Black Congresswoman Plays the Race Card

American newspapers are so shy of mentioning the race of a black criminal that they normally indicate it only by way of a photo of the accused. And if his first name is Leroy or some such they don't even bother with the photo. But an allegation against a white by a black suffers from no such restraint. The race of the offending party is immediately highlighted.

We see that in an incident reported here where black Congresswoman McKinney had an altercation with a policeman. In an internet comment by her she immediately said that the incident was part of a pattern of harassment of her by white police officers. For all I know the policeman concerned MAY have been overly officious but he was in the end only doing his job and there is no reason why his race or the race of other police should have been mentioned. The dispute should have been resolved on the facts (as ascertained by eyewitness reports etc), not on anyone's skin color.

It appears however that she did a big backdown when she heard that there was a videotape of the incident. So I think I can guess just which one of the two people involved was behaving arrogantly.

A Double Cartoon Standard

As in the USA, none of the major Australian newspapers dared publish the Mohammed cartoons. Not because they were scared, of course. Oh No! It was because they respected people's sensitivities and "right" not to be offended. So what happened when the newspapers of a Muslim nation (Indonesia) published grossly offensive cartoons of Australia's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister? Did they deplore such "insensitivity"? Not at all. They republished the Indonesian cartoons so that Australians could see them too!

No doubt they realized that Australia's "Fascist" conservative government was not Fascist at all and that they were perfectly safe in what they were doing.

See here for one of the cartoon reproductions by these fearless speakers of truth to power. And for living colour see here. No doubt many of the big majority of Australians who voted in our conservative government found the Indonesian cartoons offensive but did that bother our Leftist champions of sensitivity? As usual, anything that offends conservatives, Christians etc. is just fine as far as most of the media is concerned.

Beware the Tar Baby!

Why? I guess because tar is black. We read:

"Leigh Lenzmeier stopped short of apologizing for referring to the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission as a "tar baby," but he did promise not to use the term again... He said there has been discussion for years about expanding the city's commission to include Stearns County. "When did we first hear this? I think, oh, nearly (back) to the ... (former Mayor Al Loehr) administration in the city, they've been wanting us to take over, sorry, this tar baby for a while. I don't see that," Lenzmeier said".

Source

.

A "tar baby" is a sticky problem, that's all as far as I know -- and that's clearly what the speaker meant -- but the NAACP and various busybodies say the expression is a racial slur. Since careful people now have to speak of the pot calling the kettle Afro-American, I guess it figures.

Lawyers not Allowed to Criticize the Law in New Zealand

The idea that the law and lawyers are beyond criticism is laughable but apparently you cannot be a lawyer in New Zealand if you vigorously criticize the system there. We read:

"An outspoken men's activist and critic of New Zealand's legal system has been told he is not a fit and proper person to be a lawyer. But Peter Zohrab, acting president of New Zealand Equality Education Foundation, says he will not let matters rest there. "I just intend to keep at it and see how long it takes," he said of his quest to become a lawyer. Mr Zohrab could bypass the law society approval process that blackballed him and apply to the High Court for admission to the Bar.

He said he spent more than two years gaining his law degree because he believed men could not find lawyers who understood a man's point of view. He wanted to begin as a family law specialist and then expand into other areas where men's rights were an issue, such as criminal and employment law.

Mr Zohrab says Wellington District Law Society raised issues of "balance and judgment" against him. He believes a big part of the problem is his involvement in the men's rights movement.

Source

.

If you want to send emails in support of Mr Zohrab's application, this site has the details you need.

Internet censorship demanded by the Australian Left

Under the guise of protecting children from pornography, the Australian Labor Party wants to bar many sites to ADULTS. And you thought censorship on moral grounds was the preserve of the Christian Right! The truth is that the Left will seek kudos wherever it can find it -- regardless of any principle that they have claimed to support previously. Given the pressure from both the Left and Christian conservatives, the Australian Federal government is so far being fairly heroic in resisting the pressure for censorship but there are worrying signs:

"The federal Government is planning to bolster NetAlert, its online safety agency, and give the media regulator greater powers as pressure builds from Labor and its own backbench to curb online pornography. Communications and IT Minister Helen Coonan says, however, that calls from Labor and Coalition colleagues to force internet service providers to filter porn sites are misguided...

Opposition IT spokesman Stephen Conroy said Government research showed the blacklist ISP filtering system that Labor had proposed would have had minimal impact on network performance. "In 2004, the Government received independent advice that ISP filtering to remove blacklisted sites would take just 10 milliseconds and that this delay is generally not noticeable to the user," Senator Conroy said. "The Government should stop making excuses and do all in its power to prevent children from being exposed to prohibited internet content.".... Labor leader Kim Beazley last week put internet pornography back on the agenda saying Labor, if elected, would force ISP's to offer a "clean feed" internet service to Australian families....

The Government was pursuing technology to control the net, Senator Coonan said. ... The latest study found that ISP filters continued to create network performance problems, Senator Coonan said. The best-performing filters slowed network performance by 18 per cent, while the worst-performing filters degraded the network by 78 per cent. "They found that even the best-performing filter missed about a quarter of the content on a small prepared list of sites." ... "We are continuing to look into it," she said. PC-based filtering offered parents greater flexibility than the one-size-fits-all approach of ISP filtering, she said....

Source

New Rules for the Internet

The very idea of rules for the internet is anathema to me but America's FEC does not seem to think so. The rules they have just handed down have no terrors for bloggers at the moment but as sure as night follows day, more and more regulations will follow. I thought readers would be interested in the following summary of what the new rules say:

Paid political advertising appearing on someone else's Web site would have to be reported, regardless of how little or how much it costs. But that responsibility would lie with the candidate, political party or committee backing the ad--not a Web site accepting the ads.

All ads that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate or solicit donations would have to carry disclaimers.

Bloggers and other individual commentators wouldn't have to disclose payments received from candidates, political parties or campaign committees--but those groups would have to report payments to bloggers.

No one except registered political committees would be required to put disclaimers on political e-mailings or Web sites. The e-mail requirement would kick in only if the committee sent out more than 500 substantially similar unsolicited messages at a time.

The media exemption enjoyed by traditional news outlets would be extended to "any Internet or electronic publication," which could include everything from online presences of major media companies to individual bloggers.

Fury Over Christians Speaking out

How wrong of them to exercise their democratic rights!

This concerns the recent election in the Australian State of Tasmania. To the media, a constant outpouring of Green/Left propaganda from Australia's public broadcasters is fine. But advertising by Christian groups is deeply offensive. The media report below refers to advertising by a Christian group as a "secretive smear campaign". Pick the real smear! Just a few excerpts:

"In the dying moments of Tasmania's election campaign, people wearing animal masks drove through the streets of Hobart towing a trailer with an anti-Greens slogan. In the weeks leading up to this bizarre display, a series of newspaper advertisements and letter-box pamphlets attacked the Greens, warning they were "socially destructive".

Two of the men authorising these ads were later exposed as members of the Exclusive Brethren, a secretive fundamentalist Christian sect... Unwin and Christian deny they were involved in a secretive smear campaign, backed by the Liberal Party. "We placed these ads so people were aware of (the Greens') policies," Christian says. "There's no smear campaign or hidden agenda. We put our names to them, and we support any government that is good for Tasmania"....

