The primary site for this blog mirror is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Immigration Watch, Food & Health Skeptic, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Eye on Britain, Recipes, Dissecting Leftism and Australian Politics. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archives of this site
****************************************************************************************





30 November, 2012

Student government at UCB criticizes fraternity Halloween decorations



From early this month:  A "Zombie" looked too much like a lynching

Public outcry over the perceived racially insensitive nature of a campus fraternity’s Halloween decoration has prompted efforts in the ASUC Senate to increase awareness of racial and cultural issues on campus.

The senate unanimously passed a bill at its meeting Wednesday evening that recognizes “the history and presence of lynching and anti-black sentiment” in the United States, California and UC Berkeley and urges the ASUC to implement “mandatory racial sensitivity curriculum” for campus Greek organizations. The bill was drafted in response to a stuffed zombie hung Tuesday from a third-story window of the Theta Delta Chi fraternity house as a part of an annual haunted house philanthropy event.

Source

Having fun can be a problem these days.  Doing anything unusual may cause injured feelings and we can't have that!





Racist chants at English soccer match

Tottenham Hotspurs is a largely Jewish London football club who sometimes refer to themselves as "Yids".  In sport however political correctness often gets forgotten and they do come in for racist abuse

And in Italy recently there was more than abuse.  A group of Tottenham fans were physically attacked by thugs supporting a rival Italian football club:  Lazio

But in Britain it was just hot air

The bile-spewing West Ham fans who baited their Tottenham Hotspur rivals because some of their number had been stabbed by a Nazi mob could take a couple of lessons in history.

What the West Ham fans were chanting:

'Viva Lazio'

'Adolf Hitler, he's coming for you'

'Can we stab you every week?'

Ashley Mills, a 25-year-old Tottenham fan, was the most severely injured of 10 compatriots who were subject to an unprovoked act of violence while drinking in the Drunken Ship pub in Campo de Fiori, Rome, ahead of his club's Europa League tie with Lazio.

The Ultras – renowned hooligans in the Eternal City – had come 50 strong to make an anti-Semitic attack against Tottenham, with their traditionally Jewish heritage.

Two men, both fans of Lazio's neighbouring club Roma, were arrested and charged.

In celebration of the foregoing hate-crime, West Ham fans, who were said to number hundreds rather than dozens yesterday, chanted 'Viva Lazio'.

Source





29 November, 2012

A triumph for Saints Cyril and Methodius -- to Have Halos and Crosses Restored

France and Greece objected to the Slovakian coinage!

After strong objections by the Catholic Church which were taken up in the national parliament of Slovakia by the Christian Democratic Movement, Slovak Democratic and Christian Union and some representatives of the Ordinary People and Independent Personalities  caucus to the elimination of halos from the heads of Sts. Cyril and Methodius and the removal of the image of the cross from the saints’ vestments, the Board of Directors of the National Bank of Slovakia has announced that the halos and crosses will be restored on the 2-Euro coins scheduled to be released in 2013 to commemorate the 1150th Anniversary of the Mission of Cyril and Methodius to the Slavs.

Slovak Spectator reported, however, that restoring those halos might preclude the Slovakian €2 coin being released throughout the European Union.

Source

Slovakia, Cyril and Methodius may seem of little account to us but all are combatants in the international Leftist war on Christmas and Christianity. 

Cyril and Methodius are in fact big wheels in European History.  They were Byzantine Greek missionaries who brought Christianity to the Slavs.  The Russian alphabet (Cyrillic) is named after Cyril as he invented the first version of it.  So those old guys are worth some honor.

Slovakia today is a  high-income   advanced economy of 5 million people





Devout Kansas Town Forced to Remove Cross? by Leftist bullies from outside

A town in central Kansas that was founded more than 100 years ago by immigrants escaping religious persecution — is once again facing religious persecution.

The tiny town of Buhler is being forced to remove a religious cross from its town seal after a group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation complained that the symbol violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The group said the cross indicated government endorsement of Christianity. The group also threatened to sue unless a large billboard featuring the cross was removed from a city park.

Mayor Daniel Friesen told Fox News that concerns over the lawsuit were the deciding factor in removing the cross and redesigning the seal.

“If we would have been sued, we would likely lose,” he said. “It’s not an issue of appeasing this fringe group. It’s a matter of protecting the community of Buhler from this organization. We’ve got to take the high road.”

The mayor said the town seal was the result of a competition held in 1988 to mark Buhler’s centennial. The town of 1,350 people was founded by Mennonite immigrants who were seeking refuge from religious persecution.

The irony is not lost on the mayor.  “It’s a faith-based community — always has been,” he said. “The community has never pushed (their faith) on anybody else – but they felt the cross was a good representation.”

Many local residents expressed their frustration and their disappointment on the town’s Facebook page.  “It really saddens me that the minority has finally bullied their way into Buhler,” one resident wrote. “My husband and I chose Buhler when moving from Kansas City with a job transfer because of that sign in the park and the fact that it did have a cross on it because it showed us we were moving into a strong Christian community.”

Source



28 November, 2012

Must not mention that Obama is brown?

A top Israeli military spokesman has been branded 'racist' after posting a picture to Facebook of his face covered in mud alongside the caption: 'Obama style.'

The image was uploaded on September 29 by Lt. Sacha Dratwa - who, as the social media chief for the Israel Defence Forces, probably should have been more tuned in to the power of Facebook.

He has since came under a barrage of abuse for the picture - which appears to show him swimming in the Dead Sea - and has been forced to deny that he is racist.

He responded to a Twitter user accusing him of racism, saying: 'I'm not a racist, please stop [spreading] lies about me', ABC News reported.

Source

He got his face smeared with mud while swimming and that made him think he looked like Emptyhead.  How awful!



RI: Governor pulls plug on tree lighting

"Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee has pulled the plug on the state’s annual tree lighting ceremony one year after he created a yuletide controversy by changing its name to a 'holiday' tree.

The governor’s spokeswoman did not give a reason for the decision. But last year his office was flooded with thousands of telephone calls protesting the name change. Many citizens accused the Independent governor of trying to secularize Christmas. At the time, Chafee said the name change was meant to honor the state’s origin as a sanctuary of religious tolerance."

Source

It's "tolerant" to censor Christmas???



27 November, 2012

Must not describe Islam accurately in Canada?

A Canadian Islamic organization is accusing a Toronto-area Jewish day school of using a textbook that vilifies Muslims.

In a Nov. 19 letter to Jewish groups, the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR-CAN, charges that a textbook used at the Joe Dwek Ohr HaEmet Sephardic School employs "inflammatory and hateful terms in describing Muslims."

CAIR-CAN alleges the book, "2000 Years of Jewish History," describes Muslims as "rabid fanatics" with "savage beginnings."

"The entire chapter devoted to Islam presents a pernicious and extreme portrayal of Muslims and the Islamic faith. The material further denigrates the Prophet Muhammad as a 'rabid Jew-hater,' and falsely portrays Islam as inherently anti-Semitic and devoted to hating Jews," the group said in its letter to the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center For Holocaust Studies and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA.

It said the text is used in grade 7 and 8 girls' classes at the Orthodox Jewish day school and "leaves impressionable young Jewish readers with a sense of suspicion and even intolerance towards their fellow Canadians."

Source

Particularly in Surah 9, the Koran is full of hatred towards non-Muslims and exhortations to kill or oppress them  -- so the Jewish school is simply describing Islam accurately.  I have a copy of the "Glorious Koran" on my desk and have checked it.

It could be that Muslims disown that part of the Koran, just as modern Jews disown the harsher commandments of Leviticus, but any Muslim who did that would get his head chopped off.  The Koran is perfect, according to Islamic doctrine.  Muslims can't stand criticism of any kind.



Vassar still self-stimulating over graffiti

The incidents (in early October) are too good an excuse for displays of self-righteousness to let them go

As most members of the Vassar community are well aware, in October of this year, several incidents of hateful graffiti were discovered in bathroom stalls and dormitories on campus.

These incidents gave rise to a variety of responses from the college designed to both assess the impact on the Vassar community and provide resources for those who were affected to express their feelings and seek support.

Such measures included the creation of the moderated SpeakUpVC blog, and hosting a community discussion on the topic.
Assistant Director for Campus Life and LGBTQ Programs Judy Jarvis said in an emailed statement, “It’s hard to measure the effectiveness of the blog and window display, but I felt that the combination of responses was important because it allowed students to engage in whatever ways they felt most comfortable.”

While some community members have been inclined to dismiss the incidents as the work of hoodlums with bad senses of humor looking to get a rise out the students, Jarvis argues that these incidents are examples of hate speech, and are symptomatic of larger problems in the Vassar community, and society at large.

