PC WATCH Mirror by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH The creeping dictatorship of the Left...

The primary version of "Political Correctness Watch" is HERE The Blogroll; John Ray's Home Page; Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Dissecting Leftism. This site is updated several times a month but is no longer updated daily. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). See here or here for the archives of this site.

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

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


31 January, 2016

Three multiculturalists  who gang-raped white 16-year-old girl are jailed for 30 years

Three Somali men who gang-raped a white 16-year-old girl in the bathroom of a hotel where they went to celebrate Eid have been jailed for 30 years.

Muhyadeen Osman, Bilal Ahmed and Mowled Yussuf, all now 20, were just teenagers when they attacked the girl at the Victoria Park Hotel in Manchester, regarding her as 'easy prey', the court heard.

The group, then all aged 17, had spent the previous night in the hotel with a number of other men as part of Eid celebrations when one of their friends, who had met the girl on BlackBerry Messenger, brought her round saying she should 'meet his boys.'

In the run up to the assault the group moved from room to room looking for unlocked doors to hide from a porter.

They eventually got into a bedroom where Yussuf was first to force the girl to perform a sex act on him in the bathroom.

Despite her repeatedly telling the group that she didn't want to have intercourse, she was forced to perform a sex act on Ahmed before he raped her.

Osman then joined in after he had been 'hanging around' outside the door. He then moved her to the bed and raped her himself.

Their victim, now a university student, was left alone as the gang dispersed - only to realise that her mobile phone and cash had been taken from her handbag.

She initially only reported the theft but the day after the attack in 2013 she revealed the extent of her ordeal.

DNA matching the offenders was recovered from the scene and she later picked the men out in identity parades.

In a victim impact statement read to the court, the teenager said she no longer felt confident to go out of the house and her education had suffered.

At Manchester Crown Court Yussuf was convicted of rape, oral rape and assault by penetration following a trial was jailed for ten years.

Ahmed, who was convicted of oral rape, was locked up for nine years whilst Osman got 12 years after being convicted of an unrelated robbery in which he mugged an innocent man on the street for his rings and mobile phone was also taken into account.

In dramatic scenes outside the courtroom around 60 members of Manchester's Somalian community protested against the verdicts suggesting the three men were being 'victimised' because of their race, while the victim was a white Brit.  They managed to pile into the public gallery and gasped as the sentences were handed down - while Yussuf flicked a middle finger at the mother of their victim, who was present.

The court heard the girl was on her summer holidays between school and beginning her A-levels when she began talking to a friend of the gang Ibrahim Jama on BlackBerry Messenger. They exchanged messages and agreed to meet - but as Jama met her at a bus stop shortly before 11am, he soon convinced her to perform a sex act on him in an alleyway.

Prosecuting, Henry Blackshaw said: 'He then made reference to 'his boys' that were at the Victoria Park hotel, so she accompanied him. 'Once in the hotel she was then involved in what was talked about as a game of going to hotel rooms with the group and hiding away from the porter.'

CCTV then captured the group and the girl disappearing into one hotel room for around 30 minutes while the attacks took place.

The court heard that all three men continue to protest their innocence and other men who had a sexual encounter with the victim on the same day have not been arrested.

On behalf of Osman, Michael Goldwater said: 'What these defendants did wrong is allowing themselves to believe this young lady was willing to perform virtually any sex act on all of them, and failing to make an enquiry about her willingness or indeed to care very much one way or the other.  'These were young, immature men who got carried away.'

But jailing the men, Judge David Hernandez said: 'This was a large group of young men in a hotel and the inference is you all saw her as easy prey.

'She didn't really understand what was on your mind and that is probably because she was a naïve and sexually inexperienced and vulnerable young girl.

'When you were running around that hotel she probably saw this as innocent, childish fun, but it all turned sinister when you got her into the bathroom. She found herself in a situation she was totally unable to control.

'She found herself confronted with demands for sexual activity she did not wish to engage in and did not willingly consent. She had no choice and no opportunity to refuse.'

Jama was cleared of conspiracy to commit rape during the trial.


Europe’s Moral Bankruptcy

I wrote last year about the moral vacuum that exists in Europe because gun control laws in nations like France make it very difficult for Jews to protect themselves from barbaric attacks.

But the principle applies more broadly. All law-abiding people should have the human right to protect themselves.

Politicians in Denmark don’t seem to understand this principle. Or maybe the do understand the principle, but they are so morally bankrupt that don’t care. Not only do they have gun control, they even have laws against pepper spray. And they are so fanatical in their desire to turn people into sheep that the government apparently will prosecute a girl who used pepper spray to save herself from rape.

Here are some excerpts from a report in the U.K.-based Daily Mail.

    "A Danish teenager who was sexually assaulted near a migrant asylum centre has been told she will be prosecuted after using pepper spray to fend off her attacker. …she managed to prevent the man from attacking her further by spraying the substance at him. …However, as it is illegal to use pepper spray, the teenage girl is set to face charges."

How disgusting.

And what makes the situation especially frustrating is that the criminals and terrorists in Europe obviously don’t have any problem obtaining firearms.

So the only practical effect of gun control (or bans on pepper spray) is to make life easier for the scum of society.

And the real insult to injury is that a teenage girl who should be hailed as a hero now faces the threat of punishment. Just like the unfortunate British woman who was persecuted for using a knife to deter some thugs.

And here’s some of what the BBC reported about

    "Italian hospitality for the visiting Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has stretched to covering up nude statues. Italy also chose not to serve wine at official meals"

Pathetic. Particularly since the Italians bent over backwards for a truly heinous regime.

Kudos to President Hollande in France, by contrast. The Daily Mail notes that he held firm.

    "A lunch between the French and Iranian presidents in Paris was scrapped today because France refused to remove wine from the menu"

By the way, there clearly is a role for common courtesy and diplomatic protocol. It obviously would be gratuitously rude for a nation to serve pork at a dinner for officials from Israel or any Muslim nation, just as it would inappropriate and insensitive to serve beef for an event for officials from India.

Moreover, officials from one nation should not make over-the-top demands when visiting other countries. Just as it would be wrong for French officials to demand wine at state dinners in Iran, it’s also wrong for Iranian officials to demand the absence of wine at meals in France. After all, it’s not as if they would be expected to partake.

In the grand scheme of things, though, the kerfuffle about wine and statues doesn’t matter compared to the potentially life-and-death issue of whether Europeans should be allowed to defend themselves.

That’s why Europe isn’t merely in trouble because of fiscal bankruptcy, but also because of moral bankruptcy.

P.S. While having the ability to protect your life or to guard against rape isn’t a human right in most European nations, take a look at some of the things that are “rights.”

    A committee from the Council of Europe claims there is a right to other people’s money.

    Across Europe, a satellite dish is now a human right.

    In Finland, broadband access is a basic right.

    In France, it is against the law to say your husband is under-endowed or that your wife is fat.

    There’s now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in Europe.

    In Italy, you have the right to…um…your testicles.

All this is amusing…in a very sad way.


How This Ultrasound Program Brought Life to 358,000 Babies

The pro-marriage, pro-life group Focus on the Family is celebrating the 12th anniversary of Option Ultrasound, a program that rejoices in the birth of 358,000 babies who had been at risk for abortion.

“Here at Focus on the Family, what we wanted to do was help equip the pregnancy medical clinics around the country to be able to provide that ultrasound service to a woman who found herself with an unintended pregnancy and weighing her options,” Kelly Rosati, the Christian organization’s vice president of community outreach, told The Daily Signal.

Option Ultrasound was designed to provide grants to cover the costs of new ultrasound machines and sonogram equipment training for medical personnel at pregnancy centers around the country.

“Ultrasound has been described as a window to the womb,” Rosati said. “It gives the woman an opportunity to see for herself and to connect with her child.”

Since its start in January 2004, Option Ultrasound has provided 695 grants across all 50 states and one international grant.

“We do these grants specifically in high-abortion communities,” Rosati said, adding:

    "We have a set number that we are able to provide each year, and the way that we prioritize the need includes making sure that clinics in high-abortion communities are the priority for purposes of grants"

Along with the babies born instead of aborted comes an “equal number of moms who have been spared the pain associated with an abortion decision,” Rosati said, including dads and other family members involved in the decision.

“Sadly, I think abortion has really had a corrosive impact on the dignity and value that we all place on all human life,” she said. “I think as it cheapens life, and as that corrosiveness has taken hold, I think it causes a wedge.

“Seeing people through the eyes of God and the dignity and the value of each person is kind of the foundation for how we want to teach one another and love one another.”

Focus on the Family says it collects “rigorous data” and powerful stories of women who chose to have their babies after having an ultrasound. The majority of women who start out leaning toward an abortion will carry a baby to term after receiving counseling and an ultrasound, the group found.

“One of the things that we’ve done through the program is continually investing in the medical clinics that we work with,” Robyn Chambers, director of Option Ultrasound, told The Daily Signal.

Option Ultrasound provides medical services free of charge to women at pregnancy centers around the country.  The program helps make the services more widely available.

“We’ve been able to go into these clinics and really identify their greatest need,” Chambers said. “Maybe it’s a replacement machine or additional nurses trained. … It’s not just one machine and we’re done.”

Option Ultrasound, funded entirely by donors, has channeled millions of dollars’ worth of help to pregnancy centers. Rosati said:

    "We have more requests for grants than we are able to fulfill right now. We are looking at ways that we can possibly expand and continue to meet this need and partner with the local pregnancy centers to provide these services to women.  The future is as bright as ever"


'Barbie has given in to political correctness': The doll's diverse makeover sparks an online backlash with women outraged that 'adult hang-ups' are being 'forced on kids'

Life in plastic isn't quite as fantastic as first thought. Barbie has found herself at the centre of a social media storm after the doll's creators, Mattel Inc., announced she was going to be given a serious makeover - the first in her 57-year history.

After the news broke that the figurine's famously unreal shape is going to be changed to embrace tall, curvy and petite body types, many fans took to social media to rejoice at the positive move.

However, others have hit back saying it's not the revolutionary leap forward it seems and the new labels are 'problematic'. One commenter claimed that 'adult hang-ups' shouldn't be forced on children and many said there's no need for the plastic doll to be 'politically correct'.

Twitter user Ella Whelan stressed that this might have a negative impact on kids, commenting: 'If a girl is still young enough to play with #Barbie, she's too young to care about body image - stop putting adult hang-ups on children.'

Others believed the new shapes were a step in the right direction but dividing the dolls by different body types is still an issue.

Elina Tumoi wrote online: 'Diversity is good but labelling one doll curvy and another petite, still problematic for me. #barbie #mattel #labels.'

A user called Renee echoed her sentiments adding: 'Barbie creating new shapes - love it! Labelling them by how they look - still an issue. #Barbie'

Many said that Barbie's body is not a 'politically correct' problem and she should just be viewed as a toy.

In addition to having a new physique, Barbie has been made in seven different skin tones, a whopping 22 different eye colours and 24 separate hairstyles.

The original Barbie, who has long been criticised for setting unattainable beauty standards, is still available to buy alongside the new models

Evelyn Mazzocco, Senior Vice President and Global General Manager Barbie said: 'We are excited to literally be changing the face of the brand - these new dolls represent a line that is more reflective of the world girls see around them - the variety in body type, skin tones and style allows girls to find a doll that speaks to them.'

The brand made the announcement on Thursday on Twitter with the hashtag #TheDollEvolves and writing: 'We proudly add three new body types to our line. Meet the new dolls.'

However, the statement met with some resistance from members of the public.

A user called Rae SC slammed the news: 'No. I'd rather teach my daughters to not compare themselves to a doll because it's not a real human and it's made of plastic. #Barbie.'

Kayla Gross agreed: 'Maybe instead of changing a doll, we should be changing how we talk to girls about self-esteem and self-worth. #Barbie.'

Some men joined in the conversation and joked that the Ken doll will be the next to have an appearance overhaul.

'Next question is Ken going to have moobs and a beer belly #Barbie,' said one. While another added: 'Curvy #Barbie? That's good. Now, where's #DadBod Ken?'

The new dolls are available online now at Shop.Mattel.com and will subsequently be available in stores.

'For more than 55 years, Barbie has been a global, cultural icon and a source of inspiration and imagination to millions of girls around the world,' said Richard Dickson, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mattel.

'Barbie reflects the world girls see around them. Her ability to evolve and grow with the times, while staying true to her spirit, is central to why Barbie is the number one fashion doll in the world.'



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

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

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


29 January, 2016

Germany bans far-right website for spreading 'racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic content' and arrests two people in clampdown on hate crime

This is ridiculous.  Why is Muslim supremacism not also banned?  Muslims are the biggest source of hate speech in the world today.

Also ridiculous is that criticizing any group of people is routinely said to make you "Far-Right".  In fact, most of these people are socialists, just as Hitler was.  But you don't see individual critics interviewed about their beliefs.  It is just assumed that their beliefs are Rightist.  Where the individuals are part of some organization, however, you do normally get some sort of manifesto about what they believe. 

Three current examples are Britain's BNP, Germany's NDP and "Golden Dawn" in Greece.  All have many socialist policies.  And the KKK in America was comprised of Democrats who ATTACKED Republicans. So there you have four "Racist" organizations who were and are Leftists.  And are the raving antisemites of Islam "Far Right"?

Such people might reasonably be called "prejudiced" but calling  them "Far Right" is wrong.  They could in fact better be called "Far Left".  From Karl Marx onwards racism has been primarily Leftist.  Karl hated Jews even though he was one!

Germany has banned a far-right website for spreading 'racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic content' and arrested two people in a clampdown on hate crime.

The ban on the Altermedia Deutschland platform came as raids were carried out in homes in four German states as well as in the northeastern Spanish town of Lloret de Mar.

Germany's Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said the clampdown was 'a clear sign that the rule of law doesn't allow hate crime'.

The prosecutors' office said that two Germans, identified only as Jutta V. and Ralph Thomas K. in line with German privacy rules, were arrested on suspicion of founding a criminal organisation and incitement. Three other suspects weren't arrested.

The two arrested people were the administrators of the Altermedia website and therefore responsible for its content.

Material included banned Nazi slogans and the denial of the Holocaust as well as incitement of violence against foreigners, the prosecutors' office said.

The server was located in Russia to prevent German authorities gaining access, it added. German officials asked Russia to switch it off in the coming days.

German security officials say that the far right has become much more savvy in using of the Internet and social media to push its message to a broader audience.

The head of Germany's domestic intelligence, Hans-Georg Maassen, told reporters on Tuesday that 'there is the danger of a gray zone developing between far-right extremists, right-wing conservatives and citizen protesters with significant potential for violence.'


NY Court: Farmers to Be Re-Educated, Pay Fines for Not Hosting Homosexual Wedding

No freedom of religion in NY State?

A couple who hosts occasional wedding ceremonies on their New York farm have lost an appeal to overturn the $13,000 in fines levied against them by the state’s human rights agency, which ruled that their refusal to host a wedding for two women was discriminatory.

On Jan. 14, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld the agency’s order and the fines, a decision the Alliance Defending Freedom - which represented Robert and Cynthia Gifford - said amounted to confirming, “that the government can punish the Giffords for declining to coordinate a ceremony that conflicts with their conscience.”

The couple lives in a barn they built on their farm and have occasionally hosted weddings on the first floor and the surrounding backyard area, according to ADF.

“After the agency ruled that the Giffords were guilty of ‘sexual orientation discrimination,’ it fined them $10,000, plus $3,000 in damages and ordered them to implement re-education training classes designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage,” a press release issued following the court decision stated.

In order to comply with the order, the couple will have to attend those “re-training” classes or have a “trainer” come to them, according to ADF.

“All Americans should be free to live and work according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards,” ADF legal counsel Caleb Dalton, who argued before the court on behalf of the couple in Gifford v. Erwin, said in a statement. “The government went after both this couple’s freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property.

“The court should have rejected this unwarranted and unconstitutional government intrusion, so we will consult with our client regarding appeal,” Dalton said.

ADF attorneys argued that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing a wedding coordinator like Cynthia to plan and participate in a ceremony that violates her faith.

“The appeals court decision, however, sidestepped that argument and is allowing the government coercion to continue,” the ADF press release stated.

ADF explained the background of the case: “On Sept. 25, 2012, Melisa McCarthy called Cynthia Gifford, inquiring about the use of the farm for her upcoming same-sex ceremony. Because of her Christian faith’s teachings on marriage, Cynthia politely told McCarthy that she and her husband don’t host and coordinate same-sex ceremonies but left open an invitation to visit the farm to consider it as a potential reception site. Instead, McCarthy and her partner filed a complaint with the Division of Human Rights.”


Swedish police chief sparks anger by SYMPATHISING with Somali boy, 15, charged with social worker's murder

The head of the Swedish police has sparked outrage by expressing sympathy with the teenage asylum seeker accused of murdering social worker Alexander Mezher.

National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson, who has already admitted police cannot cope with the wave of migrant crime, said he has concerns about the ‘horrors’ and trauma the accused murderer may have witnessed.

He said he was ‘distraught’ on behalf of Miss Mezher’s family but also for the killer, saying: ‘What has that person been through? Under what circumstances has he grown up? What is the trauma he carries?’

It came as court documents showed the boy suspected of the killing is being held in a secure psychiatric that specialises in patients with psychotic illness, drug and alcohol addiction.

In an with SVT Mr Eliasson said: 'Well, you are of course distraught on behalf of everyone involved.  'Naturally, for the person killed and her family, but also for a lone young boy who commits such a heinous incident.  'What has that person been through? Under what circumstances has he grown up? What is the trauma he carries?

'This entire migration crisis shows how unfair life is in many parts of the world. We have to try to help solve this best we can.'

MailOnline has contacted Mr Eliasson for further explanation of his comments, but a spokesman would not reveal where he is.

His comments sparked angry reactions across social media, with some saying the police chief made them ‘want to vomit’.  Jenny Sundelin wrote on Twitter: ‘I vomit when I see you. You are supposed to be the person most responsible for our safety and you defend those who murder us’

Billy TheBritt added: ‘Does the nerd @dan_eliasson feel sorry for Breivik too? What about the Trollhattan killer? Does Dan’s heart bleed for him too?’

Kent Ekeroth, a member of parliament for the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats tweeted: ‘This is where Dan Eliasson feels sorry for the guy who knife-murdered the woman at the asylum home - resign!'

Eliasson is not the first senior political figure in Sweden to demand compassion for the 15-year-old boy being held on suspicion of murder.

Marie Osth Karlsson, a senior local government commissioner, said: 'I also have to express sympathy for the man behind the crime, there is also a person behind it'

Both Eliasson and Osth Karlsson belong to the ruling Social Democrat party, which has been criticised in the past year for its handling of the migrant crisis.

His comments follow the release of court documents which show murder detectives do not know the true identity of the Somali boy who allegedly stabbed to death Miss Mezher.

Reports suggested the boy was 15 and living in a child migrant centre in Molndal where Miss Mezher worked.  But next to the suspect's name are the words 'ID ej styrkt', meaning 'ID not proven'.

It means the boy had nothing to prove his identity when he arrived in Sweden – and that he could be 18 or even older.

A police spokesman in Gothenburg yesterday told MailOnline: 'We are not 100% sure about the boys identity. But we do have a good picture and will find that out eventually.

'This is usually the case with unaccompanied refugee children. It is hard to establish if their identity is true or not.'

The boy has been charged with murder and attempted murder. He is being held at the high security psychiatric clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital is run by the Swedish NHS called Landstinget.

The prosecutor said there are 'exceptional grounds' to detain the suspect as he will attempt to destroy evidence and flee the country.


60 Per Cent of ‘Refugees’ Are Really Economic Migrants Admits EU Commissioner

More than half of the migrants coming to Europe seeking refugee status are not fleeing war but are in fact economic migrants from North Africa, according to a European Union Commissioner.

The comments about the reality of economic migrants were made by Frans Timmermans, the European Commission’s First Vice-President, in an interview with the Dutch Broadcast Foundation (NOS).

He said that far from fleeing warzones, migrants to Europe are mostly North Africans leaving their homeland for economic reasons, adding:

“More than half of the people now coming to Europe come from countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status. More than half, 60 per cent.”

Basing his claim on the on the latest, as yet unpublished, data from Frontex — the European security agency which manages cooperation between national border guards securing the bloc’s external borders — Commissioner Timmermans said they are mainly economic migrants from countries such as Morocco and Tunisia, attempting to reach Europe via via Turkey.

The reason for Commissioner Timmermans’ intervention was not to make a case against mass migration in general, but to strengthen the case for genuine asylum seekers. He told NOS that economic migrants should be returned to their home countries in North Africa “as soon as possible” in order to ensure that support for refugees who are actually fleeing war is not damaged.

The alternative, he says, is that the European Union “must go back to the introduction of internal border controls”, an act which would have huge economic implications for the transport sector facing delays of hours and even days dealing with reintroduced border controls.

Suspending the borderless Schengen Zone would not, in Commissioner Timmerman’s opion, guarantee a solution to the ongoing migrant crisis. He warned:

“If we go down the path of internal border controls, we are taking a huge risk, the economic consequences are enormous, without knowing whether it delivers what you want, namely that fewer refugees enter.”


Now eurocrats call for ban on paper rounds and holiday jobs: Brussels claim low pay harms children's health and moral welfare

Paper rounds and holiday jobs are a breach of children’s rights, eurocrats claimed yesterday.

The officials say pay rates are too low and the work, which some children rely on for spending money, harms their health and moral welfare.

The report from the European Committee of Social Rights says rules allowing children aged 15 to deliver newspapers for up to two hours before school on weekdays breaks a 55-year-old social charter.

And similar provisions allowing 15 and 16-year-olds to work for 35 hours a week in the holidays are said to be ‘excessive’.

The 15-man committee, which answers to the Council of Europe, also criticised British laws on smacking, immigration, gypsy rights and maternity pay.

It said they were not complying with the European Social Charter established by the council in 1961. The Strasbourg-based council has also tried to enforce rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on prisoner votes and ‘life means life’ jail terms.

Tory MP Philip Hollobone condemned the report. He said: ‘This is yet more barmy interference from unelected bureaucrats in Strasbourg.’

The eurocrats say immigration rules are unfair because they breach the ‘social rights’ of migrant workers and their families.

They say it is wrong that relatives can be expelled from the country after the deportation of their sponsor even if there is no proof ‘they are a threat to national security, or offend against public interest or morals’.

They also attack language rules which force new arrivals to learn English, saying they are ‘likely to hinder family reunion’.

Last week David Cameron announced new rules requiring migrants to learn English or face losing their right to stay in the country.



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

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

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


28 January, 2016

Revealed: Migrant boy, 15, arrested on suspicion of murdering Swedish social worker is from Somalia

The migrant teenager arrested on suspicion of stabbing to death a young Swedish social worker at a at a shelter for refugee children is from Somalia, one of her colleagues has revealed.

Alexandra Mezher, 22, was working on a night shift alone with ten teenagers when she was attacked at the home for unaccompanied young refugees in Mölndal, near Gothenburg. She later died of her injuries in hospital.

Details of the 15-year-old boy being held by murder detectives come as Miss Mezher's family blamed Sweden's migration crisis for her death.

Chiméne Mezher, 42, today told how she had lost her 'angel', as a cousin said: 'It is the Swedish politicians' fault that she is dead.'

Sweden is one of the main destinations for refugees and migrants entering the EU and police warn they cannot cope with the tide of migrant-related crime.

Paying tribute to her 'angel', her mother wept: 'She was my air, she was my everything, why her?'

'She was a just and fair human being. There were so many who loved her. She was my daughter, my friend.. my mate,' Mrs Mezher said.

Miss Mezher's best friend-of-eight-years Lejla Filipovic, 22, also paid tribute to the young social worker today, saying the pair were like sisters.

'She was so goodhearted, she wanted to do so much in life,' she said adding that she had sometimes worried that Miss Mezher was putting herself at risk.

'I know that some of the kids aren't in a good place right now, because they came without their parents, so sometimes I was worried, but I knew that she had good co-workers.'

The tributes came as Swedish police announced that the Somali boy accused of murdering Miss Mezher will stand trial as an adult.

The teenager remains in custody, an unusual step as youngsters are normally sent to a secure children’s home following arrest.

However, police told MailOnline they had made the decision to keep the teenager behind bars due to the serious nature of the crime and the public outrage follow the brutal knife killing Miss Mezher.

The teenage migrant accused of murdering a young Swedish social worker at a refugee centre will stand trial as an adult, MailOnline has learnt.  And he will be held in an adult prison until he goes on trial.

‘A person is criminally responsible when they reach 15-years-old in Sweden,’ a Gothenburg Police spokesman told MailOnline.

The spokesman added: ‘He is not known by the police and has not been arrested before. ‘But there is always a variable of uncertainty about these kids identity.  ‘We don´t know anything about the boy's family. We have not even established his identity with a 100% certainty yet.’

Meanwhile police have praised the bravery of the two residents of the migrant centre who tackled the killer, saying their courage had saved lives.  ‘The two boys who over-powered the knifeman probably saved lives,’ a Gothenburg Police spokesman told MailOnline.

‘When the first patrol came to the centre they were informed that the boy was held down by two other boys who were living there.

‘When they entered the crime scene they found him on the floor being held by these two boys.  ‘They had over-powered him and probably saved the lives of others.  ‘It is fair to say that they were really brave and courageous in their actions.

‘We found what we think is the murder weapon laying beside them.’

All residents of the migrant centre, a drab three-storey building on the outskirts of Molndal, a suburb of Gothenburg, have been moved to another location, it has emerged.

A police spokesman told MailOnline: ‘We have seven witnesses who saw the incident and we will talk to them again tomorrow. The 15 year old boy will be interrogated again tomorrow as well.

‘All the boys who were staying at the centre has been allocated to other centres in Mölndal.’

The incident comes amid rising tensions over migration in Sweden. The number of threats and violent incidents at asylum facilities doubled between 2014 and 2015.

Earlier this week, Stockholm police warned that the capital's main train station is 'overrun' by gangs of Moroccan street children, who are 'stealing and groping girls' and have called for more resources to cope. 

Today, Prime minister Stefan Lofven admitted that many people are fearful of attacks similar to the killing of Miss Mezher, because 'Sweden receives so many children and youths arriving alone'.

Sweden accepted more than 160,000 asylum seekers in 2015, more than any other EU state per capita.

Alexandra, of Lebanese Christian origin, lived with her parents Boutros, 46, and Chiméne Mezher, and her two younger brothers in Borås, some 40 miles from Molndal.

Her father came to Sweden from Beirut, Lebanon, in 1989 and her mother moved there three years later.

It has now emerged that Miss Mezher had been working alone at the housing in Mölndal, which is home to ten unaccompanied minors.

Despite rules that the staff should work in pairs, Miss Mezher had been working a night shift all by herself and was attacked just half an hour before daytime staff were due to take over, it is claimed.

A colleague speaking on condition of anonymity said that staff had previously complained about having to work alone overnight.


Stacey Dash: 'Black History Month and BET Shouldn't Exist'

Dash has some African ancestry

Actress Stacey Dash has gone another round with her critics.

On a recent blog post at Patheos, Dash argued that having black-centered awards and organizations "further divide us" as Americans.

She also wrote that cities, Hollywood and universities are all controlled by liberals - yet "are the three major institutions that black people are concerned about in society as being unfair to minorities."

The controversy began on January 20, when Dash, 49, went on "Fox & Friends" and argued that black actors and activist who recently criticized the Academy Awards for lack of diversity should not have awards shows centered around black artists.  "I think it's ludicrous," Dash said at the time. "We have to make up our minds; either we want to have segregation or integration. If we don't want segregation, then we need to get rid of channels like BET [Black Entertainment Television] and the BET Awards, and the [NAACP] Image Awards, where you're only awarded if you're black."

The remarks were followed by criticism of Dash by Whoopi Goldberg, BET, and Dash's own cousin Damon Dash.

Dash has now responded. Some excerpts from her blog:

    "If you’ve been paying attention to social media lately, you may have seen that my name is trending.  It seems every other black person in America has disowned me. That’s because I said things like “Black History Month” and BET shouldn’t exist, since they further divide us.  I feel like it’s hypocritical to say that we’re all the same, but then to self-segregate into little enclaves of society.  Also, I think the #OscarSoWhite controversy is lame, because black people should not demand that every segment of society who watches movies be reflected in the number of Oscars given to actors and actresses.  That’s just not how the world works…

    What are the three major institutions that black people are concerned about in society as being unfair to minorities?

    Universities (riddled with #BlackLivesMatter protests), Hollywood (#OscarsSoWhite), and major urban cities (which have been described as declaring “open season” on black men).

    Yet, ALL of these areas are dominated by LIBERALS…

    Why the hell do we keep doing the same thing and expect a different result?

    We don’t have to...

    Isn’t it funny how Clarence Thomas — once associated with the black panthers — is no longer considered “black” because of his beliefs?  Isn’t it funny how Bill Clinton — as white as the driven snow — was called by Toni Morrison the “first black President” simply because he was a “single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.”

    Got that?

    Clarence Thomas isn’t black because he is conservative.

    Bill Clinton is black, because he’s a poor, fast food loving boy from Arkansas"



After Cologne: where are the feminists?

Why are 'progressives' so reluctant to question what happened?

Many have been shocked this month by the wall of silence from feminists in regards to the crimes committed by men in Cologne. For people forever keen to wail in disgust at such appalling transgressions as pink razors, wolf whistles, being complimented on having lost weight, having their knee touched by a DJ in 1967 and other such ‘everyday sexism’, you’d think feminists would be the first to speak out about women being groped, molested and assaulted in public.

We’ve been shocked, but not surprised. That the culprits were mostly of North African descent precludes any honest discussion among ‘progressives’ for fear of being deemed racist. The Swedish police hushed up similar events for the same reason: better to ignore or hide unhelpful or dangerous facts than to discuss the truth. Cowardice and evasion are par for the course when it comes to the liberal left these days, who are far more concerned with their public standing as caring ‘Good People’ – in contradistinction to conservatives, who are deemed selfish ‘Bad People’.

I salute the courage of anyone who moves in polite North London circles who uttered this month: ‘You know? I think it’s because North Africans are culturally backwards when it comes to women. I don’t think Islam helps, either.’

Then there is a desperate desire among the modern left to abide by the creed of ‘white male privilege’. What happened in Cologne doesn’t fit into this ideology – being neither white nor privileged – hence the contorted attempt to rationalise the incidents. It must be media invention. Or something to do with the legacy of colonialism. The perpetrators are men foremost, and race and religion are of secondary importance, relevant only to the awful white xenophobes on Twitter luxuriating in all their privilege. This is what happens when people mentally imprison themselves in ideology.

How did feminism become so insular and deceitful, and progressives so craven and cowardly? We should blame the 1960s, when the ‘personal became the political’. Not forgiving, metaphorically, the French workers refusing to open their factory doors in solidarity to the rioting students of 1968, the modern left started to become ever-more detached from the working class, fulfilling instead the libertine dream of ‘self realisation’.

Later seduced by myopic identity politics, so-called progressives have become increasingly preening and self-consumed. Believe it or not, there was a time when feminists wanting to make a point didn’t feel the need to take all their clothes off in public. There was also an era when people who campaigned for equality weren’t all brittle-minded, middle-class cry-babies. Feminists used to see themselves as active subjects engaged with the outside world, not insular, helpless objects of the power from without.

Once the left spoke of ‘producers’, now it speaks up for ethical ‘consumer rights’ and ‘personal choice’. Once the Labour Party was the party for the workers, now it speaks from above on behalf of people on benefits. As much as the Corbynistas and the Labour right protest at their differences, both marshal support from the liberal bourgeoisie who see in voting Labour a means to discharge guilt for being rich. Labour is a Whig party now in all but name. Feminism is as middle-class as the Suffragette movement. So don’t expect any honesty about Cologne from these haughty, detached ‘progressives’.

It is a lazy axiom that right-wing people are more self-centred, but for some decades it’s been ‘progressives’, straight out of public school, who are more concerned with their public reputation. They go on demonstrations, sign petitions, love refugees, express sympathy for every fashionable cause, apologise for historical wrongs that they didn’t carry out, bump into ethnic minorities on purpose so they can say ‘sorry’ (or simply say sorry for being white in the first place). They will do anything except say something that might have them lose face in public – like tell the truth when it’s inconvenient.

Sexist shopping

Pink razors are more than just an example of ‘everyday sexism’: they are a symbol of capitalist exploitation. According to a Times report on Tuesday, women are being charged up to twice as much as men for a range of products aimed at women, such as pink razors and ‘pens for women’. Caroline Dinenage, the minister for women and equalities, says she is ‘deeply concerned by any suggestion that women are being treated unfairly’, while Kate Green, the shadow equalities minister, said that Labour would press for the government to act.

This is akin to saying ‘something must be done’ about Waitrose being more expensive than Aldi. If women feel they are being over-charged, they should shop more shrewdly. As female letter writer put it in The Times: ‘If women are prepared to pay more for pink pens and razors, more fool them. It’s called consumer choice.’

On the other hand, if women want to pay more for an object they find more aesthetically pleasing and more ‘feminine’, that, too, is up to them. Either way, the idea that this gender disparity in prices necessitates government intervention on behalf of women is but further evidence of feminism’s passivity.


Denmark approves controversial reforms forcing migrants to hand over valuables to pay for benefits and delaying family reunifications by two years

The Danish parliament has approved a series of controversial proposals aiming to make the country a less attractive destination refugees and migrants.  

The measures were passed by an overwhelming majority with the main centre-left opposition Social Democrats voting in favour as Denmark's political landscape shifts to the right thanks to the popularity of anti-immigrant Danish People's Party

Measures include confiscating migrants' valuables in order to finance their upkeep while they seek asylum, and making it harder to bring family members to Denmark once they have a right to remain.

The proposals have been severely criticised by the United Nations as well as international media, where the measures have been compared to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.

Denmark had previously been seen as more of a thoroughfare, with many migrants and refugees passing through on their way to Sweden.

However, in December last year, the Swedish government introduced a cap on migrants and mandatory ID-checks on its borders, meaning more people have stayed in Denmark.

Lawmakers in Copenhagen hope the bill will reduce the influx of migrants and help new arrivals of refugee status.

The most controversial measure on the bill is the introduction of police searches and confiscations of cash and valuables.

Danish police will be able to search luggage of asylum seekers and seize cash exceeding 10,000 kroner (£1,025), as well as any individual items valued at more than that amount.

Wedding rings and other items of sentimental value will be exempt.

The Danish government has defended the request that asylum seekers sell valuables and offer up cash, as the same rules apply for all Danish citizens who wish to qualify for social benefits.

'We are saying that if you want to come to Europe you should stay clear of Denmark,' said Martin Henriksen, a spokesman for the anti-immigration Danish People's Party.

The new bill will also makes it harder for family members left behind to join asylum seekers in Denmark once they have been granted residency - even if they are refugees.

Being a refugee - fleeing war but not individual prosecution - will no longer qualify for the highest form of protection status under Danish law, and they will have to wait three years instead of one year before applying for family reunifications.

Once the application has been filed, the process can take years, and refugees would have to pay the transportation costs of family members they bring to the country.

The waiting time has prompted allegations that Denmark will violate the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN Refugee Convention.

Amnesty International said the move could 'have a devastating impact on families, including their rehabilitation from experiences of trauma and their ability to integrate and adapt to life in a new country.'

Residence permits would be shortened from five years to two for refugees and asylum seekers facing persecution based on their race, nationality, religion, political beliefs or association with a specific social group.

In addition, the requirements for permanent residency applications now include new Danish language requirements  and the person must have been employed for 2.5 of the past three years rather than three out of five years.

The selection of 500 yearly UN quota refugees will be based on their 'integration potential' which includes criteria like language abilities, education, work experience, age and motivation. The criteria were first introduced in 2005 by a right-wing government but were later rolled back.

The bill has sparked international outrage, especially in the US, where the Washington Post noted that confiscating jewellery from refugees had 'a particularly bitter connotation in Europe' where the Nazis seized gold and valuables from Jews and others during the Second World War.

Several organisations, including the UN High Commission for Refugees, also censured the Nordic country for the proposal, as well as for others that will delay family reunification and make acquiring refugee and residence status more difficult.

Europe's human rights and democracy body said earlier this month it was 'deeply concerned' at the proposed changes to Danish immigration laws.



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

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

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


27 January, 2016

Israel boycotts and the Rising Danger of 'Intersectionality'

If you want to understand why the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, or BDS, has gained so much ground in the past two years, look no further than intersectionality, the study of related systems of oppression.

Intersectionality holds that various forms of oppression — racism, sexism, classism, ableism, and homophobia — constitute an intersecting system of oppression. In this worldview, a transcendent white, male, heterosexual power structure keeps down marginalized groups. Uniting oppressed groups, the theory goes, strengthens them against the dominant power structure.

As you might have guessed, the BDS movement has successfully injected the anti-Israel cause into these intersecting forms of oppression and itself into the interlocking communities of people who hold by them. So it’s increasingly likely that if a group sees itself as oppressed, it will see Israel as part of the dominant power structure doing the oppressing and Palestinians as fellow victims. That oppressed group will be susceptible to joining forces with the BDS movement.

At Columbia University, Students for Justice in Palestine managed to form an alliance with No Red Tape, a student group fighting sexual violence. What does opposing sexual violence have to do with Israel and the Palestinians?

“The way that No Red Tape conceives of sexual violence is a form of oppression that is related…to other forms of oppression,” said one group member.

“Sexual violence is a deeper political issue, and it cannot be divorced or separated from other oppressed identities,” said another No Red Tape member.

Intersectionality with the anti-Israel cause, unfortunately, has not been limited to groups working against sexual violence at Columbia. The anti-Israel website Mondoweiss recently declared that “since Mike Brown was shot by police in Ferguson … solidarity between the Black Lives Matter and Palestine movements has become an increasingly central tenet of both struggles.”

Other examples of groups and causes intersecting with BDS supporters abound, both on and off campus.

While anti-Israelism has long found a sympathetic ear among segments of the far left, it has not, until recently, enjoyed much popularity among ethnic minorities. Moreover, until recently, BDS supporters probably weren’t organized enough to do the necessary outreach to and stewardship of fellow marginalized groups. Now, evidently, they are.

While he never uses the term intersectionality, Mark Yudof, president emeritus of the University of California system and chair of the recently established Academic Engagement Network, which aims to fight anti-Israel sentiment on campus, ominously describes efforts to “connect the dots” and “co-opt the language of human rights.” The BDS movement is “moving to integrate itself with nearly every progressive campus cause,” Yudof said.

In other words, intersectionality with anti-Israel forces is not just some faddish academic theory bandied about by radical academics and sociology majors. BDS supporters are building alliances, and using those relationships as an opportunity to sell their cause. Much more than a theoretical framework, intersectionality is a comprehensive community relations strategy.

Nor will intersectionality remain primarily a campus phenomenon for long. Yudof worries that “future leaders of America will be viscerally anti-Israel because of the distorted discourse on today’s campuses.” He points out that “what happens on campus never stays on campus.”

Indeed, the growing acceptance of intersectionality arguably poses the most significant community relations challenge of our time. Ultimately, how popular — and threatening — intersectionality becomes depends on the degree to which the far left, constituting about 10 percent of society, is successful in inculcating its black-and-white worldview, simplistic perspectives and resentment toward those perceived as powerful with the mainstream left. But we can influence the direction of this discussion.

Publicly attacking intersectionality and its adherents is not likely to do much damage. To the contrary, calling out Israel’s detractors can paradoxically have the effect of popularizing their views and bringing them further into the mainstream.

Rather, the Jewish community and especially, the Jewish community relations movement, must do more to establish our own intersectionality with groups on the mainstream left, which is not nearly as prone to radical currents. Strengthening ties to these more moderate groups will erect a firewall between the far left and mainstream left on Israel, making it far less likely that the latter will ever take the bait from the BDS movement.

To do this, we need to understand the various issues and causes of the groups that make up this segment of the population, and make common cause whenever possible. Promoting Israel alone is not going to cut it because the various groups will have no reason or incentive to join forces with us. Just as BDS supporters embrace the agendas of the groups they seek to persuade, we must work on issues our key partners deem important.

We may not be able to discredit intersectionality with Israel across the board, but we can limit its reach.


Canada: Maclean's overlooks the "angry Left"


There’s an old saying: "Don’t throw stones from a glass house." Well, this week Maclean’s seems to be throwing a lot of them.

In it, he refers to The Rebel.media, Ezra Levant, and yes, even me -- that is, my Megaphone blog post on Justin Trudeau adhering to a “decadent and debauched leftist ideology.”

The premise of Patriquin's piece is that conservatives are delusional, disenfranchised, and bear an animosity against Trudeau that is increasingly irrational and out of touch with reality.

Really?  I stand by my blog post: I do believe the Canadian Left adheres to a decadent and debauched leftist ideology.

When the Prime Minister of Canada prioritizes visiting a mosque in Peterborough before addressing the Canadians who were recently murdered abroad by Islamic terrorists, I do believe that such a gesture is decadent.

When math skills appear to be on the wane in Alberta, yet the NDP Premier Rachel Notley’s priority is to issue a “Guidelines for best practices" that lets delusional grown men use girls’ washrooms, I do find that such policies are debauched.

But let’s not stop there.  Let's attack the precise premise of Patriquin's article and his depictions of conservatives. Unlike him, I will not stoop so low as to track down egregious comments on Facebook to try and depict the Canadian Left as crazy. (I don’t need to, and besides, that wouldn’t be too hard).

Instead, let’s look at a few examples from Patriquin's media colleagues, as well as some politicians, who are angry, radical -- and on the Left.   

Patriquin points to Lawrence Witko, a 65 year old caretaker who made a few foul mouthed Facebook comments aboutJustin Trudeau, calling him Canada’s Saddam Hussein and saying, "Trudeau has to go—one way or another, he has to go . . . Lock n Load . . . ”

This incident prompted the RCMP to pay him visit.

Now does an angry 65 year old caretaker really represent the conservative movement in Canada? Doubtful.

Now remember Lyndon Penner, the CBC columnist who tweeted that he’d host a party upon the death of Stephen Harper, who later tweeted that he’d hope Harper would lose an eye on his birthday? Sound radical to you?

Remember Mary Walsh, the CBC's This Hour Has 22 Minutes comedian who dresses up as a valkyrie and berates Conservative politicians outside their house at the wee hours of the morning? Recall her segment where she walked around in ragged clothing in the freezing Newfoundland weather, referring to Stephen Harper as “Heir Harper.”

Is that crazy?

Or how about Elizabeth May, going on stage at a press gallery event, possibly drunk, singing and praising convicted terrorist Omar Khadr?

Someone needs to inform Patriquin that if the Canadian Left want to find crazy radicals, they need only look in the mirror.

What was Patriquin's motive for writing such a piece?

Sure, we know that yahoos with crazy views can pop up on any side of the political spectrum, but why is Maclean’s so eager to depict such views as being innate to conservatives?

It’s called "framing." The Left seeks to frame and brand the conservative movement of Canada as closeted, mentally ill racists full of homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic views.

Once they have categorized a movement as suffering from a pathology (as opposed to one adhering to a rational outlook), they’ve essentially silenced conservatives.

The Right now has go on the defensive, rather than concentrating on the issue at hand.

However, a better way to combat such tactics are to expose them, and highlight the Left’s own hypocrisy.


PC brigade 'failing victims of sex abuse': Minorities tsar slams liberals over Muslim criminals

David Cameron's integration tsar has blasted 'hand-wringing' liberals for failing to tackle forced marriage and other abuses in Muslim communities.

Louise Casey said some officials were 'so wrapped up in political correctness' they ignored shameful scandals which led to vulnerable women and children being harmed.

Miss Casey, who chaired the Government's troubled families unit and led an investigation into social services in Rotherham – where Asian sex gangs had abused as many as 1,600 children – is carrying out a review of how to boost integration in the most isolated communities.

Commissioned by the Prime Minister, this is looking at how to help migrants learn English, as well as other ways of boosting women's job prospects.

But Miss Casey claimed one issue was that the liberal elite had turned a blind eye to problems within some Muslim groups.

Speaking to the Policy Exchange think-tank in London last night, she said: 'We let forced marriage happen because we were so wrapped up in political correctness and wanting our multicultural Britain. We forgot to talk about equality and we forgot to talk about equal rights.

'We forgot that a girl of the age of eight is being promised to someone. That is not a Muslim issue, that is an equality issue.'

Miss Casey said more effort had been expended on 'Tipp-Exing out the word 'Pakistani' on folders in Rotherham' than addressing the root causes of the problems.

She added: 'This is not just about a particular community not wanting to integrate. It is about those people on the outside who have been hand-wringing.'

She said her report into the failure of some sections of society to integrate, due to be published in March, would criticise those liberals 'with some force'.

Her comments will be a blow to those public figures – particularly under New Labour – who championed multiculturalism, the Left-wing doctrine which encourages migrants to keep their own traditions rather than integrate into British ways.

In a keynote speech last July, Mr Cameron made clear that failures of integration had allowed extremist ideas to gain traction – resulting in around 700 British Muslims travelling to Syria to join Islamic State. Counter-terror police say about half are thought to have returned and could pose a threat.

A Whitehall source said Miss Casey was useful to ministers as she could deliver 'hard truths' to the Muslim community that they could not. She rose to prominence as Tony Blair's anti-social behaviour tsar.

Her comments echo those of Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who last year condemned the multiculturalism 'racket' championed under the Blair government.


Revealed: How one in five inmates in maximum security prisons is Muslim

One in five inmates serving sentences in Britain's maximum security jails are Muslim, figures show.

There are currently 5,885 highly dangerous criminals behind bars in the eight Category A prisons in the UK, of which 1,229 follow the Islamic faith.

The figure equates to 20 per cent of high-security prisoners and, according to figures obtained by The Sun, is an increase of 23 per cent from five years ago.

The percentage rise has been far greater than the Muslim population increase in the UK, which is currently at five per cent.

At Whitemoor prison in Cambridgeshire, 44 per cent of the 447 inmates are Muslim. It is the highest proportion in any British jail and nearly double the number recorded less than a decade ago.

Among those behind bars at the prison is Zia Al Haq, 36, from Wembley, north London, who was sentenced to 18 years in 2007 after plotting to bomb a London Tube tunnel.

Another terrorist at Whitemoor is Nezar Hindawi, 61, serving 45 years for planting a bomb in his pregnant fiancée's hand luggage on a flight from Heathrow to Tel Aviv, which could have killed 375.

Meanwhile, Belmarsh prison in south east London currently has 248 Muslim inmates out of 868, which equates to more than 28 per cent.

A number of high-profile terror suspects have passed through the high-security jail, including former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg and Lee Rigby's killers Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale.

Anti-terror think-tank the Quilliam Foundation warned jails were 'ripe' to become extremist recruiting grounds.

A series of reports on Whitemoor have also revealed that inmates come under intense pressure to convert to Islam, which is treated by many as a gang or protection racket rather than a religion.

According to watchdog Independent Monitoring Board, Muslims form the 'biggest power bloc' and are taking over from the previous 'gangs'.

In a report released last year, it said: 'Against this background we note that some prisoners and staff found the Muslim presence overwhelming.

'The social and religious fragmentation within Whitemoor potentially posed risks for discipline and hence safety.'

The Prison Officers Association also warned that radicalisation is a growing problem with 'clear evidence of an Islamic gang culture aimed at young men'. 

But Ministry of Justice data shows that between October 2012 and January 2015, there were 104 Muslims out of 178 prisoners who'd been jailed for 'terrorism-related offences where the motivation stemmed from extreme ideology'.

This is less than 1 per cent of the total Muslim prisoner population.

In 2010, the then Chief Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers, published a report on Muslims in jails, in which she linked the growth in numbers to the age and socio-economic profiles of the Muslim population in general.

Charity Muslim Aid has previously said that poverty is a key factor driving crime, and therefore imprisonment, among Muslims.

Last year, extremist Kamel Bourgass, serving life for murdering a policeman as he went on the run from a ricin factory, won a Supreme Court case after claiming he had been held in solitary confinement for too long at Whitemoor.

He was segregated at the jail, and eventually moved out of it, because he was feared to be involved in 'an escalation in violence' at the prison'. 

Non-Muslim Whitemoor inmates include Michael Sams, 72, jailed for life in 1993 for murdering Julie Dart, 18, and kidnapping estate agent Stephanie Slater.

Ian Huntley, 40, jailed for 40 years in 2003 for murdering two schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham Cambs, has been an inmate.   

A Ministry of Justice spokesman told MailOnline: 'The Secretary of State has asked the department to review its approach to dealing with Islamist extremism in prisons and probation.

'This is being supported by external expertise and sits alongside the cross government work currently underway on developing de-radicalisation programmes.'



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

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

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


26 January, 2016

Feminists attack Oxford Dictionary of English for 'reinforcing sexist stereotypes'

Critics claim example sentences provided by the dictionary are filled with 'explicit sexism'.  I can't see it but even if they were, the OED is a dictionary of record, not a prescriptive dictionary.  It records how words ARE used, not how they should be used

Twitter users have been taking Oxford Dictionary or English to task claiming it is 'filled with explicitly sexist usage examples'. Michael Oman-Reagan, an anthropologist at Memorial University of Newfoundland, led the charge in a series of tweets to @OxfordWords, the official Oxford Dictionaries Twitter account.

Writing on Medium Oman-Reagan said: "The Oxford Dictionary of English is the default dictionary on Apple’s Mac OS X operating system. Anyone using a Mac, an iPad, or iPhone will get definitions from this dictionary. So why is it filled with explicitly sexist usage examples?" He tweeted a number of example sentences

According to the Oxford Dictionaries website, its example sentences are "extracted from the world’s newspapers and magazines, academic journals, fiction, and blogs."

In what could be read as a premptive caveat to such criticisms, Oxford Dictionaries says: "There are hundreds of thousands of English headwords and senses in Oxford Dictionaries, and almost every one of these words, senses, and phrases has been linked to a selection of up to 20 extra examples from the databank. If a word or phrase has more than one meaning, each individual sense is linked to its own set of example sentences.