While the Greens' vote slump was ultimately the result of Tasmanians deciding not to risk the uncertainty of minority government, the Greens believe the smear and fear campaigns against them played a big role... State Greens leader Peg Putt, seething at the loss of at least one seat, was booed and heckled when she used her speech in the tally room last Saturday night to complain about Tasmania's "grubbiest" ever campaign. She later vowed the Greens would adopt a more "hard-nosed" approach to future campaigns, and push for better disclosure laws. "The nation needed to know that there were shadowy forces at work here that won't identify themselves and will not discuss the amounts of money they put into this campaign," Putt says...

Source

It shows how anti-Christian the policies of the Australian Green party are that an unworldly group like the Brethren thought they had to get involved in politics.

South Park Censored



We read:

"Two weeks ago, Hayes, a longtime Scientologist, announced he was quitting "South Park," the animated show that transformed the "Shaft" star into "Chef" and introduced him to a new legion of fans. He said the show had exceeded the boundaries of good taste when it aired an episode titled "Trapped in the Closet" -- in November -- that skewers Scientology and Cruise. "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker responded to Hayes by saying something to the effect of, "Dude, you're just noticing that we offend people now?" But last week, a rerun of that Scientology episode was mysteriously pulled off the air amid published reports that Cruise had used his clout to bury it. A Cruise spokesman denied that."

Source

Sure, a private company is entitled to air its shows or not as it likes but censorship does not have to be by governments to be destructive and limiting. There is counter-pressure on the company to re-air the show and one can only hope it succeeds.

Andrew Sullivan makes an eloquent case for why we need South Park and ALL its episodes, despite the unpleasant aspects of the show. Sullivan blames "religion" for the ban but Hollywood (with its love of all weirdness, including Scientology) is the more likely culprit.

Wrong to Favor Normal Family Life

The little Utah tourist town of Kanab is in big trouble:

"In January, the City Council in the overwhelmingly Mormon community of 3,600 unanimously passed a resolution in favor of the "natural family" consisting of a working husband, a stay-at-home wife and a "full quiver of children." The resolution struck some as homophobic and sexist, and stirred talk of a Kanab tourism boycott, which won the endorsement of syndicated travel columnist Arthur Frommer.

Source

Since then, there appears to have been some effect from the boycott and local business people are thinking about "reversing" the resolution. But, seeing that the resolution is not a law and so does not do anything anyway, only a full-scale grovel will probably work.

So don't you ever DARE to say that you think a normal family is best for children! You may be right or you may be wrong but you are certainly not allowed to say it in public. If you want to say that you think the sun shines out of homosexuals, however, that is fine.

The Stifled Debate about AIDS

I am going to touch here on a topic that seems to be extraordinarily touchy -- The cause of AIDS. From the earliest days, some researchers with great experience in virology have questioned whether the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS. I am not going to make any pronouncement on that issue. I hope that what I am about to say will not reveal which side of the issue I come down on.

What I want to note is how the debate seems to be censored. Proponents of the orthodox theory seem very reluctant to debate it. The documentary The other side of AIDS brings all that into sharp focus. The maker of the documentary had no trouble finding distinguished scientists who questioned the orthodox view but he could find almost nobody who would defend the orthodox view on camera. The most eminent scientist that he managed to interview on the orthodox side was Dr. Mark Wainberg of the McGill University AIDS Center. Here is part of what Dr. Wainberg said:

"Anyone those who attempts to dispel the notion that HIV is the cause of AIDS are perpetrators of death. And I, would very much, for one, like to see the Constitution of the United States and similar countries have some means in place that we can charge people who are responsible for endangering public health with charges of endangerment and bring them up on trial. I think that people like Peter Duesberg belong in jail".

Source

He actually wants to throw in jail anybody who questions the orthodox theory! It sure looks like a fragile theory judging by the words and deeds of those who espouse it.

So here's the surprise: I have been reading on this issue for many years and I think the orthodox view is probably right -- at least as far as the Western world is concerned. Africa is another matter. They seem to call anything AIDS there. The main thing that makes me doubt the orthodox theory these days is the dogmatism of its defenders.

I am guessing that admitting to any uncertainty in their conclusions is seen by the establishment as politically dangerous. But the matter should nonetheless be discussed fully and openly as it would be truly tragic if the theory is wrong.

No Free Speech at Sportsgrounds?

The reasons people find for limiting free speech never seem to end. Apparently, free speech is now out of bounds during sporting events. Or so it seems:

"And in the World Baseball Classic-on March 13, 2006, hidden in a thicket of good feelings and mostly good baseball-Fidel Castro's Cuba reared its ugly head. During the early rounds, on the way to a 7-3 loss to the Dominican Republic, but long before Japan would upend the Cubans in the final, several rowdy fans were causing a disturbance in Puerto Rico's Hiram Bithorn Stadium. These enterprising individuals had coordinated the customized lettering on their shirts to spell out "ABAJO FIDEL"-roughly translated, in English, as "Down With Fidel"-when they stood next to each other. They also displayed a smaller, similar sign with the same message. Before long, however, security guards came to take the sign away. The authorities also demanded that the fans either change their shirts or exit the ballpark altogether.

Source

I certainly think politics should be kept out of sport if we mean by that political interference with sporting events (I don't like political interference with ANYTHING much, actually) -- but these guys were just expressing an opinion. They were even doing it silently, and certainly not aggressively. And if others got aggressive towards them, it is surely the aggressive ones that the police should have been pouncing on.

"Coon" follow-up

David Lenihan, the guy who got sacked from his radio job for mispronouncing "coup", has now been suspended from his day job as well. He was teaching anatomy and neuroanatomy at Logan College of Chiropractic, but no more, it seems.

He has of course got a lot of media attention because of his sacking but I think the best point was made by black conservative talk-show host Larry Elder. He said that prominent blacks have made disparaging remarks about Rice and gotten away with it, and feels Lenihan's firing was unfounded.

And it is not only prominent blacks who have used disgraceful and DELIBERATELY offensive language about Condi but prominent white Leftists as well. In that context, Lenihan is clearly being unfairly victimized. More of the story here


Update:

Condi has now accepted Lenihan's apology

You must not Mispronounce "Coup"

There is the story here of a poor guy who tried to say "coup" on radio (It is of course pronounced as "coo"). But in the excitement of the moment it came out as "coon". Not so bad, you might think. He did after all spot his slip in a split second and apologize immediately for it. Sadly, however, he was speaking at the time of Condi Rice.

He lost his job over it. Anybody who has ever had an embarrassing slip of the tongue would sympathize with him, I think.

"Bloody" hits America

I have posted before about the uproar caused when the British authorities banned an official Australian tourism advertisement that used the word "bloody". The term is a mild obscenity much used in both countries but virtually unknown in America. It is usually said to be a contraction of an old Catholic oath: "By our Lady".

The Canadians didn't like the advertisement either and placed restrictions on it (though for peculiarly Canadian reasons -- VERY peculiar ones). But to their credit, the American broadcasting authorities did not restrict it. That was not the end of the story, however:

"A key conservative American lobby group is set to unleash a campaign of protest against Australian tourism's "where the bloody hell are you?" TV advertisement. The controversial commercial made its US debut tonight in front of 20 million American TV viewers and one influential group was not amused. The American Family Association (AFA), which has more than two million members and leads campaigns against abortion and gay rights, was upset with the bikini-clad model Lara Bingle's use of "bloody" and "hell" in the ad's tagline".

Source

The amusing thing is that they attacked the advertisement even though they did not understand why the word "bloody" was used. They just thought it sounded nasty.

Below is a picture of the wicked woman who utters the offending words:

Conservative Values "Religious" and Must be Banned, Leftist Values OK

A Federal program running in Rhode Island schools that taught sexual abstinence to children has been dropped. Why?