VSA President Jason Rubin ’13 applauded the all-campus initiatives addressing the graffiti, as well as other measures by student groups, citing the House discussion in Jewett.  Rubin also said that the incidents were symptomatic of larger problems with the Vassar community, and that further action needed to be taken.

While the graffiti itself is long gone, the marks which it has made upon the ways in which the Vassar community views and comports itself will remain longstanding.

Source




26 November, 2012

Must not say that homosexual "marriage" is wrong

After her daughter's eighth grade math teacher wore an anti-gay marriage pin to school, Cynthia Deford, a gay parent in Port Angeles, Washington, started an online campaign to ban teachers from promoting political causes in the classroom.

The Steven's Middle School teacher, who has remained unnamed, wore a button to class in the days before the Nov. 6 election that stated “No on 74: one man + one woman = marriage," according to Deford. The political message refers to Washington's Referendum 74, which legalized gay marriage in the state, passing with 52 percent of the vote.

Although Port Angeles School District Superintendent Jane Pryne told the Peninsula Daily News that the issue has been addressed, and the school district already has policy regarding politics in the classroom in place, Deford wants more to be done; she is calling for an official apology and sensitivity training for teachers.

"It just shocked me that it happened here," Deford told the Peninsula Daily News.

Source

Leftist teachers bring their political views into the class all the time but woe betide you if you express Biblical views there





Must not criticize bottles????

An advert for a SodaStream machine due to air in a prime slot on ITV was pulled at the last minute - because it encouraged viewers to shun bottled soft drinks to help save the environment.

The commercial for the soda maker was to be screened during a break in last night's episode of I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here, but a watchdog decided it could not be aired because it was unfairly critical of the soft drinks industry.

SodaStream UK branded the decision to pull its ad - which shows familiar looking plastic bottles of fizzy drinks exploding as people hit the button on the machine - 'absurd'.

The advert sees various people using a SodaStream machine to create their own carbonated drinks.

The firm said it had hoped to deliver a 'powerful message' about waste and sustainability with its new campaign, which ends with the line: 'With SodaStream, you can save 2,000 bottles per year'.

But just before the campaign was due to hit screens, Clearcast, the organisation that pre-approves UK TV advertising, decided the commercial was unsuitable.

Source






25 November, 2012

Drunken Welshman who sang anti-English songs on bus after wedding found guilty of racial abuse

This is consistent with British law but it's rather pathetic that songs require the attention of the police and the courts<

A drunken Welsh wedding guest who insulted the English was convicted of racism today.  Phillip Pritchard, 32, was on a coach home from a smart country wedding in Wales when he started singing anti-English songs.

He began by singing rugby songs but then segued into anti-English chants of his own design.

Another Welshman on the coach objected to Pritchard’s taunts and a 'heated row' erupted, forcing the coach driver to pull over into a lay-by and call police.

Pritchard, of Swansea, admitted using racially aggravated threatening, insulting, abusive words or behaviour.

Lucinda Nicholls, defending, said: 'He was one of many guests at a wedding function and it appears they were all intoxicated to some extent.  'There was some banter between some English people and Mr Pritchard, who is Welsh.  'Rugby songs were chanted and he got carried away.

'Just to add to the unusualness of the situation, the complainant in the matter is Welsh, not English, but felt other people on the bus would take offence.'

Pritchard was given a 12-month conditional discharge with costs of £150 by Brecon magistrates.

Source







"Insensitve" to suggest that the poor might not have much to eat

From my observations as a former boarding-house owner, the only poor people who do not have enough to eat are the ones who first spend up on "essentials" like beer and cigarettes

As record numbers of Americans spend Thanksgiving on food stamps, one Fox news presenter has offered some advice - treat the experience as a great way to lose those extra pounds.

TV host Andrea Tantaros compared food stamps - which provide an average monthly budget of $133 - to being on a diet.

Ms Tantaros was asked by co-host Stuart Varney, during Wednesday's broadcast of The Five on Fox Business, if she could live on that amount.

She told Fox viewers: 'I should try it because do you know how fabulous I’d look?  'I’d be so skinny. I mean, the camera adds ten pounds, it really does.'

Social media lit up with thousands of outraged responses following Ms Tantaros' off-hand remarks.

One tweet from @imthepain29 read: 'She can lose lbs but she can't lose Ugly.'

Another tweeted at the presenter said: 'Lucky you can diet by choice, not poverty.'

She later highlighted a Department of Agriculture radio advert that had compared food stamps to a healthy eating plan.

The 33-year-old later added: 'Food stamps were sold as a fitness plan to "look great" by our liberal, dense government - remember?

Source



23 November, 2012

"Negro" is wrong in Sweden too
 
A local Green Party politician from central Sweden kicked up controversy for singing a song about a "negro village" in Africa during a recent children's charity fundraiser.

The incident took place on Sunday when Rune Tessin, a Green Party member of the local council in Åtvidaberg, took the stage at an event to raise money for "Min Stora Dag" ('My Big Day'), a charity which helps sick children fulfill their dreams.

One of the songs chosen by the 71-year-old Tessin featured lyrics about a "negro village" (negerby) down in Africa.

Following the event a video of the Green Party politician's crooning appeared on YouTube, much to the dismay of party colleagues.  "It makes me sad, disappointed, and angry," Bror-Tommy Sturk, Green Party chair for Östergötland County, told Sveriges Radio (SR).  "This isn't how Green Party members express themselves. I don't think anyone should express themselves in this way."

But Tessin defended his decision to sing the "negro village" tune and had a hard time understanding why his performance had ruffled feathers.

Tessin admitted that the word "negro" might be considered offensive in the United States because there are "more stereotypes attached to the word and it's more sensitive"

Source

It's actually the scientific term for sub-Saharan Africans,  though academics these days usually say "sub-Saharan Africans" to be on the safe side.  Why use one word when three will do?



It's offensive to be called Australian?

Few Australians would think so

A CZECH-BORN woman has been found guilty of racially abusing her New Zealand-born neighbour by calling her a "stupid, fat Australian".

The Daily Mail reports that the row started after New Zealander Chelsea O'Reilly called the police following a fight between her neighbour Petra Mills and her husband in Macclesfield, England.

Ms O'Reilly said: "She called me a stupid, fat Australian b****. Because of my accent there can be some confusion over my nationality. She knew I was from New Zealand.

She was fined 110 pounds ($168) for racially aggravated public disorder, 50 pounds to be awarded to Ms O'Reilly and 500 pounds to cover all court costs.

SOURCE

An English point of view, I guess.  Just about everything is offensive there if somebody complains


22 November, 2012

When Feminists Criminalize "Sexist" Speech

Writes Phyllis Schlafly at The Moral Liberal:

"England, [and] 18 other nations including Germany and France signed an absurd United Nations treaty about Women that requires them to pass new laws making sexist comments a crime and outlawing "psychological violence," which they define broadly to include statements "seriously impairing a person's psychological integrity through coercion or threats." This is sold to the public as part of a phony campaign against domestic violence...."

As with hate-speech prohibitions, these laws introduce a level of subjectivity into punishment that's striking. Who will define what constitutes "sexism," "psychological violence," and "seriously impairing a person's psychological integrity through coercion"?

Such laws give government the latitude to punish people selectively based on whether they or their words are in political favor.

Yet, in the same way that hate-speech laws are used as a hammer against Christians but not Muslims, how many "sexism" charges do you think will be brought against women? Will these laws be used to suppress sentiments such as "Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them" or products such as the "All Men are Bastards" knife block?

It's more likely that they'll be trotted out to, among other things, suppress criticism of abortion under the pretext that it impairs the "psychological integrity" of women who have had or are contemplating abortions.

Source




"Incompetent" is racist?
   
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Tuesday that a letter from nearly 100 House Republicans urging President Obama not to appoint Susan Rice as secretary of State employed racially charged "code words" to make its case.

The letter, signed by 97 House Republicans, says Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter" — language Clyburn saw as racially loaded.

"You know, these are code words," Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, told CNN. "We heard them during the campaign — during this recent campaign we heard Sen. Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent, these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives and we'd get insulted by them.

"Susan Rice is as competent as anybody you will find, and just to paste that word on her causes problems with people like [incoming Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman] Marcia Fudge and certainly causes a big problem with me," he added.

"I don't like those words," Clyburn said. "Say she was wrong for doing it, but don't call her incompetent. That is something totally different.

Source




21 November, 2012

Anything "non positive" is hate speech?

Here's email that got Alex Myers, an Australian exchange student currently studying journalism at SUNY Oswego, part of New York's state university system, in trouble. (He was given a class assignment to profile a public figure and chose Oswego men's hockey coach Ed Gosek, and reached out to Gosek's fellow coaches at other schools.)

