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 This site is updated several times a month but is no longer updated daily.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, 2016

A multicultural pedophile


The religion of the offender is not mentioned, for some unknown reason. The surname Bhatti comes both from Northern India and Pakistan but people named Hamid are almost invariably Muslims. It is an Arab religious name

A teaching assistant was caught having a fling with a 15-year-old schoolgirl after her mother found his love note saying, 'You were amazing last night as always', a court heard.

Hamid Bhatti, 24, allegedly slept with the pupil 14 times after grooming her while on a work placement at her school.

He lavished her with love notes and jewellery before having sex with her on his bedroom floor, jurors were told.

The girl, who was studying for her GCSEs, had developed a 'crush' on him and thought he was 'good looking' after spotting him in an art lesson, it was said.

They crossed paths between lessons at the school in Yeovil, Somerset, and swapped numbers via Facebook after she messaged him from a friend's account.

Concerns were raised when the girl was spotted blowing the maths assistant a kiss out of the classroom window - and he caught it and 'threw' it back, it was said.

When challenged, the two conspired together and claimed it was just a 'joke', denying there was anything untoward going on, Taunton Crown Court heard.

But they were already in a sexual relationship and over the next eight months, Bhatti allegedly slept with the girl - who he met when she was just 14 - at least 14 times, the court was told.

On one occasion, Bhatti slept with the girl - who was drunk after going to a party - on his bedroom floor while her teenage friend slept in his bed, prosecutors claim.

He also told her he loved her and gave her a necklace, money and a cushion with 'I love you' written on it, the court heard.

Bhatti and the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were questioned multiple times by police but she lied to stop him from getting into trouble, it was said.

The defendant, who has a thick black beard and long hair, denies five counts of sexual activity with a child at least 14 times between May 2014 and February 2015.

He also denies abducting a child after he allegedly ignored an order made by police banning him from having any contact with the girl.

Lee Bremridge, prosecuting, said: 'The Crown says that he knew full well how old the girl was.

'A sexual relationship between them started in May 2014 when he worked at the school and she was a pupil.

'That sexual relationship continued throughout later 2014 into 2015, which is why she was prepared to lie to the police and tell them that nothing happened when she was interviewed.

'It was because they were in a relationship together and she was protecting him.'

Concerns were first raised by a fellow teacher at the school after Bhatti, then 22, was seen escorting the girl to class and they blew each other a kiss, the court heard.

He was sacked from his job the following month, in June 2014, and social services got involved.

The girl and Bhatti, who got a new job in a restaurant, maintained that they had never slept together, with Bhatti claiming the girl was 'pestering' him.

But a jury was told on Monday that he initiated intimacy with the youngster after inviting her on a date while he was still employed by the school.

They kissed and cuddled and allegedly had sex for the first time later that week, in May 2014, after arranging to go on a second date.

The girl was questioned by police in July 2014 after she turned up at school with a 'black eye' and her mother was called in, the court heard.

But she was 'less than truthful' about what had happened and said she and Bhatti had not had sex, and that the black eye was from tripping over, it was said.

Mr Brembridge said: 'She said that although she had a crush on Hamid Bhatti and had stayed at his house, they never had sex.

'The girl was clearly protecting them because the two of them were having a sexual relationship and they didn't want anyone, particularly the police or her parents, to find out.'

In October 2014, the girl's mother called police after finding a handwritten note among her daughter's belongings.

Bhatti, who now lives in Rochdale, Yorkshire, allegedly wrote: 'Hey baby, I'm sorry I had to leave this morning for work. You were amazing last night as always. 'I hope you get this message and leave me a note. Plan to see you soon. I love you. P.s. don't forget to go to the doctors.'

The couple still denied they were having an affair, but the note prompted police to issue Bhatti with an anti-abduction notice, prohibiting him from contacting the child.

The court heard that the teacher ignored the warning and was finally caught out after the teenager went missing in February 2015. Police went to Bhatti's house to enquire about the girl's whereabouts and he told them he had not seen or spoken to her for a long time.  Suspicious, they returned later that day and officers standing at the back of the property in Yeovil, Somerset, caught the teenager trying to flee.

Police discovered a used condom with the pupil's DNA on it in his bedroom.

Bhatti was arrested and charged with sex with a minor in June 2015, after the girl, who by that time had turned 16, finally told police the 'whole truth'.

He admits sleeping with the girl in February 2015 but denies knowing she was underage at the time.

SOURCE





'Favors' to Blacks

Thomas Sowell

Back in the 1960s, as large numbers of black students were entering a certain Ivy League university for the first time, someone asked a chemistry professor — off the record — what his response to them was. He said, “I give them all A’s and B’s. To hell with them.”

Since many of those students were admitted with lower academic qualifications than other students, he knew that honest grades in a tough subject like chemistry could lead to lots of failing grades, and that in turn would lead to lots of time-wasting hassles — not just from the students, but also from the administration.

He was not about to waste time that he wanted to invest in his professional work in chemistry and the advancement of his own career. He also knew that his “favor” to black students in grading was going to do them more harm than good in the long run, because they wouldn’t know what they were supposed to know.

Such cynical calculations were seldom expressed in so many words. Nor are similar cynical calculations openly expressed today in politics. But many successful political careers have been built on giving blacks “favors” that look good on the surface but do lasting damage in the long run.

One of these “favors” was the welfare state. A vastly expanded welfare state in the 1960s destroyed the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and generations of racial oppression.

In 1960, before this expansion of the welfare state, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent. By 1985, 67 percent of black children were raised with either one parent or no parent.

A big “favor” the Obama administration is offering blacks today is exemption from school behavior rules that have led to a rate of disciplining of black male students that is greater than the rate of disciplining of other categories of students.

Is it impossible that black males misbehave in school more often than Asian females? Or Jewish students? Or others?

Is the only possible reason for the disparities in disciplining rates that the teachers and principals are discriminating against black males? Even when many of these teachers and principals in black neighborhoods are themselves black?

But Washington politicians are on the case. It strengthens the political vision that blacks are besieged by racist enemies, from which Democrats are their only protection. They give black youngsters exemptions from behavioral standards, just as the Ivy League chemistry professor gave them exemption from academic standards.

In both cases, the consequence — unspoken today — is “to hell with them.” Kids from homes where they were not given behavioral standards, who are then not held to behavioral standards in schools, are on a path that can lead them as adults straight into prison, or to fatal confrontations with the police.

This is ultimately not a racial thing. Exactly the same welfare state policies and the same non-judgmental exemption from behavioral standards in Britain have led to remarkably similar results among lower-class whites there.

The riots of lower-class whites in London, Manchester and other British cities in 2011 were incredibly similar to black riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and other American cities — right down to setting fire to police cars.

One of the few bright spots for black children in American ghettos have been some charter schools that have educated these children to levels equal to, and in some cases better than, those in affluent suburbs.

You might think that this would be welcomed by those who are so ready to do “favors” for blacks. But you would be dead wrong. Democrats who have been in charge of most cities with sizable black populations, for decades, are on record opposing the spread of charter schools. So is the NAACP.

That is a de facto declaration of moral bankruptcy in both cases, just as in the case of the Ivy League chemistry professor. In all three cases, it is a question of promoting one’s own special interests, while offering “favors” to blacks.

The Democrats' special interest is in serving the teachers' unions, which oppose charter schools and support Democrats financially. The NAACP’s special interest is in serving the same donors — and in keeping ghetto schools controlled by racial activists, as part of their turf.

SOURCE






Australia 'should go in to bat for China'

This may be the first and last time I agree with a U.N. official but I think the lady below is right.  I have previously argued that China now has a perfectly legal right to the islands it has built in the East China sea: The right of first settlement

Australia is well placed to make the case to Washington to try to reform international organisations to accommodate China's rise, according to a senior EU advisor.

Nathalie Tocci, a special advisor to the European Union's High Representative, says as Europe is doing some soul searching about giving up some of its own power, other countries need to do the same.

"Unless we start doing that we may end up in a situation where other organisations pop up," Dr Tocci told AAP on Wednesday.

China needed to be told the world understood it was growing and needed more space, within rules and limits.

"It's also about telling Americans, you've got to make that space, otherwise they are going to take it and it's not going to be pretty," she said.

The China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, set up in opposition to the US-based International Monetary Fund and World Bank, was the "first warning signal", she said.

Other bodies such as the World Trade Organisation and even parts of the UN could also need reform.

"In order to ensure that multilateralism survives into the future, we have to transform it," Dr Tocci said.

She urged Australia to take a leadership role because it understands China's rise is inevitable.

"I think, given Australia's relationship with the United States, it has a huge role to play in making the case," Dr Tocci said.

On the prospects of an EU and Australian free trade deal, Dr Tocci, who helped draft the new global strategy on foreign and security policy after Britain voted to leave the bloc, said politicians needed to start laying the ground work early in order to win over a hostile public.

"These are not easy times. What we are seeing is a backlash against globalisation," she said.

"A lot of explaining needs to be done about why these agreements are actually good." She predicts the deal could be finalised by 2018.

SOURCE






The Labor Party's anti-plebiscite drive reflects audacity of hate

Jennifer Oriel writes from Australia on the wish by Australian conservatives to let the homosexual marriage issue be settled by a popular vote

There is something rather dangerous about the gay marriage debate — and it is not homosexuality or marriage.

It is the view widely held by our political Left that ­liberal democratic precepts can be overridden whenever they interfere with politically correct ideology.

Not content merely to deny the democratic mandate of millions who endorsed the same-sex marriage plebiscite by voting the Coalition into power, Labor is sowing civil hatred as social order.

The abysmal and divisive new ethos of Labor is the audacity of hate.

I think it would be fair to surmise that the opposition’s legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus doesn’t suffer from an excess of modesty.

But even so, his idea that the government should “win over” Labor by compromising on the plebiscite bill is remarkably arrogant. The government has an election mandate to hold a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Labor’s ­denial of it constitutes a repudiation of the will of the people.

Having lost its election campaign to deny people a vote on marriage reform, Labor has swung into attack.

It is reframing the plebiscite ­debate by exploiting fear and manipulating emotion. In one short week, Labor has succeeded in re­framing the founding principles of liberal democracy as manifestations of hatred — all in the name of love, of course.

In Labor’s grand lexicon of doublespeak, public reason, active citizenship, and the human rights to free thought and speech, freedom of association and religion are mistranslated into forms of ­hatred. And the citizen who seeks active participation in democracy by advocating for the same-sex marriage plebiscite is, by extension, hatred personified.

Increasingly it is the case that whenever a question of social reform arises, the political Left reverts to the audacity of hate to coerce people into conformity. Its default position is to mob and vilify dissenters.

It acts as though Australia were a country under democratic socialism rather than liberal democracy.

Like revolutionary socialism, the democratic model holds socialism as the only end of democracy, but its tenets are introduced using the state and associ­ated institutions rather than militant revolution.

During the past week, the socialist Left position on gay marriage has been promulgated by Labor, the Greens and the state media institutions that consistently follow the Left party line: SBS and the ABC.

In news and on current affairs programs, the ABC has so aggressively campaigned for the socialist Left’s anti-plebiscite position, it appeared there was no alternative. And that is perfectly consistent with the one-party-rule ethos of democratic socialism.

But it just happens to run counter to the Australian people’s will — namely, the democratic mandate for a plebiscite endorsed at the federal election.

Whenever a pro-plebiscite voice is raised, the Left howls it down in a chorus of contempt. Predictably, Christians and conservatives are the principal victims of the Left’s pre-emptive moral infallibility.

For example, when it looked as though Stephen O’Doherty, chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, was winning the plebiscite debate on ABC’s The Drum, host Julia Baird interrupted to promulgate an anti-plebiscite line in unison with the other panellists.

Tony Jones, the host of ABC’s Q&A, so routinely interrupts politically incorrect panellists that the online forum Catallaxy Files holds bids for “interruption lotto” before each show.

The tendency of the political Left to contort democracy whenever it conflicts with politically correct ideology is evident also in its main counter-argument to the plebiscite, which actually constitutes a rationale for it.

Anti-plebiscite politicians and commentators believe they can relieve Australia of the people’s will by appeal to representative democracy.

Yet the zenith of representative democracy — the popular democratic election under a system of universal suffrage — yielded a yes vote for the plebiscite as a central feature of the Coalition’s election platform.

In recent years the appeal to representative democracy has been fashioned into a rhetorical tool of convenience to justify everything from policy reversals to unseating prime ministers. It is the default defence of those who seek a ready rationale for acting against the will of the people expressed in federal elections.

And it seems that appeals to representative democracy strip­ped of both genuine representation and democracy are especially popular among the members of left-leaning factions in both major parties.

Such appeals were used to unseat Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd and Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott.

However, hollow appeals to representative democracy threaten its future by subordinating the people’s will to party politics and replacing election mandates with polls.

They are the source of the growing democratic deficit — the vast gulf between the people and the elites — producing political instability across the West.

The government has a mandate to pass the bill for a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. The mandate was provided by millions of Australians who voted for the Coalition in the July election.

Labor would have liked to win the election with its opposing campaign to legislate for same-sex marriage in parliament. But it did not win. Having lost the popular vote, Labor seeks to subvert democracy by blocking the plebiscite.

The worrying implication is that the Left may actually loathe the people and mistrust democracy as much as its anti-plebiscite propaganda suggests.

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, 2016

Convicted child rapist who posed as policeman to attack schoolgirls aged 11 and 12 in one hour is jailed for life


We must not be told his religion of course but Badran is a common Arabic surname

A convicted child rapist who posed as a policeman to attack two schoolgirls in the space of an hour was jailed for life today.

Apeldelrazek Badran, 33, had been released six months before the attacks after serving nine years for raping a nine-year-old girl.

He was locked up in 2003, released on licence in 2009, recalled in 2011 and finally released again in July 2015 before the latest spree of sexually motivated crimes against schoolgirls.

In the first attack on January 27 this year, Badran disguised himself as a policeman when he attacked an 11-year-old girl intending to sexually assault her, but she managed to escape.

An hour later, he tried to ‘arrest’ a vulnerable 12-year-old girl for shoplifting.

He lured her into an alleyway, threatened to 'cut' her with what she thought was a knife before sexually assaulting her.

During the attack the girl's frantic mother, who was worried because her daughter hadn't returned home, made panicky calls to her mobile.

Badran then took photos of the girl's half-naked body on his phone, forcing her to smile and telling her that if she told anyone about the incident he would post the pictures online.

She managed to escape but dropped her mother's bank card.

When the terrified girl was eventually found by her mother she was 'crying and shaking' and said, 'it's not my fault, I tried to escape'.

Police identified Badran before officers went to his home address in Enfield, north London, half a mile away from where the two attacks took place.

The officer found the bank card and a photo of his victim, which Badran had edited to include his own details of what happened for his own pleasure.

Badran was found guilty of one count of causing acutal bodily harm, battery with intent to commit a sexual offence, sexual assault by digital penetration, sexual touching and bank-card theft.

He was also found guilty of a further two breaches of his sexual harm prevention order.

Jailing Badran today at Wood Green Crown Court, Judge Rosa Harwood-Smart QC said: 'You fit the criteria of a dangerous offender.

'All these offences are serious and the girls have been deeply and probably permanently scarred by their experience and I am aware of the damage to them and their families as a result of your actions. 'The seriousness is such, that a determinate sentence is not appropriate, and I am sentencing you to life.

'You are very dangerous. Your behaviour is described as protracted and they say you pose a high risk towards children, and a high risk of reoffending.'

Judge Harwood-Smart sentenced Badran to life with a minimum term of eight years and four months in jail.

SOURCE






Jewish activist is HECKLED at Labour conference as he slams the party for becoming an unsafe place for Jews

Jewish Leftists are a pathetic lot

A leader of Jews in the Labour party was heckled from the floor of party conference today as he slammed an 'upsurge' in anti-Semitism.

Mike Katz said Labour had become a party that was 'not seen as welcoming to Jews' amid a growing dispute about anti-Semitism among activists supporting Jeremy Corbyn.

But as Mr Katz urged delegates to immediately adopt party rule changes to make it easier to remove anti-Semites from ranks, he was loudly heckled from the floor.

Reports suggested the activist shouted that Mr Katz, vice-chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement, did not speak for all Jews and was talking 'rubbish'.

Mr Corbyn faced renewed calls at conference from MPs to do more on anti-Semitism at the conference after claims were made on the conference fringes that racism was being 'weaponised' against the Labour leader.

In his speech, Mr Katz said: 'I don't want to be here because I wish there hadn't been an upsurge in antisemitics, Islamophobic, misogynistic and homophobic vile hate speech in our party, even here, in our exhibitions and on our fringe, I'm sad to report.

'Jeremy [Corbyn] has said it, Tom [Watson] has said it, we have all said it; there is no place for this in our party. We must root it out.

'Against this backdrop, is there any wonder that support for Labour amongst British Jews is said to be as low as 7 per cent.

'It makes me weep; the party of Manny Shinwell, the party that has done more than any other to promote tolerance and inequality, the party to which the Jewish Labour Movement has been affiliated since 1920, is not seen as a welcoming home for Jews.'

The row comes after Labour's ruling national executive committee last week decided only to 'note' proposals – which would make it easier to expel those responsible for anti-Semitism and other forms of racism – meaning they will not be implemented until next year.

Mr Katz said it was a 'let down' that it will be another 12 months before 'we can signal to our members that we're serious about dealing with the problems. We shouldn't have to wait another year. It should be now'.

Israeli ambassador Mark Regev is at the Labour conference in Liverpool today to attend the annual Labour Friends of Israel Reception.

Mr Corbyn is due to attend the event on the fringes of the main conference tonight.

A year ago, the Labour leader ran into trouble for his speech at the event as he was criticised for not using the word Israel in his main remarks or while taking questions.

Anti-Semitism returned to the forefront of the conference yesterday as Illford North MP Wes Streeting, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, spoke out.

At a Saturday night fringe meeting, controversial Momentum activist Jackie Walker last night accused opponents of Mr Corbyn of 'weaponising' and 'exaggerating' anti-Semitism against the Labour leader.

Leaflets distributed outside a meeting on religious hatred by the left-wing pressure group Momentum were branded 'anti-Semitic and undeniably racist' by Mr Streeting.

The leaflets claimed that the Jewish Labour Movement acted as 'a representative of a foreign power, Israel' and called for it to be disaffiliated from the Labour Party.

Mr Streeting told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'That last comment, 'acts as a representative of a foreign power', this isn't ambiguous. This is classic anti-semitic trope, at our conference.

'In terms of some of the people we're talking about, and the problem that occurs, they're not going to listen to people like me. 'But they do place a lot of faith and stock in Jeremy.

'As someone who has a track record of tackling racism and discrimination, I think in the past year he's had a golden opportunity which he hasn't yet taken up to show real leadership on this, and help navigate through some of the problems we face in terms of anti-Semitism.'

Mr Streeting acknowledged that anti-Semitism was not a problem among the vast majority of Labour members, and that anti-Semitism can be used to shut down legitimate debate on Israel. He added: 'But sometimes that debate does spill over into anti-semitism.

'Jeremy Corbyn has got an opportunity to show real leadership to help steer us through. 'I feel in the past year he hasn't acknowledged the extent and the nature of the problem, or helped us reach a solution.'

SOURCE





More of Britain's unending bureaucracy

Parents are furious as council refuses to collect dirty nappies unless they show their children's BIRTH CERTIFICATES to prove they're under three

Parents have been left furious after a council revealed its binmen would only collect dirty nappies if they showed their children’s birth certificates.

Anglesey Council says that because most children are potty trained between ages of two and three, people should prove their child’s age to receive the service.

But families claim the changes do not consider different child development rates or take account of some disabled children requiring nappies for longer.

The nappy collection every fortnight will only be for families with children up to three years old, according to the North Wales Daily Post.

Everyone else must put them in their normal household waste which is collected once every three weeks, on what is the fifth largest island surrounding Britain.

Steph Roberts, a mother from Gwalchmai, told the newspaper: ‘I think it’s disgraceful that they’ve placed an age limit on the service.

‘I have a three year old who’s currently being potty trained, and I know I’m not the only one in the same situation.’

Another family with a disabled daughter aged five were allegedly told to ask health officials for help after learning that there were no exceptions to the rule.

Ian Cheney, whose daughter Olivia has Down’s syndrome, said: ‘I automatically assumed that Livy would be eligible for the council service because of her disability.

‘At the moment, with fortnightly collections, it’s a struggle but we usually make it. But we have no hope of being able to cope for three weeks.’

A council spokesman said: ‘Evidence collated by our waste management team suggests that most children are potty trained between the ages of two and three.

‘It has therefore been agreed to offer this service up until a child’s third birthday.

‘Requesting a copy of a child’s birth certificate will allow us to monitor the number of children benefiting from the service and their respective ages.'

The council insisted the service will only be provided to the child's home address and does not cover any nursery, crèche or child-minding service they may attend.

The spokesman added: ‘There is another service which is readily available for individuals who are unwell or have medical needs.'

This is called the 'offensive non-infectious household waste collection' and is available on request from healthcare providers with an application form.

The council has organised drop-in sessions to explain the changes at a local leisure centre this afternoon and at a library tomorrow.

SOURCEhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809396/Parents-furious-council-refuses-collect-dirty-nappies-unless-children-s-BIRTH-CERTIFICATES-prove-three.html





Walmart Workers Refuse to Make Cop's Retirement Cake

Three Walmart workers in McDonough, Georgia, refused to decorate a “thin blue line” cake for a police officer’s retirement party because they said it was racist.

A number of my Georgia readers alerted me to the story and on Saturday night I spoke directly with the police officer’s daughter. She asked that I not divulge her name and I’ve agreed to honor her request.

“I was so shocked,” she told me. “I didn’t know what to do or say or anything. I was trying not to lose my temper or make a scene.”

For the record, Walmart has confessed that most of her allegations are true. I’ll have more on that a bit later in this column.

The police officer’s daughter went to the Walmart on Willow Drive on Sept. 22 to order a flag for her father’s retirement party. He was leaving the force after 25 years on the job.

She showed the bakers a photograph of the police officer’s flag — the black and white version of Old Glory with a blue line.

“One of the bakers told me the design could be perceived as racist and nobody feels comfortable decorating the cake,” the police officer’s daughter told me.

As an alternative, she suggested a chocolate-frosted cake with a horizontal, frosted blue line.

But that design was also rejected by Walmart’s cake decorator.

“She said, ‘I don’t feel comfortable doing this,’” the cop’s daughter told me. “I asked her, ‘Is there something wrong with cops?’”

After being rejected for a third time, the 21-year-old told the bakers, “I’ll find another bakery, thank you.”

She was much more polite than I would’ve been, folks.

“I was disappointed,” she told me. “I go to Walmart all the time — at least once a week, spend hundreds of dollars. I just wanted to make my dad a cake to show how much i appreciated him.”

A friend of the family posted an item about the incident on Facebook and it wasn’t long before the Walmart store manager called the police officer’s wife and daughter and apologized.

“He said he was so sorry,” the daughter told me. “He offered to make the cake free of charge and he gave me a $50 gift card.”

A Walmart corporate spokesperson confirmed most of the story.

“Our goal is to always take care of customers,” the spokesperson told me. “But, sometimes we misstep. We’re glad we were able to connect with the family to apologize and make this right.”

Walmart did not say if one of their associates called the cake racist.  “I can confirm an associate made a mistake that has since been corrected for the customer,” the spokesperson told me.

So how did Walmart right their wrong? The answer to that question is going to curdle your Fruit Loops, folks.

The manager offered to make and decorate a new cake. But there was just one problem — the cake decorators refused to comply.

“So the manager told me that he would decorate it — but it looked terrible,” the police officer’s daughter said. “It doesn’t look professional.”  I’ve attached photographs of Walmart’s handiwork — it’s absolutely embarrassing and unacceptable.

“I work in retail,” the officer’s daughter told me. “If I didn’t want to deal with a customer and said ‘No,’ I would get fired.”

Unfortunately, her father’s retirement party [was] Sunday night, so [there was] no time to go elsewhere.

“It irritates me that in Charlotte, North Carolina, the Walmart was looted and the cops were protecting them,” she said. “And you can’t make a cake for the people who are protecting you?”

Walmart needs to make this right and they can start by delivering a professionally decorated cake to the police officer’s family.

The three cake decorators need to be told: either decorate the cake or be fired.

Just because Walmart is the home of low prices doesn’t mean they have to hire a bunch of low class, anti-cop bigots.

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, 2016

Multiculturalism comes to Sunderland

Sunderland is in England's far North. In the glory days of the British navy, many of its ships were built at Sunderland.  It is still 95% white

A mother-of-three has allegedly been drugged and raped by a gang of migrants – sparking violent demonstrations.

The 26-year-old said she woke up in a strange house with cuts and bruises, and believes her drink had been spiked on a night out before she was abducted and sexually assaulted.

Far-right supporters organised a protest six days in the city after the alleged attack which turned violent.

Those on the march, including members of the Sunderland Defence League, met outside The Ivy Leaf Club at 11am on September 10.  They smashed windows at the terraced house where the woman says she was attacked and clashed with a counter protest, led by members of the Asian community.

Police rushed to control the demonstrations which was attended by dozens protesters.

Two Asian men, unconnected with the alleged rape, were injured and five men, all from Sunderland, were arrested for offences including affray. 

Sunderland Central MP Julie Elliott last night called for calm.

Southern Area Command Chief Inspector Paul Milner said: 'We know the woman had been in Sunderland City Centre on Saturday night before waking up in a strange address in Peel Street with cuts and bruises.

'She managed to leave the house and get to a family member's home at around 5am on Sunday morning. 'The victim believes her drink may have been spiked.

'This is obviously a very serious incident and something we know the local community will be concerned about and we will have officers on patrol to offer reassurance to anyone who may be concerned and answer any queries they may have.'

SOURCE





Road to tyranny is paved with Leftie assumptions

Maurice Newman, writing from Australia

When your news and views come from a tightly controlled, left-wing media echo chamber, it may come as a bit of a shock to learn that in the July election almost 600,000 voters gave their first preference to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party. You may also be surprised to know that still deluded conservatives remain disenchanted with the media’s favourite Liberal, Malcolm Turnbull, for his epic fail as Prime Minister, especially when compared with the increasingly respected leader he deposed.

Perhaps when media outlets saturate us with “appropriate” thoughts and “acceptable” speech, and nonconformists are banished from television, radio and print, it’s easy to miss what is happening on the uneducated side of the tracks. After all, members of the better educated and morally superior political class use a compliant media to shelter us from the dangerous, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, sexist, welfare-reforming, climate-change denying bigots who inhabit the outer suburbs and countryside — the people whom Hillary Clinton calls “the deplorables”.

They must be vilified without debate, lest too many of us waver on the virtues of bigger governments, central planning, more bloated bureaucracies, higher taxes, unaffordable welfare, a “carbon-free” economy, more regulations, open borders, gender-free and values-free schools and same-sex marriage; the sort of agenda that finds favour at the UN.

Yet history is solid with evidence that this agenda will never deliver the promised human dignity, prosperity and liberty. Only free and open societies with small governments can do that.

Gradually, the masses are realising something is wrong. Their wealth and income growth is stagnating and their living standards are threatened. They see their taxes wasted on expensive, ill-conceived social programs. They live with migrants who refuse to integrate. They resent having government in their lives on everything from home renovations to recreational fishing, from penalty rates to free speech.

Thomas Jefferson’s warning that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground” is now a stark reality.

The terms “people’s representative” and “public servant” have become a parody. In today’s world we are the servants and, if it suits, we are brushed aside with callous indifference. Like the Labor government’s disregard for the enormous emotional and financial hurt suffered when, overnight, it shut down live cattle exports on the strength of a television show.

Or like the NSW parliament passing laws banning greyhound racing in the state. There was no remorse for the ruined lives of thousands of innocent people, many of whom won’t recover. Talk of compensation is a travesty.

Or like the victims neighbouring Williamtown and Oakey air force bases, made ill from toxic contamination of groundwater. Around the world it’s known chemical agents used in airport fire drills cause cancer, neurological disease and reproductive disorders, yet the Australian Department of Defence simply denies responsibility. The powerless are hopelessly trapped between health risks and valueless properties.

Similar disdain is shown for those living near coal-seam gas fields and wind turbines. The authorities know of the health and financial impacts but defend operators by bending rules and ignoring guidelines.

If governments believe the ends justify the means, people don’t matter.

When Ernst & Young research finds one in eight Australians can’t meet their electricity bills, rather than show compassion for the poor and the elderly, governments push ruthlessly ahead with inefficient and expensive renewable energy projects.

This newspaper’s former editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell reveals in his book, Making Headlines, how Kevin Rudd, when prime minister, brazenly attempted to use state power to investigate “the relationship between my paper and him”. Rudd’s successor, Julia Gillard, wanted to establish a media watchdog to effectively gag journalists.

None of this is fantasy and it explains why people are losing confidence in the democratic system. Australians feel increasingly marginalised and unrepresented. They are tired of spin and being lied to. They know that data is often withheld or manipulated.

As they struggle to make ends meet, they watch helplessly as the established political class shamelessly abuses its many privileges. It appears its sole purpose in life is to rule, not to govern. This adds weight to the insightful contention by the Business Council of Australia’s Jennifer Westacott that Australia is in desperate need of a national purpose.

It’s no wonder, to paraphrase American author Don Fredrick, that a growing number of Australians no longer want a tune-up at the same old garage. They want a new engine installed by experts — and they are increasingly of the view that the current crop of state and federal mechanics lacks the skills and experience to do the job.

One Nation may not be the answer, but its garage does offer a new engine.

This is Australia’s version of the Trump phenomenon. Like Donald Trump, Hanson is a non-establishment political disrupter. However, unlike Trump, who may soon occupy the White House, Hanson won’t inhabit the Lodge.

This leaves Australia’s establishment and the central planners very much in control. It means we will remain firmly on our current bigger-government path, finan­ced by higher taxes and creative accounting.

Nobel laureate economist FA Hayek observes in his book The Road to Serfdom: “The more planners improvise, the greater the disturbance to normal business. Everyone suffers. People feel rightly that ‘planners’ can’t get things done.”

But he argues that, ironically, in a crisis the risk is that rather than wind back the role of government, people automatically turn to someone strong who demands obedience and uses coercion to achieve objectives.

Australia is now on that road to tyranny and, with another global recession in prospect and nearly 50 per cent of voters already dependent on government, the incentive is to vote for more government, not less.

The left-wing media echo-chamber will be an enthusiastic cheerleader.

SOURCE






Little sympathy for Muslims in Australia

A new survey has revealed that 60 per cent of Australians would not want a member of their family to marry a Muslim.

The research, which is part of an ongoing Deakin University study into attitudes towards Islam, also found more than one third of people thought Muslims should be more closely scrutinised at airports.

This comes just a week after a similar poll revealed half of all Australians would support a complete ban on Muslim immigration.

In the Deakin survey, a quarter of respondents said they would be comfortable if all anti-terror efforts focused solely on Muslims.

It showed that Australians have significantly more negative views towards Muslims, and while 60 per cent would be concerned if a Muslim married into their family, 33 per cent would be similarly unhappy over a Jewish fiancé.

Just 8.1 per cent of people would be upset if a relative was marrying a Christian.

The ongoing survey also revealed that when given the option, respondents did not disagree with Islamaphobic statements such as 'practicing Muslims pose a threat to Australian society'.

Co-author of the paper Dr Matteo Vergani, who is a Research Fellow at Deakin's Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, said education was the key to combating these attitudes towards Islam.

'We found that across the board – among conservative or progressive individuals, people of different age, education and country of birth – there was an association between someone's level of knowledge about Islam and their prejudice against Muslims.

'In the wake of the recent Essential poll which showed that 49 per cent of Australians support a ban on Muslim immigration, this result is particularly heartening and important because it suggests that education and knowledge of Islam is key to overcoming Islamophobia and building a more cohesive society.'

The research comes a week after it was revealed almost half of all Australians support One Nation leader Pauline Hanson's policy of ban Muslim immigration.

Polling conducted by Essential Research found 49 per cent of Australians surveyed supported a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia, with 40 per cent opposed to the idea.

The results surprisingly revealed more than one third of Greens voters (34 per cent) support the proposed ban, while 60 per cent of Liberal voters and 40 per cent of Labor voters agreed.

A perceived terrorist threat was the second greatest reason given (27 per cent) by those who support the ban, behind fears Muslim people 'do not integrate into Australian society' (41 per cent).

SOURCE





Why are so many people fighting to protect a Sydney eyesore?



Locating the building in a premium area was a wasteful act to start with.  As welfare housing it generated only a fraction of the income it could have generated if it had been used for high-end accommodation.  But it gave good views to a few privileged poor people and the Left liked that. Rationality is however now catching up.  The money made by selling the building will fund much more public housing than before

The arty-farty arguments for retaining an ugly building are amusing.  They say it adds to "the social mix".  So what?  Why is that a good thing? It is probably a bad thing. Having lots of poor people in a given area tends to elevate the crime rate in that area.  But you are not allowed to mention that, of course.  Assumptions are all the Left need -- not those pesky facts.  They don't even bother to argue for their assumptions.  They just "know" the truth

IS IT ugly and deserving of a wrecking ball? Or iconic and in need of protection?  It depends who you ask.

But for now, Sydney’s Sirius building — which has been used for public housing since it was built more than 30 years ago — appears to be living out its final days next to the iconic Harbour Bridge, in The Rocks.

The Cumberland Street apartment block is under threat from NSW Government plans for redevelopment, with most tenants having already moved out.

Hundreds of protesters have opposed the plans to replace the 1979 building with apartments boasting million-dollar views and price tags to match.

But their calls to save the building have so far fallen on deaf ears, with a heritage listing bid for the harbourside building ultimately rejected by the government.

The building is arguably the worst eyesore on one of the world’s most spectacular harbours. So why are so many people fighting to protect it?

Sydney’s Lord Mayor and NSW opposition members joined hundreds of protesters in a march from Circular Quay over the weekend, demanding one of the city’s most controversial buildings be saved from demolition.

Hundreds of protesters marched from Alfred Street, around the Quay, meeting at the base of the brutalist building on Saturday morning.

The vocal crowd, flanked by police officers, were addressed by several opponents of the building’s slated demolition, including Lord Mayor Clover Moore and opposition planning minister Michael Daley.

“If the government applies this policy to other inner city areas, it will destroy the social mix — the very soul of city — and we will fight that all the way,” Ms Moore said from the back of a truck in front of the building.

“This housing is needed just as much now, or even more, because the majority of social housing residents in Millers Point have already been dispersed.”

The mixed-bag of protesters included unionists, architects and social housing advocates.

The CFMEU granted a Green Ban over the building earlier this week, in an attempt to stall demolition plans.

Michael Daley warned the Baird government any attempt to tear down the building would be met by fierce opposition. “We’re here to say to Mike Baird, if you try and cheat the people of Sydney out of the Sirius building, when you come down here with your developer and your banker mates, we’ll be waiting,” Mr Daley said.

Architects Olivia Savio-Matev and Hugo Raggett said the Sirius building held more than just architectural importance in Sydney.   “We’re here to support and save the heritage architecture of Sydney, but also to support the residents who are being evicted.

“I think the government’s stance on this building is purely a money grab.”

Leading the charge to save the building of brutalist architecture is the National Trust’s advocacy director Graham Quint. “They’re dramatic and they’re meant to make a statement,” Mr Quint told news.com.au.  “I don’t know whether ‘beautiful’ would be the word, but not everything’s meant to be beautiful.”

The Sirius building had a unique history, said Mr Quint, built specifically for housing commission tenants turfed out of harbourside suburbs when the area was being redeveloped in the 1960s.

Far from blocking views of the harbour it actually “steps down” to reveal a wide sweep of Sydney, said Mr Quint. Any replacement could be even bigger.

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, 2016

BBC faces 'race quota' backlash for fixing the number of non-white presenters on news programmes

It's always the Left who are the big racists these days

BBC bosses want more journalists from ethnic minorities to present the news in a bid for bigger viewing figures.

A leaked email from the editor of Look North Yorkshire to staff reveals a new target for the number of BAME (black, Asian, ethnic minority) has been imposed.

Senior managers want news programmes to better reflect the region's population.

A BBC source told The Sun that the move was 'quite shocking'.

The insider said: 'The focus should be on getting the best rather than those who tick the right boxes.

'The suggestion that viewers only watch people who look like them is also quite insulting.'

The email, sent by editor Tim Smith, reads: 'As you know, one of Look North's objectives is to reach people from BAME (black, Asian, ethnic minority) communities who don't watch Look North as much.

'Viewing figures suggest that 52 per cent of white adults in Yorkshire watch us once a week, but only 33 per cent of BAME adults do.

'We now have a target of 15 per cent of people on Look North (reporters, presenters, contributors) being from a BAME background — which reflects the population of our region and the wider BBC's objective too.'

A BBC spokesman explained: 'Everyone pays for the BBC so it's important we reflect all audiences.

'Currently BAME audiences are under represented amongst Look North viewers, so it's sensible to look into what we can do to address this.'

SOURCE






‘Whining, leftie, PC crap’: Emma Watson’s UN speech ridiculed by UK columnist


The look of an obsessed person

EMMA Watson’s recent speech at the UN summit in New York has gained attention for all the wrong reasons after it was ridiculed by a UK columnist as “whining, leftie, PC crap”.

In a blistering piece published in Friday’s edition of The Sun newspaper, journalist Rod Liddle mocked the 26-year-old Harry Potter star’s involvement in the summit, where she addressed on-campus sexual violence and gender inequality.

“Hermione Granger has been addressing the United Nations General Assembly. Nope, not kidding,” Liddle’s column began. “Anyway, instead of telling them all the rules of Quidditch or how to turn someone into a frog, she bored them all rigid with whining, leftie, PC crap. Just like all actresses do if people are stupid enough to give them the chance.”

Liddle went on to question both the knowledge and increasing involvement of female actresses in such causes.

“Why do we indulge these luvvie slebs, most of whom know nowt?” he wrote.

“I don’t object to them having views and expressing them. I just don’t understand why we take them seriously. I suppose they got Emma in because Angelina Jolie is a bit tied up with other stuff at the moment.”

Over the weekend, Liddle’s comments about the star gained traction on social media and left fans gobsmacked.

In her address at the UN General Assembly last week, Watson presented the HeForShe campaign’s report on gender equality in worldwide universities.

She urged universities and colleges to “make it clear that the safety of women, minorities and anyone who may be vulnerable, is a right, not a privilege.”

In recent years, the actress has become known for speaking out on humanitarian causes and equal rights issues. She was appointed UN Women Goodwill Ambassador in 2014 and is an advocate for UN Women’s HeForShe campaign, which focuses on gender equality.

SOURCE






Trashing the white trash: Hillary and the new bigotry

Clinton's attack on 'deplorables' reveals an ugly prejudice

After assuming Hillary Clinton would coast to victory, Democrats are shocked to find that she is in a virtual tie with Donald Trump in the polls. Trump in fact leads in a number of key swing states, like Florida and Ohio. The New York Times roamed New York’s Upper West Side, a liberal bastion, and discovered Democrats freaking out. ‘It’s like someone dropped ice water on the head of America’, said one Clinton supporter. ‘Everyone sobered up. This could happen.’ The reporter found more than one liberal making preparations to emigrate if Trump wins.

There is an insular quality to the Democrats’ current fears, along the lines of ‘how could Clinton be tied with Trump, when I don’t know anyone who supports him?’. For the most part, they’ve blamed Trump’s rise on the media, saying the fourth estate is not calling out his lies. This is ridiculous, since about 99 per cent of pundits are against Trump, and even ‘straight reporting’ news journalists are saying they have a moral duty to oppose the Republican candidate, apparently because he is such a threat to the country.

To the extent that Democrats have looked inward, many will admit that Clinton is not running a great campaign. They acknowledge that her use of a private email server remains a problem. They concede the campaign’s response to Clinton’s collapse at the 9/11 memorial event was a mistake: first deny, then downplay, then send her out on the street to say she ‘feels great’ and hug a child – only to later reveal that she has had pneumonia for days.

But most Democrats aren’t that self-critical. In particular they won’t admit their candidate for president is an elitist with a low opinion of millions of Americans, and that her dismissiveness of working-class people is driving lots of them into the arms of Trump.

Hillary’s recent description of Trump supporters as a ‘basket of deplorables’ is a prime example. In case you missed it, a little over a week ago, Clinton said the following to attendees at a fundraising event: ‘Just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the “basket of deplorables”. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it.’ She went on to describe this group as ‘irredeemable’.

In case you’re wondering, Hillary’s basket is a pretty big one: according to current polling, that basket would contain about 44million Americans. In one sweeping statement, she managed to accuse millions of not just being wrong, but hateful. Clinton would later say she regretted citing as many as ‘half’, but otherwise defended her comments.

But what’s really striking is the reaction to Clinton’s remarks, especially from Democrats. When in 2012 Mitt Romney dismissed the ‘47 per cent’ who benefitted from government programmes, he was roundly denounced. Speaking to a private fundraising meeting, Romney was revealed as an out-of-touch millionaire who couldn’t care less about nearly half the population. Even his supporters cringed.

Fast-forward to today. Hillary’s supporters laughed at her line, and later wondered why it was newsworthy. The media declared it a minor faux pas at worst, certainly not as devastating to her campaign as Romney’s remarks were to his. Along came liberal pundits to declare that Hillary bravely defied ‘political correctness’ to speak the truth about Trump’s bigots. If anything, she didn’t go far enough. In the Washington Post, Stacey Patton wrote: ‘The only thing Clinton should have apologised for was her lowball estimate.’ Jamelle Bouie had a similar take: ‘We’re going to need a bigger basket.’ This reaction showed that Clinton’s comments were not just an individual politician’s one-off gaffe, but a strongly held view shared by many liberals.

Consider the optics of the event where Clinton made her remarks. It was an ‘LGBT for Hillary’ fundraiser, headlined by Barbra Streisand, with attendees paying up to $50,000 for the pleasure. Here is Clinton – a woman who left the White House in 2001 $500,000 in debt but has managed with her husband to amass a $200million fortune, without starting her own business or working in the private sector – addressing other wealthy types. If this doesn’t scream ‘elite’ – in both economic and cultural terms – nothing does.

These are insiders speaking to one another. The telling word in Hillary’s remarks is ‘Right?’. She is not seeking to convince her audience; she knows they all agree. They are patting themselves on the back for being ‘aware’ and supposedly tolerant. Rich and powerful people making it clear that they are not like the hicks out there in middle America. We’re better than them.

Hillary is also using an insider’s language: see her litany of ‘phobias’. These are terms she and her influential supporters wield all the time as weapons, words that enable them to occupy the moral high ground. From their dominant perch in the culture, they are the ones who get to accuse others of suffering from ‘phobias’. They also get to define what constitutes a ‘phobia’. Want tighter controls on immigration? You’re a xenophobe. Want to see greater security against terrorist attacks? Islamophobe. Disagree with Black Lives Matter? Racist.

What do you call sweeping generalisations about groups of people, and unfairly assigning malign, hateful motives to them, as Hillary does to Trump supporters? Well, you could say that is the definition of bigotry. Clinton and company believe that, as long as it is in the name of fighting racism, sexism, etc, then it is okay to denigrate huge swathes of people. Trashing the white trash is today’s socially acceptable form of elitist bigotry.

What does this mean for the election? For many Americans, this presidential election has become a referendum on the political establishment. In this race, Clinton is seen as the representative of this establishment, the defender of the status quo. She has to overcome not just her personal weaknesses as a candidate – which includes being viewed as untrustworthy by nearly two-thirds of the electorate, just as bad as Trump – but also her tag as the establishment leader. Her ‘deplorables’ comments only consolidate her in that role. And her comments also play right into Trump’s hands. Trump has sought to portray himself as the outsider versus the insider; as the representative of the masses versus the elite. Of course, Trump is neither truly an outsider nor a man of the people, but he is certainly having an easy time being able to position Clinton as elitist.