"Lawyers at the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union first complained last year that a now-abandoned textbook used by Heritage of Rhode Island taught students that girls should wear clothing that doesn't invite "lustful thoughts" from boys. The book described men as "strong" and "courageous" while women were called "caring."....

"The curriculum had these incredible sexist viewpoints about men and women and boys and girls that seemed to come out of the nineteenth century," said Steven Brown, executive director of the state's ACLU....

Pawtucket's top school official complained that he was duped by Heritage officials and halted the program even before a parent complained to the ACLU. "We really don't promulgate any religious opinion in this school system"....

Source

It looks like we REALLY have an established church in Rhode Island. You can teach feminism but not traditional values. And describing traditional values as "religious" is just a ploy. I am an atheist and I have similar values so it is nonsense. It is a partisan attack on the values that got us to where we are today, full stop. But Rhode Island clearly bows down to the established church of Leftism.

You are Allowed to Abuse the English

The connections between England and Australia are still close. A significant fraction of Australians were actually born in England. Nonetheless, Australians are a very independent lot and they regard themselves as very different from (and better than) the English. And they have a derisive term for English people -- "Pommies". Australian are also much prone to using the word "Bas***d" -- and it as as often used in a bantering way as it is used to abuse someone. Among friends it can even be an affectionate term -- perhaps a bit like the way American blacks use the n-word.

And among the great sporting events of the year are the occasions when the England and Australian teams play cricket against one another. And, as in most big sporting events, passions do get aroused and bad language against the opposing team gets used. And Australian crowds can get pretty abusive:

"Cricket Australia's chief executive, James Sutherland, arrived home yesterday from Dubai, where an International Cricket Council board meeting heard a damning report on racial abuse directed at South African players by Australian crowds this summer. As Mr Sutherland fielded questions, he was asked whether spectators might be ejected from grounds for shouting "Pommy bas***d" at an English player. "I would have thought so, yeah. I would have thought if it is regarded as a racist comment, then yes," said Mr Sutherland, later adding: "We need to be very sensitive to it." Perhaps, in retrospect, he felt he was being too sensitive, for when contacted later, Cricket Australia backpedalled."

Source

So in the end it was decided that you must not call South Africans "Kaffirs" (the South African equivalent of the n-word) but you may call the English "Pommy Bas***ds" -- even though the term "bas***d" is more obviously offensive. Perhaps that is a reasonable judgment but how much better it would be if all groups were as little prone to being offended as the English.

Censorship of Conservative Blogger

Larry Auster is one of the best known conservative bloggers but his webhosting company (Hostic.com) has just treated him like dirt. They "suspended" his blog last Friday suddenly and without explanation, but presumably because it was in their eyes "hate speech" or some such. Larry of course tried to find out why he had been so treated but apparently got nowhere. Suddenly, however, they restored his blog last Sunday -- still with no explanation. He reproduces the terse emails he received here.

I would be finding another hosting company in a big hurry if I were he. The only trouble is that you are likely to encounter liberal arrogance wherever you go. A web-hosting company that advertised itself as engaging in no censorship of conservative writing might do well, under those circumstances.

If anybody reading this is doing business with Hostic.com, you might think about taking your business elsewhere and telling them why.

Bible Ban: A Quick Backdown in Texas

There are obviously some virulent Christianity-haters in positions of influence in Plano, Texas. In an article dated 20th., we read:

"A student organization sued a school district Monday, alleging officials prohibited them from posting information about their Bible study group on the district's Web site. Students Witnessing Absolute Truth claimed in the suit that other officially recognized clubs were allowed to post details on the site, but their "noncurricular" religious group was denied equal access.

The federal lawsuit is the second religious discrimination suit filed against the Plano district by Liberty Legal Institute".

Source

And NEXT DAY we read a response from the school district concerned:

"Yesterday (March 20, 2006), through the press, the Plano Independent School District was made aware, for the first time, of another lawsuit filed against the District and its educators by Liberty Legal Institute. Unfortunately, no one associated with Liberty Legal ever contacted the administration before starting this unnecessary litigation....

With notification of this pending litigation, Superintendent Dr. Doug Otto conducted a review of the existing regulations and immediately implemented a revision....Dr. Otto's revision allows the posting of non-curricular student groups to campus web sites. Previously, CQ Local regulations tried to distinguish between curricular and non-curricular groups. After careful consideration, it has been determined this distinction, for the purposes of web posting, is unnecessary. "Information about this revision of regulation has been communicated to all campus leadership and is effective immediately".

Source

Obviously the haters don't get it all their own way in Texas. Or maybe they are just smart enough not to mess too much with that "Ol' time religion".

In memoriam: The death of a great British defender of free speech

A very sad announcement below just received from Sean Gabb. I knew Chris Tame personally and find it hard to realize that someone of his vitality is gone. His good cheer and positive attitude together with his unflinching libertarianism was truly memorable

"It is with the deepest regret that I must announce the death of Dr Chris R. Tame, Founder and President of the Libertarian Alliance. Chris founded the Libertarian Alliance in the early 1970s. During the next 30 years, he worked tirelessly to recover the British libertarian tradition as a seamless heritage of freedom....

In July 2005, Chris was diagnosed with a rare and very aggressive form of bone cancer. Though only 55 at the time, and though he had avoided all those vices commonly believed to be dangerous, he took this diagnosis with great calmness. During the next eight months, he faced his approaching end with a fortitude and good humour that was an inspiration to those around him....

Chris died peacefully in his sleep at 3:37pm GMT on Monday the 20th March 2006.

Blonde Jokes to Go?



I personally do not like blonde jokes and never make them. The fact that my blonde wife gave me a very brainy blond son may have something to do with that. But jokes are jokes and people can make whatever jokes they like as far as I am concerned. But the inconsistency of allowing jokes about some groups but not about others has always bothered me. And it seems that I am not the only one. A racist group in Norway has made an official protest about a blonde joke appearing in a Norwegian newspaper. Translation:

"The Nazi organization Vigrid has charged Telemarksavisa with racism against Nordic blondes, because the paper printed a blonde joke. "A representative for the Nazi organization Vigrid has 'reported' TA [Telemarksavisa] to the Professional Press Association [PFU] for a blonde joke, and demands that the paper is fined six million kroner, writes TA. In the letter to the PFU Vigrid also demands that TA is forced to print a public apology to Nordic women and to promise that such race hate will not be repeated... "In effect, we are extending the definition of racial hatred and the devaluing of the individual to the most wounded part of our people. Namely our young, Nordic appearing teenage girls," writes Vigrid in the letter to the PFU. Vigrid's representative points out that since TA does not consider it acceptable to joke about Muslims, Jews or blacks, they should not be allowed to joke about girls with light hair or other colour characteristics of the "white race".

Source

Regardless of the people making the complaint, the complaint itself seems fair to me. What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Either allow all ethnic jokes or none. I of course favour allowing ALL jokes.

Important Day in the Supreme Court Today

Apparently the Ceballos case split the Supreme Court previously and they are going to start re-hearing it today, with new judge Alito probably casting the deciding vote. A summary of the case:

"While a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles County, Richard Ceballos investigated allegations of police misconduct in a case his office was prosecuting. After finding evidence suggesting that a deputy sheriff might have lied in order to obtain a search warrant, Mr. Ceballos drafted a memo to supervisors detailing the wrongdoing and recommending that they drop the case. After supervisors proceeded with the prosecution, Mr. Ceballos informed the defense of his findings, as required by law. He was subsequently removed from the prosecution's team, demoted and transferred to a different office."