My name is Alex Myers, I work for the Office of Public Affairs at SUNY Oswego. 

I am currently writing a profile on Oswego State Hockey head coach Ed Gosek and was hoping to get a rival coaches view on Mr Gosek.

If you have time would you mind answering the following questions.

1. How do you find Mr Gosek to coach against?

2. Have you had any interactions with Mr Gosek off the ice? If so how did you find him?

3. What is your rivalry like between your school and Oswego State?

Be as forthcoming as you like, what you say about Mr Gosek does not have to be positive.

Thank you, Alex Myers.

One coach wrote back that he found the last line of the email offensive. A day later, Myers was suspended indefinitely, pending a judicial hearing. The grounds:

Myers was charged with two counts. The first, a general charge encompassing "dishonesty," stemmed from Myers identifying himself as an employee of the Office of Public Affairs, where he was interning, even though that job had nothing to do with the class assignment.

The second charge is unfathomable. The university cites the section of its code of conduct that covers "harassment, intimidation, stalking, domestic violence, or creating a hostile environment through discrimination or bias toward any individual or group." Most chilling, the section also covers "invasion of privacy." For doing research for a profile of a public figure.

I know college kids like to call any authority figures "fascist," but man, Oswego, you're not exactly making your university a place where ideas can be exchanged freely.

This one has a happy(?) ending. After FIRE got involved, Oswego dropped the harassment charge. And at a disciplinary hearing last week, Myers was spared a suspension.

Of course, the "hate speech" prohibitions are violations of our right to free speech.

Source





Stanley Fish reviews a book on hate speech

Prof. Fish does one of his pretences at even-handedness below.  He is generally an opponent of free speech so that shows below in what he does NOT say.  He makes clear that the case for regulating hate speech lies in the assumption that it is crippling to minority groups who are subjected to it.  That assumption is of course the most arrant nonsense.  Two groups that have endured masses of hate speech over the years are Jews and East Asians (Chinese and Japanese).  Just how crippled and crushed are they?  They are in fact disproportionately affluent and in prominent positions in most countries where they live as minorities.  It would be more consistent with the evidence to conclude that criticism is strengthening

No topic is more frequently debated with less resolution than hate speech. This is made abundantly clear in a new collection of essays written by some of the leading contributors to the debate. The volume is called “The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses,” and it is edited by Michael Herz and Peter Molnar.

What you learn in the course of reading this book is that there is no generally accepted account of (1) what hate speech is, (2) what it does (what its effects are) and (3) what, if anything, should be done about it. To be sure, everyone agrees that it is hate speech when words are used to directly incite violence against a specific person or group of persons. But as Arthur Jacobson and Bernhard Schlink point out in their contribution to the volume, on such occasions the words are instrumental “to an incipient assault,” and it is the assault, not the words, that the state criminalizes. (It is, say the courts, “speech brigaded with action.”) There need be no debate about what to do in the face of that kind of speech because it is already being done by extant laws.

The rest are all hard cases. Is it hate speech when, in a paper with scholarly trappings, someone says that the Holocaust never happened and was invented by Jews in an effort to induce guilt and gain money? Is it hate speech when a pamphlet explains how Muslim Americans plan to impose Shariah law and subvert the traditions of this country? Some who consume such statements will certainly feel hatred for Jews and Muslims, and no doubt those who make such statements intended that result. But no call to violence is issued and one might say — in the United States it will always be said — that while it is hate speech disguised, the disguise is good enough to remove it as a candidate for regulation.

Then there is what we might call genteel hate speech — casually produced anti-Semitic and racial slurs in conversation and in countless British novels. It is certainly hateful speech, but it reflects less the intention of the speaker or writer than the cultural background of the society he lives in. If it is hate speech, it is so distant from any specific design to wound that a legal remedy against it seems quixotic and unenforceable. And yet, demeaning speech that flies under the legal radar because it is an extension of what people regularly say and even more regularly think may in the end be more harmful than the direct, frontal insult.

And what about hate speech that is never uttered, but is implied by the structure of institutions? When the law in many states reduced black Americans to the status of property, wasn’t it being said, in the most forceful way imaginable, that blacks were more like animals than humans? When women were denied the vote for so many decades, wasn’t it being said that they were perpetual children and unworthy of an independent existence? And, to reference an example invoked by Peter Molnar in his essay, isn’t the statue of Teddy Roosevelt in front of the American Museum of National History that shows him on a horse flanked by the figures of a Native American and an African-American a form of hate speech declaring the natural subservience of the “red” man and the black man?

Let’s suppose that we could sort through these versions of hate speech (and there are many more) and come up with a baseline definition of what it is; we would still have the problem of specifying its effects. You can’t cogently debate whether to regulate something unless you have first identified the harms it produces. Bhikhu Parekh, political philosopher and a member of the British House of Lords, is quite confident in his account of those harms. Hate speech, he says, “lowers the tone of public debate, coarsens the community’s moral sensibility, and weakens the culture of mutual respect that lies at the heart of a good society.” In addition, hate speech “violates the dignity of the members of the target group” who lead “ghettoized and isolated lives with a knock-down effect on their children’s education and career choices.”

Not necessarily, says Nadine Strossen, a professor of law and a past president of the A.C.L.U. We are not, she insists, “automatically diminished just because some bigot says something negative about us.” Indeed, we are better off knowing about the hateful things being said, first because it provides “valuable information,” second because it gives the targeted individuals “an opportunity to respond” and third because it “highlights … issues that can be addressed in other ways, for example through education.”

Behind Strossen’s and Parekh’s assertions are two very different views of human beings. For Strossen, the hate speech recipient is (or can and should be) a resolute individual standing up for herself in the face of verbal assault and emerging stronger from the encounter. For Parekh, the hate speech recipient is the vulnerable victim of forces that rob her of dignity and deprive her of the resources necessary for human flourishing, resources that therefore must be supplied by the state in the form of hate speech laws. Strossen’s view follows from a strongly libertarian reading of the First Amendment and is pretty much official doctrine in the United States. Parekh’s view reflects the more communitarian concerns of other Western democracies that balance free expression rights against the right of the society to order itself in decent and humane ways.

Michel Rosenfeld draws the relevant contrast with respect to the United States and Canada: “Under the American view, there seems to be a greater likelihood of harm from suppression of hate speech … than from its toleration.” But from a Canadian perspective, “dissemination of hate propaganda seems more dangerous than its suppression as it is seen as likely to produce enduring injuries to self-worth and to undermine social cohesion in the long run.”

Rosenfeld observes that the two countries “differ in their practical assessments of the consequences of tolerating hate speech.” Not quite; what the two countries differ in is their respective assumptions concerning what must be protected: on the one hand, a rights-based individualism that can take care of itself and would be diminished by nanny-state intervention, on the other, a psychological and societal fragility that must be shored up by law. In one vision, hate speech is an opportunity; in the other it is a virus. Given such two different accounts of the effects of hate speech, it is not surprising that there would be two different accounts of what to do about it, or what not to do about it, and no hope of reconciling them.

More HERE





20 November, 2012

Another emptyheaded Anglican cleric

"Very Reverend" indeed!  He's probably never even heard of salvation or read Romans chapter 1.  His gospel is secular:  It's "hatred and bigotry" to preach Bible teachings about homosexuality

From Wikipedia:  "The Potter's House is a Pentecostal bible-based fellowship of 1,744 churches in 112 nations throughout the world with 61 ministering evangelists"



TERRITORIANS were more likely to find the gospel at work at Throb nightclub than Potter's House Church, a senior religious figure has said.

The Very Reverend Jeremy Greaves from Darwin's Christ Church Cathedral yesterday slammed Potter's House after the NT News revealed it had been using a Halloween show as a ruse to preach its anti-gay, anti-abortion message.

"It is no wonder the church has become irrelevant to so many when the loudest voice in Christianity is one of hatred and bigotry," Rev Greaves wrote in a letter to the NT News.

"The Gospel is more in evidence at Throb on a Saturday night with their clear message of welcome and acceptance than it is in those churches that continue to peddle such a narrow understanding of the faith."

SOURCE



Hate speech and social media: can public shaming go too far?

The comments below are from Britain's Leftist "Guardian" so that is rather refreshing.  It suggests that not all Leftist talk about free speech is hollow

The re-election of Barack Obama provoked, perhaps not surprisingly, some racist, offensive and just plain stupid reaction on social media.

But the decision of websites such as Buzzfeed and Jezebel to pick out some of the more egregious examples – many by high school students – has prompted a debate about the ethics of so-called "social media shaming".

