaign for sanitized names, thus purging the present of disquieting references to the past. The newspaper bears the name of the nation’s capital, which is named for a slave owner who also was — trigger warning — a tobacco farmer. Washington, D.C., needs a new name. Perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt, D.C. She had nothing to do with her husband’s World War II internment of 117,000 persons of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were native-born American citizens.

Hundreds of towns, counties, parks, schools, etc., are named for Washington. The name of Washington and Lee University is no mere micro-aggression, it is compounded hate speech: Robert E. Lee probably saluted the Confederate flag. Speaking of which: During the Senate debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, when Virginia’s Willis Robertson waved a small Confederate flag on the Senate floor, Minnesota’s Hubert Humphrey, liberal hero and architect of the legislation, called this flag a symbol of “bravery and courage and conviction.” So, the University of Minnesota should seek a less tainted name for its Humphrey School of Public Affairs. Princeton University can make amends for its Woodrow Wilson School, named after the native Virginian who aggressively resegregated the federal workforce.

Jacksonville, Florida — a state where Andrew Jackson honed his skill at tormenting Native Americans — Jefferson City, Missouri, Madison, Wisconsin, and other places must be renamed for people more saintly. And speaking of saints:

Even secularists have feelings. And the Supreme Court says the First Amendment’s proscription of the “establishment of religion” forbids nondenominational prayers at high school graduations. What, then, of the names of St. Louis, San Diego, San Antonio and numerous other places named for religious figures. Including San Francisco, the Vatican, so to speak, of American liberalism. Let the renaming begin, perhaps for liberal saints: Gore City, Sharpton City. Tony Bennett can sing, “I left my heart in Pelosi City.”

Conservatives do not have feelings, but they are truculent, so perhaps a better idea comes from Joseph Knippenberg, who is an American rarity — a professor with good sense and a sense of humor. He suggests that, in order to spare everyone discomfort, cities, buildings and other things should be given names that are inoffensive because they have no meaning whatsoever. Give things perfectly vacuous names like those given to car models — Acura, Elantra and Sentra.

Unfortunately, Knippenberg teaches at Atlanta’s Oglethorpe University, which is named for James Oglethorpe, who founded the colony that became the slave state of Georgia. So, let us move on.

To Massachusetts and Minnesota, which should furl their flags. Massachusetts' flag shows a Native American holding a bow and arrow, a weapon that reinforces a hurtful stereotype of Native Americans as less than perfectly peaceful. A gimlet-eyed professor in Wisconsin has noticed that Minnesota’s flag includes the state seal, which depicts two figures, a pioneer tilling a field, and a Native American riding away — and carrying a spear. A weapon. Yikes. The farmer is white and industrious; the Native America is nomadic. So, Minnesota’s seal communicates a subliminal slander, a coded message of white superiority. Who knew that Minnesotans, who have voted Democratic in 10 consecutive presidential elections since 1972, are so insensitive?

This is liberalism’s dilemma: There are so many things to be offended by, and so little time to agonize about each.

SOURCE






Navy Exonerates Chaplain Accused of Being Anti-Gay

A Navy chaplain accused of failing to show “tolerance and respect” toward gay sailors has been cleared of all wrongdoing and will not be removed from the military.  “I am relieved the Navy sided with me,” Lt. Cmdr. Wes Modder told me.

Modder, a highly decorated veteran who once ministered to an elite Navy SEAL unit, had been given a “detachment for cause” letter in February.

He was removed from his job after his commander accused him of being intolerant and unable to “function in the diverse and pluralistic environment” of the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C.  “On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” wrote Capt. Jon R. Fahs, the chaplain’s commanding officer, in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.

Navy Personnel Command rejected the commander’s recommendation to fire Modder, Military Times reported.  “There is no documentation of poor performance in his personnel record,” one unnamed officer told the newspaper.

Instead, the chaplain, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, was cleared of all wrongdoing and will be allowed to retire — marking the end of nearly 20 years of military service.

“This is not only a great day for Chaplain Modder, but for every American who supports religious freedom in our military,” said Michael Berry, the chaplain’s attorney.

Berry is an attorney with Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s largest law firms specializing in religious liberty cases. They partnered with the law firm of WilmerHale to defend Modder.

“Although Captain Fahs' actions against Chaplain Modder violated the Constitution, federal law and military regulations, we are grateful that Navy officials categorically rejected those actions,” Berry said.  “We believed this would be the outcome from day one."Berry said the popular Navy chaplain was the victim of a setup.

Earlier this year, a gay married officer was assigned to be Modder’s assistant. The assistant initiated the complaint against the chaplain because of his views on homosexuality and same-sex relationships.

"I believe some of what the lieutenant has alleged could constitute a military crime — false statements, taking what the chaplain said and twisting or misconstruing it in an attempt to get the chaplain punished,” Berry told me.

Modder had also been accused of telling a woman that she was “shaming herself in the eyes of God” for having premarital sex and for berating an unmarried student for becoming pregnant.

Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford commended the Navy for exonerating their client and called it a victory for religious liberty.  “We always knew that when the facts came to light, the Navy would exonerate Chaplain Modder,” Shackelford said. “Religious liberty is our first freedom and essential for our men and women in uniform.

"It’s unfortunate that a good man like Chaplain Wes Modder has been subjected to public scorn and ridicule because of a young officer’s witch hunt. However, truth won the day and Chaplain Modder should be commended for his courage under fire and his long years of service to the United States Armed Forces.”

And let this be a warning to those officers who might try to target other military chaplains. Your misdeeds will be exposed.

“We hope this sends a strong signal to military commanders — violating religious liberty will not be tolerated,” Shackelford told me.

SOURCE






Judge upholds Arizona's 'show your papers' immigration law

A federal judge has upheld part of Arizona's contentious immigration law, rejecting claims that the so-called "show your papers" section of the law discriminated against Hispanics.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Friday was on the last of seven challenges to the 2010 law. The section being upheld allows police in Arizona to check the immigration status of anyone they stop.

Bolton ruled that immigration rights activists failed to show that police would enforce the law differently for Hispanics than other people. The section is sometimes called the "show your papers" provision.

The judge also upheld a section that let police check to see if a detainee is in the United States illegally. Bolton voided any laws targeting day laborers.

Karen Tumlin, the legal director of the National Immigration Law Center, one of the parties to the suit, said the group was evaluating its options.

"We will continue working on behalf of our courageous plaintiffs to show that Arizona can do better than this disgraceful law," she said in a statement.

Bolton's ruling came two days after a federal judge approved a deal between the U.S. Department of Justice and Arizona's Maricopa County to resolve accusations of civil rights abuses and dismissed the department's lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies.

SOURCE






Oregon Judge refuses to do same-sex marriages

A Marion County judge has refused to perform same-sex marriages and has asked his clerks to refer couples seeking same-sex marriages to other county judges.

Judge Vance Day, a circuit court judge and former chairman of the Oregon Republican Party, is now facing an ethics investigation over that decision, according to the judge’s spokesman.

Spokesman Patrick Korten said Day instructed his staff to tell couples that the judge will not perform same-sex marriages. The staffers were instructed to refer same-sex couples to other Marion County judges willing to issue them a marriage license.

Korten said Day took the action based on his “deeply-held religious beliefs.”  “It’s an exercise of his religious freedom rights under the First Amendment,” Korten said.

Day hasn’t performed any same-sex marriages since he joined the bench in 2011, but only stopped doing marriages of any kind this past spring. Judges in Marion County are not required to perform marriages, and Marion County’s website lists five active judges and one retired judge who are available for marriage ceremonies.

That decision led to an ethics investigation by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness, Korten said.

Korten said he couldn’t discuss specifics of the complaint against Day until the commission released it to the public.

It’s not clear when that complaint will be made public. Until that happens we won’t know the exact details of what Day is accused of doing, aside from what he publicly discusses.

According to Phil Lemon with the Oregon Judicial Department, the commission isn’t required to publicize complaints until they schedule a public hearing.

Day’s decision came to light on Thursday when the Oregon Government Ethics Commission gave Day permission to create a legal fund for himself.

(The Oregon Government Ethics Commission is a separate board from the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness.)

Day told the commission that he needed to fund to help cover legal expenses he expects to incur defending himself during the judicial ethics investigation.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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




8 September, 2015

Real multiculturalists



'My sons are trying to kill me': Mother's desperate 911 call as 'murderous' sons attacked her and their father before trying to torch Atlanta mansion

Two Atlanta-area parents were hospitalized on Saturday after their two sons allegedly attempted to kill them by beating the wife and stabbing the husband before trying to set their house on fire.

The incident happened Snellville in Gwinnett County before 8am and it could have been much worse if Yvonne Ervin hadn't called 911 about her sons while Zachary Ervin was distracting them.

Georgia police arrived and took 22-year-old Christopher Ervin and 17-year-old Cameron Ervin into custody and later charged them with two counts each of aggravated assault and first-degree arson.

Both parents are expected to survive, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported.

Police found the husband 'severely injured and bleeding heavily' after being stabbed several times and his wife also 'seriously injured'

Gwinnett County police spokesman Sgt Rich Long said: 'Had she not been able to make that 911 call it's very uncertain what would have happened.'

He said on Sunday that police have 'several theories' about the incident and detectives found evidence showing the brothers had 'tried to start a fire'.  The gas line at the home had been tampered with, according to WBS-TV 2.

Neighbors of the family said the attack was unexpected and they were in shock, 11 Alive reported. 

Clinton Miller said: 'He [Zachary] wasn't in good shape at all.  'He was bleeding pretty badly. So we're really concerned for him.'

The brothers, who were reportedly being cooperative with detectives, are being held in isolation in jail and have a preliminary hearing scheduled for September 11.

SOURCE







Leading British Leftist caught on camera calling Islamic fanatic a 'very good friend' whom he knows 'extremely well'

Jeremy Corbyn has been caught on camera declaring his friendship for Ibrahim Hewitt, a Muslim hardliner.

Hewitt has been a highly controversial figure since he wrote a notorious pamphlet that branded homosexuality a ‘great sin’ comparable to paedophilia and incest, which should be ‘severely punished’ under Islamic law. It also said that adulterers should be 'stoned to death'.

Speaking at a pro-Palestinian event in East London in February 2013, Corbyn said: ‘I’ve got to know Ibrahim Hewitt, the Chair, extremely well, and I consider him to be a very good friend, and I think he’s done a fantastic job.’
    
Entitled 'What Does Islam Say?', Hewitt's publication spelled out his vision of ‘true Islam’.

‘While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of society,’ Hewitt, 58, wrote.

Corbyn's declaration of friendship for Hewitt came as he shared a stage with a number of Britain’s most notorious Islamist figures at an event organised by the controversial charity Interpal in East London in February 2013.

The MP's fellow speakers included those who defend militant extremists; condemn homosexuality; ‘reject the idea of freedom of speech’; and are accused of advocating attacks on the Royal Navy (see box).

On Saturday, Corbyn caused a social media storm about his own connections with extremists when he tweeted: 'Well done Ken Livingstone for refusing to share platform with BNP. There is no place for racism in democratic debate.'

Hewitt's pamphlet stated that Islamic texts advocated 100 lashes for fornication and sodomy with both men and women.

‘Any act that destabilises marriage will also destabilise society. Hence the Islamic punishments for such acts are severe,' it said. 'Married men and women found guilty of adultery are to be stoned to death.’

It went on to set out an Islamic view that men and women are not equal, and men have a right to assume 'leadership' over women.

‘If a woman is unable to satisfy the sexual or other needs of her husband he may consider taking another wife, rather than the common Western practice of secretly taking a mistress,’ it said.

The pamphlet also claimed Islam advocates that 'any act of apostasy that results in open rebellion against Islam is… an act of treason. Even in Britain the penalty for high treason is death.’