"Please note: All the examples sentences throughout the site are real examples of usage. They are taken from a huge variety of different sources, from all parts of the world where English is used, and they reflect a wide spectrum of views and levels of language. Opinions and views expressed in the usage examples are the views of the individuals concerned and are not endorsed by Oxford University Press."

Carolyn Cox writing on culture blog The Mary Sue, offered a partial defence of the publisher, saying: "It’s depressing to think that ... some readers might take these sexist usage examples as definitive ... Obviously it’s impossible for lexicographers to keep their opinions totally separate from their work, but, at least without having more details on how Oxford selects their usage examples, I’m not entirely convinced that this misogyny is Oxford’s fault."

"Although Oman-Reagan’s examples almost reflexively make we wish that Oxford could sometimes be prescriptive, at least when a word’s usage might have a negative impact on young girls (so many of those examples reinforce that, as women, we’re not the default and therefore don’t have a future as doctors, researchers, etc.), it’s also easy for me to see why it’s important that they honor their role as a descriptive institution."

"Oxford has recognized 'bae,' 'twerk,' 'fandom,' and the gender-neutral honorific 'Mx,' all words created or popularized by marginalized communities and that might not necessarily have found a home in a prescriptive dictionary."


How did my Communist family get it so wrong? Because politics was their religion

Martin Kettle says "Marxism gave my parents faith to last a lifetime and helped them deny reality. The left today looks as if it’s also developing into a church".  The British Labour party as presently led by "Jezza" Corbyn is certainly a huge throwback

The first public event I can remember took place in 1953. I was three years old. But I don’t remember the Queen’s coronation, as other children of my age may have done. What I remember was my mother reading from the Daily Worker about the death of Stalin. This tells you a lot about what it was like to grow up in a communist family, even in a not particularly doctrinaire one like mine. We lived in a different world from normal people.

The Times columnist David Aaronovitch lived in that strange world too, though his bit of it was in north London, and mine was in Leeds. But the communist life he writes about in his new book about his family, Party Animals, is very familiar to me. We don’t know one another all that well, Aaronovitch and me, but we knew many of the same people as kids, went on many of the same demonstrations, went briefly to the same university (though not at the same time), were active in student politics (him even more than me) and have both ended up as newspaper columnists who are pretty sceptical (him more than me again, perhaps) about the future of the kind of leftwing politics in which we were raised.

Although Aaronovitch is very funny about the communist world, and sometimes very affectionate about it too, he is anything but sentimental. Nothing is harder for an atheist than to be told they are, in fact, religious. But in his book Aaronovitch makes just such a claim. The Party was a cause and a world– an incredibly supportive world in my experience – to which people, including his parents and mine, chose to dedicate their lives. “The Party was a church,” he writes. “Its strength was that it was about belief and faith as much as about intellect.”

I think that is an important insight, and it still matters in leftwing politics today. It’s one that Eric Hobsbawm also came to, years ago, when he described the cold war as a war of religion. But in the 1950s the claim that communism was a religion would have been both insulting and laughable to my parents. For we communists had Marxism to guide us in our world view. Marxism was scientific – its laws of history were as incontestable as the laws of physics. Marxism was, quite simply, true. Everything else was mere ideology or, in the case of religion, superstition.

The question at the heart of Aaronovitch’s book, just as it must be at the heart of any study of British communism, is a much wider one, wider even than politics. With some notable exceptions, many of the communists I knew seemed to be essentially decent and intelligent people. But how was it that decent people like Sam and Lavender Aaronovitch – or my parents – could stick with the Party when they all knew, at some level, about the inhumanities for which the communist movement was responsible? And how was it that they stuck with it when it was becoming ever more obvious that the whole determined communist experiment was failing?

The answer, as Aaronovitch movingly argues, is that these people were human and flawed. They believed in the ideals. They believed that Marxism was true. They had faith for a lifetime. When the Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, with whom the book starts, my boyhood hero too, flew into space in 1961, the faith still seemed plausible, providing you overlooked Stalin’s trials and purges, the invasion of Hungary, the ban on Boris Pasternak and the rest. But they went on believing in the ideals and the Party long after it became obvious that it had all gone irrevocably wrong, and was perhaps even wrong in the first place.

Communism didn’t work. And most people who lived under it hated it. These are not passing objections. They will need to be relearned as the centenary of the Russian revolution approaches. Yet our parents were like the deluded old Bolshevik in the gulag in Vasily Grossman’s Life and Fate, who cannot see the connection between his youthful political commitment and the horror of life and death in the labour camp. They were like – in Sam and Lavender’s case they actually were – people who remained in a failed marriage. They couldn’t in the end face the reality that something that had given their lives such meaning had turned out so badly. They put loyalty before sense and reason in their politics and in their lives. They lived with their lies as best they could. And they certainly weren’t the only ones, then or since.

Steeped in it though I was, I confess that, for much of the 25 years since the Party finally died, I have been suspicious of books and seminars and websites that try to keep its memory alive in a world that has happily moved beyond it. Too often, these votaries seem to me to be clinging to something that was moderately interesting in its time but ought to be let go, at best a curiosity like the theosophical movement in which my mother was brought up a century ago. In some cases, as seems glumly inevitable in small leftwing movements, some of the acolytes of communist history are intent on refighting old battles, as though they still matter and nothing has changed.

But Aaronovitch’s song of love and pain for the lost family of British communism has made me think again. True, we don’t have a communist movement any more. But we do without doubt have a revived left in Britain, which has dusted off some of the same ambitions, some of the same political ideas, some of the same historic dreams and some of the same deep flaws, foolishness and even intellectual turpitude that made British communism unsustainable.

This left of today looks to me suspiciously as if it is developing into another church. This left too is marked by a reluctance to ask necessary but difficult questions about its plans for the world beyond the church walls. This left too seems happiest as a fellowship of true believers, squabbling among itself, dismissive of all those who remain sceptics or whose beliefs the elders find unacceptable. Just as the communists knew things deep down that they should have faced up to, so too does this left.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having a politics that is essentially a religion, providing that you recognise it for what it is, something personal between you and your friends. But I’ve been there and done that. If politics is an act of faith – rather than a programme and a willingness to change and adapt to new times – it will fail, as communism did. That’s fine for those for whom belief in socialist principles matters more than anything else, just as it was for the communists. But it won’t work. And in the end people will hate it too.


Blacks and the Confederacy

By Walter E. Williams

Last July, Anthony Hervey, an outspoken black advocate for the Confederate flag, was killed in a car crash. Arlene Barnum, a surviving passenger in the vehicle, told authorities and the media that they had been forced off the road by a carload of “angry young black men” after Hervey, while wearing his Confederate kepi, stopped at a convenience store en route to his home in Oxford, Mississippi. His death was in no small part caused by the gross level of ignorance, organized deceit and anger about the War of 1861. Much of the ignorance stems from the fact that most Americans believe the war was initiated to free slaves, when in truth, freeing slaves was little more than an afterthought. I want to lay out a few quotations and ask what you make of them.

During the “Civil War,” ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, “There are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels” (Douglass' Monthly, September 1861).

“For more than two years, negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as Rebel soldiers, and had paraded with White troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union.” (Horace Greeley, in his book, “The American Conflict”).

“Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number (of Confederate troops). These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde” (report by Dr. Lewis H. Steiner, chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission).

In April 1861, a Petersburg, Virginia, newspaper proposed “three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg” after 70 blacks offered “to act in whatever capacity” had been “assigned to them” in defense of Virginia.

Those are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served as soldiers, freemen and slaves on the side of the Confederacy. The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite so simple as the nation’s race “experts” make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag as their symbol, but racists have also marched behind the U.S. flag and have used the Bible. Would anyone suggest banning the U.S. flag from state buildings and references to the Bible?

Black civil rights activists, their white liberal supporters and historically ignorant Americans who attack the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic Southern black ancestors who marched, fought and died not to protect slavery but to protect their homeland from Northern aggression. They don’t deserve the dishonor. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a black professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”


We need real public health

Public health was once about saving us from illness, not from ourselves

From pronouncements from the UK's chief medical officers last week on how many units of alcohol it is safe to drink (none apparently) to the ongoing panic-mongering about the non-existent dangers of vaping - which, I'd argue, is potentially the biggest contributor to improving the public's health in a generation - public-health busybodies have been making a bit of a show of themselves recently. They seem hell-bent on banning anything that even looks like a threat to public health - even when it plainly isn't.

But what is public health anyway? Is it really about guilt-tripping us over our festive indulgences this Dry January? Or about banning two-for-one food promotions and calling for a sugar tax to tackle obesity? Or about supporting mothers to breastfeed their babies in public? Well, public health used to be about scientific breakthroughs, sanitation and slum-clearance. It was about building massive infrastructure like the sewers that carried away the stench and disease that blighted 19th-century London. It was about mass vaccination against once-killer diseases. In other words, it was about big, far-reaching changes that helped us to live longer, happier, healthier lives.

Today's campaigners, by contrast, are obsessed with intervening in the minutiae of our once-private, everyday lives. Even the genuinely big threats to our health, like diabetes, which is thought to affect more than four million people in Britain, are framed as a problem of lifestyle, and become another opportunity to lecture the obese masses. Diabetes is not, according to today's public-health campaigners, a challenge to be met by medical science - not to mention a side effect of living in an ageing and well-fed society, made possible in no small part by historic public-health interventions. Instead, they argue, on very dubious grounds, that our unhealthy diets, lifestyles and childrearing choices will lead to disease, death and disadvantage. That is, unless the fear and anxiety generated by public-health campaigns (otherwise known as 'awareness-raising') persuade us to take the official advice and change our ways.

Indeed, what really drives the officially endorsed breast-is-best campaign is not support for women's right to breastfeed - it is contempt for women's right to bottle-feed - the allegedly less-healthy alternative. There is no campaign to destigmatise those mothers who would rather not go through the discomfort and exhaustion of 'natural' feeding, and who opt for the convenience of bottle-feeding their babies with formula milk instead.

Not only is this sort of hectoring objectionable in itself, but this petty, paternalistic turn, in which public health has become synonymous with intrusive meddling in people's lives, is also, to my mind, not a good use of public money. It was announced in the last Comprehensive Spending Review that the NHS budget is to rise over the next few years - not least to get cash to the increasing numbers of hospital trusts which are in serious financial trouble. However, the œ15 billion of the Department of Health's annual œ116 billion budget which is spent on particular departments and quangos, including Health Education England and Public Health England, is to be cut by a quarter.

It is not clear how this will impact on public-health activities. Public health is more than the projects backed by the Department of Health, with other government departments and the charity sector also being keen advocates of protecting us from ourselves. But the threat of cuts to student nurses' bursaries, which brought them on to the streets at the weekend, can only make the existing nurse shortage that much worse. Add to that the junior doctors' strike over seven-day working, planned for tomorrow, and you get a sense of the real crisis facing the public's health.

While blaming people's unhealthy lifestyles for the crisis in the NHS is commonplace, there is a growing recognition that practical initiatives designed to prevent ill-health can also have a real impact on the wider health economy. By, for instance, reducing the incidence of falls and infections among the older population, or improving the management of long-term conditions, which too often end in a deterioration that can easily rob people of their independence, we can avoid the expense of hospital admissions and residential care down the line.

Public health as it stands today rides roughshod over people's liberty. And this is all despite the fact that it is our longevity, rather than our lifestyles, which poses the biggest challenge to provision today. It is the side-effects of getting older, brought about by the past gains of public health, and the costs that come with treating serious conditions that people used to die from, that are responsible for bankrupting the system.

Beyond the billions supposedly spent on it, the biggest cost of public health today is the continual undermining of personal autonomy and our capacity to make our own choices. The sooner public health stops patronising people, leaves us alone to run our own lives and gets back to focusing on those interventions that really make a difference, the better.



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

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

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


25 January, 2016

Grinning multicultural rapist who posed a church volunteer 'to mask his true nature as a sexual predator' is jailed for 24 years for knifepoint attacks

This is the smirking sex offender who raped one 17-year-old woman and tried to attack another at knife point.

Oluwadamilare Baiyewu, 22, who posed as a church volunteer to mask his sexual depravity, was today jailed for 24 years for the horrific assaults.

He was described as a 'dangerous, calculating and predatory rapist' who created the image he was the 'pillar of the community' by helping out at the church. 

The court heard how Baiyewu, from Fairlawn in Greenwich, first grabbed a 17-year-old at knife point on December 2, but she managed to break free and escape.

A week later, in the same area of Binsey Walk, Thamesmead, he grabbed a victim, also 17, as she got off the bus at 7pm.

He put a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her before marching her into a bin storage area under a walkway. He then raped her in a secluded area.  

Baiyewu was tracked down after DNA linking him to the attacks was recovered. He was arrested on December 16, and was placed on an identity parade where he was picked out by the victim whom he had attempted to rape.

He was today sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court to 24 years in prison.  He will serve a minimum of 16 years in prison and will then be on license for eight years.

Detective Constable Chris Hammond of the Sexual Offences, Exploitation and Child Abuse Command said: 'Oluwadamilare Baiyewu is a dangerous, calculating, predatory rapist.

'He volunteered at a local church, creating the image that he was a pillar of the community, which I believe was an attempt to mask his true nature as a sexual predator.

'I would like to praise his victims for having the strength to come forward to police and give their evidence in court. 'The streets of Thamesmead are now a safer place without the presence of Baiyewu

Det Con Hammond added: 'Despite the overwhelming evidence against him, Baiyewu refused to accept his guilt. He manipulated the legal system to cause two trials to be adjourned which caused both victims further distress.

'I would like to thank the two victims in this case who maintained their commitment to the prosecution despite Baiyewu's deliberate attempts to prolong proceedings.

'Thankfully their will to see Baiyewu pay for his crimes enabled the trial to proceed at the third attempt and Baiyewu was rightly convicted of all charges.'


MUSLIM LEADER: “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land”

The Director of the Dallas Council on American- Islamic Relations (CAIR), Mustafa Carroll, made a surprising and shocking statement during a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas.  He said, “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.”

He firmly believes that the message of the Qur’an is supreme over the United States constitution.

The statement would be shocking to most citizens of the United States, unless they had some perspective on who CAIR really is.

CAIR is the nation’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Their headquarters is located in Washington D.C. They use lobbyists, the media, and action alerts to promote a positive image of Islam in America during a time when Radical Muslims (ISIS) in other parts of the world are crucifying children in the name of Allah, and quoting the Koran (Though the Obama Administration has a hard time calling it ‘Radical Islam’ for fear of offending regular Muslims).

In 2007 the Holy Land Foundation trial found the Holy Land Foundation Charity guilty of funneling millions of dollars back to the terrorist organization Hamas. Interestingly enough, CAIR was among the organizations named during the trial as unindicted co-conspirators. To put that into perspective, the 37th president of the United States, Richard Nixon, was named an unindicted co-conspirator during the Watergate Trial.

In 2011 and 2012, during an event that The Blaze covered extensively, Islamic institutes coordinated with the White House to target the counter terrorism training within the FBI. The event was called ‘The Purge,’ and the result was the removal of more than 700 documents and 300 presentations. Some of the presentations removed included information about Al Qaeda and the trainers within the FBI were allegedly not given the opportunity to appeal when their presentations were rejected. They were not even allowed to know who it was that was objecting to their work. CAIR was one of the institutes that pushed for this event.

In 2014, the United Arab Emirates placed CAIR, along with 81 other groups, on its list of terrorist organizations. Some believe the action was to done to show a stand against the Terrorist Organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, who seized power in Egypt during the Arab Spring. It should be noted that members of the Obama Administration openly endorsed the events in Egypt that led to the Muslim Brotherhood taking power, likening it to the Civil Rights Movement in America. It has been suspected that CAIR has had ties with the Muslim Brotherhood


Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders tells women to carry self-defence spray against ‘Islamic testosterone bombs’

THE Dutch debate on refugees and asylum seekers has come to this: Firebrand politician Geert Wilders handing out self-defence sprays to women fearful of what he describes as “Islamic testosterone bombs” in the wake of the New Year’s Eve sexual assaults in Cologne.

Wilders, surrounded by bodyguards and police, visited a market in the largely blue-collar town of Spijkenisse on Saturday to hand out the sprays, which contained red paint. Amid stalls selling vegetables, fish, flowers and bicycle parts, Wilders got a rock-star welcome from dozens of supporters, while a small group of protesters chanted and waved placards including one that read, “Refugees are welcome, racism is not.”

The publicity stunt fits into Wilders’ uncompromising anti-immigrant, anti-Islam rhetoric that has propelled him to the top of Dutch opinion polls, just over a year away from parliamentary elections.

In between shaking hands and posing for selfies with supporters, the Freedom Party leader said that, if elected, he would, “close the borders immediately and have no more asylum seekers. We just cannot afford to have more. The Dutch people in a big majority don’t want it and we cannot afford it and it makes our people and women only more unsafe.”

His message is gaining traction here amid the Europe-wide migrant surge and following attacks by Islamic extremists in Paris last year and the mass sexual assaults by immigrant men on women at Cologne’s train station.

It echoes Republican frontrunner Donald Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States and is similar to other populist, nationalist groups in Europe like Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France.

“The tendencies across Europe are very similar,” said University of Amsterdam political science professor Wouter van der Brug. “Across Europe, right-wing populist parties are picking up support as a result of the asylum crisis that we’re facing now, and also as a result of terrorist attacks.”

Leontine Maris was one of the first women to get a spray from Wilders on Saturday.

The 53-year-old said she votes for him though she disagrees with some of his more extreme comments. She said she was afraid not just of migrants, but also Dutch men.  “The whole society is going down the drain,” she said.

As Wilders’ popularity soars on the back of such disenchantment, Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s two-party coalition is in a slump, losing ground mainly to Wilders.  “Wilders is getting support across different layers of society,” Prof Van der Brug said.

Whether Wilders is able to parlay his current popularity into parliamentary seats next year and a tilt at power in the splintered Dutch parliament remains to be seen. He propped up Rutte’s first administration, a minority coalition of the Liberal Party and Christian Democrats, from 2010-2012, but walked out amid drawn out negotiations over austerity measures. Two days later, the government collapsed.

That decision could yet come back to haunt Wilders.  “The only logical coalition he could form would be with the same parties again and I think it’s quite unlikely they will do this again with him because of the negative experience they have in the past,” Mr Van der Brug said. “They don’t really trust him.”

Rutte has ruled out co-operating with Wilders unless the Freedom Party leader takes back comments made in 2014 that he would see to it that there were fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. Those same comments also landed Wilders in trouble with Dutch prosecutors, who plan to put him on trial on charges of discrimination.

That kind of criticism is not new to Wilders, who has made his name with inflammatory anti-Islam rhetoric. He was acquitted in 2011 on hate speech charges for comments including likening Islam to fascism and calling for a ban on the Koran.

Meanwhile last year he was among those targeted in a failed terrorist attack on a Prophet Muhammad art caricatures exhibition in Texas.

Wilders was a speaker at the contest organised by US right-wing blogger Pam Gellar when SWAT teams shot dead two men armed with explosives who tried to attack attendees at the event in Garland, Texas.


Denmark announces unvaccinated refugees have brought diphtheria into the country after a 20-year absence

Refugees have brought the potentially fatal and highly-contagious bacterial infection diphtheria into Denmark and authorities are warning hospitals there could be an outbreak.

Two Libyan refugees were found to have the infection, the Danish State Serum Institute (SSI) said on Tuesday.

Diphtheria - spread through coughs and sneezes, or contact with someone with the infection or their belongings - has not been seen in the country since 1998.

'The infection [diphtheria] can be very dangerous if one isn’t vaccinated against it,' Kurt Fuursted, spokesperson for the SSI told Danish newspaper Metroxpress.

'There is no doubt that infectious diseases are coming in with the refugees that we aren’t used to. There have been discussions on whether all refugees who come to Denmark should be screened.'

The newspaper also reported that other refugees had been found suffering from tuberculosis and malaria.

Health Minister Sophie Lunde told Metroxpress that officials will discuss possible changes to screening policies.

The Danish vaccination programme recommends that babies are inoculated against diphtheria.


The potentially fatal bacterial infection mainly affects the nose and throat, but sometimes the skin.

It is highly contagious and is spread by coughs and sneezes, or by contact with someone with the infection or their belongings, such as clothing.

It is usually caught after being in close or prolonged contact with someone who has the infection or is carrying it.

Diphtheria is usually a problem in Africa, South Asia and the former Soviet Union, where less people are vaccinated.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that a number of Danish nightclubs had started demanding that guests can make themselves understood in English, German or the native tongue to be allowed entry.

The language requirements have reportedly been put in place in several establishments across Denmark in the wake of reports of 'foreign men in groups' harassing female guests.

Denmark has previously come under fire for a controversial proposal to confiscate valuables and cash of refugees and migrants in order to finance their upkeep while they are seeking asylum.

The plans sparked international outrage, especially in the US, where the Washington Post noted that confiscating jewellery from refugees had 'a particularly bitter connotation in Europe' where the Nazis seized gold and valuables from Jews and others during the Second World War.



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

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

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


24 January, 2016

A charming multiculturalist in Florida

She is apparently of Caribbean Indian origin

A Miami woman who was filmed attacking an Uber driver and throwing the man's belongings into the street before walking away has been identified as a local doctor.

Anjali Ramkissoon, who is a fourth-year neurology resident with Jackson Health System, reportedly got into an Uber without a reservation on Sunday night. When the driver asked her to leave, she became angry and belligerent.

The video shows her punching and kicking the man, who eventually walks away, and then getting into the passenger seat of the vehicle and throwing his mail, cell phone, electronics and other devices and possessions out into the street.

At one point she also yells at him; 'Get the f*** in the car, you piece of f***ing disgusting s***.'

Repercussions: Jackson Health System said in statement that the fourth-year neurology resident has been placed on leave and that it has launched an investigation into the incident

The Miami Herald reports that Ramkissoon has now been 'removed from all clinical duties'.

Her employer said in a statement; 'Jackson has launched an internal investigation.

'The outcome of the investigation will determine whether any disciplinary action will be taken, up to and including termination.'

The video footage was taken by Juan Cinco, who had ordered the car to take him home from the Mary Brickell Village in Miami, Florida, on Sunday night. He later uploaded the clip to YouTube.

Information posted with the clip explains Ramkissoon, who was dressed in tight white shorts and a red top, came 'out of nowhere' and climbed into the backseat of the Uber.

When she refused to get out, Mr Cinco and his friend told the driver to cancel their ride and offered to book another ride home.

He said the driver pretended to phone the police, asking them to remove the woman from his car, which prompted Ramkissoon to reach into the front seat, grab his keys and start to walk away.

This was the point at which Cinco started filming, he said.

Then, Ramkissoon climbs into the front passenger seat and starts to throw items off the dashboard on to the street while ordering the driver to 'get in the f***ing car'.

He refuses and Ramkissoon shouts: 'Get the f*** in the car you piece of f***ing disgusting s***'.

Ramkissoon continues to throw items on to the ground, including the driver's iPhone, cash and dozens of pieces of paper and receipts.

At one point she hurls a pair of scissors that lands just inches away from Mr Cinco.

The driver phones the police and tells them he has 'bruises' from the Ramkissoon's attack as she mocks his pleas, saying 'I'm a 5ft tall girl who weighs 100lbs and I am getting really belligerent right now'.

She then throws even more paperwork out the window and Mr Cinco tells her she has 'lost her mind'. One of the items strikes the wing mirror of a car parked nearby.

In his YouTube post, Mr Cinco writes that the police arrived and had to remove Ramkissoon from a taxi she had hailed in an attempt to leave.

He continued: 'Once in handcuffs, she then tried kicking some of the police officers on the scene. 'It was only when they put her in the police car that she started crying, apologizing, and claiming that she would lose her medical license (she claimed to be a neurologist) if she got arrested.'

Mr Cinco said the Uber driver was 'too good of a person' and decided to take a cash settlement - 'only enough to pay his cellphone bill and maybe his cable bill' - rather than take legal action.

Miami police spokeswoman Frederica Burden confirmed officers had responded to the scene but said there was no report and there would be no investigation.


Political correctness exposes the West to attack

Janet Albrechtsen

To fully understand the significance of the horrific violence in the square outside Cologne’s ­cathedral on New Year’s Eve, you need to go back to that same place almost exactly one year earlier. In the first week of January 2015, ­Cologne’s church leaders decided to turn off the lights of the city’s grand cathedral. They refused to allow the cathedral to be used as a backdrop for Germans protesting against rising immigration and concerned about the threat of Islam­ification. Cologne Cathedral provost Norbert Feldhoff said: “The Cologne Cathedral will be shrouded in darkness.” Fittingly, Germans have the perfect word for this: totschweigtaktik. It means death by silence. Or in this case, death by darkness. Books, ideas, people that challenge the status quo are simply ignored.

Almost a year later, in the same place, darkness of a different kind enveloped Cologne’s cathedral. On New Year’s Eve, marauding groups of migrant men, well over a thousand in total, broke into groups to surround women, stealing from them, groping their bodies and their breasts, reaching into their underwear to digitally ­assault them and even raping a few of the unfortunate victims. That dark night, Europe was violently put on notice about the predictable consequences of the ill-conceived migration policy that has, in the past 12 months alone, seen the arrival of more than a million registered asylum-seekers in Germany alone. Most are from the Middle East and Africa.

Another form of darkness ­engulfed the square around ­Cologne’s cathedral in the days that followed those attacks. The first reaction from Cologne’s police was, like the city’s church leaders last year, to shroud the public in darkness. Initial reports by police said “all was peaceful” that night outside the cathedral. More totschweigtaktik. Private notes taken by police that night detailed anything but peace. Police received numerous complaints from women of frightening intimidation and assaults by ­migrant men. One set of notes read: “Several injured women. All suffered attempts to introduce fingers in vaginas … All were touched on the chest and buttocks. Finger was introduced inside a victim.”

One of the victims, Katja L, ­described being surrounded by foreign men and how she “felt a hand on my buttocks, then on my breasts, in the end I was groped everywhere. It was a nightmare. Although we shouted and beat them, the guys did not stop. I was desperate and think I was touched around 100 times in the 200 ­metres.” Another police note ­refuted the initial report that ­migrants were not to blame for the assaults. The note ­described men as “North African looking” and Arabic speaking. ­Another nota­tion recorded a perpetrator saying: “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.” Police officers found a note on one of the men with an Arabic to German translation of “nice breasts”, “I’ll kill you” and “I want to have sex with you”. Similar ­attacks took place in Stuttgart, Hamburg, Munich, Dusseldorf and Berlin. A week later, Sweden woke to learn of similarly censored police reports of sexual ­assaults during a 2014 music festival. How do you say ­totsch­weig­taktik in Swedish?

By last week, Cologne police had received more than 600 complaints of robbery and sexual ­assault. A private police report, leaked to a newspaper a few days after the attacks, ­revealed how police censored the backgrounds of the men because it was “politically awkward” given Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision last year to open Germany’s borders to all Muslims who sought asylum.

Here is PC policing writ large and literal. So surely it’s time to join the dots. Start with the church leaders who shrouded the 2015 protests in darkness. Draw the line to police reports that lied about the assaults and rapes committed by groups of migrants. Extend the line to Germany’s ­national broadcaster, ZDF, which chose not to ­report the news from Cologne on the major news program the following night. Then draw the line further to German government ministers who also refused to speak of the background of perpetrators for more than a week. Continue the line to Cologne’s mayor, who rejected any link between the assaults and migrants, even after the Cologne police chief admitted the connection, describing the ­attacks as “of a totally new dimension”. Extend that line a little further to the same mayor who, in the days after the attacks, advised women to keep “a certain distance of more than an arm’s length” from strangers, clearly ignoring that the men were responsible for the assaults, not the female victims.

This series of connected dots emerges from just one small city in Europe. Join the dots in other Western countries. PC police who censor the works of great authors, from Mark Twain to Enid Blyton, as part of a global battalion of self-appointed paternalists who tell us what to think, what to say, what not to say, what to feel. A dictatorial gay lobby that mocks any opposition to gay marriage as homo­phobic. Refugee activists who deride those who have learnt from experience that support for migration is boosted when migra­tion is controlled by our government, rather than contracted out to people-smugglers. Climate change zealots who ridicule those who ask questions about climate models that have proved inaccu­rate, claims of climate destruction that haven’t transpired and emails that pointed to collusion and misrepresentation among climate ­academics. Feminist ideologues who would rather hound opponents off university campuses or retreat to a “safe room” than listen to facts. Students who would ­rather demolish the statue of Cecil Rhodes than debate the pros and cons of a historical figure.

The pockmarks of political correctness are too numerous to count. But their cumulative effect is clear. More than three decades of political correctness is suffocating liberty in the West. The next outcome is equally obvious: if you join the dots between each episode of political correctness, you end up with the unmistakeable image of Donald Trump — or the faces of other right-wing populists whose electoral appeal is on the rise from Austria to Denmark, Finland to Hungary and more.

Those who write off Trump, and other right-wing populists, as nut-jobs and their supporters as hothead members of the forgotten middle class are only half right. The stifling imposition of political correctness by the political, media and cultural elite has created the Trump spectacle.

After years of trying to reason, even debate, with a PC crowd that brooks no disagreement, Trump sticks it up them. People may not agree with every stupid or insulting thing Trump says, but maybe they are liberated by a politician who says what he wants. After years of being told what to think, what to say, what not to say, it’s ­refreshing to listen to a bloke who won’t have a bar of the myriad political correctness filters applied to every field of life.

The shame is that the vacuum created by political correctness is being filled by a man who is not fit to be president. But maybe the rise of Trump is a necessary first step, a clumsy one to be sure, but one that precedes the rise one day of more sensible leaders who understand the cult of political correctness is not a centrist phenomenon. While the cult draws believers from the elites, most ordinary people want more, not less, freedom to think and speak. It’s not called common sense for nothing.


British movie star condemns racist blacks

A first step towards ending racial discrimination is to stop discriminating racially

Oscar-nominated British star Charlotte Rampling Friday launched a furious attack on black actors who want special treatment in Hollywood – accusing them of ‘anti-white racism’.

The 69-year-old was responding to calls to boycott the ceremony led by Spike Lee, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith.

They are unhappy that, for the second consecutive year, all contenders in the best actor categories are white.

But Ms Rampling, who has received her first Oscar nomination for her role in ‘45 Years’, said this kind of politically correct thinking was a form of racism in itself.

Speaking on Europe 1 radio station in Paris, where she now lives, Ms Rampling said: ‘It’s anti-white racism. Maybe black actors don’t deserve to be on the final stretch?’

Ms Rampling, who first made her name in classic films including Georgy Girl in the 1960s, said she was also opposed to quotas being introduced to promote black actors.

‘Why classify people?’ she said. ‘They feel like a minority, they think: “We’re the black actors and there are not enough of us.’
You can't say 'I'm going to vote for him, he's not very good, but he's black, I'll vote for him

Referring to the vanity of some actors in general, Ms Rampling added: ‘There will always be problems – he’s too handsome, he’s too black, he’s too white…’

Her views seemed to be supported by Sir Michael Caine, who spoke out against race coming into the nomination process.

He told the BBC: 'There's loads of black actors. In the end you can't vote for an actor because he's black. You can't say 'I'm going to vote for him, he's not very good, but he's black, I'll vote for him'. You have to give a good performance and I'm sure people have. I saw Idris Elba (in Beasts Of No Nation)... I thought he was wonderful.'

The two-time Academy Award-winner also said black actors should 'be patient'.

'Of course it will come. It took me years to get an Oscar, years,' he added. 'The best thing about it is you don't have to go. Especially the Oscars, 24 hours on an aeroplane and I've got to sit there clapping Leonardo DiCaprio.

'I love Leonardo, he played my son in a movie, but I'm too old to travel that far and sit in an audience and clap someone else.'

The diversity issue has been dividing Hollywood all week and looks set to dominate discussions surrounding the Chris Rock hosted ceremony scheduled for February 28.

Black stars fail to feature on any of the four lead and supporting acting categories. It follows a 2015 shortlist which was equally homogeneous.

The only black projects nominated for an Oscar - What Happened, Miss Simone? for documentary and Straight Outta Compton for screenplay - have all white nominees.

Jada Pinkett Smith publicly addressed the issue with a video on her Facebook page which helped kick-start the debate about this year's lack of diversity.

The Magic Mike XXL star said she would not attend the ceremony over the issue.   'I can't help ask the question: is it time that people of color, recognize how much power and influence we have amassed that we no longer need to ask to be invited anywhere,' she said. 'I ask the question have we now come to a new time and place, where we recognize that we can no longer beg for the love, acknowledgement or respect of any group.

'That maybe it is time that we love, respect and acknowledge ourselves in the way we are asking others to do, then that that is the place of true power. I'm simply asking the question.

'Here is what I believe, the Academy has the right to acknowledge whomever they choose, to invite whomever they choose and now, I think that it is our responsibility now, to make the change.'

Her husband Will backed her in an appearance on Good Morning America on Thursday.

‘I think that diversity is the American superpower. That's why we're great,’ he told Robin Roberts in the exclusive interview.

'So many different people from so many different places adding their ideas, their inspirations, their influences to this beautiful American gumbo. … so when I look at the series of nominations of the Academy, it is not reflecting that beauty.’
There is no conspiracy. It is mostly a bunch of white guys. And I am guilty of it too. We gravitate to our own

Since the Hollywood power couple came to the fore, numerous other stars have spoken out.

However, Michael Moore and Spike Lee are the only two to go as far as backing the boycott. 


ACLU Forces NYPD to Consider 'Equality' Before Security

For years, the New York Police Department viewed Islamic terrorism through a study titled “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat.” It featured analysis from the RAND Corporation, studies of recent terrorist attacks in other countries, and studied how Muslim men radicalized to the point of attacking the West.

Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union managed to force the NYPD to stop using the report to understand the metastasizing threat of Islamic terror. It was biased against Muslims, the ACLU insisted, and that obviously trumps security to the politically correct Left — once again illustrating the Left’s blithe disregard for how Islamic terror develops. Instead, they want national security to be an equal opportunity investigation, lumping right-wing extremists and Islamic terrorists in the same suspect file.

In related news, the House voted, with enough votes to override a veto, to send a bill to the Senate that would reform how Syrian and Iraqi refugees are screened before entering this country, ordering FBI background checks on them. Barack Obama and the Senate Democrats will fight, saying that the legislation isn’t compassionate, but the bill’s success in the House shows there is real concern over this administration’s refusal to diagnose the reason some Middle Eastern immigrants turn to violence.



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

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

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


22 January, 2016

Greek girl has an epiphany

Girls in the Greek diaspora are often subjected to traditional expectations that have rather faded in Greece itself.  Koraly Dimitriadis is obviously one of them.  She first lists the expectations that were put on her by her family and then declares herself free of them.  In declaring her freedom, however, she may have gone too far. She says that she is now a "a vocal, vibrant, happy, powerful woman".  The number of men who want to live with that might be few -- JR

The expectations

Want to get yourself a man? Then shut up

In order to secure a man it is in the woman’s favour if she is relatively quiet. Men don’t like drama. They also don’t like neediness. It’s a turn off. Men like it simple.

Keep quiet and take your meds or you may end up being dragged off to a mental institution... just like ‘crazy’ Blanche DuBois in "A Streetcar Named Desire"

In the dating game, it’s important to adhere to these guidelines. Don’t send, friendly, conversational texts. Men don’t like womanly chitter chatter. It’s pointless to them. Don’t text if he hasn’t responded for a week and has ignored all your messages. Don’t tell him he is being disrespectful if he said he would call and he hasn’t. Don’t pull him up on his behaviour if he’s being evasive about that next date. Don’t go crazy on him. Don’t say anything because it will ruin your chances. Men don’t like any of that inappropriate behaviour. It’s abusive towards the man when a women speaks up and defends herself.

If you want him to like you then you need to get with the program. Men like to be free. They don’t like to answer to anyone, especially women. You are not the man, they are.

If you do make it to a few dates, try not to talk too much — or too loudly. It’s embarrassing for the guy. It also gives them a massive headache. If you are chatty you might get greeted with an awkward “Sshh”. And you should shush, right? After all, this is a man’s world. We are only walking the earth among them because men are allowing us to do so. Women can only do what they can today because at different points over the course of history men congregated together and decided — by majority vote — to drip feed us some rights. We should be grateful.

Don’t be strong. Men like vulnerability and cluelessness, they like us to look to them for the answers because they are the wise ones. Men know what’s best. If you are getting into a relationship and you feel like you are having too many crazy episodes, you might want to consider medicating yourself for the sake of the relationship. After all, love comes first. Everyone wants a peaceful life. And you do want to be normal, right? You can’t be alone. You need someone to look after you. The world is dangerous. You’ve waited so long for a man to finally want you. The dating game is so hard. All that rejection. If you end the relationship now who knows if you’ll meet anyone else.

When you are having sex, try to keep the noise levels down, especially if living in a share house, block of flats, or densely populated area. If people hear you moaning they will definitely question your integrity, especially if you have men over often. I know it’s hard to keep it down as it may be challenging to reach orgasm, especially since it’s the woman’s responsibility to negotiate the positioning during the act to assist her in reaching such places. But you don’t want to be bothersome and interrupt the man’s trajectory. Remember — the man’s needs come first.

Aspire to be a wife? Shut up, and you’ll be rewarded with a lavish wedding. When you’ve finally got that picture postcard marriage, do your housework, make him a sandwich, and pop out as many kids as he wants, even if you’re not quite sure you want them yourself. Raise your daughters in your shadow, raise them to be quiet just like you.

Laughing loudly is another doozy. I, for instance, have a really loud, expressive laugh. In a cinema, for example, my laugh can generally be heard above the crescendo. Sometimes when I talk I don’t realise that my voice is louder than some. When a male I went to the cinema with tapped me on the shoulder to shush after I laughed at a funny scene I was so enraged I wanted to stand up, right there in the cinema, and give him a piece of my mind.

I wanted to use every profane word to explain how all my life I’ve been taught to bow to the male, and all my life I was told to shush, and not to swear. I wanted to explain how I actually never used to laugh loudly and that I do laugh loudly today because I’m actually really, really happy.

The revolt

That’s right, for the first time in my life I’m really, really happy because I found the strength to not only break out of all the bullshit I’ve expressed in this article, but also I found the strength to break out of an unhappy marriage, and stop taking medication, and I started to embrace my femininity not as a weakness, but as a strength.

Because I’m done keeping my head low. I’m going to hold my head high. And to be honest, all men who don’t embrace a vocal, vibrant, happy, powerful woman, who feel threatened by such a woman, who run away from such a woman, can run for all I care.

I am done defining my self-worth by men with chauvinistic, backward mindsets, who feel threatened by my happy, vocal voice. I am not afraid to be single. If men who are single ask themselves why they may want to consider on evolution of their mindsets. It’s all fine to say you believe in equality, but if you can’t get equality right at such a basic, fundamental level, your words are fruitless.

But of course, such behaviour would be seen as crazy and unladylike. To get up in a cinema and rant like this, in such a disruptive, unladylike way. So I said nothing at all.


Republicans Battle to Roll Back Washington State’s New Transgender Bathroom Rules

OLYMPIA, Wash.— Pressure is mounting at the state capitol for lawmakers to undo a divisive new rule that allows transgender individuals to use bathrooms, locker rooms, and other gender-segregated facilities of the sex the individuals identify as being.

“People don’t understand the magnitude of the rules that they’re making,” Jill Wade, a mother of two from Spanaway, Wash., told The Daily Signal. “Nobody had any idea that any public meetings were going on because they weren’t on their site.”

Wade is part of a group of conservative Christians working to inform the public about the new rules and pressure lawmakers to scale them back. If more people knew about the rules, Wade believes, more people would be fighting against them.

The rules, which were quietly adopted by the state’s Human Rights Commission on Dec. 26, apply to schools and businesses—both public and private—with eight or more employees.

The Human Rights Commission, which is tasked with handling discrimination complaints in the state, branded the rules as an update or clarification to Washington’s 2006 anti-discrimination law. While intended to protect transgender individuals from discrimination, some feel that the updates came at the expense of others’ personal privacy and comfort.

Already, two Republican state legislators, Sen. Doug Ericksen and Rep. Graham Hunt, are working to reverse the regulations through legislative action.  On Wednesday at the state capitol, they explained how they plan to do so.

Ericksen, a Republican senator from Bellingham, Wash., told The Daily Signal that he plans to introduce a “simple” one-paragraph proposal that would immediately repeal the rules drawn up by the Human Rights Commission. His proposal would also ban the agency from “initiating” any further rules regarding transgender individuals’ use of sex-segregated facilities. 

With his bill, Ericksen aims to leave sensitive decisions about the use of sex-segregated facilities by transgender individuals to local businesses, schools, and communities.

“Isn’t that a unique thought, that individual businesses, individual school districts can make the choices that are best for them?” Ericksen sarcastically asked.

His policy is “not an issue of being scared,” Ericksen said, but rather, a way of adhering to “societal expectations.”

“I believe that when I drop my kids off at school, or when I take them to a private gym, I have a right to expect that the men will use the men’s locker room and the women will use the women’s locker room,” he said. “I shouldn’t have to worry about my young daughters having to come face to face with things that they should not have to be exposed to at their age.”

Ericksen has hopes to pass his one-paragraph bill through the Republican-controlled Senate before Washington’s legislative session ends on March 10—with at least some bipartisan support.

“There is broad based support to repeal this rule and it transcends political ideology, makeup, identification,” Ericksen said. “People can read it in 30 seconds, and we can correct a grave overstep by a government agency.”

Rep. Graham Hunt, a conservative from Orting, Wash., wants to go even farther in correcting what he also considers a “grave overstep by a government agency.”

“Repealing is great because it undoes what happened,” Hunt told The Daily Signal minutes before dropping his own bill addressing the updated rules. “But I don’t think it preserves or protects to prevent this from happening again in another way.”

On Wednesday at the state capitol, Hunt introduced a bill that bans transgender individuals from using bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, or saunas if such individuals are “preoperative, nonoperative, or otherwise [have] genitalia of a different gender from that for which the facility is segregated.”

“I’ve tried to make this about the genitalia,” Hunt said bluntly. “If you don’t have the parts…if you don’t have the plumbing, then you don’t go in.”

The legislation includes exceptions for parents and caretakers of minors or persons with disabilities, and enforcement, he said, “would be complaint driven.”

In a Democrat-controlled House, Hunt admits he faces an uphill battle. On Wednesday, Hunt introduced the legislation with the support of 34 members “and counting”—but none of them was a Democrat.  Specifically, he said, one is standing in the way.

In order for his bill to reach the House floor, Hunt must first pass the measure through the Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by state Rep. Laurie Jinkins.

According to Hunt, Jinkins, an openly gay Democrat from Tacoma, Wash., is blocking the measure from coming to a committee vote, refusing to even hold a public hearing on the bill.

“At this point, we just frankly don’t agree,” Hunt said. “She believes my bill is offensive to the transgender community, and I said that I think the [Washington Administrative Code] is offensive to the non-transgender community.”

Jinkins declined to speak with The Daily Signal about this story.

According to Hunt, Jinkins fears that allowing a hearing on the issue would be overtly “political.” 

Hunt took issue with that notion, arguing there’s no better place to take up the issue than in “the people’s house.”

“How can you say the legislature—the people’s house—is not the place to have an open discussion? How can you say that?” Hunt asked. “What else are we here to do —make decisions for the people without their input? That’s not a representative form of government.”

Absent an influx of calls into Jinkins’ office from people concerned about the regulations, Hunt said his bill won’t stand a shot in this legislative session. In the long term, however, he has more hope.

At the end of a meeting on Wednesday, Hunt said he and Jinkins were able to reach an agreement to find “middle ground” in the coming months.

“What she has agreed to is having some sessions during the interim to try to find middle ground,” Hunt said. “I’m happy that she said some middle ground could be found, it’s just not going to be during the 60-day session.”

If that falls through, then Hunt said it’s up to Washington “to make a change with our vote.”

“If there’s not a hearing and they’re not allowed the opportunity to be a part of the conservation, then we make the change with our vote. And if you don’t vote, you’re not going to have a change. That’s what representatives are ultimately accountable to…the vote.”


Manufacturer stands by policy on Muslim prayer breaks after workers walk out

AN AMERICAN-ISLAMIC civil liberties group is asking a Wisconsin manufacturer to back away from a policy that doesn’t allow an extra break for prayer for Muslim employees.

Ariens Co., however, said Tuesday that it can handle the matter internally and that it’s not interested in negotiating through the Council for America-Islamic Relations.

The friction comes after 53 workers left their jobs in protest after the company decided to enforce a policy of two 10-minute breaks per work shift.

The workers, all of whom are of Somali descent, who joined the company last summer through an employment services contractor. Ariens — which is based in Brillion, about 90 miles north of Milwaukee — initially had allowed the newly hired Muslim employees to leave their work stations a third time to accommodate Muslim prayers.

But CEO Dan Ariens said the prayer breaks were disrupting production at the lawnmower and snow blower manufacturer, which employs about 2,000 people, nearly half of them in Brillion. He said the best solution was to schedule break time and “stay within the policy of two, 10-minute breaks.”

“Let’s say I’m on an assembly line with 10 people, and two of those people take an unscheduled break. Everything stops. Those two people might be using five minutes but the other eight are standing there waiting for those five minutes,” Mr Ariens told a news conference.

CAIR is asking the company to revert to its previous policy until a resolution can be reached. Jaylani Hussein, of CAIR in Minneapolis, said that the two scheduled break times don’t line up with Islamic prayer times, which is why the workers need a third break. He also said that the company accommodates other short breaks, including people stepping away to use the rest room.

“It seems like a crackdown on Muslims wherever they are,” he said.

CAIR also has been involved in discussions with Cargill, one of the largest beef producers in North America, over Muslim prayer accommodations at a meat processing plant in Colorado. The company has recently changed a policy to allow fired workers to reapply for their jobs in 30 days, rather than six months. The prayer policy, however, still hasn’t been resolved, CAIR said in a release.

Ariens says it has had longstanding religious accommodations for Muslim workers, including a prayer room. Ariens said the two-break policy isn’t new and that it was discussed during employee orientation.

He said none of the workers have been fired and that he also wants to find a resolution that will allow them all to come back to their jobs without hindering production. He said the employees are valuable and would need to be replaced if they left.

Ariens said the company’s position is reasonable and legally sound. He said that if the prayer breaks were only five minutes each — and his supervisors tell him they’re often longer — then it would cost the company about $US1 million ($1.45 million) annually.

Hussein said if the company maintains its position, he will take the issue to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“The law is clear on this subject: They had been accommodated before,” he said, “so it’s much more difficult to say they are no longer covered.”


Attacks on Women in Cologne Highlight Double Standard of Multiculturalism

The horrendous attacks on women in Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve have exposed a deep crack in the façade of radical multiculturalism. On one side are radical feminists who argue that sexism, no matter how innocently expressed, must be vigorously repressed. On the other are the mavens of racial and ethnic identity politics who preach that Muslim refugees must be exempt from too much censure for sexual assault, lest we be guilty of “Islamophobia.”

Forced to choose between the two, some feminists come down on the side of anti-Islamophobia. Harvard University International Nieman Fellow Laurie Penny, for example, was far more outraged by the supposed “theft of feminist rhetoric by imperialism and racism” than by the attacks themselves. She doesn’t excuse the attackers outright, but it’s clear she’s far more worried about confirming the “narrative” of Islamophobia than defending the rights of women.

Many people think that multiculturalism is all about defending common humanity. It isn’t.

Why is that? One reason is that Muslim refugees now enjoy the pre-eminent position in the canon of multiculturalism. They are thought to be the most victimized, so they get most of the attention, even to the point of sacrificing the feminist cause.

But there are deeper philosophical reasons. Many people think multiculturalism is all about defending common humanity. It isn’t. It’s about creating a new power structure that divides humanity into competing and unequal groupings.

As I explain in my upcoming book, “The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left”:

In order to justify the plethora of self-generated identities, the very notion of the human being must be eradicated. It must be sliced and diced only according to what each identity establishes as its own local truth. … If we believe, as identity theorists do, that the individual human being as we commonly understand him or her is a social fiction, then it is not that big of a tragedy if some people are sacrificed for the sake of others. Without a respect for all human beings, regardless of their place in the identity pecking order, it is fairly easy, even necessary, to separate people into winners and losers in the power game.

In the Cologne case, the losers of this new power game are women. In the current sweepstakes of multicultural victimhood, they are lower in the pecking order than Muslim refugees.

It’s a blatant double standard—one for Western women and another for Muslim refugees. But we really shouldn’t be surprised. After all, radical multiculturalism is philosophically grounded in the logic of the double standard. According to the canon of “white privilege,” all white people, regardless of their individual views, are assumed to be racist by definition. Racial minorities, on the other hand, cannot by definition be racist. Only white people can be. There’s one standard for one and another standard for another.

In the case of Cologne, the same is true for not only for Western women and Muslim refugees in Germany. It also is true for German and Muslim refugee men as well. Does anyone doubt for a second that Penny would have bent over backwards to explain away the import of Cologne attackers if they had been German men?

Here’s the root of the problem: Multiculturalism and its offshoot identity politics are supposed to be about equality, but they are not. They are actually about pretending that different things are the same. According to the canon of identity theory, a white woman who claims she’s black is “really” a black woman. A male who insists he’s a woman is “really” a woman. A Muslim refugee’s victimhood status entitles an assailant to be treated “as if” he were innocent because he’s a victim of Western cultural oppression. In all these cases, people claim to be something they are not. And yet they grab the mantle of equality as if they were.

This contradiction is why the defenders of multiculturalism must always change the subject. As Ralf Jaeger, minister of the Interior for North Rhine-Westphalia, explained after the Cologne attacks, “[w]hat happens on the right-wing platforms and in chatrooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women.”

Never mind all the actual acts of rape and groping—what matters more are the words of people who committed no crimes.

Yes, we all know Germany’s horrible past, but Jaeger’s hyperbole is not merely overcompensation. Jaeger is descending into the very same moral abyss he claims (and I assume sincerely) to abhor. By invoking such a false moral equivalence, not only are the actual crimes of men minimized, but the equal rights of women are sacrificed. It represents an astonishing Faustian bargain with a new and different kind of intolerance.