A discussion between Buzzfeed's Matthew Buchanan and Read Write's Fruzsina Eördögh came to a head on Monday night when Buchanan posted this piece in defense of the two news blogs:

When people say things out loud that the public has collectively – or like, a lot of it, anyway – agreed are offensive, hurtful, or stupid, it's within the purview of the public to retort, to challenge, and to chasten.

Eördögh sees things differently. She says that since Twitter users are unaware when and where their content is being republished, the ethics of doing so are pretty murky, especially in the cases of minors.

Users have a right to know what is happening with their communication, and they don't have to participate in surveys, research, or even in media articles if they don't want to. Sometimes communication between friends really is just communication between friends. Collecting their data could even be a copyright violation.

This is just the latest in an ongoing discussion about free speech on the internet, one that's often taken place on the Guardian. This time, however, teenagers are involved. On Jezebel, Tracie Egan Morrissey lamented how many of the racist tweets came from high school students: "If you believe the children are our future, then our future is f*cked" she wrote. She contacted the principals and superintendents of the students' schools to "find out how calling the president – or any person of color, for that matter – a 'n*gger' and a 'monkey' jibes with their student conduct code of ethics".

Did Morrissey go too far? Not according to Buchanan, who says that teenagers need to learn to take responsibility for their actions online. "The internet is real," he wrote. "When you say things on the internet now, they carry real weight and meaning."

Source



19 November, 2012

Must not speak the truth about Muslims in Britain

He stressed that he did not say ALL Muslims

A Tory MP has sparked controversy after claiming ‘gangs of Muslim men are going round and raping white kids at this moment in time’.

Kris Hopkins, MP for Keighley, said the extraordinary claim was a ‘fact’ and urged government agencies to tackle the problem.

But he has been criticised by Muslim leaders in his constituency, who said he overstepped the mark during a Commons debate.

Mr Hopkins, a former leader of Bradford city council, also claimed Muslim men were ‘fundamentally’ sexist towards women, and politicians had to challenge behaviour and culture.

Speaking in a parliamentary debate on child sexual exploitation, Mr Hopkins claimed mainstream parties had failed by not speaking out about the racial and cultural aspect to some abuse cases and extremists groups had filled the vacuum.

He told MPs: ‘The British National Party will use grooming as a key element of its campaign in the Rotherham election campaign, which will start soon.

‘Not all British Pakistani men are abusing white kids. There is a minority, though. The media coverage gives long lists of notorious abusers - including vicars, priests and celebrities - who are all white and non-Muslim.’  The ‘vast majority’ of child abusers in this country are white, he added.

‘But we should not get away from the fact that gangs of Muslim men are going round and raping white kids at this moment in time.

‘That is an horrendous thing to say, but it is the fact of what is happening. I want to explore some of the state’s agencies’ behaviour towards that, and some of the community’s associated behaviour and culture.’

‘Fundamentally, there is a sexist behaviour by Muslim men towards women,’ he said.

Source




"Racist" to ridicule Arab terrorists?

It’s raining Israeli bombs in Gaza yet again and as the death toll mounts some people are having themselves a laugh at the expense of the dead. I’m talking about #HamasBumperStickers, a twitter hashtag that caught on like wildfire yesterday mostly among people who despise Palestinians (and Arabs in general) and think it’s funny when Israel kills them.

While I’m not usually one to amplify the trolling rhetoric of heartless bigots, I feel it’s important that these particular individuals be shamed and ostracized for their sick jokes, especially since the hashtag they are using has apparently been trending worldwide.

Source

You can read the bumperstickers here.

What strange mentality is it that ignores the constant rocket fire onto Israel by the Gaza Arabs?  I guess they are "good" rockets.  The Left are good at selective vision but they are bit players compared to Muslim propagandists.   You wonder what goes on in their brains.  They must know what the reality is.  Even Rachel Corrie knew that.



18 November, 2012

Facing death wishes, Kim Kardashian deletes pro-Israel tweet


Gratuitous picture

Earlier today, Twitchy called attention to Kim Kardashian’s tweet offering prayers to the people of Israel.

"Praying for everyone in Israel"

That tweet resulted in a torrent of hateful tweets, including death wishes.  Kardashian tried to mollify the anti-Israel mob with this:

"And praying for everyone in Palestine and across the world!"

Now both of those tweets are gone from Kardashian’s Twitter account.  But Twitchy is forever.

Source

Leftist hate as per usual



Greek journalist who published list of 2,000 'tax dodgers' is made to stand trial AGAIN

Attack on free speech in the birthplace of democracy?  Seems sad

There was fury across Greece today after it was announced that a journalist who published the names of more than 2,000 Greeks with Swiss bank accounts is to stand trial again.

Costas Vaxevanis has been told that his acquital earlier this month for breaking data privacy laws after publishing the so-called ‘Lagarde List’ was 'faulty.'

The Athens Public Prosecutor’s office said that Mr Vaxevanis must now be tried again by a higher court on the same charges.

If found guilty, Vaxevanis could be jailed for up to two years or face a fine. ‘The prosecutor believes that the decision in favour of the journalist is legally wrong,’ a court official said.

The speedy arrest, trial and acquittal of Mr Vaxevanis for publishing the so-called 'Lagarde List' had aroused international concern and captivated recession-weary Greeks angry at the privileges of the elite.

Given to Greece by French authorities in 2010, the list contains the names of 2,059 Greek account holders at HSBC in Switzerland to be probed for possible tax evasion.

In his defence, Mr Vaxevanis accused politicians of hiding the truth and protecting an 'untouchable' elite. He said the trial was politically motivated, calling it 'targetted and vengeful.'

Source





16 November, 2012

Tweet what you like in Britain ... as long as you don't have many followers

I suppose we must be thankful for small mercies

It might be the one of the few occasions in life when it's better to be unpopular than have lots of friends.  Twitter users who make 'grossly offensive' comments online could escape prosecution if they have barely any followers on the social media site, the Director of Public Prosecutions has suggested.

But those who are followed by thousands could face the full force of the law if they publish offensive remarks as more people will see them, Keir Starmer said in a conference speech earlier this week.

His remarks follow a row about free speech after a teenager in Kent was arrested earlier this week for allegedly posting a photo of a burning poppy on Facebook, reported the Daily Telegraph.

The arrest of Linford House, 19, prompted civil liberty groups to campaign for free speech, claiming police were threatening the man's rights to express himself - even if what he posted was insensitive.

Mr Starmer's comments come before he publishes guidelines to cope with the new issues arising from expression on social networks, after meeting with police, publishers and internet companies.

Daniel Thomas, a footballer from Port Talbot, Wales, was arrested in the summer after a homophobic message was posted from his Twitter account about Team GB Olympic diver Tom Daley.

But the 28-year-old was never prosecuted, in part because he only had only around a hundred followers - and while the content was offensive it was not seen as a criminal offence, the DPP said.

Source




Mont. man challenges law banning offensive speech

The Montana Supreme Court could be left sorting out which profane words are OK to hurl at someone as it weighs the case of a man who argues a sexual slur he used against a public employee is constitutionally protected speech.

Randall Dugan of Belgrade used a sexual slur with a Gallatin County Victim Assistance Program worker during an October 2009 phone call, after the worker said she would not help him obtain a protection order against his children's mother, who was to be released from prison. He then hung up.

Dugan was convicted under the state's Privacy in Communications law, which prohibits the use of electronic communication to offend another person with obscene, lewd, or profane language.

Dugan's public defender Kristen Larson argued the state law is overly broad and violates free-speech rights in both the Montana and United States constitutions.

She argued that Dugan did not call with the intention to harass, but only used the slur after becoming exasperated with the call.

Source




15 November, 2012

People Targeted for Anti-Obama Speech

Several public school teachers are facing investigations for posting items on social networking sites that opposed President Obama and his agenda. Parents raised concerns regarding the teachers’ posts, prompting the school districts to launch investigations. Similarly, teens who posted anti-Obama messages on social networking sites are being targeted by a website called Jezebel, which not only reveals the identities of the students who made the posts, but reported the students to their schools.

In Rock Hill, South Carolina, a middle-school teacher was placed on leave after posting a message on her personal Facebook page about Obama and food stamps. “Congrats Obama,” she allegedly wrote. “As one of my students sang down the hallway, ‘We get to keep our food stamps’ … which I pay for because they can’t budget their money … and really, neither can you.”

According to a school spokesperson, several parents had called the school complaining about the teacher’s post. The teacher was forced to apologize.