Hewitt has since defended his work, saying that the Old Testament called for 'equally draconian punishment'. He insisted that while severe sanctions are set out in Islamic texts, 'these do not mean that I would advocate such actions'.

In 2014, Hewitt was banned from speaking at an Oxfam event as a result of the homophobic views that he has expressed.

Hewitt’s pamphlet was hugely successful, selling up to 50,000 copies in Britain. It was first composed in 1994 and went through four editions, with the latest published in 2004 - long before Corbyn’s remarks.

The extremist is also the chairman of Interpal, which the US Treasury has designated a ‘global terrorist entity’ due to accusations it has raised money for the Palestinian terror group Hamas.

Interpal has denied the claim, and a report by the UK Charity Commission last year found no evidence that it had done so. Interpal is engaged in legal action against the authorities in the United States.

In a 2008 column, Michael Gove, now the Justice Secretary, wrote that Hewitt has 'called "political Zionism a threat to world peace", and said of "Zionist control of the media" that there is no smoke without fire. He has objected to Holocaust Memorial Day'.

In the same month as the event took place, Corbyn and his wife travelled to Gaza thanks to a £2,800 gift from Interpal.

In a lengthy statement, Hewitt said that his pamphlet did not call for violence against gay people, but instead dealt with the question of adultery and apostasy 'on the basis of a Prophetic saying in two key texts after the Holy Qur’an'.

In summary, he said: 'to label me as an “extremist” defies logic. Indeed emotive language, as used in the Murdoch press to demonise me, is an encouragement to violence and bigotry against the Muslim community.'

Corbyn did not respond to requests for comment.

Hewitt is the latest of a succession of controversial characters that have been linked to Corbyn.

When MailOnline revealed Corbyn’s association with Paul Eisen, a well-known Holocaust denier, Corbyn was forced to admit that there was a connection but denied that he knew of his controversial views.  ‘At that time I had absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Paul Eisen was a Holocaust denier,’ he said.

When pushed to admit he had made a ‘series of misjudgements’ during a Channel 4 interview, Corbyn told presenter Cathy Newman: ‘You’re putting an awful lot of words into my mouth … Any form of racism is absolutely wrong, the need to talk to people if it brings about a peace process is absolutely right.’

The Islington MP has a history of associating with terror groups. He caused outrage in 1984 when he invited Gerry Adams to the Commons a fortnight after the Brighton bombing.

More recently he has invited figures from Hamas and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah to Parliament, describing them as his ‘friends’. He claimed the UK’s decision to label Hamas a terror group was a ‘historic mistake’.

The MP has also defended his links to Raed Salah, a preacher convicted in a Jerusalem court in 2008 of using the ‘blood libel’, an anti-Semitic slur.

When he was detained in Britain, Corbyn called him a ‘very honoured citizen’, and said earlier this month: ‘I met him, we had a long conversation about multi-faith objectives including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.’

A spokesman for Corbyn said: ‘Jeremy attends a range of events if he believes they contribute to resolving the conflict between Palestine and Israel. It doesn’t mean he agrees with the views of all the people on the panel. He puts forward his own views.’

SOURCE






You can’t say that, Chrissie

The real reason Chrissie Hynde angered feminists? She refused to play the victim

If ever there was a woman who knows her own mind, it’s Chrissie Hynde. Former groupie, rock star and all-round hellraiser, Hynde is famous for pushing boundaries and breaking rules. And it seems old habits die hard. The 63-year-old is now causing considerable controversy on Twitter and in feminist circles following an interview with The Sunday Times about her new autobiography, in which she discussed the time she was sexually assaulted by several men in a biker gang when she was 21. ‘This was all my doing and I take full responsibility’, she said.

Hynde’s comments on her sexual assault come at a time when discussions about rape and sexual violence are especially fraught. Hynde was immediately criticised by Victim Support, a charity for victims of crime, which stated that, ‘regardless of circumstances or factors’, victims of rape should never ‘blame themselves or be blamed for failing to prevent an attack’.

But Hynde wasn’t really blaming women for being raped. She was simply saying that she was aware of the possible consequences of her actions. ‘You can’t fuck about with people, especially people who wear “I Heart Rape” and “On Your Knees” badges’, she said. She knew the risks she was taking, off her head on drugs and in bad company: ‘They’re motorcycle guys! If you play with fire you get burnt. It’s not any secret, is it?’

Hynde’s comments were shocking because the prevailing narrative around sexual assault and rape has been so one-sided. If you don’t play the victim, then you’re part of the problem, runs the dominant train of thought. It is as if victimhood has become a sort of brand: students who have been sexually assaulted get photoshoots in broadsheets, petitions in their names and t-shirts made in their honour. The reaction to Hynde’s comments shows just how stifling this victim-heavy atmosphere has become. Some critics of Hynde, such as #EverydaySexism founder Laura Bates, accused her of suggesting that all women are to blame when they are raped; others, such as Louise Mensch, said Hynde was stupid for not inhabiting the classic victim role. But perhaps the most sickening response was from feminist-of-the-month Daisy Buchanan, who expressed sympathy for the delusional rock star in a heartfelt article for the Telegraph: ‘She’s self-blaming and has been for more than 40 years.’

Yet Hynde was making a commonsense argument: people should keep their wits about them, and should avoid putting themselves in certain situations or inviting danger unnecessarily. This is not an argument against women’s freedom. Unlike contemporary feminists who want to safe-space women’s lives, I think we should take more risks more often. The crucial point Hynde is making is that if you are willing to take risks, you must also be willing to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Now, I don’t think that going out in a tarty outfit should be a risky affair, but in Hynde’s case, she made a decision to put herself in danger. That doesn’t excuse her assailants or their actions, but it does show that she was no deer in the headlights. Rather, she was responsible for getting herself into a clearly iffy situation.

We also have to challenge this idea that women should be protected from social interaction. When I wear a short skirt to a club, it’s usually in the hope that I’ll catch someone’s eye, not because I find having cold legs particularly comfortable. What feminists don’t seem to realise is that the portrayal of women as weak, vulnerable and under attack isn’t something that appeals to most women. In fact, in normal interactions between sexes, women are far more forward than men about sex, because men are notoriously bad at making the first move. We don’t go around in bubbles; what we wear, do or say is done in a public arena. We should invite interaction, not hide from it.

Hynde is wrong to suggest that what you wear is an indicator that you’re up for being raped, just as she’s wrong to suggest that a bit of thigh flips the switch in a man’s head from reasonable human to rapist. However, what we should celebrate is her refusal to be painted as another hopeless victim. When asked if she was a feminist, Hynde replied: ‘I’ve never made a decision because a guy suggested it… I just do my thing.’ Feminism increasingly wants women to recoil from interaction with the outside world, flinch at every compliment and cry at every insult. There is a difference between arguing that victims of rape are not asking for it, and celebrating women’s inherent victimhood. Though I don’t think society should see rock stars as role models, I salute Hynde for talking about her own experience in a way that challenges the notion that women aren’t in control of their own lives. We need to open up the debate about rape, and challenge feminists who seek to tell us how to feel about our own lives.

SOURCE






Australia: A gaggle of lame ducks support homosexual propaganda

PROMPTED by Twitter twaddle and the indistinguishable and mendacious ramblings of The Sydney Morning Herald, a ­dishevelled group of protesters milled outside The Daily ­Telegraph ­office on Sunday.

Some members of the mob wore T-shirts with boringly familiar abusive slogans, a pair wore the emblems of the Teachers ­Federation, there were grubby representatives of the Socialist Alternative, and while one or two defaced the pavement with chalked slogans, others vowed to smash homophobia or demanded equal marriage — now. There was an anti-shark cull protester and someone against ­racism, but the overall picture was of a confused and unappealing ­inchoate rabble. Their loose bond, apparently, was to offer political support for the campaign for homosexual marriage.

The protest was triggered by NSW Education Minister Adrian Piccoli’s sluggish enforcement of his own department’s regulations against political propaganda being forced upon school students following protests from parents against a decision by the principal of Burwood Girls High to cancel two class periods for a mandatory screening of a documentary called Gayby Baby on homosexual ­unions which was calculated to promote the campaign for ­homosexual marriage.

The SMH has persisted in publishing the lie promulgated by both the school and the department that no complaints against the screening were lodged.

Yesterday, a departmental spokesman confirmed in writing that “Burwood Girls High ... has received and continues to receive … complaints,” while the school “informed the department late on Thursday, August 27, that they had received a small number of complaints from parents in relation to their planned screening of the Gayby Baby documentary”.

If the gathering who mustered in Surry Hills represented Herald readers or those in favour of perverting the traditional definition of marriage, it is easy to understand why so many stayed away.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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





7 September, 2015

Jeremy Corbyn: Another middle class Marxist

The Bolsheviks were middle class too.  In good Leftist projective style, their standard line was that the Fascists were middle class.  But the biggest Nazi grouping, the SA, were in fact overwhelmingly working class.  Getting it ass-backwards is very Leftist, however.  The Left are so middle class these days that they rarely repeat their old line that they stand for the worker.  They in fact despise the workers.  Welfare recipients and minorities are now the major Leftist groupings  outside the middle class

Swinging hockey sticks at a ball while pedalling furiously around the lawn of a country house, five privileged boys were revelling in an impromptu game of bicycle polo.

This was a typical summer scene at Lilleshall Hall, the family retreat completed in 1831 for the Duke of Sutherland, whose peerage was created by William IV. For the boys would gather to play the game as often as possible.

Of course, bicycle polo is nowhere like as grand as proper polo, the sport so beloved of Prince Charles and his sons William and Harry. But these games were clearly enjoyed by the group of boys in the opulent setting in the Shropshire countryside.

What a delicious irony that the noisiest lad back then in 1955 was a six-year-old Jeremy Corbyn, who now, many decades on from that bucolic childhood, has become the Hard Left class warrior who'd like Britain to become a republic and who has petitioned for the Royal Family to be moved from Buckingham Palace into a 'more modest' dwelling.

But then, of course, Comrade Corbyn is like so many other Left-wingers who have enjoyed a privileged background themselves only to deny it to others by pulling up the ladder to social mobility by, for example, sabotaging grammar schools. For these hypocrites, it seems it has always been a case of 'Do what I say — don't do what I do'.

So, what is the truth about the posh childhood of Jeremy Bernard Corbyn?

Born in Chippenham, Wiltshire, he spent his first five years in a five-bedroom detached house in half an acre of land in the picturesque village of Kington St Michael. The property was recently put on the market for £610,000.

The family moved to Shropshire when Corbyn's father, David, a brilliant electrical engineer, changed jobs. They settled into Yew Tree Manor, a seven-bedroom house that was once part of the Duke of Sutherland's Lilleshall estate. The house had two acres of land, outbuildings and a paddock.

Though Corbyn's parents — his mother Norma was a scientist who retrained as a maths teacher — were long-standing members of the Labour Party, rather than send Jeremy (who had three older brothers, Edward, Andrew and Piers) to the local state school, they enrolled him in private school Castle House, where fees today cost more than £7,000 a year.

The school's independent status was at odds with his parents' staunch Socialist beliefs, and this might explain why Corbyn omits it from his CV.

For the Hard left Labour leadership favourite is a vehement opponent of private and selective education. Indeed, he wants to abolish the charitable status of fee-paying schools such as Castle House.

The family home, Yew Tree Manor, is now worth around £1.2 million and is near a lake where young Corbyn and his friends often went fishing.

One of those boys with whom he played bicycle polo was David Mann. Now 66, the former Army officer who runs a string of sports centres, says: 'Jeremy was my best friend from the age of six until I was ten. I used to go to his house every Saturday and Sunday, and every day during the summer holidays.

'I have fond memories of playing bicycle polo with Jeremy and his brothers. He loved the game. We used hockey sticks rather than mallets and Jeremy played to win.'

Mr Mann, who lived in a modest bungalow half a mile from Corbyn, can still recall his friend's home. 'It seemed huge, almost manorial, with big reception rooms and a large fireplace.

'Jeremy's mum was the first woman our family knew who had been to university. The house was a bit chaotic and very bohemian. There were books everywhere.'

Amusingly, Corbyn's parents called their youngest son 'Jelly' — a nickname that stayed with him throughout his schooldays.

When they were not playing bicycle polo, Mr Mann recalls that the boys used a forge in the Corbyns' garden to make things. 'Jeremy was very mechanical. We built wooden go-karts, which we pushed from behind, and set up a race track in the garden,' he says.

While David Mann attended the local state school, St Nicholas's, Jeremy and his brother Piers (now a leading independent weather forecaster) went to Castle House, which had been founded in 1944.

It was known locally as 'Miss Pitchford's School' after the headmistress Zellah Pitchford. She was a formidable character who retired in 1983.

According to David Mann: 'Castle House pupils wore smart blue uniforms. We were too young to be aware of a class thing, but everyone knew Castle House was a cut above the rest.'

At the age of nine, David Mann took the 11-plus and got a place at Adams Grammar School in Newport, where he was joined by Jeremy Corbyn and his three brothers.

'Jeremy never struck me as the brain of Britain, but he was doggedly determined,' says Mr Mann today.

Just like Ed and David Miliband, Corbyn had middle-class parents who reared him on a diet of Socialism.

They had met in the Thirties in London at a committee meeting for supporters of Spain's Republicans in the fight against Franco's fascists. His father, the son of a solicitor, grew up in East London, where he worked as an engineer during the war.

When his own children were growing up, there were regular political soirees and the Corbyn boys were expected to take part. Piers has said: 'Politics was a constant topic around the family dinner table.'

Adams Grammar School, which dates back to 1656, still upholds standards of education excellence. Jeremy made a name for himself as a Left-wing firebrand taking part in mock election debates as the Labour candidate.

Meanwhile, his brothers prospered. Edward became a test engineer on Concorde; Andrew, the second brother, went on to be a geologist, but later died from high blood pressure in Papua New Guinea; and Piers constructed devices to study the solar system before setting up WeatherAction, which studies reports of weather and related solar activity.

Jeremy was the least bright academically, leaving school with two E-grade A-levels. He went on to a degree course at North London Polytechnic but left before finishing.

In a recent interview with the Shropshire Star, Corbyn admitted he was 'not a very good student'. He said: 'The headteacher's parting comments to me were: 'You will never make anything of yourself.' '

Adams Grammar, which had the pretensions of a minor public school, was anxious to foster a military ethos, despite National Service ending in 1960, and had a thriving combined cadet force. However, Jeremy Corbyn, already a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, refused to take part.

'We were all supposed to join the cadet force at 15 and prance around in uniform every Wednesday,' he said. 'The big thing was to visit an Army camp. I was again in a minority and refused to join this thing. I was put on gardening duties.' Half a century on, Corbyn's view of the military has not mellowed.

He wants to withdraw Britain from Nato, scrap the Trident nuclear weapon programme and slash the size of the Armed Forces. The Islington North MP says: 'Why do we have to have planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world. Why?'

The fact that he attended a private and a grammar school — despite his adamantine opposition to such establishments — has impinged on his personal life.

Three times married, he has been dubbed 'The Sexpot Trot' and, despite his dishevelled appearance — with a white vest protruding under his open-necked shirt — some women on the Mumsnet website have cooed over his 'world-weary sea dog look'.

However, his second marriage infamously fell foul of his strong opinions about education and class.

He had met wife No 2 Claudia Bracchitta, an exiled Chilean designer, in the Eighties when they were in the audience for a speech by Ken Livingstone, then leader of Greater London Council. The pair also had links through Corbyn's involvement in Amnesty International's campaign against Chilean President Augusto Pinochet.

The couple had three sons, but broke up in 1999 after she wanted to send one of the boys to a top grammar school. Corbyn opposed her as he despised selective teaching and wouldn't back down. Claudia refused to send their son to an inner-city comprehensive and the marriage couldn't stand the strain.

She won the day, with their son going to Queen Elizabeth's grammar school in Barnet — nine miles from their home in Islington.

At the time, she complained Corbyn was 'first the politician and second the parent'. She explained: 'My children's education is my absolute priority.

'The decision [to send our son to grammar school] was made by myself alone and without the consent of my husband. The difficulties of making decisions under these circumstances have played an important role in bringing about a regrettable marital break-up.

'I could not compromise my son's future for my husband's career. I regret it is going to be difficult for Jeremy, but it was an impossible decision. Nobody really is a winner.'

His fixation with politics also caused the collapse of his first marriage to the academic Jane Chapman. They were councillors in North London but split in 1979 after she tired of coming second to his politics.

'He's a genuinely nice guy. The problem is that his politics are to the exclusion of other kinds of human activities, such as going out for a meal, to the cinema or buying clothes,' she said.

They did not have children. 'I guess there's an issue of how you spend your time,' she added.

Two years ago, Corbyn married Laura Alvarez, 46, in her native Mexico. She shares his zeal for Left-wing politics and imports Fairtrade coffee from her homeland.

If he becomes Labour leader, will the third Mrs Corbyn follow in the tradition of previous leaders' wives and join him on the stage after his keynote speech at the annual party conference in Brighton this autumn?

A committed feminist, the signs are she will not. Similarly, it is thought that if he ever becomes prime minister, the Corbyns would eschew Downing Street and continue to live in Finsbury Park, North London.

Despite being on his third marriage, as a youngster, Corbyn showed little interest in girls. According to David Mann: 'Cars were more important to him.'

That's another irony about Comrade Corbyn, now a vegetarian, eco-zealot who does not have a car, preferring trains and his trusty bicycle (but these days without a hockey stick polo mallet in tow).

SOURCE







Something worse than the IRS awaits greedy televangelists

Fire and brimstone?  Is Jeff Jacoby a believer?  He is Jewish but you don't have to believe anything in particular to be a Jew.  You just have to keep Halacha law

by Jeff Jacoby

The fourth circle of Hell, as envisioned by Dante Alighieri in The Divine Comedy, is reserved for the avaricious and the profligate. It is where those whose lust for getting and spending knew no bounds in life are punished in the afterlife by being battered endlessly with heavy weights. Notable among the souls damned for their greed, Dante wrote, "were clergymen and popes and cardinals, within whom avarice works its excess."

What disgusted the great poet in 14th-century Florence – money-grubbing hucksters masquerading as men of God – is just as disgusting in 21st-century America.

Comedian John Oliver is no Dante, but on his HBO program "Last Week Tonight" he recently ripped into the "prosperity gospel" of television preachers like Robert Tilton and Creflo Dollar, who aggressively solicit donations to finance lavish lifestyles. These sleazy televangelists, Oliver said, assure followers that "wealth is a sign of God's favor, and donations will result in wealth coming back to you." They call it "seed faith" — the belief "that donations are seeds that you will one day get to harvest." And the more believers "seed," the more God will reward them with riches and miracles.

The conviction that charity returns blessings to the giver has been a pillar of Judeo-Christian teaching for millennia, of course. The Hebrew prophet Malachi urged people to put God to the test by tithing unstintingly. Be generous in giving to the poor, he quotes God as saying, "and see if I do not open the floodgates of heaven for you, and pour down upon you blessing without measure." In the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus exhorts his followers: "Do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great. . . . Give, and it will be given to you."

Religious faith inspires extraordinary levels of charitable giving. As Oliver acknowledged, there are hundreds of thousands of congregations in the United States. Many are citadels of heartfelt goodness, genuinely devoted to feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and loving the stranger. By contrast, the "prosperity gospel" televangelists Oliver takes down are genuinely devoted mostly to themselves. Creflo Dollar, for example, flaunts his Rolls-Royces and encourages his flock to send him money so he can buy himself a $65 million Gulfstream jet. Kenneth Copeland lives in a $6.3 million palatial lakeside villa.

How can anyone not be appalled by such swindlers? They pervert what is most beautiful and ennobling about religion to prey on the weak and gullible, and in so doing bring God's name into contempt.

What seems to most infuriate Oliver, however, is that these television "ministries" are tax-exempt. He rails against the IRS for treating them as legitimate, and mocks the agency's disclaimer that it "makes no attempt to evaluate the content of whatever doctrine a particular organization claims is religious," as long as the beliefs are "sincerely held." To prove how meaningless a standard that is, Oliver even set up his own "church" — Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption — and invited viewers to send him tax-deductible donations. Obviously, he isn't the first person to discover some shepherds are interested only in fleecing their flock. The Senate Finance Committee investigated six leading televangelists in 2007. The Dallas-based Trinity Foundation has been investigating religious fraud since the 1970s. Scandals involving TV ministries have often drawn media coverage.

But federal law purposely makes it difficult for the IRS to investigate churches. This is not because Congress wants to encourage charlatans who exploit people's faith to line their own pockets, but because of the longstanding American aversion to giving government the authority to pick and choose among faiths, or to distinguish sincere religious beliefs from insincere scams. In a report last month, the General Accountability Office concluded that the IRS lacked the internal controls to guard against the temptation to "select organizations for examination in an unfair manner — for example, based on an organization's religious, educational, political, or other views."

Perhaps such controls could be devised, though the long history of the IRS being used to harass ideological or partisan targets isn't encouraging. To be sure, there are clear lines that ministries may not cross, such as a minister's personal use of church assets or the endorsement of political candidates. And fraud is a crime, no matter who commits it.

But that still leaves a broad gray area that comes down to belief vs. baloney. "Prosperity gospel" may amount to contemptible nonsense, but many would say the same of Scientology or Christian Science or Santeria. Or, for that matter, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Should government be empowered to sort it out?

It is a bedrock principle of American life that discerning religious truth is no job for the state. Sleazeball televangelists deserve to be mocked and exposed and warned against — but not by the IRS. As the First Amendment secures John Oliver's right to excoriate Creflo Dollar, it secures Dollar's freedom to preach his gospel of greed. That's a reasonable tradeoff in this imperfect world. As for the world to come, consult Dante.

SOURCE






Study: Sex Hormones May Account for ‘Genuine Difference’ Between Male, Female Brains

A recent study by researchers at the European College Of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) suggests that sex hormones create a “genuine difference” in brain structure between men and women.

After comparing brain images of 18 female-to-male transsexuals before and after they received testosterone therapy, researchers found that they exhibited significant differences in brain structure after receiving high-dose hormone therapy as part of their sexual reassignment treatment.

Professor Rupert Lanzenberger explained: “What we see is a real quantitative difference in brain structure after prolonged exposure to testosterone.”

“These findings may suggest that the genuine difference between the brains of women and men is substantially attributable to the effects of circulating sex hormones,” Lanzenberger said. “Moreover, the hormonal influence on human brain structure goes beyond early development phases and is still present in adulthood.”

Recent media coverage of transgenderism and transsexualism have raised questions about whether one’s gender can be changed.

In May of 2014, Time Magazine published a cover story dubbing transgenderism “America’s next civil right’s frontier.” In June of this year, former Olympian Bruce Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair with the request: “Call me Caitlyn.”

As the political support for transgenderism grows, some are even calling for the use of gender-neutral pronouns. 

But this study, which points to innate biological differences between the sexes, calls into question the idea that gender is malleable and independent of biological influences.

According to ECNP Communications Committee member Kamilla Miskowiak, one of the major differences between men and women can be seen in their language processing abilities. The study found that “prolonged exposure to testosterone” affected regions of the brain involved in language and speech.

“This intriguing neuroimaging study of transsexuals before and after their female-to-male gender reassignment suggests that even adult men and women differ in brain structure within regions involved in language and speech,” Dr. Miskowiak explained.

“Female-to-male gender reassignment resulted in local brain matter decrease within language processing regions, which may explain why verbal abilities are often stronger in women,” she said.

Because researchers studied the influence of testosterone on transsexuals receiving hormone therapy, they were able to study the effect of hormones more directly.

Lanzenberger added: “This would have been impossible to understand without looking at a transsexual population.”

SOURCE






A Liberal-made Dark Age

This is from a year ago but is still up to date

We have slipped into an age of un-enlightenment where you fall in line behind the mob or face the consequences.

How ironic that the persecutors this time around are the so-called intellectuals. They claim to be liberal while behaving as anything but. The touchstone of liberalism is tolerance of differing ideas. Yet this mob exists to enforce conformity of thought and to delegitimize any dissent from its sanctioned worldview. Intolerance is its calling card.

Each week seems to bring another incident. Last week it was David and Jason Benham, whose pending HGTV show was canceled after the mob unearthed old remarks the brothers made about their Christian beliefs on homosexuality. People can't have a house-flipping show unless they believe and say the "right" things in their life off the set? In this world, the conservative Tom Selleck never would have been Magnum, P.I.

This week, a trail-blazing woman was felled in the new tradition of commencement shaming. International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde withdrew from delivering the commencement speech at Smith College following protests from students and faculty who hate the IMF. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, this trend is growing. In the 21 years leading up to 2009, there were 21 incidents of an invited guest not speaking because of protests. Yet, in the past five-and-a-half years, there have been 39 cancellations.

Don't bother trying to make sense of what beliefs are permitted and which ones will get you strung up in the town square. Our ideological overlords have created a minefield of inconsistency. While criticizing Islam is intolerant, insulting Christianity is sport. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is persona non grata at Brandeis University for attacking the prophet Mohammed. But Richard Dawkins describes the Old Testament God as "a misogynistic … sadomasochistic … malevolent bully" and the mob yawns. Bill Maher calls the same God a "psychotic mass murderer" and there are no boycott demands of the high-profile liberals who traffic his HBO show.

The self-serving capriciousness is crazy. In March, University of California-Santa Barbara women's studies professor Mireille Miller-Young attacked a 16-year-old holding an anti-abortion sign in the campus' "free speech zone" (formerly known as America). Though she was charged with theft, battery and vandalism, Miller-Young remains unrepentant and still has her job. But Mozilla's Brendan Eich gave a private donation to an anti-gay marriage initiative six years ago and was ordered to recant his beliefs. When he wouldn't, he was forced to resign from the company he helped found.

Got that? A college educator with the right opinions can attack a high school student and keep her job. A corporate executive with the wrong opinions loses his for making a campaign donation. Something is very wrong here.

As the mob gleefully destroys people's lives, its members haven't stopped to ask themselves a basic question: What happens when they come for me? If history is any guide, that's how these things usually end

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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






6 September, 2015

It takes a multiculturalist ...

An Egyptian Muslim in this case

A seven-year-old schoolgirl was shot in the head by her estranged father as she clutched her new violin on the doorstep of her home, an inquest heard.

Mary Ann Shipstone, who was also known as Maryam Alromisse, was gunned down as she stood next to her mother on the doorstep of her home in Northiam, near Rye, East Sussex, after she returned from school.

Her father Yasser Alromisse, 46, was hiding in the rear of a silver Toyota on the drive at the £300,000 house when he fired the shots on September 11 last year, a court heard.

The schoolgirl, who was just days away from celebrating her eighth birthday, was taken to King's College Hospital in London but later died of her injuries.

Hastings Coroner's Court was told her father had concealed himself in the car by creating a blind from bin bags and was later found in a pool of blood in the rear of the vehicle, where he had shot himself in the head.

Her mother Lyndsey Shipstone today described the day of the shooting, telling an inquest it had been 'ordinary', but that Mary was 'very happy' and 'excited' about her birthday in seven days' time.

Mrs Shipstone had been driven by a neighbour to collect Mary from school where the youngster had enjoyed her first violin lesson. They parked up at their neighbour's and walked back towards their house before the incident occurred.

She told the court: 'I was putting my key in the door, and I spoke to Mary, saying she'd like what I had done to her room, and that's the last thing I said to her.'

She said Mary was stood slightly behind her when she heard a loud noise.

She added: 'There was a terrific sound behind me like someone had burst a balloon.

'I turned around and the first thing I saw was Mary on the ground - her legs were crumpled behind her.'

She said she quickly realised that her ex-partner had shot the youngster, saying she could 'see his face' in the back seat of the Toyota parked on the nearby drive.  She told the inquest: 'He did not show any emotion.'

Mrs Shipstone carried Mary to a neighbour's home where they tried to revive her while waiting for emergency services to arrive.

Asked why Alromisse would have wanted to kill Mary, Mrs Shipstone replied: 'I don't think I will ever really know that.

'It was such an extreme thing to do. I can only guess that he wanted to kill himself and for some reason he thought that she should not live without him.'

She added: 'He had the opportunity to shoot me as well, but he chose not to do it, and I was the one he supposedly hated the most.

'It's an act of revenge really. It's got to be. If he really loved her he would never have inflicted that on her.'

Mrs Shipstone added to the court: 'He's left me bereft of a daughter'.

The inquest heard how the shooting took place at Spring Hill, a safe house where Mary had lived with her mother for the year prior.

Mrs Shipstone did not want be traced by Alromisse after the collapse of their marriage, which she said had been abusive.

The couple, who met in Skelmersdale, Lancashire, had married in Liverpool in 2005 after Mrs Shipstone converted to Islam, friends said. She had been a practising Catholic but converted to Islam and quickly became devout.

The couple had a daughter named Yasmin Miriam in September 2001, but she died eight months later.

Mary was later born in 2006 but according to former neighbours, social services had to intervene, with orders barring Alromisse from being alone with his child.

Mrs Shipstone later rejected Islam and left her husband, prompting a bitter custody dispute over young Mary.

The court heard how Alromisse, who was born in Egypt, then hired private detective Paul Parton in May last year to try and establish the location of Mrs Shipstone, who he was still legally married to.

Mr Parton was unable to locate Mrs Shipstone and later withdrew his services concerned Alromisse's motive was to take away the child.

East Sussex coroner Alan Craze said it was not clear how Alromisse eventually found the address but described the murder as a 'thoroughly despicable act of violence'.

He added: 'It was not in any way spontaneous. It was pre-meditated over a long period of time.'

He described it as a 'very sad and tragic case' and concluded that Mary had been unlawfully killed before ruling her father's death as suicide.

Speaking to Mrs Shipstone after reaching his conclusion, he said: 'You will, I hope, be relieved that the whole process of the coroner's inquest is over with.

'You have got through it and I hope that the process will be deemed useful to you. 'But the main thing is you can put a full stop at the end of this chapter and get on with your life.'

SOURCE






For an Example of Lawlessness, See the Supreme Court, Not Kim Davis

Exercizing her First Amendment freedom of religion



I always enjoy reading Charlie Cooke, even when he’s disagreeing with me. However, I must dissent from my friend and colleague’s disapproval of Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses. If the community — including public officials — meekly acquiesces to the Supreme Court’s lawlessness, then the result will be far more harmful to the rule of law and our constitutional republic than is Davis’s lonely stand.

On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court has used the sword of its unaccountable power to rewrite the Constitution and fundamentally disrupt constitutional processes. Notable examples include, as I’ve pointed out before, Dred Scott and Roe. And then, with the damage done, it has used the shield of the “rule of law” to ensure that its lawless acts are respected and enforced, without exception.

The legitimacy of Davis’s protest is inseparable from the illegitimacy of the court opinion that made it necessary. And it is this very illegitimacy that means she should neither resign nor comply. Instead, she has chosen the proper response: resist.

Resignation in response to the Court’s ruling would have represented an unacceptable surrender. Indeed, from the perspective of the ideologues, it would have provided them with a complete victory — with the twin benefit of changing the law and cleansing public service of the devout. Resignations hand over the lever of power to the truly lawless, to those who will engineer social change by any means necessary.

Moreover, compliance in this case would have meant not merely participating in an immoral act but also bowing before an unlawful judicial oligarchy. There are Christians who disagree in good faith, who would say that Biblical commands to obey authority apply. Others, also in good faith, would note that obedience to authority does not mean and cannot mean participation in evil.

My own opinion is that the relevant “authority” a public official is to obey is the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The judicial branches’ power to interpret the law does not include the power to rewrite those constitutions.

Let’s be clear. The defiance Davis chose was mild indeed. She did not take up arms. She did not try to escape punishment. She did not even truly deny any single person a marriage license. Any citizen of Rowan County could get in the car and drive a few extra minutes to a neighboring county.

I grew up not far from Rowan County, and I’m not sure there’s a single point in the county that’s further than 30 minutes from a neighboring jurisdiction.

Indeed, her defiance was far less consequential than the Left’s flouting of the rule of law throughout the same-sex-marriage fight. NR’s own Nicholas Frankovich outlined multiple examples of mayors or county officials issuing marriage licenses in the face of controlling, democratically enacted state law. Leftist lawlessness included the government of California essentially attempting to fix the outcome to legal challenges to Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, by refusing to defend the law in court.

When the Obama administration declined to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, it stated that “much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA.” The Constitution, however, had not changed. Only the ideology of the president was different.

The Left’s ongoing defiance of the rule of law and established constitutional order goes well beyond the marriage battle to include sanctuary cities, lawless expansions of the scope of Title IX and Title VII, executive amnesties that are purported to change the legal rights of millions of immigrants, and nuclear agreements drafted in intentional defiance of the constitutional treaty-approval process. The list could go on.

Each of these acts is far more consequential to the rights of American citizens than Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses. Some of these lawless acts have cost Americans their liberty, others have cost Americans their lives, and the lawlessness of the Iran deal may cost the world another genocide.

Yet while lawless leftists live in the White House and run for president, Davis goes to jail. Davis’s draconian sentence is instructive. A judiciary secure in its reasoning and constitutional authority would see no need to deprive a peaceful woman of her liberty — especially when her resistance doesn’t deprive a single American of his constitutional rights, real or judicially fabricated.

Other legal mechanisms exist to hold her accountable, including fines, impeachment, and — of course — the next election. But Davis goes to jail — shortcutting Kentucky’s own enforcement mechanisms — partly to save gay couples a few minutes’ driving time but mainly to defend the dignity of a court system that long ago forfeited any integrity.

Charlie ends his piece by noting, in essence, that resistance is futile, declaring, “You can’t win a revolution by fighting on a single block.” No, but you can start a revolution with a single act. And with her single act of defiance, Davis has given America’s Christian citizens cause to search their own souls. How much more can we abide?

SOURCE






"God" ousted from the U.S. Airforce Academy



The first time I spoke with my son after leaving USAFA was about four weeks after he began basic. Among other things, I asked about his oath and he said, “They cut ‘So Help Me God.’” I asked if he meant simply that it was optional and he said, “No, they cut it.”

Needless to say, that got my attention. In fact, there was a group decision at USAFA to deliberately cut those words, first spoken by George Washington after his presidential oath. Not only that, the words were deliberately omitted from the officer and enlisted oaths in “Contrails,” the official USAFA Cadet Handbook.

I immediately began an inquiry with the Academy’s pubic affairs office, but my request was stonewalled. They suggested that if I wanted an answer I’d have to file a Freedom of Information Act request.

I did more than that. I enlisted the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, whose attorneys filed the FOIA.

That, in turn, led to an official letter of inquiry to the USAFA superintendent signed by 28 members of Congress asking for “a detailed explanation as to why the [AFA handbook] omits ‘so help me God’ from these oaths, despite the fact that the phrase is used in the very statutory language of the United States Code, and was part of the military oath drafted by the Founders themselves.”

Having met Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh at national security forums prior to his becoming chief in 2012, I wrote him, as did others who had read a column I subsequently published about this issue. Gen. Welsh is an outstanding leader and, though consumed with warfronts and Obama’s budget sequestration antics, he took the time to seek answers and respond to my inquiry.

I invite you to read my original column about this deliberate, illegal and disreputable omission: Obama’s End Run on ‘So Help Me God’ in Military Oaths.

It turns out that the deletion of these key words was largely motivated by a silent acquiescence to the demands of a serial faith stalker, Michael Weinstein, and his so-called “Military Religious Freedom Foundation” (MRFF). Weinstein has been targeting USAFA for years and, having already challenged numerous faith-based activities at the Academy with threats of lawsuits, he figured it was a soft target.

Suffice it to say that, with a little help from some friends, the words “So Help Me God” have now been rightfully restored to the USAFA Cadet Handbook oaths.

This was a small victory for our young people at USAFA, but in retrospect it has become clear that had we not intervened this deliberate omission would likely have been extended the following year within the official handbooks at the Naval Academy and at West Point. Based on that precedent, our legal team concluded that military oaths service wide could have been altered had this charade not been short-circuited.

So perhaps this was more than just a small victory, but the larger war against the Leftist cadres who now infiltrate every corner of our government is far from won.

As my colleague Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William “Jerry” Boykin says of Barack Obama’s efforts to oppress religious expression, “The very troops who defend our religious freedom are at risk of having their own taken away. The worst thing we can do is stop Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, especially the chaplains, from the free exercise of their faith.”

SOURCE






Bigoted Cardiff Council cancels photography exhibition of Muslims, Jews and Christians playing football together because the pictures were taken in Israel


An exhibition of photographs of Muslims, Jews and Christians playing football peacefully seems like an unlikely target of a boycott.

But that is just what happened when Cardiff Council hosted the show at the local library - because the pictures had been taken in Israel.

In advance of the football match between Wales and Israel on Sunday, Cardiff Library agreed to host 'Jewish-Arab football: diversity and coexistence through lower-league football'.

But a spokesperson for Cardiff Council said that 'following a complaint', the exhibition had been taken down less than 24 hours after it opened.

'The Council is aware there are protests planned around the Wales Israel game at the weekend and this was taken into consideration,' the spokesperson said.

'Our libraries are buildings which promote free speech, but it was felt that running this exhibition could lead visitors to suppose that the Council was displaying bias.'

Judith Woodman, leader of the opposition at Cardiff Council, said that she was 'appalled' by the Council's 'shameful' censorship and demanded an inquiry into how the decision was made.

'Sport is non-political. We live in a democracy and have freedom of speech. By this action Cardiff Council have totally disregarded this,' she said.

'I intend to take matters further, not least with the Wales Audit Office. As a senior member of this shambolic administration I am aghast at what I have learnt this evening. 'It is a disgraceful reflection on our city.'

She added that 'there were protests in Cardiff for the Nato summit, but that wasn’t cancelled or censored'.

The project, created by photographers Gad Salner and Vadim Tarasov, records how football can bring rival communities together. It has previously been displayed at the Guardian offices.

The photography project focuses on lower-league football throughout Israel, emphasising how Muslim, Christian and Jewish communities come together through the beautiful game.

One example is the Betar Nordia Football Club in Jerusalem, a small, fan-owned club that promotes diversity and sportsmanship, while opposing violence and racism in football. The club’s Jewish participants play alongside their Arab Muslim and Christian colleagues.

'From forgotten Arab villages in the north to dusty Jewish neighborhoods in the south, we visit places where the seemingly ever-present tension between cultures evaporates, and where diversity is embraced, encouraged and celebrated,' said the photographers in a statement.

Yiftah Curiel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy, said: 'This is a boycott against peace and coexistence, in line with the destructive and belligerent aims of the movement to delegitimise Israel.'

The European Championship Qualifiers match between Wales and Israel will take place at the Cardiff City Stadium on Sunday.

Israeli clubs began taking part in European club competitions in 1991 and its football association became full UEFA members in 1994 - having famously beaten France in a 1993 World Cup qualifier.

Israel's team includes defender Tal Ben Haim, who plays alongside Welsh international Simon Church at Charlton Athletic FC.

Anti-Israel demonstrations are planned to coincide with the match.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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




4 September, 2015

A disgusting far-Leftist in Britain


War hero Weston, injured in the Falklands conflict

A Guardian contributer, Richard Seymour, has sparked outrage today after dismissing a British war hero’s comments on the Falklands Islands, in which he attacked Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn for planning to “surrender” to Argentine demands. Seymour slammed war veteran Simon Weston on Facebook, claiming, “If he knew anything, he’s still have his face”. Weston was horrifically burned in the Argentine attack on the RFA Sir Galahad in 1982.

Seymour, who is the author of the Lenin’s Tomb blog was responding to the article published by the Telegraph, posted by a Facebook friend of his. In the article, Weston noted of Mr Corbyn’s plans:

“It is a repugnant idea. I don’t see why it should happen given that the Argentines never had the islands. They have no right to them.

“It could cause civil war again by emboldening the Argentinians. It frightens me enormously because he claims to be such a supporter of democratic freedoms while what he is suggesting throwing the Falkland islanders right to democracy out.

“I don’t ever see him winning an election because his policies and his attitudes just won’t wash with the British public.”

Seymour didn’t quite see it that way. But instead of responding to Mr Weston’s points, he wrote beneath the article: “Seriously, who gives a shit what Simon Weston thinks about anything? If he knew anything he’d still have his face.”

The Guido Fawkes blog notes that while Seymour was a fortnightly contributor to the Guardian, he claims to have only had a freelance contract for three years. His latest article for the paper was published in December 2014.

Mr Weston suffered 46 per cent burns while fighting for his country during the Falklands War. He recalls his memories immediately after the Sir Galahad was bombed: “My first encounter with a really low point was when they wheeled me into the transit hospital at RAF Lyneham and I passed my mother in the corridor and she said to my gran, “Oh mam, look at that poor boy” and I cried out “Mam, it’s me!” As she recognised my voice her face turned to stone.”

Mr Seymour seemed unapologetic for his comments on Twitter, responding to critics simply with the fact that he opposed the Falklands War.  “Why would I want to go and fight for an empire I don’t believe in? What would be remotely heroic about that? It’d be stupid.” he said.

Seymour has appeared on the Iranian state broadcaster Press TV on George Galloway’s television programme.

SOURCE







Kentucky Clerk Not Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses Causes Uproar

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling redefining marriage throughout the country, there’s an open question as to what happens to people who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife.

[Monday] the Supreme Court declined to review a lower court’s ruling requiring the county clerk of Rowan County, Ky., to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.

Kim Davis, the clerk for Rowan County, has a sincere religious belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife, and says she cannot in good faith issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. As a result she stopped issuing marriage licenses to all couples (both same-sex and opposite-sex) after the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling in June.

In this way she thought she would avoid the charge of discrimination.

She also wouldn’t allow any other clerks in her office to issue marriage licenses. The result: no one could get a license in Rowan County.

This created a problem. The citizens of Rowan County have a right to receive in a timely and efficient manner the various government provisions — including licenses — to which they are entitled.

At the same time, the employees of Rowan County (including civil servants) have rights, including religious liberty rights, and they are entitled to religious accommodations. But a religious accommodation, like religious liberty in general, is not absolute.

The law requires a reasonable accommodation that does not place undue hardships on the employer — in this case the government. Saying your religion requires your entire office to stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone, while perhaps a sincere belief, cannot be reasonably accommodated without placing undue hardships on the citizens unable to receive their licenses in their county and forced to drive to another.

That the clerk in Rowan County couldn’t be accommodated does not mean that no clerk should ever be accommodated. Unfortunately, some activists on the left think all wedding professionals and civil servants should be forced to violate their beliefs about marriage or find a new line of work.

There’s a better way.

As I explain in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” there are ways in which public policy can create a win-win situation: where all eligible couples can receive a license and where as many employees as possible can be accommodated.

North Carolina provides a great example. The state legislature earlier this year passed a law that protects magistrates who object to performing solemnizing ceremonies for same-sex marriages and clerks who object to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. It also makes clear that no one can be denied a marriage license, but magistrates or clerks could recuse themselves from the process behind the scenes should they have sincere objections to same-sex marriage.

Again, it’s a win-win for everyone. No one loses anything.

It’s not just the North Carolina law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires the government to accommodate conscientious objectors as best it can. Title VII applies to all employers, including the government, and requires that employers grant reasonable religious accommodations to employees, provided those accommodations don’t create an undue hardship for the employer.

Professor Robin F. Wilson of the University of Illinois Law School writes, “A common refrain is that religious objectors in government service should do all of their job or resign. This stance conflates the public receipt of a service offered by the state with the receipt of that service from each and every employee in the office who is available to do it.” In other words, as Wilson says, citizens have a claim to receive certain “services from the state, but they do not necessarily have a claim to receive the service from a particular public servant.”

Religious objection is not a trump card, but employees' religious objections should be accommodated when possible.

The Rowan County clerk’s demand couldn’t be accommodated. But North Carolina provides a great model for achieving peaceful coexistence going forward.

SOURCE






Polygamists Trying To Gain Legal Recognition After Gay Marriage Ruling

The slippery slope is real... Bestiality next?

 A polygamous family says the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage shows that laws restricting consensual adult relationships are outdated, even if certain unions are unpopular.

Kody Brown and his four wives argue in court documents that their reality TV show "Sister Wives" shows polygamous marriages can be as healthy as monogamous ones.

"The Browns were investigated and no crimes or harm was found in their plural family," attorney Jonathan Turley wrote in court documents filed Wednesday in front of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He has said the family is prepared to take the legal fight to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

The Browns are defending a legal victory they won in 2013, when a federal judge struck down key parts of Utah's law banning polygamy. Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties called the ruling a significant decision that removed the threat of arrest for the state's plural families.

SOURCE






Soldiers of The Empire of Offence laying free speech to waste

As of this week, Coles supermarkets across Australia will no longer sell Zoo Weekly, the silly, saucy mag for teenage lads. This decision follows months of campaigning by anti-porn outfit Collective Shout, which says Zoo Weekly is “highly offensive”.

Also this week, loudmouth Labor leader turned loopy columnist Mark Latham quit his writing gig at The Australian Financial Review over what some describe as his “deeply offensive” views on “feminism and other social issues”.

This follows weeks of heated debate over American rapper Tyler the Creator. He cancelled his Aussie tour following a campaign to keep him out of the country on the basis that his lyrics are “offensive to women”.

Campaigners have been badgering the Immigration Minister to revoke the visa of this “incontrovertibly offensive American”, as The Sydney Morning Herald called him.

It’s official: being offensive is now a risky business in Oz.

Whether you’re a jokey mag for awkward 15-year-olds, a former politician angry about new social movements, or a rapper who loves winding people up, you’re no longer allowed to give offence. Do so, and you could find yourself ejected from polite society, maybe even kept out of the country, as if you were diseased.

To get to Oz, I had to assure your authorities I was free of communicable diseases; perhaps future visa forms will demand to know if I am “incontrovertibly offensive”. “Sorry, mate, you can’t come in: offensive people not allowed.”

Zoo Weekly, Mark Latham and Tyler the Creator share something important in common. None of them committed criminal acts. None incited violence. They merely expressed views that rattled people’s sensibilities. And for that they’ve been harshly rapped on the knuckles.

Australia, it pains me to say, has been recolonised. Not by the Brits but by the Empire of Offence.

Already well-established in Eur­ope, where you can be arrested and even jailed for saying outre things, and spreading like a bossy blob across American campuses, the Empire of Offence is now consuming Oz, too. And for those of us who have always looked lovingly at Australia as a free-speakin’ nation, where everyone has a fair go and the C-word can be a term of endearment, this is really sad. If even Australia can fall to the culture of “You Can’t Say That!”, nowhere is safe.

Across the West, taking offence is all the rage.

Where earlier generations might have said, “I disagree with you, so let’s have it out,” today people are more likely to say: “I am offended by you, so I want you out of my newsagents, off Twitter and as far away from me as it’s possible for you to be put.”

On campuses in Britain and the US, students are setting up “safe spaces” in which offensive words and ideas may not be expressed.

In the US, some of these censorious cocoons, designed to protect students from ever hearing a cross word or strange idea, come complete with colouring books and soothing music — I’m not making this up — to induce a childlike feeling of supreme safety. Safety not from physical assault, but from ideas.

Many students now demand trigger warnings on books that might upset them.

Students at Columbia University in New York want even Ovid’s Metamorphoses to come with a warning because that great poem mentions rape, which some might find offensive.

The kind of warning that was once only issued for television shows with gratuitous violence — “some viewers may find this show upsetting” — is now being stuck on classic works of literature.

In Europe, meanwhile, there are actual laws against offending or insulting certain groups.

In Sweden, a pastor was given a one-month suspended prison sentence for saying, in his own church, that homosexuality is a “tumour” — which is, of course, offensive to gays.

In France, actress turned animal-rights activist Brigitte Bardot has been fined €30,000 ($46,800) for badmouthing the Islamic ritual slaughter of animals, which she considers barbaric.

And we wonder why we’re seeing the rise of nut jobs such as those gunmen who massacred the staff of the offensive magazine Charlie Hebdo. These guys were brought up on a continent where we’re constantly told that feeling offended is the worst thing ever, and we have the right to sue or silence or harass the person or thing that offends us.

The Charlie Hebdo killers are best seen as the armed wing of the Empire of Offence, the horrific logical conclusion to the institution of a new era of speech-punishing inoffensiveness.

And now the Empire of Offence has come to Oz. Sometimes it is enforced formally by laws, such as section 18C, which forbids “offending” groups of people.

And sometimes it’s enforced informally, by Twittermobs or campaign groups keen to shush or even send packing anyone they consider “incontrovertibly offensive”.

But either way, the end result is the same: eccentric individuals are silenced, which is always a bad thing, and the rest of society is infantilised, through being told that some ideas are just too dodgy, weird or outrageous for us to hear, and thus we must have our eyes and ears covered by Those Who Know Better. By the footsoldiers of the Empire of Offence.

Criminalising offensiveness is a really bad idea. Sure, the victims right now may be only people whom many of us agree are annoying. But we must remember that giving offence is often the engine of human progress.

From Copernicus’s then-contrarian insistence that the sun was at the centre of our solar system to suffragettes usurping of the “natural order” with their demand for the right to vote, many of today’s established good ideas started life as outrages against decency or normalcy.

As George Bernard Shaw said, “All great truths begin as blasphemies.”

If we quash offensiveness, and force field our societies against dangerous thinking, then we will create a sad, suffocating, risk-averse intellectual climate in which no great truths or breakthroughs are ever likely to be 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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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





3 September, 2015

‘I’d be embarrassed to call myself PC’

Sarah Franken talks ISIS, censorship and the perils of being pigeon-holed

‘Islam is the great, hypocritical double standard of our age. Any time a murder is committed in its name, someone has to do damage control at the political level. I’ll never stop making fun of it.’ So says Sarah Franken, American comedian and satirist, about her searing Edinburgh Fringe show, Who Keeps Making All These People? – an absurdist, character-comedy exploration of Islamist barbarism and Western self-loathing.

Talking to her between shows at the Pleasance Courtyard, as we go from one issue to the next at breakneck speed, her views come across like a charge sheet of unfashionable ideas. The PC purge of academia gets short shrift: ‘When I was at university, the courses I liked were the ones featuring dead white European males. I didn’t want to sit in a circle and talk about feelings.’ Then there’s the oh-so-trendy phenomenon of white guilt: ‘I come from a trailer park in Missouri. We had to get on food stamps when I was a kid, and we were white.’

But, above all else, it is the rise of Islamic State, and the West’s gutless inability to challenge it morally or militarily, that most raises Franken’s hackles. For her, Barack Obama is Public Enemy No1: ‘When someone saws someone’s head off we don’t need some idiot president talking about the crusades. That guy makes me ashamed to come from America.’ Franken’s eloquent rage is not just insightful; it’s hilarious. A stand-out bit in her show involves the Australian prime minister, a proxy, perhaps, for Obama, responding to a terror attack by saying ‘diversity, multiculturalism, melting pot’ ad infinitum at a press conference. Aside from the odd liberal gasp, the room was left in hysterics.

Given the Fringe’s reputation for being a glorified summer camp for London’s right-on luvvies, you’d think Franken would be picketed off stage. But not only is she saved by a preternatural talent for Python-esque absurdity, meaning even your most seasoned Guardian reader can’t help but laugh, she’s also been embraced this year, as a progressive force in comedy. While Franken has been building a reputation in the US and UK for over a decade, no one knew who Sarah was until this summer. Before recently coming out as transgender, she was Will. And, aside from being a ‘marketing nightmare’, Franken’s transition has brought huge press attention.

But as overjoyed as Franken is with the publicity, she’s concerned that fawning journos are trying to put her in a box. ‘There was one review that was two paragraphs. The first was all, “brave, brave, brave, she made a brave decision to come out of the closet, brave, brave, brave”. And then, when it came to the show itself, the review completely missed the point.’ Franken has been closeted much of her adult life. But, after leaving her God-fearing parents behind, one of the things that kept her from coming out was the fear of being hemmed in artistically because of who she was. ‘When I lived in San Francisco – which, if ever there was a safe place to be out and about, it’s there – there were so many shows like “Growing Up Gay” or “Growing Up Latino”. So many shows about identity. I didn’t want to be thought of as a transgender comedian.’

‘The fact that I’m transgender is completely incidental’, she continues. ‘It doesn’t mean I’m going to shut up and be a good little girl and not talk about IS and why we need to overthrow them. That’s one half of me. The other half is kicking myself in the ass that I can’t sit down to write that stupid, bland show about what it’s like to be transgender and win some awards and get on TV for it.’

For Franken, a passionate libertarian, the political conformity on the comedy circuit can often be stifling. ‘When I meet libertarian comics, it’s like Jews in the Holocaust’, she says, before affecting a Jewish New York accent: ‘You’re one of us, we have places we can hide.’ Perhaps unsurprisingly, the way in which comedians have swallowed the speech-policing mantra of political correctness really makes her gut churn. ‘People think that because comedy was perhaps racist in the past that, if we don’t put these self-imposed strictures on ourselves now, we’re all going to hang black people from trees’, she scoffs. ‘I think there’s a lot of comedians who just want to get on TV, but if you’re going to make any claims to doing art, you should be totally against political correctness.’

The conversation soon turns to Lenny Bruce, the father of modern stand-up, who battled with the authorities in the Sixties over his obscene routines. ‘If Lenny Bruce was working today, you can bet he’d be going after the politically correct. This is a man whose whole obsession was freedom of speech. The fact that he was doing bits like “Are there any niggers here tonight?” close to the time of the civil-rights struggle in America, you’d think it would have made it much more sensitive. But years later, after all this stuff has been resolved, we’re tenser about words than we were back then. And, unsurprisingly, comedy is worse as a result.’ Unlike Lenny Bruce, Franken says, being PC is also patently uncool: ‘I would be embarrassed to say I was politically correct. I think it’s a bad thing. It’s like saying that I don’t masturbate or listen to rock’n’roll.’

Franken’s heroes – from Bruce to Peter Cooke and Chris Morris – were never afraid of offending their own social milieu. And, with this in mind, I ask her about one of the most edgy routines in her show, in which Simon Schama, who is hosting an imagined televised Q&A about Franken’s transition, apologises profusely for accidentally calling her ‘he’. So, is the heightened sensitivity around pronouns something Franken feels is a problem? ‘The reason I put that in there is because, even though I prefer the pronoun “she”, and I don’t necessarily like it when I’m called “he”, in relation to defeating IS, it’s a bit navel-gazing’, she says. ‘I respect the pronoun thing. I get it. But if we had to make a hierarchy of things that are important, that should go underneath mowing down IS.’

Discussing the roots of PC, Franken, again, offers keen insight. ‘I think the West lives in a moral vacuum. We’ve gotten rid of religion, we’ve gotten rid of our belief in the West and its core principles, like freedom of speech. And nothing can exist in a vacuum, so we’ve replaced it with this religion of political correctness. It’s a religion of words. We don’t say the word “nigger” now, even if we’re slamming that word. It’s tantamount to “don’t say Jehovah, or else you get stoned to death” in Ancient Israel. We’ve gutted ourselves.’

As we talk about what Franken plans to do next, it becomes clear that, contrary to how some fawning reporters may have it, it is being anti-PC, rather than transgender, that is making hitting the big time tough. ‘I’m a capitalist; I have all of these bourgeois aspirations. I would love to win awards and get on TV and all of that, but I don’t know if they’re going to allow that in this day and age; if they’re going to allow a new Chris Morris, someone who’s going to do a paedophile special.’

‘At the end of the day I’m a comedian. It’s about laughter – I want to hear laughs’, she says. And, as she rushes off to another interview, it seems there’s some consolation there: Franken may have some important things to say about the absurdities of modern Western culture, but she’s also got a God-given gift for making them funny.

SOURCE






Perry: If We Lose Churches and Synagogues Not 'Enough Police Officers to Keep Us Safe'

Speaking on Fox News on Sunday, former Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) said churches and synagogues have been "where right and wrong has been taught to a huge number of our population," and "if we lose those great institutions we can't hire enough police officers to keep us safe."

While reacting to the death of Harris County, Texas Sheriff's Deputy Darren Goforth, Perry said "This country and the institutions that have made America great through the years, in particularly over the last two centuries, our synagogues and our churches have been the place where right and wrong has been taught to a huge number of our population.

"And as we see those institutions being attacked, when we see religious freedom being attacked in this country, it really brings to the forefront, that the places where right and wrong have historically been trained into our people, are being pushed out of the public arena and the point that I made yesterday was if we lose those great institutions we can't hire enough police officers to keep us safe."

He later continued "When you really get down to it, the Bible is a pretty good guide book - if we live by that - I suggest to you we'd have fewer events like the one that occurred to the policeman in Houston."

Goforth was killed after a gunman came up behind him and shot him "execution-style" while the deputy was fueling his patrol car on Friday Night.

Shannon J. Miles, a 30-year-old Houston resident, is being charged for the crime.

SOURCE





Elizabeth Hasselbeck: 'Why Has Black Lives Matter Movement Not Been Classified Yet as a Hate Group?'

During a Monday segement on the protest group Black Lives Matter, "Fox & Friends" host Elizabeth Hasselbeck asked why the organization has not been labeled a hate group.

Hasselbeck was talking to guest Kevin Jackson, a writer for National Review, about a protest by Black Lives Matter, an organization that protests what they see as police violence against African-Americans. Protestors at the recent Minnesota State Fair used the chant “pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon” to refer to police. Hasselbeck and Jackson also discussed a recent execution-style murder of Darren Goforth, a sherriff’s deputy in Texas.

"Kevin, why has the Black Lives Matter movement not been classified yet as a hate group?" Hasselbeck asked Jackson. "How much more has to go in this direction before someone actually labels it as such?"

"Well they should do it, but unfortunately it’s being financed by the leftists,” Jackson replied. "Ironically it’s people that have nothing, really no concern at all about black lives."

SOURCE






How censorship divides us

Political correctness has made us more wary of one another

Where I come from, insult is the ultimate sign of affection. The harsher the epithet, the greater the love. I came of age in the places the academic PC-crowd hates the most: sports locker rooms and fraternity houses, where misogyny, racism and homophobia are said to be rampant.