In dismissing so many as ‘deplorable’, in such an open way (she knew the remarks were being recorded), Hillary shows that the Democrats are willing to write off white working-class votes. Over decades, white workers have left the Democratic Party in droves, switching to the Republicans (or not voting). But in 2008 and 2012, Obama still sought to appeal to this group, even though his strategy was mainly predicated on big turnouts among African-Americans, Latinos and higher-income populations. Now Clinton is not even pretending to care; in her own words, they are ‘irredeemable’. As Bill Scher writes in Politico, Clinton is ‘making clear that… her path to victory doesn’t run through the white working-class vote’. In electoral terms, this is a risky strategy. ‘Clinton’s insult runs the risk of supercharging Trump’s base, paving the way for an upset’, says Scher.

When Clinton and others hurl words like ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’, it is an attempt to shame others into silence. Maybe they won’t change people’s minds – certainly throwing out these accusations is a form of denunciation, not an opening to debate – but they hope to drive opposing views out of the public realm, as people fear the consequences of publicly disagreeing. This seemed to be an effective strategy in the case of sex-same marriage, where opponents were effectively labelled as bigots.

When it comes to Trump, it appears that the Clinton approach is to hope to make people embarrassed to appear to side with him, to fear being branded ‘deplorable’. In that regard, it is interesting to see how many have proudly embraced the ‘deplorable’ label. Go online and you can buy a range of merchandise: ‘T-shirts, key chains, car decals, buttons, pendants, coffee mugs and even a deplorable pocket watch.’ Outside a Trump rally, a supporter holds up a sign saying ‘Deplorable Lives Matter’. This may not be an effective retort to Clinton, nor does it transcend the terms of the debate. But it is encouraging that people are not defensive and are responding in a feisty way.

To be fair to Clinton, she doesn’t consider every Trump supporter to be deplorable. She said the other half are ‘people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change’. They are not irredeemable, apparently: ‘Those are people we have to understand and empathise with as well.’ Yet, while sounding more sympathetic, this description is just as limiting as her ‘deplorables’ line – if not a basket of deplorables, then a sack of pitiful, desperate losers.

So, what are Trump’s supporters – deplorable or desperate? Maybe they are simply people who are fed up with Clinton, the Democratic Party and the American political establishment generally, who all, in their own way, treat them as inferiors.

SOURCE






Muslimas arrested on suspicion of planning ISIS terror attack in France

Every day across Europe and the US and the West — jihad war escalates.  “Two women detained on suspicion of planning terror attack in France,” Fox News, September 25, 2016:

Two young women suspected of planning an attack in France were detained by police in the southern French city of Nice, a person familiar with the investigation said Sunday, the latest sign that Islamic State is shifting its focus from the battlefield in Syria to orchestrating terror plots in Europe.

The two young women—17 and 19 years old—had been in contact with Rachid Kassim, a French recruiter for Islamic State, on the Telegram Messenger messaging app, the person said. Mr. Kassim, who is believed to be in Islamic State territory, couldn’t be reached for comment.

Mr. Kassim called on the women to attack specific sites in France to avenge the death of Abu Mohammed al Adnani, a founding member and chief spokesman for Islamic State, who was killed on a battlefield in northern Syria last month, the person added, without providing further details.

Even as Islamic State loses territory in Syria and Iraq, the mushrooming of small-scale terror attacks in Europe has allowed the militant group to keep people here on edge, without having to train and equip teams to pull off highly sophisticated operations.

Over the past year, a spate of terror attacks has left more than 200 people dead in France.

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. 

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




26 September, 2016

The Dalai gets it

Refugees fleeing brutal conflict in the Middle East should aspire to return home, the Dalai Lama has said.

In an interview with Piers Morgan, the Tibetan Buddhist leader, one of the world's highest-profile political exiles, said those who have left to escape fighting and disorder in countries like Syria and Libya should focus on bringing peace to their homelands.

The plight of hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing violence in the Middle East and North Africa has become a major issue in Europe and the rest of the developed world over the past few years.

Piers ended the interview by asking the Dalai Lama for a selfie, pictured, who happily obliged and even tickled his chin

The 81-year-old religious leader has been forced to live outside his own homeland since fleeing in 1959, 10 years after it was occupied by China.

Speaking on ITV's Good Morning Britain, he said: 'The main effort should go to help (their) own country bring peace, in Syria, Libya or even Afghanistan. Generally the people always feel, 'oh, one day we return'.'

Host Piers asked him whether all refugees should 'aspire to go back to their homeland', to which he replied: 'Yes. (They) should rebuild their own country.'

The Dalai Lama said that despite the current bloodshed the world is a 'better place' than in the past.

He also questioned the faith of Islamist terrorists, saying: 'Genuine Muslim practitioners will not create bloodshed.

'I think they (terrorists) have too much emotion, they should cool down.'

The spiritual leader also took time to discuss some lighter issues and even performed an impression of Donald Trump, making light-hearted fun of the US Predisential candidate for his hair and 'very small mouth'.

He added he was 'sad' that the actors Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were divorcing, saying separations often badly affected children

The Hollywood couple, known collectively as Brangelina, married in 2014 after 10 years together and have six children - Maddox, Pax, Zahara, Shiloh, and twins Knox and Vivienne.

The Dalai Lama told GMB: 'Sometimes in divorce people ... the children they come closer to their father or mother. Sometimes it's difficult.'

Piers said he was 'fine' with the Dalai Lama having 12million Twitter followers compared to his five million, but asked the Buddhist how he felt about Kim Kardashian having four times as many with 48million followers.

But the Dalai Lama brushed it off and said he had 'no problem with it'.

He added: 'If she has more followers...good. I think that such famous people have no ability to compete with my wisdom.'

The pair ended the interview by taking a selfie together, with Piers quipping that the Dalai Lama 'could smile' for the camera.

SOURCE






Did the Famous Sailor Sexually Assault the Famous Nurse?

The most famous American photo of World War II is undoubtedly that of the four Marines planting the American flag on Iwo Jima. The second most famous is probably the legendary photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt’s picture of an American sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square in New York City, when people were celebrating Japan’s surrender.

The kiss was not, of course, merely a peck on the cheek. If it were, no photo would have been taken. And if one were, no one would have remembered it. The sailor clearly grabbed the nurse. She is leaning backward, bent at the waist; he is holding her up with both hands around her waist.

The photo has been back in the news because the woman, identified as Greta Zimmer Friedman, died on Sept. 8, at age 92. She was 21 when the picture was taken.

The sailor, later identified as George Mendonsa, mistook Friedman’s dental assistant uniform for that of a nurse. He later explained that he hugged and kissed her because of his overwhelming gratitude for the work nurses had performed while he was in combat in the Navy, because of his elation over the war ending and because he had had a few drinks. As he put it, when he and Friedman were reunited in 2012 at the spot of their kiss, it was “the excitement of the war bein' over, plus I had a few drinks, so when I saw the nurse I grabbed her, and I kissed her.”

Any American who looks at that photo today realizes just how different a time we live in.

If a man were to do that to a woman today, he would likely be charged with sexual assault, found guilty, be ordered to pay a serious sum of money to the woman, be sent to prison, be civilly sued and be labeled a sex offender — effectively ruining much of his life.

She, on the other hand, would be regarded as victim of sexual assault and labelled a survivor, and would seek psychological counseling.

Living in pre-feminist darkness, Friedman did not see it this way. As her son told the New York Daily News, “My mom always had an appreciation for a feminist viewpoint, and understood the premise that you don’t have a right to be intimate with a stranger on the street. …(But) she didn’t assign any bad motives to George in that circumstance, that situation, that time.”

One reason might be that she was a Jewish refugee from Hitler’s Europe, and, unlike feminists in America, she knew real evil.

Given the context, the act was essentially innocent. Reinforcing its innocence are the facts that the kiss was very brief and Mendonsa’s wife can be seen smiling in the background.

But in the feminist age of enlightenment in which we live, when it comes to any act of physical intimacy by a man with a woman, there is no such thing as “context.” Unless there is a verbal “yes” accompanying every act by the man, the presumption is that the intimacy was a sexual assault, a form of rape.

Thus, in today’s America, George Mendonsa is deemed to have committed an act of sexual assault. Context has no say.

On the Sarasota, Florida, waterfront there is a 28-foot statue of Mendonsa kissing Friedman. It clearly offends at least one Sarasota Herald-Tribune columnist. A few days after Friedman’s death, Chris Anderson acknowledged that the statue “represents euphoria, innocence, romance, nostalgia and a level of unity and pride this country arguably has not seen since V-J Day.” But as a someone who surely attended college and probably graduate school, he sees the darker side, saying, “Is it possible that thousands upon thousands of people over the last seven years have come to the Sarasota waterfront to unwittingly pose in front of a giant depiction of a sexual assault?”

Likewise, the writer of the New York Times obituary of Friedman felt compelled to note that “In recent years, some have noted its darker undertones.” Among the examples cited was Time Magazine, which in 2014 had written, “many people view the photo as little more than the documentation of a very public sexual assault, and not something to be celebrated.”

There is no question that there needed to be greater sensitivity to men’s physical interactions with women, and that too many men did in fact get away with rape.

But America is not a better place — nor, for that matter, are American women happier — because we now consider George Mendonsa a sexual criminal and Greta Friedman a survivor of sexual assault.

For most Americans, America was — with all the flaws that did indeed have to be dealt with — a happier and more innocent place then. That’s why there is a statue of that kiss at the Sarasota waterfront. And that’s why “thousands upon thousands” of couples pose for pictures in front of it.

They are celebrating life, America, and men and women. At college, American kids are taught to fear all three.

SOURCE






Voters do NOT regret voting to quit the EU and their top priority is saving BILLIONS on membership fees after Brexit, top pollster finds

Britain does not regret voting for Brexit and voters have clear red lines in how the country should quit the EU, a top pollster has found.

Professor John Curtice, who works on major exit polls at general elections, said there was no 'buyer's remorse' among the public after the shock result in June.

The figures will come as a blow to Remain campaigners attempting to stir support for a second referendum on Britain's future in Europe months after Brexit was backed 52 per cent to 48 per cent on June 23.

More than twice as many people oppose a second poll than support another referendum.

At a briefing in Westminster today, Mr Curtice said: 'Very few minds have been changed - there are very few signs of regret.'

The top priority for voters - supported by 81 per cent of them - is ending Britain's financial contributions to the EU that every year run to billions of pounds.

A close second is ending free movement of people, backed by 79 per cent, which means ending Britain's membership of the single market as it leaves the wider EU.

The pollster told The Mirror: 'Most people do not feel European in this country. And so there is an argument about the legitimacy of this £350million that we don't 'control', that the EU decides how is spent.

'(People think) - ''Why does the EU have the right to spend 'our' money?''.'

Also at the event, Professor Matthew Goodwin added that the vote had also defined the core liberal v conservative battle – or 'identity politics' - currently dividing Britain and fomenting the rise of Ukip and other anti-establishment political groups.

Theresa May has repeatedly insisted 'Brexit means Brexit' since becoming Prime Minister 

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron used his party conference this week to launch a campaign for a second referendum on the Brexit deal.

He said Prime Minister Theresa May would be 'pragmatic' when it became apparent no deal would be popular, in the best interests of Britain and endorsed by hard-line Eurosceptics.

Labour leadership contender Owen Smith has also spent the summer campaign urging a second referendum to try and dilute the Brexit vote. 

SOURCE





The great Brexit hate crime myth: How claims of an epidemic of race crimes since the referendum are simply false

A fully-loaded gravy train clattered into the Grange City Hotel in central London on Thursday morning, when around 50 smartly dressed men and women shuffled across deep-pile carpets into its air-conditioned conference centre.

The group — or rather their employers — had each paid between £359 and £575 to attend the day-long event.

Some of these people were civil servants, others charity workers and academics. A handful worked in the private sector, though rather more appear to be employed by the taxpayer, via local councils, British police forces, and the Crown Prosecution Service.

The event bringing this eclectic and well bankrolled crowd together was the sixth annual Tackling Hate Crime Conference — an expensive and painstakingly organised shindig staged each autumn by the £6.5 billion FTSE 100 corporation Capita.

Its purpose, according to promotional literature, was to provide a forum to discuss how best to ‘respond to the surging growth of hate crime’ in the UK, which (the same literature breathlessly insisted) has ‘risen 57 per cent since the EU referendum vote’. With this in mind, speaker after speaker waxed lyrical about how violent and intolerant the nation has become in 2016, or called for Draconian measures to combat the ‘rising tide’ of bigotry on our streets.

Modern Britain, delegates were repeatedly told, is a country riven by homophobia and racism, where to be foreign, disabled or belong to a religious or sexual minority is to fall blamelessly into the firing line of virulent abuse.

‘There is more hate crime in London than in the whole of the United States,’ claimed a ‘keynote’ speaker called Mark Hamilton, who is Assistant Chief Constable of Northern Ireland.

Another speaker, from Southwark Council, talked vividly about the extraordinary bigotry she encounters on a daily basis, making the shocking claim that the ‘youngest perpetrator of hate crime’ she’d come across lately was ‘a four-year-old child who harassed a lesbian couple’.

All very sobering. Or so you might think. But behind the lurid rhetoric, not everything was quite as it seems. Take, for example, the conference organiser’s headline claim: that hate crime has ‘risen 57 per cent since the EU referendum vote’.

This eye-catching figure has certainly done the rounds in recent months, regularly bandied about by liberal commentators, the BBC and Left-wing newspapers.

Yet dig into its provenance and things soon start to smell distinctly whiffy. For the ‘57 per cent’ number was actually plucked from a single press release issued by the National Police Chief’s Council on June 27, four days after the EU ballot took place.

The document in question specifically stated that police forces had recorded ‘no major spikes in tensions’ since Britain went to the polls.

However, its footnote added that 85 people had logged hate crime ‘incidents’ on True Vision, a website that records unverified allegations of such behaviour, during the four days in question, up from 54 during the corresponding period a month earlier.

What exactly did this mean? The police press release made things clear. ‘This should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57 per cent but an increase in reporting through one mechanism’ over a single 96-hour period.

Fast forward three months, however, and the number was being used very differently.

As we have seen above, organisers of the Tackling Hate Crime Conference were using it to allege that hate crime had risen by 57 per cent across Britain during the entire period since the Brexit vote.

This is demonstrably untrue. Or, to put things another way, Capita was shamelessly promoting its £600-a-head event by falsely representing unverified raw data that had been collected over the internet during a single four-day period in June.

When the Mail put this to Capita, the firm instantly deleted the 57 per cent claim from its promotional literature, describing its inclusion as ‘an inadvertent error’.

All of which may sound a bit rum. Yet spend an extended period of time exploring ‘hate crime’ and the growing and lucrative industry that increasingly surrounds it, and you’ll find such cavalier behaviour par for the course.

For the more you investigate, the more it turns out to be a deeply cynical industry where dishonesty and hysteria reign, truth has been replaced with Left-wing dogma, and verifiable facts no longer count for very much at all.

On paper, Britain is a remarkably tolerant country. London has just elected a Muslim mayor by a whacking majority. Gay marriage is not just legal but supported by a comfortable majority of adults. Children from ethnic minorities consistently outperform white working-class counterparts at school and in university.

Surveys by the respected and politically neutral think-tank Pew Research, along with the prestigious British Social Attitudes Survey, show racial prejudice in long-term and perhaps terminal decline.

Yet despite such trends, we are routinely described as being in the grip of a hate crime ‘epidemic’ where a few high-profile incidents — such as the appalling recent murder of a Polish immigrant on the streets of Harlow (which may or may not eventually prove to be race-related) — are said to represent the tip of a sinister iceberg, and where the number of hate offences seems to grow year by year.

So how can we explain the disconnect? Let’s start with another pressing fact: that hate crime also happens to be one of the great political buzz-phrases of the moment. To this end, virtually the first thing new Home Secretary Amber Rudd did after taking office was to launch a ‘hate crime action plan’.

The Home Affairs Select Committee is holding an inquiry into ‘hate crime and its violent consequences’.

Next month, the Government will promote ‘hate crime awareness week’. It’s spending £2.4 million on a fund for churches and mosques to protect themselves against hate crimes, while the Met is creating a £1.7 million ‘crime hub’ to target online ‘trolls’.

Elsewhere, universities such as Leicester and Sussex employ academics in ‘centres’ for ‘hate crime studies’. The taxpayer hands over six-figure grants to charities which seek to ‘combat’ or ‘monitor’ hate crime.

Police forces employ staff to log it. Councils such as Kensington and Chelsea now have a ‘community support officer for hate crime’.

The Crown Prosecution Service has a ‘hate crime co-ordinator’ in all 13 regions, plus ‘area-based Equality, Diversity and Community Engagement Managers’ who ‘contribute to the delivery of the Hate Crime Assurance Scheme’.

These people, whose leading lights spent Thursday at Capita’s conference, often owe their jobs, status and mortgages to the fashionable perception that hate crime is somehow spiralling out of control.

That, in turn, has led to two distinct trends. The first is a relentless pressure to widen the number of people able to describe themselves as ‘victims’ of such crimes.

When Tony Blair first introduced hate laws, in 1998, they applied only to incidents of racial intolerance. However in 2003, the net was widened to include religious discrimination. Over subsequent years, first homophobic and then ‘transphobic’ abuse was added to the list, along with disability hate crime and, more recently ‘crimes against older people’.

All current categories (with the exception of elder abuse) can result in ‘sentence uplift’ — in other words, a likely increase in jail time — if a case goes to court and results in a conviction. Some 15,442 such prosecutions took place last year with 12,845 convictions, of which around a third saw a ‘sentence uplift’.

Last week, a new category of potential victim emerged: it was reported that several police forces may soon treat ‘misogyny’ as a hate crime, following the alleged success of a pilot scheme in Nottingham where it was decided that wolf-whistling could in certain circumstances constitute ‘threatening behaviour’.

Women may not be the only new demographic singled out for protection, either. Consider, if you will, the annual report of Stop Hate UK, an influential charity which gets around £240,000 a year from grants, largely from the public sector.

It suggests that ‘goths’ or people who choose to wear black clothes, are potential hate crime victims. To this end, it contains a ‘case study’ of abuse supposedly suffered by a ‘goth woman [who] has five facial piercings’.

In such a febrile environment, where almost anyone seems to be a potential victim, should we really be surprised if reported ‘hate’ incidents are on the rise?

Of course it should be stressed that genuine hate crime is not to be tolerated. In Friday’s Mail, for example, the Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth described being sent 25,000 abusive messages by members of her party’s Corbyn-supporting far Left, one of which referred to her as a ‘yid c***’.

The problem, however, comes when the definition of what constitutes a hate crime becomes risibly vague. After all, the subjective way in which the police (who increasingly resemble glorified social workers) now categorise such offences is hardly forensic.

Under their official guidance, hate crime is now deemed to be ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice.’

Proof of such intent is not necessarily required, the guidance adds: ‘Evidence of … hostility is not required … [The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor.’

In essence, this means that anyone, anywhere, can force officers to treat something as a hate crime. All it takes is a vague ‘perception’. Such rules are perverse and open to abuse. They mean that, in theory, a straight white male punched in a pub fight can falsely claim his assailant thought he was gay, and therefore motivated by homophobia.

Such an incident will duly be investigated as a hate crime, with the police and CPS under pressure to prosecute.

If they fail, the ‘victim’ can potentially claim to have suffered so-called ‘secondary victimisation’ in which the ‘hate’ he or she experienced is compounded by the police’s lack of sensitivity.

Such factors may very well have motivated the ludicrous recent prosecution of Kevin O’Sullivan, a TV journalist who was involved in an altercation on a train back from a funeral a couple of years ago.

Around 24 hours after the event, the other party — a straight white man who’d initially declined to press charges — informed the police that he now wanted them to prosecute O’Sullivan for a homophobic hate crime.

The man claimed that during their argument he tried to make a telephone call, only to be interrupted by O’Sullivan shouting ‘Are you phoning your gay lover?’

CCTV of the entire incident told a very different story, however. It showed that the man did not make, or attempt to make, a single phone call during the confrontation. Unsurprisingly, when the case came to trial, O’Sullivan was acquitted.

Though awarded costs, he expects them to cover only a fraction of his £15,000 legal bill. Recounting the episode in a recent edition of the Spectator, he said the affair gave him ‘a ringside seat at the edge of insanity’.

The second great modern trend has been for the police, assorted quangocrats and other publicly funded organisations to go to extreme lengths to ensure the number of reported hate crimes is as high as possible.

Consider, in this context, the aforementioned police website True Vision. It allows anyone, anywhere in Britain, to report an incident, even if they were not the victim, have no idea of the victim’s identity, can provide no supporting evidence, and would prefer to remain anonymous.

Their claims then get logged as official statistics and, as we have seen above, used by ‘experts’ to draw sweeping conclusions (invariably negative) about the state of the nation.

Seldom has such a system been more open to abuse than in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, when Left-wing media outlets predicted a ‘surge of xenophobia’ and disheartened Remain voters attempted to prove them right. On Twitter, the hashtag #postbrexit racism went viral.

On Facebook, a forum called ‘worrying signs’ was established for ‘anyone dealing with post-Brexit fallout’ to post reports of hate crime. From here, users were directed to True Vision.

Unsurprisingly, many allegedly racist incidents they carried turned out to be anything but. On the Monday after the referendum, a mobile phone snap of a smashed window at Donde Tapas, a Spanish restaurant in South London, was posted on Facebook. Its caption read ‘Spanish and Turkish restaurants in Lewisham had their windows smashed over the weekend. Very widespread reports coming in now.’

The post soon received 1,833 shares. One commenter noted: ‘The ghost of Sir Oswald Mosley now stalks the streets of England.’

The same picture and caption soon appeared on Twitter, where Dawn Butler, a Labour MP, dubbed it ‘awful,’ and another online commenter called it ‘Kristallnacht all over again.’

The Institute Of Race Relations subsequently asked the poster: ‘Is there any chance we could use your pic for a round-up of post-Brexit racial violence?’

But soon: a reality check. On a South London internet forum where the picture was also posted, one contributor pointed out: ‘I’m no expert, but that looks like a robbery attempt.’

The Met soon admitted it was almost certainly just that, and was ‘not considered to have a hate-crime motivation’.

A second widely reported hate incident that started life on Facebook around the same time proved similarly flaky.

It began with a post on a Remain-supporting forum reading: ‘My friend works at a well-known restaurant in Mayfair, 15 people just came in to celebrate the Leave vote. The customers dismissed him and asked for a English waiter, because he was Italian!!!’

This anecdote was promptly included as case-study in an official study of post-Brexit violence by the Institute of Race Relations, before being widely cited in the Left-wing Press. Yet neither the restaurant, the supposed victim, nor any fragments of proper evidence have ever been identified.

The fact is that we may never know. Yet if the state-sponsored and increasingly powerful hate crime industry gets its way, we could all be potential suspects.

For, to quote the old saying, the Left has a supply-and-demand problem with bigotry: there isn’t enough to go around to support the apocalyptic world view they hold so dear.

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, 2016

Why we should lock more people up, and it’s not what you think

The Australian writer below says "We put people in the clink more and more" and "crime is falling".  He attempts no inferences from that.  Could one be the the consequence of the other?  He is similarly insouciant in attributing the good results in Norway  to Norwegian lenience.  That there might be even better results from a less lenient system seems not to have occurred to him.  He can't get beyond his Leftist assumptions


I’VE always thought jail is mostly a bad idea: It takes young people and puts them in constant contact with society’s very worst. They eventually emerge with no skills but a tight-knit network of former criminals.

Under my theory, jail is mostly unhelpful for the people that are in there — we only send people to jail because it is hopefully scary enough to deter people from committing crime.

Australia has a jail addiction though. We put people in the clink more and more.

There are lots of explanations why this might be, including the fact we use private prisons even more than America. (And America is reconsidering whether private prisons are a good idea.)

In 2014, The Catholic Prison Ministry said: “Handing the administration of punishment over to corporations will lead to conflict between the social interests of citizens as stakeholders and financial interests of corporations to maximise profits for shareholders.”

And I thought they were probably right, because crime is falling:

It’s not just murders. Break-ins, robbery and motor vehicle theft all went down in the last five years. Sexual assault and theft rose.

(Taking the really long view, violent crime is at record lows: “Violent deaths of all kinds have declined, from around 500 per 100,000 people per year in pre-state societies to around 50 in the Middle Ages, to around six to eight today worldwide, and fewer than one in most of Europe.” Steven Pinker told the Scientific American in 2011.)

You can see why I was cold on prison. And experts agreed. “Putting more people in prison diverts resources from vital social infrastructure and cost effective initiatives which have been shown to successfully address the underlying causes of crime,” these experts said.

But some new research from Norway is making me weigh up my view. It finds prison is good, and it does so in a very clever way.

There is an obvious problem researching whether prison works. Ex-prisoners tend to commit a lot of crime. Did prison made them like that? Or were they always like that?

The clever thing this research does is comparing groups of prisoners who are otherwise the same, except for the judge they get. Some got a judge who puts away prisoners more than half the time, some got a judge that gives two out of three offenders community service or similar.

This means we can look at how much crime the two groups commit later, and the only likely difference between them is the influence of a prison environment.

This research finds jail is great. The prisoners who go to jail end up getting 10 fewer criminal charges. (The result is not due to simply being unable to commit crime in jail — the reduction starts from when the person is released, over an equivalent period of time.)

The ones that went to jail also have much better employment outcomes — they are more likely to find work.

There is an important point to make. Jail seems to really work for some kinds of people. It strongly improves the chances for people who were not employed. Jail didn’t prove to be either positive or negative for people who previously had jobs. The reason is probably that jail adds a lot of structure and training to their lives.

“Imprisonment causes a 34 percentage point increase in participation in job training programs for the previously non-employed, and within five years, their employment rate increases by 40 percentage points,” according to academics Manudeep Bhuller, Gordon B. Dahl, Katrine V. Loken and Magne Mogstad in their paper,Incarceration, Recidivism and Employment.

It’s worth pointing out this research happened in Norway, where jail can be pretty different (even “luxurious,”) and most prison sentences are under a year.

“In Scandinavian countries like Norway, the prison system focuses on rehabilitation, preparing inmates for life on the outside. This is done in part by investing in education and training programs, but also through extensive use of “open prisons” in which prisoners are housed in low-security surroundings and allowed frequent visits to families while electronically monitored. In comparison, in many other countries, rehabilitation has taken a back seat in favour of prison policies emphasising punishment and incapacitation.”

It seems like jail can be pretty useful for some people — so long as you design it to be useful. Unfortunately, Australia’s prisons are more like America’s than Norway’s.

We could make our prisons like Norway’s. But first we need to decide if we can stomach being “nice” to prisoners in order to actually stop them from committing more crime later. I’d support that. But I suspect for a lot of people, that’s not going to be acceptable — for them, punishment is what matters most.

SOURCE





Boy, four, is snatched off the streets by a multiculturalist as he walked home from school

Police described the suspect as a black man, who was wearing a black baseball cap with blue writing on the side. He was also wearing a long thick gold chain and a blue t-shirt

Police have launched a manhunt after a four-year-old boy was the victim of an attempted kidnapping as he made his way home from school with his mother.

The boy was snatched by a stranger near St Agnes Catholic Primary School in Bow, east London at 3.10pm on Monday.

According to social media reports he was saved by his older brother, who chased the man. 

The suspect dropped the boy and fled after bring confronted on Monday afternoon.

The suspect and the boy are not thought to be known to one other.

Police described the suspect as a black man who was wearing a black baseball cap with blue writing on the side. He was also wearing a long thick gold chain and a blue t-shirt.

Extra police patrols have now been deployed around the area and parents are being warned to be vigilant. 

Letters sent to parents and later shared across social media claimed the child's older brother chased the man and rescued the child.

Officers have now confirmed they are hunting the kidnapper and are warning parents to be vigilant.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: 'Police are investigating a report that a four-year-old boy in school uniform was the victim of an attempted kidnap near to St Agnes Primary School at 3.10pm on Monday.

'The boy was allegedly picked up by the suspect at the end of a school day. The suspect tried to make off with the boy before being confronted, dropping the child and leaving the scene.

'Safer neighbourhood officers have increased patrols in the area. There was an alleged attempted abduction of a child outside St Agnes Primary School on Monday.

'Police are investigating the incident. Neighbourhood police will now be present outside the school at the beginning and end of the school day.

'Tower Hamlets Council and Police are reminding parents, staff and children to remain vigilant and to report anything they believe to be suspicious to the police by calling 101.'

SOURCE






British anti-terror police cut back on stopping and searching passengers at airports and ports amid fears of racial profiling - despite severe terror threat

The number of passengers being stopped and searched at UK ports and airports has fallen despite heightened fears over terror attacks.

Just over 23,000 people were stopped by counter-terrorism officers while leaving or entering the country in the 12 months until June this year.

That is 23 per cent down on the previous year, despite the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe warning it is now a matter of 'when, not if' an attack takes place in the UK.

It comes after a row over stop and search powers at airports, in which critics claimed 'racial profiling' was being used to discriminate against ethnic minorities.

British officials are not allowed to racially profile passengers, although some, including human rights group Liberty have claimed authorities are stopping people 'based on stereotype rather than genuine suspicion'.

The Home Office has insisted the reduced number of people stopped is not due to racial profiling or fears among anti-terror police of being accused of racism.

They say the drop in numbers is due to other techniques being used rather than randomly stopping passengers, The Times reported this morning.

Earlier this year, security expert Philip Baum praised Israel's El Al airline, which trains its workers in psychological observations techniques, which are then used as part of the security process.

Mr Baum said: 'All the money is being thrown at the screening and check process, but I believe it's vital we implement proper profiling and use behavioural analysis for security.'

He added: 'For me profiling is not about racial profiling, and should not be seen as politically incorrect.'

Terrorists set off bombs in Istanbul Airport earlier this summer, leaving 45 people dead, including 19 foreigners.

SOURCE






I won't let Labour's racist bullies defeat me: Jewish MP reveals the terrifying anti-Semitism that's now the norm in her Party's hard left

'One of the things that makes me most angry about this whole thing is that I've ended up as 'the Jewish MP'. And worse, a victim and a target. I should be the MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, a hard-working, lifelong member of the Labour Party.'

She describes herself as 'a Labour, socialist, Jewish, woman' in that order.

'Actually, British first: British, Labour, socialist, Jewish, woman.'

Smeeth, 37, is the MP who walked out of the launch of the Chakrabarti report, an inquiry into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, after being harassed by a member of Momentum, the activist group behind Jeremy Corbyn.

Since then she has been called a 'yid c***' (among other racial slurs), a 'CIA/ MI5/Mossad informant', a 'dyke', and a 'f***ing traitor'. In all, she's experienced more than 25,000 incidents of abuse, much of it racial.

As a result, two people are being investigated by counter-terrorism police — one of whom penned a 1,000-word essay on how he would kill her.

'I initially assumed [the author] was from the Far Right,' she says. 'And then someone rang to inform me it was a Corbynista.'

Chakrabarti's report (and the subsequent abuse it generated) is to be debated by Labour's National Executive Committee. It states: 'A political home, like a domestic one, should be a place where you feel comfortable and safe, even and especially when things are more difficult on the outside.'

And yet because of threats from her own party, Smeeth now has 'security' organised by the parliamentary authority and police. She can't give details but says she won't be going to Labour Conference alone on Sunday.

'I am still going — I can't let the intimidators win. Do I think it will be pleasant? No. Do I think there will be a lot of anger? Probably. But I'm sensible about what I'm doing, how I'll be and what I'll do, and I won't be by myself.'

We meet at her office in Stoke-on-Trent, decorated with photographs of former Labour prime ministers and campaign posters.

Smeeth is tall with a big laugh. She might wear a gold Star of David under the neckline of her dress, 'but I don't talk about Israel or Palestine. This [abuse] is not about anything I've said on Middle East politics. I don't participate.'

She describes herself as 'culturally Jewish' . Her husband is Irish Catholic.Her political concerns reflect her immediate constituency, one of the poorest in the country. If anything, the furore over her religion distracts from more pressing issues.

There were rare flashes of anti-Semitism under Ed Miliband, who is Jewish, 'but not like this. I've never seen anti-Semitism in Labour on this scale. There were one or two incidents before, and the reason why they were so shocking is that there were only one or two. Now the sheer volume has made it normal.'

She lists MPs — not necessarily Jewish — who have received abuse generally, from Angela Eagle to Mary Creagh, who had a brick thrown through her Wakefield constituency office last week.

'Neil Coyle had death threats when his wife was eight months pregnant. Ian Murray had threats shouted outside his office when he was in Parliament but his staff were there. Stella Creasy has had tons, as has Jess Phillips.

'There are so many it's becoming normal. And that's difficult. I've just named half a dozen MPs without trying. It's the opposite of what we promised after Jo Cox was murdered.'

Could she imagine this happening to Conservatives?

'The Tories care more about power than ideology,' she says, 'so they would squish it really quickly. They wouldn't let it get in the way of them running the country.'

Smeeth has raised the issue of racism with Jeremy Corbyn 'privately' on 'numerous occasions' from December 2015. 'Each time the same answer: 'I am anti racist, therefore it's not a problem.'

She rolls her eyes. 'It wasn't even acknowledged. Until it was a rolling news story after Ken [Livingstone made comments about Hitler supporting Zionism], he ignored it.'

Her verbal evidence was taken by Chakrabarti 'and I am cited in the report. Not by name, but there are very few female Jewish MPs: Louise Ellman, Luciana Berger and me.' And because of this, she was invited to the inquiry launch.

It took place on June 30, a fortnight after Jo Cox's murder, a week after Brexit and 'the same week we had passed a vote of no confidence in Jeremy and I had resigned'.

'The atmosphere was strange. At least half the room didn't know why they were there, just that it was 'a Jeremy event'.

'Leaflets were distributed attacking the report as 'unfounded' and 'unnecessary'. 'I said to a friend: 'This feels horrible.' It was moody. It shouldn't have been.'

Mark Wadsworth, a Momentum activist, began handing out 'press releases' calling for de-selection of certain MPs (including Smeeth). 'I asked for one. He refused. Someone said: 'It's a Jewish event, she's a Jewish MP, give her a copy.'

'He went: 'What's her name?' I said: 'Darlin', my name's Ruth Smeeth.' ' He wrote it down.

Three journalists offered her their copies, and she took the closest, from Kate McCann of the Daily Telegraph. McCann then tweeted that Labour MPs at a Labour event were getting abuse from Momentum.

'In the Q&A, Jeremy said again that he didn't believe in abuse of any form. And then Shami allowed Wadsworth to speak.

'He said: 'Ruth Smeeth is working hand-in-hand with the Right-wing media to attack Jeremy.'

'So I shouted: 'How dare you?' The audience started shouting at me — at the launch of an inquiry into how we treat Jews in the Labour Party! Jeremy said nothing. So I walked out.

'If one of my councillors was being shouted at I would have stopped it. You get involved, especially if, like Jeremy, you are standing next to a sign which says 'Standing up and not standing by' at an anti-Semitism event.'

While the incident looped on the news, Smeeth waited for a call —'from Corbyn, from his office, from the front bench, from someone, anyone.' There was silence.

So she issued a statement saying Labour was no longer 'a safe space for British Jews'.

Corbyn's office manager called and said Jeremy would be in touch that evening. 'But it never came.'

In fact he wasn't in touch for ten days, and only called 45 minutes before giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

When his office did finally arrange a meeting, at 9am one Wednesday in London, Ruth says: 'I was there. Jeremy wasn't.

'His team said: 'Jeremy understood that the meeting hadn't been confirmed', so he didn't turn up.'

Mostly she puts Corbyn's behaviour down to shambolic lack of organisation rather than anything sinister. 'I've spent a lot of time with Jeremy,' she says. 'The disconnect between the Jeremy I know and the Jeremy who his supporters think he is — and what they are prepared to do in his name or for him because they think that is what he wants — is huge.

'My biggest issue is that Jeremy knows it's happening and that it's still happening. His words about unity are fine until his surrogates go out and say things like 'People will get what's coming to them', or 'De-selections are acceptable'.

'If he has surrogates attacking parts of Labour that have supported the party for decades and decades, then he's got a problem and we've all got a problem.'

She says many of the surrogates are 'clear and upfront' about who they are. Others stay anonymous.

'It's rarely your own constituents — they are disgusted and appalled by such behaviour' — she's been sent flowers, pottery and letters of support. 'They are also getting fed up with me being called the Jewish MP.'

What should Corbyn do?

'If Jeremy highlighted three or four really offensive comments done in his name and said: 'This is the sort of thing I believe is beyond the pale', that would be good. Name and shame. Make it clear they don't speak for him.'

Many have concerns about the virulent militancy within Momentum, set up following Corbyn's election as leader to harness the enthusiasm of his grassroots supporters.

Smeeth says there are some 'good people' but that she's 'wary of the long-term aspirations of some of their leadership', including those 'who have yet to vote Labour in a general election'.

The problem is that 'they've been abysmal about racism. And this talk of de-selection is attacking colleagues instead of Tories. I'd like an alternative government. Momentum is a hindrance to that. It's disgraceful.'

Are they a cult around Corbyn?

'It's something weird. There was a 'Jeremy for leader' phone bank here on the same day as a local by-election. They were calling Labour members rather than helping get the vote out. Their priority is not the Labour Party. It's not fighting the Tories. Their priorities are skewed.'

Smeeth was born in Edinburgh, the daughter of an East London Jewish girl and a rugged Scottish trade unionist. An only child, her father left when she was three. 'And when he left, he left. But my mum is my heroine.'

Her maternal family arrived in London having escaped Tsarist pogroms in the 1890s. One of her grandfathers set up a Jewish trade union branch for carpentry.

'My grandmother was literate and wrote complaint letters for all the old dears on the council estate. It was a version of councillor surgeries.

'My favourite story was when Sainsbury's changed the cap colour of semi-skimmed milk and all the old dears were very angry. My grandmother coordinated a joint letter to say 'they've all bought the wrong milk and it's cost them a fortune'.'

They moved to Bristol, where her mother worked as deputy general secretary of the union Amicus. 'I used to earn my pocket money delivering leaflets for Labour. I door-knocked for the first time in the 1992 election. I'd have been 12.'

Today, many of her constituents are not Corbyn fans. 'They don't think he can represent the country. They don't like his past relationship with the IRA.'

She says they find it 'offensive' when Jeremy — with his middle-class upbringing — says he doesn't consider himself wealthy.

'He earns £130,000 a year. My constituents are doing well if they earn 10 per cent of that,' she says. 'Perhaps it's easy to be an ideological purist if you can afford to live under the Tories. My constituents can't.'

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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




23 September, 2016

Black on black shooting causes a riot for once

Because the shooter was a cop doing his job.  Note that there usually is testimony from black bystanders denying that the deceased was behaving offensively.  Such testimony has often been shown to be false

Police have insisted the man who was shot dead by a Charlotte cop was carrying a gun and refused repeated orders to drop it.

Father-of-seven Keith Lamont Scott, 43, was gunned down by Officer Brentley Vinson while standing next to his car in the North Carolina city on Tuesday night, prompting violent protests that left 16 officers injured.

His family have insisted he was disabled and was only reading a book when he was killed, but Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney says officers found a weapon in his vehicle.

Hours after the shooting, demonstrators arrived at the scene and began destroying marked police vehicles, setting trucks alight and throwing rocks at officers.

In a press conference on Wednesday, Putney said one person had been arrested and slammed the 'agitators' for turning a peaceful demonstration violent. 

He added that the story of Scott's shooting is 'very different' to how it has been portrayed in social media, and made it clear that they did not find a book at the scene.

Charlotte's Mayor Jennifer Roberts has called for 'peace, calm and dialogue' as the city braced for further protests planned for Wednesday evening.

Students started the second round of demonstrations by staging a lie-in at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. 

Video shows one protester jumping on top of a police car and officers firing tear gas to break up the crowd. Several hundred people gathered with some setting fires to block a major road, while others set trucks ablaze.

Some stole boxes from trucks before police used flash grenades in an attempt to disperse the angry crowd, an ABC affiliate in Charlotte reported.

A group of protesters then tried to break into a Walmart store before police arrived and began guarding its front entryway.

Some protesters were heard yelling 'Black Lives Matter,' and 'Hands up, don't shoot!' . They held up a sign saying 'Stop Killing Us' and 'it was a book', making reference to the object Scott was reportedly holding when he was shot dead.

Charlotte police went to the complex around 4pm looking for a suspect with an outstanding warrant when they saw Scott - not the suspect they were looking for - inside a car, department spokesman Keith Trietley said in a statement.

Officers saw Scott get out of the car with a gun and then get back in, Trietley said. When officers approached, Scott exited the car with the gun again. At that point, officers deemed the man a threat and at least one fired a weapon, he said.

However, Scott's brother told reporters: 'He was waiting in the car for his son to get from school.

Detectives recovered a firearm at the scene and were interviewing witnesses, Trietley said.

Officer Brentley Vinson - a former college football player - was identified as the officer who shot Scott, WCCB reports. Officer Vinson, who has worked at the department since July 2014 and is also black, has been placed on paid on administrative leave, as is standard procedure in such cases.

Meanwhile, Scott's daughter Lyric Scott live streamed the aftermath of the shooting on Facebook.

In the video, she says that her father was parked and reading a book in his car while waiting for a school bus to drop off his son.

'My daddy didn't do nothing,' she is heard saying in the video. 'They just pulled up undercover.' She added that Scott was disabled and claimed that officers had Tasered him and then shot him four times. 

Adam Rhew said that the crowd began to disperse after police deployed tear gas. He said on Twitter that he estimates the CMPD used six to eight cans of tear gas.

SOURCE





Free speech destructive to Left’s stifling orthodoxies

Comment from Australia

Perhaps it was the delirium of pneumonia that allowed Hillary Clinton to speak so freely, putting half of Donald Trump’s supporters in what she called the “basket of deplorables”. Like the in vino veritas that sets in after a few drinks, Clinton’s honesty was refreshing.

They are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it”, said Clinton of the Deplorables. In one fell swoop the unplugged Democratic presidential candidate lifted the lid on the neo-fascist Left.

Clinton’s moment of ill-discipline reduced the fraud of so-called progressive politics to a simple illiberal equation: if you disagree with me on race matters, you are a racist. If you disagree with me over lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex politics, you are a homophobe. Disagree with my position on Islam, you are an ­Islamophobe. If you disagree with me on immigration, you are a xenophobe. Rather than engaging in debate, too many on the Left would rather portray disagreement on totemic issues as grounds for a mental disorder with the sole aim of shutting down any challenge to leftist orthodoxy.

The same politics of deriding deplorables is endemic in Australia, especially in the same-sex marriage debate. The Greens and LGBTI activists claim that allowing Australians to decide whether marriage should be redefined would fuel harmful hate speech from same-sex marriage opponents. Worse, the leaders of Australia’s alternative government succumbed to the lowest of low-rent politics. A plebiscite would lead to suicides, Bill Shorten said. Deputy leader Tanya Plibersek used a young boy named Eddie, the son of a same-sex couple, for political purposes. The aim is clear: shut down debate about same-sex marriage. Agree or shut up is the staple of neo-fascists. Never mind that we are debating an institution, not the sexuality of individuals.

Malcolm Turnbull exposed Labor’s thought police during question time last Wednesday. “Was Julia Gillard a homophobe when she opposed same-sex marriage? Was Penny Wong a homophobe when she opposed same-sex marriage? Of course not. The reality is, if people who opposed same-sex marriage then are not homophobes, then they are not homophobes now. The Labor Party has to stop preaching this hatred,” the Prime Minister said.

Alas, same-sex marriage activists chose hatred last Friday when they learnt that Christian groups planned to meet at the Mercure Sydney Airport hotel to prepare for the no campaign. The threats of violence, feral social media posts, including “are your children safe at Mercure” and nasty phone calls to staff showed the disdain for debate among same-sex marriage activists. Hotel management cancelled the event to protect staff. Did left-wingers in favour of same-sex marriage condemn the hate-filled campaign from their own side? No.

Whatever you may say about rigid Christian doctrinal teaching, the churches understand they operate in a liberal democracy where the marketplace of ideas will necessarily challenge their beliefs. Not so the gay-marriage zealots whose fanaticism seeks to suppress open debate and reason.

The critical question is why have so many on the Left taken this illiberal path? Whereas radical leftists in the 1960s were at the vanguard of libertarianism, challenging oppressive customs and canons, too many are now enforcers of their own stifling orthodoxies. The end of liberalism for many on the Left started more than 40 years ago when, by embracing identity politics, they untethered human rights from classical notions of freedom. Sex, sexuality, race and other forms of personal identification trumped Enlightenment freedoms and the very notion of universal, libertarian rights.

Soon enough, identity politics fuelled victimhood claims in a confected marketplace of outrage with feelings now the measurement of human rights. The right not to be offended, not to have one’s feelings hurt, marked the downward spiral of the liberal Left. Instead, a paternalistic Left set ­itself up as the arbiter of rights and freedoms based on repressive ­adherence to its feelings-based moral code rather than the universal rights of mankind.

There are few more defining moments in the Left’s long, illiberal demise than its response when Muslim fundamentalists slapped a fatwa on Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses, demanding his death, burning his novel and marching in London to suppress words.

By choosing silence at this pivotal moment, left-wing elites sided with Muslim fundamentalists who understood that free speech threatened their grip on power.

Now it’s the same with the Western Left. They understand that free speech is the enemy of their illiberal, stifling orthodoxies. It explains why so many on the Left refuse to countenance any change to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, even while three students from the Queensland University of Technology are dragged through a three-year legal rigmarole of racial discrimination claims for posting innocuous comments on Facebook. The silence from most on the Left attests to the neo-fascist transformation of their politics. To speak up would expose the illiberal project that the Left has undertaken for four decades.

Those who call out the Left’s dangerous regression deserve kudos. British writer Nick Cohen marched against Margaret Thatcher and denounced New Labour’s embrace of corporate capitalism. Cohen tendered his resignation from the Left a year ago: “Slowly, too slowly, I am ashamed to say, I began to notice that left-wing politics had turned rancid.”

In Australia, Guy Rundle recently lamented the Left’s enthusiasm for the ever-encroaching state and how the aim of anti-discrimination laws “is to make the censor ‘go inside’, so that you ultimately second-guess your own impulse to challenge, to express, to be outrageous or genuinely on the edge”.

At the weekend, former minister in the Hawke and Keating governments Peter Baldwin traced the sad demise of the Left from a rational movement committed to equality of people, regardless of race, gender and class, to one of moral depravity where so-called progressive intellectuals denounce Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an “Enlightenment fundamentalist”. Hirsi Ali was born a Muslim, was subjected to female genital mutilation and escaped an arranged marriage. Shouldn’t we pay tribute to a woman who choses Western freedoms over Islamic restraints?

We need more people like Baldwin who are honest about the Left’s conversion into loathers of freedom. Half-hearted analyses don’t cut it. When former NSW Labor premier Bob Carr scolded members of the Left for intolerance in the free speech debate, he refused to acknowledge that section 18C cements intolerance in our polity. It’s like saying you support democratic nations but not the sole beacon of democracy in the Middle East, Israel. It makes no sense.

Equally absurd, the Greens can walk out on Pauline Hanson but to denounce a duly elected senator as having no place in a democracy is more offensive than anything Hanson says. It is the antithesis of democracy. We’ve tiptoed around calling out the neo-fascist mindset of many on the Left for too long. What is more deplorably neo-fascist: the clumsy words of the often ill-informed Hanson who believes in free speech or the slippery sorts on the illiberal Left who cannot stomach open debate?

SOURCE





Saudi Arabia condemned?

Saudi Arabia won't take ANY refugees, even though they could easily afford it, so I suppose U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein (below) was condemning them.  If not, why not?  And if the Saudis won't take in their fellow religionists, why should anybody else?

The United Nations' human rights chief on Monday doubled down on his criticism of political leaders who are leery of admitting refugees due to security concerns, labeling them “racists and xenophobes” and saying they would face the judgment of humanity.

Addressing a U.N. summit on refugees and migrants in New York – one day before President Obama hosts another one – U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein took direct aim at what have become regular targets of his over recent months.

“The bigots and deceivers, in opposing greater responsibility-sharing [relating to admitting refugees from conflicts like the one in Syria], promote rupture,” Zeid said.

“Some of them may well be in this hall this morning. If you are here, we say to you: We will continue to name you publicly. You may soon walk away from this hall. But not from the broader judgement of ‘we the people’ – all the world's people. Not from us.”

Zeid did not name those he was referring to, but has done so in previous speeches. They include Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and a handful of right-wing European politicians – including some in power, such as the president of the Czech Republic and the prime ministers of Hungary and Slovakia.

Zeid said the U.N. member states present on Monday could change the suffering faced by refugees from conflicts, by promoting “respect, safety and dignity for all.”

“But not when the defenders of what is good and right are being outflanked in too many countries by race-baiting bigots, who seek to gain – or retain – power by wielding prejudice and deceit, at the expense of those most vulnerable,” he said.

SOURCE






Critics on Civil Rights Report: It's 'Dangerous' -- Important to ‘Push Back Against This Nonsense’

Faith leaders and religious liberty advocates are weighing in on the recently released U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report that concluded terms such as “religious liberty” and “religious freedom” were code words for discrimination and even “Christian supremacy.”

Their response is clear: The commission is out of step with the founding principles of the United States of America and its findings threaten the free practice of religion in this country.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.

“The report was misleading in its account of the law, and dangerous in its recommendations,” Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com.

“It is preposterous for the chair to say that laws that protect the right of Muslim prisoners to grow beards, Native Americans to use sacred eagle feathers, and Sikhs to wear turbans in government jobs, are somehow an insidious attempt to impose ‘Christian supremacy’ on the nation,” said Severino.

“Perhaps most troubling is the attempt to discredit sincere religious believers as being motivated by hate instead of faith and the implied recommendation that religious groups should change their beliefs on sexual morality to conform with liberal norms for the good of the country,” said Severino, who also worked with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

“I would expect to see such a slanted and anti-religious report come out of China or France perhaps, but am disappointed to see it come from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,” he said.

“The report of the Civil Rights Commission, alleging that First Amendment claims of religious liberty are a mere cloak for discrimination, is pure hate speech,” Bishop E. W. Jackson, founder and president of Staying True to America’s National Destiny, or STAND, told CNSNews.com.

“This Commission has become a tool of the totalitarian left to stigmatize faith in God and belief in the Bible and its moral principles,” said Jackson.

He continued, “This report turns the concept of civil rights into a tool of religious persecution. It should be denounced by the American people as a dangerous departure from the spirit, letter, and plain meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

Speaking to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on his Washington Watch radio show, Ken Blackwell, the senior fellow for Family Empowerment at the FRC, said it is important to “fight back” against the report and its findings.

“There is a fundamental struggle in this country between those who believe in individual liberty and those who believe in our ability to practice our faith in the public square, and those who would cleanse the public square of faith and God,” Blackwell said.

“Essentially, what these folks are trying to do is to change the meaning of our language; to change the meaning of the very foundation of words and concepts of our Constitution,” Blackwell said. “And so in the marketplace of ideas and our public dialogue, agencies and agents like this can cause confusion and lead us down a rabbit hole.”

“It very important that we push back against this nonsense,” Blackwell said.

Jesus’ Teachings

On Tuesday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCC) weighed in, refuting Castro’s claims and stating that people of faith care for those who are discriminated against.

“[Castro] makes the shocking suggestion that Catholic, evangelical, orthodox Jewish, Mormon, and Muslim communities are comparable to fringe segregationists from the civil rights era,” Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the USCCB's Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, said in the statement.

“These statements painting those who support religious freedom with the broad brush of bigotry are reckless and reveal a profound disregard for the religious foundations of his own work,” said Lori.

“People of faith have often been the ones to carry the full promise of America to the most forgotten peripheries when other segments of society judged it too costly,” he said. “Men and women of faith were many in number during the most powerful marches of the civil rights era.”

“Can we imagine the civil rights movement without Rev. Martin Luther King, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel?” Lori said. “In places like St. Louis, Catholic schools were integrated seven years before the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.”

“Jesus taught us to serve and not to count the cost,” Lori said.

“We wish we were there in even greater numbers, but we are there to humbly offer the full promise of America to all,” said the bishop. “Rest assured, if people of faith continue to be marginalized, it is the poor and vulnerable, not the Chairman and his friends, who will suffer.”

Government Mandates

Even two members of the eight-member commission, which is chosen by the president and Congress, disagreed with the conclusion of the report, including Gail Heriot, professor at the University of San Diego School of Law.

“Back when the federal government didn’t heavily subsidize both public and private higher education, when it didn’t heavily regulate employment relationships, when it didn’t have the leading role in financing and delivering healthcare, we didn’t need to worry nearly so much about the ways in which conflicts with religious conscience and the law arise,” Heriot said in her rebuttal in the report.

“Nobody thought about whether the Sisters of Charity should be given a religious exemption from the Obamacare contraceptive mandate, because there was no Obamacare contraceptive mandate,” she said.

U.S. Catholic bishops at their annual meeting in Baltimroe, Md. 

“The Roman Catholic Church didn’t need the so-called Ministerial Exception to Title VII in order to limit ordinations to men (and to Roman Catholics), because there was no Title VII,” Heriot said.

“If there is any hypocrisy and intolerance, it is emanating from Mr. Castro who unfairly smears Christians, like the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are sincerely following their consciences out of love of God and neighbor, and who only want to be free to continue to serve the needy without government discrimination,” Severino said.

Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, said he questioned Castro’s role as chairman of the commission.

"No one denigrating religious freedom should be serving on a civil rights commission, much less being its chairman,” Shackelford said. “Calling religious freedom and liberty ‘code words’ for racism, homophobia, and sexism is reprehensible. America was founded on religious freedom.”

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, 2016

Born That Way? A False Hypothesis

Literature reviews are a common thing in the world of academic research. They often involve esoteric topics confined to a narrow universe of scholarly interest. Few literature reviews, however, have generated as much controversy as the recently published paper “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological and Social Sciences,” by Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh.

Among the issues attracting attention in the Mayer-McHugh paper is the claim that the causes of sexual orientation are poorly understood, but — most importantly — that genetics is not the sole determinant of sexual orientation. The hypothesis that those who have lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) orientations were born that way is found to be inconsistent with the data. Mayer and McHugh write:

There is virtually no evidence that anyone, gay or straight, is “born that way” if that means their sexual orientation was genetically determined. But there is some evidence from the twin studies that certain genetic profiles probably increase the likelihood the person later identifies as gay or engages in same-sex sexual behavior.
Mayer and McHugh reviewed research on potential environmental factors, such as abuse, but did not find the evidence convincing for any specific environmental factor. They suggest additional research on potential environmental influences.

A team led by J. Michael Bailey published a literature review on this topic at about the same time that Mayer and McHugh published theirs. At times making different inferences than Mayer and McHugh, particularly when the research evidence is ambiguous, Bailey et al. also conclude that genetics is not the most important causal factor for sexual orientation:

Based on the evidence from twin studies, we believe that we can already provide a qualified answer to the question “Is sexual orientation genetic?” That answer is: “Probably somewhat genetic, but not mostly so.”
Both of these research teams reached the same conclusion about the role of genetics in the development of sexual orientation by reviewing studies of twin siblings. With twin studies we want to know the concordance rate: If one member of a twin pair has a same-sex orientation, what is the probability that the other twin also has a same-sex orientation? Identical (monozygotic) twins share all of their genes in common. If sexual orientation is entirely due to genetics, or perhaps a combination of genetics and prenatal environment, then the concordance rate for identical twins would be one, or quite close to one. Fraternal (dizygotic) twins have the same number of genes in common as any two, non-identical siblings. If the concordance rate for identical twins is greater than that of fraternal twins, then clearly genetics plays a role. When considering studies that used the best sampling methods, Bailey and his colleagues found an average concordance rate for identical twins of .24 and .15 for fraternal twins. Yes, genetics plays a role in the development of sexual orientation, but the environment plays a larger role.

Those who desire a rigorous understanding of the science of sexual orientation should read both of the recent literature reviews. Unlike the data on the role of genetics, the data on environmental factors is often open to more than one interpretation, so considering multiple perspectives is helpful.

Epigenetics helps explain why the born-that-way hypothesis is false even though genes play a role. The epigenome affects the expression of genes. While our genome is relatively static, our epigenome is influenced by the environment. Thus some identical twins come to look different, behave differently, and have differing risk for psychological disorders. Each twin has different environmental experiences. The differing epigenomes result in different expressions of their common genes. Even if a “gay gene” exists, the born-that-way hypothesis would likely be false because interactions with the environment could affect the expression of the gay gene.

The born-that-way hypothesis is important to people on all sides. Members of the LGB community and their allies often believe that a stronger case can be made for societal embrace of the LGB lifestyle if sexual orientation is caused by genetics. Supporters of traditional morality may also feel more comfortable disapproving of behavior when they believe the behavior does not have a biological foundation.

All complex human behavior has a biological foundation. For example, sociobiology suggests that males are hard wired with a propensity to mate with many partners. Even if males are born this way and it is 100 percent due to biology, it does not follow that mating with many partners is moral. The degree to which any behavior is genetically based has no bearing on its morality, nor its benefit to society. We have considerable control over our biological predispositions; civilization would not be possible otherwise.

The nature vs. nurture question has been, in a sense, settled; the answer is (to some degree) a matter of both. Because the answer involves both, those who argue for the virtue, or lack thereof, of any behavior need to always consider legal, societal, or religious claims rather than strictly biological claims.

SOURCE




Karma is a wonderful thing



The monstrosity above turned a joke into an offence.  She would have been eased out long ago except for her abundant melanin

An academic who triggered a row over Sir Tim Hunt which led to Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir Tim Hunt losing his job, has had her own hours cut back.

Sir Tim resigned from his honorary professorship at University College London last year after Connie St Louis’s report of his allegedly sexist remarks at a conference in South Korea.

Heatstreet reports Ms St Louis, a lecturer in science journalism at London’s City University, has had her postgraduate course downgraded, with her teaching hours severely cut.

While giving a toast at the conference in Korea, Dr Hunt joked: 'It's strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists.

'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. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?'

Ms St Louis was criticised at the time for quoting Dr Hunt selectively, triggering a worldwide debate which ultimately cost him his job.

But her own cv was questioned in the wake of the debate, including claims she had written for national newspapers such as the Daily Mail, the Sunday Times and the Independent.

City University in London appears to have dropped her course, according to a timetable seen by Heat Street, and she has been given only one two hour-long class to teach every week for two months.

SOURCE




The wisdom of a Muslim intellectual

Media wonder boy Reza Aslan is behind the curve on this one: this particular talking point has already been debunked (not that he would care, or stop repeating it, if he knew). Back in June 2015, the New America Foundation published a study that garnered enthusiastic international publicity, as it purported to demonstrate that “right-wing extremists” and “white supremacists” were a larger threat to the U.S. than Islamic jihadis. The study was obviously skewed, as it was based on the number of those killed by jihadis and by right-wing extremists since September 12, 2001, leaving  out 9/11. The study also ignored the many, many foiled jihad plots, and the fact that jihadis are part of an international movement that has killed many thousands of people, while right-wingers and white supremacists are not. It stated that right-wing extremists had killed 48 people from September 12, 2001 to June 2015, while Islamic jihadists had killed only 26 people in the U.S. in that span. If 9/11 had been added, the tally would have been 3,032 killed by Islamic jihadists and 48 by purported right-wing extremists. And even by the New America Foundation’s rules, the Orlando jihad massacre makes the death toll stand at 76 killed by Islamic jihadis, and 48 by purported right-wing extremists (I repeat “purported” because to get to its count of 48, the NAF counted as “right-wing” attacks killings that were perpetrated by people who were obviously deranged psychopaths devoid of any ideology). Will Reza Aslan retract and apologize? What do you think?

The semi-literate and fact-free Aslan is the living embodiment of how repeating politically correct shibboleths can enable you to go far in this world. Aslan has made the ridiculous claim that the idea of resurrection “simply doesn’t exist in Judaism,” despite numerous passages to the contrary in the Hebrew Scriptures. He has also referred to “the reincarnation, which Christianity talks about” — although he later claimed that one was a “typo.” In yet another howler he later insisted was a “typo,” he claimed that the Biblical story of Noah was barely four verses long — which he then corrected to forty, but that was wrong again, as it is 89 verses long. Aslan claimed that the “founding philosophy of the Jesuits” was “the preferential option for the poor,” when in reality, that phrase wasn’t even coined until 1968. He called Turkey the second most populous Muslim country, when it is actually the eighth most populous Muslim country. He thinks Pope Pius XI, who issued the anti-fascist encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, was a fascist. He thinks Marx and Freud “gave birth to the Enlightenment,” when it ended in the late 18th century, before either of them were born. He claims that “the very first thing that Muhammad did was outlaw slavery,” when in fact Muhammad bought slaves, took female captives as sex slaves, and owned slaves until his death. He thinks Ethiopia and Eritrea are in Central Africa. A “renowned religious scholar” such as Reza Aslan should not make such elementary mistakes. But this is, of course, the man who writes “than” for “then”; apparently thinks the Latin word “et” is an abbreviation; and writes “clown’s” for “clowns.”

There is a sinister side to this sideshow: Aslan is a Board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). NIAC has been established in court as a lobbying group for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Said Michael Rubin: “Jamal Abdi, NIAC’s policy director, now appears to push aside any pretense that NIAC is something other than Iran’s lobby. Speaking at the forthcoming ‘Expose AIPAC’ conference, Abdi is featured on the ‘Training: Constituent Lobbying for Iran’ panel. Oops.” Iranian freedom activist Hassan Daioleslam “documented over a two-year period that NIAC is a front group lobbying on behalf of the Iranian regime.” NIAC had to pay him nearly $200,000 in legal fees after they sued him for defamation over his accusation that they were a front group for the mullahs, and lost. Yet Aslan remains on their Board.

SOURCE






Teenager, 19, accused of plotting nail bomb terror attacks at London landmarks appears before an Old Bailey judge

A teenager accused of planning nail bomb attacks on famous landmarks including Buckingham Palace appeared at the Old Bailey today.

Haroon Syed, 19, allegedly researched potential targets including the Queen's London residence and Oxford Street in London's West End. He is also looked up military bases between 12 April and 9 September this year, it is said.

Syed is accused of attempting to buy guns and bomb making material online with a view to carrying out an attack 

He was arrested on 9 September following an investigation by the Met's Counter Terrorism Command.

Syed appeared in court today via video link dressed in a grey prison tracksuit.

Listing his case for a three week trial beginning on 13 March, Mr Justice Saunders said: 'Mr Syed, I have done my utmost to make sure this comes to court at the earliest possible opportunity.

'In the meantime you are remanded in custody'.

Syed, of Hounslow, west London, is charged with the intention of committing acts of terrorism engaged in conduct in preparation for giving effect to that intention.

He is due back in court on 13 January for a pleas and case management hearing.

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, 2016

Somali Muslim attacker in Minnesota showed no emotion, says victim

THE Minnesota mall attacker showed no emotion and said nothing as he stabbed at Ryan Schliep’s scalp.

One of 10 people who suffered wounds that were not life-threatening before the attacker was fatally shot, Schliep told WCCO-TV that the man “just walked right at me” before striking quickly and penetrating the skin.

“He looked just blank in the eyes like he wasn’t even there,” Schliep said on Monday shortly before being released from a St. Cloud hospital.

Authorities are treating Saturday’s stabbings at Crossroads Center Mall, as a possible act of terrorism, in part because an Islamic State-run news agency claimed that the attacker was a “soldier of the Islamic State” who had heeded the group’s calls for attacks in countries that are part of a US-led anti-IS coalition.

But it wasn’t immediately known whether the extremist group had planned the attack or knew about it beforehand.

St. Cloud Police Chief Blair Anderson said the attack appeared to be the work of a single individual and there was no sign that the attacker, identified by his father as 20-year-old Dahir Adan, was radicalised or communicated with any terrorist group.

President Barack Obama said the stabbings had no apparent connection to weekend bombings in New York and New Jersey.

Attacker had gone to get iPhone. A community activist says Adan had gone to the mall to pick up a pre-ordered iPhone.

Haji Yusuf, community director for the social tolerance group UniteCloud, has been working with the attacker’s family.

He told WCCO-TV that Adan had gone to Crossroads Center to get a new phone and “was very happy” upon leaving home. He says Adan’s family doesn’t know what happened.

A person who answered the phone at the T-Mobile store where Yusuf said Adan had ordered the phone declined to comment or take a message for his supervisor.

Because Adan was Somali, leaders of the state’s large Somali community acknowledged the prospect of a “long winter” for their people after the stabbings, but warned not to quickly accept the terrorism connection.

“We cannot give ISIS and other terrorist organisations more airtime and propaganda without real facts,” said Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Minnesota chapter.

Little is known about Adan, who was identified Sunday by his father, Ahmed Adan.

He had only a traffic ticket on his record, was apparently out of work after his job as a part-time security guard ended and hadn’t enrolled in college since the spring semester.

Adan was wearing a security guard’s uniform during the attack.

Federal officials released no new information on the investigation into the stabbing, which was stopped by an off-duty police officer just minutes into it.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Rick Thornton has said authorities were digging into Adan’s background and possible motives, looking at social media accounts and electronic devices and talking to people he knew.

Somali community braces for backlash

Minnesota has the nation’s largest Somali population, an estimated 57,000 people.

Both Anderson and Gov. Mark Dayton warned against a possible backlash due to the stabbings, especially in St. Cloud, where Somalis in the 65,000-resident city about 104km northwest of Minneapolis have spoken about mistreatment in the past.

SOURCE








Tony Abbott says Europe is facing 'peaceful invasion' of asylum seekers

The former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has urged Europe to adopt harsh Australian-style border protection policies to avoid “losing control” in the face of record numbers of people seeking asylum.

Abbott said the large numbers of people entering Europe “looks like a peaceful invasion” and said European countries risked losing their character if they allowed people he labeled “would-be economic migrants” to settle there.

The comments to a gathering of centre-right members of the ­European parliament in Prague on Saturday came as Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, prepared to tell the United Nations in New York that Australia has the best border policies in the world.

Both argue that tighter border protection helped convince the Australian public to accept a higher refugee intake, justifying a harsh set of policies that has left more than 1,000 people in indefinite offshore detention to deter others attempting to reach Australia by boat.

The United Nations has said that both Australia’s system of indefinite offshore detention and the process of returning asylum seekers after a summary assessment are illegal under international law.

Abbott said “the prospect of millions of new Europeans from the Middle East and Africa streaming into Britain” had pushed Britons to “vote against losing control”.

“Uncontrolled immigration didn’t cause Brexit but it did prompt Britons to take back their sovereignty.”

He said that after Brexit, Britain would need a new visa system that would “end uncontrolled movement”.

Abbott lauded the former Australian prime minister John Howard, who famously said “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”.

“Why shouldn’t each country keep the final say over who can enter?” Abbott asked.

“After all, a country or a continent that can’t control who enters its territory will eventually lose control of its future”.

Abbott said it was a “decent and a humane impulse to give a better life to people from wretched places”.

“But a million people coming by boat and almost a million people coming by land last year has the look of a peaceful invasion.”

Abbott argued that people who have gone beyond their first place of safety “[are not] asylum seekers but would-be economic migrants”. He did not address what those who were not allowed to remain permanently in transit countries should do.

Tony Abbott: Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has told European parliament MPs that their countries are facing a ‘peaceful invasion’ of asylum seekers. © Getty Images Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has told European parliament MPs that their countries are facing a ‘peaceful invasion’ of asylum seekers. Abbott said among the “would-be migrants” are “are soldiers of the caliphate bent on mayhem”, that many would “join an angry underclass” and many “are coming, not with gratitude but with grievance, and with the insistence that Europe should make way for them”.

“People in no immediate danger have to be turned back at Europe’s borders,” he said, including by intercepting people in the Mediterranean and returning them to their “starting point”.

“This crisis can’t be managed; it has to be resolved.”

Abbott lauded Australia’s border policies, which include turning boats back at sea, and intercepting boats and returning people to the countries they are fleeing, such as Sri Lanka, after only a summary assessment of their refugee claims.

“And having stopped the boats, we’ve been able to increase our genuine refugee intake because the Australian government has been in charge, not the people smugglers,” he said.

The flows of people into Europe have been hundreds of times greater than those seeking to come to Australia, including many coming by foot.

“Effective border protection is not for the squeamish, but it is absolutely necessary to save lives and to preserve nations,” Abbott said.

Abbott called for “an end to self-doubt about the entitlement of European nations, individually and collectively, to keep their character”.

He warned that if the “sensible centre scoffs at people’s real concerns” that “populism will increase”.

“Stand guard on your borders and you ease so much of the anxiety that now grips this great continent.”

In a cursory mention to another global crisis, Abbott said “we can’t do much to change climate”.

“But what’s the point of government if we can’t secure borders and control immigration?

“This is one lesson that my part of the new world might usefully offer to your part of the old one.”

Australia’s detention facilities have drawn heavy domestic and international criticism following the Guardian’s publication of the Nauru files, more than 2,000 leaked incident reports that laid bare the devastating abuse and trauma inflicted on children held there.

On Sunday immigration minister, Peter Dutton, defended conditions in offshore detention by comparing detention centres favourably to makeshift refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon, areas just outside the war zone in Syria.

SOURCE






Australia: Poofter leadership offer their version of civil debate

"Poofter" is a contemptuous Australian word for a male homosexual.  I use it here advisedly.  I don't have the slightest interest in where homosexuals stick their dicks.  I would rather not know, in fact.  But I do object to coercion and threats of violence coming from them.  That draws my contempt. Their contempt for free speech and democracy makes them different from Hitler and Stalin only in detail. 

Not all homosexuals are thugs.  I know some decent ones.  But the decent ones should be vigorously dissociating themselves from the slime described below and demanding police prosecution of them.   And where are Tricky Gillian's 18c speech police?  If ever there was a breach of hate speech laws the one below is certainly it


The Accor Hotels group confirmed late yesterday that a function had been abandoned after a social media storm triggered phone calls that “rattled” employees and left the company concerned about the safety of staff and guests.

A ferocious campaign against Christian groups planning to meet on same-sex marriage has forced them to cancel the event at a major hotel next week, amid claims of physical threats from marriage-equality advocates.

The Accor Hotels group confirmed late yesterday that the function had been abandoned after a social media storm triggered phone calls that “rattled” employees and left the company concerned about the safety of staff and guests.

In the first test of the “civil” debate promised for a plebiscite on gay marriage, advocates for the “yes” case were being blamed last night for the kind of “hate speech” that Bill Shorten and others have claimed would come from the “no” case.

A spokeswoman for the Mercure Sydney Airport Hotel said the campaign by marriage-equality advocates had forced the company to close the hotel’s Facebook page, sparked phone calls that disturbed hotel staff and escalated the problem to the company’s headquarters. “We’ve conducted an objective review regarding the safety and security of our hotel guests and staff,” she said. “Following this review the event will no longer take place next week.”

The four Christian groups booked the hotel conference room for Tuesday to prepare for a “no” campaign in the potential plebiscite, even though Labor and the Greens appear certain to block the “people’s vote” legislation in the Senate. About 100 people were expected to attend from the Sydney Anglicans, Sydney Catholics, the Marriage ­Alliance and the Australian Christian Lobby.

Gay news website Same­Same.com.au alerted readers to the event. Activist ­Pauline Pantsdown urged followers to stop the “dangerous, predatory” ACL. “Are children safe at Mercure and Accor hotels?” one post said. One follower declared it ­“utterly horrifying” that Accor would host the Christian groups while another accused the hotel of supporting the “hateful, ­deceitful and extreme” ACL.

The campaign dismayed some marriage-equality supporters. “I’m becoming a little uneasy about this kind of thing,” said one. “Will fundamentalist Christians and others start ­pressuring venues hosting ­marriage-equality functions to cancel them?”

Accor confirmed the campaign led to a number of “negative” calls to the hotel but would not confirm claims these calls included death threats. The spokeswoman would not say whether the police had been notified.

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, warned that it was beneath Australians to treat supporters of traditional marriage as proponents of ­bigotry. The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, warned of the danger to free speech from the threats that shut down the meeting.

A joint statement from the conveners said the hotel staff ­received “threats of violence” after the details of the private event were published on the ­internet. “We have chosen to reconsider our arrangements for the event next week due to our concern for the safety of the hotel staff, and our commitment to a reasonable and respectful debate,” ACL managing director Lyle Shelton said.

The Weekend Australian sought comment from Australian Marriage Equality yesterday but the group was not aware of the storm over the event.

Marriage-equality advocates hailed the cancellation of the meeting late yesterday. Pantsdown accused ACL of “playing victim” and justified the campaign against the Christian groups “due to danger they pose” to LGBTI children and families.

The bill to hold the February 11 plebiscite was introduced into parliament this week but appears headed for defeat in the Senate, with the Coalition insisting on a “people’s vote” and Bill Shorten wanting Labor to vote against it.

SOURCE






'We won't take migrants posing as refugees': Theresa May tells the UN Britain has a right to control border

Britain has the right to control its borders and turn away the tens of thousands of economic migrants posing as refugees, Theresa May told world leaders today.

At her first United Nations summit, the Prime Minister declared that the 'unprecedented' and 'uncontrolled' wave of immigration into Europe is not in the interests of the UK, the migrants themselves or the countries they leave behind.

Mrs May rejected demands from some UN members and charities for Britain to throw open its borders.

And she criticised the inaction of global leaders that has let the crisis spiral out of control. Government sources said she would stress that – if public support for genuine refugees is to be maintained – the system must be robust in rooting out abuse by economic migrants.

The UN General Assembly, starting in New York today, will kick off two years of negotiations on a new global policy for migration and refugees. The UN is pressing for wealthy nations such as Britain to create more routes for economic migrants from poorer countries.

But Mrs May stressed that the emphasis must be on the 'right of all countries to control their borders' – not the rights of economic migrants to enter the UK seeking work. Government officials said she wanted the UN to accept this must be one of three key principles on immigration policy.

Crucially, she also demanded a distinction is drawn between genuine refugees and economic migrants. The influx into Europe has been dubbed a 'refugee crisis', but Mrs May stressed many of them are in fact seeking work and should be treated as such – with no automatic right to resettlement.

The third rule she sought at meetings with US President Barack Obama, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and others is a declaration that refugees should remain in the first safe country they reach. In the case of Syria, Mrs May said this should be Lebanon or Jordan.

The PM also pledged tens of millions of pounds more from the foreign aid budget to support education and other projects in countries close to migrant hotspots.

The aim is to drastically reduce the numbers trying to head to the UK by illegal routes.

A restatement of the so-called 'first country rule' will also help Britain after Brexit. Brussels rules say a person must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach inside the EU, and can be sent back there if they travel onwards.

Tory Eurosceptics are lining up to join a new 'hard Brexit' group that will campaign to ensure the Prime Minister does not compromise with the EU.

Senior MPs, including former ministers Owen Paterson, Dominic Raab and Sir Gerald Howarth, have signed up to the 'Leave Means Leave' group.

They will use their position on the backbenches to put pressure Theresa May to leave the single market completely, retaining full control of Britain's borders and ending the influence of Brussels on legislation.

A report by the Overseas Development Institute has predicted the UK faces 43,000 asylum applications this year – costing the public purse £620million. There were about 39,000 asylum claims last year.

Mrs May also called for a tightening of aviation security worldwide in the wake of terrorist atrocities such as the downing of a Russian Metrojet flight from Sharm el-Sheikh last October and the attacks at airports in Brussels and Istanbul this year. The PM will also use her trip to meet US businessmen in a bid to persuade them to invest in post-Brexit Britain.

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, 2016

The perils of a multicultural boyfriend



A teenager who was brutally knifed by her boyfriend more than 100 times - in front of her two-year-old son - only survived by playing dead.

Lewes Crown Court heard Jamiv Usman launched the terrifying attack because the 19-year-old woman refused to get him a glass of water. At one point he stabbed her in the neck with such force the tip of the knife snapped off.

But despite being repeatedly slashed with the eight-inch blade in the neck and chest, she managed to survive by pretending to be dead and crawling into an empty bus.

The woman, now 21, suffered two punctured lungs and had 500 stitches to treat her wounds.

Unemployed Usman, of Brighton, denied attempted murder but was found guilty following a trial at Lewes Crown Court on July 20 and jailed for 20 years on Friday.

After the attack in March last year she staggered onto a nearby empty bus near her home in Brighton, East Sussex, just after midnight, where the driver alerted police and drove her to the bus depot.

Police officers boarded the bus and helped treat a life threatening wound to her neck while they waited for paramedics who took her to the Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton.

The victim's son was found in a distressed state by a neighbour following the attack.

The knife used in the assault was found dumped in a hedge close to the victim's home.

Usman was still at large until he was spotted in a nearby street later that day and arrested for attempted murder and later charged.

Detective Inspector Andy Wolstenholme of Sussex Police said: 'This was an horrific unprovoked attack on the victim who had to fight for her life in front of her child who was just two. 'It is a miracle she survived.

'I also want to praise the bus driver for having the presence of the mind to drive the victim away from the scene and to get her help.

'The sentence means Usman will be in prison for many years, preventing other victims suffering this level of violence at his hands.'

SOURCE







UK Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom plans a free vote to ditch the ban on fox hunting before the next election

A new push to repeal the ban on fox hunting is set to be announced by the Environment Secretary.

Former Tory leadersh ip contender Andrea Leadsom said she wants to hold a free vote on the issue before the next election.

Mrs Leadsom had made the pledge of a Commons vote on fox hunting a key plank of her election campaign in the summer.

Aides say that even though she lost to Theresa May, she is still in a position to fulfil her pledge as she now heads up the department in charge of the issue.

However, campaigners say it is unlikely that a free vote will be won, saying the current odds are about 100 to 1.

The ban on hunting foxes and other wild mammals with dogs was implemented in the Hunting Act 2004.

The Tory election manifesto last year pledged to offer a free vote on repealing the law, meaning MPs would not be whipped on party lines, in a promise to ‘support countryside pursuits’.

There had been concerns however that the new administration would ditch the vow.

But a source at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: ‘We stand by our manifesto commitment to give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time.’

Mr Cameron’s attempts to secure the change were thwarted after winning a slim Tory majority last year.

With Labour and Liberal Democrats against the move and a handful of Tory rebels, Mr Cameron argued the SNP should not vote as the change would only impact England and Wales.

But the SNP vowed to block the move – forcing him to pull the vote. Campaigners hope Theresa May will strengthen the Government’s English votes for English laws changes to bar Scottish MPs from voting.

Their second hope is an SNP change of heart. It vowed to review the law in Scotland last summer and a backroom deal remains possible.

Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: ‘There is an ingrained political prejudice which means that resolving this issue will remain difficult. We will, however, work with the Government to achieve just that.’

SOURCE







Sir Cliff set to lobby the Lords in a bid to ban sex abuse suspects being 'named and shamed' before charge

Sir Cliff Richard is to lobby senior politicians in Parliament in an attempt to stop people accused of sex abuse being ‘named and shamed’ before they are charged.

The veteran pop star is demanding a change in the law that would give anonymity to anyone suspected of rape or sexual assault unless they were facing trial.

He hopes it will end the ‘witch hunts’ against high-profile figures who have had their reputations tarnished by unfounded accusations without ever being charged with any offence.

Sir Cliff, 75, will tell MPs and peers of his own ordeal when the BBC broadcast aerial footage of his penthouse in Berkshire being raided by officers from South Yorkshire Police, following claims he had abused a boy some 30 years earlier.

Although Sir Cliff was questioned by detectives, he was never arrested or charged, yet had to endure an investigation lasting almost two years until police finally admitted there was not enough evidence to prosecute him over abuse claims made by four men. Now the Crown Prosecution Service has been asked to look again at the cases.

The singer, who is planning to sue the BBC and police for allowing the search of his home to be broadcast, has told how he was treated like ‘live bait’ and said in July: ‘Having suffered the experience that I have, I firmly believe that privacy should be respected and that police guidelines are there to be followed.

‘That means that, save in exceptional circumstances, people should never be named unless and until they are charged.’

He has said that the law change would ‘make all that I’ve been through almost worthwhile’, if it ‘saves someone else going through the same thing’.

At a meeting in a House of Lords committee room on October 17, Sir Cliff will be joined by DJ Paul Gambaccini, who endured ‘12 months of hell’ on bail for sex abuse allegations for which he was never charged.

Also present will be the widow of Leon Brittan, the former Home Secretary who died before being told police had dismissed historical abuse allegations against him.

They will urge politicians to back changes being proposed by Lord Paddick, a former Scotland Yard chief who is now a Lib Dem peer.

His reform would mean nothing could be published or broadcast in England and Wales to identify anyone accused of a sexual offence ‘up until that person is charged with the offence, except where a judge is satisfied it is in the public interest’.

Some say the move could hamper police investigations because further victims sometimes come forward when arrests are publicised, as happened in the cases of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall.

In July Sir Cliff and Mr Gambaccini met Tory MP Nigel Evans, who was cleared of sex abuse in court.

The former Deputy Speaker said: ‘We are all scarred by the experiences we have been through and we all came through it.

'We are talking to other people who have been through similar trauma to try to put pressure on the Government.’

The amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill will be debated by peers just weeks after Sir Cliff’s appearance in Parliament, and if voted through it could become law.

Lord Paddick said last night: ‘It’s important to hear from those who have been affected so that Parliament can have an informed debate.

‘The recent developments where we’ve had high-profile individuals, both living and dead, who have had allegations made against them have prompted at least for there to be a debate to be had.’

SOURCE






Corporate Social Responsibility skin-deep?

Comment from Australia

'Corporate Social Responsibility' (CSR) is becoming a prominent part of the business of business.

CSR refers to how leading companies seek to burnish their corporate reputations by endorsing social and political issues including gender equality, gay marriage, and ethnic diversity.

Indigenous affairs makes an interesting case study of how deep the commitment to genuine social responsibility actually is -- does CSR often amount to backing invariably fashionable causes while ducking the really hard issues?

Many major companies have implemented affirmative action policies to boost the number of Indigenous employees on staff.

Hiring a 'diverse' workforce will be of some benefit to the burgeoning Indigenous middle class -- who the statistics nevertheless show are generally doing as well in health, housing, employment, education, and other social outcomes as non-Indigenous peers -- including the increasing numbers of people who have only recently discovered their ancestry and identified as Indigenous.

But how much Indigenous disadvantage will these well-intentioned staffing practices really overcome?

Consider the fact that 6% of Indigenous children (approximately 15,000 children) have had to be removed from their families due to abuse and neglect, and currently live in state care. This figure is even more shocking given that only 100,000 or so of the 670,000 Indigenous Australians live in the rural and remote communities with the worst social problems.

I believe, based on the findings of my research, that we will never 'close the gap' unless more Indigenous children are rescued from squalor and are adopted (on a non-discriminatory basis) by either an Indigenous or non-Indigenous family.

Indigenous adoption is, of course, a taboo subject in the wake of the apology for the Stolen Generations. Therefore, speaking out on the subject of Indigenous child welfare entails not only advocating for otherwise advocate-less children, but also involves copping flak for supporting ill-deservedly unpopular issues and causes. In my opinion, this kind of unfashionable advocacy is thus an act of profound social responsibility.

But I wonder if corporate Australia would agree, and would wish to run the reputational risk of associating their brands with as important but contentious an issue as Indigenous adoption?

If these doubts are fair, then a fair judge might conclude that the corporate commitment to social responsibility is somewhat skin-deep.

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. 

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



19 September, 2016

Geheimestaatspolizei wanted in Britain

Geheimestaatspolizei translates as "secret state police" -- usually abbreviated as "Gestapo"

Britain's most senior police officers are demanding that official complaints about their conduct and behaviour be kept secret.

The Chief Constables’ Council recently discussed moves that could be made to stop the public finding out about investigations into alleged corruption and misconduct.

Documents seen by The Mail on Sunday reveal that at a top-level meeting with the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Dame Anne Owers, force leaders said it was ‘damaging’ for such accusations to be made public.

At the moment, when investigations into the highest-ranking officers are launched by police forces or the IPCC, the identities of those facing disciplinary action can be revealed.

But chiefs want their names to be kept out of the public domain unless they are found guilty. It could mean details of the claims against them remain secret for several years – or even concealed for ever if the charges are not proven.

Last night critics said it was a worrying development that would risk confidence in the police.

David Burrowes, a lawyer and MP on the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: ‘There are many people like doctors and politicians who are named when allegations are made against them, so I don’t think police officers should have a special rule. It’s very important that law enforcers aren’t treated differently.’

The IPCC says it is currently investigating eight top-ranking officers, from six forces across England and Wales.

At least six more chief constables, assistant chief constables or deputy chief constables are having their conduct scrutinised by external police forces.

A record of the July meeting of the high-level Chief Constables’ Council reveals their concerns, stating: ‘Press releases can be damaging… as the media will run with big stories. It may then transpire that there is no case to answer.

'This is in contradiction to how the system protects the names of proposed criminals and the IPCC process seems out of kilter.’

Dame Anne told the chiefs’ meeting that ‘further consideration is currently being given to the issue of naming in media releases’.

But sources say that the watchdog is unlikely to place a blanket ban on their identities being revealed.

SOURCE






HUD Decrees That Limited-English-Speakers Are Protected Under Fair Housing Act

"People with limited English proficiency are not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act," said the Department of Housing and Urban Development on Thursday.

But they are now, by decree.  Under the heading of "national origin," HUD is making non-English-speakers a protected class.

In its announcement, HUD noted that the Fair Housing Act "prohibits discrimination on seven protected bases, including national origin, which is closely linked to the ability to communicate proficiently in English. Housing providers are therefore prohibited from using limited English proficiency selectively or as an excuse for intentional housing discrimination," HUD said.

“Having a limited ability to speak English should never be a reason to be denied a home,” said Gustavo Velasquez, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “Every family that calls this nation home has the same rights when it comes to renting or buying a home, regardless of where they come from or language they speak.”

The new guidance from HUD warns against discriminatory practices, such as applying a language-related requirement to people of certain races or nationalities; posting advertisements that contain blanket statements, such as 'all tenants must speak English;' or immediately turning away applicants who are not fluent in English. 

"Targeting racial or national origin groups for scams related to housing also constitutes intentional discrimination."

HUD noted that more than 25 million people in the United States -- nearly 9 percent of the population -- do not communicate proficiently in English.

Approximately 16,350,000 (65 percent) of these individuals speak Spanish; 1,660,000 (7 percent) speak Chinese; 850,000 (3 percent) speak Vietnamese, 620,000 (2 percent) speak Korean and 530,000 (2 percent) speak Tagalog.

SOURCE






U.N. Chief Also Slams Netanyahu’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Comment, While Failing to Address the Substance

Must not say bad things about Palestinians, even if it is true

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Thursday joined a chorus of criticism directed at Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s provocative assertion that the Palestinian Authority insistence that no Jews be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state is tantamount to “ethnic cleansing.”

“I am disturbed by a recent statement by Israel’s prime minister portraying those who oppose settlement expansion as supporters of ethnic cleansing,” Ban told the U.N. Security Council. “This is unacceptable and outrageous.”

“Let me be absolutely clear,” he continued. “Settlements are illegal under international law.  The occupation, stifling and oppressive, must end.”

Netanyahu’s comments, in an online video message posted last week, earlier drew an earlier State Department reprimand and widespread ridicule from his critics.

But undisputed is the fact that if P.A. chairman Mahmoud Abbas had his way, half a million Israeli Jews living in areas he wants for an independent state – the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem – would have to leave.

At the same time, 1.77 million Palestinian Arab citizens make up 20.8 percent of the Israeli population, according to Central Bureau of Statistics figures released last May. That marked an annual growth rate of 2.2 percent for Israeli Arabs, compared to 1.7 percent for Israeli Jews.

No mainstream Israeli politician has ever suggested that those Arabs move to an envisaged Palestinian state under the “two-state” solution promoted by the U.S., European Union and broader international community.

Yet Abbas has declared unambiguously that no Jews will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state

“In a final resolution [of the conflict], we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands,” Abbas said during a visit to Egypt in 2013.

The following year, Abbas’ top negotiator Saeb Erekat reiterated that stance.

“No settler will be permitted to stay in a Palestinian state, not one, because the settlements are illegal and the presence of settlers on occupied lands is illegal,” he was quoted as saying.