“People outside the school system that saw her posting and some of them said they were offended by it,” spokesperson Elaine Baker said. “She used poor judgment according to our social media policy. Teachers are kept to higher standards.” Baker continued, “Sometimes you just can’t speak out publicly about what you’d personally like to say, about anything.” She told television station WSOC that teachers in general should “watch what they post on Facebook.”

Similarly, a high-school teacher in Columbus, Ohio, is under investigation for posting an anti-Obama message on his personal Facebook page.

“Congrats to those dependent on government, homosexuals, potheads, JAY-Z fans, non-Christians, non-taxpayers, illegals, communists, Muslims, planned murder clinics, enemies of America, Satan You WON,” the unidentified teacher wrote.

The Linden McKinley High School teacher is being investigated, though he has been permitted to remain in the classroom during the process.

Source




Methodists ain't what they used to be

As most readers here will probably be aware, there are some pretty wishy-washy Methodists in America these days.  Some branches could just as well be called the Church of Political Correctness.  They are just as bad in Australia, though they are no longer called Methodists there any more.  In 1977 they absorbed some congregations from other denominations and renamed themselves the Uniting church.

They have a theological seminary in Sydney called the UTC.  They claim that the UTC vibrates and that it believes in "a biblical witness open to ongoing scholarship and contemporary insight".  In other words, ditch that silly old Bible if it doesn't suit you.   Vibrate instead?

Canadian Andrew Fraser must be a masochist of sorts.  He is a retired law professor who was booted out of his teaching job at an Australian university because he dared to mention publicly the usual academic research findings about African IQ.  Nobody tried to argue with him on the facts.  They couldn't. They just abused him and said he was guilty of hate speech.  A summary of events here. 

And it appears that Andrew may also be religious.  He enrolled in a course at UTC!  But he did something intolerable there.  In one of his student essays, he defended the Bible and its teachings as the word of God!  Heresy! 

They couldn't really fail him over that so they withheld his marks for a year and then gave him the lowest possible pass mark.   He is challenging his assessment in front of a tribunal but I dont like his chances.  Saying that the Bible is the word of God is not allowed in today's Methodist church!  The Wesley brothers would be amazed.

Andrew gives detail of his fight with them here




14 November, 2012

Britain is awash with real crime so cowardly police arrest a kid for poor taste

A teenager who drunkenly posted a picture of himself burning a poppy on Facebook was in police custody last night.

Officers arrested Linford House after they received a complaint about the image that was published in the early hours of Remembrance Sunday.

When police called at his parents’ home that evening, the 19-year-old had already taken down the image on a friend’s advice..

His father Keith, 50, branded him ‘idiotic’ and said the whole family had been disappointed by his behaviour.  But he questioned whether it was right to hold the teenager.

‘He has been stupid but it’s totally out of order to arrest him over one complaint,’ he said.

House was arrested under the Malicious Communications Act, which carries a maximum sentence of six months in jail and/or a £5,000 fine.

The family from Aylesham near Canterbury has the support of civil liberties groups, which claim the arrest is an infringement of free speech.

Nick Pickles, from pressure group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘It is not illegal to offend people and, however idiotic or insensitive the picture may have been, it is certainly not worthy of arrest.

Convictions for internet abuse have more than doubled in the space of five years, alongside the enormous growth in social media sites.  The number has grown from 498 in 2007 to 1,286 in 2011

Source

See HERE for the disgusting real crime situation in Britain.



"Racist" fashion outfit

Small minds at work



The annual Victoria’s Secret fashion show.

Yes, the well-known supplier of women’s garments is under fire for an outfit inspired by Native American heritage, with some shouting cries of “racism.”

Model Karlie Kloss was seen in the fashion show last week with a massive headdress that reached the floor, turquoise jewelry, animal print clothing and tasseled heels.

“Use of the symbols, [culture], art, traditional dress of a culture you don’t care enough to learn about is EXPLOITATION,” one Huffington Post commenter vented.  Another added: “Not only is our Sacred Wabonnet being paraded by a bone thin model wearing a smile and [leopard] underwear, the Squash [Blossom] necklace she wears is Sacred to the Dine Navajo people… Genocide and assimilation continues. We are looking for a heartfelt public apology from VS.”

It wasn’t long before Victoria’s Secret did just that, not only apologizing but pulling the look from future broadcasting and advertisements.

Source



13 November, 2012

Government pressure to remove billboards against voter fraud is not “market forces”

Earlier, I wrote about illogical but widespread claims (found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and elsewhere) that billboards noting “Voter Fraud Is a Felony” were illegal voter intimidation or suppression, and explained why those billboards were constitutionally protected speech. (Putting aside the legalities, why would anyone even object to “suppressing” a fraudulent, illegal vote, such as a repeat voter who dilutes the votes of valid voters, or someone who steals their identity?)

In response, a commenter exulted in the fact that the billboard company, Clear Channel, took down the billboards under political pressure, writing that the billboards were “malicious messages” and defending the billboards’ removal by saying “that only market forces” were “brought to bear. Now, everyone knows that voting is a right, not a crime!”  But illegal voting can be a crime, such as the fraudulent votes cast by former Maryland Congressional candidate Wendy Rosen.  (She withdrew her candidacy after it was discovered that she had illegally voted in both Maryland and Florida). 

And the billboards were removed under pressure from government officials, like Cleveland City Councilwoman Phyllis Cleveland.  The wife of U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, who also pressured the company to take down the billboards, has claimed that “Voter fraud is a myth” in Ohio, “just as it is everywhere else in the country.”  This claim on her part was obviously false.  But such claims are often made by people who know better.

Source




18 year old girls must not look sexy in Britain?

A TV advert showing a teenager posing provocatively in skimpy school uniform has prompted a barrage of complaints from parents.  Advertising watchdogs said the 30-second commercial for Kingsmill fruit and fibre bread had triggered claims that it ‘sexualises children’.

The advert shows a schoolgirl in the kitchen at breakfast. Her younger brother then relays a warning from their father: ‘If you think you’re going to school in that skirt, you can think again.’

The girl, played by actress Tara Berwin, responds by defiantly hitching up her mid-thigh length skirt to strike a provocative pose.

One outraged viewer wrote on a web forum: ‘Perhaps it’s because paedophilia is very much in the public consciousness at the moment but shouldn’t this be illegal? Nearly seeing up the skirt of  a minor?’

The advert featuring 18-year-old Ms Berwin and nine-year-old Lewis Hardaker is the latest in a £4 million campaign to promote Kingsmill bread.

But criticism of the advert, which was uploaded to YouTube, prompted a response from Ms Berwin. She said: ‘There’s no need to patronise me, I haven’t done anything wrong.’

A Kingsmill spokesman said: ‘It captures the playful interactions that are typical of day-to-day family life and demonstrates our understanding of modern families and their needs.’ 
He added that the advert was cleared for broadcast by the appropriate industry body.

Source

Video at link.  A mountain made out of a very small molehill, I think.





12 November, 2012

Retired Australian cricketer uses naughty word

He has had a post-cricket career as a comedian but jokes are always dangerous these days

Former Test batsman Greg Ritchie has defended himself against claims of racist and anti-Muslim comments at a Brisbane Test luncheon, refusing to apologise and saying: "If they take offence that's their choice."

The ex-Australian player and television personality was attacked for using the forbidden "k-word" during a lunchtime speech at the Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust members dining room on day one of the first Test against South Africa on Friday. He also made disparaging remarks about Islamic people in the address, South Africa's Sunday Times reported.

"I've got nothing against the Muslim people," Ritchie was reported as saying on Friday. "Just this morning I had to try and stop three little Muslim boys trying to break the lock on my car boot. "I had to say, 'Shut up! You're in there for a reason!'"

On Sunday, Ritchie told Fairfax: "That's a joke that I use, and I'll continue to use it. It's just a little humourous joke to indicate that they're not my favourite people of my choice. If they take offence that's their choice."

Ritchie also defended himself against the accusations of racism by using the word "kaffir" in the lunchtime address. ["Kaffir" is said to be the South African equivalent of "n*gger" these days. It was once fairly widely used in S.A.]

Source

There have now been official attempts to ban him from cricket functions in Australia but he lives in Florida these days so that might not have much bite.




Shock, horror!  Speaker at Australian Catholic college fails to honour politically correct custom

He paid a tribute to the real founders of a college instead of the imaginary Aboriginal founders.  He said nothing at all about Aborigines but saying nothing was to insult them!

Non-Australians will find this hard to follow but in Leftist and particularly academic Australian circles, big meetings such as graduation ceremonies begin these days by acknowledging the fact that Aboriginal tribes used to live on the land concerned.  The pretence is that the meeting is held only with permission of the "traditional owners" of the land  -- which is of course complete garbage.  They have no title to it at law at all

When I think of the hard work my many ancestors and relatives put into building civilization in Australia I always find it offensive to have credit given to people who did nothing at all in that way.  I think the speaker below was entirely correct in giving credit where credit is due.  I think it is the Leftists who are offensive

A leading Sydney barrister and senior counsel at the trouble-plagued St John's College has sparked outrage after mocking the Aboriginal community at an official dinner at the University of Sydney.

Jeffrey Phillips, SC, stood in the college's 150-year-old Great Hall and, in front of more than 250 staff, students and guests, paid tribute to the "traditional custodians of this place" whom he identified as being the "Benedictines who came from the great English nation".

The comment was made in the presence of several indigenous students, one of whom has lodged a formal complaint and, according to senior staff, remains "deeply traumatised".

Mark Spinks, a respected member of Sydney's Aboriginal community and chairman of the Aboriginal men's group Babana, said: "How disgusting, how disgraceful, how disrespectful are those comments. I am outraged and I am disturbed. For that to have been said at the university, in a room full of students, I am almost speechless."

Last night, the University of Sydney's vice-chancellor, Michael Spence, condemned Mr Phillips' remarks. He said: "The university is very proud of the fact that it stands on land where indigenous peoples have been teaching and learning for many thousands of years before us and we acknowledge this publicly whenever we can."

SOURCE








11 November, 2012

Must not mock Osama bin Laden?

Canada’s military is investigating the circumstances surrounding a video played during a formal dinner that featured an unidentified member of the Canadian Forces pretending to be Osama bin Laden’s brother, the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force said.

That’s right, as in the brother of the al-Qaeda leader behind a terrorist attack that killed thousands of Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.

Lieutenant-General Yvan Blondin said in a statement sent to The Associated Press on Thursday that he was recently informed of complaints that the video was inappropriate and culturally insensitive. He said those involved may face administrative, disciplinary or corrective action.

The man playing bin Laden’s brother wears brown makeup, a turban, a fake beard and speaks with a thick accent in a four-minute excerpt of the video obtained by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

A woman playing the role of a news anchor interviews the character, who jokes that his brother always gets all the credit for their work. He refuses to reveal where bin Laden is hiding.

Source



Politically correct bullies don't like ‘illegal immigrant'

Ruben Navarrette

There is a campaign under way to shame media companies into abandoning the term “illegal immigrant” and replacing it with kinder and gentler euphemisms such as “undocumented worker.”

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists — which I've been a member of for two decades and which has rarely stuck its neck out to defend Hispanic journalists, let alone immigrants — has even gone so far as to suggest that the phrase causes hate crimes.

The crusade against the “I-word” began in September when, at an online journalism conference, freelance journalist and activist Jose Antonio Vargas put media companies on notice. He said they would be monitored and when they used “illegal immigrant” — which he claims “dehumanizes” people — the infraction would be duly recorded.

The wording is accurate. When you enter the United States without permission or overstay a visa, you break a law. Vargas notes that “being in a country without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one.” True. But the word “illegal” simply means against the law.

The charge that the term “dehumanizes” people is ridiculous. It describes an action as much as it does a person. An illegal immigrant is someone who immigrates illegally.

SOURCE






9 November, 2012

Court decides against free speech about guns


This is the advertising poster the city of Phoenix tore down in the middle of the night

The lowest court to hear the free-speech case against Phoenix, for censoring the "Guns Save Lives" Educate-Your-Kids firearm-safety campaign, has decided against the plaintiff in the case, Alan Korwin and TrainMeAZ, LLC. The TrainMeAZ campaign will proceed with an appeal and Phase II

"As expected, the judge ruled against us," Korwin said. "What is shocking is the utterly superficial nature of the ruling—one of the worst any of us have ever seen, especially with the volume of evidence and complexity of the case. We've been at this now for two years—hearings, filings, sworn depositions, responses, evidence gathered and submitted. Although we're displeased, our interest is not diminished."

Source



Must not object to loud grunting on a sportsfield?

The boss of the UK's biggest taxi firm apologised today for comparing a deaf footballer who 'grunts' during matches to female tennis players.

Millionaire Addison Lee chairman and leading Tory donor John Griffin appeared to crack the joke at the expense of Potters Bar’s deaf footballer Daniel Ailey.

The non-league striker was abused by Grays Athletic fans in a midweek match last month for the way he communicates with his team-mates.

Police were called when some of the fans started making loud grunting noises mocking the way he gets the attention of his fellow players.

The 69-year-old mini cab boss involved in the row by sending an e-mail from his Addison Lee account to his local paper comparing the noises made by Ailey to those of female tennis stars, such as Maria Sharapova.

His comments were made public sparking anger from charities, and today he issued an apology for causing any offence.

Source




8 November, 2012

British TV Channel admits it was wrong to censor the word 'gay' in an episode of The Simpsons aired at lunchtime

What did they think the alternative was? Homosexual, poofter, queer, faggot?

Channel 4 has admitted it made a mistake in editing the word ‘gay’ out of an episode of The Simpsons.  The broadcaster’s compliance department removed a seconds-long section of the cartoon broadcast on Sunday afternoon.

But yesterday a spokesman for Channel 4 backtracked, admitting censors had acted ‘in error’ because ‘neither the word nor the context was unsuitable’.

The line was cut from a 1994 episode of The Simpsons, called Homer Loves Flanders, screened at 12.55pm on Sunday.

In the episode Homer goes to an American football match with neighbour Ned Flanders but at first is embarrassed to be seen with the religious man.  The pair bond after Ned introduces Homer to the star quarterback.

As they drive away, they pass Homer’s workmates Lenny and Carl.   Homer proudly yells out of the window: ‘I want everyone to know that this is Ned Flanders ... my friend!’

In the original episode, Lenny turns to Carl and says: ‘What’d he say?’  Carl replies: ‘I dunno. Somethin’ about being gay.’

However in the version screened on Sunday, Carl’s line was edited out.

Source




Must not makes jokes about bias at Tufts U

On Thursday, October 25, Tufts Stand-Up Comedy Collective hosted a show titled “Autumn Jokes.” We did not attend this event, and we are not writing to discuss the content of the show whatsoever.

Rather, we are writing to address the flyer the group used to advertise its event around campus. “DISSATISFIED WITH THE AMOUNT OF HATE SPEECH HAPPENING AT TUFTS?” the title asked, and after giving the factual information of the show, it ended by urging students to come, “TO SEE BIAS INCIDENTS IN THE MAKING.”

After almost two and a half years at Tufts, we feel that the campus climate in regard to bias incidents, and the system of reporting them, is one dominated by criticism, satirical attention and jokes. This problematic reputation trivializes the process of paying attention to and reporting bias incidents that inflict insult, pain and harm to various groups and individuals in our community.

According to the website of Students Promoting Equality, Awareness, and Compassion (SPEAC), a person should report a bias incident “if they or other members of the community have, in their opinion, been targeted on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, age, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity and expression. Such incidents may but do not always include the use of slurs, derogatory language or negative images. Incidents may include chalking, graffiti, images, written messages, the defacement or alteration of signs, posters, verbal epithets and violent acts.”

To make light of these situations is to invalidate the hurtful, dangerous, and traumatizing experiences of those whom bias incidents have targeted and continue to target in specific, unique, and truly detrimental ways.

The effect of denigrating bias incidents and their importance at Tufts is the further silencing and stigmatization of those people who are targeted by bias hate incidents and/or who would otherwise report bias incidents. This attitude toward bias incidents increases the campus’ cultural acceptance of hate speech and actions and thereby increases the amount of hateful speech and actions on campus.

Source




7 November, 2012

‘Obama Witch Doctor’ Display Creates Controversy In NJ Town



Opponents of Obamacare (also known as the Affordable Care Act) have used a racist image of President Obama dressed as a witch doctor for some time, but the distasteful imagery has mainly cropped up at Tea Party rallies and the like — until a New Jersey store owner who claims to cater to the one percent put the tacky image in his store window.

The Obama witch doctor display is proudly showcased in a window at Skuby & Co. Lifestyle Clothing in Spring Lake, and, while owner Bill Skuby claims patrons in the top one percent of earners, the store’s tasteless display and garish garments seem to indicate otherwise.

In Skuby’s window is what appears to be a tombstone with a skeleton attached and  inscribed “I told you I was sick.” Beneath the legend is a widely-circulated image of Barack Obama’s face superimposed on that of what appears to be an African tribesman, and “Obamacare” is spelled out, of course, with a sickle in place of the “c.”

Locals say they worry the racist Obama witch doctor display is inappropriate for children to see, but Skuby feels that the racially charged imagery is perfectly acceptable viewing for kids.

Source

With doctoring is a pretty good comparison for how useful Obamacare will be.  In Britain there are daily horror reports about the failures of socialized medicine.  If you want your doctor not to give a sh*t about you, socialized medicine is the way to go. 

Under Obamacare lots of poor people will be lucky to find a doctor who will see them at all.  Even under current rules many doctors avoid Medicaid patients because what the government pays is too low.



After Benghazi, Muslims attack free speech

It’s unclear if the Obama administration’s purpose in condemning the now-infamous “anti-Islam YouTube video” was to deflect from Obama’s failed Middle East policies, and those of Benghazi in particular, or if it was his intent to “protect Islam from negative stereotypes” as he promised to do in his Cairo speech. Either way, his constant denunciation of the 14-minute, amateurish, anti-Islam YouTube clip signals weakness to the Muslim world and may have given license to Muslims in the West to demand restrictions on freedom of speech.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, Oct. 14, 2012, thousands of angry Muslims marched outside Google headquarters in London. They were protesting the same YouTube trailer scapegoated by the administration. Titled “Innocence of Muslims,” the film portrays the Prophet Mohammad as a pedophile, philanderer and religious fraud. It was originally posted in English, but later was translated into Arabic and went viral on the Internet.

As protestors in London ratcheted up their “Campaign for Global Civility,” police flanked the doors of Google headquarters and placed barricades around the building. Several streets in England’s capital were closed down for hours due to the demonstration.

The stated purpose of the campaign is to ban the video worldwide. Protestors carried signs that read, “[W]e love our Prophet more than our lives” and “[Google executives] support terrorism.”

It’s hard to believe with signs like these, that civility is the goal. According to Sufi cleric Alam Ghulam Rabbini, though, civility means the restriction of free speech if it “hurt[s] the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims.” According to Sheik Faiz Al-Aqtab Siddiqui, terrorists are not necessarily those who kill people, but those “who kill human feelings as well.” Thus, blasphemy equals terrorism.

At the demonstration, over a dozen Imams made speeches in Arabic, English and Urdu. The speeches were met with shouts of “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is great!”), the same cry echoed by Islamic terrorists around the globe before launching their attacks. The audience was urged to honor the Prophet by refusing to back down until their demands were met. There was no room for alternative viewpoints.

In effect, the crowd demanded that western non-Muslims comply with Islamic blasphemy codes.

Source






6 November, 2012

Anti-feminist comments are hate speech?

Feminist talk is FULL of hate-speech -- with men being "the enemy" etc.

In America we have the blessings of free speech, fully protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution. The roots of this special right do not trace back to England, but to the Christian ministers who evangelized the colonies, creating the Great Awakening. To this day England and the rest of Europe do not protect a constitutional right of free speech. Some remarks in Western Europe can cause the speaker to be imprisoned.

Feminists in Europe have exploited this lack of a right to free speech in order to criminalize statements that they call “sexist”, an indefinable term which means any comment feminists do not like. By criminalizing sexist speech, governments in Europe will scare people away from many remarks and comments that are entirely appropriate. As long as government and feminists can define what is “sexist”, much valuable speech will be censored.

England, 18 other nations including Germany and France signed an absurd United Nations treaty about Women that requires them to pass new laws making sexist comments a crime and outlawing “psychological violence,” which they define broadly to include statements “seriously impairing a person’s psychological integrity through coercion or threats.” This is sold to the public as part of a phony campaign against domestic violence, and politicians are apparently still too afraid to stand up to the feminists even to stop such obviously bad laws.

Source




Scottish police swoop on landlord for organising an 'ugliest woman' competition (when it was actually meant for men anyway!)

Must not mention that women can be ugly??

A pub holding a competition to find the ‘Ugliest Woman’ got a visit from the police after someone reported them for sexism. An unknown complainant demanded the competition be cancelled and wanted the owners of Islay Inn prosecuted.

However, when police arrived at the Glasgow venue they gave manager George Hogg the go ahead after discovering it was, in fact, a competition for men dressed as women.

Mr Hogg told of his disbelief of the complaint and accused the protestor of being ‘over the top with political correctness.’

He said: ‘I have no idea who made the complaint and the police wouldn’t tell me - but if he or she had bothered to read the advert properly, they would have realised that it was not ugly women we were looking for - but ugly men dressed up as women.

‘The first we knew of a potential problem was when two female officers from Maryhill Police Station came into the bar on Thursday night.

‘They told me they had received a complaint about us holding a competition to find the ugliest woman in the bar and that it might constitute some kind of sexist offence.

‘But when I pointed out the facts, the policewomen were clearly amused and quickly told me the matter would go no further.'

The Islay Inn apologised for causing any offense adding: ‘Just so it’s clear to all, our ugly women will be men dressed as women, beard stubble and all.’

Andrew Parr wrote: ‘Ridiculous getting the police involved. Some people are pathetic.

Mark McCarrick added: ‘As if our overstretched police service haven’t got enough to do without being bothered by some silly complaint.  ‘I bet the silly fart wouldn’t have moaned had it been an ugly man competition.

Although the competition has been allowed to take place, Strathclyde Police confirmed to the MailOnline that an inquiry into the complaint is still ongoing.

Source






5 November, 2012

An interesting facility

So many people have got into trouble over remarks intended to be private that any protection for privacy has to be of interest

"Startpage offers you Web search results from Google in complete privacy! When you search with Startpage, we remove all identifying information from your query and submit it anonymously to Google ourselves. We get the results and return them to you in total privacy.

Your IP address is never recorded, your visit is not logged, and no tracking cookies are placed on your browser. When it comes to protecting your privacy, Startpage runs the tightest ship on the Internet."

Source



A German Victory for Free Speech about Mohammed

A courtcase in plain defiance of the German constitution was launched by a State government prosecutor,  suggesting that German authorities can be told what to do by the Saudis

In a letter dated October 10, 2012, and received by its addressee four days later, the Marburg, Germany state prosecutor announced a suspension in the prosecution of medical historian Dr. Armin Geus.

Geus had run afoul of German authorities because of his book Die Krankheit des Propheten (The Sickness of the Prophet), in which Geus had argued that Islam's prophet Muhammad was not divinely led, but rather psychologically disturbed. 

[The German Federal Constitution or "Basic Law' says:]

"... in states ruled by law there is no forbidden science and there are no intrusions into the freedom of science as an intrusion into a basic right on the basis of ideological and/or religious reasons, but rather only in ideology directed states like national-socialist Germany, the Stalinist Soviet Union, or the Wahabi Saudi Arabia."

Geus' case elicited from his lawyers the "greatest of concern" about German "rule of law."  It was "precisely" the King Fahd Academy (König Fahd Akademie) in Bad Godesberg-Lannesdorf, a Saudi-founded and funded secondary school, that "was able to unleash a criminal prosecution evidently not grounded in the criminal code by a German state prosecutor." 

Geus' lawyers warned that his case presented the question concerning whether "Political Correctness, which covers this land like mildew, is now metastasizing like a cancer into "Scientifical Correctness" and destroying freedom of research and teaching in the sense of Islam and sharia."

Source




4 November, 2012

UN to try to regulate Web next month?

Better enjoy Facebook while you can. A U.N.-sponsored conference next month in Dubai will propose new regulations and restrictions for the Internet, which critics say will censor free speech, levy tariffs on e-commerce, and even force companies to clean up their “e-waste” and make gadgets that are better for the environment.

Concerns about the closed-door event have sparked a Wikileaks-style info-leaking site, and led the State Department on Wednesday to file a series of new proposals or tranches seeking to ensure “competition and commercial agreements -- and not regulation” as the meeting's main message.

Terry Kramer, the chief U.S. envoy to the conference, says the United States is against sanctions and believes management of the Internet by one central organization goes against free speech.

“[Doing nothing] would not be a terrible outcome at all,” Kramer said recently. “We need to avoid suffocating the Internet space through well-meaning but overly prescriptive proposals that would seek to control content.”

The conference will be run by the International Telecommunications Union (ITC), a U.N. agency that has typically provided a welcome service by making sure that the Internet works across countries.

To dispel concerns, the ITU played damage control in early October.  “There are no proposals submitted to create new international regulatory agencies, or mechanisms, and hence no proposals to put ITU in control of the Internet!” said Malcolm Johnson, ITU's telecommunication standardization bureau director, in a written statement.

Despite those reassurances, key experts remain concerned.  The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is one of just five groups that assign numbers to Internet names, a key part of making the web tick. Cathy Handley, executive director of government affairs at ARIN and a conference attendee, said the meeting is meant to exert some sort of controls.