But the people I knew that said the most ‘insensitive’ things also acted in the most ‘inclusive’ manner. A childhood friend comes to mind that fits the mould of every elitist stereotype about racists. He was working-class, rural and desperately white; he liked to mock President Obama, and would even casually hint at dropping (or actually drop) the n-word around some of our black pals.

He also took one of his best friends (who is black) into his home when he had family trouble and needed a place to stay. He has more black and brown friends than any white critical race theorist I’ve ever encountered in college. He’s the most colourblind person I know. Although, according to some colleges, that probably does make him a racist.

Sometimes banter really is just banter, and equality can mean everyone being equally willing to offend one another, and laughing it off over a beer. I am thoroughly convinced that it can be patronising and thus, in its own way, bigoted to tiptoe around sensitive issues such as race – for it to be okay to make fun of one group and not another.

I understand the impulse of political correctness. After all, it was infantilising and wrong to call grown women ‘girls’, and grown black men ‘boys’, as happened in the past. But I am also thoroughly convinced that eliminating the term ‘anchor baby’ will not help end xenophobia any more than eliminating the phrase ‘you guys’ (the Midwestern version of ‘y’all’) will help end sexism. Some think culture and language brainwash us all into bigotry. But we are not clay to be moulded; we are moral agents who make conscious choices about how we treat other people.

This is a precarious time for those of us who oppose political correctness and censorship on ideological grounds – who believe it erodes universalism, shuts down debate and focuses on symbolism over substance. People at both ends of the political spectrum are starting to rebel against campus speech codes and the culture police. However, there is a certain contingent of Donald Trump supporters who say they’re fighting stifling political correctness, but practice a politics of identity similar to that of the PC academic left.

Fringe (or frivolous) elements often co-opt principled movements. Hell, in the name of anti-racism, a group of writers refused to honour the slain Charlie Hebdo cartoonists at the recent PEN gala in New York. This is despite the fact that, when the massacre occurred, the Charlie Hebdo staff were actually planning an anti-racism conference. Just as anti-racists should oppose people who use the banner of anti-racism to shut down speech they dislike, libertarians must not allow idiots who just want to say offensive things without criticism to co-opt the movement for unfettered expression.

To do this, we must make an unabashed case for the principle of free speech. Not because we want to defend people who say hateful things, but because we understand – as many so-called progressives do not – that once the weapon of censorship is granted, the person holding the whip won’t always be so benevolent; that rather than coming at the expense of marginalised groups, free speech is a tool for their liberation; and that rather than preserve power structures, free speech helps bring them down.

What I really want is a civil society where we are so ‘inclusive’ that everyone of every race, gender, sexual orientation or creed feels free to say (almost) anything, and we can all grab a drink and have a laugh at the end of the day. We will be a freer, fairer and funnier society for 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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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




2 September, 2015

The Next Front in the War on Religious Freedom

Stop bellyaching about Washington. All the country’s best fascists are on your local city council

Not long ago, Colorado became a leader in the fight against religious freedom, when its Civil Rights Commission, self-appointed ministers of justice and theology, decided that a shopkeeper who refuses to participate in a gay wedding ceremony must be smeared and fined out of business. A Colorado appeals court says this is kosher, finding that the brittle sensitivities of a cakeless couple outweigh the constitutional rights of Christian business owners.

Now, in an effort to save everyone some time, the cultural imperialists at the Denver City Council have decided to skip the pretense of some trumped-up injustice and jumped right to discriminating against a business solely because of the beliefs of its CEO.

The Denver City Council’s Business Development Committee has stalled a seven-year deal with Chick-fil-A because CEO Dan Cathy spoke out against gay marriage back in 2012. Cathy, after being flogged for this misconduct, backed off, saying he regretted getting involved. But that won’t do. There are no prisoners in this culture war. So the City Council will meet in a couple of weeks to take up the topic again. Not so the members can take time to chew over the significance of a city’s punishing its citizens for their thoughts and beliefs or even to weigh the importance of tolerance in a vibrant city such as Denver. They’re waiting to have a closed-door committee hearing with city attorneys, who will brief them on the legal implications and practicality of shutting down apostates.

The only thing that might stop Denver from pulling this concession from an apologetic Christian, then, would be a few risk-averse bureaucrats. This, even though Chick-fil-A has not been accused of any infraction or crime. No one has even suggested it’s guilty of make-believe acts of discrimination. Chick-fil-A has given assurances, in fact, as all other concessionaires at Denver International Airport restaurants have, it will follow nondiscrimination policies laid out by law, which include protections for sexual orientation.

So what’s the point? Well, Councilwoman Robin Kniech asked a concessionaire this question: “If the national corporation with which you are affiliated once again puts themselves at the center of a national debate about depriving people and their families of rights, would you as a concessionaire have any ability to influence that?”

“I don’t believe so,” he answered.  “I don’t think you would, either,” Kniech said. “And that’s my concern.”

So that’s her concern? Setting aside the oversimplification of the debate surrounding marriage, since when is it the interest of a city councilor to monitor the political activities of citizens and wonder how she deals with vendors who displease her sensibilities? Do Americans with minority opinions function under some different set of laws? The only entity with the power to deprive anyone or anyone’s family of rights, in this case, is the City Council. So please tell me how Kniech isn’t a petty tyrant.

Of course, Denver is not alone. A few years back, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel supported an alderman’s efforts to block Chick-fil-A from opening in his city because of, as the media like to say, the “anti-gay views” of its CEO — which, only a couple of years beforehand, had been the anti-gay views of President Barack Obama and Emanuel, his chief of staff. The Chicago City Council didn’t go through with it, after “assurances” from the company that the virtue of Chicago would be protected.

Denver Councilman Paul Lopez, who is leading the intellectual charge for the ban — a task that meshes poorly with his skill set — says that in the end, opposition to the chain at the airport is “really, truly a moral issue.” Now, when the Founding Fathers told us that government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion, I took it to mean that the belief system of a union-installed sock puppet on a city council would be completely irrelevant in matters of expression and faith. Really, truly.

Now, people are free to boycott and protest whomever they please. Citizens and elected officials have every right to work to cut off taxpayer funding to businesses and institutions they find morally distasteful. But if the city council of Anytown, USA, were to concoct reasons to deny permits to gay business owners who support same-sex marriage, many Americans would find that rightfully appalling. If you’re OK with the idea of a city council’s denying Christians who believe in traditional marriage the same freedom, you’re a massive hypocrite — and probably worse.

SOURCE






Appalling: Planned Parenthood Didn't Report Rapes of Underage Girls

 Planned Parenthood staff did not report multiple rapes of a 14-year-old girl who got two abortions at the clinic that were four months apart, the Alabama health department found during a recently published review of the clinic.

In addition to sanitation problems, improper paperwork and a lack of caution when administering drugs to patients, the health department found the Alabama clinic failed to report the 14-year-old’s case to the authorities, and was otherwise careless with her health.

These deficiencies “require a plan of correction,” the review begins.

A 14-year-old mother of two visited the clinic in April, 2014, for an abortion, and returned that August for a second abortion. Planned Parenthood did not obtain proper consent from a guardian, as required by Alabama law, and did not take proper precautions when administering the medication abortions.

SOURCE






Carson Drops A Truth Bomb on Thug Culture

In a new USA Today op-ed, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson slammed some of the tactics used by the Black Lives Matter movement as “lunacy,” while singling out a host of liberal institutions which he says are the black community’s “real sources of our hopelessness.”

Carson singled out the entertainment industry — and the new hit movie “Straight Outta Compton” in particular — as one such institution.

“The entertainment industry…lines its pockets by glamorizing a life where black men are thugs and our women are trash,” Carson writes.  “It is time for them to pick on someone else because we have had enough.”

“Demeaning women is not art, and it shouldn’t be profitable. Neither is glorifying violence and equating prison time with authenticity. Straight Out of Compton, #1 in movie theaters, is just the latest example. You only have to watch the trailers.”

The movie tells the story of the formation of the Los Angeles-based rap group, N.W.A. The group, whose most popular song is entitled, “Fuck the Police,” was started with drug money from one of its members, Eazy-E.

Addressing policing, which has been Black Lives Matter’s main area of focus, Carson acknowledges that the activists are right “that racial policing issues exist and some rotten policemen took actions that killed innocent people.”

“Those actions were inexcusable and they should be prosecuted to deter such acts in the future,” Carson says, while adding that “unjust treatment from police did not fill our inner cities with people who face growing hopelessness.”

In the op-ed, Carson calls out Black Lives Matter for its recent focus on Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.  “There are many things to be angry about when you are consumed by hopelessness. Bernie Sanders isn’t one of them,” Carson writes.

Earlier this month members of the Black Lives Matter branch in Seattle disrupted a Sanders campaign event, forcing him off stage. The incident caused disruption within progressive circles and within the Black Lives Matter movement itself. Sanders is considered the most progressive candidate running for office.

Activists from other Black Lives Matters chapters have disrupted other events, including last month’s Netroots Nation, where Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley were presenting.

Carson, who describes the neighborhood of his childhood as one where “most Americans were told to never drive through,” pointed to his mother who helped protect him and his brother from falling victim to street crime.

“I can tell you she wasn’t worried about Socialist senators from tiny rural states,” Carson writes. “‘BlackLivesmatter’ could learn from her to focus on the real sources of our hopelessness.”

Carson calls on the protesters to march on local boards of education, city hall, the entertainment industry, crack houses, Washington D.C. and both the Democratic and Republican parties.

“The actions of rogue police officers take black lives one at a time. Our public school system has destroyed black lives not in the ones and twos, but in whole generations,” Carson says, asserting that public schools are controlled by teachers unions which focus more on helping teachers rather than teaching children.

He also calls for protests against city hall to help fight against crime and laments the federal government’s “War on Poverty,” saying that the $19 trillion spent on programs to fight poverty “have been a great American failure.”

Of the Democratic party, Carson writes: “Let’s tell them, we don’t want to be clothed, fed and housed. We want honor and dignity.”

He also accuses the Republican party of ignoring blacks for too long. “They need to invite us in and listen to us. We need to communicate and find a different way.”

SOURCE






Obama Desecrates American History

Ohio lawmakers reacted angrily Sunday to the White House's announcement that President Obama would formally rename Alaska's Mt. McKinley — North America's highest peak — "Denali" during his trip to The Last Frontier this week.

"Mount McKinley ... has held the name of our nation's 25th President for over 100 years," Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, said in a statement. "This landmark is a testament to his countless years of service to our country." Gibbs also described Obama's action as "constitutional overreach," saying that an act of Congress was required to rename the mountain, because a law formally naming it after Ohio's William McKinley was passed in 1917.

"This political stunt is insulting to all Ohioans, and I will be working with the House Committee on Natural Resources to determine what can be done to prevent this action," Gibbs said.

The Ohio delegation's disappointment at the decision cut across party lines.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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



1 September, 2015

Not another one!  Another arrogant U.N. female ready to bad-mouth  Britain

Britain is so safe to pick on I guess.  The same performance in Iran or Venezuela would get her locked up for slander or some such.  Wonderful Britain just tut-tuts

The United Nations was under fire last night for sending a Costa Rican human rights lawyer to Britain to investigate ‘absurd’ claims that Government welfare reforms have violated the rights of the disabled.

Catalina Devandas Aguilar is expected to visit the UK in the coming months to spearhead an inquiry into claims that Britain is guilty of ‘grave or systematic violations’ of the rights of the disabled.

The inquiry, by the UN’s Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, will report back on a range of issues, including whether welfare cuts have harmed disabled people. Other members of the committee include representatives from Uganda, Kenya, Tunisia and Thailand.

Tory MP Ian Liddell-Grainger last night described the inquiry as ‘the most absurd and offensive nonsense’.  He added: ‘We have a proud record in this country for the way we treat disabled people.