When Israel withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip in 2005 as part of its undertakings under the Oslo peace accords, its government uprooted all 9,000 Israelis living there in the process.

Those accords signed in 1993 left the question of Israeli communities in the West Bank unresolved – a matter for later “final status” negotiations.

Every Israeli government since, on the right and left, has indicated that it expects a negotiated final agreement will leave at least major blocs of Israeli settlements intact in the area known by Israelis as Judea and Samaria, the country’s biblical “heartland.”

Netanyahu’s video message tackled the issue in his trademark direct manner, challenging not just Abbas but unnamed foreign governments as well.

“I'm sure many of you have heard the claim that Jewish communities in Judea Samaria – the West Bank – are an obstacle to peace. I’ve always been perplexed by this notion,” he said.

“Because no one would seriously claim that the nearly two million Arabs living inside Israel – that they’re an obstacle to peace. That's because they aren’t – on the contrary.

“Israel’s diversity shows its openness and readiness for peace,” Netanyahu continued. “Yet the Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: No Jews.”

“There’s a phrase for that: It’s called ethnic cleansing. And this demand is outrageous.

“It’s even more outrageous that the world doesn’t find this outrageous,” he said. “Some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage.”

‘Inconvenient truth’

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau slammed Netanyahu’s comments, calling them “inappropriate and unhelpful.”

“We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank,” she said.

Trudeau repeated U.S. government policy that ongoing Israeli settlement activity is “an obstacle to peace.”

While she called Netanyahu’s terminology “inappropriate and unhelpful” Trudeau – like Ban Ki-moon on Thursday – did not address the P.A. demands that no Jews be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. She merely repeated the position that “settlements are a final status issue that must be resolved in negotiations between the parties.”

Trudeau also said the administration was “engaging in direct conversations with the Israeli government” about the comments.

Anne Bayefsky president of Human Rights Voices and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, called Netanyahu’s ethnic cleansing charge “the quintessential inconvenient truth.”

The State Department went on offense because they have no defense,” she wrote in an op-ed. “Playing the settlements card and advocating for a Jew-free Palestine is not a move to promote peaceful co-existence. It’s an intrinsic part of a 67-year old xenophobic attempt to wipe the only Jewish state off the map.”

-- In a letter to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2004, President George W. Bush recognized that any final peace agreement with the Palestinians would likely take into account the reality of at least some Jewish communities remaining in place in the West Bank.

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” Bush wrote.

He added, notably, that “all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”

“It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities,” said Bush.

The president read out key excerpts of that letter during a joint appearance with Sharon at the White House. The substance of the letter was subsequently endorsed in resolutions by both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

SOURCE






Libs Gone Insane: Cultural Appropriation, the Ultimate Sin

Liberals don’t believe in the double standard. They believe in one standard. Anything that the left does is great. Anything conservatives, Christians or even chefs, yes chefs, do is wrong.

It’s really simple. If you’re actress Emma Stone, liberals will freak out when you play a Hawaiian/Asian, but mostly Swedish character in the forgettable Aloha. Slate called the title “cultural appropriation” and using Stone “a preposterous casting choice” even though both the actress and character were mostly white. Stone even had to apologize for “whitewashing.” Horrors.

Amazing actress Zoe Saldana, a person of color herself, was criticized for playing the role of Nina Simone because Zoe isn’t black enough. Even faux dreadlocks are controversial.

Then there’s the popular Broadway hit Hamilton. In it, people of color play the Founding Fathers -- to make them appear cool. Founding the United States wasn’t cool enough for liberals and the media. I’ll let The New York Times tell you about that:

“‘Hamilton,’ the mega-buzzy bio-musical about Alexander Hamilton and the founding fathers, opened to glowing accolades unlike any in memory. It received 11 Tony Awards, including best musical, and 16 Tony nominations, the most nominations in Broadway history. It won the Pulitzer Prize and a Grammy Award. In his review, Ben Brantley writes: ‘Yes, it really is that good.’”

Hamilton had such an impact it’s one of the reasons why we are keeping Alexander Hamilton on the $10. While I’m fine with that, it’s is a ridiculous way to make policy.

When Hamilton was criticized for an openly racist casting call, the entirety of the left rose to its defense. Here’s The Atlantic, ever clueless.

“In an era when the lead Republican candidate is frequently understood to voice the resentment of whites who see their longstanding supremacy in American society threatened—an era where comments sections roil with apocalyptic mentions of ‘reverse racism’ and ‘black privilege’ — the notion of America’s founders de-whitened for a blockbuster Broadway show would seem like inevitable cause for a round of cultural warfare.”

Never fear, it’s OK to cast white people as People of Color, but anything white people use or do that they didn’t invent is CULTURAL APPROPRIATION.

Which takes us to our latest outrages:

The Foes Of Faux Pho: Bon Appétit’s readers might have noticed a recent piece that was originally called: “PSA: This Is How You Should Be Eating Pho.” The story included a video of Philadelphia’s Stock chef Tyler Akin. Stock serves Southeast Asian food and Tyler has a problem, he’s white. The video showed how he eats Pho. And that’s a no-no. The HuffPo thought police responded with, “Why The Outrage Over Bon Appétit’s Pho Article Is Completely Justified.” Not just “justified,” but “completely justified.” They proceeded to quote every idiot they could find who was angry that a white guy might be an expert in something that white people didn’t invent. One site even called it “whitesplaining.”

Bon Appétit went grovelling and responded “how we screwed up and what we can do about it.” Actual quote: “While Akin mentions in the video that he’s demonstrated his personal, preferred way of consuming pho, the outlet’s packaging still positioned him as an authority.” This is America 2016. It’s controversial to have a white chef make ethnic food. But no one on the left refuses to use electricity or the telephone because scary old white men were involved in their invention.

“The Case Against Pets”: The left is why we can’t have nice things: ethnic food, decent movies (OK, I didn’t mean Aloha.), football or a national anthem. Now it’s pets. This might be the most ridiculous piece I have read in a while. This is Fusion-level insane. The authors are naturally professors at Rutgers. They also wrote the page-turner: Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. They have six dogs, but they don’t call them dogs exactly. “These dogs are non-human refugees with whom we share our home. Although we love them very much, we strongly believe that they should not have existed in the first place.”

Here’s another actual quote: “A morally just world would have no pets, no aquaria, no zoos. No fields of sheep, no barns of cows. That’s true animal rights.” This is like the Peta version of John Lennon’s Imagine. I can imagine this future, too. Imagine no cute puppy videos. Imagine lefties showing up at your door seizing your pets and setting them free like they do at research facilities or mink farms. Rutgers has clearly outlived its usefulness. h/t Matt Philbin.

Dying To Get Your Death Suit: Forget the coffin. Skip that pair of pennies on your eyes, those aren’t recyclable. No, you need an environmentally friendly death suit. It’s only $999. You only wish I was kidding. The whackjobs who brought you Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth produce all sorts of lefty propaganda. Their site Take Part wants your whole life -- even your death -- sustainable. I’ll let the author’s actual quote help me out. “With the rise of electric cars, sustainable architecture, eco-friendly diets, composting, and countless other options, forging a sustainable life is often as easy as it is trendy. Now it’s even easy after death thanks to a bodysuit made from a decidedly old-school material: mushrooms.”

But wait, there’s more! Your death suit isn’t just a way to turn your carcass into a mushroom farm, it’s fashionable, too! Actual quote: “Although the mushroom suit provides a cost-effective alternative, the goal is to do so without losing the beauty of the process. The suit itself is a work of art thanks to designers such as Daniel Silverstein, who has designed clothing for Jennifer Hudson and Kristen Bell.” And you thought you were only kidding when you said you were dying to wear clothes just like the stars.

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, 2016

Arab thought he was entitled to park his car in the middle of a  NYC street

And went on a rampage when he was penalized for it.  With arrogance like that, he would have to be a Muslim



The man who allegedly hit an off-duty NYPD detective in the head with an 11-inch meat cleaver during a dramatic Midtown Manhattan confrontation has been identified as Akram Joudeh, 32, formerly of Qeens.

Joudeh was shot multiple times on West 32 Street, near Penn Station, by several officers at around 5pm Wednesday after a dramatic chase that culminated in three officers being injured, cops said.

The detective suffered a six-inch gash from his temple to his jaw, while Joudeh was left in hospital in critical but stable condition.

Police were called out at around 5pm after Joudeh was seen trying to prize a boot off his car on West 31 St and Broadway. It's believed the man, whose last registered address is in Queens, has been sleeping in the car.

The vehicle had reportedly been parked in the middle of the street, which is located in a busy, tourist-heavy area of Midtown.

When police approached, however, he went into a rage, pulling out the cleaver and fleeing while 'waving it around,' a police spokesman said. 

A sergeant attempted to stop the suspect - described as sporting scruffy sandals and a beard - with a taser while they ran through the crowded area. But for reasons unknown it apparently had no effect.

The officers chased him through the heavily-patrolled area to West 32 St, near Penn Station, where he mounted the grill of a marked NYPD car.

Off-duty detective Brian O’Donnell, who was heading to Penn Station, saw Joudeh and attempted to tackle him - at which point, cops say, Joudeh hit him in the face with the cleaver. 

Officers tried to talk him into dropping the weapon, police said, but he refused - at which point they fired 18 times, hitting him with multiple bullets, cops said.

Two other cops sustained non-life-threatening injuries. Early reports said that one of them suffered a graze on his back during the gunfire.

Both the cops and the attacker were taken to Bellevue Hospital.

The detective is said to be in serious condition. He was visited by Mayor Bill de Blasio and Bill Bratton, who is on his last day in the job, and was said to be in 'good spirits.' The other officers are said to be in stable condition.

Joudeh had a long criminal record with 15 arrests, police reported.  One of those was an August 27 booking for carrying knives near a synagogue, NBC reported. And according to the NY Post, in 2013 Joudeh was arrested for criminal mischief after smashing a car up with a wooden fence post.

SOURCE






Why feminists are so cagey about social class

Middle-class media feminists have nothing to say to poor girls

A new report produced by the University of Hull and the charity Plan UK has revealed the best and worst places for girls to grow up in the UK.

The research looked at average life expectancy, child-poverty rates, teenage-pregnancy rates, education and employment. It concluded that girls had a better quality of life in affluent areas like Surrey than in inner-city areas like Liverpool or Nottingham. ‘Overall, the UK is failing girls’, says Lucy Russell, one of the authors of the report. ‘Girls don’t have equal rights and equal life chances across the UK.’

Interestingly, the report did not include information on boys’ quality of life. The report claims it is ‘unapologetic in its focus on girls and their lives’. But it is still ignoring the elephant in the room. The fact that girls in Waverley enjoy higher quality of life than those in Salford has nothing to do with the fact that they’re girls and everything to do with the fact that, in comparison, Salford is a much poorer, working-class area.

Indeed, the researchers seem to be well aware that their stats alone don’t point to any clear gender disparity. So, in order to make up for this, they’ve conducted interviews with 103 girls about their life experiences. The authors conclude: ‘Girls are facing daily harassment in school, in the classroom and on the way to and from school. They need to use technology, but they don’t always feel safe to do that. They’re scared every day on the street.’ Based on a few conversations with a few young girls, Plan UK is claiming that there is real gender inequality in Britain today.

This is absolute nonsense. As spiked has often argued, girls in the UK have never had it so good. The old barriers are gone: it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, and society’s view of women’s freedom and capabilities has changed enormously over the past few decades.

The pathologisation of normal, albeit rude, teenage behaviour forms the basis of many of the scare stories in the report. In one of the case studies, a 14-year-old girl describes a group of boys her age shouting at her and telling her to get her arse out. ‘How can I be equal to men if that still happens?’, she asks. As such, normal teenage experiences – getting into fights, feeling down, being self-conscious – are turned into issues of sexism. And some of the stories are incredibly trivial. ‘This village is a good area to be a girl, but sometimes there isn’t enough to do’, complains one teenager. ‘In my opinion, I think there should be places where you can get hot chocolate.’

This report is risible. But, although it provides no great insight into gender inequality, it does offer a keen insight into feminists’ inability to grapple with the issue of class. The truth is that a young girl from Blackpool will have far more in common with a boy down her street than she will with a girl living in Islington. That GCSE results for girls are lower in Watford than they are in East Hertfordshire has nothing to do with the level of gender equality in those areas.

High rates of teenage pregnancy are also cited in the report as a cause of low quality of life for girls in certain areas. For girls living in Tamworth, Staffordshire, where there are fewer prospects and less going on, having a child might be a more desirable option. And yet it is treated here as if it were a life sentence. For all the talk of sexism and prejudice, these ‘girl’s rights’ campaigners seem to take a pretty blinkered view of teenage mothers.

Job prospects, quality of education and life expectancy are worse in poor areas. This is nothing we don’t already know. By framing these problems as consequences of gender inequality, feminist charities reveal their deep unease with talking about class. Instead of giving young girls complexes about sexism, why not talk about the real problems holding back working-class kids - both boys and girls?

Perhaps it’s because the majority of feminists today come from middle-class, media backgrounds that conversations about class make them uncomfortable. The truth is, the main thing determining girls’ (and boys’) life chances in the UK is their access to opportunity and wealth. So, please, let’s stop conjuring up the gender bogeyman and get serious about making all young people’s lives better.

SOURCE






The Black Body Count Rises as Chicago Police Step Back

Demonize the police and that's what you get

In 2016 nearly 3,000 people have been shot in the city, an average of one victim every two hours.

‘The streets are gone,” Dean Angelo, president of the Chicago police union, told me last month. The night before, Aug. 14, a Chicago police officer’s son had been killed in a shooting while sitting on his family’s porch, one of 92 people killed in Chicago during the worst month for homicides in the Windy City since July 1993. The August victims who survived included 10-year-old Tavon Tanner, shot while playing in front of his house (the bullet ripped through Tavon’s pancreas, intestines, kidney and spleen); an 8-year-old girl shot in the arm while crossing the street; and two 6-year-old girls.

On Sept. 6, a 71-year-old man was accosted by a teen on a bike while watering his lawn. The robber demanded the man’s wallet and when he refused shot him in the abdomen, then grabbed his wallet before pedaling away.

By Sept. 8, nearly 3,000 people had been shot in Chicago in 2016, an average of one shooting victim every two hours. Five hundred and sixteen people had been murdered. Gun homicides and non-fatal shootings were up 47% over the same period of 2015, which had seen a significant rise in crime over 2014.

“There is no way out of this shooting spree,” Mr. Angelo said. His despair is understandable, because Chicago is the country’s most-glaring example of what I have called the “Ferguson effect.” Chicago officers have cut back drastically on proactive policing under the onslaught of criticism from the Black Lives Matter movement and its political and media enablers.

In October 2015, Mayor Rahm Emanuel told U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch during a crime meeting in Washington, D.C., that the Chicago police had gone “fetal,” and were less likely to interdict criminal behavior. That pull-back worsened in 2016, with pedestrian stops dropping 82% from January through July 20, 2016, compared with the same period in 2015, according to the Chicago police department. The cops are just “driving by people on the corners,” Mr. Angelo says, rather than checking out known drug dealers and others who raise suspicions. Criminals are back in control and black lives are being lost at a rate not seen for two decades.

Chicago’s cops are responding to political signals from the most powerful segments of society. President Obama takes every opportunity to accuse police of racially profiling blacks and Hispanics. The media, activists and academics routinely denounce pedestrian stops and public-order enforcement—such as dispersing crowds of unruly teens—as racial oppression intended to “control African-American and poor communities,” in the words of Columbia law professor Bernard Harcourt. Never mind that it is the law-abiding residents of high-crime areas who beg the police to clear their corners of loiterers and trespassers.

Further discouraging proactive policing in Chicago is a misguided agreement between the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union and the city that allows the ACLU to review every police stop. The police are also experiencing fallout from City Hall’s mishandling of the unjustified fatal police shooting of Laquan McDonald in October 2014.

Chicago cops regularly encounter aggressive hostility when they leave their vehicles. In August a Chicago Tribune reporter filmed a group of teens taunting officers for over an hour while the cops investigated a shooting on the West Side. “F--- the police!” went one chant. “Get the f--- off my block!” came another insult. Someone fired off shots in a nearby alley for the fun of seeing cops run toward another possible victim. “Run, b----, run!” a shirtless male shouted as the officers took off in a sprint.

Three gangs—the Vice Lords, Black Disciples and Four Corner Hustlers—reached a pact in August to assassinate Chicago officers, according to a police departmental alert. The National Gang Intelligence Center has also picked up on plans to shoot officers.

The media blame poverty, racism and a lack of government services for the growing mayhem. Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson blames lenient prison sentences for releasing Chicago’s gun criminals onto the streets too soon. The Illinois Legislature’s Black Caucus, however, blocks any effort to mandate stricter sentences for gun-toting felons—in a sub rosa acknowledgment that the vast majority (80%) of Chicago’s gun criminals are black.

But neither Mr. Johnson’s lax-sentencing explanation nor the media’s systemic-injustice explanation aligns with the timing of Chicago’s surge in violence. Sentencing protocols did not weaken in 2015 when crime started rising. Nor did poverty or alleged racism grow worse. What did change was the intensity of antipolice ideology, driven by the Black Lives Matter movement, relentlessly amplified by the press, and echoed by President Obama.

“Where does this end?” Mr. Angelo asked last month. “We’re in an unknown environment. We don’t know at what point in time the people in this city and the city council will stand up and say: ‘Enough is enough,’ so that cops feel that they have the support to be the police again.”

The ideal solution to Chicago’s violence would be for more at-risk boys to be raised by their mother and their father. Until that happens, the only hope for law-abiding residents of Chicago’s high-crime areas is that police regain control of the streets.

SOURCE






Regressive Left puts bigotry and militant Islam on a pedestal

By Peter Baldwin, formerly a prominent politician in the Australian Labor party

What does it mean, these days, when someone says their politics are “left-wing” or “progressive”?

This has always been debatable, but in recent times these terms have taken on meanings that earlier generations of leftists would scarcely recognise. Ideas that used to be thought cons­titutive of left-wing thinking have been turned on their head.

To see what I am getting at, ponder the following thought experiment. Try to imagine how a moderate leftist in the social-democratic tradition (my own position) or a liberal in the American sense might react on awakening today from suspended animation after a half-century.

Say they had just listened to Martin Luther King’s great civil rights speech of 1963 in which he yearned for the day when his children would be judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. Back then, King’s sentiments were seen around the world as the quintessence of liberal progressivism.

Suppose further that the cryogenic experiment were conducted on one of the campuses of the University of California, Los Angeles. Imagine that the subject of our experiment is a member of staff and, needing to be brought up to speed on university policies, is sent on a course on how to avoid “micro­aggressions”, words or phrases that are deemed subtly racist. Such training recently was made mandatory at the behest of University of California president Janet Napolitano.

Our Rip Van Winkle would be amazed to learn that the dreaded microaggressions included statements such as “When I look at you, I don’t see colour”, or “There is only one race, the human race”. Such sentiments are not even to be uttered, let alone debated, in what would seem to our reawakened liberal like some Bizarro World ­alternative reality.

So what has happened? In a nutshell, there has been a comprehensive rejection by progressive academe of the intellectual inheritance from the Enlightenment, the “revolution of the mind” that transformed Europe and North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Enlightenment stressed argumentative rationality and the scientific method. It ­favoured open debate of contentious issues, including the ability to freely critique religious doctrines. It is a universalist vision in which people are seen as members of a common humanity, each pos­sessing rationality and agency, and not just creatures of the particular cultural or religious milieu into which they are born.

Distinguished historian of the Enlightenment Jonathan Israel identifies a subcurrent that he termed the Radical Enlightenment that added a strong commitment to equality of people irrespective of race, gender or class to the intellectual freedoms demanded by the mainstream Enlightenment. Until recently, leftist intellectuals across the board happily would trace their lineage back to this movement. Even advocates of communist totalitarianism honoured Enlightenment principles by claiming that their “scientific socialism” provided the fullest realisation of Enlightenment ideals.

Today the “Enlightenment project”, as they now style it, is typically disparaged by intellectuals of a progressive bent. The ideal of human universality is discarded in favour of the politics of culture and identity; the value of reasoned ­debate questioned as argument is seen as just a mask for the exercise of power; the quest for objective truth is replaced by an emphasis on narratives and stories; and the right to strongly critique religion abrogated, albeit selectively.

In his book The Seduction of Unreason, American political philosopher Richard Wolin gives a comprehensive intellectual genealogy of this development. He notes “one of the peculiarities of our times is that Counter-Enlightenment arguments, once the exclusive prerogative of the political Right, have attained a new lease on life among representatives of the cultural Left … As a prominent advocate of postmodern political theory contends, one need only outfit the Counter-Enlightenment standpoint with a new ‘articulation’ to make it serviceable for the ends of the postmodern Left”.

Welcome to the leftist Counter-Enlightenment. In Britain and the US some critics have coined the term “regressive leftism” for this movement. There are two aspects to the regressive Left ideology. The substantive content of the ideology is identity politics, the view that people should be seen in their essence not as members of a common humanity but as bound to a particular identity group.

There is an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy written by a sympathetic academic that expresses it thus: “… it is qua women, qua blacks, qua lesbians that groups demand recognition. The demand is not for inclusion within the fold of ‘universal humankind’ on the basis of shared human attributes; nor is it for respect ‘in spite of’ one’s differences. Rather, what is demanded is respect for oneself as different.”

Note that when members of a particular identity group demand respect for “oneself as different” they are not talking about respecting each person’s individuality and agency. On the contrary, they insist that people accept being defined by their identity and that they stick to the accepted script, the particular narrative of victimhood, that pertains to their group.

Members of each victim group are urged to claim ownership of — indeed, to be extremely proprietorial about — all aspects of their culture, including ephemera such as clothing and cuisine. We must all stick to our own cultural reservation. To violate this tenet is to commit the high crime of “cultural appropriation”.

American writer Lionel Shriver delivered a brilliant critique of this mentality and its deadening effect on fiction writing at the Brisbane Writers Festival last weekend, to the horror of organisers, who immediately disavowed her remarks.

And woe betide anyone who breaches this cardinal rule, as dissenters from within Islamic culture such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali have found. At best, they can expect condescension from bien pensant progressive intellectuals, some of whom denounced Hirsi Ali as an “Enlightenment fundamentalist”.

They will be pilloried in progressive media and will face attempts to bar them from speaking on campuses and elsewhere, as when Hirsi Ali was barred from speaking recently at Brandeis University in the US at the behest of a coalition of “progressive” student groups. Then there are the death threats from Islamist extremists intent on punishing the crime of apostasy. The Council of Ex-Muslims on Britain released a report this year detailing how extremist preachers have been given free rein to speak on British campuses while its own leader, Maryam Namazie, a leftist from an Iranian background, has been subjected to sustained efforts — including death threats — to stop her speaking.

These activities consistently have been backed by campus student organisations including, incredibly, feminist and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups.

The de facto alliance that has developed between the Left and militant Islam, the most reactionary force in the world today, is the strangest and most disconcerting political development in my lifetime. If identity politics is the substantive part of this mutant ideology, the compliance and enforcement arm is the system of thought control we nowadays term political correctness.

According to the PC mindset, someone who openly or even privately challenges core tenets of identity politics is not just wrong but morally depraved. Such a person is not to be engaged with argumentatively, but must be vilified, censored and, where possible, pursued legally using instruments such as the iniquitous section 18C of our Racial Discrimination Act and equivalents in other countries.

Given their head, “progressive” politicians will introduce even more restrictive laws. Former British ­Labour leader Ed Miliband pledged before the last British election to make Islamophobia, which he never bothered to define, an aggravated criminal offence.

Regressive Left activists often claim to be fighting against “fascism” or “the extreme Right”. Ironically, they are the ones who, time and again, resort to classic 1930s fascist tactics such as wrecking the meetings of their opponents and in some cases harassing or attacking attendees.

I experienced this last year while attending a meeting at the University of Sydney that was being addressed by a speaker known to be defensive of Israel, a position now verboten on cam­puses around the world.

The meeting was disrupted by a chanting mob led by a young woman with a megaphone, the leaders making clear afterwards that they were there not to challenge or debate but to silence.

Some local academics actually defended this behaviour on the ground there was “no inherent right to free speech” if it contravened the progressive world view. There are even calls at Ivy League colleges in the US for the right to “free speech” to be supplanted by the insistence on “socially just speech”. Incredibly, the young woman leading the protest shouted her outrage that a speaker from the virulently anti-Semitic Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation had previously been blocked from speaking at the university.

This sort of coddling of extreme anti-Semitism, thinly masked as anti-Zionism, is one of the most revolting aspects of the regressive Left. American professor of queer theory Judith Butler, described as a “postmodern colossus” and a leading figure in the global boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel, has in­sisted that Hamas and Hezbollah be seen as part of the “global progressive Left”. Both these groups have expressed the aspiration to exterminate all Jews; in Hamas’s case it is in its founding charter. Butler received some criticism over this, but her stellar standing in the progressive academic pan­theon was undiminished.

And it is not just academics. British Labour leader Jeremy ­Corbyn spoke warmly of his “friends” in Hamas and Hezbollah.

So it is pretty clear what the regressive Left is against. But what is it for, exactly? Its members would answer that they are fighting for “social justice”. Actually, it would be more accurate to say they are for social justice activism. Earlier incarnations of leftist ideology all had some conception of the “good society” they were working for, even if sometimes a terribly flawed one as with the communists.

Go to the websites of radical Left groups bearing names such as Socialist Alternative and you will see that there is no alternative. They do not even attempt to posit one. They are essentially nihilists who stand for nothing. Activism is a goal in itself, not some desired societal end state.

The supreme recent exemplar of social justice activism is the Black Lives Matter movement in the US. This movement is spawning imitators around the world including Australia, according to a recent ABC report.

Academic practitioners of the field known as critical race theory sprang into action to lend theoretical support. The tenor of some of this stuff would have stunned our Rip Van Winkle. There is an article on the website of the Harvard Law faculty that calls for “race-based mobilisations”, language that would not have been out of place in 30s Germany.

For the social justice activists, two kinds of questions are strictly off limits. First, narratives of victimhood must not be challenged, no matter how compelling the contrary evidence.

Hence, the shooting of a young black man in Ferguson, Missouri, was a straight-out case of murder, the victim shot with his hands raised. This version of events has been completely debunked since. But no matter, the critical race brigade sticks to this narrative in its “scholarly” articles, including one by a prominent academic at the Western Sydney University that referred to Ferguson matter-of-factly as a “racist murder” well after the facts were established.

This is not mere sloppiness. Reading this stuff, you quickly ­realise that for this kind of “scholarship” facts, evidence and the truth are strictly irrelevant.

Which brings me to the second type of unaskable question. Does the activism actually do any good? Has Black Lives Matter actually improved the lives of people trapped in impoverished inner-city ghettos? All the evidence indicates the contrary. Homicide rates in inner-urban areas have risen sharply since BLM started, reversing a decades-long declining trend. FBI director James Comey has linked this to the abandoning of proactive policing by cops fearful of vilification and prosecution.

Have the prospects for Palestinians to lead a decent life been enhanced by the international BDS campaign that urges them to stick to their rejectionist guns, thereby precluding a settlement with Israel and condemning future generations to repeated conflict?

Have young girls in Muslim communities benefited from the sentiments expressed by feminists such as Germaine Greer, who condemned efforts to outlaw female genital mutilation as “an attack on cultural identity”?

In Britain, hospitals are reporting an average 15 cases of this each day, yet there have been no successful prosecutions despite the practice being illegal since 1984. Where are the feminists on this and on forced marriages? Nowhere, it seems, with a handful of honourable exceptions. It seems that for the regressive Left there is a hierarchy of correctness in which cultural respect is trumps.

The kind of moral catastrophe this can induce is shockingly displayed by events in the northern English town of Rotherham. Across 16 years, 1400 girls, most from dysfunctional white families, were subjected to sexual abuse of organised gangs of sexual predators of Pakistani Muslim background. As two subsequent official reports disclosed, all arms of government that should have protected the girls — the police, social ser­vices, schools, the Labour-controlled local council — were paralysed by a dread of being labelled racist or Islamophobic.

I think of regressive leftism as a mind virus, a paralytic disease that is severely inhibiting the ability of Western societies to properly debate some of the most important issues they face. It is suffused with civilisational self-loathing — severely condemnatory of “white” post-Enlightenment Western societies yet prepared to overlook or apologise for the most egregious defects in other kinds of society.

To see what can result from this paralysis, look at Europe as it grapples with the consequences of its leaders’ decision to effectively dissolve its external borders with North Africa and the Middle East.

Consider the enormity of the transformation Europe is undergoing and imagine how it will look in several decades if this continues. Yet Europe’s elites seem incapable of conducting an honest debate about the implications of this, since this would involve asking some tough questions about whether Islam, with its undoubted violent and supremacist aspects, is ultimately compatible with liberal societies. Some of Europe’s leaders actually seem to have become reconciled to the prospect of large parts of Europe becoming Islamised. After all, what could be worse than the existing civilisation that is nothing but a sorry litany of racism, colonialism and oppression? And the biggest losers from this will be the self-styled progressives. What prospect for gay rights under the new dispensation?

This fecklessness and intellectual paralysis would be far less serious if it were confined to the Left proper, but it is not, as exemplified by Angela Merkel’s extraordinarily naive actions in the past year. The impulse to censor and anathematise anyone who challenges the prevailing zeitgeist can be found in parties regarded as centrist or even right-wing. This has created space for the emergence of new political forces throughout the Western world including Australia, with a surge in support for Pauline Hanson at the recent elections.

I believe the time has come for a fundamental rethinking of the lines of political division. At this his­torical juncture decent leftists must drop the masochistic obsession with denigrating post-Enlightenment Western civilisation and join with liberals, conservatives and others in a concerted effort to defend it against the unprecedented threats it now faces.

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, 2016

No Country for Old (White) Men

Democrats admit disappointment that SCOTUS nominee isn't black

At least within the ranks of the Democrat Party, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream is officially dead.

On Aug. 28, 1963, during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, civil rights icon Martin Luther King declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Today, the absolute last thing Democrats want is for anyone to be judged by the content of their character, instead demanding everyone be judged by the color of their skin.

Then again, that isn’t entirely true. To the modern Democrat Party, the color of your skin must also be aligned with political ideology. That is why conservative blacks and Hispanics are not considered “authentic” blacks and Hispanics. In fact, because they are not also liberal/progressive means they are fair game for the most vicious, slanderous attacks.

A recent example of this comes in the form of the nomination by Barack Obama of the milquetoast, boring old white guy, Merrick Garland, to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by the passing of revered originalist Justice Antonin Scalia.

Completing a progressive takeover of the Supreme Court is among the absolute highest goals for Democrats. With an entrenched progressive majority on the Supreme Court, Democrats can laugh off their string of humiliating losses in the U.S. House, Senate and state legislatures since Obama was elected. With a progressive Court majority, they could eviscerate any laws restricting abortion. They could reverse the hated Citizens United ruling and further restrict free speech with which they disagree. They could reverse the Heller and McDonald rulings which declared keeping and bearing firearms an individual right. They could force labor unions on America’s employees. The possibilities are endless.

Speaking last week at a conference hosted by race pimp and anti-Semite “Reverend” Al Sharpton, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), slated to be the next Senate minority leader with the retirement of Harry Reid, said, “A progressive majority on the Supreme Court is an imperative, and if I become majority leader [if Democrats retake the Senate], I will make it happen.”

But Democrats don’t just want a reliable vote; they want to make a political statement about the superiority of minorities. This is captured perfectly by a recent Washington Post headline: “Did Obama squander an opportunity by nominating Merrick Garland?”

The article goes on to say, “Some Democrats privately fear that Obama blew an opportunity to help re-activate the coalition that elected him twice by not picking a more progressive nominee — especially a minority candidate — to replace the late Antonin Scalia. Had Obama nominated someone who really ginned up the Democratic base, perhaps Clinton and the party would have more whole-heartedly embraced him or her.”

That fear isn’t exactly private, though, because the Post quotes Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women as saying, “I’m not going to say there wasn’t some disappointment” that Obama nominated a white guy. After the death of Justice Scalia, O'Neill and NOW signed onto a letter urging Obama to nominate a progressive black woman.

Ironically, one reason O'Neill wanted a black woman as the nominee was because “Any African-American woman who might have been nominated would have been viciously attacked. … It’s possible, if those vicious attacks would have happened, then the American public would have been much better informed of the outrageousness of what the Republicans are doing.”

We say ironically because O'Neill seems oblivious to the truly vicious attacks on conservative minorities by liberal Democrats. It seems she forgot about the treatment of black conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who suffered through grotesque character assassination at the hands of Senators Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and others. Thomas famously referred to it as a “high-tech lynching.” In 2005, the very conservative California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman born of poor Alabama share-croppers, was subjected to similar treatment at the hands of Senate Democrats, painted as a radical and a race traitor as they filibustered her nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

To be sure, Garland would be a very reliable vote for leftists, voting consistently en bloc with the Court’s progressive wing of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. It is nearly unfathomable that he would stray from leftist orthodoxy on issues like Second Amendment rights, abortion, affirmative action, free speech (or lack thereof), and empowering and expanding the federal government at every turn.

Yet that is not enough for progressive Democrats. Even though the end result of the judicial opinions would be nearly identical, poor Garland has two unforgivable flaws: he is a he, and he is white.

As for old white man Merrick Garland, perhaps there is still a chance to gain approval with the leftist intelligentsia and the progressive base. All he has to do is change his name to “Merry” and “identify” as a transgender black woman. That way, he’ll (oops — she’ll) have checked all of the necessary identity politics boxes favored by the scientifically challenged, anti-Constitution, progressive Left.

SOURCE






Benham Brother on Hollywood’s Sexual Revolution: ‘If You Do Not Bow You Will Be Persecuted’

Christian businessman, author, and activist David Benham said Monday that if one disagrees with the “sexual revolution” in Hollywood that promotes homosexuality and same-sex marriage they will be “persecuted.”

“If you bow to the God of the sexual revolution, if you bow to its whims, if you are a card-carrying sexual revolutionary, then you will be promoted,” Benham said.

“But if you do not bow, you will be persecuted,” Benham said. “And there has got to be people who say I will not bow to this. It’s wrong.”

In an exclusive interview with CNSNews.com, David and his twin brother Jason spoke about their experience following the cancellation of the planned “Flip It Forward” real estate reality show on HGTV after their stance on abortion was revealed and that they supported traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

CNSNews.com asked the brothers if the sexual agenda in Hollywood meant that if you supported it you were promoted but if you spoke out against it there were consequences.

“The sexual revolution has won the day in terms of cultural pressure,” David Benham said. “If you bow to the God of the sexual revolution—if you bow to its whims, if you are a card-carrying sexual revolutionary – then you will be promoted.

“But if you do not bow, you will be persecuted,” Benham said. “And there has got to be people who say I will not bow to this. It’s wrong.”

Benham said that is why he and his brother were targeted for their beliefs and their show was eventually cancelled.

“It’s a mob,” Benham said. “It is literally a mob, and they will come after you.”

The Benham Brothers have written two books, including “Whatever the Cost” about their experiences with the HGTV show and their decision to speak out according to their Christian faith no matter the consequences. Their second book, “Living Among Lions,” compares the trials of the biblical prophet Daniel to those of Christians today trying to stay true to their beliefs despite cultural pressures.

SOURCE






Mulan vs. the Diversity-Mongers

Let's get down to business. The casting kerfuffle over Disney's live-action remake of the 1998 animated hit "Mulan" brings honor to none. It's a politically correct tempest in a Chinese teapot.

More than 90,000 angry activists have now signed a petition "to tell Disney that we demand to see them cast an Asian Mulan." The lead instigator, Michigan children's librarian Natalie Molnar, vented against the practice of "whitewashing" — that is, employing "white Caucasian actors and actresses in roles originally meant to be characters of color."

Extreme racial and ethnic bean-counting is necessary, even in the remake of a cartoon, the petitioners argue, because "children benefit from finding themselves represented in fiction."

Skin color-based casting entitlements and quotas: "for the children." Of course.

Once again, privileged progressives demonstrate how arbitrary, capricious and ridiculous militant identity politics can be. Last year, Asian-American leftists attacked director Cameron Crowe for casting Emma Stone as a mixed-race character in the romantic comedy "Aloha." It didn't matter whether Stone pulled off the role. The protesters were too busy administering racial and ethnic litmus tests for employment in the entertainment industry.

This year, grievance-mongers moaned about the casting of mixed-race actress Zoe Saldana as black jazz legend Nina Simone and white actress Scarlett Johansson as a Japanese Manga cartoon figure.

In social justice land, movie-making isn't about casting the most talented actors, regardless of race or ethnicity. Movie-making isn't about entertaining customers or making money. Nope.

Movie-making is a never-ending exercise in radical multiculturalism and identity apartheid.

The diversity cops maintain that only the right kind of mixed-race stars should play mixed-race characters. Only the right kind of black actresses should win black roles. And only Asians should be cast in "Mulan" to maintain ethnic realism.

But there's no rhyme, reason or logic in their demands for authenticity. Take "Mulan." The original movie was riddled with historical inaccuracies. Based on the legend of teenage warrior Hua Mulan popularized in an ancient Chinese ballad, the heroine disguises herself as a man to take the place of her elderly father in battle — "to defeat the Huns," as the song from the movie goes.

But the Huns were thousands of miles away sacking Rome and Western Europe. The "Huns" who attacked the legendary Mulan in 6th-century China were mostly likely related to the central Asian Xiongnu tribe in what became Mongolia, which warred with the Han dynasty in the 3rd century. Movie historian Alex von Tunzelmann notes "that was at least a couple [of] hundred of years before Mulan's time, and in any case the link between the Xiongnu and the Huns is in dispute."

Unfortunately for social justice warriors, "Let's get down to business/to defeat the nomadic tribe that was possibly the Xiongnu in the region of Mongolia before it was known as Mongolia" just doesn't have the same ring as the Disney tune that's still stuck in my head after 18 years.

Weirdly, the Asian-American liberal entertainment lobby didn't have a problem with Filipina musical theater star/actress Lea Salonga singing Chinese Mulan's parts in the original movie. Which raises my still-unanswered question in these well-worn casting wars:

Why is it that the self-appointed Definers of racial and ethnic Authenticity get to pick and choose which historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies to protest or ignore?

Strangely, some of the minority actors and actresses in the "People of Color" tribe that the Demand-y Demanders want to cast in "Mulan" are as authentically Asian as Mulan's Eddie Murphy-voiced annoying dragon sidekick, Mu Shu.

Oliver S. Wang, an L.A.-based culture writer, tweeted that "The Rock" (Canadian-American actor Dwayne Johnson of Samoan and Black Nova Scotian heritage) should play the "Mongol villain."

How do you say "Huh???" in Chinese?

Heidi Yeung, editor for a South China Morning Post-owned website, is pushing for Korean-American Daniel Dae Kim to play the villainous role of Shan Yu — in part because he has "almost identical cheekbones to the animated character." Diversity!

Additionally, she wants Japanese-American George Takei to play the Chinese Emperor and another Korean American, Margaret Cho, to play the Chinese matchmaker.

So because the diversity-mongers' choices look more vaguely Asian-ish, never mind the vast differences between their nationalities and heritages, they trump other non-Asian actors and actresses who must all step aside and bow down to the gods of ethnic faux-thenticity.

If "whitewash" is the problem, why is fake yellow wash the solution?

SOURCE





Australia: Muslim is appealing for answers after bank accounts for his charity were shut down

No great mystery here.  Money from Muslim charities has been siphoned off in support of terrorism in the past and the CBA doesn't want to be accused of facilitating that

THE founder of a Muslim charity, Ali Banat, said he was given just 30 days to remove his funds from each of his three charity and personal accounts with no justification provided by the bank.

“In my opinion the Commonwealth Bank have decided to close all our accounts because this is a Muslim charity working for the Muslim community,” Mr Banat said.

Muslims Around The World works to provide aid to Muslim communities across Africa and was established late in 2015 after the former Greenacre business man was diagnosed with cancer.

“I’ve had millions go through the bank with my previous business but as soon as I start a charity called Muslims Around The World my accounts get stopped and my EFTPOS machines are taken away from me,” Mr Banat said. “All I want is a reason.”

The local Muslim community has been quick to support the charity, and now, its fight against the banking giant.

Merrylands resident and close friend of Mr Banat, Shai Jacobz Zreika said the prejudice against the charity was disgusting.

“How could they be so heartless as to close accounts for no reason,” he said.

Mr Zreika said he questioned the bank’s ability to target an account holder based on religion.

“We don’t want banks to have a theory in their head, to share it in the world and make it come true,” he said.

“We will be taking legal action — if I have to take it to the highest court in Australia I will.”

Correspondence from the bank offers little insight for the charity, who is now flagged as a risk in future banking relations.

A statement received by Mr Banat reads, “the Bank recognises the closure of your account(s) may cause you inconvenience. Accordingly, the Bank gives you 30 days notice ... You will not be able to open any new accounts with the Bank”.

The charity has taken to social media to share their message across the globe.

A video posted by Mr Banat asking for answers has clocked up over 5,000 shares since it was posted on August 30.

“I am a fully registered organisation and do not support terrorism,” Mr Banat wrote.

“We house innocent African children and widows. I have tried to call the bank and get an explanation however no explanation can be provided simply ‘commercial decision to cease banking relationship’”

More than $300,000 was raised for the charity’s project to provide animals to families for sacrifice in the Muslim celebration of Eid.

Their work extends to Burkina Faso, Togo, Ghana and Benin and Mr Banat hopes to fund development of entire villages across poverty-stricken areas in Africa.

Changes to bank accounts is problematic for the charity who says it could stand in the way of donations.

“Changing a bank causes a lot of confusion and stops money from coming in,” he said, “People are frightened to donate in case they lose their money.”

The Commonwealth Bank refused to comment on the individual customer and issued the following statement.

“Commonwealth Bank consistently serves each customer on a case-by-case basis. There are instances where Commonwealth Bank will need to make a decision to end our relationship with a customer and this is always done after very careful consideration and in line with our account terms and conditions.”

Mr Banat started the charity in late 2015 after he was diagnosed with stage four cancer and given just seven months to live.

He says the diagnosis is a gift from Allah and will continue his work to create a legacy and lasting change for less fortunate communities.

To date, he estimates the charity has distributed more than $2.1 million in aid projects.

The MATW has a charitable fundraising license registered since January 7 2016.

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, 2016

Can a "correct" diet make you smarter?

The report below would seem to say so.  A small group of Finnish children who ate a traditional Finnish diet that was low on red meat, fat and sugar had better reading skills in third grade than did other kids in their classes.  And the study was a careful one with obvious confounding factors like social class ruled out.  What is to quarrel with there?

A lot.  Correlation is not causation and not all possible confounding factors were ruled out.  As is commonly the case, the researchers did not ask WHY some kids got a traditional diet while others did not. 

An obvious possibility is that the parents who took the trouble to feed their children a traditionally "correct" diet were health conscious generally and that all we are seeing is the outcome of greater health consciousness.  Finland is a modern country so it  would undoubtedly have been easiest to feed kids Western convenience foods -- with their high levels of fat and sugar.  So the parents who did not do that stood out and may have had other different practices relevant to health -- avoidance of psychoactive drugs, for instance.

Poor health is indeed associated with damage to IQ so the dimmer students may simply have been less well-cared for generally.

Other points to ponder is that the sample was small, that the effects were statistically significant but small and that abilities at third grade are only weakly correlated with abilities in later life.  IQ rankings even in the teenage years can wash out in adulthood.

These observational studies are all well and good but there is no substitute for a controlled before-and-after study.  I include the journal abstract below.


Children who eat fruit, vegetables, fish, and whole grains in their first three years of school do far better in tests than their peers with poor diets, the study found.

The findings, from the University of Eastern Finland, were independent of children's socio-economic status, physical fitness, and body type.

It suggests healthy foods impact the brain in a way we do not fully appreciate, and could provide important evidence for public health policymakers globally.

The study involved 161 children aged between six and eight years old, and followed up on them from the first grade to the third grade in school.

The quality of their diet was analysed using food diaries, and their academic skills with the help of standardized tests.

The closer the diet followed the Baltic Sea Diet (high in vegetables, fruit and berries, fish, whole grain, and unsaturated fats and low in red meat, sugary products, and saturated fat) the healthier it was considered.

The study showed that children whose diet was rich in vegetables, fruit, whole grain, fish and unsaturated fats, and low in sugar, did the best in reading tests.

These healthy-eating children also showed the most progress in reading skills between grades one and three, compared to their peers with low-quality diets. 

'Another significant observation is that the associations of diet quality with reading skills were also independent of many confounding factors, such as socio-economic status, physical activity, body adiposity, and physical fitness,' Dr Eero Haapala of the University of Eastern Finland said

SOURCE

Diet quality and academic achievement: a prospective study among primary school children

Eero A. Haapala et al.

Abstract

Purpose:  Poor diet quality may impair academic achievement in children, but such evidence is limited. Therefore, we investigated the associations of healthy diet in Grade 1 assessed by Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS), Baltic Sea Diet Score (BSDS), and Finnish Children Healthy Eating Index (FCHEI) with academic achievement in Grades 1–3 in children.

Methods: The participants were 161 Finnish children who were 6–8 years old in Grade 1 and attended in a large ongoing physical activity and dietary intervention study. Dietary factors were assessed using 4-day food records, and MDS, BSDS, and FCHEI were calculated. Academic achievement was assessed by reading fluency, reading comprehension, and arithmetic skill tests. The data were analyzed using linear regression analysis and analysis of covariance adjusted for age, sex, parental education, household income, body fat percentage, physical activity, the PANIC Study group, and total energy intake.

Results: MDS was positively associated with reading comprehension in Grade 3 (standardized regression coefficient ? = 0.167, P = 0.032). BSDS was positively associated with reading fluency in Grades 2–3 and reading comprehension in Grades 1–3 (? = 0.161–0.274, P < 0.05). FCHEI was positively related to reading fluency in Grades 1–2 and reading comprehension in Grades 1–3 (? = 0.190–0.344, P < 0.05). Children in the highest third of BSDS and FCHEI had better reading fluency and reading comprehension in Grades 1–3 than children in the lowest third (P < 0.05). None of the diet scores was associated with arithmetic skills.

Conclusions:  Healthier diet assessed by BSDS or FCHEI in Grade 1 was associated with better reading skills, but not with arithmetic skills, among children in Grades 1–3. Long-term intervention studies are needed to investigate the effects of improvements in diet quality on academic achievement among children.

Haapala, E.A., Eloranta, A., Venäläinen, T. et al. Eur J Nutr (2016). doi:10.1007/s00394-016-1270-5






The strange priorities of the British cops

They will leap into action if you say anything critical of  Muslims or homosexuals but they are too lazy for normal police work.  You have to get them exposed in a newspaper before they get off their fat behinds

A single mother tracked down the thief who stole her £470 iPad Air 2 only for the police to tell her to arrest him herself because they were too busy.

Sara Gration, 37, from Derby, called the police after her Find My iPhone app told her the stolen device had been switched on.

The app gave the name of the street where the iPad was and she dialled 101 and told police the information.

But she was left reeling when an officer told the mum-of-two officers were busy and suggested she should go to the street herself and to 'knock on his door'.

Ms Gration said: 'I couldn't believe it, I was asked to turn detective myself and was sent to a house where I could have been put in danger.. 'I was basically being asked to be a police officer and arrest the man by myself. What on earth am I paying my taxes for if I have to do the police's work for them?

'Short of actually handcuffing the thief and dragging them to the police station, I don't know what more I could have done to help the police catch the thief.

'I appreciate that having your car broken into isn't exactly crime of the century and that it isn't a priority for them.

'But how can this be the right advice to give? Derbyshire Police put me at risk rather than following up themselves. I am disgusted.'

Ms Gration, a bookkeeper, had her £469 gold-coloured iPad Air 2 stolen overnight last Thursday when her car was broken into outside her home.

Several items were stolen, including the iPad which was in the boot of the car.

The divorced mother-of-two, who has daughters Isabella, nine, and Tamsin, seven, was alerted to the theft by a neighbour.

She reported the incident to the police who told her they would not be able to send an officer out and instead asked her to ask locally if anyone had any CCTV.

Derbyshire Police have now apologised 'unreservedly' to Ms Gration for the blunder.

Superintendent Tracy Harrison said: 'We apologise unreservedly to Ms Gration. The advice she received on Friday was wrong and further training will be given to the call handler who dealt with her call.

'We should never advise anyone to put themselves in a dangerous situation to recover stolen items.

'An officer should have been allocated to make the inquiries that Ms Gration was asked to do.

'We were made aware of this mistake on Sunday and since then have sent an officer to make inquiries. Unfortunately we haven't yet recovered the iPad.'

SOURCE






Dem Scheme Would Mandate Abortion Funding

California is actively seeking to censor pro-lifers for last year’s horrifying Planned Parenthood revelations, but it’s not the only liberal enclave using the bully pulpit and rule-making prowess as retaliation against conservatives. Last summer’s startling video footage from the Center for Medical Progress caught some Planned Parenthood clinics unlawfully selling baby parts to fatten their coffers. The ensuing backlash resulted in clinical closings and monetary constrictions in more than a dozen red states. Now, the Obama administration is working on an insidious backdoor proposal to force states to fund the nation’s largest abortion provider.

According to a report in The Washington Times, “The Department of Health and Human Services rule would prevent states from redirecting Title X funds, which are earmarked for family planning services, to other Federally Qualified Health Centers for reasons ‘unrelated to their ability to provide Title X services effectively.’ Rep. Diane Black, a Tennessee Republican who wrote the House-approved ‘Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015,’ said the rule is just the latest ‘stunt’ by the Obama administration to ‘protect its friends in the big abortion industry.’”

“Additionally,” the Times further notes, “because the Hyde Amendment already prevents federal dollars from being used for abortions, the agency argues, it is unreasonable to redirect Title X funds from centers that perform abortions, especially when doing so would ‘adversely affect accessibility of Title X services.’” Well, the law didn’t stop Planned Parenthood from pocketing loads of cash from fetal harvesting “research.” Are we also to believe that the organization doesn’t use taxpayer dollars to promote abortion? Like everything else his administration does, Obama is defaulting to the regulatory state and misusing its authority to accomplish his goals. Even if it costs human lives.

SOURCE





My fury at our wasted foreign aid: International development secretary Priti Patel pledges a major overhaul of the £12billion budget

British aid money is being wasted and stolen, the International Development Secretary declares today.

In her first intervention since taking the job, Priti Patel says UK taxpayers have every right to feel furious. And she promises a major overhaul of the £12billion aid budget to make it finally ‘deliver for our national interests’.

But – in a move that will enrage some Tory backbenchers – she reveals the Government will continue to send abroad cash worth 0.7 per cent of national income.

Her blueprint – exclusively revealed in a Daily Mail article – includes:

     Pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into foreign hotspots to deter ‘mass migration’ to the UK and mainland Europe;

    Turning off the aid taps to the EU, which has been accused of squandering vast sums of British money;

    Using aid cash to boost UK trade and exports in the wake of Brexit.

Miss Patel’s plans are a huge breakthrough for the Mail’s long campaign to end the foreign aid madness.

This newspaper has chronicled how public money has been squandered on everything from reducing flatulence in Colombian cattle to creating an Ethiopian version of the Spice Girls.

Miss Patel, who once called for the Department for International Development to be abolished, delivers the bluntest critique of the aid budget ever made by a Cabinet minister.

And she insists that – despite the efforts of her predecessors to get better value for money – urgent improvements are needed in how the cash is spent.

‘We need to face facts,’ writes Miss Patel. ‘Too much aid doesn’t find its way through to those who really need it. And too often, money is spent without a proper focus on results and outcomes that allow the poorest to stand on their own two feet.

‘It rightly infuriates taxpayers when money that is intended for the world’s poorest people is stolen or wasted on inappropriate projects. I am infuriated.

‘My predecessors worked hard to make sure that British aid ends up where it should. But we can improve.

‘I want to use our aid budget to directly address the great global challenges that affect the UK – like creating jobs in poorer countries so as to reduce the pressure for mass migration to Europe.’

Miss Patel, who has spent the past two months scrutinising every aspect of the development programme, also delivers a withering rebuke to the multi-billion pound aid industry.

She says: ‘Some participants in the aid debate are resistant to criticism and sometimes unwilling to understand or even acknowledge genuine concerns.’

But – in a move which will infuriate some Tory backbenchers – she reveals that Theresa May’s Government will continue to send abroad cash equivalent to 0.7 per cent of the UK’s GDP.

The decision to stick to David Cameron’s target means Britain will continue to lavish £12billion on aid every year.

Some Tory MPs had hoped the new Government would have swept away the former PM’s pledge. But doing so would have triggered a massive political row at a time when Mrs May is already dealing with Brexit and reintroducing grammar schools.

Miss Patel says: ‘A well-financed aid budget is a means to an end, not an end in itself. ‘It is there to deliver tangible results for the world’s poorest people, helping them stand on their own two feet so they don’t need aid in the future – and in so doing, build a safer, more prosperous world for the UK.’

Officials have been told to find ways of targeting spending at countries from which the largest numbers of migrants head for Britain and Europe.

By pouring huge sums into job creation, she hopes migrants can be deterred from getting on boats in the first place – and ending up in the Jungle at Calais or in the UK.

Miss Patel, a leading Brexit campaigner, also hints that she will stop tipping around £1.5billion a year into the EU’s coffers, for Brussels to spend how it chooses.

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, 2016

When ‘Liberty’ Forces 18 Girls Into a Single-Stall Shower Room

In recent years, a common refrain accompanying nearly every demand for newly invented “rights” has been: “It doesn’t affect you, so you can’t be against it.”  This claim—whether false or true, subjective or objective—has been played as the ultimate trump card.  If you could not point to a direct, immediate, and significant intrusion on your life, then your concerns—no matter how thoughtful and legitimate—were sacrificed at the altar of the New Regime.

Times change.

On Wednesday, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of high school students and parents, asking the court to strike down a Minnesota school district policy that empowers a male student to enter the girls’ locker room and disrobe.

Not surprisingly, many girls have been distressed by the actions of the male student, which include twerking, grinding, and other sexually explicit actions. The response of the district and other authorities to the concerns has been a collective yawn.

This, along with recent actions by President Barack Obama’s Department of Education and Justice Department, illustrates the evolution of the push to manufacture special privileges for a select few.

The pretense that such demands don’t affect the lives of others now has been abandoned, replaced by two options: (1) get over it and get in line; or (2) be pushed to the margins of society, losing your reputation—and possibly your career—in the process.

In version 2.0 of the New Regime, even if you can point to a direct, immediate, and significant intrusion on your life, your opinion is irrelevant (and perhaps bigoted) when compared to “social progress.”

For example, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that wedding photographer Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jonathan must set aside their freedom to peacefully live according to their faith, a concurring justice stated that the pair “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” Chillingly, the justice added that this compulsion “is the price of citizenship.”

As the situations in Minnesota, North Carolina, and elsewhere demonstrate, the latest test sites for this theory of “social progress” are locker rooms, showers, and other private changing facilities.

In what would have been an unthinkable battleground just a few short years ago, these tile-floored, plastic-stalled, chrome-fixtured, and (formerly) sex-specific sanctuaries are now ground zero for experiments in the subjective theory of gender.

And the wisdom of the New Regime 2.0 goes like this:

The march toward true liberty requires 18 girls to squeeze into a prison cell-sized changing space or abandon their bodily privacy, and their right to safety and comfort in the most intimate and vulnerable of settings.

Why? So that a “bearded individual” can fully disrobe in the girls’ locker room at a parks department swimming pool on New York City’s Upper West Side. Empowered by the mere proclamation that he is a woman, he appropriates the entire space for himself.

Use whatever analogy you want:

The New Regime has flushed common sense down the toilet.

The New Regime has pulled back the curtain and washed away any remaining vestiges of bodily privacy.

The New Regime has transformed locker-room peepholes into doorways.

The point is, the New Regime embraces the idea that individuals can stride with impunity into any private space they choose, regardless of biology. This dismissal of biological fact in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers reeks of irony, in what may be the best example to date of the lengths to which the New Regime will go to impose its orthodoxy.

These spaces, perhaps more than any other physical location, exist for and because of biological differences. Bathroom doors easily could have been labeled as the kid in “Kindergarten Cop” would have it, but decorum prevailed and we used “men” and “women” instead.

Separate locker rooms for men and women do not symbolize a sinister effort to force anyone’s conformity with “gender stereotypes.” They exist because men, women, and children should not be forced to encounter the opposite sex in private spaces or be viewed by the opposite sex while in various stages of undress.

There are reasonable solutions. There are ways to accommodate men and women and boys and girls who struggle to align their subjective beliefs with biological realities.

Consider the family changing room that 18 girls in New York now are forced to use to avoid encountering a man in the girls’ locker room. Indeed, one of the purposes of single-use or “family” facilities like these is to allow fathers to assist their young daughters, or mothers to assist their young sons.

It is an acknowledgement that neither the men’s or women’s restroom is an ideal solution in such circumstances. The same fact holds true for individuals who do not personally feel comfortable entering the private space that corresponds to their biology.

These accommodations protect the privacy of all individuals, not just a select few at the expense of everyone else.

Reasonable solutions are available that protect everyone from unwelcome bodily exposure. But under the New Regime, “social progress” trumps reason.

SOURCE




What the Media, Academics Get Wrong When They Blame Crime Rate on Poverty, Discrimination

Walter E. Williams   

Some are puzzled by the dishonesty, lack of character, and sheer stupidity of many people in the media. But seeing as most of them are college graduates, they don’t bear the full blame. They are taught by dishonest and irresponsible academics. Let’s look at it.

“A Clash of Police Policies,” a column written by Thomas Sowell, presents some readily available statistics:

Homicide rates among black males went down by 18 percent in the 1940s and by 22 percent in the 1950s. It was in the 1960s, when the ideas of Chief Justice [Earl] Warren and others triumphed, that this long decline in homicide rates among black males reversed and skyrocketed by 89 percent, wiping out all the progress of the previous 20 years.

Academics and the media blame poverty and discrimination for today’s crime. No one bothers to ask why crime was falling in the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s, when blacks faced far greater poverty and discrimination.

The 1960s riots were blamed on poverty and discrimination. Poverty and discrimination were worse in the South than in the rest of the country, but riots were not nearly so common there. Detroit’s deadliest riot occurred at a time when the median income of black families in Detroit was 95 percent of their white counterparts, plus the black unemployment rate was 3.4 percent and black homeownership was higher than in other major cities.

Academics teach that the breakdown of the black family is the legacy of slavery and discrimination. They ignore the following facts.

In 1950, 72 percent of black men and 81 percent of black women had been married. Also, only 17 percent of black children lived in single-parent households; today it’s close to 70 percent. Every census from 1890 to 1950 showed that black labor force participation rates exceeded those of whites. During the late 1940s, the unemployment rate for black 16- and 17-year-olds was less than that for white teens.

According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year 11 percent of black children and 3 percent of white children were born to unwed mothers. Before 1960, the number of teenage pregnancies had been decreasing; both poverty and dependency were declining; and black income was rising in both absolute and relative terms to white income. As late as 1965, 75 percent of black children were born to married women. Today, over 73 percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers. Again, so much for the “legacy of slavery” argument.

Academics teach that school integration is a necessary condition for black academic excellence. Blacks, their logic implies, cannot achieve academic excellence unless they go out and capture a white kid to sit next to their kids. Public charter schools such as those in the Knowledge Is Power Program, or KIPP, and Success Academy Charter Schools are having some successes without race mixing.

Sowell points out that only 39 percent of students in New York state schools who were tested recently scored at the “proficient” level in math, but 100 percent of the students at the Crown Heights Success Academy scored at that level in math. Blacks and Hispanics are 90 percent of the students in the Crown Heights Success Academy.

More than 43,000 families are on waiting lists to get their children into charter schools. Teachers unions are opposed to any alternative to public education and contribute to politicians who place obstacles and restrictions on the expansion of charter schools. The NAACP, at its 2016 national convention in Cincinnati, voted to support “a moratorium on the proliferation of privately managed charter schools.”

It’s easy to understand why the NAACP is against any alternative to public schools. Many of its members work in public education. However, many of those people do want alternatives for themselves.

In Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, 25 percent of public school teachers send their children to private schools. In Philadelphia, 44 percent of teachers send their children to private schools. The percentages are similar in several other cities: Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; and Rochester, New York, 38 percent. This demonstrates the dishonesty, hypocrisy, and arrogance of the elite. They effectively say, “One thing for thee and another for me.”

SOURCE






White Guilt Matters

BLM has become a prop for white, Western self-loathing

I’m starting to think Black Lives Matter UK is a Greenpeace front. Since this lame spin-off of the US anti-police-violence group arrived on the identity-politics scene, it seems to have focused almost exclusively on airports. In August, its activists blocked the M4 outside Heathrow, stopping ordinary people from going on their holidays under the banner of protesting against the ‘crisis’ of state racism. Today, it turned its ire on London City Airport, when nine BLMers chained themselves to the tarmac and sent the departure board into meltdown. And, this time round, they’re not even pretending to be angry about the police. ‘Climate crisis is a racist crisis’, was the slogan of today.

That’s right: this lot think proposed airport expansion at London City is some sort of racist conspiracy. Their reasoning, unfurled through a series of tweets throughout the day, is, to put it charitably, a bit all over the place. They say that, as black communities tend to live in urban areas, they’re affected disproportionately by air pollution. They see climate change as a global embodiment of white privilege, as it has minimal effects on Britain, while sub-Saharan Africa bears the brunt. When all else failed, they brought up the refugee crisis: ‘In 2016 alone, 3,176 migrants have died or gone missing in the Mediterranean… Black people are the first to die, not the first to fly.’

The protest didn’t cut much mustard with the delayed holidaymakers, many of whom hailed from east London’s black communities. Speaking to the Guardian, one man, trying to fly home to Nigeria, said, ‘It’s ridiculous. Life is life, black or whatever colour, I don’t see any difference.’ A couple, from Bow, were similarly exasperated: ‘Many issues always affect the poorest in society… But [the protest] has stopped these two black lives from going on holiday.’ BLM insisted the real target was the state, and called on its supporters to join a demonstration outside the Jamaican High Commission, in protest against a deportation flight to Jamaica last month. But, in the end, many who suffered because of its antics were the very people it claimed to be speaking for.

Its profound stupidity aside, there was something else striking about today’s protest. All of the activists were white. As were most of the activists who took part in the blockades in August. Now, that’s not to say white people should be excluded from anti-racist activism. Far from it. One of the ugliest things about anti-racist campaigns today is their identitarian racialism; so-called white allies are constantly told to repent for their privilege and refrain from ‘stealing’ the struggle. And BLM UK is no exception. Indeed, over the course of the day, its tweets became more and more defensive. ‘UKBLM is and always has been black-led’, read one. ‘Today’s #Shutdown isn’t about nine white allies on the runway; it’s about 200million climate refugees by 2050’, read another.

That a group like BLM UK, full of dyed-in-the-wool identity politicos, would allow all the white fellas to steal the limelight is telling. Not only because it suggests it’s not as grassroots as it likes to pretend, and that it springs more from middle-class victim politics than an agitation from below. It also speaks to the fact that anti-racist campaigns today are more about white guilt than black liberation. They play to well-to-do whites’ own self-loathing, their sense of historical, global wrongdoing. They’re the target audience. Black people become pet victims for them to coo over, or, in this case, a stage army against progress itself. That’s why BLM UK marries anti-racism and environmentalism so seamlessly. Both are sources of modern Westerners’ self-hatred, their insistence that Western society is malignant, destructive, bigoted.

White Guilt Matters would have made a better slogan.

SOURCE




    
The crumbling of the German establishment

Germany's technocratic elite is to blame for the rise of the AfD

Sabine Beppler-Spahl

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern isn’t one of Germany’s most important federal states – with a population of under 1.7million, it is small and largely rural. Yet the results in last Sunday’s local elections there sent shockwaves through the country.

The anti-immigration party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) managed to win more seats than Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Although it was running for the first time in the state, the AfD secured 20.8 per cent of the vote, where the CDU got 19 per cent. The fact that Merkel’s own constituency lies in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has made the outcome all the more significant. ‘This might well be the beginning of the end for Merkel’, said AfD candidate Leif-Erik Holm.

Although the result was talked up as a vote against Merkel, what it really showed is the deep split between large sections of society and the political establishment. If this was only about Merkel, and her decision to throw open the borders last summer, why did other parties lose more votes than the CDU? The biggest loser was in fact the Left Party (Die Linke), which lost more votes to the AfD than any other party. The second biggest loser was the ruling Social Democratic Party. The Greens, meanwhile, didn’t even make quorum.

The local-election result was a vote of no confidence in the entire political establishment. Never before in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany has any party grown as quickly as the AfD. This is all despite the fact that the AfD has been labelled a fascist threat by all the other parties.

If these elections were just about Merkel, the result would be far less significant. After all, the rise and fall of top politicians is standard procedure. But what we are really seeing is an entire political establishment losing touch with the people it is meant to represent.

While many commentators are now fearfully asking how this could have happened, they tend to ignore the fact that the AfD hasn’t appeared out of the blue. Although the AfD garnered votes from other parties, its biggest gains were made through mobilising voters who had turned away from politics long ago. Voter participation in 2011 was a meagre 51.5 per cent, while this time it was 61.6 per cent. (This is still low in comparison with the number of people who went to vote immediately after reunification, which should put the AfD’s rise in some perspective.)

Following the result, Merkel said that all established parties need to make a serious effort to win back the trust of the people. But isn’t this something they should have tried long ago? It doesn’t bode well for the state of German politics that it took the AfD, a party running on a very narrow anti-immigrant ticket, to make politicians realise what they are up against.

Though most commentators blame Merkel’s refugee policy for the AfD’s success, this is only half of the story. Merkel’s response to the refugee crisis has become a stark symbol of the elite’s willingness to act in spite of the opinions of the electorate. The negative reaction to the increase in immigration is only the most recent expression of a public disaffection with politics more broadly, which has been brewing for some time.

Scepticism and a sense of resignation, after years of economic stagnation, have characterised eastern Germany for years. The CDU, strong in the years following reunification, has recently experienced a downward trend in support. Starting with over 38 per cent of the vote in 1990, it gained only 23 per cent in 2011, long before the refugee crisis. At the turn of the century, in the late 1990s, it was the formerly Stalinist Die Linke that rose to prominence, and was seen as the big threat to democracy. Now, German newspapers are running articles decrying the fact that Die Linke is no longer able to bind the protest vote.

It is true to say that the refugee crisis has become the greatest point of contention in German politics. Other political changes, like the introduction of the Euro or the turn to wind energy (an important issue in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), may also have fed German voters’ disillusionment. But it was the handling of the refugee crisis that sparked this new crisis of legitimacy, which has caught Merkel, who has long become accustomed to making decisions behind closed doors, by surprise.

Sadly, it has also made the backward-looking anti-immigration lobby much stronger than it should be. Immigration is now at the centre of a struggle between the people and the political elite, which has ignored its citizens for far too long. This is why commentators who wonder at the election result, pointing out that Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has actually taken comparatively few refugees, are missing the point.

The reason the refugee crisis has become such a hot topic is because it stands as a symbol of the failure of politics. Merkel’s throwing open of the borders is not just seen as an imposition from above, but as a potential threat to German society, which has, for a long time, been proud of its cohesion. ‘People in Mecklenburg’, one woman said to me after the elections, ‘feel that, with all the changes that have occurred, there was one thing they could still rely upon, and that was their own community’. Now, it seems that the integration problems experienced by multicultural centres like Berlin Neukölln have made people more wary of immigration.

AfD voters are wrong to see refugees moving into their neighbourhoods as a threat. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is one of the most sparsely populated areas of Germany. This has led to infrastructure problems, such as too few buses and schools, hospital closures, and a scarcity of doctors. The state could actually benefit from an influx of migrants. But, nevertheless, the concerns of the electorate must be met head-on.

Should Merkel take responsibility for the election result? Only in so far as she has become the figurehead of a political elite that believes you can do politics without engaging the public. Was her decision to open the borders to refugees wrong? That’s not a conclusion that be can drawn from this election. What we can say is that she should have opened up the debate about migration, rather than shutting it down.

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, 2016

Political Correctness Prevents Advancement Of Science

Discussing:  Nathan Cofnas. "Science Is Not Always 'Self-Correcting': Fact–Value Conflation and the Study of Intelligence." Found Sci 21: 477. Published online: 1-Feb-2015. DOI: 10.1007/s10699-015-9421-3

Science can make us uncomfortable. Astronomy proved that the Earth goes around the sun, upending centuries of geocentric theology. Physics tells us that our universe will someday come to an end. DNA sequencing can reveal our true ancestry or genetic predispositions to cancer and Alzheimer's disease, forever changing our life's trajectory.

As unsettling as those discoveries have been for society, some research is so politically controversial that few dare to speak of it in public for fear of running afoul of the PC police. And this fear, argues Nathan Cofnas in the journal Foundations of Science, obstructs the self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry.

Mr. Cofnas begins the paper with the story of Socrates, who was executed for "corrupting the youth" of Greece. Forebodingly, he adds, "[T]he philosophy of his prosecutors — that morality-threatening scientific investigation should be prohibited — flourishes even today."

To support his case, Mr. Cofnas focuses on the taboo subject of group differences in intelligence, which he says is suppressed by those who believe that even discussing the topic is "morally wrong or morally dangerous."

Those who embrace such a viewpoint obviously do so with the honorable intention of preventing discrimination. However, the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such misguided efforts to maintain perfect equality can hamper the advancement of knowledge. Mr. Cofnas states:

"[W]hen hypotheses are regarded as supporting certain moral values or desirable political goals, scientists often refuse to abandon them in the light of empirical evidence."
Is he right? Absolutely, yes.

Not only do intellectuals refuse to abandon politically correct beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence, but simply questioning them can ruin a person's career. Lawrence Summers' tenure as president of Harvard was cut short because he suggested that there are intellectual differences between men and women. As a result of such punitive pushback, some researchers are afraid to investigate differences between male and female brains, which certainly exist. Without a doubt, this reticence is holding back the field of neuroscience.

A similar chilling effect can be seen in climatology. The only politically correct belief regarding the climate is that humans are 100% responsible for everything bad that happens and that the Four Horsemen are already marching toward Earth. Questioning that apocalyptic and unscientific belief has resulted in multiple researchers being labeled "climate deniers." Climatology would greatly benefit from the more skeptical approach of so-called "lukewarmers," but far too many are ostracized and demonized.

Discussions about the causes of homelessness also fall under the purview of the PC police. The politically correct explanation is that homelessness is the result of poverty. While obviously a factor, often left out of the debate is the fact that, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless, 20% to 25% of homeless people are severely mentally ill, a prevalence that is roughly four times that of the general population. The same group estimates that 38% and 26% of homeless people are dependent on alcohol and drugs, respectively. In fact, NCH states that, "Substance abuse [is] the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults."

Certainly, many -- perhaps most -- people prefer to ignore reality in favor of feel-good fallacies. Mr. Cofnas believes this phenomenon is rooted in a "deep human impulse to conflate facts and moral values." In other words, (positive) statements that describe the world as it is are often interpreted by people as (normative) statements that prescribe the world as it ought to be.

This fundamental confusion distorts debate and impedes progress. If Mr. Cofnas is correct that this cognitive dissonance is hardwired into us, then that makes the goal of evidence-based policy sadly unattainable.

SOURCE






London Police chiefs ‘are so worried about being called racist they refuse to crack down on Muslim officers with extremist views’

A former police sergeant has claimed she stood down from her counter-terrorism role because her bosses refused to look into complaints about extremist views held by its officers.

Muslim Javaria Saeed joined the Metropolitan Police after the London bombings but stood down after her comments were not followed up on for fear that they would look Islamophobic.

The 35-year-old flagged up two incidents in relation to the same officer, who said that female genital mutilation was a 'clean and honourable practice' that should be legalised, and that female Muslim victims of domestic abuse should take their cases to sharia courts rather than police.

However, according to The Sunday Times her managers failed to act because they were scared of appearing to be racist.

She said: 'Racism in the Met is not from white officers in my case, but from Muslim officers who the service refused to properly investigate because they were afraid of being called Islamophobic and racist'

The former SO15 sergeant added: 'My experiences were that it was Muslim officers being racist towards my individual views; also in private, holding racist views against white officers, and sexist views against females.

'If such views were held and expressed by white officers, they would be fired.'

She also claims she was called a bad Muslim by some of her colleagues because she does not wear a hijab.

Ms Saeed previously made headlines when a project that she had devised to turn Muslim teenagers away from extremism featured an American rapper who angered Islamic community leaders.

Scotland Yard was roundly criticised after blowing £80,000 on the MYPD roadshow, including £26,000 for artist Adam Saleh for less than two weeks' work, but they had no idea that he had previously been forced to make a grovelling apology over a hoax anti-police video that claimed US officers had abused him over his religion.

His video was viewed more than 200,000 times and the controversy it sparked was covered by news websites worldwide.

In the video, Saleh and a friend are seen being shouted at, pinned against a wall and frisked, apparently by a uniformed officer during an argument over their traditional Islamic robes.

But the incident was staged, with an actor dressed as a policeman.

It follows West Midlands Police's announcement that it would consider letting officers wear a burka in a bid to boost force diversity.

The constabulary said it will discuss allowing the traditional Islamic dress - which covers the entirety of a woman's face and body - to become part of Muslim female officers' uniform.

But the idea was even attacked by the Muslim Women's Council, who said in a statement: 'In the media the term burka is used to describe the full face covering but the veil with the slit for the eyes is actually the niqab.

'The burka is actually the full gown which goes from shoulder to ankle with the face remaining clear.

'It would be very surprising if West Midlands Police were in favour of full-face coverings.

'The actual percentage of women wearing a niqab is very, very small and the women who do would probably not want to be in the police.'

SOURCE






Police across the country ‘want to make misogyny a hate crime’ after sexist abuse crackdown sees one serious complaints every three days

Police across the country are considering making misogyny a hate crime.

The plan was revealed after two men were arrested for sexist abuse during a pilot scheme in Nottinghamshire that may be broadened out across the country.

Threatening words and assault will be tackled in the pioneering crackdown on offensive behaviour towards women.

Nottinghamshire Police has launched more than 20 investigations in the two months since the pilot was announced.

But despite initial concerns from the public, no men have been reported for wolf-whistling at women.

Forces around the country, from Devon and Cornwall to Durham, are now sending officers to the county to discuss the experiment.

Dave Alton, Nottinghamshire Police’s hate crime manager, said: ‘The reality is that all of the reports so far have required some form of police action.’

The force is planning to release a film about street harassment to encourage more victims to come forward.

Experts predict a surge in reports when students arrive for the new academic year.

SOURCE






Cardinal Burke: Christians and Muslims Do Not Worship The Same God

Catholic Cardinal Raymond Burke, an American and former head of the highest court at the Vatican, said that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God because the Islamic god “is a governor,” and Islam is Sharia, the law “which comes from Allah” and which “must dominate every man eventually.”

“I hear people saying to me, well, we’re all worshipping the same God, we all believe in love,” said Cardinal Burke in an August teleconference about his latest book, as reported by EWTN’s National Catholic Register.

“But I say stop a minute and let’s examine carefully what Islam is, and what our Christian faith teaches us both,” he said.

The cardinal, who is an archbishop and the patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, explained that in Christianity God is the creator of reason and the “giver of revelation,” and His law is written “on our hearts” and “we’re given a divine grace to live according to that law.”

“This is not true in Islam,” said Cardinal Burke.

“I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshipping the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor,” he said.  “In other words, fundamentally Islam is, Sharia is their law, and that law, which comes from Allah, must dominate every man eventually.”

“And it’s not a law that’s founded on love,” said Burke.  “To say that we all believe in love is simply not correct.”

“And while our experience with individual Muslims may be one of people who are gentle and kind and so forth, we have to understand that in the end what they believe most deeply, that to which they ascribe in their hearts, demands that they govern the world,” he said. 

“Whereas, in the Christian faith we’re taught that by the development of right reason, by sound metaphysics, and then that which leads to faith and to the light and strength that’s given by faith, we make our contribution to society also in terms of its governance,” he said.

“But the Church makes no pretense that it’s to govern the world,” said Cardinal Burke. “But rather that it’s to inspire and assist those who govern the world to act justly and rightly toward the citizens.”

If we follow the relativistic idea that there is no real difference between Christian teachings and Islam, if we think we are all worshipping the same God, said Cardinal Burke, “ultimately it will be the end of Christianity.”

Our Catholic ancestors “had to fight to save Christianity,” said Cardinal Burke, “[b]ecause they saw that Islam was attacking sacred truths, including the sacred places of our redemption.”

“We have to have a profound respect for right reason, for the natural law which God has written in every human heart,” said the cardinal.  “I think most people don’t realize that there is no natural law doctrine in Islam and neither is there an ocean of conscience -- everything is dictates of the laws that are given by either in their sacred text or by those who are entrusted with interpreting the law.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke, 68, is the former bishop of LaCrosse, Wisc., and former archbishop of St. Louis, Mo. Between 2008 and 2014, he was the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the head of the highest court at the Vatican.  He is an expert on Canon law, the law that governs the Catholic Church and its teachings. He also is a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of the Saints.

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. 

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








12 September, 2016

Clarkson: Cycling is unsafe… so leave your bike at home

LAST weekend, while driving through the Cotswolds, I found myself stuck behind two cyclists who were riding alongside one another.

Of course they were.

Elevated these days to godlike status by modern environmental thinking, cyclists are propelled from place to place on a wave of self-righteousness and a pious belief that they’re the new knights of the road.

Five days later, near the South Coast, the same thing happened again, only this time it was a lone cyclist, his gnarled and nutbrown thighs beating out a Victorian rhythm as he crawled slowly up the hill, proud that behind his wizened, Lycra- clad buttocks there was a queue of cars stretching half way to Dover.

Then in London, we have hundreds of them, ignoring the new multi-million pound cycle lane on the Embankment so they can make a nuisance of themselves on the main carriageway.

There was a time when you could take these morons to task. You could shake your fist and shout and point out that it’s absurd for a fully grown adult to be playing in public on what is a kids’ toy.

But not any more …  Today they all wear helmet cameras to record your rage.  Then, when they get home, they upload it to YouTube and you’re made to look like a short-tempered fool.

Which brings me to the BBC radio ­presenter, and keen cyclist, Jeremy Vine, who this week uploaded some footage of a woman who’d become frustrated with his slow progress through Kensington, West London.

In it, he can be seen cycling down the middle of the road, deliberately blocking the cars in his wake, and when one gets too close he stops — still in the middle of the road — so he can record the woman driver’s foul-mouthed tirade.

The message is clear.  He’s been verbally assaulted while on a noble quest to save the polar bear.

But hang on a minute, Vine. How did you know that the woman in the car behind wasn’t rushing to see her injured child in hospital? How did you know there wasn’t a pregnant girl on the back seat who was about to give birth?

Can you imagine how frustrating it would be to be stuck behind a sanctimonious cyclist when you really are in a genuine, tearing hurry? Vine says he was cycling in the middle of the road because that way he’s unlikely to be hit by people opening their car doors without looking.

Really? Because if safety is your number one priority, why are you wearing a helmet festooned with GoPros?

Are you not aware that it was, in all probability, a camera attached to Michael Schumacher’s helmet that caused his terrible head injuries?

In fact, if safety is your number one priority, why are you on a bicycle in the first place?

Of course, it is not illegal to cycle slowly down the middle of a narrow street. But it is selfish and annoying for everyone else.

How would he like it, I wonder, if I followed him around for a month, blowing gently on the back of his ears?

That’s not illegal either, but after a few days I’m sure he’d turn round and have a strong word. I may try it.

SOURCE

Comment from a reader:

I think Jeremy Clarkson points out a truth here.

Many cyclists – the leftist ones – have become like vegetarians, full of a false sense of their own superiority to other people, just because of something they do. They are also convinced that their vulnerability and potential for victim status puts them in the right and gives them power over others. And that is true, but not in reality, only within the bounds of the current craze of leftism.

One of the irritating behaviours the cyclists do is to ride in the traffic lane when beside them is a metre wide cyclist lane, or to ride right on the dividing line between them. There is over a metre of bitumen beside them, for their use and it has regular bike symbols painted on it. And if I beep the horn at them to move over then they often just stay in the traffic lane or only move over to the dividing line.

I enjoy riding my bike. I believe in individual accountability though, something that leftists cannot get their head around, certainly not in regards to their own individual accountability. So I keep well out of the way of motor vehicles. I enjoy riding along back roads, through forests and farmland, and into town. Rather than ride along the highway I ride along the firebreak track beside the railway line. My ex-wife and I even rode around much of central Qld. I am not anti bike, I like to see people riding bikes, but sensibly. I am just anti the current craze of cyclists putting themselves in the way of traffic.     






Council boss sacked over death of Baby P says she doesn't stand near edge of Tube platforms because people want to kill her

I would push her.  Every time I see the picture of that dear little boy my eyes fill with tears



The social services chief at the centre of the Baby P scandal claims she avoids standing near the edge of station platforms due to fears of being pushed in front of a train.

Sharon Shoesmith has revealed she worries members of the public would try to kill the former head of children's services at Haringey Council if they recognised her.

The 63-year-old was on the receiving end of death threats after refusing to resign following the death of Baby P on her watch in August 2007.

She told of her fears during an interview with the Ham & High, adding: 'I don't go on to the platform when the Tube's not there, I stay right back in the corridor until it comes in.'

It comes shortly after Ms Shoesmith was accused of cashing in on the scandal that got her sacked from her role with Haringey Council by writing a book.

Baby P, real name Peter Connelly, died in Haringey, north London, in 2007 after suffering more than 50 injuries.

He was just 17 months old when he was killed by Steven Barker, the partner of Baby P's mother, and his paedophile brother Jason Owen.

The case provoked a national scandal after it emerged that social workers, police and doctors missed a series of warning signs that could have saved the child's life during the eight-month period of abuse.

Ms Shoesmith, the former boss of Haringey Children’s Services department, was eventually sacked in 2008 after refusing to step down over the scandal.

In the aftermath of Baby P's death, his mother, Tracey Connelly, her boyfriend, Steven Barker, and their lodger, Jason Owen, were all jailed.

But it later emerged that Baby P had seen a number of social workers, police and health workers before he died, but all had failed to place the toddler into care.

A serious case review that investigated the conduct of social workers, GPs and police involved in the case found: ‘The practice of the majority, individually and collectively... was incompetent,’ and his death ‘could have been prevented’.

Ms Shoesmith, 63, has never publicly apologised for the toddler's death, despite a damning report that exposed deep failings in Mrs Shoesmith's department.

She even claimed previously that she was herself a 'victim' of the Baby P scandal, because she had not managed to find a job since 2008.

Last year, she received a £680,000 payout from Haringey Council after winning an unfair dismissal case over her sacking by then children's minister Ed Balls.

SOURCE






Obama’s Radical Proposal Could Result in Censorship Online

This is a portion of remarks Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, delivered on the Senate floor on Thursday

The Obama administration’s proposal to give away control of the internet poses a significant threat to our freedom, and it’s one that many Americans don’t know about. It is scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 30, 2016.  Twenty-two days away. Just over three weeks.

Now what does it mean to give away control of the internet?

From the very first days of the internet, when it was developed here in America, the United States government has maintained its core functions to ensure equal access for everyone with no censorship. The government role isn’t to monitor what we say, it isn’t to censor what we say, it is simply to ensure that it works—that when you type in a website, it actually goes to that website and not somewhere else. And yet, that can change.

The Obama administration is instead pushing through a radical proposal to take control of internet domain names and instead give it to an international organization, ICANN [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers], that includes 162 foreign countries. And if that proposal goes through, it will empower countries like Russia, like China, like Iran to be able to censor speech on the internet, your speech. Countries like China, Russia, and Iran are not our friends, and their interests are not our interests.

Imagine searching the internet and instead of seeing your standard search results, you see a disclaimer that the information you were searching for is censored. It is not consistent with the standards of this new international body, it does not meet their approval.

Now, if you’re in China, that situation could well come with the threat of arrest for daring to merely search for such a thing that didn’t meet the approval of the censors. Thankfully, that doesn’t happen in America, but giving control of the internet to an international body with Russia, and China, and Iran having power over it could lead to precisely that threat, and it’s going to take Congress acting affirmatively to stop it.

You look at the influence of foreign governments within ICANN, it should give us greater and greater concern.

For example, ICANN’s former CEO Fadi Chehadé left ICANN to lead a high-level working group for China’s World Internet Conference. Mr. Chehadé’s decision to use his insider knowledge of how ICANN operates to help the Chinese government and their conference is more than a little concerning.

This is the person who was leading ICANN, the body that we are being told to trust with our freedoms. Yet this man has since gone to work for the Chinese Internet Conference, which has rightly been criticized for banning members of the press such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

But you know what, even reporters you may fundamentally disagree with have a right to report and say what they believe. And yet, the World Internet Conference banned them—said ‘we do not want these reporters here, presumably, because we don’t like what they’re saying.’—which led Reporters Without Borders to demand an international boycott of the conference, calling China the ‘enemy of the internet.’

Mr. President, if China is the enemy of the internet, do we want the enemy of the internet having power over what you’re allowed to say, what you’re allowed to search for, what you’re allowed to read online? Do we want China, and Russia, and Iran having the power to determine if a website is unacceptable, it’s taken down?

If [this] proposal goes through, it will empower countries like Russia, like China, like Iran to be able to censor speech on the internet.

I would note that once this transition happens, there are serious indications that ICANN intends to seek to flee U.S. jurisdiction and flee U.S. laws. Indeed, earlier this summer, ICANN held a global conference in Finland in which jurisdiction shopping was part of their agenda, trying to figure out what jurisdiction should we base control of the internet out of across the globe.

A representative of Iran is already on record stating, ‘we should not take it [for] granted that jurisdiction is already agreed to be totally based on U.S. law.’ Our enemies are not hiding what they intend to do.

Not only is there a concern of censorship and foreign jurisdictions stripping U.S. law from authority over the internet, there are also real national security concerns. Congress has received no assurances from the Obama administration that the U.S. government will continue to have exclusive ownership and control of the .gov and .mil top-level domains in perpetuity, which are vital to our national security. The Department of Defense, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines all use the .mil top-level domain. The White House, the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security all use .gov.

The only assurance ICANN has provided the federal government regarding .gov and .mil is that ICANN will notify the government in the future if it decides to give .gov and .mil to another entity. So if someone is going to the IRS, or what you think is the IRS, and you’re comforted that it’s on a .gov website so that you know it must be safe, you may instead find yourself victims of a foreign scam, a phishing scam, some other means of fraud with no basic protections.

Congress should not sit by and let this happen. Congress must not sit by and let censorship happen.

Now, some defenders of the Obama proposal say ‘this is not about censorship. It’s about handing control to a multi-stakeholder unit. They would never dream of censoring content on the internet.’

Well recently, leading technology companies in the United States—Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft—reached an agreement with the European Union, to remove ‘hate speech’ from their online platforms within 24 hours. Giant U.S. corporations signing on with the government to say, ‘we are going to help you censor speech that is deemed unacceptable.’

This should be an issue that brings us all together—Republicans, Democrats, all of us coming together.

And by the way, the definition of ‘hate speech’ we have seen can be very, very malleable depending upon what norms are trying to be enforced. For example, the Human Rights Campaign, which is active within ICANN, has featured the Family Research Institute, the National Organization for Marriage, the American Center for Law and Justice, and other conservative and religious groups in a report entitled ‘The Export of Hate.’

We are facing the real possibility of an international body having the ability to censor political speech if it is contrary to the norms they intend to enforce. In their view, it is hate to express a view different from whatever the prevailing orthodoxy is being enforced.

Now it is one thing dealing with government organizations that try to stifle speech that is profoundly inconsistent with who we are as Americans. But to hand over control of the internet, to potentially muzzle everybody on the internet, is to ensure that what you say is only consistent with whatever is approved by the powers that be, and that ought to frighten everybody. And there is something we can do about it.