“Some of the proposals that could clearly have consequences address the high cost of mobile roaming, taxation of calls, issues associated with the routing of calls, cybersecurity and combating spam,” Handley told FoxNews.com. “A major concern is with any attempt to make the International Telecommunication Regulations prescriptive and force regulation.”

Indeed, the same statement in which Johnson urges calm mentions a possible vote for more regulation.

At the conference, the ITC will even propose regulations that go offline, further than the Web. Emrich said one proposal, to be funded by $53B in U.S. dollars, is to connect North and South America using a massive telecom pipeline. Another rule would cover cell phone batteries.

Handley told FoxNews.com that it is likely some of the proposals at WCIT will be enacted over the next five years. What were formerly considered rough guidelines will become more precise governances, she said.

Source




Texas woman forced to cover up 'Vote the Bible' T-shirt at polls

State law trumps the 1st Amendment?

A Texas woman claims she was told that her "Vote the Bible" T-shirt may be offensive and was forced to cover up when she went to vote early at the City Hall in Taylor County, Texas last week, MyFoxAustin.com reported.

Attorney Jonathan Seinz, the president of Texas Values, says Kay Hill was ‘targeted because of her religious beliefs.’  He says he's prepared to defend Hill because he believes she was asked to give up her religious freedom in order to vote.

"This is obviously a religious free expression and no one should be put in a position having to choose religious freedom over deciding to vote," he said.

According to Texas law, a person cannot suggest how another person should vote by word, sign or gesture while in a polling place.
Williamson County said its poll volunteers were following state election laws, and besides there's only one word on that shirt that they have a problem with.

"The shirt did say vote so it did have to do with voting," said Williamson County Public Affairs Director Connie Watson.

Watson says the shirt violates state laws regarding elections.
"Electioneering or loitering within 100 feet of the entrance to the polling place or inside the polling place is not allowed. Electioneering would cover wearing a hat, a pen, a T-shirt or a sign that would indicate a position for a political party, candidate or a proposition," said Watson.

Seinz argues that Hill's shirt did none of that.  "Nothing says that you can't have a shirt that says vote the Bible. The last time I checked Republicans and Democrats, it's not a partisan issue on the bible," Seinz said.

An election worker gave Hill a jacket to cover up the T-shirt. In the end, she was able to vote.

Seinz says if Williamson County doesn't apologize to Hill and allow the shirt to be worn to the polls, they will file a formal complaint with the Attorney General.

Source





2 November, 2012

Saudi King Strengthens Call for International Blasphemy Ban: ‘It Is Our Duty’?

But of course they can go about maligning other religions, such as still teaching in their schools that Jews drink the blood of Christians and Muslims on Passover:  That is just fine, apparently

Over the weekend, the influential king of Saudi Arabia became the most recent public figure to call for a worldwide ban on insulting Islam and its prophet Muhammad.  “I demand a UN resolution that condemns any country or group that insults religions and prophets,” King Abdullah bin Aziz remarked, according to the Agence France-Presse. “It is our duty and that of every Muslim to protect Islam and defend the prophets.”

The widespread calls for a blasphemy ban follow last month’s deadly protests across the Muslim world, many of which were blamed on an offensive YouTube trailer. At the time, the AFP adds, Saudi Arabia threatened to block YouTube throughout the kingdom if the corporation didn’t take action to censor its content. YouTube somewhat complied, restricting the availability of the movie in Saudi Arabia.

Source





Movie attacked over 'yellowface' make-up

Someone seems to have lost sight of the fact that movies are allowed to be unrealistic

Cloud Atlas, Warner Bros' $100 million adaptation of the novel by David Mitchell, has been criticised by Asian-Americans after casting white Western actors in "yellowface" make-up. Directed by Tom Tykwer and Lana and Andy Wachowski, the film stars Tom Hanks, Halle Berry and Jim Broadbent in a narrative that hops between countries and across the centuries.

"It's an artistically ambitious approach to film-making," said Guy Aoki, founding president of the Media Action Network for Asian-Americans. "Unfortunately it reflects the same old racial pecking order that the entertainment industry has been practising for years."

Aoki was particularly concerned by a segment set in a futuristic South Korea, in which actors Jim Sturgess, James D'Arcy and Hugo Weaving are made up to play Asian characters.

"Every major male character in the Korean story is played by non-Asian actors in really bad yellowface make-up," he said. "The Asian-Americans at the [preview] screening burst out laughing because [Weaving] looked terrible - like a Vulcan on Star Trek."

The Media Action Network went on to contrast the Korean segment with a sequence in the South Pacific starring Afro-British actor David Gyasi as a Maori slave. "You have to ask: would the directors have used blackface on a white actor to play Gyasi's role?" Aoki said. "I don't think so: that would have outraged African-Americans. But badly done yellowface is still OK."

Source





1 November, 2012

"Bullying": The new codeword in attacks on speech

Bullying has been defined by opportunistic politicians to include a broad range of speech, including core political speech. The latest example is anti-abortion advocacy:

Ontario’s Education Minister has apparently declared that Catholic schools can no longer teach that abortion is wrong.

Laurel Broten, who serves under Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, said Wednesday that Catholic schools are barred from teaching this core moral belief because Bill 13, the government’s controversial “anti-bullying” law, prohibits “misogyny.”

“Taking away a woman’s right to choose could arguably be considered one of the most misogynistic actions that one could take,” she told the Canadian Press. “I don’t think there is a conflict between choosing Catholic education for your children and supporting a woman’s right to choose.”

After people raised objections to this assault on free speech, the Education Minister doubled down on her support for censorship:

“We do not allow and we’re very clear with the passage of Bill 13 that Catholic teachings cannot be taught in our schools that violates human rights and which brings a lack of acceptance to participation in schools,” she said. …"

Earlier, a U.S. school district superintendent labeled a column in a school newspaper that criticized homosexuality as “bullying,” which is an offense punishable by penalties up to expulsion in that school district.

The Shawano High School newspaper had run dueling student opinion pieces on whether same-sex couples should be able to adopt children; the student article that was labeled as “bullying” answered the question “no.”

It is strange to claim that a viewpoint in a student newspaper is “bullying.” If a school doesn’t want that kind of debate in its own newspaper, it shouldn’t ask for it; it has no right to open the subject for debate, and then punish a hapless person for participating in it.

Opposition to homosexuality is protected by the First Amendment. A conservative Christian who thought that homosexuality was immoral successfully challenged a school “harassment” code that punished students with such viewpoints in Saxe v. State College Area School District (2001), a case in which a federal appeals court ruled that there is no “harassment” exception to the First Amendment for speech which offends members of minority groups."

The Obama administration claims bullying is an “epidemic” and a “pandemic.” But in reality, bullying and violence have steadily gone down in the nation’s schools, as even studies funded by the Justice Department have shown. The administration’s anti-bullying website defines exercises of free speech and association such as “spreading rumors” or “excluding someone from a group” as being “bullying,” and it says that “examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.”

Source




Australia: Students suspended following comments on Facebook page

The Principal sounds rather high and mighty but the school does appear to be a rather violent one so maybe that is relevant.  Some  posts do appear to have been genuinely abusive.  Suspending students over it is pretty dubious however.  Should we not expect a school to try education instead?

To some degree what was actually said is relevant. Were there threats of violence, for instance?  It seems not.  The principal  seems to be of the view that nobody should say anything bad about anyone  -- which is clearly excessive.  There is a rather sycophantic radio interview with him here.

A GOLD Coast principal has launched a crackdown on cyber bullying, suspending any student who posts abusive messages on a school Facebook page.

Southport High School principal Steve McLuckie has suspended several students behind a series of vicious cyber attacks on the Facebook page.

The move has divided education heavyweights and the school community.  Some parents say the principal is going too far and limiting their children's right to free speech, but supporters praise Mr McLuckie for taking on "trolls".

"It is not a private page, this is a public page," he said.  "The comments are inappropriate and will not be tolerated. If you are going to be inappropriate, then we will take action.  "Bullying and harassment will simply not be tolerated, and we stand by that."

"We, as a society, do not put up with anyone putting people down and belittling them," he said.  "As a society we do not accept that, and we are trying to educate and train students to be a part of that society."

One mother, who asked not to be named, had two students at the Southport school and said they had a right to free speech.  "They haven't done anything wrong. They have posted on a Facebook site - so what," she said.  "They have accessed the site in their own time. The school has no right to punish my children for what they do in their own time.  "That's my job. The school is out of line."

SOURCE









Posts from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).


"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."


Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."


The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.


A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.


Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.


Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?


Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862


The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand


Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.


It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."


"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica


Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response


Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech


"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper


Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts


Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt


When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.


The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.


The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."