As I explain in “The Closing of the Liberal Mind”:

In practice, identity and equality work against each other. The more the former is pushed, the more the doctrine of equality is Balkanized. It becomes a contest between competing demands for recognition and privilege.

In that contest, there are winners, and there are losers. And in Cologne, it looks as though the losers are women and the cause of feminism.



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

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

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


21 January, 2016

Multicultural NHS scientist granted asylum in Britain performed fake medical examinations on girl, 11, to abuse and then rape her

A scientist who worked for the NHS after being granted asylum in Britain abused and rape a young girl while pretending to carry out a medical examination.

Andong Ashu faces jail after he was convicted of repeatedly attacking his victim, starting from when she was just 11 years old.

A court heard that he paid her to try and stop her speaking out, and said that no one would believe her if she revealed what he had done.

Ashu, 45, was originally from Cameroon and travelled to Britain in 2002 before he settled in Manchester.

Hull Crown Court heard that he obtained a university degree and started working in NHS laboratories as a scientist.

He then abused his position in the health service to carry out bogus medical examinations on his 11-year-old victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Ashu attacked the girl in Hull and told her that if she told anyone what had happened they would not believe her because she was 'only a child'.

He also paid her an occasional £10 or £20 in a further bid to ensure her silence.

However, the victim eventually plucked up the courage to go to the police and expose Ashu as a sex attacker.

After he pleaded not guilty, the young girl had to give evidence in court herself to ensure that her tormenter was convicted.

Ashu was found guilty of four counts of rape and seven counts of sexual assault following a trial which lasted five days.

He collapsed against the front of the dock as the jury verdicts were read out and was assisted by a custody officer.

The shamed scientist was remanded in custody ahead of sentencing, when he will face a lengthy prison term.

Judge Jeremy Richardson QC thanked the jury for sitting through the 'very unpleasant' sex abuse trial.

The reliance of the NHS on staff recruited from overseas has been controversial thanks to high-profile cases such as that of Victorino Chua, a Filipino nurse who murdered two patients at Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport.

Recent figures state that 11 per cent of all workers in the health service are foreign, with over a quarter of doctors coming from outside Britain.


After Cologne: let's 'dare to say how things really are'

The furore about those sexual assaults says more about 'our' culture than 'theirs'.

In the fallout from the New Year's Eve crime spree in Cologne, when numerous women were allegedly robbed and molested by men recently arrived from Syria and other Arab countries, most of the political focus and media fury have been aimed at 'their culture'. At the problem of Muslim men's allegedly ingrained disrespect for women. At the fundamental conflict between their Koran-derived way of thinking and Europe's women-friendly, gay-friendly, largely liberal outlook. As one observer put it, Cologne shows that the culture of these men is simply 'not compatible with European norms'.

All this handwringing over 'their culture' is strange. Not because we shouldn't criticise other cultures - I'm all in favour of that - or because we shouldn't chastise and punish the men accused of committing crimes in Cologne. No, it's weird because what the Cologne fallout most graphically exposes is the rot and disarray and dishonesty of our culture. Of 21st-century Europe. Of nations, like Germany, which claim to be liberal and enlightened but which in fact now exist under a creed of sheepish, silencing multiculturalism which puts more store by lies that might help to pacify mass society than by truths that might open up real and, yes, difficult debate.

The Cologne controversy shines a harsh light on the corrosion of the Enlightenment values Europe claims to hold to, on the decay of freedom and openness at the very heart of Europe; and we're obsessing over the cultural habits of gangs of Arab blokes?

There were two alarming things about what happened in Cologne. The first was the attacks themselves, which, going by the women's accounts, were awful. The second was the way the authorities, like rulers in some fictional dystopia, sought to cover up the nature of the attacks lest the revelations rattle the populace and provoke inter-communal tension. The police chief of Cologne consciously hid info about the backgrounds of the attackers. He told the media it was hard to know who carried out the assaults, a claim later contradicted by officers who were on the ground on the night in question, who say 'the majority' of those arrested had asylum-seeker IDs.

Like something out of Orwell, the police chief preferred to promote a lie of omission than allow the truth of the situation to start a discussion about Germany's recent intake of immigrants from Syria and elsewhere. He appears to have tailored the facts, rewritten reality, in the name of keeping in check the passions of what he seems to view as the swirling German populace, better kept passive with untruths than made rowdy with uncomfortable facts.

And he isn't alone. Post-Cologne it has been revealed that a similar censorious dynamic has held in Sweden over the past year. There, police and officials have recently noted a 'modus operandi that we had never seen before. large groups of young men who surround girls and molest them', and yet they, too, have chosen not to speak too openly about these attacks or reveal the origins of the perpetrators, many of whom are from Afghanistan. Why? Because, in the words of a police chief in Stockholm, 'Sometimes we do not dare to say how things really are because we believe it will play into the hands of the Sweden Democrats [the right-wing anti-immigration party]'.

Refusing to say 'how things really are' - that, right there, speaks to the relativistic, self-silencing, fundamentally dishonest political culture that dominates Europe in the 21st century. This is not a new phenomenon. From race think-tanks in the 1990s inventing the idea of 'Islamophobia' in order to, in their words, challenge and chastise the notion that Islamic culture is 'inferior to the West', to the dishonesty of police in Rotherham in northern England who refused to speak openly about Muslim men's exploitation of white working-class girls lest such crimes stir up the populace's dangerous passions, for the past 20 years or more multicultural Europe has discouraged or demonised public debate about criminal incidents, immigration and values themselves, fearing such debate might disrupt the fragile social and moral order and unleash undesirable sentiments.

Partly this unwillingness to 'dare to say how things really are' is driven by a fear of populist far-right parties - like the Sweden Democrats - and of the plebs who vote for them. That is, it is motored by its own prejudices. This self-silencing presents itself as a good, progressive urge to protect immigrants from the prejudicial views and behaviour of the natives, yet underpinning it is an even darker prejudice which views Germany's or Sweden's or Britain's own masses as so volatile, so hateful, that they cannot possibly be allowed to know 'how things really are'. Officials lie, or at least hide the truth, in order to keep in check the tempers of the populace: a species of tyranny that echoes the self-aggrandising lies told in Maoist China about food production to a population that didn't have enough to eat.

But more fundamentally, the moral silencing wrought by multiculturalism is about suppressing politics itself, in politics' truest sense of being a free, frank, conflictual discussion about values and the future. Multiculturalism is best understood as the sacralisation of moral and cultural relativism. It makes a virtue of the vacuum in the heart of the modern West, through dressing up the West's inability to articulate what it is for and its failure to stand up for the values of Enlightenment by instead saying, 'All cultures are equally valid'. Multiculturalism is the PC sexing-up of modern Western society's profound alienation from its own culture, from its 300-year-old traditions of democracy, reason, growth and an aspiration, at least, to freedom, though that has been frequently thwarted. As such, the core instinct of multiculturalism, its driving force in fact, is to shush and stifle, to elevate self-censorship and denial of difficult reality over the volatility of allowing open discussion and, worse, a judgement of and between values.

The end result is a new Kafkaesque Europe. A Europe where the police disguise reality. A Europe where elevating European values over other values is branded a 'phobia'. A Europe where to refuse to speak the truth is considered virtuous, and where saying 'how things really are' is seen as bad. And then we're surprised when migrants from afar who arrive in this Europe do not buy into our values. What values? We are barely allowed to articulate them, far less judge them superior to other people's, far less proselytise about them to newcomers.

And there's the rub. The true problem today is not migrants, but the societies they are coming to. These are societies that cannot even create a sense of shared values within their own communities, never mind among new communities of people coming from thousands of miles away. And migrants pick up on this. They can feel the vacuum that they've arrived in. They know that discussion of their values and behaviour is discouraged. They sense that their new countries have no serious value system of their own. And so some of them - some - behave in an offensive and opportunistic fashion, either cleaving to their own foreign values or taking the piss out of the empty society in which they are making a new home. Our refusal to elevate European values or simply to discuss the truth about crime and instability acts as a green light to opportunists within the new migrant ranks. The American experience in the early 20th century shows it is entirely possible to build nations of people from many different backgrounds when there is a bigger, aspirational project to assimilate these people into; the European experience today confirms that in the absence of such a project, society can seem further fractured by new arrivals, who have little incentive to integrate, or little to integrate into.

The migrants who committed crimes in Cologne are wholly responsible for what they did and should be punished. But those of us who consider ourselves genuinely liberal and progressive have a responsibility too: to force Europe to confront itself, to ask itself what it is for in the 21st century. Bringing about that self-confrontation, that open, frank debate about 'how things really are', and more importantly how they should be, is the thing spiked is devoting itself to in 2016. The first step? To demand no censorship, no hiding of inconvenient facts, no avoidance of debate about migration, crime, Islam, beliefs, values or anything else.


The Myth of Islamophobia, The Truth About Those Who Invented It

Muslims across America are demanding Islamophobia be stopped by creating a false rise in what they consider anti-Muslim rhetoric.  Islamophobia is a word manufactured by the Muslim Brotherhood in an effort to invent a false sense of victimhood. Islamophobia is defined by Muslims as those who hold an irrational fear of Islam, and is seen as a mental deficiency.

The word itself means a fear of Islam, but the word has morphed into meaning a hatred of Muslims, racism, or bigotry. It encompasses negative words that cause discomfort and embarrassment, thereby causing people to think twice about speaking negatively about Islam and Muslims.  Being labelled a hater or racist (though Islam is not a race) can get you fired, lose family and friends, or lose business.  All fears of the American people.

Islamic organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have created a sense of urgency in hopes the government will step in by criminalizing what they consider hate speech. Incidents have been fabricated to make it appear there is a spike in anti-Muslim sentiment which in turn they say promotes violence, vandalism and hate.

Aside from the fear of being labeled an islamophobe, people are shying away from anything that may be construed as islamophobic and instead flooding to hear Muslims preach about Islam, its peaceful and loving nature, its tolerance of all things sinful, and how compatible sharia law is to the constitution (all untrue)

HOWEVER, the most important point is not about Islamophobia but rather how it is being used by Muslims. Their efforts to end Islamophobia have instead created a national security risk.

Law enforcement and our military have become so delicate to Muslim communities for fear of losing federal funding or their pensions they are cooperating with Muslim communities conducting business in a way that doesn't offend the Muslims. Because of the demands by Muslims to further their agenda and our political correctness, some of the outcomes of these implications are:

The purging of relevant, factual training that includes who terrorist organizations and their supporters are within the United States

The termination of surveillance in mosques

The end of profiling

The ceasing of   standard search procedures, such as canines to detect explosives

The barring of our military being able to identify the enemy and annihilate them

The altering of rules of engagement replaced with recall and retreat

The cessation of interrogation tools that are effective but are seen as offensive and demeaning

All because Muslims label these Islamophobic.

All of these things we have viewed as small incremental changes, are now the result of our law enforcement agencies calling Islamic terrorism acts of domestic extremism. Terrorists are referred to as killers or fanatics.

By not immediately designating the horrific murders that occurred in San Bernardino, Chattanooga, or Fort Hood, and the attempted assassinations in Garland TX as Islamic terrorism, they are falling into criminal categories rather than terrorist ones. We are becoming desensitized to the reality of an enemy who is fighting in the name of Islam that has an ideology that is dismantling and destroying America.

It isn't Islamophobia that is dangerous, it is those calling for its demise who are.


Claim: One in 10 Australians ’highly Islamophobic’ and have a fear of Muslims

A phobia is an irrational fear.  There are daily reports of Muslims killing other people -- mostly other Muslims but also Westerners -- so what is irrational in fearing attacks from them?  Many Australians have already died at their hands and their attacks are often random and unpredictable.  Are we supposed to look forward to that?  I am surprised that so few Australians fear Muslims. 

One in 10 Australians are “highly Islamophobic” and have a fear or dread of Muslims, a University of South Australia study has found.

The University’s International Centre for Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding has surveyed 1000 Australians, finding 10 per cent of people had negative or ­hostile attitudes towards Muslims, with the elderly, less educated and those with a poor attitude towards migrants more likely to hold such views.

The level of worry about terrorism in Australia had a strong influence on their views, the report, provided to The Australian, said.

Riaz Hassan said the survey was the first “pulse” taken of ­Australians’ perceptions towards one of the country’s most diverse religious communities and he hoped more research would be done to gauge shifts in attitudes.

The findings indicated most Australians were not Islamophobic, with 70 per cent surveyed ­comfortable having a Muslim as a family member or close friend, ­although more felt social distance from Muslims than from other ­religious groups, Professor Hassan said. A further 20 per cent were ­undecided on the issue.

The centre’s work examines the basis of tensions between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds and the role governments, local communities and the media play within a social and cultural rather than purely religious context.

“There are pockets of prejudice and anxiety directed towards Muslims, for example among the aged and those facing financial ­insecurity, but the great majority of Australians in all states and ­regions are comfortable to live alongside Australian Muslims,’’ the report, based on a survey taken in September, said.

About 60 per cent of the 500,000 Muslims living here came from 183 countries, making them the most ethnically and nationally heterogeneous religious communities, the report said.

By 2050, Muslims would grow from 2.2 per cent to 5 per cent of the Australian population, making Islam the second largest religion.

Professor Hassan said Australians’ tolerance towards immigrants strongly influenced their Islamophobia score while higher proportions of older Australians, aged 65 to 74, people who had not completed Year 12, and those not in the labour force showed higher rates of negative views.

The report authors said it was surprising that political affiliations had a strong correlation with ­Islamophobia.

Australians aligned with the Liberal and Nationals parties have significantly higher levels of ­Islamophobia than those aligned with the Labor Party while Greens voters tended to have the lowest Islamophobia score, the ­report said.  [So supporters of the less realistic political parties were also more optimistic about Muslims!  It figures!]



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

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

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


20 January, 2016

From the front lines of the culture wars

Sad, but true: Doc. sues woman because he had sex with her.and she got pregnant

Every once in a while, I read something that strikes me as microcosmic of how ridiculous much of our society has become. While we've made incredible advances in so many fields, we seem to have forgotten the basic, instinctive knowledge that humanity once possessed as our birthright.

Knowledge, for example, like the fact that sex makes babies.

Lest you should think I'm exaggerating, I could give you a half dozen examples off the top of my head of guys I've met that seem to have completely forgotten this fact. They've been so convinced by their porn and their entertainment that sex is a recreational activity that when their reproductive organs work and they end up procreating, they seem downright bewildered.

One fellow at the University of Calgary-he was in third year philosophy, I think-approached me at a pro-life display and demanded to know what he was to do if he got a girl pregnant "by accident."

By accident? Did you trip and fall or something? If you engage in sexual intercourse, which often leads to reproduction, you cannot claim to be confused or surprised when it works like it's supposed to.

Another university student informed me that he had gotten his girlfriend pregnant by accident. "I don't know how that happened!" he whined. Really? Are you sure you don't know how that happened? Because I wasn't even there and I can tell you how it happened.

This brings me to a truly cringe-inducing story published this weekend in the Toronto Star, titled Doctor sues mother of his child for emotional damages. Given the headline, you might assume that the mother of his child had somehow been negligent or abusive to said child. But nope.

From the Star:

When a man and a woman of a certain age have unprotected sex, there is always the possibility a baby will be made.

Such are the facts of life with which, one would assume, a doctor is familiar.

And yet a 42-year-old Toronto physician recently tried to sue a woman with whom he'd had a casual sexual relationship for more than $4 million in damages, claiming "non-pathological emotional harm of an unplanned parenthood."

Did you get that? This fellow-over forty, and a medical professional-is claiming that some woman he was sleeping with has caused him emotional harm because the act of him sleeping with her caused her to get pregnant.

The petulant and promiscuous papa was angry because the woman he was casually having sex with said she was on the pill, and, whether she was or she wasn't, she ended up getting pregnant. He, like a good modern-day gentleman, assumed the woman he was extracting fleeting pleasure from had turned her reproductive system into a chemical playground to ensure that they could continue to have casual coitus free of any consequences.

But as the Star reported:

But then DD got pregnant, and PP wasn't pleased, so he sued her.

Superior Court Justice Paul Perell threw out PP's statement of claim last week, without permitting him the opportunity to amend it, finding there was no legal basis for his lawsuit.

"The case is certainly precedent-setting because no one has ever tried to do this before," said DD's lawyer, Morris Cooper, who characterized PP's argument as "really a claim for wrongful pregnancy and birth."

DD, a 37-year-old medical practitioner who is now the mother of a healthy 10-month-old child, is pleased with the decision, her lawyer said.

I suppose that's a silver lining, if such a thing is to be found in such a pathetic tale. But considering judges have a bad habit these days of awarding damages in "wrongful birth" lawsuits and all sorts of other grotesque miscarriages of justice, relief is rational.

The judge even sealed the case and hid the identities of those in the case, for fear that one day the baby in question might grow up, find the court records, and realize that he was the occasion for the lawsuit. And that further, if his father had finished sulking about his fertility and decided to show up once in a while at that point, the son would be exposed to the fact that this guy was, in fact, a colossal jackass.

After all, this "father" ("sperm donor" seems more accurate) had the guts to sue for this reason:

"To use the language of the statement of claim, PP was emotionally harmed because he was deprived of the choice of falling in love, marrying, enjoying married life and, when he and his wife thought 'the time was right,' having a baby," the judge wrote in his 18-page ruling."

Yeah, you read that right. Read it and weep. The gaping canyon between reality and this guy's sense of entitlement is unfathomable. Biological reality, set in motion by his actions, had trumped the Walt Disney happy ending he was apparently yearning for. Of course, if he'd wanted that to be the case, perhaps he should have been looking for a long-term, serious relationship rather than tramping off to bed with, as he put it later, "some random girl."

He asked her to get an abortion, of course. She said no. So he sued:

"DD committed an independently actionable wrong through misconduct that represents a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. Her conduct was sufficiently malicious, high-handed and highly reprehensible such that it offends the court's sense of decency."

He therefore said he should be entitled to punitive damages "to achieve the objectives of punishment, deterrence and denunciation."

Yes, indeed. How dare this woman's reproductive system function in such a way that engaging in intercourse resulted in pregnancy-and how dare she not hire some feticide technician to suction that human being into shreds before he was old enough to bother his father with demands for attention and acknowledgement.

Ladies and gentleman, a lovely example of the post-modern man.


Democrats Have Made the Dream a Nightmare

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' . I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. . And if America is to be a great nation this must become true." -Martin Luther King Jr.

Of course, today's Democratic Party has turned the wisdom of this iconic sovereign inside out, as if King had said, "I have a dream that my children will one day be judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character." They've turned it from a dream into a nightmare.

King's 1963 address from the Lincoln Memorial was his most famous, but you have likely never read King's 1966 assessment of racial violence in Obama's hometown of Chicago back: "This is the most tragic picture of man's inhumanity to man. I've been to Mississippi and Alabama and I can tell you that the hatred and hostility in Chicago are really deeper than in Alabama and Mississippi." King added, "Those who are associated with 'Black Power' and black supremacy are wrong."

So you thought racism was just a "deep south problem"? That is what the Democrats and their Leftmedia sycophants would have you believe.

"Black supremacy" is precisely what was drilled into Barack Obama's psyche by his Marxist mentor Frank Marshall Davis and his religious mentor Jeremiah Wright.

Two years ago, Obama dismissed his low approval ratings as being due to racism: "There's no doubt that there's some folks who just really dislike me because they don't like the idea of a black president." Yes, Obama used the anniversary of King's birth to establish that his true legacy is being a half-black president who is nothing more than a race-bait political hustler.


How Obama has turned back the clock on race relations

Americans celebrating Martin Luther King Day today should be proud of the incredible progress made since the civil-rights leader's birth 87 years ago. At the same time, we should lament one of President Obama's greatest failures.

The last Democratic president and the last Republican president both managed race relations more effectively than Obama has. Seven years after American voters made history by electing the country's first black president, racial tensions have worsened.

It didn't rank on Obama's one-item list of his "few regrets" during his State of the Union Address. But signs of Obama's failure are on our streets, in our campuses and among our leaders, left and right.

"Ferguson" has become shorthand for African-American fury objecting to insensitive white cops harassing young blacks. The "Black Lives Matter" movement has spilled into American campus culture, as privileged kids attending the world's finest universities bemoan their alleged oppression - bullying anyone who challenges them.

This black backlash has prompted a white backlash, personified by Donald Trump. Every justifiable police shooting called "racist," every Halloween costume labeled politically incorrect, every reasonable thought censored makes Trump look like America's last honest man.

Amid this tension, Obama has been disturbingly passive - even during America's first serious race riots since 1992. He acts like a meteorologist observing the bad weather, not a president able to shape the political climate.

How embarrassing that Obama's most memorable act of presidential leadership on race may end up being inviting a black professor and a white cop to the White House for his 2009 "beer summit."

By contrast, consider Bill Clinton's proactive attempts to reconcile blacks and whites. In November 1993, Clinton preached in Memphis against black-on-black crime, urging African-Americans to tackle the problem from "the inside out," through family and community, not just from the "outside in," meaning government.

His crime-fighting package and welfare reform promised poor blacks safe streets and dignified employment, without "dog whistling" - blaming blacks to woo whites. In 1997, Clinton and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee welcomed into Little Rock High School the "Little Rock Nine," the blacks blocked in 1957 at the schoolhouse door. When one of them - now older, grayer, heavier but freer - stumbled, the Republican governor and the Democratic president tenderly caught her.

The 1990s had racial clashes, too. Still, although it was foolish to call Clinton our "first black president," Clinton reassured blacks that they had a friend in the White House, while encouraging blacks and whites that we could create Dr. King's moral America.

Even though only 9 percent of black voters chose George W. Bush in 2000, his presidency's biggest controversies dodged race, focusing on terrorism, the Iraq war and the economic meltdown. Bush's outreach to Arab-Americans ?after 9/11 calmed many African-Americans - just as Trump's anti-Muslim demagoguery today offends many blacks.

Bush integrated his administration naturally, appointing Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice because of their smarts, not their race. Obama's election in 2008 was a natural progression of the Bush era's racial progress.

Last August, Gallup reported that "Americans rate black-white relations much more negatively today than they have at any point in the past 15 years." White optimism dropped 27 percent in the last two years, with black optimism down 15 percent.

Since at least the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, managing racial tensions has been an important yardstick of presidential success. It's fair to ask: What has Obama done to reconcile blacks and whites? How has he helped beyond being America's first black president? And yes, expectations are greater for him, even as the politics are more volatile.

After this fall's volatility, quickly calling for unity in this State of the Union was feeble. While championing America's redemptive dynamism, Obama should also recalibrate the debate, acknowledging the diverging fears and anger of both blacks and whites.

Only once the atmosphere changes can he start pitching solutions - from the "inside out" and the "outside in" - to improve race relations by next Martin Luther King Day, which will fall just days before his presidency comes to a close.


Why are angry ranchers being called terrorists?

The indiscriminate use of the T-word is trivialising genuine terrorist acts

Frank Furedi

It wasn't long before pundits played the terrorist card in relation to the standoff between a group of ranchers and the US federal government at Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. In the Guardian, Wajahat Ali objected to the description of the ranchers as 'militiamen' rather than 'terrorists'. 'If the Oregon militiamen were Muslim or black', Ali wrote, 'they'd probably be dead by now'. A Washington Post reporter, Janell Ross, asked simply: 'Why aren't we calling the Oregon occupiers "terrorists"?'

What's interesting about commentators' attempts to represent a local dispute over land as morally equivalent to a jihadist terrorist attack is the cavalier, indiscriminate way in which they apply the label 'terrorist'. After all, as Janell at least concedes, the Oregon ranchers haven't actually perpetrated an act of terror. There have been no reports of violence, injury or of anyone being held against their will. So why are commentators trying to characterise the standoff as a terrorist incident, and the ranchers as terrorists?

Until recently, 'terrorist' tended to be an integral part of the politics of fear practiced by authoritarian governments and right-wing demagogues. In the 20th century, it was widely recognised that terrorism was a morally loaded concept, used by a political regime to demonise its political opponents. It was a way of avoiding engaging with the deeper social and political questions surrounding a conflict. But, in recent years, all sections of society have started to condemn their opponents as terrorists. As a result, the underlying reasons for playing the terrorism card are now rarely questioned. Instead, competitive claims-making about who deserves the terrorist label is fast becoming a normal feature of public life.

No doubt those criticising the portrayal of the Oregon ranchers as militiamen rather than terrorists oppose government attempts to racially profile likely terrorists. Yet they are so caught up in the drama of competitive claims-making that they have embraced racial profiling in reverse. Hence they have focused on the fact that the ranchers are white and are likely to have rural, conservative values, all of which is seemingly enough to earn them the label of terrorist. This point was not lost on Jamelle Bouie, Slate's chief political correspondent, who warned: 'We are in danger of drawing the wrong lessons from the fact that these armed militiamen are white.'

The coupling of 'white' violence with terrorism has been apparent in relation to other incidents. Take the killing of three people at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic last November. As one commentator was quick to assert, 'Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic was a victim of domestic terrorism (let's call it by what it is)'. Another commentator tweeted: 'If a guy has a Muslim name, many will quickly scream terrorism - if he's a white Christian, many will say "lone wolf".'

The almost child-like enthusiasm with which the terrorist label is applied is symptomatic of a culture in which political rhetoric has become detached from ideology and a wider concern for public life. Debate and argument now often gives way to moralising and conspiracy theory. The contemporary purpose of denouncing individuals and groups as terrorists is to enhance the victim status of those allegedly suffering at the hands of said 'terrorists'.

For example, one feminist website declares: 'Violence against women is also terrorism.' Another insists that 'sexual violence against women in war should be classified as a terrorist act'. One website even sells stickers that read: 'Rape is everyday terrorism against women.' Men who believe that they are the victims of female violence also present themselves as victims of terrorism. According to the Men's Experiences With Partner Aggression Project, 'intimate terrorism by women towards men' is a major problem.

Over the past couple of decades, more and more individuals and interest groups have become willing to frame virtually every unpleasant phenomenon in terms of terrorism. So we have narco-terrorism, cyber-terrorism, bio-terrorism, agro-terrorism, eco-terrorism, apocalyptic terrorism, hyper-terrorism, postmodern terrorism, religious terrorism, mega terrorism, sexual terrorism, Islamic terrorism, cataclysmic terrorism, catastrophic terrorism, and single-issue terrorism. This proliferation of terrorism-related problems is fuelled by an opportunistic exploitation of a unique moral resource: the fear of terrorism.

The Culture War over the T-word

Throughout history, terrorism has been a contested concept. One important reason why, even at the best of times, the discussion of terrorism is so fraught with difficulty is that it continually involves making value judgements. Terrorism is not simply a description. It represents a judgement, a moral condemnation of an act which also serves as a political statement about an enemy. This is why, sometimes, when the relationship with the enemy improves, the terrorist label is withdrawn and the 'ruthless terrorist leader' is recycled as a responsible statesman. Jomo Kenyatta, Robert Mugabe and Nelson Mandela are some of the well-known national leaders who were once castigated as fanatical terrorists.

But the term terrorism doesn't just morally condemn; it also promotes anxiety and fear. In the West, perhaps only the paedophile can compete with the terrorist as a symbol of evil. The label terrorist serves as a health warning - it suggests that those to whom it is attached are morally inferior individuals.

Sociologists argue that once a threat or a problem is widely feared, there is a tendency to frame new issues in terms of that threat or problem. That is why a bewildering array of unconnected issues can be recast as a set of terrorism-related problems. In such circumstances, just about any disquieting phenomenon can be portrayed as 'just like terrorism'. So when a report concludes that the spread of HIV is 'as big a threat as terrorism', it draws on the fears and anxieties of the post-9/11 era (1). In the same way, fear entrepreneurs can present specific objectives - for example, poverty reduction - as indispensable for curbing the threat of international terrorism.

By turning the concept of terrorism into a casual term of condemnation, these fear entrepreneurs empty it of any substantive meaning. As a result, the significance of politically calculated destruction randomly inflicted on a civilian population is trivialised.

As I have argued elsewhere, there has never been, nor will there ever be, an agreement on what we mean by terrorism (2). There are dozens of competing definitions and they tend to founder on the uncertain distinction between acts of terrorism and other forms of violence. The confusion surrounding the definition of terrorism is due to the fact that, as stated above, it is not just an objective analytical concept; it is also a moral statement about the behaviour of the terrorist. And because of the varying moral and political ends to which the term is put, it is rarely used consistently and objectively.

Today, these problems of definition are complicated by the fact that Western societies are experiencing a profound conflict over cultural values. Questions about who is a terrorist and what constitutes an act of terror have slipped into domestic controversies over cultural values. That is why, almost without thinking, leading national newspapers can describe marginalised Oregon ranchers as the moral equivalent of the London bombers.
So how should we use the T-word?

Given the value-laden and subjective character of 'terrorism', it is tempting to avoid using it altogether. After all, it is a term that often mystifies reality rather than clarifies it. But, nevertheless, there is range of disturbing practices that needs to be conceptualised through a distinct category.

While any definition is unlikely to solve the problem of how to distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence, it is possible to outline some of the significant features of contemporary terrorism. As many official and non-official definitions of contemporary terrorism suggest, it is self-consciously directed at non-combatants. They are not hurt or killed by accident; they are intentionally targeted. However, those who are killed are not the real targets of terrorism. This form of violence is directed at the civilian population in general in order to create fear and alarm in society as a whole. So, it's possible to conclude that 21st-century terrorism is the politically motivated use of fear to disrupt and disorient a target society. From this perspective, it is not useful to call a murderous attack on an abortion clinic terrorism. The aim of this type of attack is specific - to shut down the clinic. It is not part of a general campaign to create fear throughout society.

It is important not to confuse terror with terrorism. Those who use terror are not necessarily terrorists. The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq deploys brutal terror against its opponents. But it is an organised political movement with an army attempting not just to scare societies, but to take them over. In contrast, an IS sympathiser who murders dancers in a nighclub in Paris is a terrorist.

Ultimately, it is not possible to avoid any normative and subjective assumptions about who to label a terrorist. Which is why the more carefully we use this word, the better.



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

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

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


19 January, 2016

Modern parenting isn't working

Angela Mollard

Josh is 19. He finished school 14 months ago and has been enjoying a "gap year". But his "gap year" - rapidly becoming two - hasn't been spent in Asia or Africa or even flipping burgers at the local McDonalds.

No, Josh has spent his gap year in his room, playing Xbox round the clock, emerging only at dinner time to eat whatever his mother, Karen, has cooked for him.

So last week Karen went out for the day taking the Xbox with her. All afternoon she ignored the increasingly furious texts and phone messages from Josh. When she returned home, he was livid.

She held her ground.  "You're not getting it back until you find a job," she told him.

And that's when her son exploded.  "You f***ing bitch," he screamed at her, raising his arm as if to strike her. "Don't think I'm going to get a f***ing job."

It's an indication of Karen's distress that she even confided in me. Our children - and how they turn out - are the deepest measure of ourselves. To tell someone your child is lazy, belligerent and violent is to invite judgement of that most noble and elemental of acts: parenting.

Yet as my children canter into their teens these are the stories I'm hearing more and more. Revealed after a drink or in a moment of desperation, they point to a growing culture of entitled kids and floundering parents.

There's the single mother whose daughter shamelessly steals from her wallet; the porn-addicted teen who told his sister he wants to shove his girlfriend down the stairs; the mum who's come out the other side of breast cancer to discover her 16-year-old is squandering his life to ice. All nice kids from nice homes with nice parents. So what's going wrong?

I was contemplating this as I stepped on the escalator at my local shopping centre. Ahead stood parents with a toddler. The toddler was running up and down the escalator blocking a long queue of fellow shoppers.

"Come hold my hand," called the little girl's mother, at which the child laughed and dashed ahead.

Did the mum scoop up her child? Did she tell her that we don't play on escalators? Or that we need to consider others? No, she laughed. Then looked at the rest of us to join in mutual celebration of her child's cuteness.

I've always been a champion of parents. Support, listen, don't blame. We're all doing the best we can. But modern parenting isn't working. Our kids are stressed, entitled, fat, over-medicated, fragile and lacking resilience. And they've got that way because parents have assigned their power over to their little princes and princesses.

"Parents are at risk of losing primacy over their children," says psychologist Leonard Sax, sounding a warning in his new book, The Collapse of Parenting.

Indeed, in the generation between being a child and raising a child, I've witnessed the demise of the benign dictatorship and the emergence of the family democracy. Sure, in the Republic of Spineless Parenting it's very loving and everyone is heard, kids are asked what they'd like to eat, prizes are plentiful, bedtimes are flexible and everyone has the newest iPhone. But in focusing on nurturing we've forgotten that other key pillar of parenting: governance. That someone has to be the boss.

Yet, as Sax writes, "this is at odds with modern society where we eschew hierarchy in favour of equality. Children are no longer minors but another minority group to be upheld even though, as he points out, "parents who are authoritative have better outcomes".

So how do we weave boundaries, discipline and calm governance with the necessary warmth, fun and open communication we've brought to Parenting 2.0?

Research (and common sense) tells me it's self-belief. Sure, parenting prowess is not factory loaded but our instincts are generally sound. On a picnic when my kids were small I noticed all the children were eating in the camping chairs while their parents sat on a rug. "Something's not right here," I laughed and have since used that scene as a reminder that children need to be considered not exalted.

Surely, too, we need to model to them our best selves. If we want relaxed kids we need to be relaxed. If we want kindness, be kind. Likewise humility, empathy, humour and joy.

What else? We need to take care of our own relationships. An essay earlier this year spelled out "how American parenting is killing the American marriage".

Parenting, argued the authors, has become a religion wherein it's sacrilegious to say anything bad about your kids or love your partner as much as your offspring.

We need to issue fewer questions and more instructions - "put on your shoes" not "can you put on your shoes?" And when they don't, there needs to be a consequence: "What a shame we can't go to the park".

Finally, don't plug your absence with stuff. Kids don't need to be the kings of castles, but dirty rascals.


Life in black-run Baltimore

By: Daniel Horowitz

As a life-long resident of central Maryland, I'd like to present my readers with a personal view of what it will be like when, thanks to suicidal immigration policies and the creation of a permanent Democrat majority, the rest of the country becomes like Baltimore.

I touched on some of these issues last month in "Baltimore, Gun Control, and the Moral Bankruptcy of Liberalism," but I'd like to expand upon the moral dyslexia in light of the update in the trial against the six officers being charged for the murder of Freddie Gray. The trial court judge is now forcing one officer to testify against his fellow officer even though they are both on trial, and said testimony could be used to incriminate the first officer.

Officer Porter was treated as presumed guilty unless he could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was innocent.

It is bad enough that Freddie Gray even became a story. Had this man been white, nobody would have heard of the story. This is a man who self-immolated in a freakish accident by slamming his neck into a bolt in the back of a police van after he was arrested by the Baltimore City Police. There was absolutely no probable cause to indict the six police officers on reasonable suspicion that they intended to let Freddie Gray die. There was not enough evidence even for a civil case, much less a criminal one. Yet, last April, state's attorney Marilyn Mosby issued an indictment for murder and announced it at a racially-tinged pep rally where she said she'd heard "the call of 'no justice, no peace.'"

In the most flagrant violation of our most foundational principles on the rule of law, the first officer, William Porter, was put on trial in December to please the local mob in its very own jurisdiction. If there ever was a case to be made that a trial be moved to a different jurisdiction for concern of both partiality and intimidation of the jury, this is the case. Yet, the defendants were repeatedly denied that request. Throughput the trial, officer Porter was treated as presumed guilty unless he could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was innocent and could demonstrate that he didn't know the predicament of Gray during the van ride.

Appallingly, at least some members of the jury wanted to convict him, resulting in a hung jury. Amazingly, the judge decided to retry Porter, even though we are going on nine months since the indictment. These cops are being treated differently than anyone else simply because they are cops in Baltimore City amidst a media circus exacerbated by Obama's Justice Department because the victim was black. This is not the color-blind society of which Martin Luther King dreamt.

Freeze frame at this point: The local and state "legal" system has already violated the defendants' Fourth Amendment (probable cause), Fifth Amendment (due process), Sixth Amendment (right to both a speedy trial and an impartial jury), and 14th Amendment rights (equal protection in its truest sense, not by the media's standards).

Now the trial judge is forcing Officer Porter to testify against another indicted officer, Caesar Goodson, even though that testimony can be used to incriminate him. In this unprecedented move, Judge Barry G. Williams is blatantly violating the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment without granting Porter immunity from prosecution but is telling Porter not to worry, the testimony won't be used against him in his own trial. Sure, tell that to the jury pool, which has already shown itself to be tainted. Moreover, Porter is not protected by this promise on a federal level because his testimony can be used against him in the case that Obama's egregious civil rights investigation leads to an indictment on federal charges.

The entire Bill of Rights and tenants of law and order are being vitiated in order to pacify a mob and placate the pagan Gods of political correctness.

But it gets worse. With the police on the sidelines, certainly it is up to the people to protect themselves, right?

As a result of the criminalization of basic police work, Baltimore police have retreated from the procedures and policies that have resulted in the two-decades decline in crime. Crime in Baltimore has skyrocketed to the point that the city set a new record for homicides and had the most homicides per capita of any city in the country. While most of the murders have been downtown, the robberies and muggings have spilled over into the suburbs. My neighborhood is under the worst security predicament I've seen in my lifetime.

With the police on the sidelines, certainly it is up to the people to protect themselves, right? Well, the liberal deviants thought of everything. While they let criminals out of jail and prosecute police officers for doing their jobs, they seriously infringe upon the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. Very few people are allowed to carry guns in Maryland and many individuals who want to become first-time gun owners must go through a long process lasting several months to even purchase a single firearm for home defense. After shredding the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendments, why not toss in the Second as well?

This is the nightmare scenario of a government that creates super rights for protected classes and infringes upon the impregnable and foundational rights of all citizens. This is what will play out in all of America if we don't reclaim our sovereignty, security, and civil society.



The dead end that British libertarianism - and much American - has found itself in since about 1980.

By Sean Gabb

In this time, standard libertarian writing has veered between an arid economism and cultural leftism. The question of who owns the coal mines, or the railway network, is obviously important. But it is not centrally important. Indeed, many of the things written about by libertarians are not only of secondary importance, but the positions taken have been counter-productive.

For example, there is a good case in the abstract for privatising the prisons and the police. There would still, in a stateless society, be need of law enforcement. Since this could not be done by the State, it would need to rest on some kind of voluntary provision. This being said, allowing private enterprise into these areas at the present time does nothing to reduce the extent of coercive power. It simply alters the nature of that power, by making it more opaque and therefore less accountable. It blurs the distinction between private enterprise and the State in ways that would have been thought dangerous between 1945 and 1980, and that are dangerous in any event.

If a constable employed by Her Majesty the Queen behaves abusively or illegally, you have a direct line of complaint that goes through your Member of Parliament to the Home Secretary. So long as you are reasonably intelligent, and have a good case, you will generally have redress. You will have this without needing to spend time and money in the civil courts. If you get into an argument with a private contractor, there is no direct line of complaint except through the civil courts - and no one goes to law in this country unless he is rich or slightly mad, or both.

As for prisons, when these are owned and run by the State, those working for them have an interest in cushy working arrangements and nice pensions, but do not generally try to influence the content of the criminal law. A private enterprise prison, on the other hand, will be run by an obvious interest group. If you own a prison, and you want to make a profit from using its inmates as slave labour, you will not want your cells filled the dross who have traditionally found themselves inside. You will want drug-dealers and tax-evaders and even political prisoners - the kind of people you can rent out as booking clerks and call centre operatives. You will, therefore, lobby for the retention of victimless crimes and for longer sentencing.

Similar objections can be made to a whole range of the policies advocated by libertarians for the past generation. So far from reducing the power of the State, these have tended to enable the growth of a police state.

A better approach is to make a fearless defence of freedom of speech and association, and to support any group of people who want to be left alone. This nowadays involves a defence of Christians and identitarians, and perhaps of some Islamic separatists. A quarter of a century ago, I was seen as broadly on the side of the angels when I spoke up for a group of sado-masochistic homosexuals who were prosecuted for beating each other up in private. One of them, I recall, was convicted of the horrid crime of "aiding and abetting an assault on himself." I got a couple of funny looks, but no one thought of shunning me, or thinking me a bad person. Happy days. The modern victims of state power tend to be people who want to explain in public that homosexuals will go to Hell, or that there are too many black faces in the country, or that politicians and the police are fair game for retaliation.

In my younger days, I was able to move slightly ahead of the pack in part of the direction we have come. Any libertarian now must stand against the tide.

But this brings me to cultural leftism. I still make a point of insisting that there is nothing wrong with all-male sex. I believe in general that everyone should be equal before the law, and that no criminal laws should be made that focus disproportionately on any ethnic or religious or sexual group.

But the time when homosexuals and black people and women were victims of state discrimination is long past. Words and slogans that I was happy to take up when young, because they were about legal equality, have been drained of their old meaning. They are now the cover for an attack on the rights, and even the existence, of the traditional peoples of this country. The object is no longer legal equality, but the creation of a new and heterogeneous population that can only be kept at peace by an unaccountable police state.

We need, then, to distinguish between a defence of individual rights and the advocacy of "political correctness." Any libertarian who drops this challenge, and takes refuge in muttering about transaction taxes in the City of London, is not putting the libertarian case as it needs to be put.

I go further. In all times and places, libertarianism of any kind has been a minority interest. Freedom has only ever been the rule when libertarians have allied themselves with other ideological interests. The considerable changes of the past quarter century have brought our traditional alliance with big business into question - just as, a hundred years ago, our alliance with the landed interest ceased to be viable. We need now to start looking for understandings with ideological interests that are not in themselves libertarian, but that might, if they succeed, establish an order less practically illiberal than the present order of things.


Ex-Muslim: Koran Revealed a Religion I Did Not Like

GOTHENBURG, Sweden -- Mona Walter is on a mission. Her mission is for more Muslims to know what is in the Koran. She says if more Muslims knew what was in the Koran, more would leave Islam.

Walter came to Sweden from Somalia as a war refugee when she was 19. She says she was excited about joining a modern European nation with equal rights for women. But as a young Muslim woman, that was not the Sweden she encountered.

A Real Introduction to Islam

It was in Sweden that she first experienced radical Islam on a daily basis.

"I discovered Islam first in Sweden. In Somalia, you're just a Muslim, without knowing the Koran. But then you come to Sweden and you go to mosque and there is the Koran, so you have to cover yourself and you have to be a good Muslim."

Walter says she grew up in Somalia never having read the Koran.

"I didn't know what I was a part of. I didn't know who Mohammed was. I didn't know who Allah was. So, when I found out, I was upset. I was sad and I was disappointed," she recalled.

And it was in Sweden that Walters says she discovered Allah is a god who hates, and that Islam is not a religion of peace.

"It's about hating and killing those who disagree with Islam. It's about conquering. Mohammed, he was immoral. He was a bloodthirsty man. He was terrible man, and Muslims can read that in his biography -- what he did to Jews, how he raped women, how he killed people. I mean, he killed everyone who didn't agree with him," she explained.

Discouraged, Walter left Islam and became an atheist, until one day a family member encouraged her to read the Bible. She still remembers the first time she read Matthew 5:44, where Jesus said to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

Christianity, a New Perspective

"It was very strange for me to 'love your enemy,' because in Islam it is 'kill your enemy.' 'Kill your enemy and anyone who refuses Islam.' But Jesus Christ was all about love and peace and forgiveness and tolerance, and for some reason, I needed that," she said.

She went to see Pastor Fouad Rasho of Angered Alliance Church, a Syrian immigrant who ministers to former Muslims in Sweden.

"She started to believe and she came to me. And that was the beginning of her trusting," he said.

When she accepted Christ, Walter said she felt "so happy" and "filled with joy."

Walter says the Lord gave her a burden for Muslims who still do not know the truth about Islam.  And she began to study the Koran, and began copying verses from the Koran and handing them out on the street to Muslim women.

Rescuing Muslims with Truth

"Sometimes they listen and sometimes they become very upset, and I tell them, 'You know your husband has a right to beat you if you don't obey him?' And they say 'No, It does not say that.' 'Yes, it does say that.'  I thought if I tell them about Muhammed and about the Koran and about this god of Islam who hates, who kills, who discriminates against women, maybe they will have a choice and leave," she explained.

But in politically correct Sweden, Walter has come under attack for simply repeating what is in the Koran.

"I've been called an 'Islamophobe,' and yeah [they tell me], 'You've been bought,' 'You're a house nigger,' and stuff like that, terrible things, " she said.

She has also been called a racist. Walter warns that Islamic radicalism is a serious threat in Sweden, and says Swedish society should care more about women trapped in Islam.

"[Swedes] will think, 'Oh, we're in Sweden; we have freedom of religion,' but Muslim women don't have freedom of religion. They live under the law of Allah, not under Swedish law. So they will suppose everyone has freedom of religion. We don't have freedom of religion. It's not for Muslim women. It's for everyone else," Walter argued.

Walter lives under death threats and sometimes travels with police protection.  She wanted to show us Muslim areas around Gothenburg, but had to first dress as a Muslim. She believes if she were to show her face, she would be attacked.

"I can never go to those areas just being me, flesh and blood Mona. I would never get out of there alive," she said.

"I mean, Muslims are normally good people like everyone else," she continued. "But then when they read the Koran, then they become a killing machine."

"This so-called ISIS or el Shabab or Boko Haram, they're not like extremists. They're not fanatical. They're just good Muslims, good Muslims who follow the teachings of Islam. The prophet Mohammed, he did that. They're doing what he did," she explained.

Walter now uses videos and speaking appearances to spread her message. And she says she won't stop, even though her life is in danger.



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

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

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


18 January, 2014

A conservative Social worker and counsellor reports his observations of homosexuality

He starts out with a shot at the asinine criticism:  "You must not generalize".  Every word in our language is a generalization

A generalisation is a recognisable pattern within a majority. Naturally a minority fall outside of that pattern, otherwise there wouldn't be a recognisable pattern within a majority.

I could list many practices and attitudes that are common in homosexual lifestyle and so sad and tragic that they would at first shock and then incite pity in the heart of most decent persons strong enough to bear them. How male youth and young men are targeted, the degree and types of drug use, the degree and types of violence, the internal hatreds and prejudices, the common diseases and common psychological conditions, the particular kinds of self harm, the loneliness of middle and old age for homosexuals, the rate and methods of suicide, and the common psychological effects and abuses of the homosexual lifestyle -- all these are covered up and denied by homosexuals. Homosexuals don't call themselves gay for nothing.

    And leftists, particularly cunning and treacherous feminists who get themselves into socially manipulative positions such as counsellors and youth workers will do anything to manipulate receptive male youths, young men and men in crisis, towards their weakest and their worst, because its all good for the stats and funding, and more importantly it feeds leftist beliefs, delusions and projections.

    One of the unrecognised suffering groups caused by the leftist homosexual push is that group of young men who were conned into thinking they were homosexual by their leftist school teacher/counsellor/youthworker, targeted because they were in someway susceptible to leftist manipulation. As an example, a case I dealt with: A young heterosexual man conned into thinking homosexuality was natural was so disgusted with himself that he hung himself, only to be found by a passer by and cut down before he was dead, so after recovery he scalded his entire face and head with steam, then threw himself off a high roof only to survive as a physical and psychological tragedy.

    On stat forms in psych units and counselling facilities there is never a category for male heterosexual victims of the leftist homosexuality push. But there is usually a box to tick for homosexual depression and suicide. So in a final ironic insult to such heterosexual men, cases of depression, ptsd and suicide associated with regretful or traumatic homosexual experience often go in the stats as being homosexuals, and get used to further feed the feminist-leftist homosexuality push.

Blog comment

Multiculturalist is jailed for more than two years for infecting a woman with HIV by having unprotected sex after meeting online

A 32-year-old man has been jailed for more than two years for infecting a woman whom he met online with HIV.

Simba Kuuya had known about his condition for four years but kept it a secret from the woman and continued to have unprotected sex with her.

The unnamed victim only discovered that Kuuya had the virus when their brief relationship ended and one of his former partners contacted the victim on Facebook.

When he denied it, the woman went for a blood test, which came back positive.

In a statement read to the court, the woman said the virus had had a 'devastating' effect on her and was something she would have to live with for the rest of her life. 

Kuuya, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, has now been jailed for two years and two months after pleading guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Handing down the sentence, Judge Christopher Vosper told him: 'Her life has been completely changed by being infected - something that could easily have been avoided if you had been honest from the start.

'You chose to conceal something from her that you should have been open about. The consequences have been devastating.'

Swansea Crown Court heard Kuuya had HIV for four years before meeting the unnamed woman on the online dating site.

The couple chatted online before exchanging phone numbers and meeting up in person. 

Prosecutor Sue Ferrier said the woman only leaned Kuuya was infected with the condition after their brief relationship came to end.

Miss Ferrier said: 'One of his former partners contacted her via Facebook and broke the news to her.

'The victim confronted Kuuya about his medical condition but he denied it - however she sought a blood test at Singleton Hospital which came back positive.'

Huw Rees, defending, said Kuuya had been in denial about his condition, which 'sadly had consequences for others.' 

The court was told Kuuya has 14 previous convictions for 25 offences including burglary, assaulting a police officer, theft, affray, battery against his mother, and assaulting a partner by glassing her in face with a smashed tumbler.


IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Churches

Government's assault on religious liberty has hit a new low as the IRS settles with atheists who sued the government over an alleged policy of not enforcing restrictions on churches' political activities.

A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches' violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting candidates from the pulpit.

The lawsuit has now been dismissed without prejudice by a U.S. District Court in response to a joint request by the FFRF and IRS. The joint motion stated that the FFRF was "satisfied that the IRS does not have a policy at this time of non-enforcement specific to churches or religious groups."

The irony of the enforcement question is that it involves the same Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS that was once headed by Lois "Fifth Amendment" Lerner and that openly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups.

Among the questions that the IRS asked of those targeted groups was the content of their prayers.