Along with Congressman Sean Duffy [R-Wis.] in the House, I have introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, which if enacted will stop the internet transition, and it will also ensure that the United States government keeps exclusive ownership and control of the .gov and .mil top-level domains. Our legislation is supported by 17 key groups across the country, advocacy groups, consumer groups, and it also has the formal endorsement of the House Freedom Caucus.

This should be an issue that brings us all together—Republicans, Democrats, all of us coming together. There are partisan issues that divide us, there always will be. We can have Republicans and Democrats argue till the cows come home about the top marginal tax rate, and that is a good and healthy debate to have. But when it comes to the internet, when it comes to basic principles of freedom, letting people speak online without being censored, that ought to bring every one of us together.

As members of the legislative branch, Congress should stand united to rein in this president, to protect the constitutional authority expressly given to Congress to control disposition of property of the United States. To put the matter very simply: The Obama administration does not have the authorization of Congress, and yet, they are endeavoring to give away this valuable, critical property, to give it away with no authorization in law. I would note the government employees doing so are doing so in violation of federal law, and they risk personal liability in going forward contrary to law. That ought to trouble all of us....

And if the Obama administration jams this through, hands control of the internet over to this international organization, this United Nations-like, unaccountable group, and they take it overseas—it’s not like the next president can magically snap his or her fingers and bring it back. Unscrambling those eggs may well not be possible. I suspect that’s why the Obama administration is trying to jam it through on Sept. 30, to get it done in a way that the next president can’t undo it, that the internet is lost for generations to come. To stop the giveaway of our internet freedom, Congress should act by continuing and by strengthening the appropriations rider in the continuing resolution that we will be considering this month, by preventing the Obama administration from giving away control of the internet.

Next week, I will be chairing a hearing on the harms to our freedom that come from the Obama administration’s proposal to give away the internet.

As President Ronald Reagan stated, ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.’

I don’t want you and I to have to tell our children and our children’s children what it was once like when the internet wasn’t censored, wasn’t in the control of the foreign governments.

And I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together, to stand together and ensure that we protect freedom of the internet for generations to come. It is not too late to act, and I am encouraged by the leadership of members of both houses of Congress to stand up and protect freedom of the internet going forward.

SOURCE






Nearly 200 sexual offences have been carried out on migrants by fellow refugees in asylum centres in just one German state alone in six months

Almost 200 sex attacks have been carried out by migrants on fellow refugees in German asylum centres in just six months, a politician has revealed.

More than 179 sexual assaults have been reported in the past six months in the reception centres in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia alone.

The details relating to the sex attacks were released after Pirate Party state politician Simone Brand asked questions in the state parliament in Dusseldorf.

This prompted state interior minister Ralf Jaeger to reveal that 178 cases were recorded in which criminal charges were brought in the first six months of the year.

The details include 80 cases of sexual harassment, five cases of exhibitionism, 42 cases of sexual coercion and assault, 25 cases of child abuse and 26 'other offences against an individual's sexual self-determination'.

Ms Brand blamed the large number of criminal charges on the poor accommodation migrants were forced to endure and that they were not suitable for women and children. She said: 'There are just not enough secure areas for women in these asylum centres.'

Local media reported that in some rooms at asylum centres even door locks were missing, with male migrants being able to easily access female-only rooms.

According to Brand, the real numbers are most likely even worse since many of the migrants have had bad experiences with police officers in their home countries and were therefore unlikely to make a complaint.

She added 'The threshold to go to the police and file criminal charges is higher for those people.'

Violent incidents in asylum centres in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia have come under increased scrutiny since the Cologne migrant sex attacks and a subsequent mass brawl in an asylum centre in Dortmund.

The western German state that was the scene of the New Year's violence that saw hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse is the most populous in Germany, with a population of approximately 18 million.

It is also the state that has taken in more asylum seekers than any other.

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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





11 September, 2016

Guess his religion



A furious driver who snapped at a traffic warden for giving him a ticket before breaking his leg has been jailed for 18 months.

The warden's bodycam captured an incensed Shamal Karim Asaad screaming at him after he said he had received two tickets in one day on Hankey Street, Peterborough.

He was handed a penalty charge notice (PCN) for parking illegally in a permit area last September.

Footage from the officer's bodycam shows the aggressive 30-year-old confronted him waving the ticket.

The warden repeatedly told Asaad to 'back off', but he responded 'what do you mean back off?' and continued to approach the officer. 'Take your ticket' said Asaad.

The warden retorted: 'No it's your ticket back off you deal with that!' He then called in for assistance from the police, and Asaad stormed towards him and tried to grab his equipment.

Falling over the victim, who asked to remain anonymous, broke his leg.

At Peterborough Crown Court Asaad denied grievous bodily harm but was found guilty.

He was given six months in jail for two further charges of destroying and damaging property, which will run concurrent.

And he was also ordered to pay £87 compensation to the warden, who said: 'The incident last September was one of the most terrifying of my life and there are moments that will remain with me forever,' reports the Peterborough Telegraph.

'I will never forget the feeling of panic when I was lying on the ground with my attacker's face, centimetres from mine, contorted with rage. It was like something out of a horror film.'

'I would like to thank the residents who came to my rescue on the day and looked after me until the ambulance arrived. I dread to think what would have happened if they had not been there to stop my attacker. If you were one of those people, I thank you dearly for your help.

'Although my bones have healed, I have been left with semi-permanent nerve damage for which I need constant pain relief. In effect my brain is permanently telling my body that my leg is broken even though it's not.

'I am now back at work, but I am much more apprehensive than I used to be and of course the injury to my leg means that I find walking more uncomfortable. In my personal life I have had to give up many of the things I used to enjoy, including my allotment.

'I'd like to thank my family, friends, work colleagues and my manager who have all shown fantastic support and great patience during a very difficult time.

'I hope that my experience and the sentence handed to my attacker sends a warning to others who think it is acceptable to abuse civil enforcement officers and any other profession which works directly with the public.'

The quarrel had started after Asaad ran out of a house when the officer issued the ticket to a car.

Asaad left in the vehicle, but later returned and parked the car on the road again, restarting the altercation as the warden was still there sheltering from heavy rain.

The attacker then jumped on the warden knocking him out and breaking his leg in the fall.

Darren Bell, from the SaferPeterborough Prevention and Enforcement Service, said: 'Peterborough residents are generally very courteous towards our civil enforcement officers however there's always a small group of people who are not.

'This is a violent incident of personal and physical abuse and that will not be tolerated.'

Depending on the offence parking tickets in Peterborough are either £25 or £35. A council spokesman said this offence would have been a £35 ticket.

Fines are doubled if they are not paid within 14 days, according to the Peterborough Telegraph.

SOURCE







CA Opens Can of Worms With Pro-Life Censorship

California is on a mission to silence activists who uncover incriminating evidence from organizations like Planned Parenthood in the aftermath of last year’s horrific revelations from the Center for Medical Progress. The state legislature recently approved a bill that distinctly “make[s] it a crime for a person who unlawfully eavesdrops upon or records a confidential communication … with a health care provider … to intentionally disclose or distribute the contents of the confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the confidential communication.”

While Planned Parenthood does provide limited medical services, it is not, strictly speaking, a health care provider, which is just a term adopted by leftists as a ruse to masquerade the organization’s overarching motive — the facilitating of abortion. But we digress. Even those who can’t see beyond this political swindle are alarmed over the constitutional concerns raised by the bill. This summer the ACLU, of all organizations, stated, “We know of no legitimate governmental reason for singling-out disclosure of all health care provider communications for special criminal sanctions, making the bill vulnerable not only on First Amendment grounds but also on equal protection grounds.”

Even the liberal Los Angeles Times editorial board is incredulous. “[M]ake no mistake, this measure would heap more criminal and civil penalties on making a secret recording … simply to satisfy an interest group popular among Sacramento Democrats,” the editors write in “New bill to protect Planned Parenthood is bad for whistleblowers.” They conclude, “The potential for unanticipated and unwelcome consequences is huge.” We only wish they weren’t blind to the same consequences as it pertains to culture and the overall sanctity of life.

SOURCE




Can't Bake That Cake

A Louisiana teen recently discovered first hand that some people really don’t like Donald Trump. “Just left Albertsons,” the teen posted on Facebook. “The woman behind the cake counter just refused to make me a birthday cake because I wanted Trump 2016 on it. Did that really just happen.” Perhaps it did, perhaps not — hoaxes have happened before. Remember the guy who supposedly got a cake that had the word “fag” on it, only to later admit it was a hoax? But then again, the store apologized to the Trump-loving teen, saying the employee “misunderstood the training provided regarding copyrighted phrases.” Sure thing.

Which brings us to the glaringly obvious contradiction. Leftists smugly applauded when Christian bakers were fined $135,000 and silenced for declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. But there’s been little uproar about this Trump cake. Jonah Goldberg wrote, “As a matter of principle, I think this is totally fine. I also think it’s fine for a baker not to bake a cake for Mennonites, S&M clubs and, yes, gay weddings. I just think it’s funny to listen to the deafening silence this story is eliciting.”

SOURCE





Oregon Bakers’ Legal Battle Continues, as Same-Sex Couple Speaks Out

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Oregon bakers who refused to make a cake for the wedding of two women, filed new documents Thursday with the Oregon Court of Appeals in response to the same-sex couple’s arguments that the Kleins had no legal right to refuse them service.

“We are hopeful that these judges will understand that [Oregon officials] violated Aaron and Melissa’s rights, including rights of free speech and due process that judges tend to respect regardless of judicial philosophy,” Ken Klukowski, a lawyer for the bakers, said.

In the new brief, the Kleins’ lawyers challenge the argument that the government can force citizens to create art and engage in speech that goes against their religious beliefs.

“None of this would have happened had everyone simply lived in peace according to their own beliefs,” Klukowski, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, a conservative legal group representing the Kleins, told The Daily Signal.

The Kleins initially filed their appeal in April, challenging the July 2015 decision by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries that they had discriminated against Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, the lesbian couple who the Kleins declined to serve.

An administrative judge for the state agency ordered the Kleins to pay the Bowman-Cryers $135,000 for physical, emotional, and mental damages.

The Bowman-Cryers, responding to the appeal to Oregon’s second-highest court, argued the agency’s ruling should stand.

The Kleins’ new legal brief was the last step before both parties head to the appeals court for oral arguments.

The Kleins paid the ordered $135,000 in damages—plus interest—in December. The Bowman-Cryers have not received the money, which is being held in a separate account by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries until the appeals process plays out.

The dispute began in January 2013, when Aaron Klein told Rachel Cryer that the Kleins’ bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, would not make the wedding cake after learning it was for two women.

The Kleins are Christians and say they believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

The Bowman-Cryers, now married, filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries under the state’s public accommodation law, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Oregon agency pursued charges against the Kleins on behalf of the same-sex couple.

Up until recently, the Bowman-Cryers had not spoken publicly about their case, and declined multiple interview requests from The Daily Signal through their lawyers.

But on Tuesday, the couple broke their silence.

“In recent months we’ve decided to speak out for one primary reason,” Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer wrote in The Advocate, a publication focused on LGBT issues. “We don’t want any person or family to go what we’ve gone through. Every family deserves respect, dignity, and a life free from discrimination and harassment.”

The couple also shared why they got married:

Part of the reason we decided to get married in the first place was to provide stability for our daughters. Before we became engaged, we became foster parents for two very high-needs girls after their mother, a close friend of ours, died suddenly. Lizzy, now 9, has cerebral palsy, autism, and a chromosomal disorder that causes developmental delays. Anastasia, now 7, has Asperger’s and stopped speaking when her mother died.

While the case wound its way through the courts, we won full adoptive custody of Lizzy and Anastasia, and they are the light of our lives.

For their part, Aaron and Melissa Klein chose to participate in some media interviews, including with The Daily Signal. The couple also launched a fundraising account that has brought in close to $500,000.

In their article, the Bowman-Cryers described the Kleins’ as “media darlings of the right wing.”

In interviews with The Daily Signal, Melissa Klein became emotional describing the hardships the family of seven also has faced because of the case, including closure of the bakery.

Klukowski, the lawyer who represents the Kleins, said the couple “never wanted to have to go through this ordeal” and had sought only “to run their little bakery consistent with their Christian faith as their ministry to their neighborhood.”

He said in an email to The Daily Signal:

Leftist media outlets have grossly and irresponsibly exaggerated the amount the Kleins received when generous Americans heard that the Kleins’ business was being driven into the ground due to this case, and $135,000 from that generosity had to be turned over to the [Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries] to hold in escrow in order for this appeal to be pursued.

Aaron and Melissa continue to suffer from lack of good job opportunities, and lack of educational opportunities for their children, because of the government’s draconian pursuit of them and their family, aided by the relentless mocking and derision of liberal media outlets and intolerant activists, fueling ongoing hurtful attacks on their family.

Lawyers for the Kleins said the case likely will go on regardless of the decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals, perhaps all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

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, 2016

High IQ people are prejudiced too

The findings below are reminiscent of Yancey's work.  He looked at findings which showed conservatives to be more prejudiced and bigoted. He showed that, using similar research methods, you could show liberals to be prejudiced and bigoted too.  The difference was the target.  Conservatives tended to have dim views of homosexuals and blacks whereas liberals foamed at the mouth about Christians and conservatives

There is currently a small correlation between IQ and expressed liberalism.  High IQ people are quick to pick up on what the dominant political ideas are and to go along with such ideas for the sake of social acceptance.  Around the mid-20th century, when conservative ideas were dominant, high IQ people tended towards conservatism.  See here

It has long been believed that people with a low IQ are more likely to be prejudiced, including anti-gay attitudes and racism.  But new research suggests there may be more to the story.

The researchers looked at data from a survey which asked people to rate their feelings toward 24 different groups.

The survey also gauged participants' IQs using a measure of vocabulary that is linked with overall intelligence. As with previous studies, the results showed that people with low IQ showed more prejudice.

However, the researchers also found that people with higher IQs also showed prejudice.  What differed between the groups was who they showed prejudice towards.

The new study, which is published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, suggests that people with lower IQs tend to dislike minorities they perceive as liberal.

In contrast with this, the researchers suggest that people higher on the IQ scale are more prejudiced towards conservative groups, such as religious fundamentalists.

Speaking to Live Science, Dr Mark Brandt, a psychologist at Tilburg University in Holland, who co-led the study, said: 'Because our study finds this on both ends of the cognitive ability continuum, it suggests this isn't just something that's unique to people with low cognitive ability.

'The simplest explanation for this result is that both people with high and low cognitive ability seem to express prejudice towards people they disagree with.'

The researchers looked at data from the 2012 American National Election Studies survey to explore the prejudice that participants may have had.

As with previous studies, the results showed that people with low IQ showed more prejudice. However, the researchers also found that people with higher IQs also showed prejudice.

What differed between the groups was who they showed prejudice towards.

Low-IQ people tended to dislike groups that are perceived as liberal and that people have little choice about whether they join – such as blacks, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and gay people.

In contrast with this, higher-IQ people tended to dislike groups that are perceived as conservative and that people have a choice about whether they join – such as businesses, the military, and Christian fundamentalists.

The results came as a surprise to the researchers, as liberal people tend to be more open to experience.

Dr Brandt said: 'Even people who are open to new ideas show this link between perceiving somebody as having different attitudes than them and expressing prejudice. 'It's kind of depressingly robust.'

The researchers also looked at what is behind the tendency to dislike people you disagree with. They found that the strongest factor seems to be that people dislike other people who they perceive to have different moral values than they do.

Dr Brandt added: 'We want to be at a place where we can say, 'Yep, I disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I dislike you, necessarily.'  'But that seems to be something that's relatively rare.'

SOURCE




Dead to History

Comment from Australia

As Marc Antony put it, 'the good is oft interrèd with their bones' and so it is at Melbourne University, where a gaggle of clamorous sooks and attention-seekers is demanding the name of a long-dead medico be erased from the institution he helped to build

A movement to censor our history is forming at Australian universities. Students and academics are campaigning for buildings and lecture halls to be renamed because of their association with ‘offensive’ historical figures. They no longer feel comfortable confronting, or even acknowledging, the past— instead, they want to expunge it altogether. Their first target is the renaming of the Richard Berry building at the University of Melbourne.

Richard Berry revolutionised the teaching of anatomy in Melbourne. He wrote the standard anatomy textbook used by students for some twenty-five years. As dean of medicine he advocated for the placement of a hospital near campus that could work closely with the university, a dream that became a reality after his departure. Berry’s contributions to teaching, as well as an administrator, were so outstanding that when a new anatomy building opened, which he designed, it was only natural to name the building after him.

Sadly, despite his capabilities, Berry, along with John Maynard Keynes, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, and Winston Churchill, advocated for the patently racist and discredited eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Eugenicists sought to promote certain genetic traits, and discourage others, by manipulating sexual reproduction. This supposedly scientific theory was used by the Nazis to justify their atrocities.

He also advocated for sterilisation of Aboriginals, people with a disability, and other groups he viewed as inferior. Student union president Tyson Holloway-Clarke says the existence of a building named after him is ‘confronting and alienating situation for Indigenous students.’

The move to wipe Berry’s name from the building he designed follows in the footsteps of similar campaigns on British and American campuses. Oxford University students unsuccessfully advocated for the destruction of a Cecil Rhodes. However, their campaign failed to appreciate Rhodes’ positive legacy. The Rhodes Scholarship has provided extraordinary educational opportunities to thousands from the developing and developed world, people who would otherwise never have had the opportunity to attend such a prestigious institution. It has helped train the leaders of countless countries, including our own prime ministers Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott and Bob Hawke.

Yes, Rhodes’ legacy, just like Berry’s, is deeply flawed. It is vital, however, that we acknowledge both the virtuous and vile in our history. Our past is neither good nor evil, rather, it reflects the varying shades of grey that make up the complexities of human character. It reflects our constant drive towards progress and developing a more compassionate society. It is vital we remember and attempt to fully understand the complexity, not seek to censor our past.

We must be careful to not project modern ideas, which simply did not exist at the time, onto history. The speed of human progress has led to an extraordinarily rapid change in cultural understandings, political values and scientific theories. The essence of historic analysis is gaining a full understanding of these changes, and the world in which historic figures lived. The alternate, applying today’s values to the past, makes it almost impossible to find any respectable historical figures for admiration or study.

It would require Labor to rename their think-tank, the Evatt Foundation, because Doc Evatt brandished a letter in Parliament from Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov falsely claiming there was no Soviet spying in Australia—a letter written by the same individual who signed the Soviet-Nazi Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Liberals would have to stop celebrating Robert Menzies because, in the height of the Cold War, he advocated for the illiberal policy of banning a political party, the Communist Party of Australia. Americans would have to abandon their constitution and bill of rights because two-thirds of the founding fathers owned slaves.

If we actually want to understand, not simply abandon, the past we must comprehend the world in which these people functioned, the threats that motivated them, and the cultural values of their time. We must understand that Evatt was motivated by a theory, albeit false, of conspiracy between the government and the security establishment to discredit Labor. We must understand that Menzies believed, based on the stated aims of Australian communists, that there was a serious clandestine threat to our democracy. And we must understand that the American founders lived in a time when slave ownership was common across the world. We can, and should, criticise their views and actions, but it is ahistorical to apply today’s values to figures living in a different time.

Censoring the past also hinders the educational mission of universities. These statues, buildings, and lecture halls provide an important opportunity to confront our history. Renaming buildings allows past injustices to be forgotten, to be wiped off the public memory. Leaving them in place is a good reminder and educational opportunity. Rather than rename the Richard Berry building, making him float away into the abyss of history book footnotes buried in the basement of a campus library, it would be appropriate to place a prominent plaque near the entrance of the building explaining both his contributions and abhorrent views. This would allow students to understand the fact that this person did exist, and what he actually did. It also prevents the university from taking the relatively easy step of wiping out a dark part of their history.

Ironically, the University of Melbourne has previously hosted a disability support services unit in the Richard Berry building. Some have claimed that this placement is insulting. However, the opposite is in fact true. The best way to show just how wrong Berry’s ideas were, and to display how far we have come as a society, is to act in the completely opposite manner. It is to celebrate that students from all backgrounds roam freely in the corridors of the Richard Berry building. This allows us to not forget the complexities of our past, and delivers a far more nuanced understanding of what is right and wrong.

SOURCE





Christina Hoff Sommers on how academic feminism hurts women

Modern academic feminism is hurting women by teaching them to see themselves as victims rather than empowered individuals, according to American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers.

Hoff Sommers, in an interview with Clay Routledge of Psychology Today, argued that women in academia are being treated like children.

"Women are not children. We are not fragile little birds who can't cope with jokes, works of art or controversial speakers," Hoff Sommers said. "Trigger warnings and safe spaces are an infantilizing setback for feminism — and for women."

Routledge, too, brought up this notion of "women as victims," suggesting that the narratives being pushed by feminists in academia (most notably through women's studies programs) is a form of "benevolent sexism." That is, "the idea that women need to be cherished and protected, that they are innocent, precious and perhaps childlike."

It certainly seems that way on today's college campuses, where women are constantly bombarded with claims that they stand a good chance of being sexually assaulted (not just by random strangers, but by their best guy friends) or are somehow oppressed in America.

One of the favorite arguments (of feminist scholars but also female politicians such as Hillary Clinton) is to claim women do not earn equal pay for equal work. They throw away that line as an accepted truth, without disclosing that women don't earn as much as men largely because they are not doing the same jobs for the same hours.

When faced with this fact, many feminists, politicians and the media will claim that women only accept lower-paying jobs because society tells them to do so. I've often wondered: Do these people think women make any decisions for themselves?

The reason victimhood is so cherished today (suddenly) is unclear, but Hoff Sommers says part of the problem comes from a lack of ideological diversity in many areas of academia.

"The true-believers fashion the theories, write the textbooks and teach the students. When journalists, policymakers and legislators address topics such as the wage gap, gender and education, or women's health, they turn to these experts for enlightenment," Hoff Sommers said.

"For the most part, they peddle misinformation, victim politics and sophistry. They claim that their teachings represent the academic consensus, but that is only because they have excluded all dissenters."

There is a lot more in the interview, which I encourage you to read in

SOURCE




   

The Donkey Who Cried Wolf

"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you." —Friedrich Nietzsche

The 19th century German philosopher and poet perhaps had no idea how relevant this statement would be to 21st century politics. But the routine screeches of baseless alarm, manufactured crises and the hyperbole employed by Democrats, and in some cases, Republicans, are creating an authentic problem — a credibility desert. The moral to the story of Aesop's fable, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," applies: Tell lies or exaggerate often enough, and the truth is not believed, even in times of need and danger.

How do these simple statements relate to the multi-billion-dollar campaigns employed today across all kinds of media platforms? Simply put, when the decision is made to conduct your entire campaign message in the key of panic and extremes, the consuming public becomes tone deaf to changes in pitch or appreciable variations.

With the loud protests of the Left have come these broad statements:

"You're a racist," in response to the desire for enforcement of immigration law.

"You're a bigot," to the beliefs of many who accept God's view that homosexuality, like adultery, is sin.

"You're greedy," in labeling those who want to keep the money they work hard to earn instead of seeing nearly half of their earnings forcefully taken by governments.

"You're anti-women's health," in believing the dismembering of an infant in utero is not contraception and should not be funded by tax dollars.

These and many more extreme statements are frequently employed by any number of talkingheads on the Left, or are used in "news" items that masquerade as fact when, in reality, the level of opinion moves the analysis clearly to editorializing.

Let's look at a recent example. For speaking against Donald Trump, Mitt Romney is now being lauded as "reasonable" and "thoughtful" by Democrats ranging from Barack Obama to Harry Reid. But Romney is the same guy who took mortal verbal blows in 2012 from those very same Democrats. Remember?

Mitt Romney's mythological hatred of dogs filled the headlines and the late-night shows after he built a windshield-equipped carrier to transport their family dog on top of their vehicle.

Romney's hatred of women was a statement of fact when it was discovered that, while he served as governor of Massachusetts, he catalogued women under consideration for employment by placing their profiles in binders.

Romney was specifically blamed for a woman's cancer death by her widower husband in a pro-Obama TV ad after he lost his insurance when a factory closed. The plant closed while Romney was running the Winter Olympics. The woman died five years after the husband lost his job.

Romney was said to have dodged paying taxes for 10 years, according to Harry Reid, who cited an anonymous source safely from the Senate floor, to complete the Democrats' portrait of a blood-sucking capitalist criminal. Reid's charge was a complete fabrication.

But, now? Oh, "Mitt's a great guy," say the Democrats who urge his voice be heard with a newfound respect and attentiveness.

In The New York Times, Howard Wolfson, the director of communications for Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign and current adviser for billionaire and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, recently bemoaned the current mud pit. Recalling his days with both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton in their runs for president, Wolfson acknowledges, "I'm quite confident I employed language that, in retrospect, was hyperbolic and inaccurate, language that cheapened my ability — our ability — to talk about this moment with accuracy and credibility." Translation: Democrats cried wolf too many times, and now they're having a hard time turning up the volume on Trump.

Wolfson concludes, "We should take stock of this moment and recognize that our language really needs to be more accountable and more appropriate to the circumstances." Which is another way of saying he really means it this time.

Oh, there's nothing like hearing a Democrat, especially one who's affiliated with Hillary Clinton, make requests for accountability. Just precious. And, so, the story goes with the credibility desert where truth has dried up from the heat of political extremes.

There's a cautionary tale in this for conservatives, too. Part of the reason for Trump's rise in the first place was that unrealistic expectations were placed upon congressional Republicans and then even solid conservatives were condemned as traitorous "establishment" when they failed to achieve constitutional government with Barack Obama still at the helm. It's true Republicans could have done more, but they didn't do nothing.

While it's appropriate to contrast the reckless policies and illegal practices of Hillary Clinton, for those shrinking in number who are highly prized — the undecided voters — it's critical to hear more than shouting and name-calling that signify either Clinton Derangement Syndrome or Trump Panic Attack.

That said, more often than not when conservatives point to a leftist and cry "wolf," there actually is a wolf.

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, 2016

Why were the Black Lives Matter protesters at London City Airport all WHITE?

Because they are just attention-seekers

Black Lives Matter has insisted white people need 'to take responsibility' because they are 'privileged through racism' as it defended the all-white protest which brought London City Airport to a standstill today.

The group posted a series of inflammatory tweets this afternoon as it responded to criticism over a six-hour stunt which saw nine activists storm the runway after sailing up to the airport in a dinghy.

As photographs emerged of white men and women chained to a wooden tripod on the tarmac, alongside banners reading 'black lives matter', critics questioned why there were no black activists taking part in the protest.

But this afternoon, UK Black Lives Matter defended the protest, citing it as an example of 'white allyship under black leadership'.

Dozens of police officers were at the airport this morning in an attempt to move the protesters from the runway. Scotland Yard said it did not know how many officers were involved in the operation

In a series of tweets, the group said: 'There's a need for white people to take responsibility in a society that privileges them through racism and anti-black racism in particular.

Black Lives Matter UK spokesman Jacob Oti, 22, declined to go into detail about how the protesters gained access to the site, but confirmed it was via the Thames.

It is now claimed the activists launched from the University of East London campus in the Docklands before making the 40m journey.

Police and London City Airport have not confirmed if they are investigating these claims.

'Today's shutdown isn't about 9 white allies on the runway; it's about 200 million climate refugees by 2050.'

Another tweet read: 'How many white people does it take to change the subject from black deaths? 9.'  

One black anti-racism campaigner criticised the protest, saying it should be led by those who feel 'aggrieved'.

‘It’s a Black Lives Matter movement – the clue should be in the name,' he said. 'As with any cause, it should be led by the people who feel aggrieved, with other people as allies. Otherwise it’s just odd.'

But campaigner and journalist Wail Qasim, an activist with Black Lives Matter, said white people protesting had given black people a voice.

He told MailOnline: ‘This shows the sort of responsibility that white people should be taking. They should be willing to put bodies on the line for black rights.

‘You’ll notice that white activists have not been giving comment to the media. Really what’s happened is that black voices have been able to speak off the back of the actions of the white activists.

‘It should absolutely always be black leadership, not white leadership.’

The mayhem began at 5.40am when nine protesters chained themselves to a tripod in the middle of the tarmac to campaign against the UK's 'racist climate change', cancelling dozens of flights and delaying several more.

The incident triggered huge security concerns amid reports the demonstrators managed to get airside by sailing a blow-up dinghy across the Royal Docks.

The activists are alleged to have reached the site by launching the boat from the University of East London campus in the Docklands before paddling 40m to the airport. Neither the police nor the airport have confirmed whether or not they are investigating these claims.

Despite the security alert caused by the morning’s protest, a Daily Mail journalist was still able to walk to within 20ft of the runway yesterday afternoon, with just a narrow stretch of water blocking their path.

Police spent several hours 'negotiating' with those responsible as they waited for 'specialist resources' to unlock them, causing chaos for passengers.

It was only after six hours that all the protesters were successfully removed from the site and taken into police custody.

The Stop City Airport campaign group initially tweeted that the protest was a joint operation between Plane Stupid, a radical environmental group, and Black Lives Matter. But Plane Stupid later said that 'all credit' should go to Black Lives Matter. 

According to the protest group, the demonstration is focusing on the airport's expansion plans, which they claim will favour the 'wealthy' passengers and ignore the local population of Newham, the borough in which the airport is based.

SOURCE





Rev. Graham: Obama Promotes 'Ungodly Sexual Behavior' -- Now There Is 'All-Out War on Religious Liberty'

Commenting on the upcoming election and the state of the nation, Reverend Franklin Graham said America is "increasingly hostile and intolerant" of its Christian and Biblical foundation, and with President Barack Obama leading "the fight to promote ungodly sexual behavior" over the last eight years, there now is an "all-out war on religious liberty" in the United States.

Whoever is elected in November, that person "will take the helm of a nation that has grown increasingly hostile and intolerant of the very foundation and principles upon which it was so nobly founded -- the Christian faith and Biblical values," said Rev. Graham in his commentary for the September issue of Decision magazine, published by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA).

That's why this election is "the most significant since Abraham Lincoln," said Rev. Graham.

"For if the forces of evil that are allied against the free exercise of our faith succeed -- and they have done severe damage already -- then I have no doubt that the nation we love will devolve into moral anarchy more quickly than we can imagine," he said.

The reverend, who is the son of world-renowned preacher Billy Graham, then discussed how Obamacare's abortion-drug mandate is crippling (and closing) Christian-run businesses by directly violating the religious liberty of its owners and staff. Further, same-sex marriage is also destroying religious freedom, said Graham.

"Same-sex marriage zealots have launched an all-out war on traditional marriage, which is defined in Scripture -- and virtually every civilization in history -- as a union between one man and one woman," said Franklin Graham.  "Human sexuality itself is being completely redefined by elite sexual revolutionaries who seek to impose their warped views on society, resulting in fierce battles over such things as transgender bathrooms -- supported by none other than the president himself."

"The same anti-Christian forces are seeking to strip funding from Christian colleges to keep them from educating students with a Biblical worldview," said the evangelist.  "Business owners across the nation have been forced to close their doors because they refused to participate in same-sex ceremonies due to their religious faith."

Rev. Graham continued, "The skirmishes over moral standards have turned into pitched battles over the last decade and now have become an all-out war on religious liberty. Think of the moral degeneration that has transpired under our current president, who has helped lead the fight to promote ungodly sexual behavior while failing to protect basic religious liberties."

"What if that depraved trajectory continues over the next few decades?" he said.  "Can you imagine what our great nation, whose foundation was laid by a moral and religious people, will look like?"

Quoting Samuel Adams, Rev. Graham said voting is "one of the most solemn trusts in human society, for which [a person] is accountable to God and his country."

"My hope is in Almighty God alone," said Graham, who added that "a careful vote could extend the time we have to freely preach the Gospel."

"The Bible says, 'Sin is a reproach to any people' (Proverbs 14:34)," said Rev. Graham.  "The disgrace of America due to persistent, willful, rebellious sin is shameful. We will not survive as a 'city set on a hill' (Matthew 5:14) without God’s help."

Rev. Graham concluded, "I want God’s blessings on America, but that will only come to a people who forsake sin and pursue righteousness. That’s the vision of America that I have, and one that I hope will once again hold sway for our children, grandchildren and generations to come."

SOURCE






Connecticut Limits Free Speech Using Campaign Finance Rules

The clash over free speech and campaign finance has erupted in Connecticut, as two Republican state legislators have refused to settle a case with the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

Connecticut is one of at least three states that have a “clean campaign” system, in which a candidate collects very small donations of $5 from a large pool of people to qualify for a near fully-funded campaign by the taxpayer. In all, 13 states have some form of public financing for state elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

However, the enforcement action taken by the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission, or SEEC, against 16 Republican candidates—including state Sen. Joe Markley and state Rep. Rob Sampson—could be unprecedented, some national observers said.

The state’s sanction against the legislative candidates was for mentioning Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Democrat, by name in mailings that referenced “Malloy’s bad policies” and “Malloy’s tax hike” for their own races in 2014, when Malloy was also on the ballot. The lawmakers used similar reference in campaign literature this year and in 2012, but face no sanction because Malloy appeared on the 2014 ballot.

“A government that funds speech will seek to control that speech.” @campaignfreedom says.

“I don’t know how you can be a sitting state legislator and not mention the governor’s name,” Markley told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “This is not in the statute; this is an interpretation by the [State Elections Enforcement Commission].”

The State Elections Enforcement Commission will have a hearing on the matter in September, Markley said. He said he will challenge in state court if necessary on constitutional grounds. As a matter of being competitive in the state, he said candidates must take public funding. But, he believes putting the government in charge of financing campaigns is the problem.

“If it weren’t for the state funding campaigns, this wouldn’t have arisen as an issue,” Markley said. “It is frustrating for liberals to see government funds used to criticize them for a change.”

It’s hard to find a similar case nationally, said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes most campaign finance restrictions.

“What Connecticut is trying to do is both ridiculous and likely unconstitutional,” Keating told The Daily Signal in an email.

Still, Keating added that politicizing a program was likely inevitable once the state has the purse strings to campaign funding.

“A government that funds speech will seek to control that speech,” Keating said. “Bureaucrats who control the funding will try to penalize candidates for trivial violations.”

Keating said such a case has less to do with the Citizens United precedent on campaign finance than it would have to do with legal precedent barring government agencies from placing unconstitutional restrictions on receiving government money.

However, this matter typically comes up in the areas of welfare or in government contracting and not campaign funding, Keating said. Thus, he said there is almost no precedent for the Connecticut controversy.

State Elections Enforcement Commission spokesman Josh Foley said the agency doesn’t comment on ongoing cases.

Connecticut House Speaker Brendan Sharkey, a Democrat, defended the commission’s actions in a letter to the editor responding to a Hartford Courant columnist’s criticism of the sanctions.

“When candidates voluntarily sign up to receive taxpayer dollars to run their campaigns, they swear to abide by the law,” Sharkey wrote. “Instead, state Republicans in 2014 coordinated to violate the rules—including the protagonist in Mr. [Kevin] Rennie’s column—and most of them have already admitted their violations and settled their cases.”

Connecticut adopted a bipartisan public financing law in 2005 following a major corruption scandal. The law was passed by a Democratic-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor. In October 2014, the state election agency issued an advisory opinion warning candidates for the legislature to avoid referring to candidates in the governor’s race.

The state agency asserted that referring to candidates would have been permissible if the cost of the campaign had been shared by either the state Republican Party or the 2014 campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley.

The state election agency brought a case against 16 Republican candidates who mentioned Malloy by name during their 2014 campaigns. Most of those Republicans signed a settlement agreement, admitting an election violation in exchange for dodging a civil penalty. However, Markley and Sampson refused to sign, asserting that empowering the agency would violate the First Amendment.

“For me, this is a clear violation of my First Amendment rights, and an overt restriction on free speech,” Sampson wrote in an op-ed in The Southington Observer newspaper. “The government should not be able to restrict the issues we campaign about in a free election.”

Two other states that provide near-full state funding for all state offices, including the legislature, are Maine and Arizona.

Hawaii also provides a matching funds program for its legislative candidates, which provides tax dollars to candidates who cap their spending. Minnesota defunded its program in its last state budget, according to the Center for Competitive Politics.

Keating, president of the center, said candidates in most of the states do not use the public funding program any longer, largely because it inhibits their ability to campaign. So, he said, it’s doubtful a dispute similar to what is happening in Connecticut has occurred elsewhere.

The states of Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Vermont all provide some form of public financing to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor. Elections to the state Supreme Court are publicly funded in New Mexico and West Virginia.

The Connecticut public finance system could be on shaky legal footing because of this case, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“If providing public funding for candidates is being used as grounds to prevent criticism of candidates in other elections or of the governor then that would be a horrendous infringement on the First Amendment and probably the Supreme Court would throw that public financing system out,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

He referred to part of the Arizona public financing law that was tossed by the court. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Arizona public financing law that allocated more taxpayer money to candidates if a political action committee or independent group spoke against the candidate in ads.

SOURCE






‘I’ve Become a Racist’: Migrant Wave Unleashes Danish Tensions Over Identity

Johnny Christensen, a stout and silver-whiskered retired bank employee, always thought of himself as sympathetic to people fleeing war and welcoming to immigrants. But after more than 36,000 mostly Muslim asylum seekers poured into Denmark over the past two years, Mr. Christensen, 65, said, “I’ve become a racist.”

He believes these new migrants are draining Denmark’s cherished social-welfare system but failing to adapt to its customs. “Just kick them out,” he said, unleashing a mighty kick at an imaginary target on a suburban sidewalk. “These Muslims want to keep their own culture, but we have our own rules here and everyone must follow them.”

Denmark, a small and orderly nation with a progressive self-image, is built on a social covenant: In return for some of the world’s highest wages and benefits, people are expected to work hard and pay into the system. Newcomers must quickly learn Danish — and adapt to norms like keeping tidy gardens and riding bicycles.

The country had little experience with immigrants until 1967, when the first “guest workers” were invited from Turkey, Pakistan and what was then Yugoslavia. Its 5.7 million people remain overwhelmingly native born, though the percentage has dropped to 88 today from 97 in 1980.

A Friday prayer last month in the Grand Mosque of Copenhagen, also known as Hamad Bin Khalifa Civilization Center. © Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York Times A Friday prayer last month in the Grand Mosque of Copenhagen, also known as Hamad Bin Khalifa Civilization Center. Bo Lidegaard, a prominent historian, said many Danes feel strongly that “we are a multiethnic society today, and we have to realize it — but we are not and should never become a multicultural society.”

The recent influx pales next to the one million migrants absorbed into Germany or the 163,000 into Sweden last year, but the pace shocked this stable, homogeneous country. The center-right government has backed a series of harsh measures targeting migrants, hate speech has spiked, and the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party is now the second largest in Parliament.

There is new tension between Danes still opening their arms and a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims and shut Denmark off from Europe. Mr. Christensen, the retired banker, supports emerging proposals for his country to follow Britain in exiting the European Union.

There is tension, too, over whether the backlash is really about a strain on Denmark’s generous public benefits or a rising terrorist threat — or whether a longstanding but latent racial hostility is being unearthed.

Signe Gadeberg, right, and her friend Fatima Al-Gharawi, a native of Iraq, in Copenhagen last month. © Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York Times Signe Gadeberg, right, and her friend Fatima Al-Gharawi, a native of Iraq, in Copenhagen last month. Analysts say that the public voiced little opposition after 5,000 Poles and 3,300 Americans, among other Westerners, emigrated to Denmark in 2014, but that there has been significant criticism of the nearly 16,000 Syrian asylum seekers who arrived that year and the next. They and other migrants were not invited, and many ended up here by accident, intercepted on their route to Sweden.

Critics complain that these newcomers have been slow to learn Danish — though the immigration ministry recently reported that 72 percent passed a required language exam. Some Danes blister at what they see as ethnic enclaves: About 30 percent of new immigrants lived in the nation’s two largest cities, Aarhus and Copenhagen, where Muslim women in abayas and men in prayer caps stand out among the blond and blue-eyed crowds on narrow streets.

Perhaps the leading — and most substantive — concern is that the migrants are an economic drain. In 2014, 48 percent of immigrants from non-Western countries ages 16 to 64 were employed, compared with 74 percent of native Danes.

Sylvester Bbaale, who operates a food truck, came to Denmark from Uganda as a baby in 1989. He said he was beaten on the street last year by three men who told him to go back to Africa. © Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York Times Sylvester Bbaale, who operates a food truck, came to Denmark from Uganda as a baby in 1989. He said he was beaten on the street last year by three men who told him to go back to Africa. The immigration ministry has sought to avoid what it calls “parallel societies” of migrants living in “vicious circles of bad image, social problems and a high rate of unemployment.” Tightened immigration requirements, the ministry said in its latest annual report, weed out those “who have weaker capabilities for being able to integrate into Danish society.”

Omar Mahmoud, 34, an Iraqi engineer who entered Denmark a year ago and lives in a refugee center in Randers, a city of 60,000, is trying his best to fit in. He and his wife are taking Danish classes, and their three children are learning the language and making Danish friends in school. They are Muslim, but attend church to learn about Christianity, and he said he was not opposed to his son’s eating pork, a staple of the Danish diet, though it is forbidden in Islam.

Mr. Mahmoud said his family had not encountered direct insults or threats, but was frightened by the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim tenor in the public discourse.

“It’s like foreigners are put in a special clan, separate from the Danish people,” he lamented. Still, Mr. Mahmoud said that “some of the Danish people are angels” and that he was relieved to be far from the violence of Iraq. “I’m in my heaven now.”

Anders Buhl-Christensen, a center-right city councilman in Randers, said the influx had forced a more honest conversation about national identity. “Our problem in Denmark is that we’ve been too polite,” he said. “No one dared talk about” immigration, he added, “because they were afraid they’d be called racist.”

Denmark is just one of many European nations grappling with the wave of migrants amid a spate of terrorist attacks across the Continent by Islamic extremists: A recent Pew Research Center survey found that at least half the citizens in eight of 10 countries polled said incoming refugees increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks.

The confluence of these and other factors has prompted a re-examination of the postwar promise of a unified, borderless Europe. Macedonia, Hungary and Slovenia have all built border fences. Denmark imposed new identity controls on its border with Germany in January, and for the first time since 1958, Sweden requires entering Danes to show identity papers.

Many analysts saw Britain’s surprise vote to leave the European Union as an angry expression of concern that British — or, especially, English — identity was being diluted by the nation’s growing diversity. Debate is raging anew over whether certain Islamic modes of dress — full-body swimsuits, known as burkinis, in France and face veils in Germany — inherently contravene countries’ values.

Similar themes are seen as underpinning a wave of new measures here in Denmark.

The government has made its citizenship test more difficult and slashed by nearly half a package of integration benefits. A measure passed in January, though rarely enforced, empowers the authorities to confiscate valuables from new arrivals to offset the cost of settling them.

Last year, Denmark placed ads in Arabic-language newspapers stressing its tough new policies, essentially suggesting: Don’t come here.

Muslims do not assimilate as easily as Europeans or some Asians, said Denmark’s culture minister, Bertel Haarder, partly because, as he put it, their patriarchal culture frowns on women working outside the home and often constrains freedom of speech.

“It’s not racism to be aware of the difference — it’s stupid not to be aware,” Mr. Haarder said. “We do them a blessing by being very clear and outspoken as to what kind of country they have come to, what are our basic values.”

But much of the difference remains unspoken. This is a country where pedestrians wait for a green light to cross even when no cars are in sight, a contrast to the bustling streets of Middle Eastern capitals.

Birgitte Romme Larsen, a Danish anthropologist who has studied refugees and asylum seekers in rural areas, mentioned an African refugee who did not realize that closing his curtains during the day was interpreted as being unduly secretive. Other newcomers were not aware that congregating and talking loudly at a grocery might offend Danish sensibilities.

“These implicit expectations cannot be written into an integration folder” migrants receive, Ms. Larsen said.

Sherif Sulaiman, an organic food scientist who moved to Denmark eight years ago from Egypt, said Muslims must not close themselves off in enclaves but open themselves up for interaction.

He is the manager of an Islamic center that opened in 2014 and invites Danes in for meals and for an annual “harmony week.” Mr. Sulaiman pushed to have the mosque complex use Scandinavian architectural style and furniture, and lends its conference room to a church for meetings.