‘I am not an expert on disability rights in Costa Rica, but I suspect Miss Devandas Aguilar might be better off focusing her efforts much closer to home. The UN should keep their noses out.’

An inquiry is only ordered where the UN committee believes there is evidence of ‘grave or systematic violations’ of the rights of the disabled. It is understood Miss Devandas Aguilar is planning to lead a team of inspectors to the UK in the coming months to talk to campaigners.

Bill Scott, director of policy at Inclusion Scotland, a consortium of disability organisations, said he had been contacted by the UN after submitting a report to the Geneva-based committee.  He told Scotland’s Herald newspaper: ‘The UN have notified us they will be visiting Britain to investigate, and want to meet us.’

Tory MP Ian Liddell-Grainger last night described the inquiry as ‘the most absurd and offensive nonsense’

Disabled people have been affected by a number of welfare reforms in recent years. Disability campaigners claim they were hit disproportionately by the spare room subsidy. Critics say disabled people sometimes need a spare room for a carer or equipment.

Campaigners are also critical of Employment and Support Allowance. Claimants must undergo a test to see if they are capable of work and will have their payments cut by £30 a week to the level of Jobseeker’s Allowance if they are.

Ministers insist the changes have been designed to focus scarce resources on the most needy and encourage those who can work to return to the workplace.

The Department for Work and Pensions has declined to comment on the inquiry, but pointed out that the UK spends around £50billion a year on disabled people and their services. The UK also has stringent equalities legislation.

The investigation threatens to reignite the row between the DWP and the UN over ‘politically motivated’ attacks on Britain.

Last year a group of UN poverty ‘ambassadors’ attacked Britain’s welfare reforms. And in 2013, the UN’s controversial Brazilian housing ‘rapporteur’ Raquel Rolnik criticised cuts to housing benefit. Miss Rolnik, a former Marxist, was dubbed the ‘Brazil Nut’ after claims emerged that she had dabbled in witchcraft.

SOURCE





Britain's leading Leftist, Jeremy Corbyn, is an utter nut

Jeremy Corbyn described the assassination of Osama bin Laden as a ‘tragedy upon a tragedy’ that would make the world a more dangerous place.

In TV footage which emerged online for the first time last week, the Labour leadership frontrunner criticised the killing of the world’s most wanted terrorist in a raid by US special forces.

He told Iranian national television, shortly after bin Laden was shot four years ago, that the 9/11 mastermind should not have received the ‘death penalty’, but should have been put on trial. Failure to do so, Mr Corbyn said, was ‘a tragedy upon a tragedy’, after the World Trade Center attacks, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Critics have described his remarks as ‘frightening’ and displaying a complete lack of understanding of difficult military operations. They will fuel the deep concerns of many voters about Mr Corbyn’s antipathy to Western foreign policy, and follow the recent chorus of criticism over his associations with Islamic extremists.

Bin Laden became the world’s most wanted man following the attacks on September 11, 2001, which killed nearly 3,000 people when two jets hijacked by extremists from his Al Qaeda network were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, another hit the Pentagon and one crashed in Pennsylvania.

He was tracked down and shot dead in May 2011 at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. David Cameron and former Labour leader Ed Miliband praised the US forces for their achievement and said the world was now a ‘safer place’.

But Mr Corbyn told Press TV’s The Agenda programme: ‘There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process. This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.

‘The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage … Can’t we learn some lessons from this?’

Presenter Yvonne Ridley, a controversial critic of the West, mentioned reports of a drone strike on another senior Al Qaeda figure, Anwar al-Awlaki, the following day. Mr Corbyn replied: ‘Yes and the next stage will be an attempted assassination on Gaddafi and so it will go on.

‘This will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse. The solution has got to be law not war.’ He added: ‘I think everyone should be put on trial. I also profoundly disagree with the death penalty under any circumstances for anybody.’

Kevan Jones, Labour’s defence spokesman, said: ‘This just shows you how out of touch he is with what most people’s views are.’

Nadhim Zahawi, a Conservative MP on the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said: ‘Osama bin Laden was a terrorist who any sensible human being in the world would want either killed or arrested. For him to call this a tragedy and appear to compare it to what happened on 9/11 is frightening.’

Alan Mendoza, deputy director of the Henry Jackson Society think-tank, said the comments ‘betray a complete lack of understanding of the conditions in which an extremely difficult military mission was undertaken’.


SOURCE






Pay gap? British women earn MORE than men till their 40s

Women are paid more than men until they reach their 40s, according to an official assessment of the gender pay gap.

It found that the difference between wage levels for male and female employees leans in favour of women rather than men among workers in their 20s and 30s.

Twenty-something women have earned more than men in the same age group for the past decade.

Now, in a further sign that the gender pay gap is retreating, the figures show that for the first time women in their 30s are also paid more than their male contemporaries. Men only become better paid when they reach middle age.

The disappearance of apparent pay bias against women in their 30s comes as growing numbers of women put off having children until later and later ages.

Figures covering last year show that women in their 20s, working full-time and without counting overtime, earned 1.1 per cent more on average than similar men.

The figures, published by the Office for National Statistics in its national hours and earnings survey, also show that women in their 30s out-earned men by 0.2 per cent on average last year.

But a pay gap in favour of men still cuts in after the age of 40. Women in their 40s are paid on average 13.6 per cent less than men, a disadvantage that rises to 18 per cent for those in their 50s.

Girls still earn less than boys until they reach 21. Among 16 and 17-year-olds, boys earn 16.9 per cent more than girls while for 18 to 21-year-olds the gap is 4.8 per cent.

The continuing pay gap in favour of teenage boys may be connected to the greater academic success of girls, which means most able women will go to university or further education. Women have closed the gap on men under 40 at a time when education, career and home ownership have become the priority over marriage and family for millions.

The average age at which a woman has a baby is now 30 and the proportion who have a baby over 35 has trebled since the 1980s. The traditional gender pay gap is also being challenged among the young high earners of Hollywood.

In June the Mail reported that for her latest film Jennifer Lawrence, 25, is to be paid almost double what her male co-star receives. The Hunger Games actress will reportedly get £12.5million to appear in Passengers, while Chris Pratt, star of Guardians of the Galaxy, will receive up to £7.5million

In the past, Oscar-winner Miss Lawrence, a vocal critic of the gender wage gap in Hollywood, has been paid less than male co-stars.

The ONS figures were supplemented by a survey by the Press Association news agency, which said that in 2013 a woman aged between 22 and 29 typically earned £1,111 more than a male rival.

Feminist campaigners said companies should close the pay gap at older ages by offering senior jobs to part-time or job-share managers.

Sam Smethers, of the Fawcett Society, said: ‘Sadly the opposite is true. Once you get to a certain level it is a full-time role, which excludes many women from roles they would be perfectly capable of doing.’

But Patricia Morgan, an author and researcher on the family, said: ‘If the pay gap in the 20s and 30s was the other way around there would be bucketloads of experts jumping up and down demanding that we act to address this dreadful inequality. No-one seems to worry about being unfair to men.

‘This is about women and their ability to choose to have children, and to look after them themselves. There is a smack of totalitarianism about the attitude which says women cannot choose to bring up their own children rather than pursue careers.’

SOURCE






ACLU: Force Catholic Hospitals to Abandon Catholic Faith

The woefully misnamed American Civil Liberties Union is launching a crusade to force Catholic hospitals to act against Catholic moral teachings and the natural law.

This is an un-American attack on religious liberty.

The ACLU's intentions came to light this week after it threatened to sue Mercy Medical Center in Redding, California, which is operated by the Sisters of Mercy. The hospital is a part of Dignity Health, a nonprofit that operates 40 hospitals — 22 of which are Catholic — in California, Nevada and Arizona.

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday, Elizabeth Gill, an ACLU lawyer, sent a letter to the hospital threatening legal action if it would not relent on its refusal to allow a woman to be sterilized in its facilities after giving birth there to a child due next month.

"In an Aug. 17 letter to Mercy Medical Center in Redding, Gill said the ACLU would go to court unless the hospital reversed course and authorized the sterilization procedure," the Chronicle reported. "By denying 'pregnancy-related care'..., Gill wrote, the hospital is discriminating on the basis of sex, as defined by California law, and is also allowing 'your corporate entity's religious beliefs' to override a doctor's medical decision, violating a state law against the corporate practice of medicine."

On Tuesday, the Chronicle published another article with this lead: "Facing a possible sex-discrimination lawsuit, a Catholic hospital in Redding reversed its position Monday and agreed to let a woman's doctor sterilize her after she gives birth next month."

Dignity Health's Mercy Medical Center then issued a carefully worded statement indicating that the center, in fact, had not and would not turn away from the Catholic bishops' moral directives on health care.

"In accordance with policy, as well as state and federal law, we respect our patients' privacy by not discussing the specifics of their care," said Dignity's statement.

"What we can share is that in general, it is our practice not to provide sterilization services at Dignity Health's Catholic facilities in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services," said the statement. "As such, tubal ligations are not performed in Catholic hospitals except on a case-by-case basis where a formal review by a committee of physicians and others gives permission to perform the procedure."

"The hospital has always and will continue to operate in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services and medical staff bylaws," Dignity insisted in its statement.

The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, published by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, say this about sterilization: "Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic hospital. Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has posted a collection of quotations from church documents on contraception, sterilization and abortion. It includes a statement from Pope Pius XII explaining that "direct sterilization" is a violation of the natural law.

"Direct sterilization — that is, the sterilization which aims, either as a means or as an end in itself, to render child-bearing impossible — is a grave violation of the moral law and therefore unlawful," said the pope.

"[W]hen sterilization began to be much more widely used the Holy See was obliged to declare openly and explicitly that direct sterilization, permanent or temporary, whether of men or women, is illicit in virtue of the natural law, from which the Church herself, as you know, has no power to dispense."

For its part, the ACLU made clear that its ultimate target was not this particular hospital or the outcome of the particular case discussed in the Chronicle. Its ultimate target is the practice of Catholic morality inside Catholic hospitals.

"While we are grateful Mercy Medical Center has agreed to provide medical care in this instance ... the reality remains that there is a clear conflict between the best interests of patients and the directives of the Catholic hospital system," said the ACLU's Gill in an ACLU press release.

"Religious institutions that provide services to the general public should not be allowed to hold religion as an excuse to discriminate or deny important health care," she said.

The ACLU then said: "The hospital's directives, written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, classify common reproductive health procedures as 'intrinsically evil."

In fact, Directive 70 published by the bishops says: "Catholic health care organizations are not permitted to engage in immediate material cooperation in actions that are intrinsically immoral, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and direct sterilization."

We now live in a country where self-proclaimed advocates of "civil liberties" believe they can get the courts to force Catholic institutions to cooperate in these evil acts.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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





HOME (Index page)

BIO for John Ray






(Isaiah 62:1)


Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners


Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.


Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations


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 children 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


What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so


Racial differences in temperament: Chinese are more passive even as little babies


The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here and here, for instance"


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.


So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”


Children are the best thing in life. See also here.


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."


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.


A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."



A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?


Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).



There really is an actress named Donna Air


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


"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE


RELIGION:

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian


Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil


The homosexuals of Gibeah set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties


Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion


"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)


I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'


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


Even Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly unimpressed by Africans








Index page for this site


DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:

"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:

"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Recipes"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral reef compendium.
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia


BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED

"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Vodafrauds (vodafone)
Bank of Queensland blues


There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)


Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/


ALSO:

Mirror for this blog
Mirror for "Dissecting Leftism"
Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Rarely updated)



Selected reading

MONOGRAPH ON LEFTISM

CONSERVATISM AS HERESY

Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism

Critiques
Lakoff
Van Hiel
Sidanius
Kruglanski
Pyszczynski et al.





Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)



Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/