Those who objected to the monitoring of what is said and done in mosques for signs of terrorist activity have no problem with this one, though monitoring what's said in houses of worship is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Can you say "chilling effect"?

Congress can make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So it's not clear where the IRS gets off doing just that by spying on religious leaders lest they comment on issues and activities by government that are contrary to or impose on their religious consciences. Our country was founded by people fleeing this kind of government-monitored and mandated theology last practiced in the Soviet Union.

The FFRF cites as its authority the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which states that tax-exempt groups cannot endorse candidates. A 2009 court ruling determined that the IRS must staff someone to monitor church politicking.

The FFRF claims that the IRS has not adhered to the ruling and that the settlement amounts to enforcing both the Johnson Amendment and the court ruling.

But is the Catholic Church "politicking" when it proclaims its "Fortnight for Freedom" dedicated to opposing ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate and the government's forcing schools and charities it considers an extension of its faith to include it in insurance coverage or face crippling fines?

Are Protestant and evangelical churches "politicking" when they participate in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" this year on Oct. 5 to encourage congregations to "vote their faith," which they consider to be an exercise of free speech and freedom of religion?

The FFRF says that such events at "rogue churches" have "become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity." But doesn't the Constitution say that Congress can make no such laws?

Rather than "rogue churches," it's the rogue IRS that needs to be stopped.


British proposal to let confused people denote their sex on passports with an X

Some of you may vaguely remember Maria Miller, who was forced to resign from the Cabinet over her expenses. She was accused of wrongly claiming £90,000 in mortgage payments and upkeep on her parents’ house.

Although a self-serving committee of MPs overturned a ruling from the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner that she should repay half the money, it wasn’t enough to save her skin. It also emerged that she’d managed to avoid capital gains tax on a £1 million profit she made on her second home.

Eventually, after an undignified struggle to cling on to office, Miller stood down as Culture Secretary in 2014. Her graceless resignation statement to the Commons lasted just 32 seconds.

Throughout this tawdry business she insisted she had acted within the rules. It’s still not clear if she paid anything back. But after all that, I assumed it would be the last we ever heard of her.

Apparently not. Miller may have resigned as a minister but she remained an MP and was subsequently re-elected as Conservative member for Basingstoke. More fool Basingstoke.

Now she’s back in the high life again, as chairman of the Women and Equalities Select Committee. And in that capacity, she has just produced a report declaring that every person over 16 should be able to change their gender at will.

Her committee says people should not have to record their sex as male or female on passports and other official documents, because it infringes the human rights of the ‘trans’ community.

Instead, they should be able to put an X on their passports in the box marked ‘gender’. Let’s see how that works out. Can you imagine some of the more conservative Middle Eastern states admitting someone who describes their sex as X? Not to mention the United States.

We’ve got enough trouble already with male jihadis trying to sneak across borders by disguising themselves under burkas. We don’t need long queues at airport security behind men and women who refuse to declare their gender to immigration officials, even though it’s bleedin’ obvious to a myopic mole in bottle-top bi-focals.

You can’t say you weren’t warned. I’ve been writing for the past ten years about ‘trans’ being the next frontier for the diversity warriors.

In 2008, Manchester University redesignated its toilets to accommodate ‘trans’ sensibilities.

The following year, Britain’s first purpose-built ‘non-discriminatory’ public conveniences opened in Rottingdean, East Sussex, in the teeth of fierce local opposition.

Since then, it’s been full steam ahead to adapt society in line with the demands of a noisy, belligerent, but minuscule number of people — with the police and local councils, naturally, in the vanguard.

We have now ended up with an official approach which turns nature, reason and common-sense upside down.

It’s one thing for those individuals who find themselves trapped in the wrong body to seek help and treatment.

I’ve never had any problem with the NHS coming to the rescue of those with genuine physical and psychological problems.

They clearly deserve our sympathy, understanding and support. There are so few of them that it doesn’t place a strain on the health service. For instance, although the number of people seeking gender reassignment surgery is said by campaigners to have ‘increased fivefold’ over the past few years, the total still stands at only 697.

Yet, absurdly, Miller now claims that the number of people who are what she describes as ‘gender incongruent, to some degree’ is an astonishing 650,000.

No, I don’t believe that figure, either — even though it is now accepted as gospel in some quarters.

Here’s why. In 2010, the BBC reported that a Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust survey found Gender Identity Disorder (GID) affected one in every 4,000 people. Assuming that Britain’s population is now somewhere around 65 million, that would put the total with GID at 16,250. How do you get from there to 650,000 in six short years?

Answer: you don’t, unless you are deliberately massaging the figures to make a political point.

Given that fewer than 700 people applied for sex-change operations last year, you can’t possibly summon up 650,000 — even if you include Dame Edna Everage, Ziggy Stardust and any young man who once resorted to the dressing-up box out of curiosity.

Even then, 650,000 is enough to fill Wembley Stadium seven times over. Sorry, but it just doesn’t stack up. So don’t let’s pretend that ‘trans’ is the new normal.

Pulling on your mum’s high heels, aged five, does not automatically make you ‘gender incongruent’. My mum and auntie used to amuse themselves by making me try on women’s hats at C&A in Ilford when I was a young boy. But I didn’t grow up to be Eddie Izzard or that ludicrous Caitlyn Jenner character.

Which brings us to the most ridiculous aspect of the ‘trans’ pantomime: the idea that men such as Jenner, with a full set of male sexual organs, can be described as ‘women’ — just because they say they are.

As Dame Edna’s creator Barry Humphries and the writer Germaine Greer said recently, having your wedding tackle surgically removed doesn’t make you female in the truest sense of the word.

The notion you can change sex just by saying so turns millennia of human evolution on its head.

But the head-bangers behind this latest report aren’t interested in reality. They simply want to parade their right-on credentials and impose their warped, minority view of the world on everyone else.

This is about creating new classes of ‘victims’ and, by extension, criminalising anyone who has the audacity to disagree with them.

It’s no coincidence that Miller’s committee also wants ‘insulting’ transsexuals to be made a specific criminal offence. Since when did insults become a crime? For crying out loud. Do you think I could have Maria Miller nicked for insulting our intelligence?

Still, in our brave new world of ‘safe spaces’ and ‘hate crimes’, saying boo to a goose will probably get you arrested for a breach of animal rights.

Look, before the usual suspects start bouncing up and down, I reiterate that transsexuals have every right to our understanding and support. It is only polite that we accommodate difference in this day and age.

If some men decide to call them-selves women, and the other way round, there’s not much we can do about it.

(I do hope they won’t mind if I don’t join them, though. Even if I wore a little off-the-shoulder Hermes number and a pair of slingbacks, I’d still manage to make Dame Edna look like Nicole Kidman.)

But what the ‘trans’ lobby and their self-righteous supporters most emphatically do not have the right to do is reorder the whole of society to suit their personal circumstances and prejudices.

They shouldn’t be allowed to tear up the established order, or get official sanction to declare that men are women and vice versa — regardless of the biological evidence — just because it suits their selfish political agenda.

Nor should they be free to proselytise their sexual fluidity in schools, by subjecting vulnerable children as young as four to questionnaires about whether they would rather belong to the opposite sex.

No doubt I’ll be accused of ‘transphobia’ by the usual bunch of bigots who consider any criticism or contrary opinion to be some kind of ‘hate crime’.

Never mind, I’ll be in good company. It’s instructive that the ‘trans’ brigade despises lifelong feminists such as Greer and Julie Burchill, who refuse to accept that men can become women simply by going under the surgeon’s knife.

Maybe Maria Miller, who undoubtedly fancies herself as a professional as well as visceral feminist, might like to explain where Greer and Burchill are wrong, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Perhaps she is hoping that by championing such a fashionable, high-profile cause, it will mean everyone might forget she’s just another grubby career politician on the make, who had to resign from the Cabinet in disgrace.

If that’s her intention, she’d be better off changing her name to Max Miller and declaring that from now on she will be defining herself as a man.

We’ll know where to find you, pet. X marks the spot.



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

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

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


17 January, 2014

Totalitarian Britain and Political Dissident Tommy Robinson

Keeping the lid on any reaction to the vast horrors being committed in the name of Islam has become a major preoccupation of the British governmrent.  They fear a popular uprising against Muslims generally and the bloodbath that could result from that.  They fear the people's reasonable anger and disgust.  So they aim to "nip in the bud" any popular uprising by treading heavily on anybody who is voicing the feared anger.  They are even willing to use Stalinist measures (e.g. "show trials") to keep people down.  They're quite sure they know best. How long they can keep the lid on the pressure-cooker remains to be seen, however.  In the face of the apparent Muslim determination to make us hate them, the eruption could be soon, with Germany showing the way  -- JR

by Paul Weston

The news that Tommy Robinson was arrested Wednesday should send tremors down the spines of every British citizen who believes in justice and democracy. Tommy is no longer just a vocal opponent of the British state who engages in democratic argument, he is now a political dissident who can be persecuted at apparent will by the long arm of the newly totalitarian British government.

Is this an exaggeration? Is it really possible that gentle England — home of Magna Carta, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill and Winston Churchill; Common Law, John Mortimer’s “Rumpole of the Bailey” who was a liberal barrister constantly invoking the Golden Thread or as it is better known, The Presumption of Innocence — has now morphed into a jack-booted socialist dictatorship where the British quasi-Stasi can throw political dissidents into a Gulag whilst the leftist media bat nary an eyelash?

Well, it would certainly seem that way. Consider the recent dictatorial outrages the British State has conducted against this incredibly brave, moral and decent young man. Tommy came to the fore as leader of the EDL, which he set up in response to government capitulation before Islamic supremacists, who went unpunished after shamefully abusing homecoming British soldiers for the “crime” of simply carrying out the edicts of the State.

Pilloried and hounded by the government, the media and the police, Tommy and his family were subjected to serious and credible death threats (the police refused to provide any protection whatsoever, even after Tommy’s young children were threatened with rape and beheading) along with physical abuse and a campaign of leftist terror, all of which might have forced a lesser man into submission. But Tommy remained resolute in the face of a quartet of evils: Violent and supremacist Islam, violent and treacherous left-wingers, a Quisling media and a government dedicated not to exposing Islamic outrages but instead to shutting down the man who exposed the Koranic ideology behind the hateful behaviour of some British Muslims.

Tommy was jailed last year for financial irregularities concerning a mortgage application. There are many amongst us (an awful lot of politicians included…) who have claimed to earn more than they really did in order to secure a mortgage, but very, very few of us found ourselves languishing behind bars for such a trivial offence. But after countless police raids on Tommy’s house, this was all they could they pin on him and dissident Tommy was duly banged up, thus removing an acute embarrassment to the government who were more than a little unhappy about their submission before Islam being made public.

And this is when a slight form of injustice suddenly transformed into what can only be realistically described as political repression previously unseen in England — and repression eerily reminiscent of genuine totalitarian dictatorships. Tommy was placed on a wing with many Muslim inmates and a contract was put out (and taken up by a Somali born murderer) to throw boiling water (laced with sugar to make it stick better) into his face.

Tommy asked the prison governor to move him to a safe part of the prison. The governor refused. A prison warder threw Tommy into a cell containing several Muslims and locked the door in order to ensure Tommy took a serious beating, which he duly did. A rather more humane warder warned Tommy about the “boiling water in the face contract” so when he found himself alone with four Muslims, one of whom was the aforementioned Somali murderer holding a jug of boiling water, Tommy defended himself before the water could be thrown.

The prison governor took no further action, but the Somali murderer contacted the police, who were keen to prosecute Tommy for racially aggravated assault… although the charge was subsequently dropped, presumably owing to the sheer embarrassment of initiating it in the first place.

Tommy was then released early, on the condition he declined from talking publicly about Human Rights Under Islam. The left-liberal media saw no apparent need to publicly puzzle over this extraordinarily curious state of affairs. A man imprisoned for mortgage irregularities is threatened with further jail time for talking about human rights!? In Britain! Surely this could not possibly be true. We are not after all East Germany circa the 1970s… or so we would like to believe despite the ever growing evidence to the contrary.

On Monday, the 4th of January 2016, shortly after the media, police and left-wing politicians failed to muzzle the story of Islamic sexual assaults carried out against girls all across Europe on new Year’s Eve, Tommy announced the formation of a Pegida UK movement with myself as leader, women’s rights activist Anne Marie Waters as deputy leader and Tommy as overall co-ordinator.

On Wednesday the 6th of January the British police issued a warrant for Tommy’s arrest with regard to the crime of “battery” — said battery being defending himself against Somali murderers who wished to disfigure him with boiling water laced with sugar, a convenient weapon when the usual Islamic route of acid in the face was limited by the distinct lack of acid available to Muslim inmates within Her Majesty’s Prisons.

Tommy will appear in court on February the 3rd, just three days before the planned Pegida vigil in Birmingham on February the 6th. How convenient for the British government is that? I would be surprised if Tommy is allowed to walk free from this grotesque pantomime masquerading as British justice. Just as the dissidents hauled before Peoples Courts in left-wing Communist countries were always guilty as charged, so I fear will be the case with our brave Tommy.

If Tommy were a brown Muslim he would have been ignored by the government and the police if he was calling for the overthrow of our secular liberal democracy, the subjugation of the Jews, women, homosexuals and non-Muslim infidels — or Untermenschen as the Nazis would term them — but Tommy has become a dissident in England because he is a native Brit standing up for traditional, moral, decent and gentle British values in the face of Islamic and left-wing hostility. How can any reasonable left-liberal fail to see this and fail to be shocked by it?

If there is one upside to this ongoing persecution, it is the exposure of the cowardly, hateful, obscene, left-liberal establishment personified by Cameron, the BBC, the British police, Justice Minister Michael Gove, Channel 4, Sky News, Hope not Hate, Unite Against Fascism etc, all of whom have been given a clear choice between good or evil, morality or immorality, bravery or cowardice, democracy or dictatorship and all of whom have taken the wrong side and now stand exposed and naked in all their loathsome, treacherous, totalitarian “glory.”

And where are the human rights activists in all of this? It is clear that a serious breach of justice is ongoing with regard to Tommy, but where is Michael Mansfield QC? Where is the fragrant Shami Chakrabarti of the somewhat inappropriately named human rights campaign group “Liberty“? Where are the eager-beaver human rights lawyers who devote so much time and energy to prosecuting innocent British soldiers whilst defending guilty British Muslims who holiday in Syria on false passports?

The short answer to that is: They are nowhere to be seen. These activists have been shown a truly shameful breach of human rights verging on the totalitarian, but they clearly don’t really believe in human rights at all which manifestly come second to left-wing identity politics and Islamic appeasement. Their shameful silence tells us all we need to know with regard to their true credentials, which essentially speaking is nothing short of whoring themselves out to Islam and to left-liberal political ideology. They are all truly disgusting and evil to the last man and “feminist” woman.

Tommy, in stark contrast, stands on the side of Good in this battle of good against evil. Some will continue to label him a racist (despite his many black and brown friends) and will continue to believe the propaganda churned out by our Quisling media. To such people I would pose a number of requests. First, they should read his book Enemy of the State which details his life and the State persecution he has suffered.


Multicultural British soldier 'stabbed his nurse ex-mistress to death after she broke off their affair when she found love with another man'

A British soldier stabbed a nurse to death after she broke off their affair when she 'hit the jackpot' with another man, a court heard today.

Army private Josphat Mutekedza, 35, knifed 37-year old Miriam Nyazema in the face, chest and back in a fit of rage when she arrived home with her new boyfriend, it was claimed.

As Miss Nyazema lay dying in a neighbour's garden with the blade still lodged in her back, Mutekedza battered her around the head with a stool shouting: 'She's caused this mess. I can't believe what she's done to me, it's all her fault', it was said.

He was also allegedly seen waving a handgun and called police saying: 'She's been cheating on me - sleeping with another man. Where's that man, I'm going to f****** kill him.'

Miss Nyazema, who worked at a BUPA nursing home in Shaw near Oldham, Greater Manchester, was taken to hospital but died just over an hour later.

Her boyfriend Jacob Chigombe - who had been visiting her from his native Zimbabwe - was found hiding nearby.

Bolton Crown Court was told father-of-one Mutekedza, from Eastborne, East Sussex, had been engaged to the mother of his baby son but began an affair with the victim who lived in Rochdale.

Mark Kellet prosecuting said he would refer to his mistress as 'Boo Boo' and began spending time away from home.

Mr Kellet said: 'His partner realised he was having an affair and in early 2014 they separated. On one occasion she checked his phone and saw a number of Miriam Nyazema and that was entered in the directory as "Boo Boo".

'He seemed to want to increase his commitment to Miriam Nyazema but it was clear Miriam did not feel the same.

'She told work colleagues that the relationship had ended and she was now more interested in Jacob Chigombe. She said she had hit the jackpot.

'Whatsapp messages make it clear that their relationship, if not sexual, was certainly romantic. Messages of love and desire were exchanged.'

On July 24 last year, Mutekedza went to visit Miriam at her home - one day before Chigombe was due to arrive in the UK.

During that visit Miriam ended her relationship with Mutekedza but the following morning she called police to her home saying he was still in the house and had refused to leave.

He left after being spoken to by the officers but over the next two days the pair exchanged numerous text and Whatsapp messages - with him saying he missed Miriam whilst she said she 'needed time to sort her head out.'

On the day of the killing - July 28 - Mutekedza was seen at his barracks before sending text messages to Miriam saying: 'Boo Boo - I'm coming now.'

That evening he turned at Miriam's workplace but she managed to leave alone after a colleague distracted him. When he realised Miriam had gone Mutekedza hailed a cab and arrived at her home just as Miriam was about to get there with her new boyfriend, it was said.

Mr Kellet said neighbours heard a woman screaming outside and found her lying on her back, struggling to breathe.

He added: 'The defendant was shouting: "I can't believe what she's done to me, it's all her fault." He walked back across the road and started smashing her car. The knife was still stuck in her back, the handle had snapped off.

'The defendant then walked over holding a metal bar in one hand and a small table with the other. He hit her with such force to the stomach, it bounced off at head height. He then held out a hand gun which left them fearing for their lives.'

Police dashed to the scene to find Chigombe in a side street and arrested Mutekedza on the foot path outside Miriam's home.

Tests showed the victim had stab wounds to her chest which collapsed both her lungs.

Mutekedza was quizzed by police but remained silent during interviews.

He denies murder but admits manslaughter by reason of a loss of self control and plead guilty to a firearms offence. He claims he thought he was still in a relationship with Miriam and alleges she and Chigombe attacked him.


Archbishops Rebuke Episcopal Church

The Archbishops of the World Anglican Communion convened in Canterbury, England, this week, and in a grave decision regarding the future of the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA), directed Archbishop Justin Welby to relegate the American church to “observer” status.

The move, which prevents Episcopal leaders from any role regarding “issues of doctrine or polity,” has been anticipated for some years. The Episcopal Church was organized after the American Revolution and George Washington was an early communicant. But, as with the erosion of many other bedrock institutions by America’s elite, ECUSA’s current leaders have discarded the Church’s biblical foundation.

In 2003, the “enlightened” U.S. bishops rebuffed the 85-million member World Anglican Communion, and codified their rejection of scriptural authority by ordaining Vicky Imogene Robinson, a divorced father of two, as the first openly homosexual Bishop of New Hampshire.

Since then, ECUSA’s Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori (the first female archbishop in apostolic Christian history), has embraced a broad slate of statist positions in opposition to the basic tenets of the church. She has decreed that “gay marriage” has equal in standing with biblical marriage, in clear opposition to Jesus’s teaching on marriage, and the tradition and reason pillars of the church. She has further offended Christians by affirming a “nuanced approach” on killing unborn children — a “do as you please” approach.

As a result, there are now fewer than 650,000 church attenders in the U.S. — and that number continues to decline. ECUSA leaders have done with the Bible what their fellow leftists have done with our Constitution.

The ECUSA suspension is, in effect, one step short of expulsion, isolating the apostate U.S. Church so that its wealth and corrupting influence can’t further diminish the biblical foundations of the World Church.


San Francisco's Bathroom Crusade

The human rights commissions in New York City and San Francisco are not at all what their names seem to imply. Rather than ensuring the rights of all humans, regardless of their of their biology or their beliefs, they have instead become advocacy organizations for LGBT interests.

For example, Shaky Town’s HRC introduced a measure that would require gender-neutral bathrooms across the city. But it goes a bit farther than a simple change to the building codes. “The measure would mandate that all single-occupancy bathrooms in the city be relabeled as places for all genders, rather than solely ‘men’ or ‘women,’” Time Magazine reports, “and that new buildings constructed in the city have a gender-neutral bathroom on each floor.

The bill would also go beyond similar laws in other cities by putting in place sweeping enforcement mechanisms, including a complaint process handled by the Human Rights Commission, an LGBT rights organization, and adding these facilities as a standard checklist item for building inspections.”

Tellingly, Time called San Fran’s human rights commission, a city agency, an “LGBT rights organization,” which shows that it’s no longer trying to ensure civil rights — some of which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, hello Second Amendment! — but is instead bent on pushing leftist ideology.

The Big Apple’s HRC recently suggested a regulation that would fine people $125,000 to $250,000 if they were “willful, wanton, or malicious” in assaulting a transgendered person with the wrong pronoun.

In Democrat fiefdoms like these, accommodation may be the best thing social conservatives can hope for at the moment. Unfortunately, groups like human rights commissions aren’t interested in equal protection under the law. They’re merely the muscle for the Rainbow Mafia, and it’s the model for the rest of the nation.


Gun sales soaring in Germany. Sex attacks by migrants have unleashed much anger among native Germans

Sitting in his white-walled room on the second floor of an anonymous office block, the German politician talks from the heart.

He states emotionally that his country has changed for ever; that the European Union is finished and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s days are numbered.

‘Frau Merkel, she’s not right in the head,’ adds 46-year-old Siegbert Droese, pointing his finger at his temple.  ‘She tells people from all over the Islamic world to come here to paradise. The numbers are mind-boggling and could reach ten million [when the migrants bring members of their families over to join them].

‘So many young men arriving every day with high testosterone and little respect for women mean the New Year sex attacks in Cologne will be repeated.

‘I am not alone in thinking this. The penny is dropping among ordinary Germans.’

What Herr Droese — president of the populist Eurosceptic party, Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in the eastern city of Leipzig — says about German views on migrants is all too true.

According to a recent survey, half of the population is now sceptical that Mrs Merkel will cope with the huge influx.

This is despite her recent TV address to the nation — complete with Arabic sub-titles aimed at the 1.1 million migrants who arrived in 2015 and now live at the Government’s expense in 2000 camps, hotels and rented accommodation across the country — when she repeated her insistence that ‘we can do this’.

The tide is inexorably turning against her, and polls show her popularity is declining.

In contrast, the AfD, with an increasingly middle-class following of intellectuals and business people, hit an all-time high in an opinion poll released by best-selling newspaper Bild this week.

From a standing start when it was founded in 2013, it is now supported by 11.5 per cent of voters, making it the third largest political party in the country.

Nowhere in Germany do AfD’s demands for border controls and fewer migrants chime more easily with the mood than in the former Communist bloc in the east of the country.

Here in Leipzig, on Monday night, a local grassroots organisation called Pegida — Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West — held an anti-migrant march and protest.

It was followed by a terrifying rampage through the city centre by a breakaway group of 500 thugs who set cars ablaze and attacked shops and fast food restaurants, some of them belonging to migrants.

Whether the vandals were attached to Pegida or simply anarchists intent on destruction is not clear. But some likened the damage to migrant-owned shops to the Kristallnacht attacks against Jews across Nazi Germany in November 1938 — one of the most emotive subjects in this country’s calender.

The mayor of Leipzig, Burkhard Jung spoke of ‘terror on the streets’ as he condemned the ‘naked violence’. But given the febrile mood over migrants that now pervades all of Germany, there will almost certainly be more reprisals from the Far Right in the future.

The scenes in Leipzig — which has taken in 10,000 Merkel migrants — came after the mass sex attacks in Cologne, western Germany, on New Year’s Eve.

During a barbaric night in that city’s main square, a substantial group of Arabic-speaking men among 1,000 male migrants there deliberately targeted and assaulted hundreds of women. A staggering 652 complaints were received by the police.

Across Germany, including in Stuttgart, Dusseldorf and Berlin — not to mention towns and cities in Sweden, Finland and Denmark — it was the same New Year story. Nearly 50 women in Hamburg complained to police of sexual harassment by ‘North African men’, who called them ‘bitches’ and shouted ‘Fiki’ to indicate they wanted to rape them.

Amid acrimony over a deliberate police and media cover-up to stop anti-migrant sentiment, Mrs Merkel started deporting some of the most blatantly illegal migrants. But the number arriving still tops 3,000 a day, and local authorities can’t cope.

On Thursday this week, Peter Dreier, the governor of the Bavarian town of Landshut, sent a bus full of 31 migrants to Angela Merkel’s office in Berlin with the message: ‘We can’t manage’.  They were allowed to stay in Berlin one night before being despatched straight back to Bavaria.

This bizarre and cruel game of political ping-pong shows that Germany is collapsing under the pressure of mass migration.

Gerhard Schroeder, Merkel’s predecessor as Chancellor, said this week that Merkel had ‘a lot of heart but no plan’ when she opened the borders to migrants in August, saying all Syrians were welcome. Her mistake, he added, ‘was to allow an exception to turn into a new normality — an unlimited influx’.

The resultant criminality and chaos has caused Germans to become increasingly angry.  It is not just the thugs with shaved heads, bomber jackets and heavy boots who were seen in Leipzig this week.

There is fast emerging a new group of Right-wing activists — ordinary people with conservative values; devout Christians; those angered by the arrogance of Merkel’s out-of-touch political elite; and, now, an increasing number of women who are frightened to go out at night.

This powerful coalition is vociferously challenging Merkel’s open-door policy for those fleeing war in the Middle East and poverty in Africa.

Even a cursory glance at the latest police reports — now being released more freely — shows the shocking sex attacks are not going away.

Since New Year, a 17-year-old girl near Cologne has been sexually abused by a migrant from a nearby camp.

Meanwhile in Hamburg, there have been a string of assaults. A white nurse was harassed by a 25-year-old Eritrean; a group of girls groped by two ‘North Africans; a woman of 53 confronted by young men of ‘Arabian appearance,’ who exposed themselves, making obscene gestures.

Eight Afghan asylum seekers are accused of attacking a ‘large number of white women’; a 23-year-old Somali is under investigation for sexually abusing a ten-year-old white girl near a migrant reception centre.

Across the country, from east to west, it’s been the same. In Leipzig, eight days after Cologne, a local woman of 31 was accosted by 15 men, apparently Arabs and North Africans, who pinned her down as she walked through the railway station at midnight, and thrust themselves at her.

Only because she broke loose did she avoid being raped by two of the men — a Libyan, 24, and a Tunisian, 31, from a local migrant shelter — who were described by police as ‘her torturers’.

In Bornheim, North Rhine-Westphalia, a leisure centre has banned all migrants after a schoolgirl was sexually assaulted in its public swimming pool by three Syrian teenagers.

Merkel’s reassuring platitudes that Germany ‘can manage’ don’t convince her people. And nowhere is this more evident than in Leipzig.

In the town of Halle, a 20-minute drive away, the former four-star Maritim Hotel with indoor swimming pool, sauna and fitness room, was closed to guests last year after being turned into a giant migrant camp.

Its 1,000 new residents have officially complained that the games evenings and film screenings laid on to entertain them are not enough to stop them being bored with life in Germany.

Already, some of the migrants have disappeared, almost certainly via the local railway station, where 52 trains arrive and leave every hour.

This week, outside the station, German women were offered free pepper defence sprays to ward off sexual attackers in a propaganda move by another Right-wing group, the anti-Islam Identitarian movement, which was formed in France and now has footholds all over Europe.

An Identitarian spokesman told the local Press: ‘What happened in Cologne is happening everywhere. There was an attempted rape here in Halle only yesterday. We want to help ensure that women can feel safe in our town.’

The leaflet they handed out went further: ‘Cologne is a symbol,’ it said. ‘It has shown that the state has failed to protect our borders. In the past year, more than a million illegal immigrants have entered our country and the state now cannot — or will not — protect women and girls.

‘It is up to us to defend ourselves... to fight back. For us, our families, and our country. We demand the immediate closure of the border, and the re-migration of all illegals to their home countries.’

The pepper sprays were snapped up by local women and girls. Indeed, since the migration crisis exploded, nationwide sales of pepper spray have jumped by 600 per cent with supplies running out in parts of the country.

According to KH Security, a German manufacturer of the spray, sales are the highest since the company was founded a quarter of a century ago.

A store owner near Leipzig has reported he is now selling up to 200 cans of the spray each day, compared with five a week before the migrant crisis began. The customers? Women of all ages and men buying weapons for their wives.

Günter Fritz, the owner of a gun shop in another town nearby, explained: ‘Since September, all over Germany, sales of these defence products have exploded. My clients come from all walks of life, ranging from the professor to the retired lady. All are afraid.’

The same pattern has emerged in Cologne, where, for example, there has been a dramatic rise in applications for airgun licences since the New Year’s Eve sex attacks.

Police said they have already received 73 applications this year, compared with just 100 in the whole of 2014.

The fact is that fear is gripping Germany and migration is being blamed.

Der Spiegel, the respected magazine, found 84 per cent of people said the crisis would mean lasting changes to the country, while more than half said they believed the new arrivals heighten the danger of terrorism and increase crime.

The new Right in Germany is gaining particular popularity in the former Communist east, where xenophobia is high among older people who, before the fall of the Iron Curtain, were not able to travel abroad or meet foreigners.

Every Sunday at 4pm in Plauen, just south of Leipzig, the anti-Islam organisation Pegida stages ‘We Are Germany’ demonstrations in front of 2,000 people.

Pegida has a 19-point manifesto with a raft of grievances. It is opposed to Germany’s membership of the EU and wants a return of the Deutschmark.

But its most pressing complaint is that traditional Teutonic values and culture are being swept away by the huge tide of mainly Muslim migrants, 80 per cent of them male and devoted to Islam.

One of the leading lights of Pegida is Hilmar Brademann, a painter and decorator. He says he hasn’t got anything against foreigners in principle. ‘But, I don’t want Plauen to turn into multi-ethnic areas of Berlin where women wear headscarves and even burkhas,’ he said at a recent Sunday meeting.

As for migrants who commit crimes, ‘they should be immediately deported’. The crowd cheered and clapped at every word he said.

Similar meetings are being held throughout Europe. In Austria, Far-Right parties are trading on the fear engendered by migrants and calling for an immediate halt to asylum applications.

In Finland, militia groups linked to the Far-Right, calling themselves Soldiers of Odin (after a god from Norse mythology), patrol towns at night to protect women from attacks.

And here in Germany, this once fiercely Christian country — which has seen more than 100 protestant and 400 Roman Catholic churches close since 2000 while the number of mosques grows, with 128 currently under construction — groups from xenophobic Pegida to the more moderate AdF are gaining ground with astounding speed.

The worries of Germans have been heightened by a report published earlier this month by Professor Adorjan F. Kovacs of the world-renowned Goethe University in Frankfurt.

Entitled ‘Truths about the Refugee Crisis’, it blows apart Merkel’s often-used argument that one, two or even three million migrants will be a drop in the ocean compared with a German population of 80 million.

Professor Kovacs compared the 11.5 million existing indigenous German population aged between 20 and 35 with the number of new arrivals, who are predominantly male and in the same age bracket.

He predicts that by 2020, when it is expected that at least two million young migrants will have each brought in between three and eight family members, the ethnic demography of the under-40s will have altered irreversibly unless Mrs Merkel changes her tune.

None of this, of course, is of interest to three Syrian migrants I found sitting on the ground beside the front door of their new home of the Maritim Hotel, smoking blue hookah pipes at 11am.

Ahmed Zaror, 45, his wife Malak, 40, and 30-year-old brother-in-law Hosef Hasan claim in their smattering of English that they have been in Germany for three years.

As Malak, a mobile phone in her hand and smiling through gap-ridden teeth, told me: ‘We are pleased to be here, although there are 1,000 just like us at this hotel and it is very crowded now more and more of us are arriving.’

Pushing her pipe towards me for a puff, she added: ‘I have three sons of 20,19 and 18 who live here, too. We have nothing to do all day so we are bored, but we would like to work.’

Frankly, looking at the three members of this family, that seems like an impossibility.

After a lengthy time in Germany, they do not speak the language. They claim they fled the civil war between the Islamic State and President Assad’s government, but have no papers to prove it.

Yet they are being housed for free, get three meals a day, and benefits from the Merkel government, which they draw out at the local bank each week.

Back in Leipzig, I go to a coffee bar not far from where the racist smashing of migrants’ shops took place on Monday. It is run by a pretty, 37-year-old woman who escaped to Germany from Communist Cuba in 1996.

We start talking about the Cologne attacks and I ask if she thinks there are too many new faces arriving.

‘Of course, I am worried,’ she replies. ‘This country cannot take in everyone, from everywhere. I fear for women and what will happen to them now.’

Her views are not far distant from those of Herr Droese and his increasingly popular AfD party. As he told me: ‘The Germans, at first, wanted to help the migrants. Now we are growing afraid for the future.

‘We have our own problems to cope with. More than two million German children go to school each day without breakfast because their parents can’t afford to feed them.

‘Germans are realising that we have to look after our own people first before we open the door to all the world.’ He adds: ‘What is happening in Germany is catastrophic. Nothing will be the same again.’



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

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

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


15 January, 2014

Welfare dependent multiculturalist is jailed for seven years for possessing live ammunition and dealing Class A drugs

Benefits Street star Black Dee has been jailed for seven years for keeping live ammunition in her home - where she ran an 'open-all-hours' drug business.

Samora Roberts, 34, was found in possession of over £5,000 of Class A drugs as well as bullets which she hid in a pink trainer under a washing basket.

She admitted seven counts of possessing cannabis with intent to supply and was found guilty of possessing crack cocaine and heroin.

 Roberts was also found guilty of two counts of possessing 11 .38 Smith and Wesson cartridges without a firearms certificate.

Judge Philip Parker QC jailed Roberts for seven years at Birmingham Crown Court where he accused her of running an open-all-hours' drug business from her home on James Turner Street, which was better known as the location of Channel Four's Benefits Street.

Roberts and Omari George, 22, were found with seven packages of crack cocaine totalling over 194g - with a street value of over £5,000 - in a Ford Focus outside Roberts's home on the now notorious James Turner Street in the Winson Green area of Birmingham.

George, along with Tina Thomas, 48, both admitted possessing cannabis with intent to supply.

The court heard how Roberts was filmed by undercover officers carrying out drug deals in her home in the Winson Green area of Birmingham, and £5,250-worth of crack cocaine was found in a Ford Focus outside the property.

'Miss Roberts is now 33 and has come before the courts before, in particular in relation to drug matters.

'In October 2001 in Jamaica, she was dealt with for attempting to export and supply cannabis, for which she served a relatively short custodial sentence.'


Woman raised money for a homeless couple to stay in a 'nice, warm' hotel for Christmas - only for them to trash the room and cause £1,000 worth of damage

Jesus said:  "The poor ye always have with you".  Below is an example of why.  The poor are often poor because they behave badly

A woman who raised money so that a homeless couple could have a 'nice, warm Christmas' in a hotel was left devastated after they trashed the room and caused £1,000 worth of damage.

Louise Elliott, 32, and her friend Becky Mcsorley launched a Facebook appeal to pay for Lewis Holley, his girlfriend Stacey and their dog Bonnie to stay at the Ibis Hotel in Crawley, West Sussex over the festive season.

Twenty-five kind-hearted strangers responded and in just a few days the friends had raised £640 to cover the cost of the accommodation for 10 nights, from December 24 until January 2.

It later emerged the couple had also tried to cut the stay short after just one night, asking staff if they could check out on Christmas Day and receive £576 in cash instead of the remaining nine nights.

After learning of the damage, Miss Elliott, who has five sons, took to Facebook to 'apologise to anyone that donated to help these people', adding 'to say I am disappointed is an understatement'.

Miss Elliott, from Reigate, Surrey, said she and Miss Mcsorley decided to raise money for Mr Holley, known as Piper, after organising a collection of clothes to donate to homeless people in London.

Friends and neighbours suggested raising money for a cause closer to home, and a number suggested helping 'Piper', a well-known figure in Crawley, because he was 'so nice'.

Miss Elliott said that when she first approached the couple they were overwhelmed by the offer, saying they were 'so grateful' and that it would be an 'amazing' opportunity.

She posted an appeal on Facebook in the week before Christmas and within five days had raised £640.

One woman donated £120 and two of Miss Elliott's children each put £10 of their birthday money towards the fund, determined to give back to others over Christmas.

The money was far more than she had expected and was enough to pay for 10 nights in the hotel.

'When I went to tell them, they were over the moon,' Miss Elliott said. 'Stacey was crying she was so happy. And we all felt good.'

She dropped the couple off at the hotel where another friend had organised a hamper for Mr Holley, Stacey and Bonnie to enjoy. She even included non-alcoholic wine as the couple said they didn't drink.

Miss Elliott said: 'We felt really good. We thought we had done such a good thing because it was cold and it was rainy and they were sleeping in a tent.'

She started to think something was wrong when the couple text her while she was on her way to collect them from the hotel on January 2.

They said they had made their own way back into town but they were once again sleeping rough as 'someone had stolen their tent'. Wary they might want more money, Miss Elliott stayed away.

It wasn't until January 5, when Miss Elliott was on holiday with her children in Disneyland Paris, that the hotel contacted her to tell her the couple had caused some £1,000 in damages.

The window was badly cracked and has to be replaced, someone had tried to rip the TV off the wall and the carpet was so badly damaged it needs to be replaced.

The mattress was also 'left in a state' and the couple had taken the duvet. It took two members of staff two hours to clear all the rubbish out of the room.  

Miss Elliott said: 'The hotel phoned and said "we just want you to know what happened. We are not chasing damages" and my heart just sank. 'I thought, "oh my God. What have they done? How could they do that?" It is just unreal.'

Neither of the mobile numbers Miss Elliott had for the couple worked but she encouraged the hotel to pursue the matter with the police. 'I just felt so angry and so bad for the hotel staff,' she added. 

Miss Elliott said that the experience has taught her 'you can't take anyone's word' and that 'she won't do anything like this again'. 

Adding it was worse because it was 'other people's money at such an important time of year'.  She said: 'We feel like fools. It was the time of year for goodwill and generosity. 'So many kind people went out their way to try and do something nice at Christmas but it has turned into a nightmare. I am so sorry for the people who gave money.'

Hotel manager Sam White confirmed that the damage would cost around £1,000 to fix, adding he had 'never seen a room that bad in my many years of hotel management'.


General Warns: Military Will Face 'Great Pressure' to Lower Standards for Women in Combat to Please ‘Agenda-Driven’ in D.C.

Marine Gen. John Kelly, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, said at a Pentagon press briefing on Friday that he believes that future generals will face “great pressure” to lower the standards for women in combat in order to get more women into combat roles.

“My greatest fear---and we see this happen a lot over the 45 years I've been in the Armed Forces--is right now they're saying we are not going to change any standards,” said Kelly. “There will be great pressure, whether it's 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we've let women into these other roles, why aren't they staying in those other roles?

“Why aren't they advancing as infantry people—persons--I guess? Why aren't they becoming, you know, more senior?” he said. “And the answer is--I think will be--if we don't change standards, it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers, any real numbers, come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the Seals, but that's their business.”

“So,” said Kelly, “I think it will be the pressure for not probably the generals that are here now, but for the generals to come, and admirals, to lower standards because that's the only way it'll work in the way that I hear some people, particularly, the agenda-driven people here in Washington--or in the land--the way they want it to work.

Here is the complete transcript of the question a reporter asked Kelly and Kelly’s answer:

Question: I have a question. I have a question. Women in combat. Of course, the Marines were against opening all ground combat jobs to women. They were overruled by the defense secretary. The Marine report found that mixed-gender units were less lethal, slower, more prone to injuries than all-male units.

Talk about the way ahead on this. How can they put this into effect, what concerns you in the way ahead with this?

Gen. Kelly: I would just offer that I believe, given the mission in of the United States Armed Forces to fight the nation's wars, I believe that every decision we make, whether it's a personnel decision, Tom, or an acquisition, a new airplane, a new whatever widget, I think every decision has to be looked at only one filter, and that is, does it make us more lethal on the battlefield?

Will it end up -- will it result in less casualties on our side? Will it end up in less casualties on the other side, because they're human beings, too. Some of them very much deserve to be killed but others don't, and so that's the filter.

So if you look at anything we are contemplating doing, does it make us more lethal? If the answer to that is do it -- is yes, then do it. If the answer to that is no, clearly don't do it. If the answer to that is, it shouldn't hurt, I would suggest that we shouldn't do it, because it might hurt.

So that's in my opinion. The way I think you do this is, since we're all ordered to do it, is you simply do it. My greatest fear -- and we see this happen a lot over the 45 years I've been in the Armed Forces is, right now they're saying we are not going to change any standards. There will be great pressure, whether it's 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we've let women into these other roles, why aren't they staying in those other roles?

Why aren't they advancing as infantry people -- persons, I guess? Why aren't they becoming, you know, more senior and the answer is, I think will be, if we don't change standards, it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers -- any real numbers come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the Seals, but that's their business.

So we have very small numbers anyways. And then, the only science I know on this was not the Marine study, it was the study that the Marine Corps contracted the University of Pittsburgh, I think. The other aspect is, because of the nature of infantry combat, infantry training, and all of rest, there's a higher percentage of young women in the scientific study that get hurt, and some of them get hurt forever.

So I think it will be the pressure for not probably the generals that are here now, but for the generals to come, and admirals, to lower standards because that's the only way it'll work in the way that I hear some people, particularly, the agenda-driven people here in Washington -- or in the land, the way they want it to work


Rise of the female sex pest: Think it’s only men who harass colleagues with wandering hands and crude taunts? Not any more

Arriving late to a drinks party, I looked across the bar and spotted a former colleague, who beckoned me over.  She was perched at a high table, one arm languorously coiled around the neck of the very young man by her side.

Although well-preserved, in an expensive, highly maintained kind of way, I knew this woman would be seeing 50 before too long. I also knew she’d been happily married for more than 20 years, and has children not much younger than the man she was drooling over, as if he was a rare steak on a platter.

‘Angela, come and meet Ryan,’ she said. ‘He’s just joined my firm. Isn’t he simply delicious?’

Ryan looked terrified. Ensnared by an older woman - his professional superior, no less - he was clearly clueless as to how to deal with the situation. No wonder the minute his boss loosened her grip to talk to me, he shot off like a rat up a drainpipe, but not before enduring a humiliating slap on the bottom as he made his retreat.

I caught his eye as he ran, and recognised something I thought I’d never see this side of the Seventies. Though he was trying to laugh it off, I saw the desperation of a subordinate being sexually harassed.

Whereas, in the past, it would have been a female office junior, hiding in the toilets at the office party from a predatory male boss, now the roles were reversed.

I’d like to say this cringe-inducing display was an anomaly - the drunken slip-up of a middle-aged woman who’d wake up burning with shame in the morning - but that wasn’t the case. My ex-colleague saw nothing wrong in her behaviour. ‘It’s just a bit of fun, darling,’ she scoffed when I challenged her.

If anything, she saw it as entirely justified, a retrospective ‘fingers up’ at all the sexism she’d to endure from middle-aged men on her own climb to the top.

There are many like her. Unashamed and brazen, the female groper operates with impunity, unlike her male counterpart who fears a summons to a tribunal should he linger too long when greeting a female subordinate.

Caught in uncharted, dangerous territory, young male victims are left confused and vulnerable. Should they complain and risk a ribbing from male colleagues while incurring the vengeful wrath of their female boss? Or just ‘man up’ and put up with it? It all feels so sadly familiar.

No wonder cases of men complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace are increasing: a third of men reported some sort of inappropriate attention in the workplace during a recent survey.

I couldn’t help thinking of the case of Neil Fox, the DJ cleared of historic sexual assault charges.

Interviewed afterwards, Fox said of one accuser, a former colleague: ‘There were times when I would easily wander by and slap her bum, touch her on the way past. If I thought anyone was uncomfortable with that, I wouldn’t do it. She joined in high-spirited banter, funny chats - none of this would in any way have offended her.’

Oh really? I suspect the woman ‘wasn’t offended’ in the same way the poor soul I could now see, clearly hiding behind a pillar, ‘wasn’t offended’. And other young men like him, all over the country.

One friend, an ambitious financial strategist at a large blue-chip company, told me he’d avoided the firm’s Christmas party because of the way some female colleagues behave towards him.

Already the recipient of relentless female office commentary about his gym-honed body, he told me he simply wasn’t prepared to endure the harassment masquerading as ‘fun’ that inevitably awaited him. It was so much easier, he said, to simply stay at home.

So why should there be one rule for women and one for men? Last year, 23-year-old digital marketing co-ordinator Poppy Smart sparked a storm by reporting wolf-whistling builders in Worcester to the police.

It seems utterly unjust that women baulk at being wolf-whistled at, yet Coca-Cola built an entire advertising campaign on a beefy, shirtless window cleaner who titillates the office typing pool by drinking a can of Diet Coke outside their window. Perhaps the female groper - sexually confident, financially independent and emancipated by equality of opportunity - feels a sense of entitlement. She lets her hands wander and laces her patter with double entendres because she feels it is an unabashed right.

The female groper also believes, perhaps, that men can take it. Yet many can’t. Militant feminism may have succeeded in emasculating men on so many levels.

Yet it continues to turn its back on the thought of men also being the victim. Groups such as Everyday Sexism clamour loudly - and rightly - about harassment, but remain silent when it comes to male victims.

According to Danielle Ayres, an employment lawyer with Gorvins Solicitors, sexual harassment clearly applies to men and women, since it is a form of discrimination under the Equality Act.

Yet through the course of her work, Danielle points out that women are much more likely to raise complaints than men.

‘Perhaps it does happen more frequently to women. But I doubt the disparity in the number of complaints is purely due to men being the main perpetrators.

‘Nor do I think it’s because women are more sensitive or more easily offended either. ‘The women brave enough to complain feel they have a genuine grievance. Rather it’s more likely that more women complain because men are more reluctant to say anything.

‘They may feel they’ll lose face if they complain. Or that they won’t be taken seriously.’

Maybe, then, the female groper is able to flourish because of the cliched vicious circle. She does it because she can. And because she can, she does it.

It’s a knock-on effect that breeds an atmosphere of acceptance, all too familiar in the recent Yewtree investigations, where quite repulsive, predatory behaviour of celebrities such as Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris was seen as normal - and often copied. On this last point, I hold up my own, occasionally wandering hands, and admit how easy it is to fall into tactile behaviour or gentle sexual banter with men.

Take the time a few weeks ago when I bumped into a former colleague who had lost more than a stone since I’d last seen him. We’ve always had a gently humorous working relationship.

So I found myself commenting how he was ‘quite the hottie’ these days. I even asked him to give me a twirl (he demurred) before patting his arm and asking what had prompted him to venture into ‘centrefold territory’.

He took my remarks in good spirit. Perhaps he loved the attention, as many men may do. But what if he was, as Danielle Ayres suggests, putting on a front?

And there’s more. Last month, after completing a project with a group of colleagues, we began discussing a celebration dinner.

Steve, a good-looking man in his 30s, said he’d be unable to make the proposed date. ‘Oh no,’ cried one of the women, ‘what will we have for hors d’oeuvre?’

I cringed inside, but laughed just as loudly as everyone else.

Driving home, I replayed the scene. What if the ‘hors d’oeuvre’ comment had been made to me, by a group of men, as a young, ambitious reporter? What if it happens to my daughter, in future years, joining colleagues for a bonding, post-work glass of wine? I could feel the indignation rising up in me like a flush.

Conversely, I remember interviewing a fairly high-profile businessman who admitted that, at one firm where he’d worked, a female colleague regularly directed lewd remarks towards him and would often pinch his bottom in the corridor.

He told her to stop, but she didn’t. His reprieve came only when she left the company - with a glowing reference and unblemished character. Why didn’t he make an official complaint? He felt he couldn’t do so because he couldn’t bear to think how ‘making a fuss’ would go down at the partners’ meeting.

The female groper is not taken as seriously as the male one. So she continues apace, dispensing unwelcome caresses and inappropriate conversation because she is a woman, and because she can.

As for myself, after watching the unedifying spectacle of poor old Ryan, I have every intention of keeping my hands and my wit to myself in future.

I just wish my ‘sisters’ could do the same.



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

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

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


14 January, 2014

TV reporter freaked by a man of Middle Eastern appearance

Probably another sex-deprived Muslim

A Los Angeles television reporter was nearly attacked by a man during a live broadcast, in a terrifying incident caught on camera.

Popular KTLA reporter Mary Beth McDade was covering a story about fans mourning the death of David Bowie at his star on the Walk of Fame around 10.07pm on Monday night.

At the start of her live report, a man wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt can be seen standing behind her smiling along with several other people.

In the footage, you can see the man approaching her from behind, as she speaks to the anchors back in the studio on live television.

'Rick and Cher, you know, he was known for breaking down barriers, and...' McDade said seconds before belting out a scream as the camera man quickly panned the lens away pointing at KTLA's news van.

A shaky image of the perpetrator running away was caught on camera for a few seconds before the station started airing McDade's pre-recorded news story about Bowie.

McDade said the man brushed up against her while making a lewd, sexual remark.

Los Angeles Police Department spokesman Officer Mike Lopez told the Los Angeles Times that the incident was not considered 'an attack' and that no one was injured.

Two officers from LAPD's Hollywood Division arrived on the scene moments after the startling incident.

McDade later posted a photo to Instagram with the two officers and wrote: 'Hi!! Thank you all for your concern!! :) I am alright!  'And thank u #lapd for taking a report & trying to catch the guy.'

Lopez said that police are investigating the incident as disturbing the peace and are still searching for the suspect.