“We should be like this glass — transparent,” he said, pointing to a window. “As long as we follow the rules of the country, we are part of Danish society.”

But some dark-skinned immigrants who have lived in Denmark for decades say assimilation seems an elusive and ever-shifting target.

Patricia Bandak and her brother Sylvester Bbaale came to Denmark from Uganda as babies in 1989. Like their native neighbors, they are polite and punctual and ride their bicycles everywhere.

The siblings are not Muslim but said they frequently encountered racism: In school, they were called the n-word, and told that they should stop eating Ugandan food like matoke, a starchy fruit. Mr. Bbaale, who is 27 and operates a food truck, said he was beaten on the street last year by three men who cursed at him and told him to go back to Africa.

“For a lot of people, being Danish is in your blood, so I will never be Danish,” said Ms. Bandak, 28, who became a Danish citizen in 2010 and is studying documentary film. “I call myself a Dane of a different color.”

Then there is Ozlem Cekic, a Turkish-born Muslim who served as a leftist member of Parliament from 2007 to 2015. Her three children were born in Denmark, she wrote a 2009 memoir in Danish, and, she said, “I even dream in Danish.”

Yet Mrs. Cekic, 40, said she often received death threats and heard shouts of “Go home!” on the street. Every time terrorists strike Europe, she is bombarded by hundreds of hate messages. Lately, people have inundated her with accusations that Muslims are milking the welfare system and plotting against Danes.

While in Parliament, Mrs. Cekic held “dialogue coffees,” where she would explain — in fluent Danish — why she is as Danish as anyone.

“They meet me for coffee and suddenly they say their problem isn’t with me but with those other people,” she recalled. “I tell them: I am the other.”

‘Denmark is closing in on itself’

Karin Andersen is one of thousands of Danes trying to help the immigrants settle through groups formed on Facebook called Venligboerne, or Kind Citizens. She spends several days each month with Housam Mohammed Shamden, 38, his wife and two daughters, who fled Syria in 2014 and now live in Randers, with small Danish flags taped to the front door of their apartment and tucked into flower vases.

“Danes are so concerned about losing their culture,” said Ms. Andersen, 62, a retired teacher. “But how many help the ones who want to be part of it?”

However many, they are often drowned out by reports of Muslims being spat at and showered with racist slurs. In May, two Danes ripped the head scarves off two girls. The month before, a national controversy erupted after a public swimming pool in Copenhagen created girls-only lessons in response to Muslim requests.

“Freedom of speech is now interpreted as freedom to say anything hateful,” said Julie Jeeg, a law student who volunteers with an anti-racism group. “Denmark is closing in on itself. People are retreating inward.”

Witness the “meatball war.”

In January, after revelations that a Randers day care center had stopped serving pork meatballs since its Muslim students would not eat them, the Town Council narrowly passed a measure requiring that pork be served “on equal terms with other kinds of food.”

The councilman who pushed the measure, Frank Noergaard of the Danish People’s Party, said he was incensed that “pork could be abandoned in Denmark,” adding: “If you give in on pork, what’s next?”

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, 2016

Israeli filmmaker uninvited to campus conference over 'political correctness and BDS'

The film was referred to by 'The New York Times' as "one of the first close-up view of the motives and personalities in a group that rarely opens up to outsiders."

Syracuse University has passed over formally inviting Israeli film director Shimon Dotan to their international film conference "The Place of Religion in Film."  Dotan had previously been informally invited by one of the events organizers, William L. Blizek, according to The Atlantic.

The film Dotan was due to show at the March 2017 conference was his feature-length documentary 'The Settlers'  which chronicles the history of the settlements, the people who live there and the movement as a whole.

The film itself was referred to by The New York Times as "one of the first close-up views of the motives and personalities in a group that rarely opens up to outsiders."

It was shown at the Sundance Film Festival (and was made with financial support from the Israeli network YES and from the European network ARTE, among others) and opened throughout Israel recently.

However, despite an invitation, and interest on the part of the filmmaker Dotan, he was uninvited to the event due to the "BDS faction on campus."

The Syracuse University BDS faction made no known statements or threats to Dotan's possible participation and were perhaps unaware of it all together.

A rejection email Dotan received from Professor Hamner of the Religion Department of Syracuse University stated that the group would make things unpleasant for the Israeli filmmaker and possibly damage the reputation and credibility of the organizers and the event.

The email added that they regretted not having the opportunity to see the film and as such they could not vouch for it.

The film has been highly rated among critics. It mainly focuses on the radical fringe settlers and, according to reviews, is perceived as showing settlers in a negative light.

Dotan said he wants people to understand the reality, in all its complexity. “I don’t think Israel faces a military threat, but I think it does face the threat of disintegration from within...  I think there is a threat to democracy and to the moral fabric of the country... I want the film to present a dialogue with the settlers in a way that will enlighten people.”

SOURCE






PR Nightmares: When Political Correctness Goes Too Far

The very organizations attempting to achieve good PR by being ultra sensitive to political correctness risk terrible PR when they take their PC efforts too far

This weekend the annual JavaScript conference Nodevember became the most recent participant in the political correctness (PC) wars when it un-invited keynote speaker Douglas Crockford, renowned for his involvement in advances to the modern web and the JavaScript programming language, from its upcoming November event. What it means for PR: The very organizations attempting to achieve good PR by being ultra sensitive to political correctness risk terrible PR when they take their PC efforts too far.

For example, a 2015 debate about campus sexual assault at Brown University led some women on campus to fear the dialogue would trigger civil rights warnings to a degree that at the University’s guidance, attendees “who might find the debate upsetting” were provided with “a safe space room” equipped with “cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies,” as reported by the New York Times.

A report by ListVerse noted that the National Union of Students Women’s Campaign, a feminist college student group in Britain announced in March 2015 they would ban clapping at their future conferences held at UK colleges, claiming that the act of clapping could “trigger some people’s anxiety,” and therefore should be banned from all conferences. Instead, feminist students instructed those who attend conferences to use “jazz hands”—silently waving their hands in the air—when they wished to display their approval.

Good intentions aside, these moves are extreme enough to open the risk of horrific PR. From appearances, Nodevember is experiencing this PR backlash today. By its policy and definition, Nodevember purports to be highly committed to “providing a harassment-free conference experience for everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race or religion.” The “short version” of the event’s code of ethics advises participants to “be kind to each other. Do not insult or put down other attendees. Behave professionally. Remember that harassment and sexist, racist or exclusionary jokes are not appropriate for Nodevember.”

This sentiment was fine and good until organizers decided this weekend, just eight hours after announcing the event’s four keynotes on Sept. 1, to publically uninvite the first keynote listed in an unceremonious Tweet: “We will also be removing Douglas Crockford from our keynote speakers list to help make the conference a comfortable environment for all.”

The very organizations attempting to achieve good PR by being ultra sensitive to political correctness risk terrible PR when they take their PC efforts too far.
What happened? The organization has not disclosed details beyond the statement, which noted vaguely that “almost none” of the many things said about the decision “reflected the many facets” but acknowledged the un-invite Tweet “lacked nuance and could have been posed in a much better way.” In an attempt to trace the steps, blogger and programmer Paul Straw researched the chain of events, which appeared to have begun with a Tweet from @jsdnxx: “nice list of dude programmers, notice any omissions?” After a bit of back and forth about the issue of diversity among speakers and how to amend it, user Emily Rose piped in with “@nodevember, one way you could show you actually care about community safety & diversity is by uninviting Douglas Crockford. @nodevember he has repeatedly shown himself to be actively hostile to inclusivity and many will decline to speak if he is invited.”

No examples were named. Research of Crockford’s prior speeches, however, produced video of a 2013 presentation at Google GOOGL +0.68% titled “Monads and Gonads.” The presentation makes its points with the inclusion of what we could fairly refer to as “programmer humor.” It was a strained metaphor that was admittedly not very funny. In the course of the 39 minutes presentation it made humorous reference to the metaphor of testicles at least two and possibly three times (if you include the use of the term “gonads,” which in actuality could refer to male or female organs, but is decidedly not PC either way). In another presentation, findable through posts such as this Medium article on “Why I won’t present with Doug Crockford,” the author says Crockford “slut shamed” an audience by describing the “Old Web” that was beautiful because of its promiscuity, and then noting that some cases, such as financial transactions, are better served “by a committed relationship.”

Straw attempted to reach Crockford to obtain more detail about what had happened, from his point of view. Crockford’s cryptic response: “It is a mystery to me too.” It appears in this situation that everyone loses, on all fronts. Could PC and policy concerns have been better handled by speaking to the the party in question in advance to ensure crowd and event-appropriate sensitivity? I believe the answer is an obvious “yes”.

Before enacting ultra PC policies, organizations, companies and groups should ask themselves these hard questions: Do these actions reflect our honorable intentions? Or have our reactions swung so far we are risking the very things we want to avoid? (Offended participants and horrific PR.) In my opinion it is vital that organizers and organizations make a greater effort to think these issues through in advance, before public shamings or the creation of knee-jerk policy change.

SOURCE






Has political correctness gone too far?

Canadian columnist Gordon Clark discusses the pros and cons of being politically correct, referencing new Angus Reid poll results

My mother called me last month for advice about an assignment she was struggling with for her writers’ group about stereotypes. I suggested an idea that has clattered about in my head for years: Why is it OK to point out positive stereotypes about groups of people but not negative ones?

Why, for instance, is it OK to say that the Chinese tend to be family oriented, pro-education and hardworking but it’s wrong to suggest, as many do, that some Chinese immigrants don’t make enough effort to integrate into Canadian society? It’s just one example — you can come up with examples for any group.

Whether you are stating a positive or negative claim about a group, you are making a generalization, even if there is truth to your observations. Why is one OK but not the other?

My only answer to why it’s inoffensive to make positive generalizations but you may come across as a jerk or worse, a bigot, if you point out negative traits is that it comes down to what others perceive to be in your heart. If you say nice things, you’re a friend. Say something bad, you might be an enemy, even if you’re making a reasonable point or trying to have a civil discussion about a difficult subject.

It also explains why if you call Scottish people “cheap,” most Scots don’t take offence — they might even agree, as they see being frugal as a positive thing. Say it about Jews, there is a good chance you’re anti-Semitic. It’s also why it’s OK for groups to crack jokes about negative aspects of their own cultures but less acceptable for outsiders to do it, or why blacks can use the N-word but not others.

It’s the motive behind stating a stereotype that’s key — whether there is oppression in your comments. For the most part, Canadians don’t wish to give offence.

So I wasn’t surprised by the findings of a new Angus Reid poll on political correctness that found that nearly nine in 10 Canadians “say they’re being polite, rather than trying to avoid judgment” when they self-censor when dealing with sensitive topics.

That doesn’t mean they don’t hold what some would consider “politically incorrect” thoughts. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents said there are certain things you “just shouldn’t express in front or people you don’t know” while 80 per cent said it “seems like you can’t say anything” without offending someone these days, according to the poll released Monday.

The data suggest many Canadians hold views they believe would get them in trouble if they said them out loud even if they “are sympathetic to the value of following certain PC values,” as the pollsters found.

Sixty-seven per cent of Canadians said “too many people are easily offended over the language of others, including 71 per cent of men and 62 per cent of women. Remarkably, given that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is running an anti-PC campaign, that’s higher than the 59 per cent of Americans who agree with the statement.

It should surprise no one that just 21 per cent of Conservatives “say people need to be more careful with their choice of words” compared to Liberals (40 per cent) and New Democrats (38 per cent).

Oddly, young people aged 18 to 34 were most likely to agree that “too many people are too easily offended these days over the language others use” while being least likely to agree that “political correctness has gone too far.” Sixty-seven per cent of them agreed to the second statement compared to 82 per cent of Canadians 55 and older. That strikes me as a contradiction. Perhaps it means that young people have been better indoctrinated by educators to hold PC views but aren’t as polite as older Canadians.

Personally, I’m encouraged that people are being more mindful about using inclusive language when discussing others — I’m Canadian, after all, and don’t see any point in giving unnecessary offence. But we can’t allow the PC thought police to dictate how we express ourselves or to casually level unfounded charges of racism, sexism or other “isms” as a strategy to control the discussion of difficult subjects. Nothing good is gained in limiting debate. Besides, despite what too many people claim these days, no one has the right not to be offended some times. It’s one of the prices of free speech.

SOURCE







Senate Holds the Line on SCOTUS

In the wake of the surprising death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia this past February, there was much concern among conservatives as to the possibility and even probability that the balance of the court would swing to the Left, since Barack Obama was in position to appoint his replacement — he nominated Merrick Garland, a reliable leftist. The GOP Senate for once quickly rejected the notion that a lame duck president would be allowed to so impact the High Court’s balance mere months before his presidency was to end. But would the GOP that had so often promised to stand up to Obama only to wilt under the heat of the critical Leftmedia do so again this time?

So far the answer is an encouraging “no.” With most of the media’s attention focused on presidential polls, it might be easy to miss the fact that the Senate GOP has stuck to its commitment. The Senate broke for summer recess in July, but the GOP has maintained a pro forma session. Twice a week a single law maker gavels the Senate into session, reads a brief announcement and sets the next meeting time. It takes all of 30 seconds.

In other words, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Co. have been practicing a bit of political gamesmanship. As McConnell’s spokesman Don Stewart said, “This will ensure there’s no recess appointment of the president’s nominee. The Supreme Court has our back on that one.” Conservatives have a rather unusual source to thank for the tactic currently being employed by the GOP. After all, it was then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who crafted and implemented this same strategy against George W. Bush. In any case, the future of the Supreme Court is far too critical to entrust to either Obama or his chosen successor, Hillary Clinton.

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, 2016

The new culture war dividing America

Underpinning the progressive elite's snobbery is a vicious class antagonism

The stirring speech made by the openly gay tech billionaire Peter Thiel at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland marked a critical change in the nature of the Culture Wars in the US. Rather than boo him for talking about his sexuality, or using it as a convenient opportunity for indulging in prayer, the sometimes less than gay-friendly GOP greeted his affirmation of his ‘proud’ sexuality with cheers, not jeers.

Thus, in 2016, in Cleveland, died America’s decades-long Culture Wars, which revolved largely around issues such as gay marriage, abortion and prayer in school. Despite his many outrages, Donald Trump, through his identification with figures such as Thiel, has buried the old cultural conservatism, along with its last standard bearer, Texas senator Ted Cruz, whose grandstanding non-endorsement of Trump at the convention may well consign him to the GOP’s fringe.

Trump, or perhaps more accurately his 13million primary voters, has improvised a new right-wing programme that emphasises economic nationalism, nativism and opposition to all things politically correct. Some pockets of the traditional right, horrified by Trump’s open hedonism and lack of grace, will no doubt resist this shift away from piety, but most of Middle America – the vast populace of the ‘flyover’ states, small towns and less-than-tony suburbs – seems to have moved on.

Redefining the Culture Wars into class war

Two developments have driven this change. One is an overall decline of religiosity among America’s working and middle classes. Concentrations of evangelicals in places like Iowa helped Cruz and sustained some of his better showings in the Deep South, but, overall, even in the heart of the so-called Bible Belt, the self-proclaimed prophet of the righteous proved no match for the raw nationalism of Trump.

Despite the hysteria its members evoke among progressives, the religious right has been in, to coin a phrase, secular decline since the year 2000. The legions of evangelicals have stopped growing, even as mainstream Protestants, in particular, have lost ground. The big growth now is among the unaffiliated, whose numbers rose from 37.6million to 57million between 2007 and 2014.

Trump – a thrice-married mainstream Presbyterian with little apparent knowledge of the Bible – benefited from this decline. He was rightly seen by Republican voters as the least religious of the major candidates, yet he outperformed the surgeon Ben Carson and the theocrat Cruz even among evangelicals.

Class seems to have won over piety. The white working and lower-middle classes, the most heavily attracted to Trump’s message, are themselves increasingly irreligious. They are now coping with many of the predicaments – out-of-wedlock births, drug abuse, marginal employment – long endured in minority communities. Of all American groups, they are the ones afflicted both by shorter lifespans and rising rates of suicide. As Pittsburgh psychologist Kenneth Thompson, who treats both white and black working-class patients, puts it: ‘Their social habitat is strained, and the strain is showing up in a looming body count.’

Faced with these grim trends, Middle Americans – particularly in the old factory towns of the Midwest and the Southeast – have stopped looking for God to save their communities. Instead they want someone like Trump, who promises, however cynically, to return good-paying middle-class jobs and block new trade deals. If the labour market can be improved by cutting off the flow of undocumented workers, much of Middle America is more than okay with that.

The war against ‘The Stupid’

Class increasingly defines America’s new Culture Wars, pitting the rising power of well-educated, and self-regarding, supermen (or should I say super-people), against those they regard as less cognitively gifted. This clerisy – the media, academia, the well-funded progressive non-profits – is now waging what the Atlantic recently called ‘a war on stupid people’, which, of course, extends particularly to those who back the loutish Trump. As a group, this educated caste shares increasingly uniformly progressive social views and are almost 50 per cent more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.

There are good reasons for the new cognitive class to like the progressive status quo. Along with the corporate aristocracy who fund the Democratic Party, the hyper-educated have thrived under Obama. In contrast, the bulk of the working and middle class have seen their incomes stagnate or decline.

The new class has little stake in the traditional economy – agribusiness, energy, manufacturing, suburban home-building – that has traditionally provided decent employment to the working and middle classes. Some among them, notably the environmental zealots, even decry rising living standards for ordinary Americans as the primary threat to the environment. The entire progressive agenda increasingly constitutes an attempt to drive poverty out of the centre of cities and into the middle class. And in Trumpian fashion, they want to make the middle class, with their tax dollars, pay for the privilege.

Race, national identity and the American future

Trump’s emergence has benefited from worsening race relations, as sadly demonstrated in the recent rash of cop killings. The terrorist attacks mounted primarily by young Muslims both here and in Europe, and a rise in violent crime, have contributed to the Trump campaign and could still make his victory, however unlikely, possible.

The mass migration of largely undocumented poor people from developing countries – mainly Mexico and Latin America – is also less than welcomed by working- and middle-class people, who not only have to accommodate the newcomers in their schools and neighbourhoods, but must also compete with them for jobs. In contrast, the upper classes in tony suburbs or prime urban districts see immigration as all good – it supplies them with cheap household labour, better restaurants and it injects some ‘colour’ into otherwise predictably dull commercial districts.

Nor has the progressive left done much to promote tolerance. The very premise of movements like Black Lives Matter implies that other lives, including those of police, are less important. The overwhelming white cognitive elite dismisses the legitimate concerns of the white working class and sees only unreconstructed racism.

This contempt spills into a growing dispute about the validity of America’s traditional culture. Now denounced for its past racism, it is rarely celebrated for its continuing success at integration. Globalist progressivism is so deeply entrenched in blue lagoons like Silicon Valley, it’s doubtful the oligarchs in charge even notice. Google, for example, recently celebrated the life of the radical pro-Bin Laden activist Yuri Kochiyama, but saw fit to ignore the anniversary of D-Day. Facebook and Twitter now increasingly curate the news like 19th-century Boston Brahmins, usually with a decidedly progressive bias.

Populism after Trump

In his Cleveland speech, Thiel pointed to what should really matter – issues of community, of economic opportunity and, yes, pride in being a citizen of the most powerful republic in world history. Many in Silicon Valley and the media prefer that the big issues are those of gender, race and sexual preference. But Thiel rightly consigned them to secondary importance, saying: ‘Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom. This is a distraction from our real problems. Who cares?’

Trump sees this, too. He, at the very least, talks about sparking economic growth, which is a precursor to upward mobility. In contrast, the contemporary Democratic Party, notes former Bill Clinton adviser Bill Galston, now displays ‘near-silence on economic growth’.

Some right-wingers believe that Trump can win the presidency purely as the candidate of resentment. But his stridency, racial innuendos, lack of respect for basic decencies, and often unsupported claims are more likely to alienate voters – particularly suburbanites and middle-class minorities, who might have otherwise rallied to his standard.

Given its almost lock-step media backing, support from oligarchs everywhere, and Trump’s self-destructive lack of self-control, the Democratic establishment will likely prevail at the election. And it will use this as a perfect opportunity to turn more Americans into effective wards of the state. It will finance its agenda at the cost of the middle class while the hedge funders, tech oligarchs and real-estate speculators continue to feed at the trough.

However, the forces stirred up and tapped by Trump will not go away anytime soon, even if he loses. What the rebellion now needs, more than anything, is a messenger like Ronald Reagan in 1980, who appealed to earlier resentments but with a fierce sense of discipline and decorum. Some day, the swagger, arrogance and manipulation of the united ruling classes may have to confront a messenger who, unlike Trump, can make a more convincing case against them. Those who laugh today at Trump and his ‘stupid’ supporters may not be so jocular that day.

SOURCE






Report: UN-Accredited NGOs Are Promoting Incitement, Violence Against Israel

United Nations-accredited civil society groups are spreading messages of incitement, antisemitism and the promotion of terrorism against Israel, according to a new report due for release on Thursday.

In doing so, the report charges, the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are violating the terms of their original accreditation with the world body – yet despite mandatory periodic reviews by the responsible U.N. committee, their status remains intact.

The report (PDF), compiled by Human Rights Voices and the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, includes numerous examples of statements, images and other material disseminated and made publicly available by U.N.-accredited NGOs, including on U.N.-accredited websites or at U.N.-accredited events.

The examples are classified broadly under materials inciting hate or encouraging antisemitism; condoning or justifying violence and terror; demonizing Israel; and delegitimizing and seeking the Jewish state’s destruction.

One example: a speech disseminated by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, a U.N.-accredited NGO, includes allegations of an Israeli “final solution” to the Palestinian question constituting “genocide, whether slow-motion or in blood-thirsty spurts of violence.”

Another U.N.-accredited NGO, International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, was founded at an event in Libya whose opening address equated Zionism with Nazism, and included references to “devilish schemes which generate chaos all over the world,” and a “beastly octopus which has almost a decisive role in directing the policies of the greatest countries in the world.”

A 2011 document by the same group accused Israeli troops of “extracting human organs from killed Palestinians,” while a U.N.-accredited NGO called the Khiam Rehabilitation Center for Victims of Torture delivered a statement at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva early this year, accusing Israel of trying “to slowly kill prisoners by using medical negligence intentionally.”

“The Israeli occupation is the world’s only entity in which doctors torture and blackmail prisoners,” the statement alleged.

Numerous of the NGO statements and documents cited in Thursday’s report accuse Israel of “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing,” or equate its policies to those of the Nazis.

The authors of the report are critical not just of the identified NGOs, but also of the U.N. and member states.

“The buck stops with U.N. member states, who are the ones charged with the responsibility of awarding or continuing U.N. accreditation for NGOs in the first place,” said human rights law expert Anne Bayefsky, president of Human Rights Voices and director of the Touro Institute.

“U.N. member states that underwrite the United Nations are currently underwriting a burgeoning global network of intolerance and incitement to violent extremism,” she said.

“These states have the power and the duty – in the name of the foundational principles of the United Nations – to put an end to this affront to the dignity and the security of every human being and to the equality of nations large and small,” Bayefsky added, alluding to wording in the preamble of the U.N. Charter.

Officially, U.N.-accredited NGOs are required to have aims and purposes that are “in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

Privileges and benefits

NGOs accredited by the U.N. enjoy significant privileges and benefits, including the right to take part in sessions of several U.N. organs, such as the Human Rights Council – and to have their statements there translated and broadcast via U.N. webcasts. They may also hold events in U.N. premises, and in some cases U.N. websites carry direct links to accredited NGOs’ websites.

The decisions on which groups are granted “consultative status” or other official accreditation, as well as subsequent periodic reviews of the approved NGOs, are the responsibility of the NGO Committee, a 19-country body that is a subsidiary of the U.N.’s 54-member Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

The NGO Committee has come under fire over the years over some of its decisions on approving or rejecting NGOs’ applications.

Last year it approved a British NGO with alleged links to the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas; while in May this year it rejected an application from the Committee to Protect Journalists. (The CPJ decision was overturned in a full ECOSOC vote in July.)

Some of the NGO Committee’s more controversial decisions have been attributed by critics to the fact it includes countries with autocratic governments. Current members include China, Cuba, Russia, Sudan, Pakistan, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Azerbaijan and Burundi.

American taxpayers account for 22 percent of the regular budget of the U.N., which includes its major organs like ECOSOC.

“Democratic states, led by the United States, control the purse strings of the United Nations either from within the U.N. bureaucracy or through domestic policy,” said Bayefsky.

“Getting serious about combating the spread of intolerance and violent extremism means putting an immediate stop to the use and abuse of the United Nations to broadcast and support xenophobia and its lethal consequences.”

SOURCE





Council killjoys tear up village's only playground because they fear fat children could get stuck inside its giant play tunnel

Killjoy council officers have torn up a village's only playground amid fears that kids might get stuck in a fun tunnel - if they are too fat.

Mint Walk Recreation Ground in Warlingham, Surrey, once featured a concrete tunnel, tall enough for a toddler to stand up in. However, yesterday a demolition crew destroyed it as it was deemed too dangerous for children to use following a health and safety inspection.

Tandridge District Council have confirmed the tunnel was 'condemned' and had been removed to 'protect' local children and prevent them from getting stuck in it.

A section of the play area has now been shut off, denying the village's children a safe space to play and exercise during the end of the school holidays.

A spokesman for Tandridge District Council said: 'The council has removed the tunnel equipment in the playground at Mint Walk recreation ground in Warlingham to protect local children.

'Following a safety inspection the equipment was condemned and as a result the council took action to remove it.

'As a result an area of the park is currently cordoned off while the removal takes place, but this is not expected to take more than two days and it is anticipated the park will be open as normal at the weekend.

'It is the only piece of equipment that has been removed from the playground and plans are currently being finalised to put a new piece of equipment in its place and the Council will share an update about this soon.

'We apologise for any inconvenience the removal will cause but the Council's first priority is to ensure the safety of its residents.'

SOURCE





Another mad Muslim in Australia

Sevdet Besim sentenced to 10 years' prison over planned Anzac Day terror attack

A Melbourne teenager who planned an Anzac Day terrorist attack has been sentenced to 10 years in prison at the Victorian Supreme Court.

Sevdet Ramadan Besim, 19, had planned to run down and behead a police officer at an Anzac Day march in 2015.

Besim pleaded guilty to doing an act in preparation, or planning for, a terrorist attack — an offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

He will be eligible for parole in seven-and-a-half years.

Besim, from Hallam in Melbourne's south-east, had discussed his plans with a British teenager, who is now serving a five-year jail term after pleading guilty to inciting the Anzac Day terrorist plot.

The court previously heard that Besim and the UK teen also discussed painting a kangaroo in Islamic State symbols, packing its pouch with explosives and letting it loose in the city.

The teen was a friend of Numan Haider, who was shot dead by counter-terrorism officers after he attacked them with a knife in Endeavour Hills Police Station in 2014.

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. 

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




5 September, 2016

The Migrant Rape Epidemic in Germany and the Descent into Madness

This is particularly disturbing to those of us who know what a safe and peaceful country Germany was until recently

The staggering number of sex crimes committed in a single month in Germany (July 2016) by non-White immigrants will give us an idea of the scale of this problem on an annual basis. Never before in peacetime have the women of any single nation been sexually assaulted and raped on such an industrial scale. Females of all ages, from toddlers to women in their late seventies, are included in the grim statistics. Most of the victims are young rather than old; and their assailants, who are of all ages, are almost invariably single men who are described coyly in official documents as “Southerners”, or, more audaciously, as  “dark-skinned foreigners”.

Allow me to insert at this point the first of three lists of sex crimes committed by immigrants to Germany in the single month of July 2016. The three dates are randomly chosen at regular ten-day intervals: July 1, July 10, and July 20. This will give you a pretty good idea of what is going on in Germany nowadays.

First, then, the details for July 1, 2016.

July 1, 2016:  A 25-year-old migrant from Pakistan sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl in a public square in Perleberg. A “southern guy” (südländischer Typ) sexually assaulted a young woman in Nürnberg. A “dark-skinned” man (dunkelhäutig) groped a 15-year-old girl in Magdeburg. A 34-year-old migrant exposed himself to passersby in Oldenburg. A man speaking “broken German” sexually assaulted a 20-year-old woman in Ibbenbüren.

Police were searching for a “southern looking man” (südländisch aussehende Mann) who assaulted a 73-year-old man walking his dog in Sindelfingen. The migrant came up behind the elderly man, grabbed his crotch and demanded to have sex with him. The elderly man tried to get away by getting into his parked car, but the migrant jumped into the passenger seat and again demanded sex. The migrant ran away when a passerby walking her three dogs approached the parked car.

Meanwhile, a 32-year-old migrant from Afghanistan photographed two girls, age 12 and 14, who were swimming in the Iller River in Illertissen. As they got out of the water, the man offered to pay them for sex.

The sexual assault on a 73-year-old German pensioner by a male asylum seeker is not only highly exceptional but probably unprecedented in the annals of German history. Attractive little boys often feature as objects of migrant sexual ardor, especially in swimming pools, but wrinkled and tottering old timers in their seventies?—this simply has to be a first. Something perhaps for the Guinness Book of World Records or Ripley’s Believe It Or Not.

The claim that all these rapist hordes from faraway places are desperate “refugees” can be dismissed out of hand as arrant nonsense. Desperate fugitives fleeing persecution in their own lands don’t repay their new hosts by raping their hosts’ womenfolk as soon as they arrive in their new European El Dorado, while begging for asylum at the same time. The idea is self-contradictory. Absurd. These are invaders, pure and simple.

Whether the incoming swarms from the Third World are “Muslims” or not is commonly thought to be irrelevant, at least by the presstitutes of the mainstream media. Not only are ridiculous efforts being made to suppress the ethnic origin of the criminals—too much candor is seen as “racist”—but disingenous attempts are sometimes made to give the impression that the criminals could be white.

It needs to be pointed out in the interests of accuracy that these migrants for the most part come from countries where Islam is the official religion, i.e., Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and various African countries. Most good Muslims would obviously like to disown these bad Muslims, claiming they are either bogus Muslims or Muslims only in name.

But it becomes exceedingly hard to sustain this argument if the same people who are responsible for the plethora of sex crimes listed in this article (and carefully documented in police reports) are also regular mosque attendees, observe Ramadan, read the Qur’an, forbid pork, praise sharia law, insist on their women being veiled, and shout “Allahu Akbar!” at moments of high tension.

According to a recent Gatestone Institute Report, sexual prowlers from foreign lands can now be found lurking in almost every corner. No German is safe from attack in the new multicultural madhouse.

During the month of July 2016, hundreds of German women and children were sexually assaulted by migrants The youngest victim was nine; the oldest, 79. Attacks occurred at beaches, bike trails, cemeteries, discotheques, grocery stores, music festivals, parking garages, playgrounds, schools, shopping malls, taxis, public transportation (buses, trams, intercity express trains and subways), public parks, public squares, public swimming pools and public restrooms. Predators are lurking everywhere; safety [is found] nowhere. “Germany’s Migrant Rape Crisis Spirals out of Control: Suppression of data about migrant rapes is ‘Germany-wide phenomenon.’” by Soeren Kern (August 9, 2016)

These crimes can be neatly classified, beginning with the relatively mild and continuing along a spectrum of escalating severity to the most injurious. Here are some of the indignities to which European women are now being subjected by sexually out-of-control migrants who should never have been let into Europe in the first place. I have identified 17 main categories, though more probably exist:

(1) Low-level sexual harassment, e.g., unwelcome propositions, unsolicited attentions, attempts to “get fresh”. (2) Rude staring at women in trains, waiting rooms etc. (3) Rude finger gestures, obscene tongue thrusting, offensive noises. (4) Bottom pinching. (5) Verbal abuse accompanied by obscenities. (See Appendix, July 23: “We will f**k you, lady!”). (6) Photographing women up their skirts with cell phones. (7) Indecent exposure. (8) Indecent exposure accompanied by masturbation. (9) Groping women. (10) Multiple groping of women by gangs of migrants working in teams. Known as taharrush attacks. (taharrush gamea = “group harassment” in Arabic; taharrush gamea el-ginsy = group sexual harassment). Such attacks have been launched against Western women in Egypt, Germany, Sweden and elsewhere. (* See Note on taharrush attacks below). (11) Forcible fellatio. (12) Sexual assaults with violence, stopping short of rape. (13) Getting women drunk  or spiking their drinks in bars with the date rape drug Rohypnol, preliminary to raping them while unconscious. (14) Simple rape, without unnecessary violence, to which a woman will submit passively rather than risk disfigurement and death. (15) Violent rape with grievous bodily harm. (16) Gang rape. (17) Rape or gang rape followed by murder.

* Note on taharrush attacks.  A Swedish police report on the taharrush phenomenon has this to say:

In at least ten cases, a lone girl, sometimes around 14-16 years old, sometimes 25-30, was surrounded by several men (from 5-6 up to a large number). In these cases, some of the men held the girl down, while others groped her breasts and body, and in one case some of the men photographed the attack.

In some cases, the perpetrators unbuttoned the girl’s pants and tried—in some cases succeeded—to pull them down before help arrived. There were also cases where several girls who were part of a group were attacked at the same time by a large gang.

A few suspects have been identified. Those identified are citizens of Afghanistan, Eritrea and Somalia. All investigations into cases in Stockholm and Kalmar from 2014 and 2015 were dropped due to lack of evidence or problems with identifying suspects.
image

This German girl was viciously attacked and disfigured on New Year’s Eve at Stuttgart. She needed surgical treatment. According to her father, her attackers were immigrants. (See here for further details about taharrush, the “rape game” played across Europe by Third World migrants).

Germany’s migrant rape epidemic received one of its earliest reports in September 2015, and again in March 2016. The problem has now spread to cities and towns in all 16 of Germany’s federal states. After factoring in family reunifications, the actual number of migrants could exceed 10 million soon, it has been predicted, and some believe that “Germany’s Muslim population is on track to nearly quadruple to an astonishing 20 million by 2020.”

Is this “scare politics”? Possibly.

N24 television news reports reveal that up to 50 per cent of the asylum seekers arriving in Germany have gone into hiding and their whereabouts are unknown by German authorities. What does this mean? It means there are a lot of illegal immigrants in Germany who have evaded the official statistics. They fuel Germany’s black economy and contribute to much of its crime. Amazingly, 300 newcomers arrive in Germany every hour.

List of Migrant Sex Crimes in Germany, 10 July 2016:

A 19-year-old asylum seeker from Pakistan sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl at a public swimming pool in Mörfelden-Walldorf. He was arrested and released. A 17-year-old migrant sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl at a public swimming pool in Hamm. A “southerner” or “African” (südländisch, afrikanisch) man sexually assaulted a 24-year-old woman at a public swimming pool in Babenhausen. A 27-year-old migrant from Afghanistan sexually assaulted two 13-year-old girls at a public swimming pool in Rinteln. Two males aged 16 and 21 sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl at a public swimming pool in Stuttgart-Vaihingen. A “dark-skinned” (dunklen Teint) man sexually assaulted a 37-year-old woman at a public swimming pool in Dachau.

Two migrants from Iran sexually assaulted three women in downtown Munich. A 28-year-old Syrian asylum seeker exposed himself to a 48-year-old woman in Schweinfurt. A group of migrants from North Africa harassed several women in downtown Flensburg. When a passerby stepped in to help the women, the migrants used an electroshock weapon to incapacitate him.

Two “foreigners” sexually assaulted two women in downtown Chemnitz. The attack led to a street fight between non-Germans and Germans, several of whom were injured. Police arrested a 19-year-old migrant from Libya for assaulting one of the women. After questioning, he was set free. A Turkish taxi driver attempted to rape an intoxicated 26-year-old female passenger in Heidelberg. A man “presumably of foreign origin” (vermutlich ausländischer Herkunft) groped a young girl in Hammelburg.

And that’s only a small selection of migrant sex crimes committed in Germany on one day: July 10, 2016. Since most sex crimes go unreported, the number of migrant sex crimes actually committed in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe) on an annual basis must be truly staggering.

Here is a Muslim on a YouTube video. Listen to his rant. You’ll be hearing more talk like this soon. He’s not going to kill us quickly and violently with bombs and box cutters, he’s going to kill us slowly and non-violently with birth rates!

“I am telling you honestly, Islam will come to Germany, whether you like it or not. Your daughter will wear a headscarf (hijab). Your son will wear a beard. Okay. And your daughter will marry a bearded man.

We are reproducing faster and faster. You Germans are not getting any children. In the best case, you get two children. We make seven to eight children. Okay, mate? And then we take four wives each, we have 22 children!  Maybe you Germans have one child and a dog, huh? And that’s it!

Listen, mate. This is not our fault, it’s your fault. You exploited our countries, colonized our countries.

And so Allah (blessed be his name), Almighty God will make it so that we will conquer you. Not with war, here in Germany, but with birth rates, first and foremost!  Secondly, we will marry your daughters! And your daughter will wear a Muslim headscarf!

That’s how it is, mate! Now you can get really mad! I can already see the hate in your eyes!”

If you have time, check out this 4-minute video of a young African bragging about how he and other Black immigrants are going to conquer Europe and impregnate every beautiful White woman they can. “We are taking Europe from the Europeans and they are too stupid to fight back,” he gloats. (0.30). “They are going to pay us to conquer them and take their land.” (1.20). He adds with a smile, “What I look forward to most is the destruction of European womanhood.” (1.30).

Talking of the “destruction of European womanhood,” take a quick look at this 1-minute video clip. This will give you an insight into the unimaginable depravities to which German women are now being exposed after the invasion of the migrant body snatchers. Here is a migrant boasting in broken German about the gang rape of a young girl on a bunk bed, a virgin, seven of them jumping her at once. English subtitles:

“Adim switched off the light and f****d her. (0.14) … She cried after that, she couldn’t go any longer. (0.45) … And we, like pigs we spit on her. Sperm and dirt all over her. We really got milked. (0.47) … DUDE, it was a virgin! And we DESTROYED her with seven guys, dude. (0.57).

And so it seems we’re  all on board now for a new Europe in which the inhabitants of Africa (population 1.2 billion) will be given every opportunity to relocate to Europe and interbreed with the White women they encounter there, mass-producing in the process a long assembly line of babies that are neither Black nor White but some intermediate shade of color. Add to this multicultural brew the seething masses of Asia (4.4 billion) and the pullulating Muslim populations of the world  (1.6 billion), and then wave placards saying “Refugees Welcome!” and “Welcome Lovely Humans!”—and what do you have?

Answer: Hell on earth.

I don’t think Orwell foresaw this multicultural superstate. This is something new. All we can be sure of is that this Eurostan—the new European superstate now in the making—will be a multicultural dystopia rife with race wars, gang rapes, cheap foreign labor, widespread unemployment for the dispossessed White minority, bullying bosses, cowed workers, overflowing prisons, fatcat lawyers, psychotic politicians, police state surveillance, fabricated news items, false flag attacks, demoralized families, dysfunctional children, schools for morons, mass suicides, manufactured diseases, promoted perversions, drug addiction, gambling, prostitution, pornography, serial killers on the rampage, and nonstop mindless entertainment for the zombified masses.

It will be a dog-eat-dog world of unimaginable cruelty. A nightmare horrorshow that neither Dante nor Hieronymus Bosch ever anticipated in their wildest dreams. If you’re White and dispossessed in this New Dystopia, you’re a dead man walking. Get ready for the Abolition of the White race.

List of Migrant Sex Crimes committed in Germany: July 20, 2016

A group of men with “Arab roots” (arabischstämmig) sexually assaulted five girls, aged 10 to 14, at a public swimming pool in Kirchheim. The men, all between the ages of 20 and 30, groped the girls and tore off the tops and bottoms of their swimming suits. Mayor Angelika Matt-Heidecker, who said she was “horrified” by the assaults, revealed that she had given the migrants permanent pool passes, free of charge. Local citizens are required to pay €90 ($100) for the same pass.

A “dark skinned” man (dunkelhäutigen Mann) raped a 49-year-old woman inOldenburg. A man “presumably originating from abroad” (mutmaßlich aus dem Ausland stammende Mann) attempted to assault a 17-year-old girl on a bus in Bietigheim-Bissingen. Police say a search for the perpetrator has been “unsuccessful.” Three migrants from Afghanistan sexually assaulted at least eight women at a public swimming pool in Mönchengladbach. A 52-year-old migrant from Afghanistan sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl at a public swimming pool in Marklohe. A group of “Black Africans” (Schwarzafrikaner) sexually assaulted several women at a public swimming pool in Lörrach.

A 31-year-old asylum seeker from Syria was arrested for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl in Regensburg. Four “southern looking” (südländischem Aussehen) men assaulted a woman in Varel. A “Pakistani-looking” man sexually assaulted a 23-year-old woman at a grocery store inLüneburg. A 34-year-old migrant from Iran sexually assaulted a 20-year-old woman on the subway in Munich. A 44-year-old migrant from Sudan sexually assaulted three children between the ages of 13 and 17 at a youth center in Aurich.

I find this catalogue of crimes overwhelming. I have to ask myself: is Angela Merkel raving mad to throw open the gates of Germany to these unruly savages from the Third World? Are the German people themselves suffering from some kind of collective psychosis that compels them to welcome their own race killers with open arms? It would seem so.

SOURCE






Militant Islam is a threat to liberty

PAUL MONK

We need to keep clearly in mind the distinctions between race and religion, religion and fanaticism. Islam is a religion. It has nothing to do with race. The problem we have is with fanatical Muslims on religious grounds. That problem has to be dealt with in those terms.

Making these distinctions did not save me from abuse by various regressive leftists who asserted — like the foreign editor of The Age, Maher Mughrabi — that the distinctions I had made were a lot of nonsense and that “of course” criticism of Islam is “racist”.

One lecturer in critical thinking at the University of Sydney, no less, denounced me on Twitter as a highbrow version of neo-nazi racists, a photo of whom accompanied his text.

Such deeply confused polemics throw into high relief how important it is to hammer these distinctions into our public and political consciousness so that they set the terms of the debate. For if we are to avoid serious social conflict over the challenge posed to Western secular society by aggressive Islam, it would be in everyone’s interest to understand that the issue is, indeed, one of religion and not one of race.

Religious concerns have underpinned tentative moves in the US and the EU to curtail massive spending by Saudi Arabia on building Wahhabi Islamist infrastructure in the West. Based on principles of toleration hammered out since the 17th century — notably in John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration of 1689 — all religions are allowed to worship unmolested. This is not so in Saudi Arabia. There, no religion other than Wahhabi Sunni Islam is permitted.

During the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent a staggering $100 billion to build Wahhabi mosques, madrassas and other facilities around the world. They are used to propagate a religious culture that is singularly intolerant and reactionary.

Belatedly and cautiously, moves are afoot to curtail the influx of Saudi money to fund such activities. Note that the target here is the Wahhabi Sunni sect of Islam. It is not Arabs and least of all Arabs who do not subscribe to this particular religious sect.

As Daniel Pipes, of the Middle East Forum, pointed out recently, “The Saudis have been arrogantly indiscreet about spending to promote Wahhabism.” The extremist literature provided to the public by Saudi-funded institutions was described more than a decade ago, in a Freedom House report, as “a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself”. Riyadh also has pumped money into the Council on American-Islamic Relations, “the most aggressive and effective Islamist organisation in the United States”.

This pattern of Saudi funding and the widespread disturbances being caused by Muslim fanatics directly raise the issues pondered by Locke more than 300 years ago when he sought to articulate what were to become, most notably in the US, broadbased principles of religious toleration: the relationship between the freedom to worship and the keeping of the civil peace.

“If solemn assemblies, observations of festivals, public worship be permitted to any one” religious sect, Locke wrote, meaning to Anglicans in England in the first instance, “all these things ought to be permitted to the Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and others, with the same liberty”. He was, in other words, seeking liberty for religious dissenters. He added, however, “if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion.

“The Gospel commands no such thing,” he argued, “and the commonwealth, which embraces indifferently all men that are honest, peaceable, and industrious, requires it not”. He was inclined, however, to draw the line at the Catholic religion, which he saw as answerable to a foreign principality — the papacy — and especially given to inciting civil tumults and religious strife. That objection was overcome in time. It pertains, however, in our time, to various fanatical strands within Islam and must be dealt with.

The crux of the matter is that militant Islam poses a direct and deliberate threat to any secular liberal constitution. We must organise our defences and push back on a coherent and principled basis. When the regressive Left insists that no such defence is warranted and that any attempts to organise it are “racist”, it is not only being intellectually incoherent, it is setting up a situation in which the rise of Islam will inevitably be met by illiberal reactions. No one should want to see that happen.

Liberal democratic norms, properly understood, are not about treating any and every religion as self-contained and beyond criticism. They are about insisting that those who embrace religious beliefs, if they wish to be accepted within the liberal social order, must accept that their beliefs — often incomprehensible or rebarbative to others — are a private matter and must not be practised or propagated in such a way as to disturb the common peace.

Islam, as it is widely practised and propagated in our time, does not meet these criteria sufficiently to leave the adherents of other religions or no religion at all comfortable with how things are unfolding. Wahhabi Islam, Iranian Shia Islam, the Islam of numerous militant sects in Africa, the Middle East and Asia are incompatible with liberal norms.

These are not Arminians, Quakers or Presbyterians, or even Catholics. They seek violent theocratic revolution in the name of reactionary values. We do not owe them any favours or concessions. It is, on the contrary, they who must bow to the principles of toleration, or be excluded from its benefits.

SOURCE






The Death Of The First Amendment for Ordinary Americans

One of the most important issues driving the populist – conservative coalition supporting Donald Trump is the well-justified feeling that constitutional liberty – particularly First Amendment freedom of speech and thought – are being stripped from ordinary Americans by a self-appointed elite political correctness police force.

And that suddenly saying something patriotic like you believe in American exceptionalism or that immigrants should assimilate and become Americans can get you fired, accused of being a racist and publicly shunned.

First AmendmentAnd this new elitist imposed speech code is applied with particular vitriol by the immigration and race-based privileges lobby.

An example of this vitriol recently surfaced when legendary football coach Lou Holtz was unceremoniously disinvited from making a speech at Cathedral High School in El Paso, Texas.

Holtz’s transgression was telling luncheon guests at a Republican National Convention event for Donald Trump, “I don’t want to speak your language, I don’t want to celebrate your holidays, I sure as hell don’t want to cheer for your soccer team.”

The campaign against Holtz was led (irony alert) by the El Paso Times newspaper, a beneficiary of the very First Amendment protections it lobbied to deprive Coach Holtz of.

An editorial by the El Paso Times applied pressure on the Cathedral alumni when it stated that the high school’s leaders “made an unfortunate decision” by picking Holtz to speak at the gathering geared to raise funds for future scholarships. “Holtz is a highly successful football coach, but his hateful words last month run counter to many of the principles that have made Cathedral such an important part of the El Paso community,” the paper stated.

This is an astonishing lowering of the standard for what constitutes “hate” to the point that loving one’s country and culture and believing in the American exceptionalism that inspired America’s leaders from John Winthrop to Ronald Reagan now constitutes “hate.”

Or take the case of Diane Amoratis, fired from Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, who posted a heated Facebook post in support of the police and calling out the Soros-funded Black Lives Matter movement for encouraging rioting and civil disorder.

Ms. Amoratis was on her personal Facebook page, not speaking for the hospital, and she chose language that we would not use in an article on CHQ for part of her post, but no F-bombs, no N words and certainly nothing that approaches the race-based hate against white people spewing from BLM.

But she posted these “triggering” words sure to get anyone who says them branded as a racist, “I am white and proud to be white!! White lives matter!!!! Police officers lives matter!!!”

We wouldn’t have chosen the same words Ms. Amoratis chose, but we get her frustration and especially with the idea that being white and proud is apparently now hate. 

However, it is OK to be black and promote the Far-Left concept of “White Crimes” that in radical construction means anyone of any race, creed, nationality, color, sex, or sexual preference who embraces Western Enlightenment beliefs, such a traditional American values and capitalism, beliefs which to the radical Left are irredeemably evil and thus anyone who aligns with them is “white” in spirit and thus equally guilty of “White Crimes.”

That the Far Left can attack with impunity anyone for being “White,” but a white person who disparages rioters gets fired for a private Facebook post makes no sense to ordinary man-on-the-street Americans.

But it makes perfect sense if you buy Hillary Clinton’s definition of what makes America great.

The “values” that Mrs. Clinton thinks made this country great?

Multi-culturalism

Political Correctness

Embrace of Open Borders and Unlimited Immigration

Rejection of American Exceptionalism

According to Mrs. Clinton, if you reject multi-culturalism and political correctness and favor protection of American national sovereignty and American exceptionalism then you are a dangerous alt-right “extremist” who should be barred from polite society and run out of politics.

Those looking to explain Donald Trump’s populist support and the rise of the #AltRight need look no further than firings and disinvitations like these to understand the outrage at the double of standard of what constitutes “hate” and the legitimate feeling of ordinary Americans that they are being marginalized in their own country.

SOURCE






Denial of religious motive does not alter delusional foundation
    
Theodore Dalrymple

When Smail Ayad, a French citizen of North African descent fatally stabbed Mia Ayliffe-Chung -- and Tom Jackson who died later -- to the now-familiar Muslim refrain Allahu akbar (God is great), it was interesting to see how quick the police and others were to deny that the attack could have had a religious motive.

Ayad, it seems, had been obsessed with Ayliffe-Chung. Quite possibly he was mad, and it is also possible that he was under the influence of drugs.

But even if all this is so, it does not follow that religious belief played no part in his actions. The causes of human behaviour and its motives are often, indeed usually, mixed.

It is simple-minded to suppose that if he were obsessed with his victim, or under the influence of some drug or other, religion considerations could not have entered his mind as he killed. A drunken murderer is not the less motivated by jealousy because he is drunk.

It is well-known that delusion often takes on the cultural flavour or obsessions of the day. There are no more Napoleons in psychiatric hospitals because Bonapartism is dead, not because delusion has been conquered. I once had two Haile Selassies under my care in the same hospital ward; Rastafarianism was then part of the zeitgeist.

Given the prominence of Islamist notions today, it would hardly be surprising if madmen took it up as a theme of their madness (Islamism seems half-mad, or at least severely irrational, to most of us to begin with). Indeed, it would be surprising if they did not.

The almost immediate denial that Smail Ayad could have had any religious thought in mind as he shouted 'God is great' -- on the grounds he didn't have a Koran with him -- smacks very strongly of whistling in the wind.

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, 2016

Australia: Multiculturalist shot dead during police chase


The deceased -- Etu Ahokava

Two men have fronted court, following a police pursuit through Melbourne's north, during which a 23-year-old Deer Park man was shot and killed by an officer.

The dramatic 40-minute chase through the city's west began 1am yesterday, after police spotted a car carrying three men suspected of involvement in a series of business burglaries.

The trio fled from police in a car before abandoning the vehicle in an industrial area in Tullamarine, running across a field and into a factory. With the assistance of a PolAir helicopter and the dog squad, police tracked them down.

The men allegedly stole at least two vehicles from inside the factory in a bid to evade police, and one suspect was isolated by a sergeant in a police car.

The sergeant got out of the car and was then pinned against a wall by one of the stolen vehicles.

“The offending vehicle has pinned the sergeant against a brick wall,” Mr Leane said.

“At that stage the sergeant has discharged his firearm. We believe there was four shots fired, one of them fatally wounding the man who was driving, what we say was a stolen vehicle, at that time.”

Two police officers were taken to hospital after the incident, with one sustaining an injury to his hand, another an injury to his leg.

“We thought the sergeant was seriously injured, we thought he may very well have a broken leg, but we’ve had some good news,” Mr Leane said.

“We are waiting for some x-rays but it may be he’s got some severe bone bruising.

“If that’s all he’s got he’s been very, very lucky.”

In a statement today, police said the 18-year-old had been charged with burglary, attempted burglary, theft of a motor car, criminal damage by fire, dangerous driving while pursued by police and reckless conduct endangering life.

The 22-year-old has been charged with burglary, theft of a motor car, dangerous driving while pursued by police, reckless conduct endangering life and handling stolen goods.

Both men appeared before a bail justice in an out of sessions hearing overnight and have been remanded in custody to appear at Melbourne Magistrates' Court today.

SOURCE







LOL. A new politically correct term for genetic inheritance:  "rubbing off"

Parents' math skills 'rub off' on their children

September 1, 2016 in Other Sciences / Social Sciences
Parents who excel at math produce children who excel at math. This is according to a recently released University of Pittsburgh study, which shows a distinct transfer of math skills from parent to child. The study specifically explored intergenerational transmission—the concept of parental influence on an offspring's behavior or psychology—in mathematic capabilities.

"Our findings suggest an intuitive sense for numbers has been passed down—knowingly or unknowingly—from parent to child. Meaning, essentially, the math skills of parents tend to 'rub off' on their children," said lead researcher Melissa E. Libertus, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology and a research scientist in the University's Learning Research and Development Center. The Department of Psychology is within the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences. "This research could have significant ramifications for how parents are advised to talk about math and numbers with their children and how teachers go about teaching children in classrooms."

Within the study, Pitt's researchers found that the performance levels for early school-aged children on standardized mathematic tests could be reliably predicted by their parent's performance on similar examinations. Specifically, they observed major correlations in parent-child performance in such key areas as mathematical computations, number-fact recall, and word problem analysis. Surprisingly, the researchers also found that children's intuitive sense of numbers—i.e. the ability to know that 20 jelly beans are more than 10 jelly beans without first counting them—is predicted by their parents' intuitive sense of numbers. Researchers determined that such close result parallels could not have been produced through similar institutional learning backgrounds because their previous research showed that this intuitive sense of numbers is present in infancy.

The findings represent the first evidence of intergenerational transmission of unlearned, nonverbal numerical competence from parents to children. While separate studies have pointed to the existence of intergenerational transmission of cognitive abilities, only a select few have examined parental influences in specific academic domains, such as mathematics.

Libertus said the study is an important step toward understanding the multifaceted parental influences on children's mathematic abilities. Her future studies will examine why this transference of mathematic capability occurs.

"We believe the relationship between a parent and a child's math capabilities could be some combination of hereditary and environmental transmission," said Libertus. "We look forward to future research endeavors that will explicitly examine the degree to which parents pass down key genetic traits and create an in-home learning environment that is conducive to producing high-achieving math students."

For the present study, the math abilities of parents and children were assessed using the appropriate subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement, a nationally recognized standardized examination of baseline math ability. Children completed three subtests designed to gauge their capabilities in mathematical computations, basic number-fact recall, and word problems with visual aids. Parents completed a math fluency subtest as a measure of mathematical ability, and they were surveyed on the importance of children developing certain math skills.

The study sampled 54 children between the ages of 5 and 8 as well as 51 parents—46 mothers and five fathers—between the ages of 30 and 59. In terms of racial demographics of participating children, 45 were Caucasian, five biracial, three African American, and one Asian. Forty-six participating parents had at least a college degree, and all possessed at least a high school diploma.

A Pitt faculty member since 2013, Libertus' research focuses on the understanding of how children perceive and learn mathematical concepts. The long-range goals of her work seek to identify key factors in the successful learning of mathematics. Emily J. Braham, a doctoral student with a cognitive-neuroscience concentration in the Department of Psychology, assisted in this research study.

The study "Intergenerational Associations in Numerical Approximation and Mathematical Abilities" is available in the latest edition of Developmental Science.

SOURCE






Black Voters, er, Lives Matter to Democrats

The infamous hacker Guccifer 2.0 released hacked memos he claims came from Nancy Pelosi’s personal computer. She and her staff have denied the allegation, saying, “Leader Pelosi does not have a personal computer at the DCCC, so no hacked, dumped or doctored documents can be attributed to her computer.” In any case, the leaked memos reveal strategic guidance for Democrats as to how best to deal with the Black Lives Matter activist/agitator group. They advise Democrats to “partner” with the group and to “lead from behind,” but not to “co-opt” their movement. The memo warns Democrats to steer clear of using phrases such as “all lives matter” and “black-on-black crime.” You know, avoid saying true things.

Many of the demands of Black Lives Matter are outright racist, yet Democrat leadership views BLM as a movement that can help garner them more votes and support for their leftist causes. The problem is that because the BLM platform is so radical, Democrats risk looking too extreme should they be aligned too closely with BLM. In the meantime, they are content to show support for the radical movement, without getting their hands dirty, as it were.

The real story here is that the Democrat Party would want to so willingly identify itself with such a radical, racist group as Black Lives Matter. Then again, it should come as no surprise given Democrats' long, checkered history of supporting various radical and racist groups.

SOURCE






A Racial Conversation the Left Wishes to Avoid

Blacks are mired in an unendurable status quo engendered by Democrat policies

“It was a simple bump on the street,” she said. “They apologized, but the female did not accept the apology.” —Katia Toussaint, mother of Anthony Nazaire, who was stabbed to death at Cornell University following a brawl early Sunday morning.

While the talkingheads obsess over the antics of second-string NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick — a man so committed to fighting black “oppression” that he wore a Fidel Castro t-shirt at his post-game press conference and pigs-as-police socks during practice — the primary engine of black oppression remains unaddressed.

That engine? A thuggish element in the black community that has been glorified for years, and has turned inner cities into de facto war zones. War zones such as Chicago, where an astounding 400 people were shot and 78 killed in August alone, making it the deadliest month since October 1997.

Chicago is not alone. Baltimore just “celebrated” its 200th homicide of the year, making it the fifth consecutive year it has reached that dubious milestone. Yet as the Baltimore Sun notes, this represents an 11% decline in homicides compared to last year. That’s because 344 people were killed in Baltimore in 2015, making it the city’s highest-per capita rate ever.

One suspects the lack of another record-setting pace is scant comfort to those innocents caught in the maelstrom — a maelstrom overwhelmingly generated by inner city gangs.

“Their street or thug culture is real, with a configuration of norms, values and habits that are, disturbingly, rooted in a ghetto brand of core American mainstream values: hypermasculinity, the aggressive assertion and defense of respect, extreme individualism, materialism and a reverence for the gun, all inflected with a threatening vision of blackness openly embraced as the thug life,” writes Harvard sociology professor Orlando Patterson.

One suspects those toxic values — that have now bled beyond gangs into the greater minority culture — cost Anthony Nazaire his life.

Yet Patterson, like many of his fellow apologists, attributes this dysfunction to America’s track record of racism, dating back to the days of slavery. But as black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have argued for years, black Americans were making steady progress in times that were far more challenging than today.

What changed? Prior to the “Great Society” project initiated by President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program was reserved for widows to fund once-married women who had lost the primary male supporter of the family. Johnson and Congress, however, changed the qualifications: any household where there was no male family head present became eligible for taxpayer subsidies.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the truth-telling Democrat who was branded a racist for doing so, accurately warned America — in 1966 — where the resultant decimation of the nuclear family would ultimately lead. He explained that any community “that allows large numbers of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future … asks for and gets chaos.”

And today, the efforts of an ungrateful and misguided NFL quarterback and his fellow apologists are attempting to shift the blame for that chaos onto the police, who they paint as trigger-happy oppressors.

Not exactly. As the leftist Washington Post reveals, “only a small number of the shootings — roughly 5 percent — occurred under the kind of circumstances that raise doubt and draw public outcry.” The paper further notes that in 74% of fatal police shootings, “individuals had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands,” and another 16% “came after incidents that did not involve firearms or active attacks but featured other potentially dangerous threats … most commonly of individuals who brandished knives and refused to drop them.”

What are the apologists trying to obscure? Inconvenient reality: 258 black Americans were killed by police gunfire in 2015. By contrast, nearly 6,000 black Americans were killed by their fellow black Americans.

Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. “Between 1976 and 2005 blacks committed more than half of all murders in the United States,” Jason Riley reveals. “The black arrest rate for most offenses — including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes — is still typically two to three times their representation in the population.”

Other pathologies abound as well. “Police say it was just one sucker punch to the head that killed Sincal Jochola,” reports CBS Philly. “He stumbled, hit the ground and the group, not even waiting a moment, runs away. Detectives are now looking into if this brutal attack could be part of that knockout game.”

That game is one “in which a young man — all the perps appear to be male people of color, mostly blacks — tries to literally knock out an innocent bystander with one blow,” explained black columnist Larry Elder in 2013. A game whose mention the mainstream media characterizes as overblown, despite author Colin Flaherty documenting its “coincidental” occurrence in more than 21 other cities.

The media have also attempted to cover up the existence of disproportionately black flash mobs that have participated in numerous robberies and attacks, some of which are race-based. And then there are just out-and-out black mobs, like the one that attacked white people during the most recent riot in Milwaukee. The same riot our “post-racial” president golfed his way through and maintained a steady silence about, even as his spokesman, Josh Earnest, defended Kaepernick’s anthem protest.

The same president who pals around with music moguls like Jay Z and Beyoncé, both of whom have made careers out of glorifying thug culture and ginning up anti-police sentiment.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder once castigated America as a “nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing racial matters. Yet there’s nothing more revealing than the firestorm directed at Donald Trump by Democrats and their media partners, all for having had the temerity to point out that the overwhelming majority of inner city dystopias have been run by Democrats for decades. What really set them off, however, was when Trump asked black Americans for their votes by posing a simple question: “What have you got to lose?”

That firestorm revealed that the real cowardice resides among progressives who will discuss race only within the parameters they themselves define. The truth “is condemned as hate speech simply because it exposes those who have done genocidal and horrific actions,” writes former congressman Allen West. “We must continue to challenge them at every turn.”

The alternative? “One big difference is that now, on the street, there is no fear,” stated retired Chicago Police Detective Ted O'Connor to Chicago Tribune reporter John Kass. “Even in the ‘90s, with all the killing, the gangs feared the police. When we’d show up, they’d run. But now? Now they don’t run. Now, there is no fear.”

Yes, there is, for the millions of inner city black Americans who continue to endure an unendurable status quo engendered by Democrat policies.

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, 2016

More evolved brains require more energy

There has long been a view that the most recent evolutionary advance was an increase in brain complexity (more folding etc.), and perhaps cortical complexity in particular. A more complex brain would use more energy so the findings below dovetail with that

A University of Adelaide-led project has overturned the theory that the evolution of human intelligence was simply related to the size of the brain—but rather linked more closely to the supply of blood to the brain.

The international collaboration between Australia and South Africa showed that the human brain evolved to become not only larger, but more energetically costly and blood thirsty than previously believed.

The research team calculated how blood flowing to the brain of human ancestors changed over time, using the size of two holes at the base of the skull that allow arteries to pass to the brain. The findings, published in the Royal Society Open Science journal, allowed the researchers to track the increase in human intelligence across evolutionary time.

"Brain size has increased about 350% over human evolution, but we found that blood flow to the brain increased an amazing 600%," says project leader Professor Emeritus Roger Seymour, from the University of Adelaide. "We believe this is possibly related to the brain's need to satisfy increasingly energetic connections between nerve cells that allowed the evolution of complex thinking and learning.

"To allow our brain to be so intelligent, it must be constantly fed oxygen and nutrients from the blood.

Smarter brains are blood-thirsty brainsHuman skulls, showing the location of two openings for the internal carotid arteries that supply the cerebrum of the brain almost entirely. The sizes of these openings reveal the rate of blood flow, which is related to brain metabolic rate and cognitive ability. Credit: Edward Snelling. Sourced from the Raymond Dart Collection of Human Skeletons, School of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand.
"The more metabolically active the brain is, the more blood it requires, so the supply arteries are larger. The holes in fossil skulls are accurate gauges of arterial size."

The study was a new collaboration between the Cardiovascular Physiology team in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Adelaide and the Brain Function Research Group and Evolutionary Studies Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand.

Co-author Dr Edward Snelling, University of the Witwatersrand, says: "Ancient fossil skulls from Africa reveal holes where the arteries supplying the brain passed through. The size of these holes show how blood flow increased from three million-year-old Australopithecus to modern humans. The intensity of brain activity was, before now, believed to have been taken to the grave with our ancestors."

Honours student and co-author Vanya Bosiocic had the opportunity to travel to South Africa and work with world renowned anthropologists on the oldest hominin skull collection, including the newly-discovered Homo naledi.

"Throughout evolution, the advance in our brain function appears to be related to the longer time it takes for us to grow out of childhood. It is also connected to family cooperation in hunting, defending territory and looking after our young," Ms Bosiocic says.

"The emergence of these traits seems to nicely follow the increase in the brain's need for blood and energy."

SOURCE






White Lives Matter declared a hate group by SPLC

The big haters are actually the SPLC.  Almost any conservative group is a hate group according to them

A white nationalist group called White Lives Matter, which calls itself an opponent of the Black Lives Matter movement, has been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that tracks extremist groups in the United States.

“The White Lives Matter website says their movement is dedicated to the preservation of the white race. That tells you all you need to know,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala. “They’re against integration, immigration. This is standard white supremacist stuff.”

The group, which grew out of a social media meme, argues that white Americans are victims of a genocide caused by factors like the immigration of nonwhite people and marriage between white Christians and nonwhites or Jews, Beirich said. The law center’s designation is meant to draw attention to and increase scrutiny of the group’s activities.

Last week, its members held a protest outside the Houston office of the NAACP to demand that it denounce Black Lives Matter, according to video posted online by the group. The Houston Chronicle reported some of the protesters carried rifles and Confederate flags.

Researchers with the law center said White Lives Matter had been promoted by the Aryan Renaissance Society, a group in Texas that is a member of the United Aryan Front, a white nationalist coalition.

Beirich said the center’s designation focused on one chapter of the group based in Nashville that is led by Rebecca Barnette, a leader of the Aryan Strikeforce, a skinhead group, and the National Socialist Movement, America’s largest neo-Nazi group.

Barnette did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment Monday, but White Lives Matter posted several videos criticizing the Southern Poverty Law Center to its YouTube channel in the past two days. One video described White Lives Matter’s members as “just the guy next door.”

Beirich said the number of white supremacist groups in the United States had grown in the past year and attributed that to the racially charged rhetoric of the presidential campaign. There are 892 active hate groups in the country, the law center said.

“Certainly we’ve got people who are much more energized in a way that didn’t exist before, and that’s all because of the presidential campaign,” Beirich said before specifying Donald Trump, the Republican nominee. “Trump has given these people hope they didn’t have before that they could influence politics or that they would at least be listened to.”

Barnette described herself as White Lives Matter’s cofounder in her profile on Vk.com, a Russian social networking site preferred by white nationalists for its lenient approach to posts that contain racist content. She said the group’s name had “been picked up by several other groups who are doing their own things with it.”

Mark Pitcavage, a researcher at the Anti-Defamation League, agreed that the phrase had spread beyond the group. “White Lives Matter is a concept around which you can organize an event without necessarily being a formal organization,” he said. “It is essentially the sum of the number of people who have done actions in the name of White Lives Matter.” “For white supremacists, ‘White Lives Matter’ is an obvious meme, so they will use it,” he said.

On Vk.com, Barnette defended the group, writing that its members were unfairly labeled “domestic terrorists.” In other posts, she argued that white women represent “the elite of the human species.” She also shared Nazi memes and frequently used racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic slurs.

“We do not live by the code of the nonwhites,” she wrote in one post calling for her followers to take action against the federal government, Jews, and African-Americans. “Our forefathers built the nation that is being allowed to be destroyed.” Later she added, “I wish Hitler were here alive and well today.”

SOURCE






Kaepernick's Offense Is Lack of Patriotism AND Ignorance

Let's take a look at the America this spoiled star so detests

Ending the interminably long silence in our national discussion of racial issues (insert tongue firmly in cheek here), San Francisco 49ers' Colin Kaepernick reignited the racial firestorm. After his refusal to stand for the national anthem before last Friday’s game, Kaepernick defended his position by saying he is “not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. … There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Boy, oh boy.

Kaepernick’s comments have stoked fierce responses from all points of the ideological spectrum, from those excoriating him as an ungrateful brat, to those arguing that his actions are themselves a form of patriotism. Those who are outraged at his comments are outraged for understandable reasons; they feel his actions and comments are an insult to the millions of Americans who have served in our military and fought and died to defend the freedoms he enjoys; they are incensed by his claims of oppression (he never knew his black father and was given up by his white mother at six weeks, to a white couple who, by all accounts, gave him nothing but love and support on his journey to becoming an NFL quarterback making $19 million a year while currently riding the bench); and they are outraged at his distorted view of America.

On the flip side, his supporters claim critics are trying to deny Kaepernick his right to free speech. They claim he is the true patriot for speaking out against oppression, and they are patriots for defending him against his critics. But the reality is that no one is trying to impede his right to speak; however, the rest of us have free speech rights too, which means we can tell him what an ignorant jackass he is.

Let’s examine Kaepernick’s claims. He says that America is a country that “oppresses black people and people of color.” This is a mixed bag. On the one hand, blacks in America, even blacks in urban poverty plantations enjoy a standard of living higher than most of the rest of the world. According to a recent study, the vast majority of “poor” Americans have a TV, a DVD player, at least one cell phone, a computer, a car, air conditioning, and more living space than the average European. On the other hand, blacks in America (at least those in the inner city) suffer deeply from being denied the educational choice that would put them on the path to prosperity; they suffer from unbelievably high rates of unwed pregnancy (a prime predictor of generational poverty), and they suffer from high crime rates without being able to defend themselves. On the other hand (we know, that’s three hands…), blacks vote overwhelmingly for the very Democrat Party that has long inflicted upon them the policies that have brought them so much suffering.

Kaepernick also referred to “bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” Presumably, since he mentioned paid leave, he is not referring to the drug dealers and gang bangers and common street thugs who are responsible for literally thousands of black deaths in Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago since 2009, with the perpetrator of the crimes almost always being black.

One can only assume, then, that this is a reference to the Black Lives Matter movement, which is based on the fraudulent idea that innocent black men are dying in droves at the hands of racist white police. The problem with that is, with few exceptions, the most notorious cases of the last few years involved not innocent black men, but career criminals who died while attacking cops or resisting arrest. This isn’t cops getting away with murder; this is criminals who suffer the consequences of their actions.

Kaepernick’s supporters are equally as ignorant.

Patrick Tomlinson of The Hill wrote, “In a month when black demonstrators were told ‘violence is never justified,’ and blacks marching peacefully were told to ‘stop impeding traffic,’ we now have a black man who literally took no action at all by choosing to remain seated.” Therefore, Tomlinson moaned, “Apparently, there is no appropriate way for blacks to voice their concerns.” Evidently, he thinks setting neighborhoods on fire, looting and vandalizing, dragging innocent white motorists from their vehicles and beating them, and shutting down traffic are all legitimate ways for blacks to have their voices heard.

NBA Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabar (born Lew Alcindor before converting to Islam and changing his name) said Kaepernick “behaved in a highly patriotic manner that should make all Americans proud.” He further argued that “what’s really un-American” is that “50 years after Ali was banned for boxing … we still need to call attention to the same racial inequalities.” Apparently lost on him is the irony of a rich black athlete making these claims — in a land where a black man is president, with a black attorney general, and where there is institutional racial discrimination against whites in favor of minorities.

He’s not alone, though, in the black community, or the Hollywood glitterati, and he’s not even the worst offender of our intelligence.

The most offensive thing about Kaepernick’s rant was that it vilifies our nation while ignoring its virtues. Yes, America once allowed slavery (thanks, Democrats!), but we also tried to eradicate it in the original Constitution, and eventually ended the practice after fighting the bloodiest war in our history. Even today, though we are not a perfect nation, is there any other nation, as Donald Trump asked rhetorically in his typically ham-fisted way, that would work better for Kaepernick? That would give so many opportunities to prosper?

Interestingly, and largely ignored by the Leftmedia, Kaepernick also teed off on Hillary Clinton and her crimes, saying, “If it was any other person, they’d be in prison.”

Kaepernick would do well to study the life and works of Frederick Douglass, a freed slave who was a fierce voice in the fight for abolition and racial equality. Here was a man who understood oppression, yet he loved this country, and urged other blacks to fight for it. He used to play the “Star-Spangled Banner” on the violin for his grandchildren in the years following the War Between the States, and in an 1871 speech at Arlington National Cemetery, he proclaimed that “if the star-spangled banner floats only over free American citizens in every quarter of the land, and our country has before it a long and glorious career of justice, liberty, and civilization, we are indebted to the unselfish devotion of the noble army.”

Douglass understood that our nation was, and still is, made up of imperfect people. Yet hundreds of thousands of men and women have shed their blood in the defense of this nation and the ideals it embodies, however imperfectly lived. They died for this land of freedom, based on the idea that “all men are created equal.” They died not because we are a sinless, perfect nation, but because this is the only nation in history formed under these ideals, and which has striven mightily to weave them into our national character, even at the cost of the blood of our sons and daughters.

And that, Colin, is why we stand for our national anthem.

SOURCE







Australia: Black elders call it racism when a black kid is killed while stealing

No awareness shown that the whole thing originated in black crime

Community leaders have called for calm after a violent riot sparked by the death of a 14-year-old Indigenous boy in WA, but have also voiced concerns about racism they fear sparked the incident.

Elijah Doughty, who was killed after he was allegedly struck by the driver of a ute while riding a motorcycle in Kalgoorlie, was remembered at an emotional candle-lit vigil attended by hundreds of community members last night.

The motorcycle was allegedly stolen, and according to Western Australian police was linked to the driver of the utility.

Violent scenes erupted on Tuesday outside the town's courthouse after the accused was charged with manslaughter, with many voicing frustration that the charge was not more serious.

A dozen police officers were injured as people threw rocks and bottles, and five police cars and a local business were damaged. Several people were arrested and charged.

But after the violence waned, two senior members of the community highlighted vicious race-based comments on Kalgoorlie community social media pages, and say they contributed to the atmosphere of tension in the town.

Bruce Smith said the death and subsequent riot had affected not just the community of Kalgoorlie, but Indigenous people across the country.

Elijah Doughty has been remembered as a great footballer. © Facebook via ABC News Elijah Doughty has been remembered as a great footballer. He called on the police to tackle an undercurrent of racism he said had boiled over onto social media, where Aboriginal people were being threatened with rape and violence.

"Those are the ones that are going to continue brewing those attitudes we don't want to see, and it's all coming out on social media, on Facebook.

"Our Indigenous people living in Kalgoorlie and Boulder, they will continue living [here].

"They have been living here for a long, long time, and they are part of this community, whether other people like it or not, non-Aboriginal people like it or not.

"They've got to learn that these people are going to live, and their descendents are going to live, and the justice system that's going to serve them should be put right so that the future generation of our youths in this town, Goldfields and Boulder, are being protected."

He said there was a feeling of frustration about the justice system and the comparative leniency of the charge against Elijah's alleged killer, which may have sparked the riot.

"I think what we need to see is, 'where is the justice'," he said.

"What are they going to do about it? The justice system, is it working for all Australians?"

Elder Aubrey Lynch, whose grandson was close to Elijah, said he was disappointed to see the violence on the streets of Kalgoorlie, and that it was ruining the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

"We don't like violence anywhere in any case, because violence causes more trouble.

"Here we are trying to build that relationship, and this kind of thing is going to happen, it's going to separate us all."

Acting Kalgoorlie Mayor Allan Pendal described the riot as the worst violence he had seen in the town in three decades.

He said it would be naive to suggest there was not a simmering tension between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the town, but no-one, including the police, expected such a turn of events.

"I think they [the police] were caught off-guard," he said.

"From here we've got to, from the city's point of view, meet with their leadership people, community leaders and police and try to address the issues that are there.

Elijah's grandfather said he hoped some lesson could be learnt from the boy's death.

"I just think, well, if anything can come out of it good, it'd be for the community to wake up to themselves and realise, to keep their kids home, not let them roam the streets and the wider community to help the Aboriginal people work together and live together, live side by side instead of having this hatred," he said.

Community comes together to remember lost child

A large number of children and families gathered peacefully last night at a makeshift shrine where Elijah died, lighting candles and festooning the area with flowers and coloured lights.

A local supermarket donated food.

There has been an outpouring of grief on social media for the child, with many sharing his photo and messages of support for his family.

"Rest easy dude, devastating news, thoughts are with ya pop and brothers and family," Rory Kelly wrote.

Elijah's grandfather Albert Doughty said his grandson was a talented footballer.

"He was a good sportsman. He's played for Kalgoorlie City Football Club since he was 11. They got in the grand final. But he won't be 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. 

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





1 September, 2016

GP whose multicultural boss said he 'wanted to eat her' and 'destroy her' wins £750,000 payout

A GP left with post-traumatic stress disorder after a sexist campaign of bullying and harassment has won a £750,000 payout.

In one outburst at the Athena practice in Hackney, east London, Dr Agnes Olayemi was told by Dr Affia Okoreaffia that he wanted to eat her - especially her ears - as he 'liked cartilage'.

He called the University College Hospital graduate a 'danger to patients' in front of staff, described her as 'that mad woman' and even said she was 'just' an employee 'like a typist'.

Dr Okoreaffia, 59, also opened Dr Olayemi's mail, told her there were people who would 'beat her up', that by the time he was finished with her she would need a psychiatrist and that she would leave with her 'tail between her legs'.

And when Dr Olayemi, 55, asked him for some personal belongings she had left at his flat, he relayed a message via another member of staff that he had lots of women's knickers at his flat and he didn't know which pair were hers.

He also laughed as he had her untaxed and uninsured car removed from the practice car park and dumped on the street, leaving her open to prosecution.

She started as a locum and he promised to make her a partner and paid her accordingly.  But he never actually registered her as such, leaving her believing she was in fact a partner.

As their relationship deteriorated he deducted wages, transferred 624 of her patients to himself and downgraded her status on the IT system from that of a partner to a locum. This meant that she no longer had access to her history, no record of what she had been doing professionally and no audit trail.

She thereafter refused to use the system and if she needed to log on to see a patient, would tell them that there was a problem with the system and send them back for someone else to see.

Dr Okoreaffia then told staff not to book her any more patients, after he claimed there had been complaints and on one occasion arranged lunch to be brought in for everyone except Dr Olayemi.

He also tried to exclude her from signing Christmas presents and cards to staff, something that the pair had previously done.

Dr Olayemi then posted 500 notes over the next seven months, replacing them as they were removed by other staff, in which she told patients that due to a dispute between herself and Dr Okoreaffia he had told staff not arrange any patient appointments for her.

Eventually he told her she was suspended and changed the locks but she still showed up for work. One of the reasons for her suspension was that she had played a tape recording of a doctors meeting over the tannoy.

The panel found that she had done this, but that it was unintelligible to anyone other than the doctors who were in the meeting.

She told the East London tribunal that In a series of outbursts Dr Okoreaffia said to her: 'You want to be a partner in this practice. Do you want to be Mrs Okoreaffia as well? 'I will destroy you. By the time I finish with you you will need a psychiatrist. You will leave here with your tail between your legs.  'The gloves are off. I want you out of my practice. I will not beat you up but there are people who will.'

She also noted: 'Reference made to eating people and eating flesh and eating me and the part of me that he wanted to eat most being my ears because he likes cartilage.'

She reported him to police and the tribunal panel concluded: 'We find on the balance of probabilities that he did make these comments.'

In their judgement, the panel said: 'Overall, we have to say Dr Okoreaffia's frequent inability to answer a straight question and his attitude toward the claimant, which appeared to be dismissive and arrogant, troubled us greatly.'

They added that although on the face of it the reason for her suspension and dismissal seemed reasonable, it had only come about because of the sexism inflicted on her.  They said: 'She dug her heels in, stood up to Dr Okoreaffia and fought back, sometimes inappropriately.

'The reasons given by Dr Okoreaffia for dismising Dr Olayemi, whilst on the face of it look plausible, look unconvincing when one looks at the catalogue of events, which appear to be designed to marginalise her or drive her out. 'Had Dr Olayemi been a male doctor, Dr Okoreaffia would not have treated him in the same way.

'He would not have sought to belittle and humiliate a male doctor as he did Dr Olayemi. He would not have treated a male doctor with the same contempt and disdain.

'The conduct to which the claimant was subjected was unwanted conduct related to her sex which had the purpose (and had the effect) of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading and humiliating environment for her; it was designed to drive her out.  'There is no question of hypersensitivity on the part of Dr Olayemi.'

She worked at the surgery from 2001 to her dismissal in 2008 but has not worked since due to post traumatic stress and depression.

In 2014 she was awarded £752,333 by the tribunal for sex discrimination, unfair dismissal and breach of contract.

This included £30,000 for injury to feelings and aggravated damages and £21,875 for personal injury due to her psychiatric conditions.

However she appealed the fact that her award was reduced by 12.5 per cent due to a previous episode of PTSD in the late 1990s.

This month an Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed her case to go back before an employment judge, saying that the figure awarded could only go up, adding: 'Nothing in this judgement or in the remission to the Employmernt Tribunal, should delay or stand in the way of enforcing the existing amount.'

SOURCE






Who's Racist?

August is on pace to surpass the 1997 single-month record of 79 homicides in Chicago — so far this month there have been 78 homicides. This year to date, Chicago has recorded 487 homicides, compared to 491 for all of last year. The Windy City isn’t alone. Many of our nation’s largest cities have witnessed spikes in the murder rate, a disproportionate number having affected inner city black communities.

In this context, Donald Trump appealed to blacks to reconsider voting for Democrats. “African-American communities have suffered under Democratic control,” he said. “To those I say … what do you have to lose by trying something new, like Trump?” The Donald’s admittedly ham-handed appeal to blacks for their vote brought a quick and predictable response from Hillary Clinton accusing Trump of being a “racist” and essentially warning blacks not to think for themselves. That was followed by Black Lives Matter chiming in, basically asserting that no matter what Trump says, he’s a racist.

Interestingly, in a recent interview, New Black Panthers leader Quanell X agreed with Trump, saying that Democrats have “pimped like prostitutes” the black community for votes, but those same Democrats have done little to actually help. In an article for The Daily Signal, Kay Coles James argues that using this racist charge effectively closes down people, specifically in the black community, from hearing or even considering what a person so charged has to say. It’s a tool the Left has been using with great effect for years on conservatives anytime they seek to appeal to minority voters.

Instead of truly addressing the real problems the Left’s socialist policies have created and exacerbated in the inner city, Demo-gogues turn and blame the problems on those who have the least to do with them. And Clinton is no different as she continues to double down on those old, failed Leftist policies, and calls racist anyone who would dare to challenge and point out their hypocrisy and failure. Sadly, it seems that too many within the black community will continue to accept the victimhood narrative preached by Hillary and other leftist leaders who are all too happy to have pawns at their disposal.

SOURCE






Can Religious Liberty and Medical Care Coexist?

Obama's assault on America continues with new rules affecting faith-based hospitals.

In America, religious liberty is still one of our more cherished rights. Throughout our history, Americans have enjoyed the freedom to worship as we choose, to live our lives in accordance with biblical principles and to even operate a business with those principles as our guide for doing so. And until recently, a person or business could exercise their religious freedom without fear of government interference.

During the presidency of Barack Obama, however, we have witnessed an intense and relentless effort to undermine religious liberty. Obama, his leftist cadres and their Rainbow Mafia enforcers have sought to pressure people via rules, lawsuits, fines and other compulsory tactics to comply with new despotic edicts that are in direct opposition to deeply held religious convictions and beliefs.

It’s part of Obama’s quest to fundamentally transform America. Although we are nearing the end of Obama’s presidency, his policies and anti-religious liberty movements will be something to contend with for decades to come, regardless of who wins the presidency in November.

The Christian faith has specifically been targeted by the Obama administration. While it is true that Christians in America have not had to face the same persecution and possibility of death as those in other countries, there have been business owners forced to pay fines or shut their doors because they refuse to violate their religious beliefs.

Fortunately, several states and religious groups are fighting back. The latest battlefront is the Obama administration’s rule against supposed discrimination of transgender patients, which would require doctors and hospitals to perform gender reassignment surgeries on children.

The rule, if upheld, will require Catholic hospitals and other faith-based medical organizations to offer this type of mutilation, among others, regardless of the providers' belief that it is morally and ethically wrong. Catholic hospitals and Christian medical facilities also do not perform abortions, they don’t prescribe “aid-in dying” medications, and they don’t typically refer patients seeking these services to other medical facilities.

This is no small matter, either. Catholic hospitals provide medical services to one out of every six Americans seeking treatment. So what are these faith-based organizations to do? If the rule is enforced, then they will have to either compromise (which they won’t do), sell to some corporate conglomerate, or shut their doors altogether.

Simply put, many Catholic hospitals and other Christian organizations will not violate their religious beliefs in order to comply with government demands. We have already seen an example of this.

In both Illinois and Massachusetts, Catholic Charities chose to shut their doors to adoption services because of state laws requiring placement of children into homes with homosexual parents.

Should Catholic hospitals be forced to also close their doors, then there will be yet another consequence of Obama’s damaging “health care” law. For the longest time Obama piped that his law would provide more access to care. But if faith-based organizations shutter or even consolidate with other providers, then access to health care becomes less, not more.

Obama and his leftist cadres convinced many Americans that everyone has a right to health care. But that wasn’t enough, so his administration took it a step further and says everyone now has the right to access the care they desire whether they need it or not. And that access must be given regardless of the belief of the people who are providing it.

This is where we are after almost eight years of a president who despises the Constitution and Rule of Law, yet loves socialism and despotism. We have gone from quality health care and a free market approach to one of poor health care with mandates that contradict religious liberty. It’s a bit frightening, but we as a nation are very close to having compulsory services of all kinds. A lot can happen in the next several months, and don’t think that Obama won’t do as much as he can with the time he has left in office.

SOURCE






Was a 16-year-old girl killed by political correctness?

A 16-year-old British girl committed suicide rather than be accused of being a racist, according to a story in the Telegraph.

Phoebe Connop sent a private message to her friends in jest that was leaked online and resulted in some feedback suggesting she was a racist.  She later hung herself:

Phoebe Connop, a 16 year old and a talented gymnast, sent her friends a picture in which she had darkened her skin tone and put a scarf around her head. In the message, she told her friends that the parents of the young Asian man she was seeing would only accept her if she looked like she did in the photograph, according to the Telegraph.

One of her ‘friends’ leaked the photo, and reports say that Phoebe received some initial negative feedback for the photo.

Her father dropped her off from school early July 7 recalling that his daughter didn’t feel well and wanted to go home to rest. When he returned home, he found that Phoebe had hung herself.

Her father told the press that “she had shown me no indication in the weeks leading up to her death that there was anything wrong, let alone anything that would lead her to do this.”

The detective in-charge of investigating Miss Connop’s case stated: “There had been some negative reaction (to the photo) and she confided in her friend, who did take the image down at her request, that she was scared of what the reaction might be from the Asian community in her area,” the Sunreports.

Following the suicide, her school opened up an online forum for students, teachers, and members of the community to post their thoughts and feelings about Phoebe.

Phoebe’s principal, Stephen Lanckham, said, “We in the Windsor community are deeply saddened by this sudden and tragic loss.” He went on to say that the community will remember her as comforting, warm, and caring.

"Asian" is usually British media-speak for "Muslim."  It isn't so much that the backlash against the young girl was so intense that it triggered her suicide.  This is a case where the potential backlash by Muslims – the fear of politically correct personal attacks – made life going forward unbearable.

There may have been other issues involved in the girl's suicide.  But the signs point to a relatively popular, happy young girl who feared the anger and threats that would have come from internet social media over what amounted to a harmless joke.  It was harmless because it was never meant to be seen by anyone who could possibly have been offended.

The world has lost its sense of humor, and political correctness is wholly to blame.

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)


A 19th century Democrat political poster below:








Leftist tolerance



Bloomberg



JFK knew Leftist dogmatism



-- Geert Wilders



The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog



A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?


Kristina Pimenova, said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair



Enough said



There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though


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


Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.


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.


The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole


Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males


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


Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.


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


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, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) 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”."


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).


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:

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes


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 (Judges 19 & 20) 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'

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!


No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"


Some advice from Martin Luther: Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in christo qui victor est peccati, mortis et mundi: peccandum est quam diu sic sumus. Vita haec non est habitatio justitiae


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.
IQ 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
Bank of Queensland blues



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/