Source

Ceballos is of course suing over his victimization. He won in the 9th circuit but the 9th circuit is often overturned by the Supremes.

The really odd thing about the case is that he was victimized because he followed the rules. If he had leaked to the Press, he would have had some protection under whistleblower legislation. So there is no free speech WITHIN the government according to his bosses. Government employees are supposed to be loyal to their bosses even if it means covering up wrongdoing! A most obnoxious idea!

Sometimes Spanish is NOT Correct

It sure is hard to win these days -- as VW found out:

"Volkswagen said Friday it will remove billboards in New York, Los Angeles and Miami after receiving complaints that a word used in an advertisement was offensive to Hispanics. The ad for the new GTI 2006 had a photo of the sports car accompanied by the words ''Turbo-Cojones.'' Cojones, which means testicles in Spanish, has become a casually used term for boldness or guts in English but has never lost its more vulgar connotations in its native language....

The billboards will be replaced with two ads, with one saying ''Here today, gone tamale'' and the other ''Kick a little gracias.''"

Source

Here's betting that the replacement billboards get into trouble too

Internet Service Provider Attacked over Hosted Content

The Canadians are definitely sliding into Fascism. The internet is the last refuge for free speech but not in Canada any more. Officially disapproved speech in Canada earns penalties not only for the writer but also for his ISP. That will surely lead to massive censorship by ISPs that are accessible to Canadian law. British ISPs are of course accessible to Canadian readers and the UK government would probably co-operate with Canadian authorities in bring the operators before Canadian courts.

"For the first time in Canada, an Internet service provider has been found guilty and fined for hosting websites that spread hate messages against blacks, Jews and Muslims. In the landmark ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal yesterday, southern Ontario's white supremacy movement also took a hit, with two leaders and one group found guilty of violating the Canadian Human Rights Act and ordered to pay $8,000 in fines and compensation. The Internet service provider, Affordable Space. com, was fined $5,000."

Source

The Dow Jones versus Gutnick defamation case established that American publishers can be brought before Australian courts to answer for what they publish in America as long as someone in Australia can read whatever was published. That precedent should now give international reach to Canadian "hate speech" law. Usually, however, the authorities in the other country would have to co-operate with the Canadian authorities to make anything happen -- and that co-operation may be doubtful where the USA is the other country.

And as far as the "hate speech" they are talking about is concerned, the same arguments apply as applied to holocaust-denier David Irving. There was very widespread agreement in Britain and the USA that he should not have been jailed for his "crimes" by the Austrians. I think the "hate-speakers" in this matter are in essentially the same position.

It should be interesting to see how this ruling affects the vast outpouring of hate speech by Muslims. Because Muslims are sacred in Canada, I am sure the Canadian authorities will simply turn a blind eye to it.

Update:

If you want to see how easy and without safeguards extradition can be in some cases, see here

Will it Ever End?

I guess not. Now we have a demand to change a college sports team logo so as to not be bad to animals. Someone thinks the University of South Carolina's Gamecocks logo shouldn't have claws. But would it not just be a chicken without the claws? "The Chicken University" sure sounds impressive!

"A state senator says the University of South Carolina needs to rethink its Fighting Gamecock mascot if the Legislature passes tougher penalties on cockfighting....

USC traces its gamecock history to Revolutionary War leader Thomas Sumter, whose fearlessness led the British to call him "South Carolina Game Cock.""

Source

"Congress shall Make no Law Abridging the Freedom of the Press"

But the State of Pennsylvania seems to think it can:

"In an unusual and little-known case, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office has seized four computer hard drives from a Lancaster newspaper as part of a statewide grand-jury investigation into leaks to reporters.

The dispute pits the government's desire to solve an alleged felony -- computer hacking -- against the news media's fear that taking the computers circumvents the First Amendment and the state Shield Law."

Source

If it is not abridging the freedom of the press to seize its records and the equipment it uses to do its job, I don't know what would be. But lots of people these days -- including some Supreme Court judges -- seem to think that the Constitution can mean anything they want it to mean.

The cause of the high-handed behaviour was a "leak" investigation. Some reporters had accessed a government database and claimed that the State's coroner had given them the password to enable them to do so -- which he of course denies.

So how is seizing the computers going to show how the reporters got the password? The whole thing is a nonsense and can only be seen as an attempt to intimidate and punish the newspaper.

The Redgrave Version of Free Speech





Actress Vanessa Redgrave -- one of the far-Left Redgrave family -- has recently condemned the cancellation of a play about the charming anti-Israel demonstrator, Rachel Corrie (pictured above). Although the decision to cancel the play was a private one, she sees the cancellation as an attack on free speech. She could possibly make a case for that but look at what she says about it:

"...there's many more people want the freedom to communicate, as long as it's not blasphemous and destructive in a rotten way of other people, in other words, racist. I mean, those cartoons, for instance, that have shocked us all were racist. They were fascist in character, the cartoons of the Prophet with a bomb on his head..."

Source

So it's the usual Leftist "Free speech for me but not for thee". Anything the Left disagree with is "racist" or "fascist" of course. Look at how often the centre-Right President Bush is called a "Nazi".

And as for the Danish cartoons being "Fascist", the only Fascist thing about them was the Islamic Fascism they depicted. To the nutty Left, blowing people up with bombs is not Fascist but a mere cartoon is!

(Pictures from LGF)

A Certain Internet Search Company Seems to be Getting Worse

They have just declared that a conservative Christian site is "hate speech". The site concerned, Alain's newsletter, has a copy of their letter up. I do myself excerpt content from that site from time to time and I have never seen any "hate speech" on it. Like a lot of Christian sites, it is passionately anti-abortion but if that is hate-speech, a huge slice of America is equally guilty. I suspect that it is their criticism of homosexuality that has got them into trouble. But if that is so, the Bible is hate-speech! See, for example Romans 1: 22-32, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-19.

Anyone for MSN Search?

No free speech for churches?

We read:

"The IRS wants to strike the fear of God into priests, ministers and rabbis who venture too far into politics and activism. In a Feb. 24 speech to the City Club of Cleveland, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson announced that nearly three-quarters of the 82 churches and charities that the IRS investigated recently for alleged political and electoral improprieties turned out, in the IRS' view, to be violators. Among the 'offenses': Allowing candidates to speak on church premises, preachers delivering remarks from the pulpit interpreted to endorse candidates and the posting of Web links to the Web sites of candidates for office....

In November, there emerged clear signs that the IRS is considering doing more. The Rev. J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., discovered he was the target of IRS ire for a fiery sermon he delivered before the 2004 president election which implied endorsement of John Kerry. The sermon, titled "If Jesus debated Sen. Kerry and President Bush," provoked an IRS threat against the church's tax-exempt status. This was an egregious case of sermon-policing...."

Source

Sermon-policing?? What has the Great Republic come to? It sounds more like a totalitarian State.

Churches must of course obey the law but, as the IRS itself admits, the law is vague about what is permitted and what is not. One would hope that the IRS would use its resources to concentrate on real tax dodgers rather than this nonsense. Churches have always had great influence on society and have been behind many great movements. To muzzle them would be a huge loss to society.

An Australian Cartoon



Yep. It's a Muslim being portrayed with a bomb. Enough to make any Muslim go crazy? One would think so. But it is from Brisbane's "Courier Mail" newspaper in my home State of Queensland. The cartoon refers to a recent story to the effect that "deprogramming" of fanatical Muslims is being considered in Australia. Apparently the cartoonist thinks that Jehovah's Witnesses could be used as deprogrammers.

No reaction to the cartoon so far. It seems to me to be pretty brave (and definitely "incorrect") of the paper to print it.




Free Speech in the Jury Room Under Attack

It's pretty amazing, isn't it? Jury room confidentiality is one of our oldest and most basic protections. Yet in Idaho it has just been subjected to sustained attack by functionaries of the Idaho government. I refer to the case of former nun, Carol Asher. In the jury room, she questioned the ruling of a judge on a legal matter and also said that she answered to a higher authority than the judge -- God. Perhaps as a result of that, a government prosecution was tossed out. Note, however, that the prosecution case did have big holes in it and it was perfectly reasonable for Asher to point them out.

In breach of jury-room confidentiality, however, another juror went public with a report of Carol Asher's comments. So what did the State of Idaho do? Did it prosecute the juror who violated confidentiality? No way. It prosecuted Carol Asher. What for? For "felony perjury". Perjury?? Perjury is telling lies. What lies did she tell? She was being particularly frank, it seems to me.

The State's case against Asher was tossed out but that was not enough. They then took it to appeal. Now the appeal too has just been lost. Will that be the end of it? One certainly hopes so. See here and here.

Clearly, however, putting pressure on jurors to do what the government tells them is what it is all about. Jurors are not supposed to think any more. One of your most basic protections is being chipped away.

And do you need all the protections against conviction-hungry prosecutors that you can get!! Have a browse through the posts on Strange Justice if you doubt it.

This writer has a good comment on what should happen next.

A Most Curious Piece of Censorship

The global warming theory has caused an absolute shower of research money to fall down upon the heads of atmospheric scientists -- people who once got little funding. So few atmospheric scientists question the theory outright. It would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Even when they find something good about global warming they manage to make it sound bad. There is for instance a report here showing that warmer seas produce more fish. Anyone who likes fish dinners (as I do) would think that was excellent news. But the article in fact sounds very mournful. You have to look very closely at it to see the good news.

So the only scientists who often question the theory are Russian scientists (they don't get much in the way of research grants anyway) and retired scientists (their research grant days are over).

So what happens when somebody gathers some data that throw the theory into a cocked hat? The report gets censored. A Russian scientist presented some findings that were reported here: http://www.physorg.com/news11671.html on a respectable Western physics site. The title of the article was: "Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone". But the article was up for only a matter of hours before it was taken down. And if you do a Google search or an MSN search you will find no copy of the story anywhere on the net. The censorship was thorough.

But not thorough enough. One of the naughty boys (they ignore copyright) at "Free Republic" copied the story and reposted it just in time. See here. Happy reading!

Free Republic is another of the sites that Google seems to censor -- perhaps for legal reasons. I will however take a risk and repost the article on "Greenie Watch" tomorrow.




Elderly Christian Couple Strike Back



Britain -- A further episode in a story I mentioned in late December last year:

"A retired couple questioned by police after they wrote to their local council challenging what the saw as a pro-gay stance are suing the force and council. Joe Roberts, 73, and wife Helen, 68, of Fleetwood, Lancs, were reported by Wyre Borough Council who said they showed "potentially homophobic attitudes." The devout Christians are suing Lancashire Police and the council for breach of their human rights".

Source

I don't know what particular "human rights" they are relying on but there is a lot of EU human rights law that is applicable in Britain. I would be delighted to see such law used to squash official British homophilia. I think governments should be neither for nor against homosexuality. It is a totally private matter and so should debate about it be. But official Britain seems to positively preach homosexuality.

I can however foresee that some Asian governments (e.g. Singapore) will in the future make official attempts to discourage homosexuality as part of their efforts to prevent population decline.

Actually, there has always been institutionalized homosexuality in Britain. It used to be said of Britain's great single-sex private schools (which the British call Public Schools) that "homosexuality was not so much tolerated as compulsory". But most of the boys concerned grew up to have normal marriages so indoctrination may not matter much.




Some Really Offensive Cartoons

A lot of people thought that the Muslims were over-sensitive to get as upset as they apparently did over the Mohammed cartoons. If you want to see some REALLY offensive cartoons, have a look at some Korean cartoons about the Japanese. Because Japan conquered and controlled Korea for many years (up to 1945), Koreans hate the Japanese.

An amusing story about that: When the Koreans decided that they wanted some high speed trains, did they import the famous Japanese "Shinkansen" trains from virtually next-door? No. They imported them from FRANCE -- half a world away!

Schools Now Expected to Follow the Muslim Calendar

From NYC:

"City Commissioner for Human Rights Omar Mohammedi has written to Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, calling it insensitive to have held elementary-school tests on a Muslim holiday. Tests were given in January on Eid al-Adha, the feast of sacrifice. Mohammedi wrote: "Mandating these children to take state testing during this important holiday is at a minimum insensitive if not discriminatory."

Source

What about all the Hindu holidays and Jewish holidays? Is everything to shut down on those days too? If not there seems to be a heap of "insensitivity" going around.

There are a lot of Australians in NYC. Some died on 9/11/2001. So what about setting aside Australia's No. 1 memorial day -- Anzac day? How many Arabs have died fighting alongside American troops? Plenty of Australians have.

And what if some of the British in NYC want to celebrate their holidays -- such as the Queen's birthday? Seems fair! And I am sure the Poles have got some pretty important Saint's Days that they would like to celebrate. We can't be discriminatory can we? It can't just be Muslims that we cater too. That would be "discrimination"!




This Bigot has no Place in the Lecture Hall

Freedom of speech should be cherished and defended, but there is no excuse for tolerating racial lies masquerading as academic truths

The heading and subheading above are copied from an article by Mary Riddell in "The Guardian", chief organ of the British Left. The article concerned goes on to call for the sacking of a university teacher, Frank Ellis, who has publically expressed unpopular but research-based views about the low average IQ of Africans.

Note that we have ONCE AGAIN the familiar Leftist defence-mechanism of "denial". The author denies that she is attacking free speech and then makes a case for doing exactly that.

So how well-founded are the arguments of this enemy of free speech? As usual, we find that abuse and attack is being used to cover up a weak argument. Let me give just one example of her intellectual feebleness and ignorance: She says of Ellis: "He also blames Africans for getting AIDS". Who does SHE think is to blame? Does she think there is a huge worldwide army of whites holding blacks down and forcibly injecting them with AIDS? I will say without fear of reasonable contradiction that Africans who get AIDS are indeed themselves responsible for getting AIDS. They get it as a result of their own behaviour, not anyone else's -- just as I would be responsible for getting it if indeed I did have it (which I don't). So if Ellis blames Africans for getting AIDS, so do I.

Note that there have been large academic books and hosts of academic articles written on both sides of the racial IQ argument. To characterize one side as "lies" is then just the usual Leftist attempt to substitute abuse for a willingness to look at and discuss complex facts.

For those who really are interested in the facts, the latest (2006) book on the subject has just been reviewed in Personality & Individual Differences, a major British academic journal. You can find a copy of the review here




An Anti-Christian Cartoon in Canada

We read:

"A newspaper cartoon targeting religion has once again sprung into the spotlight -- this time in a two-frame jab at Christianity in the University of Saskatchewan student newspaper, the Sheaf. The newspaper is issuing a mea culpa after a cartoon depicting Jesus performing a sex act on a capitalist pig was published in Thursday's edition of the Sheaf."

Source

In my view they would have been able to defend themselves if they had printed the Mohammed cartoons but they had already refused to do that. The arrant hypocrisy got a reaction this time. All involved with publishing the offending cartoon now seem to to have been forced to resign.

England Supports Germany's Ban on Satire



In a great day for tolerance, we read:

"England supporters who give Nazi salutes during this summer's World Cup in Germany will be prosecuted and banned from domestic and international football matches, the home secretary, Charles Clarke, said yesterday... Invoking the Nazi era - including giving a Nazi salute, denying the Holocaust and wearing Nazi symbols - is illegal under German law, and Mr Clarke said he would support the German authorities in prosecuting fans for such offences."

Source

Not much freedom of expression there. Satire and mockery have always been potent forms of political expression but bans on political expression are what we have come to expect from Europe. The satire in this case might be crude but satire often is. And is it not a good thing to keep alive memory of past follies? I forget who it was who said: "He who does not remember the past is bound to repeat it".

And the ban is in a way self-mocking. It shows that the German conception of individual liberties and human rights still has not completely emerged from Hitler's intolerant shadow. The Muslims protesting against the Mohammed cartoons would understand and agree with the ban.

The pic above is of course of John Cleese -- a great English comedian -- doing HIS famous Nazi "impersonation". I wonder will future screenings of "Fawlty Towers" (the series concerned) be banned in England now?




Insulting Muslims and Homosexuals bad: Insulting Christians OK

Another ruling from the notorious 9th Circuit. No prizes for guessing what they would have decided if it was Mohammed being referred to rather than Jesus:

"An Alaska high school violated a student's free speech rights by suspending him after he unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from the school, a federal court ruled on Friday. Joseph Frederick, a student at Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska, displayed the banner -- which refers to smoking marijuana -- in January 2002 to try to get on television as the Olympic torch relay was passing the school.

Source

The court also ruled that the kid could sue the teacher who reined him in.






Spam Vigilantes

This article is a bit disturbing. Spam blocking is something we all want but it seems that there is a volunteer organization called www.Spamhaus.org that claims to be providing a spam blocking service but which blocks whatever it likes with little or no notification or redress for legitimate emailers whom they decide to block. Reading between the lines, it seems that any conservative sending out a lot of emails could well get categorized as a spammer and be unfairly blocked. There seems to be nothing to prevent it. You could be missing out on emails you would want to be receiving because of their activities. And some of the people behind www.Spamhaus.org seem to be pretty unsavory characters. Probably the only way to make them more accountable would be for someone else to start spamblocking all their emails.

An Inadvertent Joke?

There is a site here designed to propagandize schoolchildren about the wonderful inventions and discoveries Muslims have made: Things like motor cars, aeroplanes, light bulbs, telephones, televisions etc (Whoops! I think I got that wrong). The inventions are described in 7 convenient categories: "home, school, market, hospital, town, world and universe". But if you click on any one of those categories, you get at the time I am writing this the response: "File not found". I believe them!

If you REALLY want to find out about the Muslim contribution to science etc., see this classic article.




Wrong to Mention Bible Teachings

A teacher who mentioned Bible teachings about homosexuality as part of a broadcast at Miami Sunset Senior High has come under fire:

"On the first day, a few students talked about supporting gay rights, and no one paid much attention. On the second day, a school counselor talked about respecting each other, and no one paid much attention. On the third day, a few students spoke against homosexuality and a teacher said it is ''wrong according to the Bible'' -- and people noticed very much".

Source

No free exchange of ideas in Florida public schools apparently. School administrators are searching frantically to find some "rule" that was broken so they can penalize the Christians. You can praise homosexuality to the skies with impunity but don't you DARE mention any reservations about it. It seems that homosexuality has become the established church in much of America's educational system.




A Welcome Backdown

We read:

"The University of Wisconsin announced a plan Wednesday that would allow resident assistants to hold Bible study meetings in their dormitory rooms. The plan was immediately praised by critics of the old policies in place on some Wisconsin campuses, which barred such meetings as an infringement on the separation of church and state, since the R.A.'s are state employees.... The issue gained prominence in the fall, when an R.A. at the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire complained that he was barred from organizing religious meetings in his dormitory room".

Source

"R.A.s" are apparently senior students who are given some authority over the dormitory they live in and are paid something in return. The Leftists argued that as State employees they could not support any religion. There may be something in that argument except that the RA concerned was holding Bible studies in his own time in his own room. Apparently, to Leftists, Christians are not entitled to any private life.

A "Green Desert"?

Yep! Just as cooling can be proof of global warming, trees can be a sign of a desert to Greenies. Happening at the moment in Porto Alegre, Brazil, is a United Nations "conference" on agrarian reform. And to get their rocks off, there has just been a "coincidental" activity:

"About 2,000 protesters on Wednesday invaded a plantation in southern Brazil owned by Aracruz, the world's biggest producer of bleached eucalyptus pulp, and caused what the company said was millions of dollars of damage and losses. The demonstrators, most of them women, said they opposed the mass cultivation of eucalyptus trees near one of Aracruz's four main factories in Brazil. The pulp is used to produce cellulose, the main ingredient of paper. "We don't want the green desert of the cellulose firms. We want a country that produces food," said Irma Ostroski, coordinator for the Via Campesina peasants' organization which staged the raid on the Barba Negra farm in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil's southernmost state.

Source

The result: Aracruz is suspending a projected billion dollar investment in Porto Allegre, which pleases the Porto Allegrans no end. Who wants jobs? Brazil already has huge unemployment. Why not a little more? To the wreckers of the Green/Left, unemployment is fine and dandy. It just generates more discontent for them to feed on. More here




Official British Prudery

In an age where all sorts of "obscene" language is now to be heard everywhere, the British government has banned the word "bloody" from British TVs. Which should make something of a laughing stock of them.

But it gets better: The ban has been applied to an advertisement being run by a government department -- the Australian government's tourism promotion arm. The Australian bureaucracy is like any bureaucracy -- pretty prim and proper. But it is obviously not prim and proper enough for the Brits. The actual sentence (from a tourism promo) that upset the Brits was "Where the bloody hell are you?". You can view the advertisement here. It's a very professional production.

The Australian Tourism authorities are of course delighted by the ban:

"But Tourism Australia was unfazed by the British TV ban, welcoming it as unexpected publicity for the campaign. "It's a bit of a PR dream," Tourism Australia managing director Scott Morrison told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio. "This is a great opportunity to really promote the campaign. We'll be driving people to the Internet like there's no tomorrow," he said

Source

Incidentally, the title of the woman who imposed the ban is: "Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport". That sounds like something out of the old Soviet or Nazi regimes to me. I am sure that culture and sport could get along perfectly well without government getting its sticky fingers into either. And I won't comment on government censorship of the media!

Christian Cross is an "advertisement"

A church in the city of Dudley in England has been told that it needs council planning permission to put up a cross outside its church because a cross is an "advertisement". But it's not the local council that is at fault. Apparently Britain has a law applicable nationwide saying that crosses are advertisements! See here. But the council IS responsible for its decision to charge 75 pounds (roughly $150.00) for the needed peremission.

I wonder when minarets on Mosques will be treated as advertisements? They are there to call people to Muslim prayers so they are more like advertisements than crosses are, it seems to me. But since when was ANY religious symbol an "advertisement"? In the USA the whole thing would be a violation of constitutionally protected freedom of religion, I imagine. But Britain has no constitution so once you get the Leftist nutjobs in power they can pass any nutty law they like. And they do.




Two Short Notes:

1). I mentioned recently that American newspaper headlines seem much more politically correct than Australian ones. An American reader has just pointed out to me an Australian headline that would be most unlikely to appear in a mainstream American newspaper but which appeared in Australia's "Herald Sun" -- the major newspaper of Melbourne. The headline is: "Sex fiend escapes offenders register". America does not have any sex fiends any more apparently.

But in this age of the internet, Australian newspapers are only a click away so you do have some choice of where you get your news now. I have always been a bit surprised to note Australian newspapers quoted rather a lot on the internet so I think I now know why.


2). Another disgusted American reader emailed me as follows:

"I work in Information Technology for a large health care system. Recently we had a power outage on one of our campuses. In a meeting the next week our team performance was summarized and it was made clear to us that from that point on our process will no longer be referred to as "Disaster Recovery" but will now be called "IT Service Continuity Management".

The reader ended his email with: "AAARRRGHGHGHGH!!!!!"

"Black and white issue"

If black sheep are incorrect, surely it is at least as incorrect to speak of "black and white issues". Surely such talk could offend minorities! Yet in the selfsame wacky Britain where mentions of black sheep are banned we find a government minister using such "offensive" language. Energy minister Malcolm Wicks, in discussing nuclear power, said: "As the commission itself finds, this is not a black and white issue".

Surely he should have said "This is a rainbow issue"? Here's betting I am starting something here!

"Rainbow sheep"?

The latest from the Unhinged Kingdom:

"Traditional nursery rhymes are being rewritten at nursery schools to avoid causing offence to children. Instead of singing "Baa baa, black sheep" as generations of children have learnt to do, toddlers in Oxfordshire are being taught to sing "Baa baa, rainbow sheep".

Source

So what is a rainbow sheep? And how could a child conceivably be "offended" by the color of a black sheep? It seems that even the color of animals can now be incorrect. I thought it was just a joke when people say: "It's a case of the pot calling the kettle Afro-American" but it seems that Britain is serious about such things.

Incorrect to Say you Speak English!



We read:

"Arapahoe County is threatening to fire a veteran Public Works employee for promoting the fact that he is an English speaking American..... The problems began last spring. Gray, 50, owns a lawn service business on the side. He was routinely driving to work in his pickup truck towing a trailer that he uses to carry lawn mowing equipment for his business. On the side of his trailer, the married father of two affixed a sign that reads "Lawn Services Done With Pride!! By An English Speaking American."... "There are a lot of people in the lawn service that are non-English speaking," Gray said. "Customers and different people were telling me that they have a hard time trying to communicate with them about the work they want done on their yards. I just want to let people know they at least can communicate with me when I do work on their property."

Source

County officials accused Mr Gray of "harassment" and "discrimination". But if he had said in Spanish that he spoke Spanish that would have been fine of course. The only one being discriminated against here is Mr Gray, as far as I can see. But being white and English-speaking is pretty offensive these days it seems. It is one of those nasty things you don't mention.

Students Attack Intelligent Inquiry

An excerpt from The Guardian:

"Students and lecturers are calling for a Leeds University don to be sacked after he said he supported a theory that black people were inferior to whites. In a row that has reignited the debate on the limits of freedom of speech, Frank Ellis, a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies, sparked anger after stating, in an interview with the university's student newspaper, that he was an 'unrepentant Powellite' who thought that the BNP was 'a bit too socialist' for his liking. Ellis said he supported right-wing ideas such as the Bell Curve theory, which held that white people were more intelligent than black people. '[It] has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence.' .... Now students are preparing to picket his lectures, protest on campus and bombard the vice-chancellor with emails calling for Ellis to be removed from his post."

Source

Statements such as those made by Ellis have been normal among psychometricians (specialists in psychological measurement) for nearly 100 years. You can find them summarized in the book Ellis refers to. But making such statements in public always attracts wrath. Ellis is one of those rare people who puts telling the truth as he sees it above his own self-interest. It is heartening that his university is resisting the calls to sack him. There would not be much left of academic freedom in Britain if they did sack him.





"Gunfight at the K-Y Corral"

Oh dear! I had better not say anything here about the mega-incorrect Ann Coulter's latest hilarious column about the movies.

Just read it here.





When the Race Card Hurts Blacks

There is a story here of a husband and wife black couple who had senior positions in a Georgia school but who apparently abused their positions to steal money. They do not appear to have been prosecuted for the embezzlement (as they should have been) but their teaching certificates were suspended for a year. So no jail time, just no job.

Even that punishment was greeted with outrage, however. The couple have gone to court to overturn it. And what is their defence? It seems to be nothing more than repeated accusations that the authorities are all "racists" -- even ACLU and NAACP members are racists as long as they are white, allegedly.

People normally crumble before accusations of racism but this time at least some people are seeing another side to it: Why should well-off blacks use such accusations to defend the theft of money that should benefit lots of ordinary blacks -- not just a few blacks in positions of influence? As it says here:

"School System observers are now asking, "Are we to allow the Black Elite to treat average blacks as second class citizens? Is it fair for just one or two to get all the money and the rest of the blacks cover up and suffer just because they are black?""





Belafonte Defines Terrorism



The "Kingston Town" singer has given pleasure to many (including me) by his singing but singers don't have to be intellectuals and one can only hope that few people think Belafonte is one. He has made some recent comments on terrorism that are unusual to say the least. To wit:

"We are living in terrorism as black people in America. And it has been that way since the dawning of slavery....If we are having problems with finding our own inner souls and dignity to live out a life that is honorable, what is it that has put us in this position? We didn't volunteer for it. And those who have put us here and chosen to keep us here are people who deal in terror."

Source

It sounds like Abraham Lincoln needn't have bothered from Belafonte's point of view.

Strange Logic Mustered to Block Coulter



A group of Syracuse university students are protesting against Ann Coulter being allowed to give a speech there. Leftists are always attempting political censorship so that is no surprise. The more people know the facts, the more they will see how shallow Leftist arguments are, so Leftists NEED censorship. What is amusing here is the logic used to argue for censorship:

"Ann Coulter's openly racist, sexist and hateful remarks violate Syracuse University's non-discrimination policy. Have we learned nothing from HillTV about respect for our fellow human beings? Evidently not. This is not an issue of free speech and hearing "both sides" of an issue. Her remarks directly infringe upon students' rights to feel safe and included in the campus community.

Source

One again we find Leftists in Freudian denial. They deny that they are doing exactly what they are doing: Blocking free speech. And I wonder where the right to FEEL anything, let alone feel "included" is to be found in the constitution? I can find the right to free speech there but no rights about how you feel. And constitutional law trumps all other law.

And dearest Ann is going to make some students feel unsafe? I guess that to Leftists, her cutting mockery of them must make her seem like a 500 pound gorilla!





Golliwogs only a Little Bit Incorrect in Britain



The police seized them but then had second thoughts and gave them back!

"Police in Herefordshire say they will not be charging a store owner after removing three toy golliwogs from his shop window. The toys were removed from a display at Pettifer's in Bromyard after someone complained they were offensive. Officers said the items will be returned but store owner Donald Reynolds will be advised about the sensitivities of displaying them. Mr Reynolds said he would continue to sell them. He said he had not received any complaints about the toys, which had been on display for two weeks, before they were seized."

Source

I am not really up on the U.S. golliwog scene but I had the impression that they are absolutely verboten there. But in any case, given the skyrocketing rate of real crime in Britain, shouldn't the police have something better to do than this farce? I wonder where the gollies were made? China, no doubt.

Update:

One reader tells me that there are NO golliwogs in the USA. Sad. I remember having a golliwog myself when I was a little kid and I quite liked it. It certainly never occurred to me that they were a caricature of an African.

Has Anybody Asked the Women?

As far as I know, women do NOT like men in their bathrooms. I can guarantee you that at least 99% of women would say that such a thing would make them feel "uncomfortable". And making anybody feel "uncomfortable" is one of the great sins of this politically correct age. Even using the word "niggardly" has made some people feel so "uncomfortable" that the person using the word has lost their job over it.

But it seems to matter a lot what it is that makes you feel "uncomfortable". We read here that a guy dressed as a woman MUST be allowed to use women's bathrooms. Why? Because he has been "in transition" to becoming a female for ten years. Sounds like a handy excuse for a pervert to me.

But how come nobody even took an interest in what the women users of the facility wanted? Looks like one "transgender" person is way more important than a whole heap of women. If Harvard President Larry Summers had been a "transgender" person, he would probably still have his job.





Colleges Welcome Economically Diverse Student Body

I love it! Another fun headline above -- taken from an article in the news circular of the elite Smith College of Massachusetts. No longer do we have "the poor". Now they are "economically diverse". For what it's worth the first paragraph of the article reads:

"In recent years, elite institutions across the nation have implemented new programs to attract lower income applicants to their student bodies. These efforts are continuing for future classes. At such colleges as Harvard, West Point and Smith, changes in policy and active programs are being used to achieve this goal."

I would have thought that millionaires were economically diverse too but that does not seem to be whom they are aiming at -- ostensibly anyway.

I think it is also amusing that they are grumbling about how their "economically diverse" students are causing their courses to be downgraded in rankings of colleges. The idea that some people might be poor for a good reason is of course totally unthinkable to them. It is all "discrimination" etc.




American University not Allowed to Display Cartoons

A Republican student group at UCI put on a public meeting to discuss the Mohammed cartoons and in the course of the discussion three of the cartoons were displayed. This rapidly led to a semi-riot by Muslim students present. Here is how one of the Muslims explained it:

"Osman Umarji, former president of the Muslim Student Union, equated the decision by the student panel to display the prophet drawings to the debasement of Jews in Germany before the Holocaust".

Source

Yeah! Those Republican students really are dangerous guys. Look how many people they have beheaded already!

The Racial Games

The effort by some Left-leaning blacks to make a racial issue out of the Winter Olympics continues. The remarks by Bryant Gumbel are well known and now we read this as the very beginning of a comment on the games:

"These Winter Olympics, oh, how white they are! And I'm not talking about the snow."

Blacks do very well in some sports and athletic events so what is wrong with whites doing well in some other sports and athletic events? Let's have more white sprinters in America's next Olympic team! It's obviously racism that keeps them out at the moment!




"Boy" Incorrect

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision says that using the term "boy" could be discriminatory.

"The decision makes sense to Kay Dickey, a Montgomery attorney who practices employment discrimination law. She said in the South the term "boy" is derogatory toward blacks. She said the term shouldn't be used in the workplace".

Source

The court recognized that it all depended on the tone of voice etc. So pity help you if you ever use the word while you are in a bad mood! But how pathetic that such things as tone of voice can now be the subject of court cases in the highest courts of the land! One would think there were much bigger things to worry about.

There is an extended comment on how dangerous the word has now become here




Reference to Minority Politics Incorrect

In Australia, as in the USA, the major party of the Left (the Labor Party) gets particularly strong support from minorities -- though the minorities concerned in Australia differ from those in the USA. Apparently, however, it is incorrect to refer to that. Tony Abbott, a minister in Australia's conservative government, was speaking of the sources of support for a prominent Leftist legislator when he said:

"I'm reading in The Australian last Friday, he's (Mr Crean) still got the Greek branches but he's lost the Spanish branches and he's lost the Vietnamese branches as well as the Cambodian branches. "And I couldn't help but think - are there any Australians left in the so-called Australian Labor Party today?"

Source

He was forced to withdraw his remarks on the grounds that they were derogatory to minorities but it is not at all clear why. If certain minorities have a lot of influence in a political party, is that demeaning to them? It could just as well be a compliment to their hard work and committment.

The argument no doubt is that you can be a good Australian even if you or your parents were born elsewhere -- and that is no doubt true -- but if you want to be regarded as simply an Australian, why band together as groups of Vietnamese Australians, Cambodian Australians etc.? To act ethnic without wanting to be regarded as ethnic is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

I think the minister was perfectly within his rights to question how many members of the Labor Party identified as simply Australian. I am pleased to note that many American blacks (though not of course all) identify themselves as simply Americans. If they can do that so can any minority.

The BBC Homophobic?

I would have thought that the BBC was about the world's most politically correct organization (outside Canada that is) but the British homosexual organizaion "Stonewall" has a different view. They studied 8 weeks of programming on two BBC TV Channels and concluded:

"there was 32 minutes of derogatory or offensive references to gays and lesbians on the two networks between 7pm and 10pm."

If you believe that of the BBC you would believe anything. And they were indeed stretching to find something offensive. One BBC presenter was criticized "for describing a car he liked: "Now this, for me, when I was little, was like, kind of, Jordan and Cameron Diaz in a bath together.".

Jordan and Cameron Diaz are two sexy-looking women whom the presenter was obviously complimenting highly for their looks but Stonewall thought the comment was offensive to lesbians!! All I can make of it is that sexy women must be pretty incorrect to homosexuals. But surely criticizing mainstream men who think such women attractive is itself intolerant and endeavouring to enforce a minority viewpoint on the majority. A lot like the Muslim cartoon protesters.




A New Cartoon!

When "The New Straits Times" -- a Malaysian daily newspaper -- published a new cartoon mentioning Mohammed, they got into BIG hot water. You can see the cartoon here. I would put the cartoon directly on this site but there are other people than I affected by what I post here so I don't feel I have the right to involve them.

Below is part of the newspaper's grovel over what they did. They had reason to grovel, mind you. Malaysia is run by Muslims so there is no free speech there and people can and do get thrown into jail for what most Westerners would see as unjustified reasons.

"Neither did the NST deliberately publish what it deemed an inoffensive cartoon. The NST never intended to hurt any feelings. At least one religious scholar has told the NST that the cartoon was not offensive but could, if different people wished, be interpreted differently. But we stand corrected. We should have been more sensitive - human error or not. So again, we apologise. And again, we will willingly accept any action deemed fit by the Government."

Dog Pundit has some comments about the story.




10 More Motorcycle Club Affiliates Plead Guilty

The headline above is taken directly from the Sacramento Bee. The story begins:

"Ten members or associates of the Vagos motorcycle club pleaded guilty last week to crimes ranging from possessing a firearm to conspiracy to sell methamphetamine, authorities said. The 10 represent the latest Vagos convictions after a crackdown on the biker club in the Sacramento area. The California Department of Justice and Sacramento County Sheriff's Department have conducted three operations since 2004 into drugs and violence by members and their associates."

Maybe I am out of touch with American practice but in any Australian newspaper that headline would have referred to "bikie gang members", not "motorcycle club affiliates". Referring to a violent drug dealing gang the way that California newspaper did seems quite pathetic to me. I sort of hope it sounds pathetic to some Americans too. Do Americans now have to call a spade a "digging implement"? No doubt the headline was being "non-judgmental". But if we are not judgmental about a violent drug dealing gang, it seems we have no anchors at all for what constitutes good and bad behaviour.

Footnote:

Readers might remember this story, which shows that Americans in fact CANNOT safely call a spade a spade any more.