Another false rape accusation from Britain

The Brits do often jail false accusers. One hopes they do that this time too

Louis Richardson, the former secretary of Durham University's prestigious Union Society, has been cleared of rape and three counts of sexual assault

The mother of a Durham University student who was today cleared of rape and sexual assault has been embraced by his mother Judy outside court who sobbed as she told him: 'I love you'.

The family of 21-year-old Louis Richardson have described their 15 months of 'absolute hell' as they thanked the jury for 'justice'.

Jurors took less than three hours to clear him of four charges against two different women following a six-day trial at Durham Crown Court.

The history student and former secretary of the university's prestigious Union Society had been accused of raping one woman when she was 'crazy drunk' before sexually assaulting another as she lay ill in bed at a house party.

During the trial, his parents Judy, 48, and Simon, 51, had held hands as intimate details of their son's sex life were revealed to the court.

Today, a statement read on their behalf said: 'It has been 15 months of absolute hell for the whole family. We are relieved that justice has been done and would like to thank the jury.'

When Mr Richardson was asked to comment, he said: 'I would rather just let it sink in.'  As the verdicts were announced earlier today, he had remained motionless.

Mr Richardson, from Jersey, was charged with raping one woman in March 2014 and allegedly assaulting her at a party two months later.  He was also accused of two counts sexual assault on another woman in October 2014.

After the allegations were made, he was suspended from his studies and also forced to step down from his Union Society position.

During the trial, the prosecution presented Mr Richardson as a 'creepy' opportunist who forced himself on two young women who were unable to defend themselves.

The first alleged victim had claimed Richardson raped her following a night out together at a club in Durham. She said he allegedly told her the next morning that she was 'bad in bed' because she was 'unresponsive'.

The woman alleged that he went on to sexually assault her at a party by pulling down her dress to reveal her breasts to a friend.

But Richardson, who was born in Truro and moved to St Helier when he was four, told the court that he had had consensual sex with the woman on the night of the alleged rape.

He said they slept together often and continued to do so 'very frequently' after the alleged incident.

In the closing statement to the jury, the woman was accused by Philippa McAtasney QC of being the 'queen of mixed messages' and of demeaning 'genuine rape victims'.

The jury heard that the woman, a fellow undergraduate, went on a double date with him and another couple and even cuddled him in bed in the weeks after the incident.

She also flirted with Richardson in a series of text messages, in which she called him a 'sexy menace' and sent him a picture of her breasts, before telling him: 'I'll let you spank me.'

Defending, Ms McAtasney said the woman's behaviour in the aftermath of the alleged rape was not that of someone who had been taken advantage of.

She described the complainant as a 'highly manipulative, dishonest, dangerous young woman' and accused her of inventing the account to 'salve her cheating conscience' because she had a boyfriend at the time of the alleged rape.

Richardson told the court that his alleged victim's boyfriend had posed as her online to accuse him of the sexual assault. 

He said he received a Facebook message apparently from the woman saying they couldn't speak to each other any more because she didn't want to 'lose' her boyfriend. 

Richardson told a jury he was 'devastated', but replied 'fair enough' and decided it was best to 'take it on the chin'.

However, a more serious message followed, saying: 'I have been doing some thinking. I consider our last time rape. I said no and you did it anyway. I ask you not to contact me again... active immediately.'

Richardson said he then received a text from the woman saying that she had not sent the messages, and adding: 'He wrote it.' Asked what he made of the online conversation, he said it seemed as if the woman's boyfriend was 'intervening'.

He told the court: 'I knew I had not raped her. I knew she knew I had not raped her. I thought it was seeming like a petty threat done by a boyfriend who was probably a bit over-paranoid.'

Richardson said he was 'shocked and devastated' when he was arrested for rape. 

Several months later, two university newspapers revealed he had been arrested, and a second woman claimed to police that he had indecently assaulted by stroking her indecently as she lay in bed during a student party.

When confronted about the incident by a friend of the woman in a Facebook exchange, Richardson wrote: 'I must apologise profusely to all parties concerned.' 

Richardson, who was debating politics with others in the room at the time, admitted to police he 'probably touched her on the breast', but said the woman – a student at another university – had moved his hand there.


Multiculturalism Trumps Protecting Women From Rape

By Dennis Prager

Since the scores of New Year’s Eve sexual attacks on German women by hundreds of men identified as Arab or North African, the left in Germany has faced a dilemma: which to fight for first — women’s human rights or multiculturalism?

This was the same dilemma that faced British authorities between 1997 and 2013. During those six years at least 1,400 girls from the age of 11 in just one English city (Rotherham, population 275,000) were raped by gangs of men, nearly all of whom were immigrants (mostly from Pakistan) or their sons.

But British authorities kept silent. Why?

In 2014, the reason finally was revealed: The perpetrators were Muslim, and British authorities were therefore afraid to publicize — or often even investigate — the crimes. They feared being branded Islamophobic and racist. Politicians on the left and right acknowledged this fact.

As I wrote in a column in 2014:

“In 2002, a Labor Party MP from nearby Keighley, Ann Cryer, complained to the police about ‘young Asian lads’ raping girls in her constituency. In her words, she ‘was shunned by elements of her party.’ And note, that as is demanded by the left in the UK, she didn’t even mention that the rapists were Pakistani, lest Muslims be blamed for this evil. They were ‘Asian lads.’”

The British Home Secretary, Theresa May, told Parliament that “institutionalized political correctness” was responsible for the lack of attention given to the mass rape.

In other words, between protecting over a thousand girls from repeated gang rape and protecting Muslims from being identified as the rapists, British authorities chose to protect multiculturalism and “diversity.” In the competition between multiculturalism and one of the most elementary instincts and obligations of higher civilization — the protection of girls and women from sexual violence — higher civilization lost.

The U.K. is of course not alone in having multiculturalism and the fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic take precedence over protecting girls and women. Some German authorities' reaction to the events of New Year’s Eve in Cologne exemplified this.

After the attacks in Cologne, the mayor of Cologne suggested, in the words of The New York Times, “that women can protect themselves from men on the streets by keeping them more than an arm’s length away.”

In the mayor’s words: “It is always possible to keep a certain distance that is longer than an arm’s length.”

Aside from the moral foolishness of the comment, it is factually incorrect. It is often impossible to keep an arm’s length distance from others — as, for example, on a crowded bus or train, or, as in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, on crowded streets.

It is important to note two things about the mayor. One is that she has been among Germany’s most vociferous advocates of accepting 800,000 Syrian refugees into Germany.

The other is that she is a woman.

One would assume that a woman would instinctively wholly condemn the sexual predators rather than lecture women on the distance they should always keep from men in order to avoid being attacked. But the mayor, like the British authorities, has opted for multiculturalism over human and women’s rights, for fighting Islamophobia over fighting to protect women.

A related example is Ralf Jaeger, the interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia state, the German state in which Cologne is located. The left-wing minister said: “What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women.”

All the isms of the left — multiculturalism, feminism, environmentalism, socialism, Marxism, egalitarianism — distort the individual’s and society’s moral compass. But, as the minister’s comments make clear, none do so more than the left’s loathing of conservatives and conservative values.

As with multiculturalism, a left-wing priority — in this case destroying the right — has distorted the left’s moral compass. How could anyone in his right mind write that right-wing platforms and chat rooms are “at least as awful” as women being sexually attacked and even raped by gangs of men? The answer is that you cannot be in your right mind; you have to be in your left mind.


Racial consciousness is thriving

I’ve always loathed the phrase ‘people of colour’. It’s awkward and dehumanising – one of those PC phrases that somehow manages to be more ‘Othering’ than the alternative. But I’ve been hearing a lot of it over the past year. The phrase, popularised by Eighties anti-racist activists, has crept into the mainstream – into newspaper columns, campus debates and Twitter slanging matches. That along with the execrable tweeism ‘black folks’.

There’s something in this. Among young politicos in particular, a new politics of race arose in 2015. Some of it is familiar and old-school, growing up around issues of police brutality and social inequality, but much of it is quintessentially modern, draped in therapeutic concerns about ‘racial consciousness’, ‘microaggressions’ and ‘cultural appropriation’. But what unifies it all is a troubling desire to erect racial boundaries – a call for black people to adopt the role of the victim and for white people to self-flagellate in a corner.

The discussion about race has been more live in the West than it has been in years. From protests against police brutality to Oxford students demanding ‘Rhodes Must Fall’, there is a sense that racism is not only alive and well but more insidious than ever. Everything from ‘offensive’ statues to racist coppers is seen as part of the same existential threat. This stoked-up sense of racial peril has not only conflated genuine concerns about persisting inequalities with mere thin-skinned offence-taking — it has also worked to rehabilitate race, to give it a PC make-over.

In 2015 there was a constant insistence not on unity or solidarity, but on difference. There is a new racialism festering, which springs not from white supremacist gunmen, policemen with itchy trigger fingers or the bluster of Donald Trump, but from those who deign to call themselves anti-racist. And in almost every corner of modern life this year, its divisive presence was felt.

On college campuses, the rise of microaggressions has made socialising a fraught activity. The brain-child of Seventies academics, microaggressions is the idea that white people’s clumsy comments can destroy black people’s self-esteem and contribute to their macro-oppression. Colleges across the US, including Oberlin, Carleton and Willamette, maintain lengthy lists of verboten phrases, and it’s starting to catch on in the UK, too.

More often than not, microaggressions amount to little more than impertinent questions: asking where someone is ‘really from’ or if you can touch their hair. But as well as implying that black people are incapable of challenging someone’s clumsy comments without running to the authorities, they encourage a kind of paranoid racial etiquette, where we are told to treat people differently depending on their skin colour. When it was discovered this year that UCLA included the statement ‘I don’t believe in race’ on its list of microaggressions, the divisive trajectory of it all was laid bare.

Then there’s the cultural realm. Under the new racialism, you see, it’s not only people who must be separated into our own convenient boxes — so must culture be. That most risible of 2015 trends – the rise of ‘cultural appropriation’ – has seen white people lambasted for rapping, wearing corn rows or just doing a yoga class. The fact that all artistic and cultural movements are built on borrowing – and that from rock’n’roll to rap this exchange has played a big role in bringing people of different backgrounds together – seems to have done nothing to dent this toxic idiocy.

But most tragically of all is the influence the new racialism has had on politics. Time and again this year, political campaigns on racial issues have focused not on collective strength and solidarity, but on vulnerability and division. Black Lives Matter (BLM), the hashtag-turned-direction-action-group, responds to each police killing of black people by hosting ‘die-ins’ or marches where so-called white allies are encouraged to hang to the back or hold up signs repenting for their ‘white privilege’. Meanwhile, protests at the University of Missouri and elsewhere over allegations of discrimination have focused on demands for ‘racial-awareness training’.

At every turn, race is reified. Revelations that leaders in black-activist organisations, including the NAACP’s Rachel Dolezal and (allegedly) BLM’s Shaun King, are in fact white, should come as no surprise. In this toxic, racialised climate, political authority is calculated not on the basis of your arguments, or your support from a section of society, but from the position you claim for yourself in a hierarchy of oppression. That some white people are blacking up, and bolstering their credibility by cooking up fake hate crimes against themselves, is only a bizarre expression of the new politics of segregation.

March 2015 marked the 50th anniversary of the civil-rights marches from Selma to Montgomery in Alabama. Defiant in their Sunday best, those protesters were the antithesis of the victim-obsessed quasi-radical radicals we see today. Marching in spite of police beatings, targeted assassinations and constant threats from government for them to cease their activities or else, they refused to be cowed – and made it out the other end with undented optimism. On the steps of the Montgomery state capitol, Martin Luther King hailed the coming of ‘a day not of the white man, not of the black man’ but ‘the day of man as man’. In 2015, that day felt as far away as it’s ever been. 



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

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

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


13 January, 2016

"Asylum seeker" who raped devout Christian virgin, 21, twice before casually walking away is jailed for 10 years

An asylum seeker who raped a devout Christian virgin twice - leaving her feeling 'dirty' and fearing that she had HIV - has been jailed for 10 years.

Eritrean-born Mebrehtom Abrha, 25, of Birmingham, casually walked away after he subjected his victim to the harrowing four-minute ordeal.

Liverpool Crown Court heard how he dragged her off a pavement after she had been trying to find a taxi home from a night out.

The 21-year-old woman said she had found it hard to return to church as the attack had left her 'angry at god'.

In a victim impact statement read to the court, she said: 'I felt ashamed, dirty and unclean after I was raped.  'I still have to come to terms that I am still a virgin and it's still mine to give.  'Now I am getting tired of putting a brave face on when deep down I feel unsure that I will be fine.

'Going to church has always been in an important part of my life but since the attack I was not able to go to church for many months because I was angry at God and I was angry at myself for feeling this way.

'And the fear of contracting HIV was my worst nightmare.'

Abrha, who gained five year asylum to the UK in 2014, followed the woman for 10 minutes as she walked through Liverpool City Centre to her boyfriend's house on July 19 last year.

The court heard how she could not get a taxi and decided to walk the mile and a half route.

She was spotted on CCTV running past Crown Park with a jacket over her head to shelter her from the rain with Abrha following moments later, walking at a brisk pace.

Despite warnings not to cut through the park from her boyfriend, the woman was then confronted by the East African man before he dragged her off to a wooded area next to a church.

He then subjected her to a horrific attack, ripping open her dress before raping her and 'chillingly' walking away.

The attack left the woman covered in dirt and with injuries to her back and neck.  She ran to her boyfriend's house and he raised the alarm.

In her statement the victim admitted the attack had caused her to move house and find a new job as well as end her relationship with her boyfriend.

She added: 'I have lost any desire to do anything in my life.  'I didn't want to share food or drink with anyone as I felt too dirty and thought they would be disgusted if I did. 'I wasn't able to sleep alone for a long time and had to have the light on in my bedroom throughout every night.  'I feel terrified in the shower. I get the feeling that someone is going to get me and I start to panic.'

Abrha, who lived in Liverpool before fleeing to Birmingham, was arrested following a BBC Crimewatch appeal on October 12.

Michael O'Brien, defending him, told the court that his client had written a letter begging for forgiveness for the horrific crime. Reading the letter out in court, Mr O'Brien said: 'This was an un-Christian act and I did a horrible thing to this woman.  'I am very sorry for the crime I have committed and I ask for forgiveness.'

Abrha, who has no previous convictions and spoke only through a Tigrignan interpreter in the dock, was forced to flee his native country after being conscripted to the Eritrean army aged 18.

The court heard he claimed that he had no memory of the attack because he was too inebriated.  He held his hand to his eyes as David Aubrey QC sentenced him before he made the sign of the cross as he was led down in to custody.

Following the sentencing, Merseyside Police Detective Inspector Terry Davies, from the specialist Unity rape investigation team, said: 'Rape is a very personal crime, which many victims, understandably, struggle to come to terms with.

'It can have a devastating effect for the rest of their lives and there is no doubt that this had had a significant impact on his young victim, who will now have to live with this for her life.'


Now Swedish police are accused of covering up sex attacks after news blackout on migrant gang surrounding and molesting teenage girls at music festival

Swedish police have been accused of covering a number of sexual assaults on teenage girls at a music festival in Stockholm last summer - because a number of the suspects were underage refugees.

Teenage victims have spoken of being groped between the legs, while boys 'ran their hands' over their bodies in the crowds at the festival in August, but official police reports makes no mention of the assaults.

Police have now admitted to playing down the events at the We Are Sthlm festival last summer, as they feared the information could be used by right-wing campaigners for anti-immigrant propaganda.

'You only had to move a few feet to get grabbed. They pushed you in, and then one hand came out of nowhere and grabbed your breasts - or for some of my friends who wore dresses, between the legs,' Molly, 17, who attended the youth festival with four of her friends, told Expressen.

'You locked eyes with other girls who were standing with a guy behind them, and they looked like they were panicking.'

'If you said no, they were there with the hand again, if you pushed them away it egged them on and they called their mates. It was impossible to get away on your own.'

Roger Ticoalu, who heads Stockholm city government's events department, said Monday that a 'large part' of those detained were from Afghanistan, many carrying temporary ID-cards issued to asylum-seekers.

He said about 20 teenage girls filed complaints of sexual assault and that about 200 suspects were detained and ejected from the festival for sexual assault and other offenses. It wasn't immediately clear whether any of them were arrested and charged.

Ticoalu said organizers received reports already in 2014 of groups of young men and boys groping girls in a systematic manner. Efforts were put in place, including more security guards, to prevent a repeat in 2015 but instead the problem got worse, he said.

'We've always had individual cases' of sexual assault, he said. 'But here we have a larger group doing it almost in an organized way. It's a completely new level of obscenity.'

'You have a large group of boys surrounding the girls,' he said. 'They pretend to dance. They come closer and closer. Then they start touching their breasts and genitals. In some cases in combination with theft.'

However, despite what appears to have been dozens of sexual assaults, local police summarised the 2015 edition of the festival, aimed exclusively at teens from 13 to 19, as a quiet event.  'We had comparatively few crimes and few arrests considering the number of attendants,' a statement on Stockholm Police's website read.

The police have now been accused of 'hushing up' internal reports of sexual assaults filed during the youth festival, attended by some 170,000 teenagers in 2015, because the suspects were refugees.

Quoting sources within the force, Dagens Nyheter says Stockholm Police consciously avoids to report on phenomena which can be tied to perpetrators of a foreign background, because they fear it may be used as propaganda by right-wing politicians.

'This is a sore point. Sometimes we dare not tell how it is because we think it plays into the hands of the [right wing populist party] Sweden Democrats,' Stockholm police chief Peter Ågren, who was in charge of police at the event in 2014, told Dagens Nyheter.

Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven has today expressed his outrage at a potential cover up by police, firing off some stern words in an official statement.

'Police should prosecute crime, and sue guilty people. And should not for any kind of reason try to hide something. This is a problem and we are going to bring it to light.

'I feel a very strong wrath over the fact that you women can't go to a music festival without being violated, sexually harassed and attacked. This is a huge problem for those who are affected and for our entire nation. We will not back down an inch, and we will not turn our gaze.

Today, opposition leader Anna Kindberg-Batra has called interior minister Anders Ygeman to explain the alleged police cover up to the Parliamentary Committee of Justice.

'It is remarkable if police have been sending out an official story that the event was calm, but seeing a different story internally. This has to be investigated and we have to get to the bottom with this,' says Mr Ygeman of the Socialdemocrats Party.


Yes, Muslims Should Be Asked to Condemn Islamic Terror

Last week, an opinion piece appeared in the Washington Post that tells you much of what you need to know about the moral fabric and intellectual depth of the ACLU and much of the Left generally. Written by Rana Elmir, deputy director of the Michigan chapter of the ACLU, the title says it all: “Stop asking me to condemn terrorists just because I’m Muslim.”

Here is how her column begins: "As an American Muslim, I am consistently and aggressively asked — by media figures, religious leaders, politicians, and Internet trolls — to condemn terrorism to prove my patriotism. I emphatically refuse".

Even putting aside her refusal as a Muslim to condemn the greatest organized evil in the world, her misleading rhetoric is revealed by another aspect of the opening sentence. It is not to “prove [her] patriotism” that people ask her to condemn Muslim mass murder, torture, and sexual enslavement. It has nothing to do with patriotism. Decent people (including many decent Muslims) make this request for three other reasons.

The first is to ascertain the moral/religious views of that Muslim. The second is to ascertain how widespread Islamist views are among Muslims. And the third reason is to have as many Muslims as possible condemn Islamist violence in the hope that Muslims considering supporting or engaging in terror will think twice about doing so.

It is the most logical request people of goodwill can make when they ask Muslim spokespeople to react to atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. How else are non-Muslims to assess Islam and Muslims? If the Spanish Inquisition were taking place today, wouldn’t every Catholic spokesperson be asked if they condemn it?

Of course. But there is a difference. No one would have to ask Christians to condemn mass murder committed by tens of thousands of Christians in the name of Christ. Millions of Christians would have already spoken out and demonstrated against such a thing.

Or take Jews’ reactions to the 1994 murder of 29 Palestinian Arabs by a religious Israeli Jew, Baruch Goldstein. The Israeli prime minister at the time, Yitzhak Rabin, in an address to the Israeli parliament, said to the Knesset: You [Goldstein] are not part of the community of Israel. . . . You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant. You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law. . . . We say to this horrible man and those like him: You are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism.

Even the Jewish Settler Council, of which Goldstein was a member, declared that what Goldstein had done was “not Jewish, not humane.”

Israel’s Sephardi chief rabbi said, “I am simply ashamed that a Jew carried out such a villainous and irresponsible act.” And the Ashkenazi chief rabbi, Yisrael Meir Lau, labeled the murders “a desecration of God’s name” — which is the worst sin a Jew can commit. The then–chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, Jonathan Sacks, declared: “Such an act is an obscenity and a travesty of Jewish values.”

And all these Jewish condemnations were in reaction to the action of one Jew.

In 1982, rogue Lebanese Christian militiamen killed between 700 and 800 Palestinians in two refugee camps, Sabra and Shatila, in the Beirut area. Though no Israelis participated in the killings, Israel held itself responsible because it was the occupying power in that area at that time. In addition, approximately 400,000 Israelis — about 10 percent of the Israeli population — protested against their own government. It was the largest demonstration in Israel until that time.

That is what civilized and moral people are expected to do — condemn those who murder in their name. But, according to the ACLU official, such civilized, moral behavior is not expected of Muslims. Rather, in the age-old left-wing habit of reducing evil through moral equivalence, Elmir writes:

Just as [an American] I have never been asked to condemn Dylann Storm Roof’s attack on parishioners of a historic black church in South Carolina, Robert Dear’s attack on a Planned Parenthood facility, the murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or the slaughter of moviegoers in Colorado or Louisiana, I will not be bullied into condemning terror perpetrated [by Muslim terrorists].

So there you go. If you ask Muslim spokespeople to condemn women in burqas, Muslim honor killings, Muslim annihilation of Christian communities in the Middle East, the massive support in Muslim countries for killing any Muslim who converts to another religion, or even just the atrocities of Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabab, or the myriad other Muslim mass-murder organizations, you are a bully. You are the guilty party.

That is one of the more remarkable moral inversions of our time. But such is the moral universe of Ms. Elmir and the ACLU. In fact, just as we ask Muslims to condemn evil done by Muslims in the name of Islam, we should ask supporters and members of the ACLU to condemn this column written in the name of the ACLU. It’s that bad.


Never mind Rhodes – it’s the cult of the victim that must fall

What the rotten anti-Rhodes movement reveals about 2015

Rhodes Must Fall, the gang of spoilt Oxford brats who want a statue of the colonialist Cecil Rhodes removed from Oriel College, is being chalked up as another outburst of campus craziness. The media are having a field day mocking the hypocrisies and idiocies of the Rhodes-fearing students, one of whom is a Rhodes scholar — so he’ll take Rhodes’ cash but doesn’t want to look at his likeness — and all of whom describe walking past the statue as ‘an act of violence’. At the end of a year in which students have complained that doing yoga is ‘cultural appropriation’ and reading The Great Gatsby can trigger PTSD, Rhodes Must Fall is being viewed as the latest loopy pursuit of bookish youth who inhabit a different moral universe to the rest of us.

But to treat Rhodes Must Fall in this way is to miss a trick. For this movement is in fact infused with some very mainstream ways of thinking. The true engine of Rhodes Must Fall is the culture of victimhood, the view of the self as a hapless object to which things happen, upon which wicked words wreak havoc, a creature easily propelled into trauma by ideas or images or experiences. And that’s an idea which exists far beyond the quad of Oriel College, Oxford. Indeed, for all their pretences to radicalism — ironically fuelled by a media that treat them as extreme and exceptional — the Rhodes Must Fall people only express in gruff, Year Zero-style terms what is now one of the key, and most depressing, outlooks of the 21st-century West.

It is of course tempting just to slam the Rhodes Must Fall brigade. They typify today’s super-sensitive students, who fear the content of books and claim to be ‘triggered’ by the arrival on campus of anyone who has a different point of view to theirs. So they describe the statue of Rhodes as ‘aggressive’. They claim this stone representation of a man who plundered Africa harms black students. As I argued in a piece for Newsweek in August, Rhodes Must Fall is ISIS-like, sharing with those statue-smashing Islamists ‘a Year Zero attitude, a desire to rewrite history… to cleanse all remnants of a “problematic” past from the present’. This is the irony of today’s students who pose as caring: their flipside is a desire to destroy with extreme prejudice any idea or icon that offends them. They’re soft and tyrannical at the same time.

Yet Rhodes Must Fall is not some out-there group, as demonstrated by the fact that Oxford itself is kowtowing to it. It is better seen as a rougher expression of an everyday culture: the cult of the victim. The most striking thing about the Rhodes Must Fall activists is their self-negation of their moral autonomy, their reduction of themselves to mere products of history, created and damaged by historical circumstance and their cultural surroundings as surely as cells in a petri dish are rearranged by a scientist. They claim the statue of Rhodes does ‘violence’ to them. They say they are victims of ‘the colonial wound’. They argue that ‘the festering, rotting wound that is the ideology of white supremacy’ continues to do damage to ‘our black and brown bodies’.

Here, black students — intelligent, autonomous people — are reduced to mere ‘bodies’, shoved and shaped by the inanimate representations of history that surround them. One supporter of Rhodes Must Fall says it is unacceptable to have such ‘cultural detritus of empire’ on campus, as it can be ‘stifling for non-white students’, speaking to how history ‘continues to harm black and minority ethnic people living in Britain today’. The irony of a supposedly anti-racist movement treating black students effectively as bovine, as less capable than whites of negotiating public or controversial spaces, as acted upon by long-gone events, is as profound as it is dispiriting: in seeking to speak up for blacks, it actually diminishes their autonomy, their humanity.

What is most notable about Rhodes Must Fall is its treatment of history as a source of psychological trauma. Its supporters refer to the ‘invisible violence’ that is done to them — invisible because it isn’t actually happening — and talk about the ‘wound’ of history. Dr Omar Khan, director of the race think-tank the Runnymede Trust, argues that ‘seeing Rhodes so recognised [causes] a deep wound that isn’t merely in people’s heads nor in any way irrational’. That is, it literally wounds them, as a knife might.

This depiction of history as a wounding thing speaks to today’s cult of self-victimisation, the deep 21st-century urge to define oneself as a victim of circumstance rather than a shaper of destiny. Because the students who make up Rhodes Must Fall are among the most comfortable, cosseted young people in Western Europe, enjoying the extraordinary privilege of reading and thinking in one of the world’s oldest, most prestigious universities, they must trawl the past in search of victim status. Unable to find anything unpleasant in their cushioned lives, they instead plunder the suffering of earlier black generations in order to discover some hurt they might claim as their own. These are the very students most likely to complain about ‘cultural appropriation’, yet they engage in a most foul form of what we might call historical appropriation: they claim to feel the pain of the enslaved and the colonised as they sip tea in the swooning towers of Oxford. It would be like me demanding a ban on images of potatoes on the basis that they make me feel the stabbing hunger pains of my ancestors who perished in the Irish Famine.

What we’re witnessing is the rise of the transcendental victim, the victim who steals the long-passed pain of his ancestors or even of the dead with whom he has no connection whatsoever. Rhodes Must Fall isn’t alone in this. There’s now such a thing as second- and third-generation Holocaust survivors, the children and grandchildren of those who survived the Nazi death camps, who claim to experience Nazi-related ‘trauma’. Supporters of the slavery reparations movement claim it’s really hard for black people today to ‘endure this historical inhumanity’. This cynical use of history to construct a victim identity can also be seen in radical Islamism: Western Muslim youth claim to be motivated by anger over the Crusades, while al-Qaeda, ISIS and others talk endlessly about events of a thousand or more years ago. What ultimately binds the supposed leftists of Rhodes Must Fall with extremist Islamist youth is a cloying self-pity, an invented victim identity, a belief that society and history have conspired to insult them.

At a time of great misanthropy, when individuals’ capacity for autonomy is called into question and the idea of free will is ridiculed, Western society has come to value the easily harmed individual who demands therapy and recognition of his suffering over the self-motored, morally independent individual who believes that he can cut it by himself, with a little help from his friends, comrades, community. And in such a climate, those who lack victim status, who aren’t actually suffering, must hunt down insults, exaggerate slights, and build a case for their being wounded creatures equally deserving of social sympathy and state resources. We are incited to play the victim. This explains everything from the obsession with microaggressions to feminists’ obsessive logging of normal behaviour as ‘everyday sexism’ to Oxford students’ depiction of a statue as violence: it’s all an attempt to construct victimhood and thus win respect.

Strikingly, Rhodes Must Fall says it is engaged in the ‘politics of recognition’, demanding that Oxford and others ‘recognise’ the ‘effacement and violence’ historically faced by blacks. This isn’t an anti-establishment movement; on the contrary, it is a craven, knee-bent plea for the new establishment — the victim-therapeutic complex — to confer victim-legitimacy on middle-class black students who lack it. In an earlier era when the ideal of autonomy was more respected, individuals demonstrated their mettle by taking responsibility for their lives and being driven; in today’s climate of victim sacralisation, individuals are encouraged to play down their own moral resources, to disavow their own humanity, in essence.

So, yes, we can laugh at Rhodes Must Fall. We should, in fact. But to do only that would be to overlook the powerful anti-human trends infusing such a movement. As we head into 2016, let’s stop treating campus crazies who want to censor or smash things as alien creatures or ‘lefty nutters’, and recognise that in fact they speak to the diminished autonomy of our times. More importantly, let’s all refuse to play the victim game, to strip ourselves of moral independence in the hope of gaining recognition from a victim-obsessed state and society, and instead insist that we are not ‘bodies’ hurt by history, but rather are minds and hands that make history. History doesn’t simply happen to us; we happen to history.


Row over new mosque in Sydney

Australia's right-wing anti-Muslim groups have surfed in on the debate about a new mosque planned for South Hurstville, encouraging people who live outside the area to oppose the $3 million development.

Organisations in Queensland and Victoria have been posting on social media against the development dubbed the "mega mosque"  proposed for King Georges Road, south of Sydney.

And public supporters of the mosque have reported receiving "text messages of hate campaigns" from people opposed to the development.

Reclaim Australia, Stop the Mosque in Bendigo, Aussie Angels Against Sharia  and other group sites have been pushing an online petition opposing the plans. 

On another site named Stop the Mosque, which has more than 9000 followers, there are comments such as "A Mosque is a place that serves as a meeting place for people who are obligated to bring down Australian Democracy, A planning place for those committed to replace the Australian Constitution with Sharia Law, acting on instruction to implement Jihard [sic] to achieve this goal as soon as possible".

On the online petition,Say No to 849 King Georges Road, South Hurstville Mosque, is this comment  "the mosque will change our lives and our children's lives. We worked hard to live in this area and now people want to destroy this,"

Kogarah City Council has received more than 900 submissions and spokeswoman said the number is still growing. It is not yet known how many support the mosque.

The public exhibition period for comment on the plans has been extended to the end of February, but lawyers for the applicant have already taken it to the Land and Environment Court because it was not dealt with by council within the required 40 days.

The applicant for the mosque is Nasser Hussein from architectural firm Ghazi Al Ali on behalf of the company MSAR Holdings Pty Ltd, which has authority from the land owners to lodge the application.

The company lists Mohammad Safwan Abdul-Rahman as the sole director and secretary, but he could not be contacted for comment.

Trouble erupted last year when the plans were submitted for the development showing the mosque would have three levels of underground parking and two levels above ground, including two prayer rooms for a total of 78 worshippers and two classrooms to accommodate 45 people.

Worshippers have been gathering at another private home in South Hurstville for Friday prayers, but that property too has had troubled history with the council temporarily closing it in 2012 because of complaints about parking and noise.

At the time Anthony Mundine, the former footballer and world boxing champion who used the prayer room, believed the problem was prejudice, not parking.

He told Fairfax Media his mother lived next door in the big wide street where every house had off-street parking, so was "baffled" by the objections. He believed it was just an excuse to shut down the mosque.

But online community opinion is evenly split with petitions opposing and as well as in favour of the mosque attracting almost 5000 supporters each.

The "Kogarah Council: Yes to the South Hurstville Mosque"  petition on Change.org includes comments from Leila Khaled, who says she is a local resident, arguing it is important for the mosque to go ahead so local Muslim residents have the freedom to practice their religion in their own neighbourhood.

"It will reach out to youth and teach them how Islam is a religion of peace. This needs to be done before the current political radicalisation narrative negatively affects them. It will have open days to reach out and welcome the wider community. This is an opportunity to build bridges, ease concerns, and address misconceptions."

Another comment posted by from Tarik Hussein noted the double standards regarding other developments such as a church built in a residential street with no car park with no objections. He also multiple pubs clubs  in the area offering topless waitresses and attracted police attention because of fights, intoxication, drugs, and gambling – "Yet this behaviour seems to be more socially acceptable & encouraged than a place of worship for Muslims".



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

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

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


12 January, 2016

British PM promises to bulldoze Britain's sink estates and replace 'brutal high-rise towers' to end decades of neglect

Architectural determinism again:  Complete rubbish. There are big high-rise condo buildings in places like Sydney's Point Piper that are the acme of civilization.  Why?  Because the position near the harbour attracts wealthy people who pay big money for their home. 

It's not the building type that produces sink estates.  It is the behaviour of the people who live in them.  And welfare clients often behave maladaptively -- which is one reason why they are  poor.  What is needed to civilize the sink estates is not to pull them down but to kick out the element who behave badly. 

Put them somewhere where they can prey on one another and not on the decent majority

David Cameron has vowed to 'blitz' decades of poverty by bulldozing the UK's worst sink estates and high-rise towers to make way for better homes.

As part of a £140m redevelopment scheme, the Prime Minister pledged to demolish 'brutal high-rise' towers and bleak housing in an effort to tackle drug abuse and gang culture.

Making a bid for the political centre ground Tories believe has been abandoned by Jeremy Corbyn, Mr Cameron said decades of neglect of estates were behind the riots that swept Britain in 2011.

The redevelopment programme is to be overseen by Lord Heseltine, who helped to transform the Liverpool and London docks in the 1980s.

His estate regeneration advisory panel has been told to produce a full blueprint by the time of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.

Details of the scheme will be set out in a keynote speech being delivered by the premier on Monday, in which he is also due to outline plans to double government funding for relation-ship counselling for troubled families and relaunch a coalition proposal to issue vouchers for parenting classes.

Writing in The Sunday Times, Mr Cameron said: 'Within these so-called sink estates, behind front doors, families build warm and welcoming homes.

'But step outside in the worst estates and you're confronted by concrete slabs dropped from on high, brutal high-rise towers and dark alleyways that are a gift to criminals and drug dealers.

'Decades of neglect have led to gangs and antisocial behaviour. Poverty has become entrenched, because those who could afford to move have understandably done so.'

He promised to transform the worst estates and in some areas it would mean knocking down the houses and starting again.

The Government will inject £140m to rehouse occupants and tear up planning rules to speed up the process.

Tenants and homeowners will be given 'binding guarantees' that their right to a home is protected.

Mr Cameron said three out of four rioters in 2011 came from sink estates.

'The riots of 2011 didn't emerge from within terraced streets or low-rise apartment buildings. The rioters came overwhelmingly from these postwar estates. That's not a coincidence,' he wrote.

The housing developments being targeted reportedly include the Winstanley estate in Wandsworth, south London.

Others could include the Lower Falinge estate in Rochdale, Greater Manchester and Broadwater Farm in Tottenham, north London.

Shadow housing minister John Healey said: 'Any extra to help councils build new homes is welcome but Conservative ministers have halved housing investment since 2010 and are doing too little to deal with the country's housing pressures.

'Another week, another housing announcement. If press statements built new homes the Government would have the housing crisis sorted.

'People simply won't see this small-scale scheme stretched over 100 estates making much difference to the housing problems in their area.'


Two friends

One of Britain's "Asylum seekers"

An asylum seeker and his brother-in-law have been jailed for a total of more than 14 years for their part in a £25 million internet fraud involving victims from 55 countries.

Emmanuel Adanemhen, 50, and Eduwu Obasuyi, 40, pleaded guilty at Maidstone Crown Court to their part in sophisticated fraud and money laundering scams.

A Kent Police spokesman said that Adanemhen arrived in the UK as an asylum seeker in 1998 and had assumed the identity of a deceased Portuguese man by changing his name by deed poll and on driving licences.

He used the fake identity to open bank accounts to launder funds from the fraud schemes which included dating website scams, false inheritance scams, overseas lottery wins and shipping frauds.

Police were led to Adanemhen after they arrested Obasuyi, of Friern Road, East Dulwich, London, who was detained as he was about to board a plane from London to Lagos, Nigeria.

Detectives found that the two defendants had moved more than £4 million through their various accounts which had come from victims in countries including Germany, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, United Arab Emirates and across the USA.

One elderly victim from Florida was conned out of 2.9 million US dollars with the total lost by victims is estimated by police to be in excess of £25 million.

Adanemhen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to enter into a money laundering agreement and three counts of fraud against the Home Office and the DVLA in respect of fake documents.

Obasuyi pleaded guilty to conspiracy to enter into a money laundering agreement. Adanemhen was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison and Obasuyi was sentenced to seven years.

A date for Proceeds Of Crime Act proceedings will now be set.

Detective Constable Paul Walker, from the Kent and Essex serious crime directorate, said: 'This was a highly sophisticated criminal enterprise with Emmanuel Adanemhen and Eduwu Obasuyi at the heart of operations.

'They were undoubtedly highly placed and trusted individuals, handling and moving millions of pounds obtained through devastating and cruel frauds played out on sometimes very elderly and vulnerable people.'


Only strong borders and pride in our civilisation can save us now

By Peter Hitchens

Every educated and intelligent person glories in the freedom of women in Western societies to exercise their talents to the full, and their freedom to walk safely in the streets of our great cities.

So what are the enlightened minds of the Left to do when news comes of revolting assaults on women in front of Cologne Cathedral, one of the jewels of European Christian culture in one of Germany's proudest cities? And how are they to react when growing evidence suggests that at least some of the culprits are newly arrived migrants from the Muslim world?

With mumbled embarrassment and nasty jibes against those who have long opposed uncontrolled mass migration, that's how.

As an illustration, I had a radio clash with the Guardian writer Gaby Hinsliff on Friday after she admitted that 'liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it'. While rightly chiding her own side, she couldn't resist dismissing opponents of mass migration as dinosaurs and their views as 'frothing rage'.

Here is the news, Ms Hinsliff. Those who for many years warned against non-selective mass immigration (and were dismissed as bigoted dinosaurs by people like her) were concerned about just this sort of problem.

If migrants from other cultures arrive too fast and in numbers too great for society to absorb and integrate them, they begin to impose those cultures on the host country. Germany is witnessing this now, and so are we.

The louder our governments shout about their dedication to fighting Islamist extremism, the readier they are to Islamise our own society. The sheer size of the Muslim population compels them to do so.

That is why exams in England are to be moved to accommodate Muslim pupils taking part in the Ramadan fast. And it is why the Mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker, reacted to the first reports of women being molested in her city by advising them: 'It is always possible to keep a certain distance that is longer than an arm's length.'

Of course she has now been mocked so much that she has backtracked. But the point is that it was her first instinct, and what she really felt.

Radical multicultural types will in the end destroy the things they claim to like, because they don't understand that liberty and reasonable equality are features of stable, free, conservative societies based on Christian ideas, which guard their borders and are proud of their civilisation.

The people who really want to defend our enlightened society, in the end, are dinosaurs like me.


Muslims Open Fire on Popular Ten X Nightclub in Canada

Mohamed Elmi, 31, and Mohamed Salad, 29, walked to the front door of the Ten X nightclub and opened fire on the crowd inside without entering the bar.

Police said they responded to a shooting at Ten X Nightclub at the 1100 Block of 10 Avenue southwest just before 2 a.m. Sunday morning.

A 38-year-old man was shot and taken to hospital in stable condition.

Two of the club’s bouncers are being credited for saving more people from being shot, as they put their lives on the line to tackle the gunman.

Spencer Wallace considers himself lucky to be alive.  The part-time nightclub bouncer narrowly missed being shot.

“I hear a gunshot and I see a guy get shot in the chest and I watch a door explode and watch a nightclub go from perfectly calm to sheer panic in about 10 seconds,” said Wallace.

At around 1:30 a.m., three men pulled up in front of the nightclub.  Two waited in the car, while the other walked up to the front door and fired several shots inside, when one victim was shot, police said.

“One of our other staff (was) there and started to apply pressure right away to him. So for 10 seconds, he was unattended before one of our guys was on him trying to help,” said Wallace. “I watched people get glass showered over them. If I was doing a pat down at the time, I would have been in this guy’s line of fire and I could’ve been shot.”

Witnesses said the shooter was jumped by staff right away, with the loaded gun still in his hands.

“The camera footage shows other people, customers sprinting away. He tackled the guy right away. No hesitation. An average-sized guy, mid 30s, nice guy but no hesitation from him at all. He knew what he had to do and he put himself on the line to protect people that he didn’t know,” said Wallace. “So they were wrestling a guy with a cocked handgun, who had already opened fire on innocent people.”

“About five or 10 minutes later, I’m out front and the gun is laying on the sidewalk and the police officer tells me to move out of the way because the hammer is still cocked back and it could go off.”

The Calgary police gang suppression team happened to be on scene at the time. One passenger in the vehicle tried to help the shooter and got away.  The third person in the car was arrested.

Two men are facing six charges each.

As for Wallace, he’s had enough of his part-time bouncer job, but he has loads of praise for what his colleagues did.

“I am never going to put a security shirt back on. I have a day job and guns are a whole other level of violence that I’m not prepared for and I do not want to deal with,” Wallace said. “I give these two guys nothing but the utmost respect and praise. They saved lives last night, there’s no doubt in my mind.”



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

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

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


11 January, 2016

One of Americas's treasured multiculturalists in action

Mug shot

When the Boston Police drug unit officers saw Grant Headley cruising down Mount Bowdoin Terrace on Friday morning, they suspected the convicted felon was selling drugs, police said later. They pulled him over and boxed him in.

But the 27-year-old, who was wanted for violating his probation, did not go quietly. Headley allegedly leapt from his car and opened fire, wounding a nine-year veteran in the leg and sparking a shootout, then taking off on foot before being tackled on Geneva Avenue, police said.

Thirteen preschoolers were just a few hundred yards away, out for a walk with their teachers.

“This individual had a dangerous path,” Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans said at a press conference outside Boston Medical Center, where the injured officer was in the intensive care unit. “He didn’t want to go back to jail.”

The officer, whom the Globe is not yet identifying because his mother has not been told of his injury, is expected to survive. He is a 37-year-old father of two who was less than a week away from receiving a commendation for bravery when he was shot.

Headley, whose adult criminal record dates back more than a decade and includes convictions for gun and drug charges, was released most recently from prison last April after serving five years on a host of gun charges, including being an armed career criminal in possession of a firearm without a firearm identification card.

On Friday, probation officers had a warrant for his arrest on charges related to violating his probation, though the nature of the violation was not immediately clear.

Evans said at the press conference that Headley was driving with a suspended license when drug unit officers stopped him.

Headley is in custody pending his arraignment, which is set for Monday in Dorchester Municipal Court.

Headley is being charged as an armed career criminal with a spate of charges, including assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and being armed while in the commission of a felony. He was not injured during his arrest, police said.

Court documents list Headley as an alleged member of the Greenwood Street Posse gang, and an official said his nickname is “Young Gunna.” Relatives either could not be reached or declined to comment.

Evans called the shooting “unprovoked.” It occurred around 10:20 a.m. on Mount Bowdoin Terrace, which residents described as a mostly quiet street filled with longtime residents but one that has been troubled in recent months by drug problems and absent landlords.


Mansplaining: an affront to universalism

What exactly are feminists talking about when they use the term ‘mansplaining’? Is it whenever a man offers his opinion to a woman? If so, how is that any different to the sexism the phrase ‘mansplaining’ purportedly protests? Is this not just sexism aimed at men?

That certainly seemed to be the case when the makers of the deeply inoffensive BBC drama Sherlock were chastised over the show’s New Year’s Day special. Apparently, it didn’t show proper deference to the Suffragettes, as the prodigious sleuth was heavily criticised on social media for supposedly ‘mansplaining’ feminism.

The episode, titled ‘The Abominable Bride’, returned Sherlock and Watson to the Victorian era, where they investigated a secretive group of women, who, it was implied, were Suffragettes responsible for a series of murders of married men. After solving the case and uncovering the mysterious female cabal as the culprits, Sherlock gave a speech, which was entirely supportive of the Suffragette movement:

‘One half of the human race [is] at war with the other. The invisible army hovering at our elbow, tending to our home, raising our children, ignored, patronised, disregarded, not allowed to so much as vote. But an army nonetheless ready to rise up in the best of causes, to put right an injustice as old as humanity itself. So you see, Watson, this is a war we must lose.’

These well-meaning comments, however, were not kindly received by disapproving feminists on Twitter, who accused Benedict Cumberbatch’s character of ‘mansplaining’.

Unfortunately, these individuals seem to struggle with discerning the difference between actual misogyny and a man – in this case a fictional one – simply voicing his thoughts. Mansplaining is a divisive concept that pathologises the male psyche, as if men are uniquely capable of patronising, sexist behaviour. And it is an inherently self-contradictory phrase, which attempts to identify sexism while also reinforcing it.

I have certainly encountered men who treat women as lesser intellects. Yet I also know plenty of men who would never dream of doing that. It is pretty obvious that supercilious men don’t behave that way because they are male. They do it because of their ignorant and unpleasant personalities. Such lordly behaviour is certainly not limited to men or misogynists, for that matter.

I have, however, met my fair share of condescending ‘femsplainers’: feminists who cannot countenance the possibility that someone can both be female and not a feminist. Such people have tried to forcibly convert me to their political ideology by insisting that I am a feminist – despite my claims to the contrary. Usually they will argue that if you believe in equality between the sexes you are therefore a feminist, as if one cannot reach that point by any other path.

For these femsplainers, feminism is the default option for women, and if you opt out then you are either stupid, mistaken or self-loathing. This is where the ugly politics of identity leads you, into a world of mistrust and intolerance of anyone who does not fit the required stereotype. A man isn’t even allowed to comment on anything related to the history of women because it isn’t his history.

This is where I have my own bone to pick with Sherlock. I completely disagree with the sleuth’s assertion that in the campaign for women’s suffrage ‘one half of the human race [was] at war with the other’. Actually, there were many men who advocated votes for women. The philosopher John Stuart Mill being one notable example. There were also women who campaigned against the Suffragettes. But, most importantly, the right to vote was something that working-class men were fighting for, too. Prior to 1918, they didn’t have the vote either. It was not so much a gender conflict as it was a class conflict.

The campaign for suffrage doesn’t belong to the Suffragettes alone, and it is not just ‘women’s history’. It was a triumph of universalism – a common history that we all share.


Rhodes statue is protected by planning laws - so Oxford college can't take it down even if it wants to bow to pressure from anti-colonial protesters

The statue of colonist Cecil Rhodes is protected by strict planning laws and the property's Grade II* listed status means the Oxford college would struggle to remove it.

Oriel college sparked a national debate last month when it announced it would remove a plaque dedicated to Rhodes, in response to a student anti-racism campaign.

The anti-Rhodes lobby claimed the 19th century mining magnate, who helped Victorian Britain colonise much of Southern Africa, held opinions that now offend modern values.

Rhodes was one of the era' most famous imperialists, with Rhodesia - now Zimbabwe and Zambia - named after him. 

Oriel will start a six-month 'listening exercise' after the campaign group said forcing ethnic minority students to walk past the 4in memorial amounted to 'violence' as Rhodes paved the way for apartheid.

Even if it bowed to pressure from the student protesters, attempts to remove the statue will be blocked by planning regulations, according to heritage experts.

Legal requirements say decisions 'must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building' including 'features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses', The Times reported. 

Julian Munby, of Oxford Archaeology, said the statue was an essential part of the design of the building.

He said: 'I don't see why Historic England would agree to it.' Although Historic England does not have the final say, it would be consulted and its advice would not be taken lightly.

Chris Smith, director of planning at Historic England, added: 'The stories of human suffering and triumph that are embodied in historic places should be spoken about, understood and debated as an essential aspect of our national culture.

'The building is among the top seven per cent of buildings which are afforded special protection.'

If the removal were rejected by the city council, the college may have to appeal to the secretary of state, which could rack up a six-figure legal bill.

The campaign to remove the unobtrusive statue on Oxford's High Street - which has been there since 1911 - followed the Rhodes Must Fall student protest in South Africa.

A statue of Rhodes was removed at the University of Cape Town after it was attacked as a symbol of oppression.

The student group is led by Ntokozo Qwabe, whose education was funded by the scholarship set up by Rhodes, which led some to accuse him of hypocrisy. Rhodes Scholarships finance an Oxford education for students from former British colonies. 

Mr Qwabe has also faced criticism for saying French flags should be taken down as they are a 'violent symbol' akin to the Nazi swastika and writing how he 'did not stand with Paris' in the wake of the terror attacks last November. 

Oriel has been heavily criticised by the likes of Tony Abbott, a former Rhodes beneficiary, Mary Beard, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP and Trevor Phillips for trying to 'destroy history'.

Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, an Oriel graduate, said he would cancel his monthly direct debit to the college if it continued to act in such a 'cowardly way'. 


Pharmacists Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Protect Their Conscience Rights

A family-owned pharmacy and two individual pharmacists petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to stop a state law that compels pharmacies and individual pharmacists in Washington State to provide abortion-inducing drugs despite conscience objections.

The 2007 Washington law requires pharmacists to dispense all drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a “timely manner consistent with reasonable expectations,” with no exceptions for conscience-based referrals for abortion inducing drugs.

Washington is the only state that currently makes conscience-based referrals illegal.

The petition to the Supreme Court comes after a long battle with Washington over this law which, according to the Becket Fund, “was passed in a cloud of controversy, with then-Governor Christine Gregoire threatening to terminate the State Pharmacy Commission and replacing commission members with new ones recommended by abortion-rights activists.”

The Stormans family owns Ralph’s Thriftway, a grocery store that includes a small pharmacy. The family, in keeping with their Christian beliefs, “cannot stock or dispense the morning-after or week-after pills (collectively, “Plan B”),” according to the petition, “For Petitioners, dispensing these drugs would make them guilty of destroying human life.”

The petition points out that, “Within five miles of Ralph’s, over thirty pharmacies carry Plan B. Plan B is also available from nearby doctors’ offices, government health centers, emergency rooms, Planned Parenthood, a toll-free hotline, and the Internet. As of 2013, the morning-after pill is also available on grocery and drug-store shelves without a prescription.”

The petitioners are Stormans, Inc., doing business as Ralph's Thriftway, Rhonda Mesler, and Margo Thelen.

Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler are individual pharmacists with similar objections to dispensing abortion-inducing drugs. They have worked in the pharmacy profession for a combined 70 years. When a customer requests an abortion-inducing drug, they refer the customer to one of over 30 pharmacies within five miles that willingly sell the drugs.

Margo Thelen lost her job because of the law and Rhonda Mesler reportedly was threatened with losing hers, stated the Becket Fund.

The petitioners sued initially in July 2007 to prevent implementation of the law and, following a five-year litigation process, a federal judge struck down the law in February 2012, ruling that the regulation violated First Amendment rights.

“The Board’s regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious objections from their inception,” the court explained. “Indeed, Plaintiffs have presented reams of [internal government documents] demonstrating that the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse [for religious reasons].”

However, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals reversed that decision last July being “unconvinced that the right to own, operate, or work at a licensed professional business free from regulations requiring the business to engage in activities that one sincerely believes leads to the taking of human life is ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’”

The Becket Fund, along with the Alliance Defending Freedom, jointly filed a writ of certiorari on Monday on behalf of the Stormans, as well as for Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen.

“No one should be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” said? Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel of the Becket Fund. “We are optimistic that the Supreme Court will step in and strike down this blatant discrimination against people of faith.”



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

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

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


10 January, 2016

Are reluctant men to blame for so many women being childless? Record numbers are never becoming mothers - and not by choice

Not mentioned below is a major reason why men "won't commit":  Because Britain's feminist-inspired divorce laws make marriage a huge financial risk.  Feminists are the enemies of normal women.

But a second reason for women remaining childless IS mentioned below:  unrealistic expectations of men.  And where do many of those unrealistic expectations of men come from"  Again very often from feminist preaching in the schools and elsewhere.  Men are just normal flawed human beings, not the oddball semi-women that feminists demand.  Most women CANNOT "have it all".  The very idea that you don't need to make compromises in human relationships is amazingly childish and contrary to all human experience

A kind, funny, handsome husband. A dream wedding in the little Norman church under the South Downs where she'd been raised. And then they would settle down in a ramshackle Georgian rectory in the countryside and have the beautiful babies she'd always dreamed of. She'd have at least two - hopefully more.

This was Melanie Whitehouse's dream as she grew up. To her, it was simply unimaginable that she wouldn't one day become a mother.

So why has Melanie, now a 57-year-old author, found herself among the ranks of women in what has been dubbed Generation Childless?

Genevieve Smyth, a 45-year-old occupational therapist from South London, was brought up on the mantra of equality - but she struggled to find a man who fulfilled all her requirements and found herself childless

But the cost has been high. Indeed, the latest statistics show that women in their mid-40s are almost twice as likely to be childless as their parents' generation. One in five women born in 1969 are childless today, compared to one in nine women born in 1942.

And it's not medical infertility that's fuelling the rise of childlessness among these women.

Instead, they are childless by circumstance. Whether it's down to not meeting the right man, or finding that careers absorbed all their time in their childbearing years, or simply deciding that babies wouldn't complement their comfortable lifestyle, women are increasingly starting the menopause without having had a family.

Sadly, it seems that the majority of these childless women desperately wanted a family. Jody Day, founder of Gateway Women, a support network for childless women, says that her research shows 10 per cent of such women are childless due to infertility and 10 per cent have chosen to be child-free. But that leaves some 80 per cent of women without children who have simply ended up in this situation.

Melanie Whitehouse is certainly one of these women. And she is clear about the cause of her childlessness: men.

Or rather, the lack of men who were willing to settle down and start a family with her. The heartbreaking realisation that she was never going to have a baby struck late - in her 50s, while at a reunion lunch with her first boyfriend, whom she had dumped on a whim.

'I hadn't grieved for the children who might have been until then. I realised with painful clarity what I'd lost,' she says. 'Tom had been happily married for 25 years and had three kids, while I had nobody.'

These feelings of grief are common among women who find themselves unwillingly childless.

Melanie Whitehouse's journey has been a painful one, characterised by a certain kind of man, she confesses.

'The men I met from my mid-20s onwards seemed to delight in wooing and dumping me. I suppose if I'd been born in another era, men would have had to commit to marriage before they had sex, which might have meant I'd have got the children I yearned for.'

The next big relationship didn't bring the family she yearned for, either. 'In 1990, at 33, I really thought I'd found someone. I could see us having a family, but it was all over in four months. And the ticking of my body clock was getting louder and louder.'

So are women like Melanie merely unlucky - or all too reflective of a generation desperately trying to convince unwilling men to have a child?

The latter, it seems. And that's because, as ever, men have the benefit of time on their side. Their reluctance to tie themselves down has become even more pronounced today, as they don't have to rush into marriage, a long-term relationship, or even the vaguest of friendships to have sex with women.


The Most Whiney, Thin-Skinned, Easily Offended Society In The History Of The World

Sorry, but it’s your fault if you’re offended all the time

by Matt Walsh

I truly believe that we are the most whiney, sensitive, thin-skinned, easily offended society in the history of the world.

Nobody has ever been as prolific at getting offended as we are.  Nobody cries over insignificant nonsense as loudly and consistently as us.

It’s the one thing we seem to do better than everyone else on the planet. We corner the Offended Market, and it’s not even close. Modern Americans love to get offended more than we love eating Cinnabon or talking about our fitness goals. If it was an Olympic sport, we’d grab the gold, silver, and bronze every year. If it was a job, we’d all be millionaires. In fact, we have turned it into a job, and the people who do it professionally are millionaires (Al Sharpton, etc). It is our calling card, our national pastime. It is the battle we fight and the banner we wave.

We get offended faster and more efficiently than anyone. And it’s not just our speed that separates us from the rest — it’s our endurance. We have a limitless capacity for offendedness. Every week there are dozens of new national outrages and boycott campaigns and social media crusades to raise awareness about some offensive thing, or to get someone fired for saying some offensive thing, or to teach people that some previously non-offensive thing has now become offensive.

Most of all, I find myself positively dazzled by the dexterity and athleticism with which we get offended. We can juggle six or seven outrages all at once, and then drop them and pick up new ones in the blink of an eye.

Our creativity and meticulousness are also quite notable here. We can look at any situation and extract hundreds of offensive factors that an untrained eye probably would have overlooked. We conjure up more fabricated outrages and controversies in a month than past civilizations could have mustered in a thousand years.

Do you remember what everyone was super worked up about four weeks ago? Yeah, me neither. That’s the point. We move on to the new outrage so quickly and the old ones are buried and forgotten. Well, whatever it was way back then, I’m sure it was REALLY bad and we were REALLY upset.

It’s always something. We have located the Fountain of Eternal Indignation, and we drink it by the gallon.

So then it is no wonder that this is the climate which has given rise to a concept called microaggressions.


Children conceived through IVF are at 'no greater risk of developmental delays or lifelong disability'

Infertility treatments do not contribute to developmental delays in children, scientists revealed.

There is no heightened risk of developmental delays by the age of seven in children conceived through IVF or other infertility treatments, a new study found.

As a result, scientists concluded that children conceived via IVF are no more likely to have developmental delays than children conceived naturally.

This finding alleviates longstanding concerns that infertility treatments may affect an embryo at a sensitive stage and could result in lifelong disability.

Scientists from the National Institute of Health examined developmental assessment scores of more than 1,800 children born to women who became pregnant after infertility treatment.

They compared the results to those of more than 4,000 children born to women who didn’t undergo the treatment.

There were no differences in development assessments in the two groups, according to Dr Edwina Yeung, an investigator at NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Dr Yeung said: ‘When we began our study, there was little research on the potential effects of conception via fertility treatments on US children.

‘Our results provide reassurance to the thousands of couples who have relied on these treatments to establish their families.'

The Upstate KIDS study enrolled babies born to women in New York state between 2008 and 2010.

Parents of infants whose birth certificates indicated infertility treatment were invited to enroll their children in the study, as were all parents of twins and other multiples.

The researchers also recruited roughly three times as many parents with a baby that was not conceived through infertility treatment.

Four months after giving birth, the mothers indicated on a questionnaire the type of infertility treatment they received.

Those treatments included including in vitro fertilisation (IVF); frozen embryo transfer; assisted hatching; gamete intrafallopian transfer; zygote intrafallopian transfer; ovulation induction, and intrauterine insemination.

Participants also completed a questionnaire that screened children for developmental disabilities at numerous intervals throughout their child’s first three years of life.

The questionnaire covered five domains: fine motor skills, gross motor skills, communication, personal and social functioning, and problem solving ability.

Researchers found that children conceived through infertility treatments scored similarly to other children in the developmental assessments.

They then considered only children conceived through fertility treatment.

The scientists found that those children were at increased risk for failing any one of the five domains in the assessment exam, with the greatest likelihood of failing the personal-social and problem solving domains.

But, they found that twins were more likely to fail a domain than were single born children.

As a result, when the researchers compensated for the greater percentage of twins in the fertility treatment group than in the non-treatment group – 44 per cent compared to 19 per cent – they found no significant difference between them in failing any of the five domains.

Furthermore, of the children diagnosed with a disability at three or four years old, the researchers saw no significant difference between the treatment and non-treatment groups.

Thirteen per cent of the treatment group had disabilities, compared to 18 per cent of the non-treatment group.

Dr Yeung said that because it is not always possible to diagnose some forms of developmental disability by three years of age, the research team will continue to evaluate the children periodically until they reach eight years of age.

The study was published in JAMA Pediatrics.


Migrant rape fears spread across Europe: Women told not to go out at night alone after assaults carried out in Sweden, Finland, Germany, Austria and Switzerland amid warnings gangs are co-ordinating attacks

Security authorities are growing increasingly concerned by the rising number of sex attacks by gangs of migrants which appear to be spreading across Europe.

Finland and Sweden today became the latest European countries to issue warnings to women to be wary of the threat of sex attacks following fresh reports of sexual assaults in the last week, while the Viennese police chief adviced women not to go outside alone in Vienna.

The warnings come as reports emerged that Austrian and German police tried to cover-up the issue over fears of reprisal attacks on asylum seekers and damage to the countries' tourist trade.

Dozens of arrests have been made today in connection with the wave of recent sex attacks across Europe.

Finnish police said today that they had been tipped off about plans by groups of asylum seekers to sexually harass women following an unusually high level of sexual harassment cases in Helsinki.

'There hasn't been this kind of harassment on previous New Year's Eves or other occasions for that matter... This is a completely new phenomenon in Helsinki,' said deputy police chief Ilkka Koskimaki.

Police in Germany are investigating more than 150 cases across five German cities where women have been attacked by the 'organised Arab or North African gangs, police said.

Cologne has been at the centre of the problem with around 106 reported cases of assault by migrant gangs since New Year's Eve.

Following criticism of the police's handling of the violent clashes in Cologne, the police chief of Cologne has been relieved of his duties today.

Police chief Wolfgang Albers, 60, was informed by the state interior minister Ralf Jaeger that he would be given early retirement, a source told Reuters

A chilling police report about the attacks in Cologne describes women being forced to run through a 'gauntlet' of drunken men while officers themselves were mobbed by victims claiming they had been sexually assaulted.

Two more victims from the night have spoken out today on German TV, after they were sexually assaulted and attacked with fireworks during the city's New Year's Eve celebrations.

One woman, known only as Jenny, suffered serious burns when a firework was shoved into the hood she was wearing.

'I heard a sizzling sound in my hood,' said Jenny. 'I somehow tried to get the firecracker out of the hood. Then it fell into my jacket and burned everything.'

She added: 'The scars will be permanent. I was lucky that it didn't explode.'

One German gun-shop owner Katja Triebel revealed that sales in pepper spray had shot up since the vile attacks in Cologne.

Concerns remain that many of the men involved in the sickening assaults are still at large despite the best efforts by the police.

Further cases have emerged of identical sex attacks being reported in neighbouring Austria as well as Switzerland, where six women reported identical crimes in Zurich on New Year's Eve.

Swedish police say at least 15 young women have reported being groped by groups of men on New Year's Eve in the city of Kalmar. 

Kalmar police spokesman Johan Bruun said today that groups of men encircled women on a crowded square and groped them on New Year's Eve.

He said no one was physically injured but that many of those targeted were terrified.

He said two men, both asylum-seekers, were informed through interpreters that they're suspected of sexual assault and that police are trying to identify other suspects.

When asked about similarities to the assaults in Germany, Bruun said: 'We are aware of what happened in Germany but we are focusing our investigation on what happened in Kalmar.'

Bruun told MailOnline that that the gang 'formed a rings around the girls and started molesting them.'

'They grabbed their breasts and genitals. In some cases they tried to drag girls into a waiting car, but those girls escaped luckily,' he revealed.

Groups of women were targeted as well as women who were on their own at the celebrations.

He also revealed that 11 incidents have been reported including claims from women who said they were molested inside nightclubs on the night.

'This is something entirely new to us and has never happened before.

'There were several groups of men that conducted these crimes and we are working very hard to find them. This is a serious crime and it is important for the citizens in Kalmar to feel safe on the streets,' he said.

He confirmed that two men were arrested at the scene of the crime on New Years eve after they were pointed out by several women.

'The sexual molestation continued after we arrested them and we know that there are many more perpetrators that we have yet to identify since they worked in big groups.

'We have collected pictures and films from peoples mobile phones at the scene and will show pictures of the suspects to the victims.'

He revealed the arrested men did not speak English or Swedish and were carrying the identity cards that said that they were asylum seekers.

Cologne police said they have received a total of 170 criminal complaints related to New Year, including 120 of a sexual nature. In addition to the 31 suspects detained by federal officers, city police arrested two men from North Africa, aged 16 and 23.

Austrian police have been accused of covering up the sex attacks by migrant gangs in Vienna.

Police have dismissed the claims, insisting they had held the information back 'to protect the privacy of victims'.

News of the victims in Austria, which has included several arrests of migrants from Afghanistan and Syria, was revealed after women and girls said they suffered attacks from migrants and came forward to complain to local media.

One identified as Sabrina told Austrian newspaper Osterreich that she was still suffering from shock from her ordeal which happened when she was in a club in the centre of the Mozart city of Salzburg.

In Finland, security guards hired to patrol the city on New Year's Eve told police there had been 'widespread sexual harassment' at a central square where around 20,000 people had gathered for celebrations.

Three sexual assaults allegedly took place at Helsinki's central railway station on New Year's Eve, where around 1,000 mostly Iraqi asylum seekers had converged.

'Police have... received information about three cases of sexual assault, of which two have been filed as complaints,' Helsinki police said in a statement.

'The suspects were asylum seekers. The three were caught and taken into custody on the spot,' Helsinki deputy police chief Ilkka Koskimaki told AFP.

Police said they had increased their preparedness 'to an exceptional level' in Helsinki for New Year's Eve after being tipped off about possible problems.

The suspects arrested from the Cologne sex attacks reportedly included 9 Algerians, 8 Moroccans, 4 Syrians, 5 Iranians, 2 Germans and one each from Iraq, Serbia and the USA.

'Ahead of New Year's Eve, the police caught wind of information that asylum seekers in the capital region possibly had similar plans to what the men gathered in Cologne's railway station have been reported to have had,' police said in a statement.

Dozens of apparently coordinated sexual assaults against women took place on New Year's Eve in the western German city of Cologne.

Cologne police said they had received 120 criminal complaints and quoted witnesses as saying that groups of 20-30 young men 'who appeared to be of Arab origin' had surrounded victims, assaulted them and in several cases robbed them.

Despite the growing number of copy-cat attacks by migrants gangs, Helsinki's deputy police chief said he did not think police believed there is a link between the Cologne and Helsinki incidents.

Shortly before New Year's Eve, Finnish police also arrested six Iraqis at an asylum residency centre in Kirkkonummi, around 30 kilometres west of Helsinki, suspected of 'publicly inciting criminal behaviour'. They were released on January 2.

According to Koskimaki, the arrests were linked to the information police received in the run-up to New Year's Eve.

In November, Finnish authorities said around 10 asylum seekers were suspected of rapes, among the more than 1,000 rapes reported to police in 2015.

Vienna's police chief has has caused outrage by advising women in the wake of sex attacks over New Year not to go out on the streets alone in Austria.

The astonishing claims by Gerhard Purstl were made as it was revealed Austria also had cases registered in which women claimed to have been sexually assaulted by men who were described by their victims as being immigrants.

In neighbouring Germany, more than 100 women have come forward to say they were assaulted over New Year by groups of men who were described in police protocols as being mostly nely-arrived asylum seekers.

In the wake of the scandal, Purstl was asked about the incidents and about the risk that women were in.

He then said: 'Women should in general not go out on the streets at night alone, they should avoid suspicious looking areas and also when in pubs and clubs should only accept drinks from people they know.'

The statement immediately attracted criticism from the country's Green party women's affairs spokesman Berivan Aslan who said: 'Should women now only go out with bodyguards if they want to avoid being told it was their fault when they get into difficulties?'

And the Green party security spokesman Peter Pilz said: 'Is the Vienna police chief saying that he is no longer in a position to protect women from sex attacks? If so, then he has failed in his job.'

Thousands have pledged their support to a German vigilante group which has vowed to protect women from migrants in the wake of the New Year's Eve attacks in Cologne.

The group says it wants to make the streets safer through 'presence' alone but police have warned that 'searching for offenders is not a job for citizens'.

After the group was launched, and gained thousands of followers overnight, a Dusseldorf police spokesman told local media that German police is responsible for public security.

He said the police had no problem with people acting bravely in the face of crime but they were against 'self proclaimed vigilantes'.



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

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

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


8 January, 2016

Having a big family makes your children either badly behaved or low achievers at school, study claims

The academic article underlying the popular report below is "The Quantity-Quality Trade-off and the Formation of Cognitive and Non-cognitive Skills". In my usual pesky way, I have had a look at it

I don't have the time to look in great detail at this quite  complex study so I will content myself with a couple of basic observations.  For a start, the finding is unusual.  Other studies have found no effect of family size.

The problem, if there is one, appears to be an artifact of social class, though the authors are not allowed to mention that naughty word, of course.  The effect seems mostly found among the poor, who are also less bright and who are also more likely to have big families.

And here's the tricky bit: Mention of poverty in America immediately calls to mind the naughtiest word of all: race.  Did  the authors control for race?  Would the effect drop to insignificance if you looked at whites only?  The Abstract of their current paper does not mention that word. But here's the kicker.  There is also online what appears to be a preprint of the paper.  And that DOES mention the word.  And they DID find that race had a big effect.  The effect of family size was primarily seen among persons of sub-Saharan African ancestry ("blacks" in non-academic language).

And the effects overall were not large.  The word "IQ" is another word that may not be mentioned in polite circles.  It is too easily understood.  But their statistics can be translated into IQ.  And the result is that we are looking at only about an IQ change of 1.5 IQ points.  So the whole thing hardly matters anyway.

The takeaway is that in most families parents can have as many children as they like without concern about dumbing their kids down

Finally: I don't like to do this but I feel that I must place this study in the context of the current uproar in psychology about the high rate of unreplicable results and the associated topic of research ethics. It is now clear that many scientists do not tell the full truth about their research results -- for various reasons. 

In that context, any concealment of findings calls into question the integrity of the research and the integrity of its authors.  And since scientific communication depends heavily on trust, any attempt at concealment of findings -- as we see in the published abstract of this study -- strongly suggests that the work was not honestly reported and should therefore be disregarded.  I am not being cynical in saying that the abstract IS the article for most readers of  academic journal articles.  Only specialists in that field plough through the whole thing

In the circumstances it is open for one to conclude that the real findings concerned blacks only but that was too unpalatable ("politically incorrect") to publish.  So that problem was "worked around" in one or more ways

A new study has found that for every additional child born, the others are more likely to suffer poor cognitive abilities and behavioural problems afterwards.

Boys were more likely to misbehave while girls saw their performance in maths and reading skills dip.

Using data from 1986 to 2012 taken by the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) and by the Children and Young Adult Survey, three economists analysed how older siblings performed before and after a younger sibling was born.

They looked at the number and timing of births into a family and matched these to various mental and behavioural traits.

Levels of parental engagement were also crucial - with factors like how often families eat meals together, one-on-one time with each child, affection and the safety of the home also affecting how a child performed.

As families got bigger, the time spent with each child reduced, which has been linked to worse outcomes for children, they found.

'Our fixed effect estimates indicate that the arrival of a younger sibling reduces measures of parental investment as well as cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes of older children by approximately one-tenth of a standard deviation,' the research paper said.

The study was conducted by economists Chinhui Juhn, Yona Rubinstein, and C. Andrew Zuppann, who questioned whether the 'quantity' of children would effect the 'quality' of their upbringing. 

It discovered that parental investment in older kids fell by 3 percentile points after a young child is born, while cognitive scores fell by 2.8 percentile points and behavioural problems increased.

'We have documented a significant trade-off between quantity and quality of children for NLSY mothers and their children. 'On average, children in larger families have lowered parental investment and worse cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. '

Other factors found to influence the outcomes was the mother's intelligence and economic well-being.

Mothers were asked to take the Armed Force Qualification Test (AFQT), used by the military to assess skills including reading and reasoning.

Those who scored badly saw a larger drop in cognitive scores when they had their second child.


Air Force Athletes Can Pray Before Game

After the Military Religious Freedom Foundation sparked a review when it challenged the right for football players on the Air Force Academy’s football team to publically pray before games, the Academy found that yes, the cadets do have the right to drop to one knee and pray.

In a statement just before Christmas, Academy officials said, “The United States Air Force Academy will continue to reaffirm to cadets that all Airmen are free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all. The players may confidently practice their own beliefs without pressure to participate in the practices of others.”

At the beginning of December, the foundation whose goal is to strip expressions of Christianity it deems too politically powerful from the U.S. military, complained about some of the player’s pre-game ritual. This is an admirable move, coming from the organization that a few years ago tried to alter the Air Force Academy Officer Oaths to strip the mention of God from them.

But what is discouraging is that the academy has to consider the question on whether or not a group of football players have the right to express their faith just because they wear a second uniform.


Yemeni Cleric: Jews Are 'Most Despicable, Base, Vile, and Wretched ... The Brothers of Apes and Pigs'

Although rarely reported by the U.S. media, the sermons and pronouncements by many Muslim clerics are grossly anti-Semitic. A typical example is Yemeni cleric Sheikh Ahmad Bin Anis, who recently preached that the nation of Islam is ruled by its “enemies,” the “Jews,” who are the “most despicable, base, vile, and wretched of all the creatures,” and are “the brothers of apes and pigs.”

In a recent sermon posted on the Internet and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI),  Sheikh Ahmad Bin Anis declares, "Oh Muslims, oh servants of Allah, the nation of Islam ruled the world for a long time. This nation ruled the land in accordance with the shari'a.”

“The Islamic nation is invincible,” he says.  “In the days of yore, its slogan was: 'Convert to Islam, and you will be safe. Allah will reward you twice. Otherwise, pay the jizya poll tax in humiliation. Or else the sword will come down on the heads of those who resist this.'”

"Today, however, our enemies have joined forces against our nation,” says Sheikh Ahmad Bin Anis.  “The Islamic nation is held hostage by the absolutely most despicable and base nation on the face of the Earth. The nation of Islam has become subordinate to others, while in the past, others were subordinate to it. The nation is ruled by others, while in the past, others were ruled by it.”

“The nation of Islam has been taken over by its enemies,” he says.  “It has been taken over by the Jews – the most despicable, base, vile, and wretched of all the creatures of Allah.”

“Our nation has been taken over by the brothers of apes and pigs,” states the Muslim cleric.

"For those who are not familiar with the history of the Jews – they are the enemies of Allah, of His messengers, and of His prophets,” says the sheikh.  “The Jews are the enemies of the holy books and the enemies of mankind. The Jews never honor agreements, treaties, or covenants of protection.”

“They are the enemies of humanity, the enemies of mankind,” says Sheikh Ahmad Bin Anis.   “The Jews are the enemies of peace!"


Black crime is a  Tax on the Poor

By Walter E. Williams

A few years ago, BET had a commentary titled "Where Are the Grocery Stores in Black Neighborhoods?" One wonders whether anyone thinks that the absence of supermarkets in predominantly black neighborhoods means that white merchants do not like dollars coming out of black hands. Racial discrimination cannot explain the absence of supermarkets in black communities.

Compare the operation of a supermarket in a low-crime neighborhood with that of one in a high-crime neighborhood. You will see differences in how they operate. Supermarkets in low-crime neighborhoods often have merchandise on display near entrances. They may have merchandise left unattended outside the store, such as plants and gardening material. Often these items are left out overnight. Supermarket managers' profit maximizing objective is to maximize merchandise turnover per square foot of leased space. The economic significance of being able to have merchandise located at entrances and outside is the supermarket manager can use all of the space he leases.

Supermarket operation differs in high-crime neighborhoods. Merchandise will not be left unattended outside the store — and surely not overnight. Because of greater theft, the manager will not have products near entrances and exits. As a result, the manager cannot use all of the space that he leases. On top of this, it is not unusual to see a guard employed by the store.

Because supermarkets operate on a very lean profit margin, typically less than 2 percent, crime makes such a business unprofitable. The larger crime cost is borne by black residents, who must pay higher prices, receive inferior-quality goods at small mom and pop stores and/or bear the transportation cost of having to shop at suburban malls. Crime works as a tax on people who can least afford it.

Racial discrimination suits have been brought against pizza companies whose drivers either refuse to deliver pizzas to certain neighborhoods or require customers to come down to their car. In many instances, the pizza deliverymen are black people who are reluctant to deliver pizzas even in their own neighborhoods. For a law-abiding person, not to have deliveries on the same terms as everyone else is insulting, but who is to blame?

It is not just pizzas. Recently, Comcast notified a cable customer on the South Side of Chicago the company would not send out a technician because of the violent crime in the area. Delivery companies do not leave packages in high-crime neighborhoods when the customer is not home. The company must bear the costs of making return trips, or more likely, the customer has to bear the cost of going to pick up the package. Taxi drivers, as well as Uber and Lyft drivers, are reluctant to provide services to high-crime neighborhoods.

Crime and lack of respect for property rights impose another unappreciated cost. They lower the value of everything in the neighborhood. A house that is not even worth $50,000 might be worth many multiples of that after gentrification. Gentrification is a trend in some urban neighborhoods whereby higher-income people buy up property in poor repair and fix it up. This results in the displacement of lower-income families and small businesses. Before we call gentrification an exclusively racial phenomenon, many gentrifiers are black middle-class, educated people.

It is by no means flattering to law-abiding black people that "black" has become synonymous with "crime." Crime not only imposes high costs on blacks but also sours race relations. Whites are apprehensive of blacks, and blacks are offended by being subjects of that apprehension. That apprehension and offense are exhibited in many insulting ways to law-abiding blacks — for example, jewelers keeping their displays locked and store clerks giving extra surveillance to black shoppers.

White people and police officers cannot fix this or other problems of the black community. If blacks do not fix them, they will not be fixed, at least in a pleasing way.



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

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

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


7 January, 2016

Creepy multicultural doctor in Britain

A doctor stunned an NHS manageress by asking her if her nail polish matched the colour of her underwear before pestering other female hospital colleagues for a date, it was claimed today.

Tipo Qureshi, 44, is said to have behaved inappropriately towards five separate female members of staff in less than three months at Sandwell General Hospital in West Bromwich, Midlands.

Quershi, a locum specialist registrar in plastic surgery, began his flirtatious behaviour during his induction meeting at the hospital, a medical tribunal heard.

This is when he made his nail polish remark while discussing a work timetable with a female employee known as Miss A, who manages NHS waiting lists.

She said she was 'surprised by how forward he was' and attempted to ignore his comment.

But Qureshi, who denies the allegations, began to pester her for her personal mobile number when he took up a full-time post at the hospital, it was said.

When he asked her out on a date, she informed him she had a boyfriend but he replied: 'How would your boyfriend feel if we went for a coffee?' it is alleged.

Qureshi, of Warwick, would view dating websites on his mobile phone whilst on a ward with patients and told a nurse it was a shame she was engaged because he 'had a lot of money', the court heard.

He told the same woman that she reminded him of an ex-girlfriend with whom he had had a 'very physical relationship', it was said.

When she asked what he meant, the medic allegedly 'raised his eyebrows' and gave her a 'knowing look'.

Qureshi also told a nurse known as Ms C that he was viewing a dating website on his mobile phone while on a hospital ward in 2013, the tribunal heard.

He then showed her a picture of a teenage girl in a bikini on the screen and said she had a ‘good pair of legs’, it is alleged. Ms C later complained that he asked her out on a date.

The surgeon is also said to have told a student nurse that she was too pretty to be a nurse and should be a model, before asking if she ‘minded dating older men'.

Qureshi was reported to the General Medical Council when two nurses complained of indecent assaults allegedly committed on the same day.

Both had separately been in an operating theatre with the medic on December 6, 2013 when he is said to have leant across them for paperwork or medical equipment and deliberately touched their breasts.

On the second occasion, towards a nurse known as Miss F, Dr Qureshi allegedly ‘fumbled’ around her breasts while attempting to catch a vial of anaesthetic.

Both women say he failed to apologise after each incident, which ‘would have been consistent with the possibility of accidental touching’.

Miss F overheard the first woman, known as Ms E, talking about her experience when they bumped into each other in the hospital staffroom.

She in turn revealed her alleged ordeal, which was heard by a department practitioner who suggested they report the incidents. The matter was then passed to the GMC.

The surgeon is also accused of swerving clinical duties - on one occasion refusing to cannulate a patient because a less senior member of staff could do it, and on another refusing to take a surgical case because he was close to finishing his shift.

When questioned by a nurse, he allegedly said: ‘Patients don’t care about me, why should I care about them?' loud enough for patients and other members of staff to hear.

Recalling the nail polish comment, Miss A told the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester: 'I was quite taken aback that in our initial meeting, during an induction with a professional, that comment was made.

'I continued with the meeting and dismissed the comment. I'm not really sure why I didn't complain immediately in hindsight.

'It was an element of disbelief and the fact I didn't take it as: "Oh my gosh, this man can't ever work here again." It was when additional incidents and allegations were being made and I realised this wasn't one-off behaviour, this was an ongoing thing.'

When Qurashi later asked her for her number, she laughed and brushed it aside. 'He would ask me for my number and say things like: "How would your boyfriend feel if we went for a coffee?" I didn't respond. He certainly asked for my number more than once,' she said.

Counsel for the GMC Simon Jackson QC said: 'There are three elements to the GMC’s misconduct case. Firstly, inappropriate remarks or questions with a sexual overtone. Secondly, refusals to assist colleagues with tasks and thirdly, two incidents of alleged sexual assault.

'Right from the outset of his appointment at the hospital, Dr Qureshi was rather forward in manner and soon began to make inappropriate remarks to female colleagues. As early as the induction meeting with the hospital manager and Miss A when Dr Qureshi was discussing the timetable, he spontaneously said to her: "Does your nail polish reflect the colour of your underwear?"

“She didn’t take the remark seriously but was surprised at how forward he was. They were to be future colleagues and had only just met. He plainly did not treat Miss A with respect on this occasion and other colleagues on other occasions.'

Describing his use of the dating website, Mr Jackson added: 'While in the nurses station and again in the company of Ms C, Dr Qureshi used his mobile phone on the ward, which is not permitted, and in the course of doing so told Ms C he was logged into a dating website and then proceeded to show her a picture of a teenage girl in a bikini on his mobile and said the girl in the picture had a good pair of legs.

'On another occasion while working together he asked Ms C out on a date. The witness will say that this course of conduct by Dr Qureshi made her feel uncomfortable while in his presence and when she sensed he might seek her out to do clinical tasks - the request being an excuse to talk to her - she took steps to avoid it.

'The GMC alleges all these incidents had a thinly-disguised sexual overtone. Not simply over-personal or intrusive or rude, but when looked at in the context, all had an underlying theme of the doctor wanting to pursue sexual conduct or a sexual relationship with the women he approached and spoke to in this way.'

Qureshi admits telling Ms C she reminded him of an ex-girlfriend but denies all other allegations. The hearing continues.


UK: Evangelical preacher who called Islam 'heathen' and 'satanic' and hailed Enoch Powell as a prophet is CLEARED of making grossly offensive remarks

Evangelical Protestant preacher Pastor James McConnell has been found not guilty of making grossly offensive remarks during a sermon in which he described Islam as 'heathen', 'satanic'.

This afternoon Pastor James McConnell, 78, of Newtownabbey, Co Antrim, walked free from Belfast Magistrates' Court after being cleared of sending grossly offensive messages.

The high profile evangelical pastor had been charged with two alleged offences after the sermon delivered from the pulpit of his Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle on May 18, 2014 was streamed online.

In his sermon he described Islam as a 'doctrine spawned in hell' and said he did not trust Muslims.

But following a hearing he was today cleared of improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network.

The court heard although the words upon which the charges were based were offensive, they did not reach the high threshold of being 'grossly offensive'.

Delivering his reserved judgment, District Judge Liam McNally said: 'The courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive.

'It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances. 'Accordingly I find Pastor McConnell not guilty of both charges.'

As the judge delivered his reserved judgment, the crowd of up to 50 Christian supporters who had packed into the public gallery of courtroom 13 erupted into applause.

The judge said: 'He is a man with strong, passionate and sincerely held beliefs.

'In my view Pastor McConnell's mindset was that he was preaching to the converted in the form of his own congregation and like-minded people who were listening to his service rather than preaching to the worldwide internet.

'His passion and enthusiasm for his subject caused him to, so to speak, "lose the run of himself"'.

The judge said the comments about Islam being 'heathen' and 'satanic' were protected under human rights legislation.

When considering the remarks about mistrusting Muslims, Judge McNally said he was satisfied the pastor had not set out to intentionally cause offence.

If the preacher had qualified his remarks, as he did in subsequent media interviews, he could have been spared the legal battle, the court was told.

Judge McNally said: 'If he had clarified this in his sermon and set out in a clear and precise way why Sharia law was repugnant to him he could have saved himself a lot of trouble.

'In the manner in which he did express this he has, in my view characterised the followers of an entire religion in a stereotypical way.

'Indeed when he uses the word 'may' in the context of whether there are any good Muslims it leaves open the inference that that might not be exactly right and there may not be any good Muslims in Britain. Either way, he is making it crystal clear that he does not trust any Muslim.'

The distinction between offensive and grossly offensive was an important one and not easily made, the court heard.

'Context and circumstances are highly relevant and as the European Court of Human Rights observed... the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions that offend, shock or disturb the state or any section of the population,' said Judge McNally.

Throughout proceedings Mr McConnell, who was dressed in a dark grey suit with grey shirt and pink and purple coloured tie, sat alongside his wife Margaret and other family members. He was not required to sit in the dock.

During the three day trial in December, Mr McConnell spent more than an hour in the witness box giving evidence in his defence. He said he had not intended to provoke, hurt or offend anyone but was unrepentant for preaching the Christian gospel.

He also claimed he had refused the lesser punishment of an informed warning because it would be an insult to Jesus and he did not want to be 'gagged' in the future.

The prosecution had claimed it was a 'straightforward' case because the words were delivered in a rehearsed sermon to an audience of 2,000 and watched by 700 online, and had been carefully chosen.

Outside court hundreds of supporters cheered as Mr McConnell emerged. Some sang hymns as the preacher gave his reaction to the judgement. 'I am very happy,' he said, before adding he would do the sermon again, though word it differently.

'The only regret I have is the response from the Muslim community - that I was out to hurt them,' he said. 'There was no way I was out to hurt them - I wouldn't hurt a hair on their head.

'But what I am against is their theology and what they believe in.

'If there are Muslims out there I want to assure them I love them and, if they need help, I am there to help them, but their theology and their beliefs I am totally against them.'

He added: 'I would do it again but I would word it differently because I would be conscious I was hurting innocent Muslims, I would be conscious I was hurting Muslims who have come here to work hard and are doing their best - there's no way I would hurt those people, but I would do it again - yes.'

The pastor said he did not realise how far his sermon would travel. 'As far as I was concerned I was preaching to my own people, I was preaching in my own church - I didn't realise it would go out there and so forth,' he said.

Mr McConnell also said he believed he had said 'worse things' in other sermons that had been streamed on-line.


The only gun control that works is "incorrect"

The President, Hillary Clinton, and their type in the legacy media have devoted much time to advocating the disarming of law abiding Americans and labeling the National Rifle Association as a terrorist organization. Their claim is that if the Congress would only enact common sense gun safety laws our long national nightmare would soon be over.

The problem is that none of the gun schemes they advocate have a logical connection to the problem. Many cities including Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit have become weekend shooting galleries with most of the victims being young black males and some collateral damage of a number of five-year-olds and other innocents caught in the crossfire.

While no one policy would solve this problem there is one that has proven itself to have a tremendous positive impact. It is called, “stop, question, and frisk.” It is a law enforcement program designed to take illegal guns off the streets and thereby reduce the number of gun homicides. People engaged in suspicious activity are stopped, questioned, and if necessary, frisked. If they are found to have an illegal gun in their possession, they are eligible for a three-year mandatory prison sentence. It works. The number of guns on the streets dropped dramatically.

Following the crime ridden reign of Mayor David Dinkins New Yorkers elected Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani instituted the program and it was continued by leftist Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The results were stunning. The number of homicides in New York City went 2,605 in 1990 to 414 in 2012. This is an 84 percent annual reduction in lives lost, a majority of them black lives.  With this kind of record you would think that the Black Lives Matter movement would be on the streets demanding that the program halted by Mayor DeBlasio be reinstated since the murder rate is predictably rising since the program ceased.

But no. The leftist solution to the rising urban crime rate is to release thousands drug dealing merchants of death back on to the streets and take the guns away from otherwise defenseless law abiding Americans.

The reason Clinton, Obama, De Blasio oppose a program that actually works is the same reason they oppose most effective law enforcement, political correctness. While a majority of those stopped and questioned in high crime areas are not frisked no one likes to be frisked.

The left also goes to absurd lengths to deny the effectiveness of the program.  Take this quote from Mother Jones as reprinted in the Aug. 13, 2013 Washington Post:

“As Kevin Drum says in Mother Jones, the thing driving the drop in crime in New York, as everywhere, might not have anything to do with policing. It’s likely the removal of lead from gasoline and house paint, he argues. Several studies have found that lead exposure can damage children’s brain development, affecting their behavior. Rick Nevin, and economist and a leading researcher on crime and lead questions, notes that there has been far more progress on removing lead in New York City than in other large cities like Chicago or Detroit…”

The piece continues, “New York’s lead removal efforts are commendable and are a more than adequate explanation of why it’s seen sharper crime drops than other cities. There’s no reason to credit alienating policies like stop and frisk here.”

Really?  And now that the program has been halted and homicides are going back up it no doubt is because lead has been snuck back into the gasoline supplies of New York?

Since the residents of urban black neighborhoods are more likely to be victimized by crime, naturally police concentrated on protecting them. This is known as racial profiling which in the mind of the left cannot be tolerated.  Better that they be victims of homicide than they be profiled.


The ‘silencing of Christians’ in Britain's public sector

Christianity is being subtly “silenced” within the public sector in the UK because of a civil service culture which treats speaking about faith as “not the done thing”, according to a former top Whitehall mandarin appointed as Church of England’s most senior lay official.

William Nye said a “secularising spirit” now permeates the machinery of government, leading to an unspoken “squeezing out of Christianity” from national life, despite public expressions of support from David Cameron and other ministers.

He said ministers or the general public would be surprised to realise the full extent to which faith is now seen as “odd and unusual” within the public sector in Britain.

Christians working there now rarely “reveal” their beliefs except to close friends for fear of being viewed as biased, he added.

Mr Nye, who spent 20 years in a series of senior Whitehall posts before a spell as Principal Private Secretary to the Prince of Wales, recently took over as the Church of England’s Secretary General.

His appointment comes as the Church embarks on what it describes as a major programme of “renewal and reform” hoping to turn around decades of decline in the numbers in the pews.

The Church’s financial arm, the Church Commissioners, is planning to open up parts of its £6.7 billion endowment to help fund ambitious expansion plans to arrest decline. But it is also facing growing challenges from within its own ranks as it grapples with divisions over issues such as homosexuality.

Speaking to The Telegraph in his first interview since taking on the post, Mr Nye voiced optimism that congregations will recover but warned the decline is likely to continue for at least another five years.

After a career as a senior civil servant with posts ranging from overseeing arts policy to national security and counter-terrorism he said it was a “joy” to work in an environment where he could “talk more openly” about his faith.

“I think there has been, in the 20 years I was in the public sector, a sort of squeezing out of Christianity from many aspects of the public sector,” he said.

"People who aren’t in the public sector don’t realise quite how that secularising spirit has led to the silencing of Christians.”
William Nye

“[It is] not universal – obviously there are chaplains in hospitals, there are chaplains in prisons – and I don’t think it is ministers doing it deliberately.”

He added in many cases it is likely that ministers probably had “no idea” that it was going on and that but that few officials would even let it be known that they were Christians.

Mr Nye said that he had been asked recently to suggest possible candidates from within the civil service for a senior post in the Church of England, a job which requires the candidate to support the Church’s Christian aims.

He said: “I had to say ‘you know I’m not sure I would be able to think of many people because, why would I know about anyone in government who is a Christian unless they are a personal friend?’

“Personal friends might have revealed to me that they are Christians but other people in government, central government departments, wouldn’t do that. “They wouldn’t let it be known that they were Christians.”

He added: “I think people who aren’t in the public sector don’t realise quite how that secularising spirit has led to the silencing of Christians in a way that isn’t actually, I think, what people nationally want, or people are necessarily aware of.

“There is a lot of support, I think, for the Church of England doing its job as the Queen said ‘gently and assuredly’ – for the quiet work of the Church of England. “But quiet work shouldn’t mean silent.”

Part of the explanation could be a form of “self-censorship” by Christians themselves in response to the working culture in Whitehall, he said.  “Looking back on it I feel there may be an element of that and, I think, just a sense that it’s not really the ‘done thing’ to talk about religion in the 21st century, especially in government.

“You know: does it imply that you’ve somehow got some sort of axe to grind or it’s something odd and unusual?

“Of course, actually, in practice everybody, all my former colleagues in the civil service, all bring their own perspectives and their own personal beliefs to bear.

“They all, I genuinely believe, try to be neutral and objective but they all bring their beliefs to bear and so do Christians but Christians sort of feel [it is better] not to say about it.

“It is now a joy for me to be in a place where, although having spent 20 years not talking about my faith … one can talk more openly about it.”

His new post, overseeing the day-to-day running of the Church of England, will also see him play a key role in shaking up red tape as part of the drive to win people back.

But he said that, while the Church leadership was “prayerfully confident” it could return to growth, talk of numbers at services bottoming out and preparing to increase could be premature.

“I am always happy to be taken by surprise by some unexpected good news but realistically I think it is probably at least five years,” he said.

“You can see pockets of very good growth in some places but we are a national church with thousands and thousands of parishes and it takes time and money for things to change.”



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

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

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


6 January, 2016

The real reason there are no women of colour in 'Suffragette'

I put up yesterday a conservative critique of the "Suffragette" movie.  Below is a Leftist critique. I reproduce the whole plaint but the whole thing could be reduced to a complaint that the movie did not evangelize for common leftist themes such as class war and racism.

The feminist concerned has not got it into her woolly head that the job of the movie is to entertain, not to crusade

Didactic films are normally very boring and attract very small audiences -- even among those who agree with the didactic intent

I knew I was going to feel torn about Suffragette well before I watched the film. The fight for western women's right to vote is a key moment in the history of global feminism and it deserves to be remembered. But the all-white cast threatened to overshadow the film's subject matter, and I can understand why some have called for a boycott and why others refused to write a review of the film.

I have made a point of calling out whitewashing in popular culture whenever I see it occur, which is often. In regards to Suffragette, it is certainly peculiar that a film set in London, even early in the 20th century, would not feature any people of colour whatsoever, let alone in pivotal roles. But then again, I've always thought of the British suffragette movement as a predominantly white women's cause. Not since my teenage years had I entertained the notion that the white suffragettes were fighting for the rights of women like me.

Yes, there is whitewashing in Suffragette but it does not take the form that critics lamenting its lack of suffragettes of colour say it does. It's true that some women of colour (WoC) were involved in the movement. Historical proof of their involvement include photographs such as this:

This photograph of Indian suffragettes was taken at the Women's Coronation Procession in 1911, where contingents from the various British colonies were present in order "to show the strength of support for women's suffrage throughout the Empire." So they were not there for their own rights, so much as they were there to bolster the cause of white suffragettes.

The Indian suffragettes were a select group of women, wealthy aristocrats with ties to the British ruling class and whose social status permitted them to work alongside key figures like Emmeline Pankhurst.

That's not to say all the Indian suffragettes were shilling for white supremacy. Indeed, some of them also fought for Indian independence, including Princess Sophie Duleep Singh who, despite living with the British royal family and being the goddaughter of Queen Victoria, also collaborated with Indian activists and proved herself to be a right royal pain in the proverbial by refusing to pay her taxes until women had the vote.

However, their involvement, rather than indicating that the suffragette movement was inclusive (it wasn't), reveals more about the class system in the UK than it does about the struggle for suffrage.

And that is where the problem with Suffragette really lies. It's not that it doesn't honour suffragettes who were WoC, it's that it doesn't even touch on why non-white women were largely excluded.

As historian Jad Adams, author of Women and The Vote: A World History, told The Telegraph, "I don't know of any British black women being involved in the movement... They were not very public... They were lower working class people and tended to be disenfranchised in many ways."

Sadly, much of the marginalisation of WoC came at the hands of white women who, despite fighting for their own rights, were nonetheless content to let racism persist. Had the film depicted WoC fighting alongside white women, it would have given the false impression that the latter saw them as their equals, whereas white suffragettes were frequently firm believers in white supremacy.

"I wouldn't presume [black women] would have been welcome [in the suffrage movement] if they'd joined," Adams says.

In other words, including working class WoC in the film would have been dishonest because to even be able to agitate for women's suffrage required a certain degree of privilege and freedom.

As much as I enjoyed the film because it tells the story of a pivotal moment in history - the repercussions and results of which reverberate to this day - from the perspective of the working poor, who are themselves often ignored by history, it still falls into the trap that so many stories told by white people do: it completely overlooks the racism of its protagonists and the role this played on the course of history.

Emmeline Pankhurst has mythic status in Suffragette. But she was also a fierce believer in colonialism who thought WoC needed white women to look out for them. Her quip "I'd rather be a rebel than a slave" was uncritically used in - and to promote - the film even though some of her contemporaries thought her comparisons to slavery were in poor taste. Meanwhile, other key suffragettes were furious that Maori women in NZ had gotten the vote before they did.

The biggest oversight of the film then is not that it doesn't include WoC suffragettes, but that it doesn't even touch on the reasons why there was so few of them. There are many ways WoC could have been included in the film. Princess Sophie Singh could have appeared alongside Emmeline Pankhurst as she often did in real life. Some of the main characters' neighbours could have been black. Perhaps a black co-worker in the commercial laundry where much of the film takes place could have attempted to join the movement only to be cruelly shunned. That would have been powerful cinema. But it would also require a degree of honest examination of history that many white storytellers are still sorely lacking.

As it stands, Suffragette is an important film because it depicts the struggle for emancipation of a marginalised group. But, while we have much to thank them for, we should not make the mistake of assuming, as the film appears to, that the suffragettes were fighting for anyone's benefit but their own. Suffragette is history not as it really was, but as white people wish it to be: with the racism removed. 


German police hunt for group of up to 1,000 men 'of Arab and North African origin' who sexually assaulted numerous women and threw fireworks into crowds at Cologne train station on New Year's Eve

German police are hunting for a group of up to a 1,000 men 'of Arab and North African origin' who are accused of sexually assaulting numerous women and causing trouble at Cologne's main station.

Police described the series of sexual assaults against women in Cologne on New Year's Eve as 'a completely new dimension of crime.'

Officers received numerous complaints from women who said they had been assaulted around Cologne's main train station next to the western German city's famous cathedral on the night from Thursday to Friday.

The group of men reportedly also robbed their victims and threw fireworks at a crowd of people, according to Breitbart.

Cologne police chief Wolfgang Albers said witnesses described the assaults as coming from a group of up to 1,000 men whose appearance indicated they were of 'Arab or North African origin.'

Some 60 criminal complaints have so far been filed, including one allegation of rape.

German news agency dpa quoted Albers telling reporters on Monday that it was 'an intolerable situation that such crimes are committed in the middle of the city.' 

One of the victims, named only as 'Katja L', gave a harrowing testimony of her ordeal. 'When we came out of the station, we were very surprised by the group that met us there'. She said the group was 'exclusively young foreign men,' she told Der Express.

'We then walked through this group of men. There was an alley through [the men] which we walked through.'

She described the moment she 'felt a hand on my buttocks, then on my breasts, in the end'. 'I was groped everywhere. It was a nightmare. Although we shouted and beat them, the guys did not stop. I was desperate and think I was touched around 100 times in the 200 meters,' she said.

'Fortunately I wore a jacket and trousers. A skirt would probably have been torn away from me'.

It is unclear if the gang of men are migrants but opinions remain divided in Cologne over the recent influx of migrants with protests held by PEGIDA and a campaign supporting migrants.


Repent or we quit say bishops in gays feud: Anglican church could split in challenge to Cantuar's authority

Sad that only African and Asian Anglicans respect Bible teachings

Church leaders from Africa and Asia are threatening to walk out of a crucial meeting chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury unless American bishops drop their support for gay marriage.

Archbishop Justin Welby last year invited the leaders of the worldwide Anglican Church to the summit in Canterbury next week in a ‘make or break’ effort to avert a permanent split over homosexuality.

The row has torn the Church apart for a decade – with conservatives accusing liberals of abandoning the word of God by backing openly gay bishops and marriages for gay couples – and the Archbishop wants to broker a deal to allow both sides to co-exist peacefully.

But insiders said a hardcore of eight to 12 conservative archbishops from Africa and Asia are preparing to quit the meeting on the first morning unless the liberal Americans ‘repent’ or the Archbishop throws them out.

In what would be a massive challenge to Archbishop Welby’s authority, the conservatives, who represent some of the biggest of the 38 individual Churches in the worldwide ‘Communion’, are then likely move to their own headquarters nearby for the rest of the meeting.

While they are unlikely immediately to break their historic ties with the Archbishop of Canterbury – the nominal head of the Communion – they would boycott future official meetings and set up a parallel church, drawing away traditionalists from the Church of England.

The Mail on Sunday has learned that feelings are running so high that the three most powerful leaders, the Archbishops of Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda, were last week on the brink of snubbing the meeting altogether, but were persuaded to attend by colleagues still hoping to force concessions from Welby.

Sources said they have lost patience with the Archbishop’s refusal to discipline the liberals for ignoring official policy urging them to refrain from creating gay bishops or approving gay marriage without widespread agreement.

But liberal leaders have said Archbishop Welby has assured them that no one will be expelled from the meeting.

The Archbishop will instead propose that the Communion becomes a more loosely linked ‘federation’ to keep everyone in the ‘family’ – which aides have compared to ‘moving into separate bedrooms’ rather than full-scale divorce.

The bitter divisions led Archbishop Welby to postpone last year’s Lambeth Conference, the regular gathering of all Anglican bishops from around the world that has been held nearly every decade, except during the two world wars, since the 1860s.

The last, in 2008, was boycotted by key conservatives furious with the liberal American Church for consecrating an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003. The Americans accuse conservatives of fostering homophobic attitudes.

The Church of England currently bans same sex marriage in church, but it is under huge pressure to relax its stance. Lambeth Palace said: ‘The Archbishop has invited everyone. If people walk out that will be viewed with disappointment rather than anger, and the door will always be open.’


A victory for free speech: The Australian army versus outspoken Major Bernard Gaynor

The man they couldn't fire: A good soldier persecuted for his Christian beliefs and criticism of Islam.  The Army has however appealed his win in the Federal Court to the High Court. The High Court is however where a right of free speech for Australians was first found so the bet should be on Gaynor to win again

The Australian Defence Force has just suffered an embarrassing defeat in which the armed forces appear primarily as a federal government department rather than a combat force. Most of the fighting is done behind desks.

The mission, duty and special legal status which sets our military apart from almost all other elements of society, is that it exists to detect, deter, suppress and, when necessary, kill people deemed a threat to the nation. The ultimate power of government is always rooted in part on weaponry and the authority and willingness to use it.

With the exception of our superbly-trained Special Air Service Regiment and Commando regiments, hunting and killing is rarely on the mind of Australian Army personnel.

Based on the very extensive advertising and recruiting campaigns that the military services roll out every year, the main point of joining the armed forces is to gain skilled qualifications at no cost and see the world.

Don't mention the war.

For much of this year, in the Federal Court of Australia, the extensive resources of the ADF have been pitted against the threadbare resources of a single, sacked Army Reserve officer who the ADF is determined to ostracise, humiliate and terminate.

The ADF has been highly successful in ostracising him, not surprising given the military's long and inglorious record of tolerating hazing, bullying and bastardisation.

But as for terminating this officer, he has proved hard to kill.

Last Friday, a judgment handed down by Justice Robert Buchanan, Bernard Gaynor v Chief of the Defence Force (2015), found that the ADF had acted unlawfully in terminating the commission of Army Reserve Major Bernard (Bernie) Gaynor jnr.

He ordered that this termination be set aside.

Justice Buchanan wrote: "The applicant has strong views which he attributes to the teachings and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. As they relate to the events which led to the termination of his commission, those views were expressed as an antipathy to overt tolerance or support of homosexuality or transgender behaviour as well as statements critical of adherents of Islam.

"The applicant served in Iraq in 2006-7, 2008-9 and 2009 and also briefly in Afghanistan in 2006. He was awarded the United States of America Meritorious Service Medal in October 2009. His general competence is not in issue."

The 90,000-word judgment includes critical and unflattering observations about Gaynor's conduct, which included "a deliberate and calculated course of open defiance".

However, where it mattered the judge found in his favour: "The fact that [Gaynor's] conduct involved direct disobedience of orders does not sufficiently change matters … Freedom of political communication was burdened… [when] his commission as an officer was terminated… [His] conduct involved the expression of political opinion, effectively as a private citizen."

Justice Buchanan found that being sacked for holding personal political views, even in defiance of orders, was too fundamental a right to be quashed in the name of military discipline.

On Tuesday, Gaynor responded by writing in his blog: "Politicised militaries and democracies do not mix well."

The judgment will unnerve the military command. It is easy to see why. In a posting on Facebook in March, 2013, Gaynor wrote:

"The war in Afghanistan has been an utter failure but it is the government's domestic policies which have completely betrayed the efforts of soldiers serving on operations. In the time our Army has been in Afghanistan the number of Muslims in Australia has increased from around 280,000 to 476,000. Anyone who thinks Australia is safer as a result is deluded …

While our soldiers have been fighting, taking casualties and dying in Afghanistan to protect Australia's interests and values from violent Islamists our own government has allowed them to take root inside our borders."

He has since pointed out that twice as many Australian Muslims went to join Islamic State than are enlisted in the ADF. When I checked with Defence media they said there were 100 self-identified Muslims out of 81,000 ADF and Reserve personal. So Gaynor is right.

He has already begun his next battle. He will contest next year's federal election as the Senate candidate in Queensland for the Australian Liberty Alliance. He intends to remain in the Army Reserve.



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

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

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


5 January, 2016

Western feminists airbrush the horrors of their Muslim sisters

The acclaimed new film Suffragette is a timely reminder of courageous reformers who placed reform before personal safety and revolutionised the world for women.

But today, the feminist movement seems bizarrely out of touch with the original, universal standards of their forbears. In sidelining Muslim women’s basic rights, today’s feminists ignore the suffragette legacy and the necessity for urgent reform of international human rights violations.

How would Emmeline Pankhurst and her colleagues respond if they found modern feminists indifferent to reports of young girls from ethnic and religious minorities kidnapped, raped, sold into sexual slavery or forced to marry Islamic State fighters? They might be astonished to learn that Muslim dissidents Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Taslima Nasreen, who promote secular humanism, gender equality, and freedom to criticise religion, live in constant danger due to death threats.

They might be troubled by the perils for women activists in Afghanistan, where public servant Safia Amajan, politician Sitara Achakzai, police officer Malalai Kakar and Indian author Sushmita Banerjee were gunned down by the Taliban.

On further inquiry, the suffragettes would be surprised to discover that Western feminists rarely challenge sexist laws in the Muslim world. These include polygyny and unilateral divorce. In a courtroom, women’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, and women are entitled to less inheritance and reduced awards in cases of compensation for injury. Domestic violence is rarely punished, and forced or early marriage is acceptable. Victims of rape can be accused and punished for illicit sex. In some conservative Muslim majority countries, stoning is a punishment for adultery and women are unable to leave the house without their husband’s permission.

Suffragettes would question why millions of Muslim women were still second-class citizens when the free world and the UN pride themselves on countless NGOs dedicated to advancing women’s rights.

Saudi Arabian feminist Wajeha al-Huwaider has campaigned for women to drive a car, and launched YouTube videos against child marriage and male domination. In a push against guardian laws, her slogan read, “Treat us like adults or we’ll leave the country.” When Huwaider and her colleague Fawzia Al-Oyouni tried to assist a woman whose husband had locked her and the children in the house without food, they were charged with the crime of takhbib (inciting a wife to disobey her husband), sentenced to 10 months in prison.

Reformers such as Huwaider and Oyouni, are fearless campaigners, but there seems to be a deep disjunction between their objectives and those of contemporary feminists.

A sequel to Suffragettes might feature a conversation between activists of the first wave, who campaigned for the right to vote, those in the second liberation wave of the 60s, and the third wave of contemporary feminists, focused on sexual identity, culture and ethnicity.

The latter would surely face condemnation for discounting injustices deemed intolerable in their own societies. Modern feminists have neglected to empower the new Muslim suffragettes — their natural partners.

Collaboration of the feminist movement with the far left has entrenched notions of hostility to Western values, fostered a romantic lure of revolutionary movements, and found common cause with the anti-Western ideology of radical Islam. The alliance between feminists and the far Left has been reinforced by the philosophy of cultural relativism that has curbed criticism of different cultures.

Instead of joining the new suffragettes, third-wave feminists have pursued a fashionable counterculture and diet of Marxist leftovers. Worse, they have turned against the original principles of freedom and equality and joined with the enemies of their Muslim sisters.

Some avenues for freedom have opened up for women in Afghanistan with constitutional guarantees of political representation, and in Saudi Arabia, where women have been put on the advisory Shura Council and allowed to stand in municipal elections.

Despite much unfinished work to combat sexism in the West, reform of Muslim women’s rights is a pressing imperative and meaningful investment in global female solidarity.

Perhaps the feminist movement could regain its momentum and high moral ground if activists write their own sequel to Suffragettes by uniting in a “democratic international of women” against institutionalised discrimination and “the horror of God’s State”, as entreated by Algerian Khalida Messaoudi. Otherwise, feminists risk being unworthy heirs of the suffragette movement.


Prominent British atheist condemns Muslim credulity

Professor Richard Dawkins has launched a fresh attack on Islamic belief.  The furious academic walked out of an interview when a Muslim journalist confirmed he personally believed the prophet Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Dawkins, 74, author of best-seller The God Delusion, told the New Statesmen's Emad Ahmed that his belief was "pathetic" before angrily storming off.

A shocked Ahmed said: "Dawkins is outspoken about religion, particularly Islam, so I was genuinely stunned when he decided to angrily walk away from our interview after I confirmed my beliefs in the revelations of the Islamic faith, calling my views "pathetic".

But the evolutionary biologist took to Twitter to defend his latest outburst.

He said: "I left when he said Muhammad rode a winged horse. A non-timewasting journalist needs at least SOME grasp of reality."

He added: "Ridiculing belief in a winged horse is not "bigotry", not "Islamophobia", not "racism". It's sober, decent, gentle, scientific realism."

The 74-year-old went on: "If you believe you're Napoleon or a poached egg, you're in an asylum.

"If you believe in winged horses you're a New Statesman journalist."

He later explained in more detail: " I'm accused of refusing to be interviewed by Muslim journalists! Here's what actually happened.

"I was at a Royal Society meeting to launch the new Stephen Hawking Prize for Science Communication.

"The very nice PR woman arranged press interviews for the speakers. Science communication is dear to my heart, and I agreed to be pulled out of the conference for a series of interviews, on condition that the journalists would ask me about the Hawking Prize & STARMUS, not religion.

"One journalist, from New Statesman, soon made it clear that he wanted to talk of nothing but religion. My impatience grew, fed by my desire to rejoin the conference.

"I kept trying to drag him back to the agreed topic. Eventually, the PR woman arrived & signalled to the journalist that his time was up, but he asked to be allowed to carry on.

"He had just admitted that he believed in flying horses. In exasperation that I had left the conference to talk to a time-wasting journalist whose world view was ludicrously unconnected with reality, I terminated the interview and went off with the PR woman.

"I now find myself accused of refusing to be interviewed by Muslim journalists!"

Last month Dawkins said Islamic culture could "go to hell" on a live TV chat show in the United States when referring to some practices in Islam, such as women being made to wear burkhas.

Nor is it is not the first time Dawkins has attacked the belief in the ascension of Muhammad.

In an interview with Al Jazeera journalist Mehdi Hasan, filmed at the Oxford Union in 2012 - which you can watch below - Dawkins mocked the host telling him his belief was "anti-scientific and wrong".

The Qur'an briefly refers to the Isra and Miraj, two parts of a night journey Muhammad took during a single night in the year 621.

The "physical and spiritual journey" sees the Islamic prophet travel on the steed Buraq to the "furthest mosque" where he leads other prophets in prayer.  He then ascends to heaven in the Miraj journey where he speaks to God, who gives instructions to take back to the faithful.

Dawkins - who was once named the world's leading thinker by Prospect Magazine - has been equally critical of other religions.

He has described Judaism as a "tribal cult of a single fiercely unpleasant God, morbidly obsessed with sexual restrictions".

And he once claimed that being raised a Catholic and taught to fear hellfire is "worse than child abuse."

Just today he Tweeted: "Culturally the UK is a Christian country. But schools should teach comparative religion and atheism. They should NEVER indoctrinate."

Dawkins was born in Kenya but moved to Britain aged eight He studied at Oundle School, in Northamptonshire, before reading Zoology at university at Oxford University, where he is now an emeritus fellow of New College.

He became an atheist in his early teens after learning about Darwin’s theory of evolution and has written 13 books on evolution, biology and religion, including several international best-sellers.


Matisyahu rocks Ithaca – Huge Win for Artistic Freedom

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has been targeting American Reggae musician Matisyahu because he is Jewish and refuses to denounce Israel.

In the summer of 2015 an international firestorm of controversy erupted after BDS succeeded in getting Matisyahu banned at the Spanish Rototom Reggae festival. The ban was reversed only after an international outcry, including denunciations by the Spanish government and a leading Spanish newspaper that the action amounted to religious discrimination.

So when Matisyahu booked an appearance in Ithaca, NY, as part of his world tour, it was not long before the local BDS crowd, including our own BDS “star,” sought a boycott of the event and planned a protest.

But it didn’t work.

There was a substantial backlash in favor of artistic freedom. Ithaca resident Linda Glaser wrote a powerful op-ed in The Ithaca Journal, Let Jewish artist perform in Ithaca:

"Artistic freedom is the right of every American, as it is based on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The Ithaca Coalition for Unity and Cooperation in the Middle East (ICU-CME) supports the right of American musician Matisyahu to perform and to be heard free from intimidation at the State Theatre of Ithaca.

Untrue statements are being spread by the Ithaca Committee for Justice in Palestine about Matisyahu to justify their discrimination against him. Because he is a prominent Jewish artist who refuses to take an anti-Zionist position, BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) supporters around the world are attempting to block his cultural and artistic expression.

As Matisyahu has said, “I have always believed in the power of music to unite all people, regardless of religion, politics or geography.”

We urge the Ithaca community to stand for artistic freedom and reject the boycott of American musician Matisyahu."

The much ballyhooed “boycott” and protest fizzled out. Mostly the handful of BDS protesters just handed out leaflets. Every person who received one of the BDS leaflets was given an alternative, pro-Artistic Freedom leaflet.

I heard several of the younger people comment with friends how ridiculous it was that BDS was trying to politicize the event.

One Ithaca resident commented:

"Crazy evening but a good one for for the pro-peace, pro-love crowd. Handed out hundreds of flyers, lots of conversations; the good, the bad and the ugly. Matisyahu came out and thanked us, and we also met his Mom and got a Jewish power Mom group photo. We outnumbered the BDS supporters and we had cool signs and better flyers.

The concert itself was fantastic. While there were some empty seats towards the back, the main sections were full. Not that seating mattered, because as soon as the music started, the crowd of mostly 20-somethings rushed forward toward the stage, where they danced and shouted for songs.

I was very impressed with Matisyahu’s performance, though disappointed he didn’t sing some of his best known songs.  There is no doubt the crowd loved it too, based on what I heard as we left.

All in all, it was a wonderful time, and a huge belly-blow to the local BDS crowd. After their stunning defeat at the Greenstar Food Coop, the defeat at the Battle of Matisyahu may signal that Ithaca no longer is a BDS playground where they can bully people into submission.


Update on the "BDS" anti-Israel campaign

2015 ended with BDS supporters co-opting more campus governments and causes to discriminate against Jewish students. At the same time, more BDS resolutions were defeated and steps taken to prevent student governments from adopting Israel boycotts. These signs suggest that BDS movement’s overreach is producing backlash, at least in terms of energizing campus opposition. A similar dynamic is apparent in the political sphere where efforts to isolate Israel economically have been met with local legislation prohibiting Israel boycotts. The lesson of 2015 is that grassroots opposition to BDS can work, both on campus and in the political system.


The fall semester ended in December with several incidents where BDS supporters used student government to harass Jewish students and organizations for supporting Israel. At the University of Michigan a Jewish member of student government was exonerated after an investigation found he “did not engage in unethical behavior or engage in conduct unbecoming of a representative” by verbally challenging BDS supporters. The BDS group – “Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE)” – had accused the student of abusive conduct. The use of campus disciplinary mechanisms against individuals who challenge BDS has been seen several times, most notably at UCLA in the spring of 2015.

At Vassar the local branch of J Street University was initially denied the right to apply for event funding by the student government on the grounds that “Zionism is an inherently racist ideology.” The funding was eventually approved. A pro-Israel group at San Diego State University was also excluded from a student statement against Islamophobia after the local Students for Justice in Palestine objected. Efforts to exclude Jewish and pro-Israel groups and individuals from campus life are likely to expand in 2016.

Straightforward harassment was also evident in December. At Connecticut College posters placed around campus by BDS supporters accusing the Taglit-Birthright program of being “settler-colonialism.” This followed BDS supporters’ harassment and calls for the dismissal of a faculty member who had criticized Hamas on his Facebook page. To these were added disruptions of Jewish and pro-Israel campus events by BDS supporters, incidents of vandalism, and physical assaults on Jewish students.

Other notable developments are deepening connections between BDS supporters and unrelated causes. One example of this was seen at Columbia University where a sexual assault awareness group called “No Red Tape” collaborated with Students for Justice in Palestine, condemning Zionism on social media and condoning anti-Israel speech on the theory “that its anti-Israel position stems from commonalities between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” This theoretical approach, “intersectionality,” essentially claims that all forms of ‘oppression’ are intrinsically related. Anti-Israel activists have used the concept in order to attach BDS to mainstream causes like feminism and to vilify Israel.

Another example of how BDS has been folded into campus protests was the “Stop the Sellout” letter sent to the president of Ohio State University by the “United Students Against Sweatshops.” The letter demands a “fair, humane, ecologically sound, community based, and transparent food system that prioritizes student voice,” an end to “all current future endeavors to privatize our public university and cater to corporate interests,” and “withdraw its investments in entities (ie. Boeing, Caterpillar, etc) complicit in the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories until they are no longer engaged in the violation of human rights and other practices that fail to adhere to the Ohio State’s endorsed Principles of Responsible Investment.” Connections between the BDS and other far left movements like “Black Lives Matter” have also grown substantially over 2015.

But in December backlash against BDS cooption of campus life was also seen, for example at UCLA. There the Undergraduate Student Association Council adopted a resolution restricting the council to “matters directly and substantially pertaining to student welfare issues.” These were defined as “issues pertaining to student (health), resources, education, safety.” Political issues such as Israel boycotts were thus put off limits, an outcome predictably condemned by pro-BDS students. One pro-BDS student complained that the restriction negatively affected “student wellness.” The resolution came in the wake of several incidents at UCLA, including adoption of a BDS resolution and harassment of Jewish student members of the undergraduate council.

At Indiana University the student government passed a resolution condemning antisemitism. The statement also specified that the “Indiana University Student Association recognizes that the Jewish people, like all peoples, have a collective right to self-determination, and considers attempts to undermine these rights, including the global BDS Movement against Israel, to be a form of bigotry.” A boycott resolution at Lancaster University was defeated, but only because a large number of students abstained from the vote.

In other campus news, a BDS resolution adopted by the union representing University of California graduate students, Local 2865, was stuck down by the parent United Auto Workers International Union. The reversal, brought about by an appeal from a group of concerned students, is a major defeat for BDS at California universities.

Faculty support for BDS will be tested in January when BDS resolutions will be debated at the annual meetings of the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association. Legal scholars have recently pointed out that boycotts likely violate the corporate charters of academic associations, exposing them to lawsuits from members.

Finally, in a shocking example of the pettiness and venom of BDS supporters, a retired faculty member and BDS supporter at Cambridge University refused to answer a 13 year-old Israeli girl’s query regarding the domestication of horses. Her response was to state “I’ll answer your questions when there is peace and justice for Palestinians in Palestine. I am a member of Jews for Justice for Palestinians. I support Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions. You might be a child, but if you are old enough to write to me, you are old enough to learn about Israeli history and how it has impacted on the lives of Palestinian people.” In response to a press inquiry she added “The Jews have become the Nazis. Jews are behaving just like the people who treated them. It’s not all Israelis or all Jews.” The incident received widespread attention and public condemnation.

There were a number of important developments in the political sphere. Despite dissent from member states the European Union pressed forward with labeling guidelines for products originating in Israeli communities across the Green Line. Greece and the Czech Republic have joined other states including Hungary in rejecting the guidelines. In Germany, however, the government announced its support for the guidelines while the president of the Bundestag rejected them. Similarly, in response to a question, French Foreign Minister Manual Valls stated to the Parliament that he condemned “all boycotts” of Israel, but declined to characterize EU labeling guidelines as discriminatory.

Fears continue that the labeling guidelines lay the groundwork for more widespread boycotts of Israel. These fears are given support by reports of German stores removing Israeli products, ostensibly to be relabeled. Other reports show that the EU’s guidelines have given license to BDS activists to place their own labels on Israeli products.

Legal scholars have shown that the EU is applying labeling guidelines only to Israel, as opposed to other “occupied territories” such as the Western Sahara. These and other discriminatory actions are likely to be challenged legally and in setting such as the World Trade Organization. Interestingly, one observer has also noted that a 1995 ruling by the US Treasury stipulates “Goods which are produced in the West Bank and Gaza … shall not contain the words ‘Israel,’ ‘Made in Israel,’ ‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’ or words of similar meaning.”

In the United States a bipartisan resolution was introduced in the US House of Representatives condemning European Union labeling guidelines as discriminatory and accusing the EU of promoting Israel boycotts. Presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio also condemned the guidelines as “antisemitic.” In a speech at a Washington gathering Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also repeated her condemnation of the BDS movement but did not address the EU labeling guidelines.

Locally, however, the backlash against BDS continued. In Britain the Department for Communities and Local Government confirmed it was writing guidelines that would forbid local councils from engaging in boycotts or sanctions against individual states and industries, such as arms or fossil fuels. The rules are cast in terms of reaffirming national control over foreign policy. They come after several local councils passed resolutions condemning and boycotting Israel. These now face legal challenges.

Anti-BDS legislation also gained steam in the US. Proposed legislation in New York would prohibit the state from doing business with companies that engage in boycotts specifically of Israel. The town of Bal Harbour, Florida also passed similar legislation, making it the first municipality to do so.

Similar legislation has been proposed in California, which would forbid the state’s enormous pension funds, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), from investing in companies that boycott Israel. The two pension funds have assets of approximately $500 billion. The New York State Comptroller, the chief investment officer for the state’s pension fund, also visited Israel, partially as a deliberate rebuke to the BDS movement, and to demonstrate continued confidence.

Internationally, BDS did not fare well in December. Spain’s National Court overruled a lower court and quashed arrest warrants for a number of Israeli officials including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An Israeli reserve military officer was, however, briefly detained at a London airport on the basis of a war crimes complaint lodged by Palestinian organizations. He was released with an apology. The officer’s name had been included in lists of Israeli personnel who had participated in the 2014 Gaza conflict which have been circulated to European governments. Efforts to use European human rights laws against lower ranking Israeli officers represents a new area of harassment and intimidation.



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

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

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


4 January, 2016

Stop appeasing the Islamic extremists demands British PM as he calls for the whole country to be loyal to British values

Has Cameron finally grown a pair?

David Cameron yesterday pledged to end the appeasement of Islamist extremism, and demanded that everyone in Britain show 'loyalty' to this country and its values.

In a stark warning, he said 2016 will be a 'test of our mettle' in the battle against radicals with a 'seething hatred' of this country and the West.

Issuing an uncompromising New Year message, the Prime Minister said anyone who walks the streets of Britain must subscribe to its values, including freedom and tolerance.

The UK and its people should 'revel' in their way of life, he said, as he promised to 'come down hard' on radicals.

Mr Cameron's words reflect his determination to confront what he calls the 'poisonous ideology' that has turned young Muslims against their country.

There is huge concern in government, the police and the security services about the radicalisation of young Britons online by Islamic State militants.

At least 700 Britons are thought to have travelled to fight for IS in Syria and Iraq, and around half have returned home.

His comments come ahead of the publication this year of a major review into how to promote integration in communities cut off from the rest of society.

The review, by civil servant Louise Casey, is expected to deliver some 'hard truths' to the Muslim community and lead to new policies.

In a video posted on the Downing Street website, Mr Cameron said extremism was a major social problem which he would 'take on'.

He has previously warned of the dangers posed by people in Britain who 'quietly condone' the extremist ideology of IS, without explicitly supporting violence.

Yesterday he reinforced his message that it was not only the gunmen and bombers who needed to be tackled.

'When our national security is threatened by a seething hatred of the West, one that turns people against their country and can even turn them into murderous extremists, I want us to be very clear: you will not defeat us,' said Mr Cameron.

'And we will not just confront the violence and the terror. We will take on their underlying, poisonous narrative of grievance and resentment.

In a video posted on the Downing Street website, Mr Cameron said extremism was a major social problem which he would 'take on'. He was speaking just two months after the ISIS terror attacks in Paris

'We will come down hard on those who create the conditions for that narrative to flourish. And we will have greater confidence in – indeed, we will revel in – our way of life. Because if you walk our streets, learn in our schools, benefit from our society, you sign up to our values: freedom; tolerance; responsibility; loyalty.'

The choice on extremism was whether to 'appease the extremists or take apart their ideology, piece by piece', he said.

Mr Cameron identified tackling extremism as one of the 'big challenges of our age', along with poverty, social mobility and housing. He said the country was in the middle of a 'turnaround decade' in which he wanted to transform society, having built a strong economy.

His words on extremism will cause dismay among many Muslims, who feel they are being unfairly singled out.

In a speech on extremism in July, Mr Cameron warned that young Muslims may be turning to terrorism because they grow up in insular communities and have no 'allegiance' to this country. He said some young people are vulnerable to swallowing 'poisonous' propaganda.

Last year Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, claimed that as many as 2,000 Britons are fighting alongside Islamist militants in Syria and Iraq – at least three times the official estimate.


More than 70% of doctors struck off in Britain are trained abroad: Alarm over patient safety despite promises to overhaul competency exams three years ago

Three out of four doctors struck off the medical register in 2015 were trained abroad – the same figure as three years ago – despite promises to toughen up competency tests, MailOnline can reveal.

In 2012 the General Medical Council (GMC) vowed to act when it emerged those who qualified overseas were five times more likely to be struck off than British graduates.

But new figures obtained via a MailOnline Freedom of Information request show little has changed, renewing fears that foreign doctors are not up to scratch.

The investigation will add weight to growing concerns about patient safety, which has again come under the spotlight in recent weeks following a controversial change in EU rules.

A new system will allow thousands of European doctors and nurses to come to the UK to work without vital checks being carried out on their qualification and safety.

Critics have said the change shows a 'scandalous disregard' for patients – and regulators warn they will be unable to protect the public from unsafe health workers.

Meanwhile, the Mail's FOI revealed that, among doctors already working in Britain, 273 of the 374 struck off for misconduct or incompetence in the past five years were foreign-trained, while 66 of the 85 removed from the medical register in 2014 received their medical degree overseas.

So far this year 48 of the 68 doctors who have been struck off were trained abroad. With only one-third of the 270,000 doctors on the medical register trained outside the UK, it means those from overseas are still five times more likely to be struck off than their British qualified counterparts.

Three years ago, after similar figures were revealed, the GMC promised to introduce measures to ensure foreign doctors faced a more rigorous assessment.

But MailOnline understands plans for a new, national licensing exam were put on hold when the row erupted over junior doctors’ contracts. There is no timeline on its introduction, although as an interim measure the GMC has said a tougher assessment for international medical graduates will be launched next year.

Nevertheless, the chairman of the British International Doctors Association (BIDA) was adamant such a measure would not solve the problem.

Dr Chandra Kanneganti instead pointed the finger at a ‘subconscious’ belief among patients that foreign doctors have had inferior training to their UK counterparts.

He told MailOnline: 'It's not racism, it's just the impression people have.

'Also, you often get many different doctors treating a patient, so if a mistake happens an Asian doctor may get singled out for complaint just because of this subconscious bias [that he or she is not as well qualified].'

Dr Kanneganti added: 'It's not about new doctors arriving in the UK because there aren't any coming. Between 2011 and 2014 the number of doctors coming from India alone dropped by 70 per cent because visa rules were made stricter.

Almost 11,000 European doctors and nurses were granted permission to work in the NHS last year and numbers are steadily rising because the health service is so understaffed.

But there are already concerns about existing EU rules which prevent them being tested on speaking English because this could impede their 'freedom of movement' rights.

Regulators can only request certificates stating EU workers have already passed English tests – whereas those applying from elsewhere in the world face rigorous exams.

Experts say the new passports – European Professional Cards – will jeopardise patient safety even further.

Rory Gray, whose 70-year-old father David died at the hands of Daniel Ubani, a German GP with poor English and limited medical knowledge, said: 'It is a scandalous disregard for people's lives... Instead of trying to strengthen the checks necessary to protect patients, the EU has made them even more weak and non-existent.'

Niall Dickson, of doctors' regulator the General Medical Council, said the new rules 'would further jeopardise our ability to protect patients'.

A GP in Romania, for example, will apply via Romanian authorities, who will have just two months to verify he genuinely has the training and experience he claims to have – and that this is sufficient for the UK.

They should check whether he has been suspended for poor care or other wrongdoing, but there is no legal requirement to this. If the deadline is missed, doctors and nurses will be issued a passport automatically.

'It's not people coming the last three years, it's those who have been practising here a while [who are being struck off].'

But despite suggesting the problem was linked to more experienced doctors rather than newly-trained ones, Dr Kanneganti insisted a regular competence test was not necessary.

He said: 'There are already procedures in place to identify knowledge gaps and address them so I don't think there needs to be blanket competency tests every ten years.'

The challenge for the BIDA and the GMC, Dr Kanneganti believes, is demonstrating to the public that foreign-trained doctors are as good as British doctors.

'We have the same skills and knowledge. It's about showing patients there is no difference in the treatment they receive, regardless of a doctor's race and colour,' he said.

BIDA’s vice-chairman agreed about ‘subconscious bias’ but Dr Umesh Prabhu, who trained in India, attributed it to ‘white decision-makers’ in the health service and branded the NHS ‘institutionally racist’.

‘There are other complex reasons, like poor training, cultural differences, communication problems, poor support for BME doctors at early stages and poor induction,’ he added.

When asked whether the figures showed the GMC had failed in its attempts to address the problem, Roger Goss of campaign group Patient Concern told MailOnline 'the figures speak for themselves'.

To practise in the UK, doctors currently have to pass exams testing their medical knowledge and English language skills.

But a study published last year concluded that the pass mark was set too low – and insisted that foreign doctors who pass are not up to the same standard as newly-trained doctors in Britain.

Researchers at University College London and the University of Cambridge found that international graduates got substantially lower marks in exams for would-be GPs and physicians.

Foreign doctors must pass an English language test and the GMC's Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board (PLAB) test, designed to ensure that overseas doctors demonstrate the same level of medical knowledge and clinical skills as UK graduates who have completed their first foundation training year.

Researchers said that raising the exam pass mark 'considerably' – by up to 20 per cent – would ensure both sets of doctors were of a similar standard.

But they also warned this would cut the pass rate and could cause a shortage of candidates for the NHS, which is heavily reliant on foreign medical staff.

Around one in three doctors registered with the GMC qualified in other countries, with 25 per cent obtaining their medical degree from outside the European Economic Area.

Earlier this year a study revealed that male doctors are two-and-a-half times more likely to be sued for medical negligence or face being struck off than their women peers.

It also showed the GMC had seen a 64 per cent increase in complaints between 2010 and 2013.

Niall Dickson, Chief Executive of the General Medical Council, said: ‘Doctors coming to the UK from overseas make a huge contribution to our health service and the vast majority provide safe and compassionate care for their patients.

'It's important that these doctors are given the support to enable them to adapt to UK practice and it is fair to say that in the past not enough has been done to help them.

'However in the small number of cases where doctors fall short of our standards it is right that we take action to protect patients, as these figures show that we do.

'We are strengthening the assessment which we set for international medical graduates before they practise in the UK.

'A new version of this test will be launched next year. Beyond this we want to introduce a standard assessment which both international and UK medical graduates will have to take before they treat patients in this country.

'We want to create a system in which all doctors meet the same standard, regardless of where they qualified.'

On the allegation of 'institutional racism' within the NHS, a Department of Health spokesperson said: 'One of the great strengths of the NHS workforce has always been its diversity.

'Any form of discrimination - including racism - is absolutely unacceptable.

'The NHS has strong mechanisms in place to address discrimination, and any staff who experience it should raise it immediately with their manager or trust's leadership team.'


Muslim teenagers set Christmas tree on fire in New Year’s Eve rampage in Brussels

A VIDEO of teenagers lighting a petrol bomb under a Christmas tree while yelling “Allahu Akbar” has sparked outrage in Belgium.

The incident occurred in a square near the Clemenceau metro station in Anderlecht, in the Belgian capital Brussels, on New Year’s Eve.

In the video, originally uploaded to Facebook and later posted to Liveleak, a group of people approach the tree before one throws an object underneath.

Seconds later an explosion can be heard, and the tree is quickly engulfed in flames. As they run away, the teens can be heard yelling “Allahu Akbar”.

The original uploader, named as Mohamed Amine in the video description, has since taken down his Facebook page.

Brussels residents took to Facebook to express their outrage. “Today they will set fire to a Christmas tree, tomorrow they will behead a Christian,” wrote one man.

“When they celebrate Ramadan nobody bothers then, so why do they attack the beliefs of others?” another said. “We will not stop celebrating the birth of Jesus.”

One man said he was “shocked by what I saw last night in Brussels”.

“Brussels is no longer a free city,” he wrote. “Anyone who has ever had the opportunity to travel abroad may realise that the situation in Brussels is neither normal nor tenable in the long-term.

“Brussels will die economically, socially and touristically, especially if no drastic policy is conducted within 10 years. I am very serious.”

One man described the attack as an “act of racism [and an] attack [on] our customs”, while another said: “The only solution is to return foreign offenders to their country with a good ass-kicking.”

It followed a second video taken on the same evening showing a gang of youths pushing a car down an escalator of the Clemenceau metro station.

The car crashed on its side while shocked riders watched from an adjoining escalator, as the youths run away swearing and yelling. No one was injured but train services were suspended for the rest of the evening

One of the youths was arrested, local news site HLN reported. It is not known whether it is same group of youths in both videos.

Brussels MP Jamal Ikazban hit out at the both the perpetrators and security services on his Facebook page, The Daily Mail reported. “I have a thought for the person who wakes up quietly this January 1 and finds out that his car is in the subway,” he said.

“It is not only not funny, but what is the most frightening it is to imagine that it is possible to take a car in the underground despite the warnings of level 3 AND 4, the presence of the military, the many cameras.

“Let us imagine for a moment that same car full of explosives in the subway and you will understand that we are entitled to ask ourselves the question of the effectiveness of all these new security measures.”

Belgium has been on high alert since the Paris attacks, and the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek in particular has been singled out as the terror capital of Europe and a breeding ground of extremists.


Muslim leaders including the Grand Mufti of Australia back fatwa against Islamic State

They're panicking about a backlash.  Other Islamic states -- particularly Saudi Arabia -- are also brutal. Why no condemnation of them?

Saudi Arabia, a Muslim country operating under Sharia law, whips rape VICTIMS and only gives them pardons if there's a major international outcry.  Saudi Arabia also amputates the hands of thieves.  Pakistan, another Muslim country, executes atheists under its notorious blasphemy laws.  The Iranian "Happy Video" dancers were sentenced to 91 lashes and prison time for recording their video.  In Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Afghanistan homosexuality is an executable offense.

Australia's leading imams have backed a fatwa against the Islamic State terrorist group, warning that any support for the group contradicts Islamic teachings.

In a New Year message to the nation's Muslim community, the Grand Mufti of Australia together with prominent imams from NSW and Victoria have given their religious opinions and urged congregations, particularly the youth, to listen to their religious leaders.

The Grand Mufti, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, who is the leading representative of Australia's Sunni Islamic scholars,  said "most Islamic Legal Circles and Fatwa Boards have condemned ISIS, declaring that Islam is innocent of all these barbaric actions despite ISIS using the term Islamic in its name. The term 'Islamic State' has been usurped by ISIS," he said, using one of several acronyms for IS.

 "We stand with all organisations that have condemned ISIS and declared innocence from its inhumane actions.

"Locally we would like to bring to the attention of our youth, and those who lead them, that ISIS is a trick designed to prey on youth, either by their being killed or locked up in prison. We doubt the origins of ISIS because since it was established it has not done one thing for the benefit of Islam and Muslims. Rather its actions and barbaric acts have been against the way of God," he said.

"Therefore we warn our youth regarding the deceitful propaganda that ISIS uses through social media such as Facebook and Twitter. We remind our youth in Australia that social media and the medium of the internet cannot be a trusted means regarding religious knowledge."

Dr Mohamed's comments come as Muslim leaders around the world, including 70,000 clerics in India, have issued a fatwa against terrorist groups including ISIS and after the Australian National Imams Consultative Forum released a document, Australian Muslim perspective on some key contemporary concerns, addressing religious issues raised by IS's activities and recruitment.

The document examines dozens of issues from citizenship in Australia and Islam, to jihad, and makes statements backed by more than 20 Australian imams against slavery, suicide, and foreign fighting. It bluntly states that the so-called caliphate in Syria and Iraq, as proclaimed by IS is not legitimate and therefore Australian Muslims have no ­obligation to follow its dictates.

Sheikh Mohamadu Saleem, of the Board of Imams in Victoria, also had a New Year message for the community, saying that violent extremism is neither religious nor Islamic.

"We condemn and deplore ISIS's violent propaganda that is perpetrated against innocent civilians in the name of Islam as the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: 'Harm is neither inflicted nor tolerated in Islam.'"

He said that "ISIS is trying to justify 'violence against innocent civilians' by interpreting texts of the Koran and hadiths, statements of Muhammad 'cherry-picked and out of context' to suit their violent actions. Majority of the leading scholars and Islamic organisations have vehemently denounced ISIS for its illegitimate and misleading propaganda." 

Sheikh Yahya Safi, the imam at Australia's biggest mosque in Lakemba, said: "I stand with the Islamic scholars from around the world who have condemned the actions of ISIS that contradict the teachings of Islam and I have stressed this on many occasions, especially in my Friday sermons."

Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilali, the former grand mufti of Australia, has also warned that IS is like a trap that had tricked people and countries.

"Joining them is a type of madness that does not concord with the teachings of any religion. I warn the Muslim youths from all over the world against joining ISIS or supporting them in any way," Sheikh Hilali said.

"Joining such a group or supporting it contradicts the Islamic teachings 100 per cent, because this group is clear in breach of the Islamic teachings."



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

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

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


3 January, 2016

More multiculturalism in Britain
A man who was stabbed to death days after Christmas has been named as Dr Jeroen Ensink, a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Dr Ensink, 41, was found suffering from stab wounds following an incident in Hilldrop Crescent, Islington, north London, on December 28. He was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after 1.50pm.

His colleagues have paid tribute to the "popular" public health lecturer, saying he will be "greatly missed".

Professor Peter Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "We are deeply shocked and saddened by the death of Jeroen Ensink. "Jeroen was passionately committed to a simple cause: improving access to water and sanitation in countries where children continue to die needlessly due to the lack of these basic services."

Dr Ensink joined the school almost a decade ago, and at the time of his death he was was leading a large study in the Democratic Republic of Congo to understand how improvements in water supply could control and prevent cholera outbreaks.

Prof Piot added: "He was a natural educator and immensely popular with students in whom he invested much time and energy; he provided support and inspiration in equal measure and many of his students are now successful researchers and public health professionals in their own right.

"Jeroen will be greatly missed by all the staff and students who had the opportunity to know and work with him, and the legacy of his work will continue in Asia and Africa. "Our deepest condolences go to his family and friends."

Timchang Nandap, 22, of Pett Street, Woolwich, south-east London, has been charged with Dr Ensink's murder. He appeared at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court today, and was remanded in custody to appear at the Old Bailey on January 4, Scotland Yard said.


Comment from Gavin McInnes

A doctor is stabbed to death by an African Muslim refugee and the  BBC lists the murderer as, “a 22-year-old.”

They don’t say his real name, Timchang Nandap, until the very end of the article and they don’t say anything about his race, religion, or immigration status because they’re scared TMI might generate hatred. They think we can’t handle the truth but they’re the ones too scared to say what happened.

A quick Google and we find this video. Very likely him. Turns out he’s from Nigeria. They’re Muslim. This is shot from Nigeria in 2014 so he must have just come over.

There’s a huge story here about charity and immigration and at the very least, an interesting juxtaposition but the BBC is a neutered robot who gives you a tenth of the news while cowering behind a giant wall of pussified media rules.

Why did Britain take this family in?


Karma: Black Lives Matter Thug Killed in Ironic Twist

by Kevin Jackson (who is black)

Karma is a bitch, and karma returned on to Daquan Westbrook.

You may not recognize the name, but Westbrook is an Obama-sanctioned black thug plaguing America. He is also a noted black racist.

The aspiring rapper who goes by the Twitter handle @Donkey_cartel (yes, I’m sure he was indeed a Democrat) once tweeted:

“Black is BACK White is WACK Wack a Cracker #2015,”

A follow up tweet later in December of last year read:

“Im Racist I Don’t Like White People 100?

Westbrook, 18, was the teen shot in the North Carolina mall by mall security and off-duty police officer.

According to his mother, Sheana Shirley told WSOC her son was shopping for her a Christmas present. He had just asked his mother her shoe size, when he bumped into a rival gang member who had shot his older brother in the head, according to Shirley.

This is just another reminder that #BlackLivesMatter, as one young black man wanted to shoot another young black man who had shot another young black man.

The irony? It was a white cop who put the whole thing to rest. And as one report put it, “…thankfully there were lots of witnesses.” In other words, black idiots have no reason to protest the cop shooting this black thug, since there were too many white folks who can cry foul!

I’m sure somebody misses this racist piece of crap, but not me. I’m sick of him and the people who glorify his lifestyle. But you can bet that Liberals will try to make him a martyr. After all, he was Christmas shopping for his mother. So what he was packing heat, and then decided to put many people in harm’s way, by trying to shoot a man at the mall, right?

Americans are tired of hearing the excuses for bad behavior; thugocracy. It’s time the good guys win, and in this case, America wins. A man who could be this callous is a menace to society.


It's time to grow up and end gender politics, Jane Fynes-Clinton writes

A good Australian article from 2012:

GENERALISATIONS about either sex, particularly when used in the political debate, are demeaning to all and cloud the real issues.

WE WOULD expect our children to behave better. If the kiddies picked on one another in such a way, right-minded parents would scold them, explaining that we are progressive and civilised and this is simply not an acceptable way to behave.

Reasonable people don't call one another names just for being boys or girls - surely?

But when the heat is on, at times when we should be most adult, too many resort to name-calling and using undertones that are built around gender even when it is not appropriate to do so.

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman did it on Tuesday at the Budget Estimates hearing. Irritated at pestering questions by Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk, he suggested she was "being cute".

A look at Prime Minister Julia Gillard's Facebook page reveals the much-publicised hammering she got in a question-and-answer session earlier in the week was not isolated.

References early yesterday morning included one poster wanting the PM to make them dinner; and another for her to get back on her broomstick. And many other such predictable, gender-based barbs.

Drunken footballers on "mad Monday" called out lewd sexual things. And whether or not the comments were directed at female journalists, and an inquiry found they were not, they were still sexist and demeaning.

Women are no better. They can be as savagely sexist and poisonous as men. They generalise about men being emotionally unavailable, domestically lazy and obsessed with sex.

But gender generalisations are holding us all back and often clouding the real issues that are in urgent need of exploration.

While some men will say the Canterbury Bulldogs' rugby league team carry-on was "just what footy blokes do", many abhor the lack of respect it showed.

And many women are shocked that men are looked at with suspicion when they are alone around small children and reject generalisations about them being knuckle-draggers or meatheads.

We should never make general judgments about the opposite gender by the behaviour of its worst examples.

And that is the point - while evidence abounds of the most basic of gender stereotypes being wheeled out and put on display increasingly regularly lately, not all men are the same and neither are all women.

There is talk that Newman and federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott are "not liked by women", as if women are an indivisible mass with one opinion, one mind and one vote.

It is as if women seek the most female-friendly candidate and vote for them, without thought on policy or principle.

The situation is no more advanced in the US, with the same debate going on, but with different players. The man who wants Barack Obama's job, Mitt Romney, is cast as not being popular with women, but is blessed with a wife who will speak up for him and has proved popular with the public (sound familiar?).

Isn't it all a bit primitive? Doesn't that broad grouping demean women in particular and society in general?

The key to understanding society is not, and has never been, as simple as herding women or men together and stereotyping them. The spectrum of views and interests in each gender is increasingly broad and varied.

But that seems forgotten in debates where generalisations are convenient.

We do not help the issue by cutting the cloth to fit the model. We accept sexist jokes from, say, a group of girlfriends, but not from our boss.

Man and women reach for and use the sexist button when it suits us - not unlike Labor, which has relentlessly targeted Abbott over having a so-called problem with women, but then on Tuesday baulked at giving the disgraced and disgraceful texter Peter Slipper the boot.

If the Alan Jones drama this week taught us anything, it's that bad behaviour is not sexist just because it involves people of a different gender.

Insensitivity and nasty comments, such as those Jones made about Gillard and her dad, are just rude. In his case, gender does not come into it, but in that case was an obvious weapon to reach for.

If sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, framing all arguments in terms of gender is the basest form of understanding.

So, excluding Alan Jones and most of the Federal Parliament, let's get serious about developing a vestige of civility, put down the gender card and get on with growing up.

This is no sandpit and we are no longer little boys and girls.


How Islam is Psychologically Toxic

"A traditional Islamic upbringing resembles classical brainwashing methods"

Some people object to even talking about “Muslims” or “Muslim culture” as a group, because doing so, they claim, deindividualizes and stereotypes them. “Stop making it about ‘us’ versus ‘them,’” a few readers of this column complain.

However, it’s an observed fact that Muslims, as a group, are responsible for nearly all of the organized, ideologically based violence in today’s world. As a movement, they are the ones who have set the terms of “us” versus “them.” Their organized movement faces little or no moderate opposition, from within, against the extremists who call for worldwide murder and/or enslavement of anyone who disagrees. Like it or not, that’s what we’re dealing with in the real world today.

If we wish to survive in life as we know it, we have to understand why this is. If we censor certain thoughts or ideas as politically incorrect or otherwise insensitive, and therefore outside the realm of intellectual consideration, then we run the risk of not understanding what we’re confronting, nor why we’re confronting it.  How rational is that? How “liberal,” enlightened or safe is that?

Consider the following, from “How Islam Creates Sociopaths” [israelnationalnews.com 10/4/15], an interesting study done by Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels:

"Nobody is born a mass murderer, a rapist or a violent criminal. So what is it in the Muslim culture that influences their children in a way that makes so relatively many Muslims harm other people?"

Kudos to Sennels for even asking the question. Because things have reached a point in our so-called quest for knowledge that certain questions might never be asked, much less explored.

The psychology field should be at the forefront of launching such an investigation into the social and psychological dynamics of Islam; instead, at psychologytoday.com and elsewhere, we’re greeted with diatribes against political candidate Ben Carson for suggesting that Islam might not be the best ideology for world peace.

They call for diversity and multiculturalism, without any attempt to grasp what gives rise to all these beheadings, skyscraper-topplings, toddler-bomb-strappings, hostage-takings and everything else Islamic we have been reading about for decades now. Same old stale, unhelpful and anti-intellectual garbage.

To understand something, especially something involved in the creation of evil, is to risk offending it. Evil and irrational people are usually quite cranky. You risk offending Nazis by trying to understand what animates such an ideology. The same applies to Islam. If you don’t like this fact, then you’re due to get over it.

Sennels goes on:

"As a psychologist in a Danish youth prison, I had a unique chance to study the mentality of Muslims. 70 percent of youth offenders in Denmark have a Muslim background. I was able to compare them with non-Muslim clients from the same age group with more or less the same social background. I came to the conclusion that Islam and Muslim culture have certain psychological mechanisms that harm people’s development and increase criminal behavior."

Word of caution: People are, in the end, determined by their thoughts and ideas. It’s thoughts and ideas that determine how people feel, act, and make choices, not their cultures.

Circumstances, including culture, are important, but not the final and determining factor. We’re all exposed to certain ideas via parents, family, schools, and other cultural institutions or media; it’s whether or why we accept those ideas, that counts.

Brainwashing people into believing or doing things against their own human nature — such as hating or even killing innocents they do not even know — is traditionally done by combining two things: pain and repetition. The conscious infliction of psychological and physical suffering breaks down the person’s resistance to the constantly repeated message.

Totalitarian regimes use this method to reform political dissidents. Armies in less civilized countries use it to create ruthless soldiers, and religious sects all over the world use it to fanaticize their followers.

This is key. Islam promotes and even requires the existence of totalitarian governments to enforce the ideology. The totalitarian government is part of the ideology. These governments are able to enforce rules at gunpoint.

Imagine a conservative Christian government controlling all media and personal behavior in America. You could be jailed or murdered for choosing to have an abortion, for using birth control, for having sex outside of marriage or for engaging in homosexual sex. That, and much more, is what Muslims are up against. Yet they are not total victims. While not all Muslims may support everything about their totalitarian governments, those totalitarian governments are based on the religion to which the vast majority of them subscribe. In a very real sense, they asked for it.

Muslim culture [Sennels continues] simply does not have the same degree of understanding of human development as in civilized societies, and physical pain and threats are therefore often the preferred tool to raise children. This is why so many Muslim girls grow up to accept violence in their marriages, and why Muslim boys grow up to learn that violence is acceptable. And it is the main reason why nine out of ten children removed from their parents by authorities in Copenhagen are from immigrant families. The Muslim tradition of using pain and intimidation as part of disciplining children is also widely used in Muslim schools — also in the West.

The basic issue here is reason. All parents must set limits on their children and keep them from running free or unrestrained. It’s a question of degree, but also of philosophy. If your basic approach is reason-oriented, you set limits on children so they will grow up into thinking, independent and self-responsible adults with minds of their own. Intellectual and psychological independence is the goal of reason-based parenting; indoctrination is the goal of dogmatic and authoritarian parenting, and there is nothing more dogmatic or authoritarian on earth, at present, than Islam.

According to this study, reason is obviously not the dominant idea in Islamic cultures. In fact, reason does not appear to be present at all. It’s not that Muslim parents are basically reason-oriented with conservative tendencies; it’s that brutality and force are all they know, or perhaps what they believe is ideal.

Given how most parents in such cultures treat and view their own children, what makes us think there’s any hope for them viewing the children of “infidels” in lands their religion has trained them to hate any more positively? Those people prattling on about, “Stop making it about us versus them,” are completely (and I think willfully) ignorant of the fact that the dominant majority of people in such cultures have already made it about “us versus them.”

If the totalitarian regimes ruling places like Iran did not have the support of most of the people, that would be one thing. Free countries would have the option of waiting out the dictatorship, and even providing underground support to pro-freedom elements who existed in that country. While such rebellious or even more secular elements undoubtedly exist in Iran, they have not been strong enough to overcome the totalitarian regime, most likely because the widespread support for them has not been there. Our own American government, particularly since the Obama administration, who actually sides with the totalitarian regime over and above any rebellious elements, is partly to blame as well.

Not only does a traditional Islamic upbringing resemble classical brainwashing methods, but also, the culture it generates cultivates psychological characteristics that further enable and increase violent behavior.

Starting with Islamic youth, Sennels boils it down to four mental factors enabling the cause of aggression and violence. These factors are anger;  lack of self-confidence;  no sense of responsibility for oneself; and  intolerance.

Anger and lack of self-responsibility are key. These two factors, in turn, fuel the lack of self-confidence and tolerance which follow in most Islamic cultures.

Take anger. Sennels makes a fascinating and insightful point:

"When it comes to anger, Western societies widely agree that it is a sign of weakness. Uncontrolled explosions of this unpleasant feeling are maybe the fastest way of losing face, especially in Northern countries, and though angry people may be feared, they are never respected. In Muslim culture, anger is much more accepted, and being able to intimidate people is seen as strength and source of social status".

In other words, Islamic children grow up with the idea that anger is a show of strength. Most Americans come from the opposite perspective, as Sennels says. As a result, they mistakenly conclude that, “If we just show our strength by not being angry, this will calm the Muslims down.” This tactic will usually work when dealing with individuals or groups where the dominant attitude about anger is the same. But not with people in Islamic cultures, because the dominant attitudes in that group are that anger is strength, not weakness. When, for reasons of political correctness, moral cowardice, misplaced pacifism or whatever else, we respond to their violence with calm, rational “turn the other cheek” sorts of measures, they feel contempt and no respect whatsoever for us– thereby leading them to strike out more.

Consider self-responsibility. Sennels states,

"…here the psychological phenomenon “locus of control” plays a major role. People raised by Western standards generally have an inner locus of control, meaning that they experience their lives as governed by inner factors, such as one’s own choices, world view, ways of handling emotions and situations, etc. Muslims are raised to experience their lives as being controlled from the outside".

It’s impossible to exaggerate what a profound difference such an attitude makes. That’s why Bush’s Iraq war was, in the end, such a miserable failure. We’re taking it for granted that all human beings think, act and feel the same way. “If we only liberate them, they will exercise self-initiative, thinking and acting for themselves.” Not everyone wants to do this, or even believes it’s an option.

With regard to Islam, these attitudes are the precise opposite of everything the religion and culture stands for. You’d have to be a total and complete turncoat against Islam to have any sympathy for such an ideal. Yet all of our leaders – left and right – take it for granted that eventually it will all work out. In the meantime, the violence and danger only grows, as ISIS spreads its influence.

Keep in mind that ISIS is not merely a military movement. It’s at root an ideological and psychological one. It appeals to the grass roots. ISIS exists and grows because it appeals to the hearts and minds of Muslim people everywhere. Its attitudes, ideals and values are the polar opposite of everything that have always been the dominant attitudes in America – self-control, self-responsibility, individualism. These values require freedom, not subservience.

When most Muslims are confronted with freedom, it makes them realize that what you’re really talking about are self-control, reason, independence and individualism. These frighten them on a level most of us will never comprehend. And, because of their cultural attitudes about violence, it sends them into a rage, as a show of strength against their own inner fear. ISIS stands ready and waiting, particularly with younger people, to convert that rage into political and military action on a scale that—left free to grow—could make Nazi Germany look like a day at the beach.

Keep in mind that at the root of most rage and hatred is the emotion of fear. People who have internalized the values and beliefs dominant in Islamic culture hate rationality, capitalism, Westernism and science precisely because they are effective.

The very existence of our advanced, rational system of life rains on their whole mystical, deterministic and fatalistic world view. The result is fear, then rage, then militant action (because angry action is viewed as strength). That explains why advocates of Islam are not merely content to counterattack Americans for their presence in the Middle East; they are determined to go on the offensive, destroy America, and decimate all Western values, at all costs. That’s what Islamic totalitarianism is all about, according to every single word and action of its movement’s representatives.

I agree with people who say that in order to defeat an enemy like militant Islam, we first have to understand it. But the more we look honestly and objectively at what Islam is really about –in actual cultural practice, and in psychological characteristics, not only theoretical ideology—the more we’re forced to confront an ideology more at odds with any version of Americanism/ freedom/ secular individualism than has ever existed. As bad as Nazism and Communism were, militant Islam may be the ultimate and complete inversion of all that made America what it was, and (though starting to fade) still essentially is. They’re forcing us to come to terms with our values and ideals by attempting to systematically destroy them.

Like it or not, Islam is making it about “us” versus “them.” They’re forcing us to decide: Do you really want to live as happy, free, and always materially progressing on earth? Or do you want to denounce those values altogether?

You’re either with them or against them. That’s not me saying it; they are saying it. Those are the terms they have set, not those of us who disagree with them.

Remember that as events continue to play out in the months and years to come. Understand what you’re up against; otherwise it will devour you.



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

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

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


2 January, 2016

Are Australians still favorably disposed towards multiculturalism despite Muslim antics?

The article below relies a lot on a report from the Scanlon Foundation, a do-gooder outfit, so may not be entirely trustworthy.  In particular, the question asked to assess attitude to immigrants was pretty dumb:  "Accepting immigrants from many different countries makes Australia stronger".  The obvious response is "Which countries?".  Syria, Iran, Iraq?

I personally would agree that immigration from East Asia and the various countries of Europe has been beneficial but I can see no similar benefit of immigration from fanatically Muslim lands or from crime-riddled African lands.  I very much doubt that I am alone in that.  All immigrants are not the same, hard to acknowledge though that may be to the Left

I also note that the survey was done the lazy way -- over the telephone.  Such surveys are widely used but can be wildly inaccurate.  In my own survey research I usually trudged from door to door to ask my questions. I believe I may be the only academic who has ever done so. Academics much prefer armchairs to dusty shoes. So again, I rather doubt the results.  They could well be much too high

It is however true that Australians tend to be a relaxed and easy-going people so they may well be more accepting of immigrants than some others

Australia has had three terrorist attacks over the past year and this month former prime minister Tony Abbott preached to the Muslim world that it must become “enlightened”. Yet the country sticks out from others fighting Islamist extremism as most of its population strongly support multiculturalism and legal immigration.

Neil El-Kadomi, Parramatta Mosque chairman, says the local non-Muslim community have largely remained supportive. A recent protest by far-right group Reclaim Australia outside the mosque drew just a handful of protesters. “It shows just what a small minority this is,” he says. “We have integrated well into the community.”

A recent survey by the Scanlon Foundation shows 86 per cent of people say multiculturalism has been “good for Australia”, while 67 per cent say immigration has “made the country stronger” — the highest level recorded since the survey was introduced in 2007.

[That's a barefaced lie.  According to Table 9 in the Scanlon report, it was higher in 2009 and 2014.  Pesky of me to look up the original figures, isn't it?  I have always found that fun]

“This is the reverse of the trend you see in Europe now, where the National Front and Ukip are gaining sizeable support,” says Andrew Markus, a professor at Monash University in Victoria.

It is not hard to see why Australia is more accepting of different cultures. A quarter of the country’s 23m population were born overseas, which makes it one of the world’s most multicultural nations, with more than double the proportion of immigrants than either the UK or Germany.

“Australians accept they are a new country made up of immigrants, whereas Europe with its older cultures does not,” says Prof Markus.

He says in Europe multiculturalism has been interpreted by political leaders as immigrant groups retaining their own cultures and rejecting integration. In Australia it is now understood to mean respect for different cultures while integrating into mainstream society, says Prof Markus.

It was not always this way. Australia introduced its “White Australia” policy at the turn of the 20th century to deter an increasing flow of migrants from Asia. This policy was gradually dismantled following the second world war, and in 1975 the government under Gough Whitlam passed the race discrimination act, which outlawed racially based selection for migrants.
chart: foreign-born population

Since then there has been sporadic racial unrest such as the 2005 Cronulla riots, when clashes broke out between members of the Middle Eastern community and white Australians. More recently, the far-right group Reclaim Australia has held demonstrations to campaign against what it dubs “Islam’s radicals”. But there is little sign of any far-right political party gaining the type of electoral support that would give it real influence.

Australia’s tight control of its borders and its role as colony rather than a colonial power are two underlying reasons why support for immigration remains high, according to some experts.

Tim Soutphommasane, Australia’s racial discrimination commissioner, says the country benefits from being an island continent that has a planned intake of migrants, most of whom are skilled.

“You don’t have the problem here of migrants and their descendants feeling estranged from the country,” he says.

Australia’s strong economy, which has grown for 24 consecutive years, is another positive factor. Unemployment remains low at less than 6 per cent and there are fewer of the immigrant ghettos that blight parts of France and the UK.

“We don’t have the level of structural disadvantage attached to ethnicity that you see in some other countries,” says Kevin Dunn, professor of human geography and urban studies at Western Sydney University .

But he warns this positive picture of a multicultural life in Australia cannot be taken for granted. Muslims experience discrimination at about three times the rate of other Australians, according to a recent study Prof Dunn oversaw, and people are emboldened to perform racist actions due to terrorist events and divisive media and political commentary.

“It is the political environment that determines whether racism flourishes,” says Prof Dunn. “This is the biggest risk to multiculturalism.”


Obama behind worsening behavior by blacks and others

Events over the weekend make a reasonable person wonder whether the constant fraying of the social contract has finally created a tear that is rapidly becoming irreparable.

In malls across the country, thousands of people congregated, not for the purposes of shopping, going to a movie or simply enjoying each other’s company, but instead with the goal of disrupting people from using the already hard pressed brick and mortar stores for their intended purpose.

At Minneapolis’ Mall of America, the radical Black Lives Matter group even went so far as to feint a protest so there would be a heavy police presence, allowing them to shut down part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport during the height of the Christmas travel season.  Beyond the obvious problem that their actions caused hundreds of people to miss their flights home, they deliberately placed thousands at an additional risk of a terrorist attack due to distracted security.mall of america protest 2014

Mall disruptions also were reported in New Jersey, Kentucky and elsewhere around the country.  When combined with flash mob convenience store robberies and random assaults by mobs playing the “knockout game”, it would be hard to not notice that something is badly amiss.

Even our assumed driving rules are under attack.  On the Washington, D.C. Beltway, a group of approximately fifty motorcyclists caused a delay as they uniformly slowed down across all the lanes bringing traffic to a standstill. As they got moving again, they aggressively cut cars off from passing, and even went so far as to drive north bound up the south bound lanes.  There did not appear to be any political or other message in the motorcycle foolishness, but instead the mass act of civil disobedience seems to have been done just because they could. However, it reveals the fragility of our common understanding about the need to follow the rules.

While it is usually dangerous to draw broad societal assumptions based upon flash mobs at malls, roadways or even political protests blocking bridges, it is safe to note that these occurrences are becoming significantly more frequent.

And it is fair to tie this civil disobedience to President Obama’s continued attack on the law as a whole.  When the President doesn’t enforce the nation’s immigration laws, people naturally believe that if the law isn’t going to be enforced then it is null and void, and the fabric of our nation’s social contract is torn.

When Obama nullifies sentencing decisions for thousands of drug dealers and others, releasing them back into their former neighborhoods it sends a message that the system was wrong and the fabric tears a little more.

When Democrats in Congress urge Obama to use his pen and phone to circumvent Congress, they send a powerful message to their constituents that the rule of law doesn’t matter, and the tear grows.

And when the left and some on the right make those who seek to enforce the laws, targets for attack and murder, creating a schism of fear between the protector and the protected, the fabric itself becomes unrecognizable.

The social fabric that binds America together as one has always been fragile, and to complete the fundamental transformation that Obama strives to achieve, it must be torn asunder from top to bottom in a wholesale surrender of the current rule of law to another set of laws composed not through consent, compromise and agreement, but instead through forced acquiescence.

America should not worry about getting on a slippery slope away from rule by the consent of the governed, because we are already half-way down the slide and few have noticed.

As more and more people read the news and wonder what is happening to their country thinking that the craziness that seems to ooze from our government is an anomaly rather than the forced new normal under Obama, a ballot box response erupts if there is a trusted alternative.

Something to think about as we head into the presidential primary season.


What a politically incorrect interrogation program achieved

This post is originally from 2010 but the facts are still not widely known

    "As President George W. Bush's top speech writer, Marc Thiessen was provided unique access to the CIA program used in interrogating top Al Qaeda terrorists, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM)

    Now, his riveting new book, "Courting Disaster", How the CIA Kept America Safe (Regnery), has been published. Here is an excerpt from "Courting Disaster": "Just before dawn on March 1, 2003, two dozen heavily armed Pakistani tactical assault forces move in and surround a safe house in Rawalpindi. A few hours earlier they had received a text message from an informant inside the house. It read: "I am with KSM."

    Bursting in, they find the disheveled mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his bedroom. He is taken into custody. In the safe house, they find a treasure trove of computers, documents, cell phones and other valuable "pocket litter."

    Once in custody, KSM is defiant. He refuses to answer questions, informing his captors that he will tell them everything when he gets to America and sees his lawyer. But KSM is not taken to America to see a lawyer Instead he is taken to a secret CIA "black site" in an undisclosed location.

    Upon arrival, KSM finds himself in the complete control of Americans. He does not know where he is, how long he will be there, or what his fate will be.

    Despite his circumstances, KSM still refuses to talk. He spews contempt at his interrogators, telling them Americans are weak, lack resilience, and are unable to do what is necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals. He has trained to resist interrogation. When he is asked for information about future attacks, he tells his questioners scornfully: "Soon, you will know."

    It becomes clear he will not reveal the information using traditional interrogation techniques. So he undergoes a series of "enhanced interrogation techniques" approved for use only on the most high-value detainees. The techniques include waterboarding.

    His resistance is described by one senior American official as "superhuman." Eventually, however, the techniques work, and KSM becomes cooperative-for reasons that will be described later in this book.

    He begins telling his CIA de-briefers about active al Qaeda plots to launch attacks against the United States and other Western targets. He holds classes for CIA officials, using a chalkboard to draw a picture of al Qaeda's operating structure, financing, communications, and logistics. He identifies al Qaeda travel routes and safe havens, and helps intelligence officers make sense of documents and computer records seized in terrorist raids. He identifies voices in intercepted telephone calls, and helps officials understand the meaning of coded terrorist communications. He provides information that helps our intelligence community capture other high-ranking terrorists,

    KSM's questioning, and that of other captured terrorists, produces more than 6,000 intelligence reports, which are shared across the intelligence community, as well as with our allies across the world.

    In one of these reports, KSM describes in detail the revisions he made to his failed 1994-1995 plan known as the "Bojinka plot" to blow up a dozen airplanes carrying some 4,000 passengers over the Pacific Ocean.

    Years later, an observant CIA officer notices the activities of a cell being followed by British authorities appear to match KSM's description of his plans for a Bojinka-style attack.

    In an operation that involves unprecedented intelligence cooperation between our countries, British officials proceed to unravel the plot.

    On the night of Aug. 9, 2006 they launch a series of raids in a northeast London suburb that lead to the arrest of two dozen al Qaeda terrorist suspects. They find a USB thumb-drive in the pocket of one of the men with security details for Heathrow airport, and information on seven Trans-Atlantic flights that were scheduled to take off within hours of each other:

    * United Airlines Flight 931 to San Francisco departing at 2:15 p.M.;

    * Air Canada Flight 849 to Toronto departing at 3:00 p.M.;

    * Air Canada Flight 865 to Montreal departing at 3:15 p.M.;
    * United Airlines Flight 959 to Chicago departing at 3:40 p.M.;

    * United Airlines Flight 925 to Washington departing at 4:20 p.M.;

    * American Airlines Flight 131 to New York departing at 4:35 p.M.;

    * American Airlines Flight 91 to Chicago departing at 4:50 p.M.

    They seize bomb-making equipment and hydrogen peroxide to make liquid explosives. And they find the chilling martyrdom videos the suicide bombers had prepared."

    Today, if you asked an average person on the street what they know about the 2006 airlines plot, most would not be able to tell you much.

    Few Americans are aware of the fact al Qaeda had planned to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with an attack of similar scope and magnitude. And still fewer realize the terrorists' true intentions in this plot were uncovered thanks to critical information obtained through the interrogation of the man who conceived it: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

    This is only one of the many attacks stopped with the help of the CIA interrogation program established by the Bush Administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, CIA questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al Qaeda Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, intelligence officials say, well over half of the information our government had about al Qaeda-how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks-came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.

    Former CIA Director George Tenet has declared: "I know this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than what the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us." Former CIA Director Mike Hayden has said: "The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work."

    Even Barack Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has acknowledged: "High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." Leon Panetta, Obama's CIA Director, has said: "Important information was gathered from these detainees. It provided information that was acted upon.

    John Brennan, Obama's Homeland Security Advisor, when asked in an interview if enhanced-interrogation techniques were necessary to keep America safe, replied : "Would the U. S. be handicapped if the CIA was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities? I would say yes."

    On Jan. 22, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13491, closing the CIA program and directing that, henceforth, all interrogations by U. S. personnel must follow the techniques contained in the Army Field Manual.

    The morning of the announcement, Mike Hayden was still in his post as CIA Director, He called White House Counsel Greg Craig and told him bluntly: "You didn't ask, but this is the CIA officially non-concurring". The president went ahead anyway, over ruling the objections of the agency.

    A few months later, on April 16, 2009, President Obama ordered the release of four Justice Department memos that described in detail the techniques used to interrogate KSM and other high-value terrorists. This time, not just Hayden (who was now retired) but five CIA directors -including Obama's own director, Leon Panetta objected. George Tenet called to urge against the memos' release. So did Porter Goss. So did John Deutch. Hayden says: "You had CIA directors in a continuous unbroken stream to 1995 calling saying, 'Don't do this.'"

    In addition to objections from the men who led the agency for a collective 14 years, the President also heard objections from the agency's covert field operatives. A few weeks earlier, Panetta had arranged for the eight top officials of the Clandestine Service to meet with the President. It was highly unusual for these clandestine officers to visit the Oval Office, and they used the opportunity to warn the President that releasing the memos would put agency operatives at risk. The President reportedly listened respectfully-and then ignored their advice.

    With these actions, Barack Obama arguably did more damage to America's national security in his first 100 days of office than any President in American history.


How the language police are perverting liberalism

Jonathan Chait below seems to think you can have real liberalism on the Left.  All he does, however, is provide an enchiridion of that not being so

Around 2 a.m. on December 12, four students approached the apartment of Omar Mahmood, a Muslim student at the University of Michigan, who had recently published a column in a school newspaper about his perspective as a minority on campus. The students, who were recorded on a building surveillance camera wearing baggy hooded sweatshirts to hide their identity, littered Mahmood’s doorway with copies of his column, scrawled with messages like “You scum embarrass us,” “Shut the fuck up,” and “DO YOU EVEN GO HERE?! LEAVE!!” They posted a picture of a demon and splattered eggs.

This might appear to be the sort of episode that would stoke the moral conscience of students on a progressive campus like Ann Arbor, and it was quickly agreed that an act of biased intimidation had taken place. But Mahmood was widely seen as the perpetrator rather than the victim. His column, published in the school’s conservative newspaper, had spoofed the culture of taking offense that pervades the campus. Mahmood satirically pretended to denounce “a white cis-gendered hetero upper-class man” who offered to help him up when he slipped, leading him to denounce “our barbaric attitude toward people of left-handydnyss.” The gentle tone of his mockery was closer to Charlie Brown than to Charlie Hebdo.

The Michigan Daily, where Mahmood also worked as a columnist and film critic, objected to the placement of his column in the conservative paper but hardly wanted his satirical column in its own pages. Mahmood later said that he was told by the editor that his column had created a “hostile environment,” in which at least one Daily staffer felt threatened, and that he must write a letter of apology to the staff. When he refused, the Daily fired him, and the subsequent vandalism of his apartment served to confirm his status as thought-criminal.

The episode would not have shocked anybody familiar with the campus scene from two decades earlier. In 1992, an episode along somewhat analogous lines took place, also in Ann Arbor. In this case, the offending party was the feminist videographer Carol Jacobsen, who had produced an exhibition documenting the lives of sex workers. The exhibition’s subjects presented their profession as a form of self-empowerment, a position that ran headlong against the theories of Catharine MacKinnon, a law professor at the university who had gained national renown for her radical feminist critique of the First Amendment as a tool of male privilege. MacKinnon’s beliefs nestled closely with an academic movement that was then being described, by its advocates as well as its critics, as “political correctness.” Michigan had already responded to the demands of pro-p.c. activists by imposing a campuswide speech code purporting to restrict all manner of discriminatory speech, only for it to be struck down as a First Amendment violation in federal court.

In Ann Arbor, MacKinnon had attracted a loyal following of students, many of whom copied her method of argument. The pro-MacKinnon students, upset over the display of pornographic video clips, descended upon Jacobsen’s exhibit and confiscated a videotape. There were speakers visiting campus for a conference on prostitution, and the video posed “a threat to their safety,” the students insisted.

This was the same inversion of victim and victimizer at work last December. In both cases, the threat was deemed not the angry mobs out to crush opposing ideas, but the ideas themselves. The theory animating both attacks turns out to be a durable one, with deep roots in the political left.
Related Stories
Secret Confessions of the Anti-Anti-P.C. Movement

The recent mass murder of the staff members of Charlie Hebdo in Paris was met with immediate and unreserved fury and grief across the full range of the American political system. But while outrage at the violent act briefly united our generally quarrelsome political culture, the quarreling quickly resumed over deeper fissures. Were the slain satirists martyrs at the hands of religious fanaticism, or bullying spokesmen of privilege? Can the offensiveness of an idea be determined objectively, or only by recourse to the identity of the person taking offense? On Twitter, “Je Suis Charlie,” a slogan heralding free speech, was briefly one of the most popular news hashtags in history. But soon came the reactions (“Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie”) from those on the left accusing the newspaper of racism and those on the right identifying the cartoons as hate speech. Many media companies, including the New York Times, have declined to publish the cartoons the terrorists deemed offensive, a stance that has attracted strident criticism from some readers. These sudden, dramatic expressions of anguish against insensitivity and oversensitivity come at a moment when large segments of American culture have convulsed into censoriousness.

After political correctness burst onto the academic scene in the late ’80s and early ’90s, it went into a long remission. Now it has returned. Some of its expressions have a familiar tint, like the protesting of even mildly controversial speakers on college campuses. You may remember when 6,000 people at the University of California–Berkeley signed a petition last year to stop a commencement address by Bill Maher, who has criticized Islam (along with nearly all the other major world religions). Or when protesters at Smith College demanded the cancellation of a commencement address by Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, blaming the organization for “imperialist and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide.” Also last year, Rutgers protesters scared away Condoleezza Rice; others at Brandeis blocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a women’s-rights champion who is also a staunch critic of Islam; and those at Haverford successfully protested ­former Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who was disqualified by an episode in which the school’s police used force against Occupy protesters.

At a growing number of campuses, professors now attach “trigger warnings” to texts that may upset students, and there is a campaign to eradicate “microaggressions,” or small social slights that might cause searing trauma. These newly fashionable terms merely repackage a central tenet of the first p.c. movement: that people should be expected to treat even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses. Stanford recently canceled a performance of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson after protests by Native American students. UCLA students staged a sit-in to protest microaggressions such as when a professor corrected a student’s decision to spell the word indigenous with an uppercase I — one example of many “perceived grammatical choices that in actuality reflect ideologies.” A theater group at Mount Holyoke College recently announced it would no longer put on The Vagina Monologues in part because the material excludes women without vaginas. These sorts of episodes now hardly even qualify as exceptional.

Trigger warnings aren’t much help in actually overcoming trauma — an analysis by the Institute of Medicine has found that the best approach is controlled exposure to it, and experts say avoidance can reinforce suffering. Indeed, one professor at a prestigious university told me that, just in the last few years, she has noticed a dramatic upsurge in her students’ sensitivity toward even the mildest social or ideological slights; she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of triggering trauma — or, more consequentially, violating her school’s new sexual-harassment policy — merely by carrying out the traditional academic work of intellectual exploration. “This is an environment of fear, believe it or not,” she told me by way of explaining her request for anonymity. It reminds her of the previous outbreak of political correctness — “Every other day I say to my friends, ‘How did we get back to 1991?’?”

But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

It also makes money. Every media company knows that stories about race and gender bias draw huge audiences, making identity politics a reliable profit center in a media industry beset by insecurity. A year ago, for instance, a photographer compiled images of Fordham students displaying signs recounting “an instance of racial microaggression they have faced.” The stories ranged from uncomfortable (“No, where are you really from?”) to relatively innocuous (“?‘Can you read this?’ He showed me a Japanese character on his phone”). BuzzFeed published part of her project, and it has since received more than 2 million views. This is not an anomaly.

In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.

Two and a half years ago, Hanna Rosin, a liberal journalist and longtime friend, wrote a book called The End of Men, which argued that a confluence of social and economic changes left women in a better position going forward than men, who were struggling to adapt to a new postindustrial order. Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist critics, who found her message of long-term female empowerment complacent and insufficiently concerned with the continuing reality of sexism. One Twitter hashtag, “#RIPpatriarchy,” became a label for critics to lampoon her thesis. Every new continuing demonstration of gender discrimination — a survey showing Americans still prefer male bosses; a person noticing a man on the subway occupying a seat and a half — would be tweeted out along with a mocking #RIPpatriarchy.

Her response since then has been to avoid committing a provocation, especially on Twitter. “If you tweet something straight­forwardly feminist, you immediately get a wave of love and favorites, but if you tweet something in a cranky feminist mode then the opposite happens,” she told me. “The price is too high; you feel like there might be banishment waiting for you.” Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation. “You do immediately get the sense that it’s one against millions, even though it’s not.” Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw.

Political correctness is a term whose meaning has been gradually diluted since it became a flashpoint 25 years ago. People use the phrase to describe politeness (perhaps to excess), or evasion of hard truths, or (as a term of abuse by conservatives) liberalism in general. The confusion has made it more attractive to liberals, who share the goal of combating race and gender bias.

But political correctness is not a rigorous commitment to social equality so much as a system of left-wing ideological repression. Not only is it not a form of liberalism; it is antithetical to liberalism. Indeed, its most frequent victims turn out to be liberals themselves.

I am white and male, a fact that is certainly worth bearing in mind. I was also a student at the University of Michigan during the Jacobsen incident, and was attacked for writing an article for the campus paper defending the exhibit. If you consider this background and demographic information the very essence of my point of view, then there’s not much point in reading any further. But this pointlessness is exactly the point: Political correctness makes debate irrelevant and frequently impossible.

Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing. This has led to elaborate norms and terminology within certain communities on the left. For instance, “mansplaining,” a concept popularized in 2008 by Rebecca Solnit, who described the tendency of men to patronizingly hold forth to women on subjects the woman knows better — in Solnit’s case, the man in question mansplained her own book to her. The fast popularization of the term speaks to how exasperating the phenomenon can be, and mansplaining has, at times, proved useful in identifying discrimination embedded in everyday rudeness. But it has now grown into an all-purpose term of abuse that can be used to discredit any argument by any man. (MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry once disdainfully called White House press secretary Jay Carney’s defense of the relative pay of men and women in the administration “man­splaining,” even though the question he responded to was posed by a male.) Mansplaining has since given rise to “whitesplaining” and “straightsplaining.” The phrase “solidarity is for white women,” used in a popular hashtag, broadly signifies any criticism of white feminists by nonwhite ones.

If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called “tone policing.” If you are accused of bias, or “called out,” reflection and apology are the only acceptable response — to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous. A white person or a man can achieve the status of “ally,” however, if he follows the rules of p.c. dialogue. A community, virtual or real, that adheres to the rules is deemed “safe.” The extensive terminology plays a crucial role, locking in shared ideological assumptions that make meaningful disagreement impossible.

Nearly every time I have mentioned the subject of p.c. to a female writer I know, she has told me about Binders Full of Women Writers, an invitation-only Facebook group started last year for women authors. The name came from Mitt Romney’s awkwardly phrased debate boast that as Massachusetts governor he had solicited names of female candidates for high-level posts, and became a form of viral mockery. Binders was created to give women writers a “laid-back” and “no-pressure” environment for conversation and professional networking. It was an attempt to alleviate the systemic under­representation of women in just about every aspect of American journalism and literature, and many members initially greeted the group as a welcome and even exhilarating source of social comfort and professional opportunity. “Suddenly you had the most powerful women in journalism and media all on the same page,” one former member, a liberal journalist in her 30s, recalls.

Binders, however, soon found itself frequently distracted by bitter identity-­politics recriminations, endlessly litigating the fraught requirements of p.c. discourse. “This was the first time I had felt this new kind of militancy,” says the same member, who requested anonymity for fear that her opinions would make her employer uncomfortable. Another sent me excerpts of the types of discussions that can make the group a kind of virtual mental prison.

On July 10, for instance, one member in Los Angeles started a conversation urging all participants to practice higher levels of racial awareness. “Without calling anyone out specifically, I’m going to note that if you’re discussing a contentious thread, and shooting the breeze … take a look at the faces in the user icons in that discussion,” she wrote. “Binders is pretty diverse, but if you’re not seeing many WOC/non-binary POC in your discussion, it’s quite possible that there are problematic assumptions being stated without being challenged.” (“POC” stands for “people of color.” “WOC” means “women of color.” “Non-binary” describes people who are either transgender or identify as a gender other than traditionally male or female.)

Two members responded lightly, one suggesting that such “call-outs” be addressed in private conversation and another joking that she was a “gluten free Jewish WWC” — or Woman Without Color. This set off more jokes and a vicious backlash. “It seems appropriate to hijack my suggestion with jokes. I see,” the Los Angeles member replied. “Apparently whatever WOC have to say is good for snark and jokes,” wrote another. Others continued: “The level of belittling, derailing, crappy jokes, and all around insensitivity here is astounding and also makes me feel very unsafe in this Big Binder.” “It is literally fucking insane. I am appalled and embarrassed.”

The suggestion that a call-out be communicated privately met with even deeper rage. A poet in Texas: “I’m not about to private message folks who have problematic racist, transphobic, anti-immigrant, and/or sexist language.” The L.A. member: “Because when POC speak on these conversations with snark and upset, we get Tone Argumented at, and I don’t really want to deal with the potential harm to me and mine.” Another writer: “You see people suggesting that PMs are a better way to handle racism? That’s telling us we are too vocal and we should pipe down.” A white Toronto member, sensing the group had dramatically underreacted, moved to rectify the situation: “JESUS FUCK, LIKE SERIOUSLY FUCK, I SEE MORE WHITE BINDERS POLICING WOC AND DEMANDING TO BE EDUCATED/UNEDUCATED AS IF IT’S A FUCKING NOBLE MISSION RATHER THAN I DUNNO SPEND TIME SHUTTING DOWN AND SHITTING ON RACIST DOUCHE CANOE BEHAVIOUR; WHAT ARE YOU GAINING BY THIS? WHAT ARE YOU DETRACTING? YOU NEED SCREENCAPS OF BURNING CROSSES TO BELIEVE RACIST SHIT IS HAPPENING? THIS THREAD IS PAINFUL. HUGS TO ALL THE WOC DURING THIS THREAD”

Every free society, facing the challenge of balancing freedom of expression against other values such as societal cohesion and tolerance, creates its own imperfect solution. France’s is especially convoluted and difficult to parse: It allows for satire and even blasphemy (like cartoons that run in Charlie Hebdo) but not for speech that incites violence toward individuals (like provocative comments made by the comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala). This may appear to Americans as a distinction without a difference, but our distinctions are also confused, as is our way of talking about free speech as it overlaps with our politics.

The right wing in the United States is unusually strong compared with other industrialized democracies, and it has spent two generations turning liberal into a feared buzzword with radical connotations. This long propaganda campaign has implanted the misperception — not only among conservatives but even many liberals — that liberals and “the left” stand for the same things.

It is true that liberals and leftists both want to make society more economically and socially egalitarian. But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace. (So, for that matter, do most conservatives.)

The Marxist left has always dismissed liberalism’s commitment to protecting the rights of its political opponents — you know, the old line often misattributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” — as hopelessly naïve. If you maintain equal political rights for the oppressive capitalists and their proletarian victims, this will simply keep in place society’s unequal power relations. Why respect the rights of the class whose power you’re trying to smash? And so, according to Marxist thinking, your political rights depend entirely on what class you belong to.

The modern far left has borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones. “The liberal view,” wrote MacKinnon 30 years ago, “is that abstract categories — like speech or equality — define systems. Every time you strengthen free speech in one place, you strengthen it everywhere. Strengthening the free speech of the Klan strengthens the free speech of Blacks.” She deemed this nonsensical: “It equates substantive powerlessness with substantive power and calls treating these the same, ‘equality.’?”

Political correctness appeals to liberals because it claims to represent a more authentic and strident opposition to their shared enemy of race and gender bias. And of course liberals are correct not only to oppose racism and sexism but to grasp (in a way conservatives generally do not) that these biases cast a nefarious and continuing shadow over nearly every facet of American life. Since race and gender biases are embedded in our social and familial habits, our economic patterns, and even our subconscious minds, they need to be fought with some level of consciousness. The mere absence of overt discrimination will not do.

Liberals believe (or ought to believe) that social progress can continue while we maintain our traditional ideal of a free political marketplace where we can reason together as individuals. Political correctness challenges that bedrock liberal ideal. While politically less threatening than conservatism (the far right still commands far more power in American life), the p.c. left is actually more philosophically threatening. It is an undemocratic creed.

Bettina Aptheker, a professor of feminist studies at the University of California–Santa Cruz, recently wrote an essay commemorating the Berkeley Free Speech movement, in which she participated as a student in 1964. She now expressed a newfound skepticism in the merits of free speech. “Freedom of speech is a constitutional guarantee, but who gets to exercise it without the chilling restraints of censure depends very much on one’s location in the political and social cartography,” she wrote. “We [Free Speech movement] veterans … were too young and inexperienced in 1964 to know this, but we do now, and we speak with a new awareness, a new consciousness, and a new urgency that the wisdom of a true freedom is inexorably tied to who exercises power and for what ends.”

These ideas have more than theoretical power. Last March at University of ­California–Santa Barbara, in, ironically, a “free-speech zone,” a 16-year-old anti-abortion protester named Thrin Short and her 21-year-old sister Joan displayed a sign arrayed with graphic images of aborted fetuses. They caught the attention of Mireille Miller-Young, a professor of feminist studies. Miller-Young, angered by the sign, demanded that they take it down. When they refused, Miller-Young snatched the sign, took it back to her office to destroy it, and shoved one of the Short sisters on the way.

Speaking to police after the altercation, Miller-Young told them that the images of the fetuses had “triggered” her and violated her “personal right to go to work and not be in harm.” A Facebook group called “UCSB Microaggressions” declared themselves “in solidarity” with Miller-Young and urged the campus “to provide as much support as possible.”

By the prevailing standards of the American criminal-justice system, Miller-Young had engaged in vandalism, battery, and robbery. By the logic of the p.c. movement, she was the victim of a trigger and had acted in the righteous cause of social justice. Her colleagues across the country wrote letters to the sentencing judge pleading for leniency. Jennifer Morgan, an NYU professor, blamed the anti-­abortion protesters for instigating the confrontation through their exercise of free speech. “Miller-Young’s actions should be mitigated both by her history as an educator as well as by her conviction that the [anti-abortion] images were an assault on her students,” Morgan wrote. Again, the mere expression of opposing ideas, in the form of a poster, is presented as a threatening act.

The website The Feminist Wire mounted an even more rousing defense of Miller-Young’s behavior. The whole idea that the professor committed a crime by stealing a sign and shoving away its owner turns out to be an ideological construct. “The ease with which privileged white, and particularly young white gender and sexually normative appearing women, make claims to ‘victimhood’ and ‘violation of property,’ is not a neutral move,” its authors argued. It concluded, “We issue a radical call for accountability to questions of history, representation, and the racialized gendering of tropes of ‘culpability’ and ‘innocence’ when considering Dr. Miller-Young’s case.”

These are extreme ideas, but they are neither isolated nor marginal. A widely cited column by a Harvard Crimson editorial writer last year demanded an end to academic freedom if freedom extended to objectionable ideas. “If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism,” asked the author, “why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?” After the Nation’s Michelle Goldberg denounced a “growing left-wing tendency toward censoriousness and hair-trigger offense,” Rutgers professor Brittney Cooper replied in Salon: “The demand to be reasonable is a disingenuous demand. Black folks have been reasoning with white people forever. Racism is unreasonable, and that means reason has limited currency in the fight against it.”

The most probable cause of death of the first political-correctness movement was the 1992 presidential election. That event mobilized left-of-center politics around national issues like health care and the economy, and away from the introspective suppression of dissent within the academy. Bill Clinton’s campaign frontally attacked left-wing racial politics, famously using inflammatory comments by Sister Souljah to distance him from Jesse Jackson. Barbara Jordan, the first black woman from a southern state elected to the House of Representatives, attacked political correctness in her keynote speech. (“We honor cultural identity. We always have; we always will. But separatism is not allowed. Separatism is not the American way. We must not allow ideas like political correctness to divide us and cause us to reverse hard-won achievements in human rights and civil rights.”)

Yet it is possible to imagine that, as the next Clinton presidential campaign gets under way, p.c. culture may not dissolve so easily. The internet has shrunk the distance between p.c. culture and mainstream liberal politics, and the two are now hopelessly entangled. During the 2008 primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the modern politics of grievance had already begun to play out, as each side’s supporters patrolled the other for any comment that might indicate gender or racial bias. It dissipated in the general election, but that was partly because Obama’s supporters worried about whether America really was ready to accept its first president who was not a white male. Clinton enters the 2016 race in a much stronger position than any other candidate, and her supporters may find it irresistible to amplify p.c. culture’s habit of interrogating the hidden gender biases in every word and gesture against their side.

Or maybe not. The p.c. style of politics has one serious, possibly fatal drawback: It is exhausting. Claims of victimhood that are useful within the left-wing subculture may alienate much of America. The movement’s dour puritanism can move people to outrage, but it may prove ill suited to the hopeful mood required of mass politics. Nor does it bode well for the movement’s longevity that many of its allies are worn out. “It seems to me now that the public face of social liberalism has ceased to seem positive, joyful, human, and freeing,” confessed the progressive writer Freddie deBoer. “There are so many ways to step on a land mine now, so many terms that have become forbidden, so many attitudes that will get you cast out if you even appear to hold them. I’m far from alone in feeling that it’s typically not worth it to engage, given the risks.” Goldberg wrote recently about people “who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in [online feminism] — not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists.” Former Feministing editor Samhita Mukhopadhyay told her, “Everyone is so scared to speak right now.”

That the new political correctness has bludgeoned even many of its own supporters into despondent silence is a triumph, but one of limited use. Politics in a democracy is still based on getting people to agree with you, not making them afraid to disagree. The historical record of political movements that sought to expand freedom for the oppressed by eliminating it for their enemies is dismal. The historical record of American liberalism, which has extended social freedoms to blacks, Jews, gays, and women, is glorious. And that glory rests in its confidence in the ultimate power of reason, not coercion, to triumph.


1 January, 2016

How stupid can you get? Sperm bank must use men with dyslexia, autism and ADHD

The grievance mongering seems to be reaching ever-new heights.  What mother would want a child with dyslexia, autism or ADHD?  So refusing to take donations from such men is simply practical.  That anyone is criticizing such simple sense is the amazing part.  But it is no surprise that the HFEA are getting involved.  They are a very arrogant and meddling lot.  Dr Taranissi showed that -- defeating them so amply that he nearly got them abolished.  They have apparently learnt nothing, however

Britain's largest sperm bank is under investigation for banning men with dyslexia.  Campaigners accused the clinic of ‘eugenics’ - attempting to genetically improve the human race.

The London Sperm Bank has produced leaflets stating it will not accept men who are dyslexic, have ADHD, autism or certain other conditions.

But the fertility watchdog has launched a review over concerns that the policy is illegal and unfairly discriminates thousands of men.

Around 1 in 10 of the population have some degree of dyslexia which causes problems with reading, writing and spelling. But a growing number of experts say it shouldn’t be counted as a disability as it is linked to being extremely good at maths, engineering or thinking creatively.

Famous sufferers include Sir Richard Branson, Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs, the late founder of Apple.

The clinic, based on London’s Harley Street, provides sperm for around 1,000 courses of IVF a year.

Under the heading ‘reasons for being unable to accept a man as a sperm donor’, it lists neurological diseases which include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and dyslexia.

When would-be donors asked why these conditions were banned, they were told by staff it was the policy of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority watchdog. But the HFEA insists this isn’t the case and has since launched an investigation.

Fred Fisher, a 30-year-old dyslexic Oxford graduate, found out about the ban when he tried to become a donor in November.  He told the Guardian: ‘I was really taken aback to see dyslexia listed as a neurological disease. [Well.  What is it then?]‘I’d never thought they would turn people way for having dyslexia, especially given how important we are told science and entrepreneurship are these days.

Mr Fisher, a software engineer based in London, added: ‘I told them this was eugenics, but it’s not even good eugenics.

‘Would they turn away Richard Branson or Albert Einstein? We need innovative people who think differently in the world. Dyslexic people make a great contribution to our society.’

Vanessa Smith, quality manager at the JD Healthcare group, which runs the London Sperm Bank, said: ‘The HEFA has been in touch with us.  ‘In response we will be reviewing all our practices and protocols.’  She said the clinic had since withdrawn the leaflet banning dyslexia.  ‘Our literature states that but the policy is under review. ‘There may be some genetic component to it. But we are going to review all the recent literature about it.”  ‘We definitely don’t work in eugenics.

She added: ‘When we recruit a donor what we are looking for is good sperm that is going to freeze well and will produce a pregnancy afterwards.

‘We are looking for someone who is medically clear of infectious diseases and genetic issues that may possibly be passed on to any resulting child. ‘But we are also looking for a guy who is coming forward for the right reasons who understands the lifelong commitment to this.’


Multiculturalist forces woman to call her boyfriend so he can listen as he rapes her… but is caught when she dials 911 instead

Police arrested an attacker who abducted a woman and made her call her boyfriend so he could listen as he raped her in an adult store parking lot when she dialed 911 instead.

Robert Giles, 27, abducted the woman from her home in Hapeville, Atlanta, and told her to call her partner from the car because he wanted him to hear the sexual assault happening.

But the woman called 911, and the quick-thinking dispatcher pretended to be her boyfriend as he sent police to the parking lot of Starship Novelties and Gifts in Jonesboro, Atlanta.

Clayton County Police Major Joe Woodall said: 'She explained to him what the perpetrator had told her; that he was wanting him to listen while she was being raped,' reports WSB TV.

'They were able to stop it right then and there and snatched him right from the car,' he added.

Giles brought the woman to the store at around 4am on Monday morning which is when he told her to call her boyfriend.

The 911 operator tried to talk him out of the attack but dispatched cops as soon as he got the call. When police arrived, they caught Giles in the act of rape.

Police said that the phonecall was too graphic to release, but Major Woodall described it as 'horrific'.

Giles was arrested and now faces charges of rape, obstruction and false imprisonment, but police plan to add kidnapping to the list.


Police in Germany are covering up the extent of crime committed by migrants

Asylum seekers are being recruited across the country as cheap drug dealers as well as petty thieves, says German newspaper, Bild - the biggest daily paper in the country.

The paper accused the police of covering up the extent of migrant crimes in order to stop concerns among the general population.

It also claimed asylum seekers were prepared to work for a few euros couriering drugs across the country and said they were being signed up almost as soon as they had registered as asylum seekers.

Migrant crime was apparently the hot topic of discussion at gatherings of police, city officials, health officials and other officials dealing with the drug problem in the city of Frankfurt.

As well as drug related crimes, asylum seekers were also being used to sell stolen goods such as mobile phones, which in many cases were sold on to other refugees.

But the paper said that all of the officials dealing with the problem had been ordered not to talk about it, as it was an extremely sensitive subject that has been forbidden to be referred to in an 'offensive manner'.

The reason given by the paper was to avoid alarming the general public already concerned with the vast number of asylum seekers the country has allowed in, but also to avoid providing material for right-wing extremists.

New arrivals to the country were apparently the most desirable as they did not have any formal way of complaining about what they were asked to do and rarely gave problems to the drug-dealing Mafia. The most successful couriers are then being recruited into the Mafia and are also being used to bring in further new recruits.

This shocking claim comes as Germany will have registered just over a million migrants by the end of the year, a local paper has claimed.

This is roughly in line with the latest predictions but still about five times more than last year.

As Europe's biggest economy, Germany is a magnet for migrants partly due to generous social benefits and is taking in more refugees from the Middle East and Africa than any other EU state.

Authorities expect about 125,000 asylum seekers to have registered on Germany's EASY system in December, down considerably from 206,000 last month, Saechsische Zeitung reported, citing unpublished government figures. That brings the overall figure to 1.09 million people.

A spokeswoman for the Interior Ministry declined to confirm the numbers which will be available in early January, but Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said in a statement the numbers were falling slightly.

Germany's 16 federal states plan to spend about 17 billion euros to deal with the refugee crisis next year, a newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's popularity has waned as a result of her open-door policy, with some of her own conservatives - especially in Bavaria, the entry point for many seeking asylum - seeking a cap on numbers.

In a speech to her party this month she sought to silence critics by saying she would stem the flow of refugees.

De Maiziere said that creation of an orderly processing of refugee applications meant the situation was improving and that authorities were working hard to register and accommodate refugees.

Merkel's government is putting measures in place to speed up deportations of those refused asylum.

It is also pushing other EU countries to take more migrants and to work with Turkey to ensure fewer people come to Europe in the first place.

But de Maiziere rejected demands by Merkel's conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) in Bavaria to ban migrants from entering Germany unless they have valid identity papers.

He said: 'Regarding the CSU demands to send back refugees without valid identity papers, no further changes are planned.'


Australian Muslims sent $500,000 to Indonesia to fund terrorism

A terror financing investigation has uncovered about $500,000 in Australian cash sent to Indonesia to arm and train extremists and support their families.

A joint investigation between Australia and Indonesia found the cash was raised and transferred by an Australian man identified only by the letter L.

The money was collected from donors in Australia — some of whom may not have been aware their money was to be used to fund terrorism.

The details were confirmed by Agus Santoso, the deputy chairman of Indonesia's financial tracking watchdog, the Financial Transactions and Analysis Centre (PPATK).

"The one in Australia is a local Australian, not an Indonesian who is living in Australia and sending money to Indonesia," he said.

"The money was used for: one, to recruit people; secondly to fund training; thirdly to buy weapons, and the fourth is to give livelihood for the terrorists' family because the money goes to support the families of the terrorists who died."

Around 200 Indonesians are believed to have gone to Syria to fight for the Islamic State militant group, with at least 60 of them killed.

PPATK chairman Muhammad Yusuf said some of the Australians who donated may not have realised their cash was going to fund extremism.

"It could be when it happened, from the perspective of the donor; it was meant for charity not for terrorism," he said.

Indonesia says the Australian cash may have been used to support local terror networks, such as the group of alleged extremists arrested a week ago.

So far, 11 people have been arrested across Java and accused of plotting attacks on the nation's minority Shiite community, Christians and possibly even westerners.

They were arrested by special forces from Indonesia's anti-terror body Densus 88.

Mr Santoso said information from Australia's counter-terrorism financing watchdog AusTrac was crucial to uncovering these Indonesian networks.

"We really appreciate the cooperation with AusTrac and the AFP. It revealed the terrorism network between Australia and Indonesia, the network has been revealed, and we have handed over the case to Densus 88 to follow up," he said.

Indonesia is still on a state of heightened terror alert, with particularly tight security for the nation's New Year celebrations.



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

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

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



HOME (Index page)

BIO for John Ray

(Isaiah 62:1)

A 19th century Democrat political poster below:

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Racial differences in temperament: Chinese are more passive even as little babies

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

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

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

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Children are the best thing in life. See also here.

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

There really is an actress named Donna Air

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE


What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

Even Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly unimpressed by Africans


"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral reef compendium.
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia


"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Vodafrauds (vodafone)
Bank of Queensland blues

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Mirror for "Dissecting Leftism"
Alt archives
Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2

Selected reading



Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism

Van Hiel
Pyszczynski et al.

Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: