The creeping dictatorship of the Left...

This document is part of an archive of postings on Political Correctness Watch, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here or here. Indexes to my other blogs can be located here or here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written. My Home Page. My Recipes. My alternative Wikipedia. My Blogroll. Email me (John Ray) here. NOTE: The short comments that I have in the side column of the primary site for this blog are now given at the foot of this document.

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.

The picture below is worth more than a 1,000 words ...... Better than long speeches. It shows some Middle-Eastern people walking to reach their final objective,to live in a European country, or migrate to America.

In the photo, there are 7 men and 1 woman.up to this point – nothing special. But in observing a bit closer, you will notice that the woman has bare feet,accompanied by 3 children, and of the 3, she is carrying 2.There is the problem,none of the men are helping her,because in their culture the woman represents nothing.She is only good to be a slave to the men. Do you really believe that these particular individuals could integrate into our societies and countries and respect our customs and traditions ????


31 July, 2019

Another false rape claim from a British female

When they regret getting their legs up the night before, they often claim it was rape

A British teenager who claimed she was gang-raped by 12 men in Ayia Napa is facing a multimillion-dollar damages claim after it emerged she made the story up.

The 19-year-old, who cannot be named, had told police she was attacked in a Cyprus hotel room, and the Israeli men were then rounded up by police and held in custody for nine days.

But they were all dramatically released after she tearfully told cops she had invented the story because she was annoyed some of them had filmed themselves while having consensual sex.

There was also reportedly no DNA evidence linking them to the alleged attack.

A law enforcement official said the woman had withdrawn her claims during questioning over the weekend, saying there had been sexual contact with the suspects but she wasn’t raped.

Earlier today she was taken to a court in Famagusta, Cyprus, for a remand hearing, but the case was postponed until tomorrow after her lawyer failed to show up.

TV pictures showed her arriving for the hearing with a jacket over her head handcuffed to a police woman. Her mother was said to be at court.

The 12 who are all now back in Israel celebrated their release on arrival at Tel Aviv airport, and social media footage showed them chanting, “The Brit woman is a whore”.

Yona Golub, who was among those initially held and then released, confirmed he would seek damages from the woman, who claimed she had been attacked at the Pambos Napa hotel in Aya Napa earlier this month.

He said: “We will sue her for the anguish caused and for libel. I am walking in the street and people are calling me a rapist.

“I was with two friends who were arrested and they straight away arrested me too. I know my friends were in the room, but I wasn’t. I don’t know the girl.

“The truth is out. I told myself, today finally this nightmare ends. I went through tough days.”

Defence lawyers representing some of the group, Yaniv Habari and Nir Yaslovitzh, confirmed they intended to sue the young woman on behalf of those she accused.

Mr Habari told The Sun: “We will proceed with legal action against the individual that made the false allegations, for damages, for every day and every moment they were in prison falsely.

“The claim against her is being drafted at the moment by my clients who are still all very traumatised by what they have been through. They will be suing for loss of earnings, defamation and the suffering that was caused to them by her claims.”

A legal source close to the men added: “There are 12 cases to be heard and this will be a very expensive case for her. The claims will run into millions for the suffering she put them through.”

A Cyprus police spokesman said the woman had been charged with “public mischief” and had been remanded in custody until her hearing today.

He added, if convicted, she faced a prison sentence of up to one year and a maximum fine of £1000 ($A1771).

A spokesman for Cyprus Police told the Sun Online the identity of the woman would only be revealed if she is found guilty.


The president's criticism of Baltimore is actually right on the money    

Once again, President Donald Trump lit another social-media firestorm on Saturday as he blasted Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) over his bullying behavior. “Rep, Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of [the] Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA…” Trump wrote. He then defended the Border Patrol’s work on dealing with the border crisis, noting, “As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded.” Trump then described the Baltimore district Cummings represents as “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess,” before declaring, “If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place.”

Cue the leftist outrage machine, which appears to have become little other than a broken record repeatedly screeching “racist” each time Trump lands a well-placed political jab. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) asserted, “Donald Trump, once again, is a racist who makes ever-more outrageous, racist remarks.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, who back in 2015 called Baltimore a “Third World country” with “hundreds of buildings that are uninhabitable,” derided Trump as “a racist president who attacks people because they are African-Americans.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) waved the race canard as well, lecturing, “We all reject racist attacks against [Cummings] and support his steadfast leadership.”

Unfortunately, once again there were some members of the conservative media who couldn’t help but bemoan what they saw as racism in Trump’s message. So accurately highlighting the horrible living conditions of a longtime Democrat-run urban poverty plantation like Baltimore equates to racism if those elected officials responsible are minorities? When exactly did speaking the truth become “racist”? Evidently, Baltimore’s own black Democrat mayor must be a “racist” as well. Just last year, when touring the city’s violence-riddled, trash-filled neighborhoods, she was caught on camera expressing her disgust: “What the hell? We should just take all this s—t down. … Whoa, you can smell the rats… You can smell the dead animals.”

Getting down to brass tacks, Trump has effectively responded to undeserved and politically motivated attacks by Cummings against Border Patrol officials who are simply trying to do the best they can while they receive nothing but condemnation and ridicule from Democrats and the Leftmedia. As the commander-in-chief, Trump is clearly unwilling to sit on the sidelines and let Democrats like Cummings grandstand with their vacuous virtue signals at the expense of these Border Patrol officials’ reputations. So Trump stepped in, redirecting the Left’s arrows toward himself, and in so doing he effectively exposed to the American people who the Democrats really are.

As with the Gang of Four flap two weeks ago, Trump has successfully brought into the light the fact that the Democrat Party has sold out to the extreme Left. He has shown that Democrats are now fully invested in transforming the U.S. into a socialist state at the cost of the Constitution and individual Liberty. Trump has also laid bare the fact that the vast majority of the mainstream media has become the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. Trump is a brawler, whose seemingly wild verbal swings effectively hit the target more often than many within the Washington Beltway realize or understand


This Lawsuit Over ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender Identity’ Will Have Sweeping Implications

“I felt like I had been punched in the stomach. I was just gasping for air.” That’s how Nancy Rost recalls the moments after her husband, Tom, walked through the door of their home six years ago this month.

In his hand, Tom held a letter from a longtime employee. On his face, the easy confidence Nancy had seen from Tom every day since they met each other as children was missing, replaced by a palpable sense of anxiety.

Immediately, Tom and Nancy knew that the contents of the letter had the potential to devastate R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, which Tom’s grandfather had established in 1910 to serve grieving families throughout Detroit.

As it stands now, Tom’s five-generation family business is in the hands of the Supreme Court, with oral arguments scheduled for Oct. 8.

No doubt, his case will have sweeping implications across American life.

So, what was in the letter?

Anthony Stephens, a biological male employee who had agreed to and followed the funeral home’s sex-specific dress code for more than six years, intended to show up to work—as well as to the homes of grieving families—dressed as a woman.

For years, Tom’s company had required employees to agree to and abide by a sex-specific dress code that aligned with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requirements. The regulation-consistent policy ensured that family members of a deceased loved one could focus on processing their grief, not on the funeral home or its employees.

Over the next two weeks, Tom carefully considered his situation. Tom was concerned for Stephens—a longtime, valued employee—and for Stephens’ family. He also had to consider the rest of his staff, including an 80-year-old female employee, who would be sharing the women’s restroom facility with Stephens.

Finally, Tom pondered the impact on the funeral home’s clients.

In the end, Tom decided that he could not agree to Stephens’ proposal. That decision was fully in line with federal law. Yet, in a matter of months, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the funeral home.

Later, following the commission’s urging, a federal court of appeals effectively redefined the word “sex” in federal law to mean “gender identity.”

Enacted by Congress in 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has long protected women, along with racial and religious minorities, from unjust discrimination in the workplace.

Redefining the term “sex” in that law to mean “gender identity” would create chaotic, unworkable situations and unjustly punish business owners like Tom while destroying important gains women and girls have made over the past 50 years.

Indeed, Tom Rost’s case, in which Alliance Defending Freedom represents the funeral home, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Blurring the legal differences between male and female forces women and girls to endure unequal treatment because some men and boys believe that they are women.

In Connecticut, for instance, two boys competing as girls have set state records in 15 events over the past two years, while costing girls like Selina Soule over 50 chances at next-level races.

In Anchorage, Alaska, city officials have weaponized gender ideology to argue that a women’s shelter must allow a biological male to sleep 3 feet away from women who have been victimized by rape, sex trafficking, and domestic violence.

Refusing even to discuss these and other issues that result from redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity,” Democratic lawmakers have put forward the paradoxically named Equality Act that would institutionalize these harms under federal law.

While that bill has stalled in the Senate, federal courts like the one that ruled against Harris Funeral Homes have acted to effectively change the law on their own, imposing their own policy preferences and punishing business owners who were simply acting in compliance with the law Congress actually enacted.

In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Supreme Court has a golden opportunity to affirm that changing the law is only something Congress can do, particularly in a context as complicated as changing the meaning of “sex” itself.


Australia: There was no "welcome to country" at this weekend's WA Liberal conference, with the leader saying it's not meaningful to 'tick a box' to be politically correct

Just because Aborigines once lived in a place, why does it mean that we have to keep mentioning it?  It achieves nothing.  It is just Leftist virtue signalling that costs them nothing

West Australian opposition leader Liza Harvey has trotted out a "tired, lazy argument" in defending her party not starting its annual state conference with a welcome to country, Aboriginal Affairs Minister Ben Wyatt says.

Asked if it was a good look for the WA Liberal gathering on Saturday to omit the Indigenous ceremony, Ms Harvey replied: "It is what it is".

"I think the worst thing you can do is for the sake of political correctness, engage in welcome to countries that aren't meaningful," Ms Harvey told reporters on Sunday.

"Where it's appropriate, there are welcome to countries, for example the City of Stirling at their citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day," Ms Harvey said.

"It's fantastic - I'm a big fan of that but I don't think we should do these things just because you've got to tick a box.

"It needs to be meaningful and respectful."

Mr Wyatt, whose relative Ken Wyatt is pushing for constitutional recognition, was unimpressed. "A welcome is about a modern, inclusive, respectful society," he tweeted.

"Even Colin Barnett understood that, which is why the parliament amended the WA constitution to recognise Aboriginal traditional ownership."



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


30 July, 2019

UK: Police Award Payout to Black Christian Arrested for Preaching

Scotland Yard has agreed to pay a Christian preacher £2,500 ($3,095) for wrongful arrest and humiliating treatment after the Metropolitan Police detained him last February, stripped him of his Bible, handcuffed him, and drove him several miles away where they left him.

The 64-year-old Pentecostal Christian, Oluwole Ilesanmi, said he welcomed the decision as a victory for freedom of speech. Mr Ilesanmi moved to the United Kingdom from Nigeria in 2010 as a Protestant missionary.

Two officers approached the former dentist last February as he was preaching outside Southgate Tube station in North London. Police reportedly had received a call from a passer-by accusing Mr Ilesanmi of hate speech.

A viral video of the arrest that has now been viewed over ten million times stirred up a public outcry and the advocacy group Christian Concern took up the man’s case, which eventually led to the decision to compensate the man for damages.

In their police report, the arresting officers said they had arrested Mr IIesanmi “to prevent a breach of the peace” yet video footage of the event shows no hostile or aggressive conduct by Mr Ilesanmi.

In the verbal exchange recorded in the two-minute video, one of the officers tells the preacher, “we are going to require you to go away,” or “I will arrest you for breach of peace.” “You’re causing problems; you’re disturbing people’s days and you’re breaching their peace,” the officer said.

To this, Mr Ilesamni replied, “I will not go away because I need to tell them the truth. Jesus is the only way, truth and life.”

“Nobody wants to listen to that,” the policeman replied.

The video also shows the police officer taking Mr Ilesanmi’s Bible away, to his visible distress.

When the preacher asks officers not to take his Bible, one of the officers, who is white, says: “You should’ve thought about that before being racist.” Mr Ilesanmi is black.

Ilesanmi admits that he described Islam as an “aberration” — seemingly the trigger for the racism allegation — but insists he was not denigrating Muslims but merely expressing his perspective as a Christian.

On Sunday, Mr. Ilesanmi told the Mail: “I believe God loves everyone, including Muslims, but I have the right to say I that I don’t agree with Islam – we are living in a Christian country, after all.”

“I was upset when they took away my Bible,” he said. “They just threw it in the police car. They would never have done that if it had been the Qur’an. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?”

The video was taken by Ambrosine Shitrit, who said she was passing by when she saw Mr Ilesanmi debating with a Muslim man.

“The preacher was fearless, but if I hadn’t started filming he would have been attacked,” Ms. Shitrit said. “He was not breaching the peace and in no way had he been Islamophobic. I would’ve been the first person to have said something if he had been.”

In early March, the Metropolitan Police directed its Professional Standards Unit to begin a review of the arrest in the face of extensive criticism.

According to Hounslow-based Sergeant Dave Turtle, this sort of heavy-handed approach to Christians is too familiar, adding that police officers need better training to understand the rights of street preachers.

Turtle called for a “fundamental review” of police training for faith issues since “we’ve had a number of situations across the country where street preachers have been arrested and then de-arrested.”

Observers have noted a strange discordance in that Muslims seem able to preach in London without being harassed by police, whereas Christians are often treated with hostility.

The £2,500 indemnification was awarded as “compensation for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, aggravated damages for exceptional harm and humiliating and distressing treatment, and recognition for the potential psychological trauma experienced during the arrest,” the Mail reported.

Commenting on the case, Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Despite laws that theoretically support the freedom to preach in public, in practice police officers are quick to silence preachers at the first suggestion that a member of the public is offended.


Scarlett Johansson Bemoans 'Political Correctness' in New Interview

This week’s reason to roll your eyes at the Avengers’ star comes courtesy of an interview with As If magazine, a publication I’m not entirely unconvinced wasn’t conjured out of nowhere for the precise purpose of getting me mad this Monday morning.

In the interview, conducted by artist David Salle, Johansson — a white, cis woman who has received criticism for accepting roles that might perhaps be better suited for Asian and transmasculine actors — talks about “political correctness” when it comes to casting, adding that she “should be allowed to play any person.”

“Today there’s a lot of emphasis and conversation about what acting is and who we want to see represent ourselves on screen,” Johansson told Salle. “You know, as an actor I should be allowed to play any person, or any tree, or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job.”

Two years ago, the actress received flack for playing the lead role in the Ghost in the Shell, which many viewed as whitewashing a Japanese character. The cycle repeated in 2018 when she accepted the lead role of a transmasculine gangster in Rub & Tug, though she soon withdrew from the part following criticism.

“There are a lot of social lines being drawn now, and a lot of political correctness is being reflected in art,” Johansson continued. “I think society would be more connected if we just allowed others to have their own feelings and not expect everyone to feel the way we do.”

The actress issued a statement addressing the As If interview following backlash on social media, claiming that her comments had been taken “widely” out of context in order to produce “clickbait.”

“I personally feel that, in an ideal world, any actor should be able to play anybody and art, in all forms, should be immune to political correctness,” said Johansson, per The Advocate. “I recognize that in reality, there is a wide spread discrepancy amongst my industry that favors Caucasian, cis gendered actors and that not every actor has been given the same opportunities that I have been privileged to. I continue to support, and always have, diversity in every industry and will continue to fight for projects where everyone is included.”


Political correctness warriors at Berkeley could end up criminalizing language

The modern usage of the notion of “political correctness” that emerged along with the American civil rights movement seems quaint considering the naked efforts at censorship in today’s world wielded by social justice frauds.

The latest shenanigans in the liberal bastion of Berkeley, California, don’t surprise anyone. The Berkeley City Council unanimously decided to eliminate gender from its law books, changing how the city interacts with its citizens.

This, like most actions taken by the left, can be excused as a well-meaning gesture, but it’s not. This is about training people to accept legal changes in language promoting and codifying a political agenda.

The moment you allow partisans to change language, you are unlocking the door to politicians and activists working together to control everything you say, and ultimately criminalize language itself.

The New York Times reported on Berkeley’s latest effort at language control. “Manhole will be replaced with maintenance hole. Sisters and brothers will be replaced with siblings and he or she will be banished in favor of they even if referring to one person,” The Times said. “The law would apply to traffic, health and safety regulations, garbage collection, environmental rules, construction permits, all of the business of the city.”

Berkeleyside, a local news site, reported on the city’s bizarre effort, “The rationale for this change states ‘amending the municipal code to include gender-neutral pronouns by illuminating any gender preference language within the municipal code will promote equality.’ ” This includes, by the way, referring to pregnant women now as “pregnant employees,” because “equality,” or something.

That, of course, is not true. Remember, the left usually tries to convince people to accept the absurd by inserting either “It’s for the children,” “It’s for the whales,” and the ubiquitous “It’s for equality,” because who can be against any of those things?

The left has always been desperate to make contradicting them bigoted at least and ultimately illegal. One would think they would be more interested in persuading people on issues that matter to them. But even they believe they can’t. The left cannot win discussions and debates on the issues, so their only solution is to silence non-conformists with assignments of bigotry and “hate,” hoping to silence and even ruin detractors.

How does the Berkeley ordinance explain itself?

“In recent years, broadening societal awareness of transgender and gendernonconforming [yes, they have that as one word] identities has brought to light the importance of non-binary gender inclusivity. Therefore, it is both timely and necessary to make the environment of City Hall and the language of city legislation consistent with the principles of inclusion,” CBS News reported.

We are assured by a representative for the city that Berkeley’s approximately 1,500 employees, according to The Times, “are not obliged to follow the new rules and conversation.”

And yet with this move, touted as something to make people feel more included, yet how safe would anyone in that environment feel simply using terms like “he” and “she?” Part of the conditioning of an act like this is to brainwash others to see a person using regular gender pronouns as a bigot, expanding the existential danger of using an unapproved pronoun.

We know the left wants to make it impossible to escape condemnation and punishment of whatever they’ve determined to be racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry in general, of everyone. And the only way to do that is to change the language and definitions.

The end goal of the left everywhere is to create an environment relying on fabricated language standards allowing for the arrest and/or ruination of those who use the wrong words or communicate in a way that someone finds offensive.

You think I’m going too far? It’s already happening. In England this past December, the Daily Mail reported that a mom was arrested for calling a transgender activist a man.

Kate Scottow was arrested in front of her children and locked in a cell for seven hours after calling a transgender woman a man on Twitter, said the newspaper.

“Three officers detained Kate Scottow at her home before quizzing at a police station about an argument with an activist on Twitter over so-called ‘dead naming.’ [as an example, if one were to refer to Caitlyn Jenner as Bruce]. The 38-year-old … had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken. … More than two months after her arrest … she has had neither her mobile phone or laptop returned which she said is hampering her studies for a masters in forensic psychology,” the newspaper reported.

Make no mistake, this is where we’re headed — making it possible to ruin someone’s life for being rude.

Moreover, Human Events reported, “A British doctor has been sacked from his government job following his refusal to refer to a hypothetical person described as a ‘six-foot-tall bearded man’ with feminine pronouns. Dr. David Mackareth … alleges that the topic of transgenderism and gender fluidity came up in a conversation with a line manager who asked him: ‘If you have a man six foot tall with a beard who says he wants to be addressed as ‘she’ and ‘Mrs,’ would you do that? … Describing it as an “interrogation,” the doctor claims his boss told him that it was ‘overwhelmingly likely’ he would lose his job unless he complied.”

The doctor did not comply, was fired and is now suing, Human Events reported.

Refusing to allow the left to change the language doesn’t make you a bigot, it makes you someone who cares about the freedom in this country that all of us count on, especially minorities who rely on the government not being powerful, intrusive and controlling. That is our fight, especially as totalitarian control continues to be masked as “tolerance.”


Dr. Charles Kesler: The left sees political correctness as 'established religion,' shuns dissenters

Left-wing Democrats have caused American politics to be dominated by political correctness and patrol those who dissent from their norms, according to Dr. Charles Kesler.

The left thrives on P.C. culture and uses it as a type of moral compass, Kesler, a professor of government at Claremont-McKenna College in California, claimed in an interview airing Sunday on "Life, Liberty & Levin."

"What you see in the phenomenon of political correctness -- which is so powerful -- in a way, it came from the universities, but now it is utterly dominating American politics too," he said.

"If you look at the Democratic presidential candidates, if you look at the 'squad' in Congress, their agenda is driven by political correctness, and political correctness means you hate and cannot tolerate the imperfection -- the moral imperfection -- of your fellow Americans."

Levin: Trump was addressing content of congresswomen's character, not color of their skinVideo
Nodding to Hillary Clinton's monikers for supporters of President Trump, Kesler claimed many liberals see "deplorables" and "irredeemables" as people, "who have not evolved."

"We're all supposed to be evolving together into a more perfect union -- as President Obama liked to say -- but the fact [is] that we're not," he said.

Many liberal Democrats, he added, are not receptive to the ideologies of conservatives and center-right moderates.

"The fact that there are these recalcitrant people who insist on ruling themselves [and] having a different kind of government, fundamentally, than the kind that we want and that we think history promises -- the left is not prepared for that," he told host Mark Levin.

"It's become kind of... a Medieval established religion. There's an inquisition, there's an index of forbidden books and forbidden thoughts which you're not supposed to read or think.

"There is a strict moral patrol to make sure that you are not caught thinking things you shouldn't be thinking or saying things you shouldn't say. And it's the antithesis of freedom."

However, Kesler claimed some classical liberals are looking at the leftward shift in the Democratic Party and not agreeing with what they are seeing.

They, "are looking around them and saying we don't recognize the America that these people are leading us towards. It doesn't seem to be a free country anymore."



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


29 July, 2019

The casual authoritarianism of the Europe-lovers

In 1945, Clement Attlee said referendums were ‘the instrument of Nazism and fascism’. In 1975, Margaret Thatcher, nodding to Attlee, said referendums are a ‘device of dictators and demagogues’.

These quotes have been dug out time and again since the EU referendum, by Remainers horrified by the result. They slot Attlee’s and Thatcher’s remarks into their own warped view that democracy equals fascism. People are so dumb and wicked, goes the thinking, that we’re just waiting to elect genocidal maniacs. Referendums are not democratic exercises because it is all too easy for demagogues to mislead the sheeple.

But if anyone has been trying to use nominally ‘democratic’ processes to authoritarian ends recently, who has been trying to use the language of democracy against democracy, it is the Remainer elite. And in recent days, two of the political leaders of the Remain outlook, Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson and Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, let slip their authoritarian intentions.

Swinson and Lucas are among those calling for a second referendum on Brexit. But when pushed by separate BBC interviewers as to whether they would accept the result of another referendum if the country voted Leave again, they both said no. On BBC News yesterday, Swinson said ‘No’, adding that ‘I’m going to do what I was sent here to do’. On Politics Live today, Lucas was at least more direct: ‘Um, no I probably wouldn’t.’

These admissions explode the argument the so-called People’s Vote campaign is still trying to make with a straight face. That is that while the electorate voted for Brexit, we didn’t vote for any particular Brexit deal. We should therefore have a right to vote on the terms, and if we now want to change our minds – that’s fine too!

Clearly, this was always bollocks. A second referendum is not about us having a final say – it is a means to an anti-democratic end, and the result would also be ignored if it went the ‘wrong’ way.

Given the anti-democratic bile that has been been spewed from Remoaners these past three years, Swinson’s and Lucas’s slips are hardly shocking. But we need to make clear what they are saying here. They are saying they are only willing to accept the outcome of democratic votes if they win them. This is the attitude of autocrats, happy to hold an election but only if one party is on the ballot. They are willing to use the ballot box to bolster their position, but just as willing to reject the result if they lose.

It’s amazing how inured we have become to these kind of authoritarian Remoaner arguments. Remember when Donald Trump refused to say whether he would accept the result of the 2016 US election if he lost? Liberals lost their shit – and rightly so, for once. But when essentially the same attitude is voiced by two leading Remainers, it is deemed by commentators to be eminently sensible – the leadership Britain needs!

For all the pearl-clutching over Boris Johnson’s history of spicy statements, what Swinson and Lucas have said in the past 24 hours is far worse than anything our new PM ever dashed out on a deadline. And this casual authoritarianism has become worryingly mainstream among the chattering classes.


Donald Trump Jr. announces book attacking ‘leftist elites’ and ‘political correctness’

Donald Trump Jr., the eldest son of President Trump, announced that his first book will be released this fall.

“Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us” will be published by Center Street, a Hachette imprint. Trump Jr. announced on Twitter that the book is available for preorder, writing, “This is the book the leftist elites don’t want you to read!”

On a web page for the book, Center Street said that Trump Jr. “will expose all the tricks that the left uses to smear conservatives and push them out of the public square, from online ‘shadow banning’ to fake accusations of ‘hate speech.’ No topic is spared from political correctness.”

“Trump, Jr. will write about the importance of fighting back and standing up for what you believe in,” the publisher said. “From his childhood summers in Communist Czechoslovakia that began his political thought process, to working on construction sites with his father, to the major achievements of President Trump’s administration, Donald Trump, Jr. spares no details and delivers a book that focuses on success and perseverance, and proves offense is the best defense.”

Center Street is known for publishing books by conservative writers and supporters of President Trump. Its stable of authors includes Jeanine Pirro, Michael Savage, Newt Gingrich and Charlotte Pence, a daughter of Vice President Pence.

“Triggered” will be the first book from Trump Jr., who serves as executive vice president of development and acquisitions for the Trump Organization, which his father owns. His sister Ivanka Trump is the author of two books, “The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life” and “Women Who Work: Rewriting the Rules of Success.”

Trump Jr. was an influential advisor to his father’s 2016 presidential campaign and is known for his bombastic presence on Twitter, where he regularly attacks members of the press and critics of his father’s presidency.

In 2016, weeks before the presidential election, Trump Jr. posted a tweet comparing Syrian refugees to Skittles candy. “If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a handful?” the tweet read. “That’s our Syrian refugee problem.”

And in 2018, Trump Jr. retweeted a post from Roseanne Barr in which the actress falsely claimed that hedge fund manager George Soros, who is Jewish, was a Nazi collaborator.

In a 2017 profile of Trump Jr., Times journalist Barbara Demick wrote that the president’s son was a “virtual attack dog” and “his father’s fiercest champion.”

“Unlike Ivanka, who gives the impression of being torn between loyalty to her father and her own more liberal politics, Trump Jr. appears to be unequivocally behind his father’s agenda,” Demick wrote.

“Triggered” is slated for publication on Nov. 5, just under a year from election day in 2020.


Most Still Say Political Correctness Kills Free Speech

Just 28% Think Americans Have True Freedom of Speech Today

President Trump and others are routinely accused of hate speech by political opponents, but for a sizable majority of Americans, political correctness remains the bigger problem.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 26% of American Adults believe Americans have true freedom of speech today. Sixty-eight percent (68%) disagree and say Americans have to be careful not to say something politically incorrect to avoid getting in trouble. These findings have changed little in surveying for the past several years. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on July 15-16, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.


The balls now in feminists’ court

If a penis is female, does it enjoy human rights? A Canadian trans woman, Jessica Yaniv, who retains intact her boy bits, believes she’s entitled to a Brazilian wax. Rejected by 16 beauticians in Vancouver, including migrant women working from home with children, Yaniv trotted off to a human rights tribunal. Some of the beauticians paid money to make her go away, some still face the prospect of being branded hateful transphobes and ordered to pay fines.

Ignored by most mainstream media, this has Twitter transfixed as the #WaxHerBalls case. British comedian Ricky Gervais tweeted: “It’s a sad state of affairs when a lady can’t have her hairy balls waxed.” All of which gives the impression it’s nothing more than the latest grotesquery of social media. But Gervais has detected a fundamental question of principle that Victoria’s politicians — and Anglophone elites generally — seem mostly oblivious to.

An Andrews government bill allows a self-declared trans man or woman to go back in time and alter the sex on their birth certificates, even if they’ve had no surgery, no treatment, no change at all, apart from a stated wish to make their debut with a new pronoun. The bill is back before parliament next month.

“It’s seen as the next civil rights issue — oh, now we have gay marriage, on to the next thing,” says Holly Lawford-Smith, a young University of Melbourne philosopher and lesbian writing a book on radical feminism.

But there are stirrings of civil war in what’s called the LGBTI community, and angry sniping over who qualifies for an entry pass to women’s sport, toilets, dorms, prisons and, yes, the waxing studio. For the Yaniv case is seen not as an aberration but a logical extension of pick-your-own-gender into the anti-discrimination apparatus. If blokes can become official sheilas in the blink of an eye, what happens to the rights, protections and political culture inspired by feminists and gay activism?

In Australian sport, where hormone controls can complicate things, an awkward debate has begun but it is more advanced in Britain. Brits have a well-organised lobby, Fair Play For Women, and this week The Guardian surprised readers with an even-handed piece by sport blogger Sean Ingle, who declared: “No longer can men tell women, such as Martina Navratilova, that when they stick up for a separate women’s sport category that they are ignorant or prejudiced.”

It’s a question not only of competition but also trust and vulnerability. Troubled by the Yaniv case, National Review writer David French has warned that a proposed Democratic change to US law might expose schoolgirls to so-called “female penises” in toilets and locker rooms. As well, he said, “the very act of objecting to the sight (of a penis) could itself be considered to create a hostile environment for the trans girl”.

Meanwhile, sex is turning philosophy into fight club. This month Australia’s thinkers had their annual talkfest at Wollongong University. Lawford-Smith was booked to argue the case for excluding “all male people, regardless of gender identity” from female-only or lesbian-only spaces. Activist academics tried to “deplatform” her and student agitators girded their loins for a demo under the banner “F..k off Holly Lawford-Smith”. Their Facebook post said she was “not welcome to spew her disgusting discriminatory and exclusionary hate speech at our university”. They ignored her nuanced arguments, dismissing her as a TERF or “trans-exclusionary radical feminist”.

The Australasian Association of Philosophy, the conference organiser, issued a statement acknowledging “serious concerns” about Lawford-Smith’s presentation. There followed a sprinkling of diversity-speak platitudes. No stated concern about the abuse and threats directed at Lawford-Smith, no defence of her academic freedom.

She felt “quite intimidated” going in to her talk, but the university had beefed up security and the protest was muted. Even so, this is not how philosophy is supposed to be. “It’s our bread-and-butter to really dig down into the details of things and have these really difficult conversations in a calm, dispassionate way,” Lawford-Smith says.

Like other “gender critical” feminists, she has been banished from Twitter. It’s supposedly “hateful conduct” to use pronouns in a way that tracks sex rather than gender identity. But this “progressive” platform allows #punchaterf as a trending hashtag, and trans activists can attack a TERF as a “c..t” or “bigoted piece of shit” with impunity. Anti-TERF tactics include campaigns to dislodge people from their jobs, smearing them as fascists, threatening harm to their families and, in one case, pissing on an academic’s office door. Nobody denies there are genuine cases of distress among trans people, and some gender-critical feminists may seem high-handed.

One Oxford don took to Twitter with the hashtag #transawaythegay, conjuring up a story that “Emmett wasn’t allowed to be a lesbian and had to wear skirts and makeup. But when he realised he was supposed to be a boy and started taking testosterone, his church accepted him. All better now!”

In March, activists successfully pressured 3:AM Magazine, a fearless online journal of radical philosophy, to pull an interview with Lawford-Smith because it touch­ed on the TERF war. Her remarks seem temperate: “My stance is that a person can’t change sex (not even with sex reassignment surgery), that ‘gender identity’ has no bearing on sex, and that with very few exceptions gender identity should have no bearing on a person’s sex-based rights.”

Things have got so unpleasant that 12 prominent philosophers from around the world, including Australia’s Peter Singer and Melbourne-based Cordelia Fine, felt moved this week to publish an open letter deploring the attempt to silence gender identity sceptics with “frequently cruel and abusive rhetoric”. The letter says: “Policymakers and citizens are currently confronting such metaphysical questions about sex and gender as What is a man? What is a lesbian? What makes someone female? Society at large is deliberating over the resolution of conflicting interests in contexts as varied as competitive sport, changing rooms, workplaces and prisons. These discussions are of great importance.”

This month Lawford-Smith interrupted the chorus of bland approval for Victoria’s law, which magically transforms the enduring truth of birth sex into the changeable wish of gender identity. In a Melbourne newspaper she wrote: “Despite the fact that this bill changes what it means to be a person of a particular sex in law, and despite the fact that sex is a protected attribute in both the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act and the Australian Sex Discrimination Act, the group that faces the most sex discrimination — namely female people — have not been consulted about the bill, and the implications of the bill on their legal protections, if any, have not been adequately acknowledged or explored.”

Might horrified fascination with Canada’s #WaxHerBalls case rouse our MPs to ask some hard questions? This week Vancouver-based writer Meghan Murphy (banned from Twitter) issued an “I told you so”. “(The Yaniv case) is precisely what feminists tried to warn politicians, the media, activists and the public would happen should we accept the notion that it is possible for men to ‘identify’ as female. How can we possibly protect women’s boundaries, spaces and rights if men can be women, regardless of their male biology? No woman should be bullied into touching a man’s penis against her will.”

Surprising things keep happening. Early this year at a free-market think tank in Washington, DC, radical feminists and political conservatives made common cause in a public debate on the trans conundrum. “Together they argued that sex was fundamentally biological and not socially constructed, and that there is a difference between women and trans women that needs to be respected,” reports gay conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Some may feel schadenfreude recalling the feminist track record of denouncing mainstream research on sex differences as a patriarchal plot. And the anti-trans argument built on biology is a delicate one for gay and lesbian identity.

The whole agonising affair is a reminder that abstruse ideas on campus can turn the world on its head. Without postmodernism and its reality-busting offshoots, who could ever have imagined a troublesome “female penis”?



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


28 July, 2019

UK: Boris Johnson Destroys Labour leader in Under Seven Minutes

Boris didn’t just see off Corbyn’s turgid pre-scripted neo-Communist  lines with ease, he thoroughly wiped the floor with him. Ranks up there with Gove’s demolition as the worst beating Corbyn’s ever taken in Parliament, with the added finesse of the inclusion of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Note that most of the Labour backbench rose to applaud Boris.  Many Labour MPs want Brexit

Mexico sets 1st half murder record, up 5.3%

Does America need a population like this?  We do know that Mexican gangsters are among the illegals already in the USA and we do know that just about the whole of Latin America is violent and corrupt -- with some central American populations being even more lawless than Mexico.

So it is clear that Latin America has an inferior culture by almost any criterion.  And the people from there are going to bring that culture with them. They are not about to become Episcopalians

And among the behavioural products of that culture are what we see described below -- behaviour that creates a very dangerous, unsafe and chaotic society.  Who wants that? Latin Americans are just NOT desirable immigrants.  Many of them may individually be of no concern but in the mass of them are many people that the USA could well do without

Mexico set a new record for homicides in the first half of the year as the number of murders grew by 5.3% compared to the same period of 2018, fueled partly by cartel and gang violence in several states.

Mexico saw 3,080 killings in June, an increase of over 8% from the same month a year ago, according to official figures. The country of almost 125 million now sees as many as 100 killings per day nationwide.

The 17,608 killings in the first half of 2019 is the most since comparable records began being kept in 1997, including the peak year of Mexico’s drug war in 2011. Officials said 16,714 people were killed in the first half of 2018.

In particular, drug cartel turf wars have become increasingly bloody in the northern state of Sonora, where the number of homicides was up by 69% in the first half of the year. But in Sinaloa, where the cartel of convicted drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman is based, homicides declined by 23% so far this year compared to last.

Given cutbacks and a widespread reorganization of security forces under President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, it is not clear who, if anyone, is doing the analysis and intelligence work to find out exactly which conflicts are causing the rise in homicides.

“I could give you 10 potential, plausible reasons, but the truth is we don’t know, and that is perhaps the biggest problem,” said security analyst Alejandro Hope. “There is very little systematic research that would allow us to conclude what is really happening.”

And other types of crime, like extortion, have become increasingly frequent and violent.

As if to underscore that, officials said Monday the five men killed Sunday at a bar in the resort of Acapulco were allegedly part of a gang of extortionists who shook down business owners for protection payments.

Guerrero state prosecutor Jorge Zuriel “we now know that the members of this gang met daily at this bar to coordinate charging extortion payments and to collect the daily take.”

One suspect has been arrested in the shootings, which left six people wounded. Zuriel said the killers were members of a rival gang.


The Cultural Left Goes Berserk
You follow the antics of AOC and the so-called “Squad” of hers and you wonder if the left has lost its mind. Your instincts are correct. And if it’s any comfort to the left, it is not alone. In fact, there are even loonier elements loose among the elites.

On the East Coast, the Manhattan-based leftist Jesuit magazine America regularly produces copy that assaults the teachings of the Catholic Church. (Some Jesuits are born with that DNA.) But the magazine has outdone itself now, even by its standards. It has published an article titled “The Catholic Case for Communism” by its Toronto-based correspondent Dean Dettloff, who just happens to be a member of the Communist Party of Canada.

Dettloff concedes, “Christianity and communism have obviously had a complicated relationship. That adjective ‘complicated’ will surely cause some readers to roll their eyes.” Well, he’s right. It did. Communists have murdered millions of Catholics all over the world. Millions more in China, Cuba and elsewhere continue to be persecuted. “Complicated”? Programming a remote control can be complicated. There’s a better word for this communist-Catholic dynamic. It’s called “genocide.”

This communist argued, “though some communists would undoubtedly prefer a world without Christianity, communism is not simply a program for destroying the church.” Except that is precisely what communism has tried to do all over the world since its founding, and for good reason. Catholicism is its mortal enemy.

Rod Dreher wrote a devastating piece for The American Conservative titled “Jesuits Rehabilitate Communism.” He wrote how in Warsaw recently, he knelt at the grave of the Blessed Jerzy Popieluszko, the chaplain of the Solidarity labor union movement, who the communist security forces beat to a lifeless pulp in 1984. In communist countries, faithful priests and believers weren’t just killed; they were tortured and forced to watch their beloved Christ and his cross be mocked in lurid and disgusting ways.

It wasn’t “complicated.” It was obscene.

So, do you think it can get any more intellectually incoherent than that? Let’s just mosey over to the West Coast now and see what we find there. Hollywood is about as left-wing as you can get, but you can never be left-wing enough if you’re on the left, and here Hollywood goes again.

Hollywood is facing intense pressure from the left to be more “progressive.” Now the left is targeting movies for children. What’s the problem there, you ask? Just read Esquire magazine and you’ll learn that Disney movies like “The Lion King” are unacceptably uber-capitalist.

Gabrielle Bruney acknowledges in her piece that this is a movie about animals, not humans. But that doesn’t matter. “The politics of a cartoon savannah shouldn’t be taken too seriously, of course,” she writes. And then she becomes instantly serious: “but regressive class messaging abounds in children’s films. A 2016 study of G-rated blockbusters found that nearly a third of all the main characters in the films were upper class, while another quarter were upper middle class. Just 20 percent of leads were working class or poor.”

You see, the lions are the rich, and this means their prey is somehow the poor. Bruney complains that the hyenas in the film are the villains, even though the lions also prey on animals. She writes: “The problem with the hyenas, then, appears not to be that they eat meat, but that they’re trying to eat above their station. In the class structure of Pride Rock, Disney pretty much made villains of the hungry poor, outcast animals who just wanted to literally eat the rich.”

Similarly, the Washington Post published a column by Dutch professor Dan Hassler-Forrest in which he denounced “The Lion King” as a “fascistic” film that portrays “a society where the weak have learned to worship at the feet of the strong.” He adds, “The hyenas transparently represent the black, brown and disabled bodies that are forcefully excluded from this hierarchical society.”

Holy smokes. Can you follow this nonsense? Then again, did we just say “holy” (slyly inserting religion) and “smokes” (we must support the tobacco lobby)?

Maybe, just maybe, there’s some hope here. Maybe the intolerant left will find fault with everything and one day, like a black hole, implode upon itself.


Judicial Watchdog Submits Congressional Ethics Complaint Against Rep. Omar for Potential Perjury, Fraud

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the House of Representatives’ ethics office asking for an investigation into possible crimes committed by Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar.

The possible crimes include “perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, and federal student loan fraud,” according to the complaint filed Tuesday by Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton.

“The House of Representatives must urgently investigate and resolve the serious allegations of wrongdoing by Rep. Omar,” Fitton said.

“Substantial, compelling and, to date, unrefuted evidence” supports the allegations, he said.

The evidence developed against Rep. Omar was the result of a three-year-long investigation in both the United States and the United Kingdom by Mr. Steinberg and his investigative reporter colleagues Preya Samsundar and Scott Johnson. It is supported by information gathered from public records, social media postings, genealogy databases, computer forensic analysis, unaltered digital photographs, discussions between the investigative reporters and the subjects of the investigation themselves, and information supplied by confidential sources within the Somali-American community.

“Documented-based reporting by Steinberg, et al. has developed the following information: Rep. Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, a citizen of the United States, married her biological brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a citizen of the United Kingdom, in 2009, presumably as part of an immigration fraud scheme. The couple legally divorced in 2017,” Fitton wrote.

Omar gave birth to children fathered by another man, Ahmed Hirsi, both before and during her marriage to Elmi. Legal documents such as speeding tickets demonstrate that she lived with Hirsi during the entirety of her marriage to Elmi.

Omar requested a “default” divorce from Elmi in 2017, an unusual proceeding used where one spouse has disappeared and cannot be located.

To obtain a divorce, Omar filed papers with the Minnesota district court swearing under penalty of perjury that she last saw him in 2011 and had no clues about how to contact him through other people.

She swore that she didn’t know the name of a single member of her husband’s family, and that they didn’t have any friends or acquaintances in common who might know how to locate him, according to papers she filed with the Minnesota district court to secure a divorce.

She swore she tried to locate him through social media but could not, even though he had public profiles on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Screenshots additionally show Omar continuously interacting with him on social media in the years since.

“The evidence developed by Mr. Steinberg and his colleagues demonstrates with a high degree of certainty that Ms. Omar not only had contact with Mr. Elmi, but actually met up with him in London in 2015, which is supported by photographic evidence,” Judicial Watch’s complaint says.

Of particular importance are archived photographs taken during a widely reported trip by Ilhan Omar to London in 2015, posted to her own Instagram account under her nickname ‘hameey,’ in which she poses with her husband/presumed brother, Ahmed Elmi. These photographs from 2015 are documentary evidence that in fact she met up with Mr. Elmi after June 2011 and before the date she signed the divorce document in August 2017, thereby calling into question the veracity of her claim that she had not seen Mr. Elmi since June 2011.

In Instagram screenshots, published by Powerline and conservative outlet Alpha News, and which appear to have been deleted, the two men are sometimes pictured together, and Elmi refers to Omar’s children as his “nieces.”

(The Daily Caller News Foundation has observed other social media posts published by [David] Steinberg and determined they were authentic and online at the time of publication. They were deleted soon after the article called attention to them.)

Lying on a sworn form is perjury and each charge carries five years in prison, according to Minnesota law. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of approximately six statements on the sworn form.

The substance of the reporting by Steinberg, Samsundar, and Johnson has largely been ignored by the media, but not refuted.

The journalists “have engaged in meticulous research and reporting over a period of years. They have demonstrated with a high degree of probability that Rep. Ilhan Omar has violated House Ethics Rules, federal, and state laws,” Fitton said.

Omar was fined by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board for using campaign funds to pay for an accountant to amend her taxes after she filed taxes jointly with Hirsi while she was not married to him (filing joint taxes with a non-spouse is not permitted) and while she was actually married to another man.

Under federal law 26 U.S. Code & 7206.1:

Any person who willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter … shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 … or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Fitton said investigators must examine Omar’s tax returns for other falsifications.

Fitton said the apparent sham marriage may have been motivated by student loan fraud as well as making it easier for Elmi to immigrate to the U.S. Elmi had British citizenship when he came from London, married Omar, and enrolled in North Dakota State University with her, Omar has said.

Despite Omar saying her short-lived husband was long-lost, he can be tied even this year to other members of Omar’s family.

Omar’s sister Sahra Noor, who ran a high-profile nonprofit in Minnesota, this year created a new consultancy in Kenya. Elmi, who works in digital media, appears to have created its Instagram account. Code discovered by Steinberg shows that Elmi’s name is in the source code of the website.

“She’s been unwilling to address any of these questions,” Kevin Diaz, the editor of the Star Tribune, told PolitiFact. “There was an undisputed instance of her filing her taxes improperly. And if you’re in Congress, you should explain that to your constituents.”

Judicial Watch wrote to the Office of Congressional Ethics: “We call upon the Office of Congressional Ethics to launch an investigation into Rep. Omar’s conduct immediately.”

The Office of Congressional Ethics is comprised of non-congressmen who intake complaints and, if they deem the complaints strong, publicly refer them to the House Committee on Ethics.

“Democrats don’t file ethics complaints against Republicans and vice versa because you don’t want the tables turned,” an expert on Congress with the liberal group Demand Progress, Daniel Schuman, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “They used to call it a Cold War detente: You don’t nuke the Russians and they don’t nuke 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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


26 July, 2019

Behind Bibi's longevity

Jeff Jacoby

AS OF this week, Benjamin Netanyahu is the longest-serving prime minister in Israel's history. David Ben Gurion, the country's first prime minister and legendary founding father, held the office for a total of 13 years and 127 days. Netanyahu surpassed that milestone on Saturday. If he wins the upcoming election in September — and if he survives several pending corruption investigations — he could theoretically remain prime minister until 2023.

Such longevity in office would be an extraordinary achievement in any parliamentary democracy, let alone one as contentious and competitive as Israel's, where the stakes are always high and the elbows always sharp. It is all the more remarkable in the case of Netanyahu, whose enemies are legion — and sometimes quite powerful, as in the case of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom tried to bring about his political downfall. Throughout his political career, Netanyahu has been bitterly resented by the left, both at home and abroad, and especially in the media. As he remarked tartly in a recent Time magazine interview, journalists have had "Netanyahu fatigue from Day One."

But Israeli voters haven't.

Netanyahu may be controversial, arrogant and infuriating, but he has also been successful. On his watch, Israel has grown stronger and more prosperous. Despite a rising tide of global antisemitism, the Jewish state is more secure than it has ever been. The "nation that dwells alone" has never been less isolated diplomatically. And while the Middle East remains a notoriously violent, unstable, and fanatical region, the decade since Netanyahu's 2009 return to power has been the most peaceful in Israel's history.

To be sure, there has been no resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians. The "peace process" is moribund, and Netanyahu has shown no inclination to move heaven and earth to revive it — not even to placate the Obama administration, which bitterly and intemperately blamed him for the lack of progress. Netanyahu has paid lip service to the eventual goal of a two-state solution, but he has also given voters his word that there will be no Palestinian state as long as he is prime minister.

The results speak for themselves.

For years, a large and vocal "peace camp" has insisted that Israel must reach a settlement with the Palestinians or be shunned as a pariah and targeted by global boycotts. Netanyahu has proven them wrong. His predecessor's dramatic attempts to end the conflict —Yitzhak Rabin's dramatic White House handshake, Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, Ehud Olmert's offer of Palestinian statehood — ended up worsening Israel's standing in the world. The longer Israeli leaders clung to a policy of concessions and appeasement, the more respect Israel lost. Under Netanyahu, the appeasement has largely stopped — and Israel's international profile has risen dramatically.

Among Benjamin Netanyahu's gifts is great skill at communicating in English. He is one of only two foreign leaders to have addressed a joint meeting of the US Congress on three occasions (the other was Winston Churchill)

In recent years, Netanyahu became the first Israeli prime minister to visit Latin America. He has traveled four times to Africa and welcomed numerous African leaders to Israel. He has achieved "better relations with all the leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council than at any time since [Israel] was created," writes Aaron David Miller, a longtime State Department advisor and Middle East negotiator.

Most important, he has expanded and strengthened Israel's ties to Sunni Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which share Jerusalem's view of Iran as a deadly enemy. Last November, Netanyahu visited the Gulf monarchy of Oman, where he was warmly received by the sultan.

Complementing Israel's improved fortunes beyond its borders is plenty of good news at home, from the country's emergence as a world-class high-tech powerhouse to a steady decline in terrorist attacks. To the extent that such things can be measured, Israel is one of the happiest nations on the planet. The Netanyahu Era has been a good one, and Israelis have been in no hurry to end it.

When Netanyahu's first stint as prime minister ended in a 1999 election defeat, some made the mistake of writing him off as a political force. "He will be a footnote, if anything, in the history of Israeli prime ministers," gloated one prominent Israeli journalist. Israelis return to the polls in September, and Netanyahu is running hard in hopes of winning a sixth election. There are no guarantees; voters may decide his time is up. But whatever happens, Netanyahu will never again be mistaken for a footnote. He is no beloved Ben Gurion, but his place in Israel's pantheon is assured.


What's Most Important for blacks?  Trump?

By Walter E. Williams

Let's think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.

In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.

Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.

The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.

In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.

Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.

Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.

Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.


House Democrats Rebuke Anti-Semite 'Squad'

The chamber overwhelming passed a resolution rejecting the anti-Israel BDS boycotts   

Members of “The Squad,” the radical leftist collection of four young Democrat women, are driving Democrat leadership crazy. Back in May, after a flap over Rep. Ilhan Omar’s repeated anti-Semitic comments, the House was driven to a vote condemning such hatred — only it was watered down so much that even Omar voted for it. Last week, of course, President Donald Trump successfully united Democrats behind these radical socialists by attacking them. This week, the House ended up having to pass a resolution opposing an effort to boycott Israel — an effort pushed by Omar and her pal, Rashida Tlaib.

“The resolution puts the House on record opposing the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its efforts to target U.S. companies that do business with Israel,” reports Fox News. “The movement has grown in recent years, and Israel sees it as a threat. Supporters of Israel view it as an attempt to delegitimize the Jewish state.”

Omar, Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were among 16 Democrats who voted against the resolution. In fact, in pushing for a resolution supporting boycotts like BDS, Omar and Tlaib each likened boycotting Israel to boycotting Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Omar did so — albeit without a specific reference to Israel — in the resolution itself. Tlaib echoed the resolution’s language on the House floor, saying, “Americans boycotted Nazi Germany in response to dehumanization, imprisonment, and genocide of Jewish people.”

Modern Israel exists today largely as a result of the Nazi Holocaust. Israel is by no means perfect, but, to grossly understate it, using one boycott to justify the other makes no sense. Yet here Democrats are, forced to reject this nonsense in a House vote.

What’s next? The Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn writes, “The Democratic Party’s Thelma and Louise — Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar — are taking their act to Israel. In a great gift to Donald Trump, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is going to let them in.” Tlaib is of Palestinian descent and has relatives in the West Bank. We fully expect the trip to be full of fodder for Trump to use against all Democrats.

Indeed, McGurn concludes, “The Squad is now in the driver’s seat of the Democratic debate. They are not letting go of the wheel even it means, à la Thelma and Louise, taking the whole car over a cliff.”


Tourists defiant of coming ban on climbing Australia's Ayers rock

It's part of Aboriginal heritage but it's our heritage too.  It's basically a public property so why are we discriminated against in favour of one small religious group?  It's a major tourist drawcard so the ban will be a big hit on the tourist industry

A sign sits at the base of Uluru, imploring visitors to reconsider scaling Australia’s most famous natural landmark — an act that is deeply offensive to traditional landowners.

And yet day after day Australian and international tourists walk past the sign and scale the iconic rock, eager to tick the experience off their bucket lists before a total climbing ban comes into effect on October 26, this year.

As the deadline grows closer the pace of visitors is increasing with many insisting it is their right to climb Uluru and urging others to do the same.

In a number of Facebook groups, including those where backpackers look for farm work, tourists and Australians comment that people need to “chill out” about the rock and encourage others to make the climb.

In one post, a German tourist posted a picture of herself standing at the top of Uluru and said, “I would do it again if I could”.

Another person in the group said “climbing it is fun” and described the view as “fantastic”.

A man from Sydney also encouraged people to climb, attaching a laughing emoji to the end of his comment. “Climb it like every other rock on the planet,” he said. “People need to chill the f**k out, it’s like they’ve all given birth to this rock.”

Another tourist said they didn’t “give a s**t”. “Have climbed it and definitely worth it. I dont give a s**t,” they wrote.

In the same group, an Aussie described climbing the sacred rock as a “birthright”. “Australians have a birthright to climb Uluru. Regardless see ya there in 2020, ” he said.

Uluru senior custodian Sammy Wilson told ABC’s 7.30program on Monday night that tourists were increasingly aware of the cultural significance of the area to the indigenous people. “I’ve noticed more and more people are coming on tours to learn from us Anangu (the traditional owners),” Mr Wilson said. “I enjoy people asking about and wanting to learn about our country.”

Yawuru woman Shannan Dodson, who works as an Indigenous affairs adviser for Media Diversity Australia and is on the committee for NAIDOC week, told news.com.au that Uluru should have the same significance as other sacred sites around the world.

“The issue around climbing Uluru is that it is a sacred place and at the end of the day, when you see how much the world rallied around the destruction of Notre Dame and how significant that is, people understand there are sacred places based around culture and religion,” she said.

“The fact you can’t then translate that to Uluru having the same significance is undermining. “For me, it feels like Western cultures and values are always elevated above other cultures and values. It’s saying Aboriginal cultures and values are less important. It’s just a thinking that we’re less than them and that our culture and values don’t matter.”

In November 2017, the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Board started the countdown to when the climb would be closed permanently.

The date of October 26, 2019 was put forward — a significant day for the Anangu indigenous community because it was that day in 1985 that the government returned ownership of the land to the traditional owners.

But since setting the date, the number of people climbing Uluru has skyrocketed.

Before park management announced it was closing the climb, about 140 people were climbing Uluru each day.

Since then, the number has doubled and at times tripled to 300-500 daily visitors.

In early July, a photo taken at the base of Uluru went viral after it showed hordes of tourists snaking up the rock face.

The Anangu traditional land owners say tourists are leaving rubbish bins overflowing, illegally dumping human waste from caravans along the roadside, and have made Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park the “busiest they’ve seen it”.

“There’s cars parked for one kilometre on either side of the road leading up to the carpark at the base,” an unnamed photographer who supplied the photo to the ABC said.

Traditional landowners are devastated by the masses rushing to climb Uluru before the cut-off date and ignoring the fact the act is deeply offensive.

“It makes me sick looking at this photo at the disrespect and disregard shown for the traditional owners’ wishes,” a spokesperson from the Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation said.

“Not only do people climb it but they defecate, urinate and discard nappies and rubbish on it.

“I for one cannot wait for the climb to be permanently closed and our sacred lore, culture and traditions to be acknowledged and respected.”

At least 35 people have died while attempting to climb Uluru, and many others have been injured. From 2011 to 2015, the climb was closed 77 per cent of the time due to dangerous weather conditions or cultural reasons.



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


25 July, 2019

America, Google and Me: My Senate Speech

Dennis Prager
Last week, at the invitation of Sen. Ted Cruz, I spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee about Google’s having placed more than 60 Prager University videos on its restricted list. Any family that filters out pornography and violence cannot see those particular videos on YouTube (which is owned by Google); nor can any school or library.

This statement is as much about what I and PragerU stand for as it is about Google. Those interested in viewing the presentation can do so here:

It is an honor to be invited to speak in the United States Senate. But I wish I were not so honored. Because the subject of this hearing — Google and YouTube’s (and for that matter, Twitter and Facebook’s) suppression of internet content on ideological grounds — threatens the future of America more than any external enemy.

In fact, never in American history has there been as strong a threat to freedom of speech as there is today.

Before addressing this, however, I think it important that you know a bit about me and the organization I co-founded, Prager University — PragerU, as it often referred to.

I was born in Brooklyn, New York. My late father, Max Prager, was a CPA and an Orthodox Jew who volunteered to serve in the U.S. Navy at the start of World War II. My father’s senior class thesis at the City College of New York was on anti-Semitism in America. Yet, despite his keen awareness of the subject, he believed that Jews living in America were the luckiest Jews to have ever lived.

He was right. Having taught Jewish history at Brooklyn College, written a book on antisemitism and fought Jew-hatred my whole life, I thank God for living in America.

It breaks my heart that a vast number of young Americans have not only not been taught how lucky they are to be Americans but have been taught either how unlucky they are or how ashamed they should be.

It breaks my heart for them because contempt for one’s country leaves a terrible hole in one’s soul and because ungrateful people always become unhappy and angry people.

And it breaks my heart for America because no good country can survive when its people have contempt for it.

I have been communicating this appreciation of America for 35 years as a radio talk show host, the last 20 in national syndication with the Salem Radio Network — an organization that is a blessing in American life. One reason I started PragerU was to communicate America’s moral purpose and moral achievements, both to young Americans and to young people around the world. With a billion views a year, and with more than half of the viewers under age 35, PragerU has achieved some success.

My philosophy of life is easily summarized: God wants us to be good. Period. God without goodness is fanaticism and goodness without God will not long endure. Everything I and PragerU do emanates from belief in the importance of being a good person. That some label us extreme or “haters” only reflects on the character and the broken moral compass of those making such accusations. They are the haters and extremists.

PragerU releases a five-minute video every week. Our presenters include three former prime ministers, four Pulitzer Prize winners, liberals, conservatives, gays, blacks, Latinos, atheists, believers, Jews, Christians, Muslims and professors and scientists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford and a dozen other universities.

Do you think the secretary-general of NATO; or the former prime ministers of Norway, Canada or Spain; or the late Charles Krauthammer; or Philip Hamburger, distinguished professor of law at Columbia Law School, would make a video for an extreme or hate-filled site? The idea is not only preposterous; it is a smear.

Yet, Google, which owns YouTube, has restricted access to 56 of our 320 five-minute videos and to other videos we produce. “Restricted” means families that have a filter to avoid pornography and violence cannot see that video. It also means that no school or library can show that video.

Google has even restricted access to a video on the Ten Commandments … Yes, the Ten Commandments!

We have repeatedly asked Google why our videos are restricted. No explanation is ever given.

But of course, we know why: because they come from a conservative perspective.

Liberals and conservatives differ on many issues. But they have always agreed that free speech must be preserved. While the left has never supported free speech, liberals always have. I therefore appeal to liberals to join us in fighting on behalf of America’s crowning glory — free speech. Otherwise, I promise you, one day you will say, “First they came after conservatives, and I said nothing. And then they came after me. And there was no one left to speak up for me.”

Thank you.


An epidemic of literal-mindedness

Commentators seem to be so thick that they take jokes and figures of speech literally.

Telling jokes on Twitter is a risky affair. Comedian Kevin Hart was pressured to withdraw from hosting the Oscars because of arguably homophobic gags he posted online many years ago. James Gunn, director of the Guardians of the Galaxy film series, has only recently been rehired by Disney after he was sacked for tweeting jokes about paedophilia. Justine Sacco, a PR executive, became the top trending story worldwide after tweeting to her 170 followers from Heathrow airport: ‘Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!’ By the time she landed in Cape Town, her career was over.

Anyone familiar with social media knows that at any given time there are armies of offence-seekers, poised over their laptops, perspiring with glee at the prospect of ‘calling out’ those who blaspheme against the Holy Church of Wokeness. The other day I posted a screenshot of an extremely improbable result from ‘The Political Compass’, a website that measures an individual’s political temperament against economic (left-right) and social (authoritarian-libertarian) axes. It wasn’t my result at all, but that of an extreme far-right tyrant. The image was captioned: ‘Turns out I’m more left-wing than I thought.’ Within two hours, my daft joke had been quoted back to me as evidence of my right-wing beliefs.

I suppose I should have known better. All comedians are accustomed to varying reactions to their material, whether that’s online or in the white heat of live stand-up. There’s no such thing as a universally successful joke because of the inherent subjectivity of humour. But for any routine to work, we have to assume that the audience is sufficiently comedy-literate to understand that gags are not literal expressions of the truth. Those who fail to appreciate the distinction tend to be those who also argue that comedians should take great care not to cause offence. Ricky Gervais has a joke about an audience member who thinks it’s all about him. ‘Why did the chicken cross the road?’, he asks. ‘Well hey dude’, comes the furious reply, ‘my chicken died yesterday’.

I can’t be alone in observing that this kind of self-obsessed literal-mindedness is far more common now than ever before. I’ve written previously about an experience at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe where an outraged audience member interrupted my show because she had decided to take one of my jokes at face value. I can’t help but think that this sort of behaviour is connected to the low regard in which stand-up is held. How often do punters heckle during productions of Titus Andronicus because of Shakespeare’s problematic endorsement of rape, dismemberment and cannibalism? Should we be concerned that Angela Lansbury is so often in the vicinity when murders take place? Is it true that Shakira’s hips are incapable of deceit?

This is not just confined to Twitter users, either. Politicians and media commentators appear to exercise an almost wilful ignorance of the basic concepts of metaphor and hyperbole. This week Robert Rowland, a Brexit Party MEP, sent the following tweet: ‘We are behind all our fisherman [sic] and the restoration of sovereignty over our waters. 200 miles of exclusion zone with any foreign fishing vessel given the same treatment as the Belgrano!’ The Independent reported that Rowland had ‘called for the Royal Navy to sink EU fishing vessels’, assuming that his reference to the ill-fated Argentine cruiser was a direct endorsement of a policy that ‘would see EU boats as far away as France’s Bay of Biscay attacked by British warships’. The Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies claimed to feel ‘sick to the stomach’ after hearing that Rowland was ‘calling for fishermen from another nation to die in our waters’.

Are these people genuinely as stupid as they seem? Can it be possible to achieve a successful career in politics or the media without being able to understand the difference between hyperbole and open calls for violence? Perhaps Rowland is truly as ‘evil’ as his political rivals claim, although it’s far more likely that they are seeking to discredit him by intentionally misinterpreting his comment. In any case, it would be far more effective simply to criticise him for his undiplomatic language, rather than pretending that he yearns for the destruction of fishermen’s boats like some kind of demented latter-day Poseidon.

We have become so used to accepting the media’s literal-mindedness that we rarely question it, particularly when it confirms what we’d like to believe of our opponents. I myself have made jokes at the expense of Boris Johnson for his use of offensive language about black people without bothering to check the context. It’s only recently that I actually read the original article in which he describes ‘flag-waving piccaninnies’ and ‘tribal warriors’ with ‘watermelon smiles’. And although I’m no fan of Johnson, I have to concede that the article in question is quite plainly using colonial rhetoric in order to mock Tony Blair for his international saviour complex. Perhaps Johnson does harbour racist feelings, but this attempt at satire cannot, if we’re being honest with ourselves, be cited as incriminating evidence.

I’m reminded of a tweet by the comedian Andrew Lawrence: ‘Given that about 80 per cent of suicides in the UK last year were committed by men, if feminists truly wanted equality, they’d kill themselves.’ This resulted in an online petition which urged the BBC to ban him from any future shows on the grounds that he was willing ‘to incite others to take their own lives’. Again, if we accept that those who signed the petition are being honest, we must also accept that they lack the basic capacity to understand a joke. I would have far more respect for those who admit that they simply want jokes they find offensive to be banned, in spite of my contempt for such authoritarian instincts.

It’s so much easier to think we’ve won an argument if we ignore context, nuance and the figurative nature of language. But if we are serious about the battle of ideas, we should insist that we fight each other on a level playing field. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that political disputes are best resolved through hand-to-hand combat on horizontal terrain typically reserved for competitive sporting events.

Although given the intellectual stupor of so much of the commentariat, perhaps that’s not such a bad idea.


Attacks on Conservative Speech Take Many Forms
Looking over the frenzied political landscape in America today, one marred by constant clashes between right and left, a single issue rises above the rest. In many areas of public life, conservatives, their words, their views, and values, are under assault. Conservative speech is under direct attack by ultra-left, radical activists who are methodically expunging conservative speech and conservative ideas from public discourse.

This threat to the First Amendment and to the sharing of viewpoints held by roughly half of all Americans is taking many forms but is often paired with harsh threats and actual acts of violence directed at conservatives. Brutal physical assaults on conservative men and women are waged by an increasingly radical subsection of our society that is growing in power and bravado.

Andy Ngo, a reporter for Quillette, was viciously attacked by masked Antifa thugs while exercising his First Amendment right to free press. The video of his attack was seen by millions, and his subsequent article in The Wall Street Journal prompted a response from Capitol Hill. However, while most on the conservative side condemned the attack on a member of the press, most progressives — those who supposedly carry the torch of free speech — were conspicuously silent on the issue.

Meeting speech with violence is completely unacceptable and directly opposite of the American model of the free exchange of ideas in pluralistic society. But leftist activists often get away with labeling anything they disagree with as “hate speech,” and they work hard to silence the messenger. The violence committed against Mr. Ngo placed him in the hospital and was justified by street thugs simply because Ngo is a “conservative” who “unmasked Antifa.”

Fortunately, some organizations are working to stem this violent, hateful tide.  A new legal defense group, Publius Lex, founded by Harmeet Dhillon, works to preserve justice in a system that seems all too hesitant to investigate and prosecute violent Antifa activists. It has taken Mr. Ngo on as their first legal case.

A more systematic problem of bias against conservative free speech exists on many college campuses around the country. Thoroughly reported by Campus Reform and The College Fix, progressive students enabled by agenda-driven professors and college administrators regularly harass conservative students. Some incidents of suppression manifest in the destruction of property. More subtle cases have been documented such as professors marking down the grades of conservative students for no reason other than those students’ traditional values.

Many universities are also limiting conservative speech via unaccountable administrative tribunals (bias response teams) that make conservative students appear before panels of school officials to answer for comments made in a classroom or elsewhere on campus. Complaints lodged against conservative students are usually anonymous, and these accused students often have no legal representation or due process. In addition, many college campuses foster environments where conservative students are shouted down and discriminated against for their views or values. Many students are now afraid to share their ideas of views that challenge prevailing liberal doctrine.

A new organization is meeting head-on these threats to the First Amendment on college campuses. Speech First is dedicated to protecting students’ speech rights on campus through advocacy, litigation, and other means. Speech First has filed federal lawsuits against the University of Michigan, University of Texas-Austin, and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign seeking to restore freedom of speech on campuses and ensure that college students attend classes and participate in activities that promote open discourse. 

Many social-media platforms are blatantly discriminating against conservatives with Silicon Valley executives openly expressing their disdain for conservative ideas. The de-platforming and banning of prominent center-right voices and conservative thought leaders has touched off accusations of bias and targeting. Twitter now has a policy saying anyone using an incorrect gender pronoun or wrong first name of someone else could be banned. Twitter has effectively shut down hotly contested debates on subjects such as gender identity, with these bans almost always going against conservative thought. 

Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, recently rolled out a new “feature.” It will utilize artificial intelligence to read every single comment or post, and if the algorithm deems the content of the post to be offensive in any way, Instagram will ask you to confirm your post. It’s not difficult to imagine how this algorithm could be manipulated to flag and suppress conservative speech.

The Media Research Center is now monitoring online bias against conservatives. TechWatch documents conservative bias and fights against online censorship of conservatives on various social-media platforms. Its online blogs document the onslaught of offensive Silicon Valley has committed against conservatives, as well as how conservatives feel about Big Tech.

Preserving free speech in America and maintaining respect for one another — no matter what political opinions or religious beliefs we may have — is essential to the survival of our nation. What’s more, our First Amendment rights are not labeled Republican or Democrat. Public streets, campus classrooms, and online forums should be centers of robust, mutually respected debate.

Sadly, that is no longer the case. Those who are engaging in the fight to preserve conservative values and the unfettered expression of conservative speech deserve our respect and our full support.


Australia: Devastated junior football team has all their competition points stripped because they are TOO GOOD

This absurdity springs from the Leftist obsession with  equality.  But people are not equal and never will be.  It's grossly unjust that people are arbitrarily denied the fairly won fruits of their efforts. Australia is not the Soviet Union yet

It would be different if the competition was unfair.  That does happen. St. Joseph's college at Nudgee in Brisbane in 2010 tried to pull a fast one on those lines.  They recruited a substantial number of Polynesian students using scholarships.  Polynesians tend to be rather large.  They then fielded a Rugby football team that was mainly comprised of Polynesians, who were markedly larger than the Caucasian players from other schools. 

Such matches were swiftly stopped for the safety of the players in the other teams. Some teams refused to field with them at all. Another prominent Catholic college threatened to ban their students from playing Rugby altogether. So Nudgee's attempt to gain an unfair advantage just disrupted the fixtures and earned them scorn for bad sportmanship.

A junior football team has been stripped of its shot at a premiership because its players are too good.

The West Australian Football Commission has stripped South Coogee Junior Football Club's Year 10 A division team of all of its premiership points and given them a $500 good behaviour bond.

This was reportedly in reaction to five of the six A team players refused to move to a B division team, which has been struggling to win its league matches.

The means any team playing against the South Coogee A team in the remaining six games is automatically awarded a win - with a victory margin pre-set at 60 points.

The WAFC's attempt to even the competition has left players and parents devastated.

'It is just a shame because these are just young boys who want to play footy yet they are forced to face the politics that goes on behind the scenes, at such a young age,' a club source told WAtoday.

'And the WAFC and other officials wonder why so many are turning their back on footy to play other sports like soccer.

'The reality is, both teams will probably leave and not play next year because of all of this.'

The football team was split after South Fremantle junior competition director Mark Brookes moved a proposal to WAFC in February this year.

The permission was granted on the condition that both teams need to be competitive.

South Coogee's A division team was selected with those who wanted to advance to a higher level and the B division team had players 'who just wanted to play the game with their mates.'

Initially, the teams were supposed to play in A and C divisions, but South Coogee had to field its 'second' team in division B after another football club Willeton withdrew from division C.

The C division team was forced to play in the B division.

WAFC and officials from South Coogee Junior Football have been contacted for their comments.



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


24 July, 2019

When the msm say someone is in prison for a minor drug crime, they're always lying

Ann Coulter

If the left has its way in the next few years, there won't be anyone left in prison because, you see, they're overflowing with innocent black men locked up for "nonviolent drug crimes." All of them!

Over the weekend, NBC News investigative reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell appeared on MSNBC's "Kasie DC" to tell the story of Bill Underwood, loving parent and prison mentor, who has already spent nearly 30 years in prison for a nonviolent drug crime.

Caldwell reported:

"William Underwood, now 65 years old, was sentenced to life in prison without parole for a nonviolent drug-related crime. It was his first felony, but in the middle of the tough-on-crime era, the judge showed no leniency. With no hope of ever walking free again, Underwood has made the best of his time in prison, mentoring others and staying devoted to his children and grandchildren, as (his daughter) Ebony fights for his release."

Another black body in prison for mere possession of a joint!

Actually, no one is in prison anywhere for possession of a joint, except in the pea-brain fantasies of chubby college coeds everywhere. We don't have the prison space.

NBC's Caldwell interviewed Underwood, noting how "for 30 years from inside prison walls, he still tried to be a father first." The poor man concurred, saying, "That's all I was ever taught, you know? Children first, first, foremost. That's what I try to emulate."

Can it be long before Ivanka pops up, lobbying for his release?

Despite what I'm sure was an exhaustive investigation, I was suspicious of Caldwell's characterization of Underwood's crime. My rule is: If you're not telling me why someone was sentenced to life in prison, there's probably a reason you're not telling me.

All we got from Caldwell was: Here's this great father behind bars; He just got caught up in something, we're really not sure what it was -- and here's his daughter, Ebony, to tell us what a terrific father he is.

Considering that she's arguing for Underwood's immediate release into the general public, it seems odd that Caldwell doesn't know what he's in prison for, nor does she have the slightest interest in finding out.

Maybe at NBC they don't have access to the internet. But I do! I spent a full 60 seconds doing a Nexis search on William Underwood.

Here are some excerpts from a Newsday article on Underwood's conviction, dated Jan. 10, 1990:

"A rock band manager was convicted yesterday as the head of a vicious Harlem drug gang that prosecutors said carried out six murders, including the controversial slaying of a witness in 1983."

Caldwell didn't bother to mention Underwood's SIX MURDERS?

NBC: We don't have room for everything. These stories are only so long.

"William Underwood, 36, faces up to life in prison without parole for his conviction in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on charges of racketeering and operating a continuing criminal enterprise -- the so-called federal narcotics 'kingpin' law."

It's weird that Caldwell never managed to turn up the fact that he was convicted of being the kingpin of a drug empire, distributing heroin throughout Harlem in the 1980s. "Yes, your honor, I was convicted of operating a CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE -- but it's my first offense."

"A federal jury found him guilty of heading the murderous and now-broken Vigilantes drug gang ... known for extraordinary violence. All told, police say, it may have killed as many as 23 people."

I feel like Caldwell may not have gone the extra mile in researching this story.

The evidence against Underwood included the testimony of 50 witnesses, undercover video-recordings and confessions of Vigilante gang members -- which is especially impressive, considering that he ordered the murder of witnesses preparing to testify against him. (I guess he couldn't kill all 50.) In addition to killing witnesses, Underwood's outfit killed customers, members of rival drug gangs and innocent passersby.

In a 1988 article titled, "Brutal Drug Gangs Wage War of Terror in Upper Manhattan," The New York Times reported that Underwood's heroin operation was "considered by law-enforcement experts to be the most dangerous drug gang in Harlem." All told, the gangs were "believed to be responsible for as many as 523 slayings in upper Manhattan in the last five years."

That's lots of black bodies.

Having completely lied about these crimes – deliberately withholding this information is lying -- NBC then brought out Sen. Cory Booker as the lonely voice of sanity in the Kafka-esque nightmare that is Underwood's life.

Booker, who is running for president, has introduced legislation that would allow anyone in prison for more than 10 years, such as Underwood, to petition for release -- thus, requiring the state to prove its case all over again.

But sadly, Caldwell said, "Booker has an uphill battle on passing the bill."

She asked Booker the question on everyone's mind: "If you are president and this legislation has not passed before then, would you offer clemency to someone like William Underwood?"

Booker responded: "Hell yes, hell yes. I told you, it should disturb all of us that there are people like Mr. Underwood in prison."

What's disturbs all of us is that this guy is running for president and clearly -- we hope! -- hasn't looked into Underwood's case.

This is the left's famous two-step on criminal punishment:

1. Oppose the death penalty on the grounds that "life in prison without possibility of parole" is just as good;

2. Wait a few years for all the witnesses to die or move away, and then demand the convict's release on the basis of absolutely no information about his crime.

William Underwood was tried and convicted of being the kingpin of a bloody drug empire that terrorized Harlem throughout the 1980s. Thanks to federal prosecutions wrapping up operations like Underwood's, now there are coffee shops, restaurants and multi-million-dollar brownstones in Harlem.

But if you're an investigative reporter for NBC or a Democratic presidential candidate and don't check the facts, his case goes in the "life imprisonment for a single joint" file.

Just remember: Whenever you read about a guy in prison for a "nonviolent drug-related crime," they're lying.


Portland, Oregon Police Chief Calls for Ban on Protesters Wearing Masks after Antifa Incident

Portland, Oregon Police Chief Danielle Outlaw has called for city officials to ban the wearing of masks while protesting following the assault of journalist Andy Ngo by masked protesters last month.

Outlaw has publicly called for the ban, saying that protesters wearing masks can be “emboldened” by their anonymity, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday:

City leaders in Portland, Ore., are considering making it illegal for protesters to wear masks in an attempt to address violent clashes between left-wing and right-wing activists, the latest of which occurred a few weeks ago.

“A lot of people are emboldened because they know they can’t be identified,” Ms. Outlaw said at a news conference.

Mayor Ted Wheeler has not yet voiced an opinion on the proposed ban. Eileen Park, a spokesperson for Wheeler said that the mayor “wants to weigh his options thoroughly and hear concerns from community leaders before making a decision.”

The ACLU of Oregon has come out in opposition to the ban on the grounds it “risks chilling First Amendment-protected activities, particularly for those who wear ‘masks’ for political and religious reasons,” spokeswoman Sarah Armstrong wrote in an email.

By donning masks, “We are able to move more freely and do what we need to do, whether it is illegal or not," former Antifa activist Scott Crow told CNN in an interview.


Forget 'Punch a Nazi,' Get Ready for 'Shove a Priest'

If you thought punching random people claiming they’re “Nazis” was bad, wait till you see this. We’ve clearly reached a whole new level of incivility with the left’s war on religion. Watch as a smiling protester violently shoves a priest perceived by the LGBTQWTF community as “anti-gay” off a high stage during mass in Cachoeira Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil:

I guess we should be glad she didn’t cut his head off.

Father Marcelo Rossi is a well-loved priest in Latin America with a popular radio show with over three million listeners. The gay press is not condemning this attack and instead is insulting the priest in their reports, calling him “anti-gay” and repeating statements he made about gay sex that are in line with Catholic teaching and are supposed to be what all priests believe.

“Queerty” listed quotes with no context after claiming, “Rossi has made numerous anti-gay statements throughout his career.” Because that’s the important part, right? Father Rossi may have made statements that made unhinged gay people attack. Totally his fault.

"Queerty" and other gay media are going out of their way to describe the attacker as a mentally ill person who didn’t have ties to any gay groups. We are supposed to believe that this has nothing to do with any LGBTQWTFery. Maybe. But I doubt it. When the gay mafia trains its sights on you, it’s only a matter of time until you get a milkshake in the face or punched in the face or tossed off a stage. We’ve seen this before.

Brazilian media had this to say,

The woman who pushed Father Marcelo Rossi on Sunday afternoon during a Mass in Cachoeira Paulista in São Paulo said that what happened was something between her and the priest. "Between him and me, between him and me," the assailant said as she left the police station.

One could argue that every protester who thinks it’s okay to strike out violently at opponents is mentally ill. Father Rossi was unhurt and finished the mass. He declined to press charges. What a terrible man!


UK: Carl Beech aka Nick found guilty of making up Westminster VIP paedophile ring

And the British police are exposed as utter fools for believing him

The man known as 'Nick', who sparked the Westminster VIP paedophile scandal with a series of lurid allegations against high profile figures, has been found guilty of making the entire thing up.

Carl Beech, 51, - a manipulative paedophile himself - was found guilty of 12 counts of perverting the course of justice and one count of fraud by a jury at Newcastle Crown Court, following a three month trial.

He now faces a lengthy prison sentence, after prosecutors proved he had invented a catalogue of extraordinary lies against some of the country's most prominent names in order to claim compensation.

Beech, a former paediatric nurse and father of one, told police he and other boys had been raped and abused by an organised gang which included Sir Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister; Lord Brittan, the former Home Secretary; Harvey Proctor, the former Tory MP; Lord Bramall, the former head of the Army; Greville Janner, the former Labour MP; Maurice Oldfield, the former head of MI6; Michael Hanley, the former director of MI5; General Sir Hugh Beach and Field Marshal Roland Gibbs.

It can now be revealed that Beech also claimed to have been abused by John J Louis Jr, the former US ambassador to Britain as well as a number of unnamed Saudi diplomats.

Beech not only alleged abuse but also told police he had witnessed the group murder three boys in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Swallowing his lies hook, line and sinker, the Metropolitan Police described Beech as "credible and true", and launched the disastrous £4 million Operation Midland investigation.

Following the verdicts, Mr Proctor, 72, who lost his home and his job as a result of the malicious allegations, blasted Scotland Yard for its litany of failings.

He said: "When resources are in short supply, the Met Police should apologise to taxpayers for squandering millions of pounds - an estimated £4 million directly and indirectly - by their malice, incompetence and negligence on Operation Midland."

He added: "In these precious last years of my life I know I can never regain what has been taken from me through Carl Beech's mendacious activities and the consequent rogue malicious and apparently homophobic Metropolitan Police Service's investigation."

Lord Bramall also welcomed the verdict. He said: "I am naturally delighted that after four years someone has at last been brought to book for the appalling travesty of justice which I and my whole family and others have had to endure over all these years.

"It is of course not only the outrageous, totally untruthful allegations by Carl Beech which perverted the course of justice but also the incompetent and improper way the Metropolitan Police Service handled them at their unquestioned face value which lent them unwarranted credibility."

The family of Major Raymond Beech - Beech's late stepfather - who was the first person he falsely accused, also hit out at the way the police had handled the investigation.

Joan Harborne, Major Beech's ex-wife, said: "We tried to give them evidence that would prove what Carl was saying was not true, but it was as if they did not want to listen."

Lincoln Seligman, godson of Sir Edward Heath, said: "The impact of the ludicrous lies peddled by Beech have affected me, my family and friends of Edward Heath very deeply. "His outlandish, repellent allegations were plainly ridiculous but have been peddled maliciously around the world for some years."

The trial heard how at the same time Beech was lying to police, he was also committing his own paedophile offences, downloading a viewing appalling child abuse images and even setting up a  camera his bathroom to film a young boy urinating.

He had initially denied the allegations, suggesting his own son may have been responsible for downloading the paedophile material.

But he changed his plea to guilty just as the trial was about to begin, following what his barrister said had been a "change of heart".

Beech will be sentenced for those offences at the same time as the perverting the course of justice charges.

After being charged with perverting the course of justice last summer, Beech went on the run to Sweden and had to be extradited back to Britain to face charges.

Beech first went to the police in December 2012 in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, claiming to have been abused by his late stepfather, Raymond Beech, who was a Major in the Army and Jimmy Savile.

Wiltshire Police looked at the allegations but concluded there was little could be done because the man he was accusing was dead.

Two years later, after meeting the Labour MP, Tom Watson, Beech was approached by detectives from Scotland Yard, telling them he had been a victim of a paedophile ring operating at the heart of Westminster.

Crucially he named names, telling detectives some of the country's most respectable figures, both alive and dead, had been responsible for the abuse.

Beech was given the pseudonym, Nick, and was famously declared to be "credible and true" by the police.

But after more than a year the investigation was shelved and the Met apologised to those who had been falsely accused.

The force also paid £100,000 in compensation to Lord Bramall and Lady Brittan for their ordeal.

Operation Midland proved to be one of the Met's most embarrassing episodes for years, but despite a litany of failings, none of the officers involved have been sanctioned.

In fact most of those who were intimately involved in the investigation were subsequently promoted or were allowed to retire on healthy pensions.

Lord Hogan-Howe, who was the Met Commissioner throughout Operation Midland retired from the force in February 2017 and was elevated to the House of Lords as a cross-bencher.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Rodhouse, who had overall responsibility for investigation left the Met in May 2018 in order to take up a £214,722 a year job as Director General of Operations as the National Crime Agency.

Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald, who as head of Operation Midland described Beech as "credible and true", was cleared of any wrongdoing by the police watchdog and retired in August 2017.

Following the verdicts the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) announced that it had cleared three detectives following an investigation into how the force applied for three search warrants in the case of Beech.

The watchdog looked into how warrants were granted by a district judge to raid the homes of Lord Bramall, the late Lord Brittan and Harvey Proctor.

Following an investigation, IOPC Interim Director General Jonathan Green said: "The allegations Nick made were grave and warranted investigation and we believe those involved in applying for the search warrant acted with due diligence and in good faith at the time."

Jurors deliberated for four-and-a-half hours before finding Beeck guilty on all counts in 13 unanimous verdicts. The panel has been excused jury service for 10 years by the judge.

Mr Justice Goss thanked them for the "exceptional care and diligence" they showed over the course of the 10-week trial.

He also said they would be allowed to attend the sentencing hearing, provisionally set for Friday, having been involved in the case for so long.



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


23 July, 2019

Vitamin D does not protect you from heart attacks

Vitamin D Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease Risks in More Than 83?000 Individuals in 21 Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-analysis

Mahmoud Barbarawi et al.


Importance:  Observational studies have reported an association between low serum vitamin D levels and elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but such studies cannot prove causation because of possible unmeasured confounding.

Objective:  We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that tested the association of vitamin D supplementation with reduced CVD events and all-cause mortality.

Data Sources:  Literature search through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase was completed by 2 reviewers from each database’s inception to December 15, 2018.

Study Selection:  Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials that reported the effect of long-term (?1 year) vitamin D supplementation on CVD events and all-cause mortality. Studies that did not include cardiovascular outcomes were excluded.

Data Extraction and Synthesis:  Data were abstracted independently by 2 authors. Random-effects models were used to report the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs.

Main Outcomes and Measures:  Major adverse cardiovascular events was the primary outcome, and rates of myocardial infarction, stroke or cerebrovascular accident, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality were the secondary end points.

Results:  Twenty-one randomized clinical trials were included (including 83?291 patients, of whom 41?669 received vitamin D and 41?622 received placebos). The mean (SD) age of trial participants was 65.8 (8.4) years; 61?943 (74.4%) were female. Only 4 trials had prespecified CVD as a primary end point. Vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo was not associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.06]; P?=?.85) nor the secondary end points of myocardial infarction (RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.93-1.08]; P?=?.92), stroke (RR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.98-1.15]; P?=?.16), CVD mortality (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.90-1.07]; P?=?.68), or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.93-1.02]; P?=?.23). Results were generally consistent by sex, baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level, vitamin D dosage, formulation (daily vs bolus dosing), and presence or absence of concurrent calcium administration.

Conclusions and Relevance:  In this updated meta-analysis, vitamin D supplementation was not associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events, individual CVD end points (myocardial infarction, stroke, CVD mortality), or all-cause mortality. The findings suggest that vitamin D supplementation does not confer cardiovascular protection and is not indicated for this purpose.

JAMA Cardiol. Published online June 19, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1870

Dems Allege Racism After DOJ's Garner Decision

DOJ decides to the drop civil-rights case against NYPD Officer Pantaleo

The Justice Department announced Tuesday that it would not bring any federal charges against New York City Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo for causing the death of Eric Garner. Five years ago, Pantaleo, while attempting to subdue and arrest a belligerent and much larger Garner, placed him in a chokehold, which according New York City’s medical examiner, triggered an asthma attack leading to his death. Black Lives Matter exploited the incident by coopting Garner’s last words — “I can’t breathe” — for another one of the group’s post-Ferguson rallying cries against police.

Upon hearing the news this week, Democrat presidential candidates took the opportunity to parrot the vacuous claims of Black Lives Matter, condemning the DOJ’s decision and insisting that this was yet another example of America’s criminal-justice system being racist. Sen. Kamala Harris asserted, “This is a miscarriage of justice. Our criminal-justice system should be rooted in accountability. My heart breaks for the Garner family.” Sen. Cory Booker called the decision “wrong” and “unjust.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren claimed that the justice system had failed “to hold police accountable.” Finally, Sen. Bernie Sanders called America’s justice system a “racist criminal-justice system” that needs reforming. (Some of that reform, by the way, took place thanks to President Donald Trump’s leadership.)

The real issue here was the fact that there was little evidence to make a civil-rights case against Officer Pantaleo. While Democrats spin this as evidence of supposed racism from Trump and his administration, the reality is Attorney General William Barr was simply following New York’s recommendation. As an official from the U.S. Attorney’s New York Eastern District explained, “This should not have ended with the death of a person, but that’s a very different question than what’s presented to a prosecutor when deciding under the Justice manual whether a person should be indicted. You can’t watch the video and not feel great sympathy towards Eric Garner but then I think you have to impose a rigorous legal examination of the facts.”


Netflix Sees Historic Dip in Subscribers During Same Quarter Executive Denounces Georgia’s Pro-Life Bill

Netflix’s latest quarterly report shows the streaming service giant experienced a chill in growth with its first quarterly loss of paid domestic subscribers in eight years. The dip in subscriptions came in the same quarter as Netflix’s decision to take a stance against Georgia’s pro-life “heartbeat bill.”

Netflix “on Wednesday reported a loss of 126,000 domestic paid subscribers compared with analysts’ expectations for a 352,000 gain,” CNBC reported. “Netflix also missed its own forecast for global subscriber growth by 2.3 million.”

A shareholders report stated that the company’s “U.S. paid membership was essentially flat in Q2, [but they] expect it to return to more typical growth in Q3.”

Pro-life activist Lila Rose, president and founder of the nonprofit Live Action, tweeted, “When Georgia passed the Heartbeat bill, Netflix threatened to stop doing business in the pro-life state. Thousands of pro-life customers expressed their outrage.”

Georgia’s heartbeat bill was signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, on May 7. Set to go into effect on Jan. 1, the law will impose restrictions on abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

Before the release of the shareholders report, Netflix’s shares were up more than 35%. Now, the stock will open at its lowest price since January, “shaving $20 billion from its market cap and bringing it to about $138 billion,” according to CNBC.

Kemp stated on the day of the bill’s passage that he is standing by his promise to implement the “toughest abortion bill in the country.”

“Georgia is a state that values life,” Kemp said. “We stand up for those who are unable to speak for themselves.”

Following the bill’s passage, Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, told Variety:

It’s why we will work with the ACLU and others to fight it in court. Given the legislation has not yet been implemented, we’ll continue to film there, while also supporting partners and artists who choose not to. Should it ever come into effect, we’d rethink our entire investment in Georgia.

At the time, Live Action’s Rose took to Twitter to voice her opposition to Sarandos’ comments:

Half the country is pro-life. The vast majority want abortion limits. Netflix’s pro-abortion views are regressive and don’t belong in a civilized, loving society. Wake up, Netflix. Many of your employees, customers and America are increasingly pro-life.

Zemmie Fleck, executive director of  Georgia Right to Life, said at a press conference that “Netflix, among other film industry giants, is using intimidation in order to force Georgians to trade innocent human lives for money. We are here today to stand up to this intimidation so that Georgia does not lose its identity as a pro-life state that values life and we end up like New York that has legalized infantcide.”

The Daily Signal reached out to Netflix for additional comment about whether the company thinks pro-life Americans canceling their Netflix subscriptions contributed to its decline in subscribers but received no response.


Eastern Europe’s ‘Subconscious Fear’ of Islam: The Siege of Vienna, 1683

According to Turkish historian Erhan Afyoncu, “Austria acts against Muslims almost every day because of their subconscious fear of Turks.  Austrians have not forgotten the fear and their emperor’s escape in the Battle of Vienna in 1683. When Turks were defeated in the Battle of Vienna, Europeans were so happy…”

This is true.  As such, a brief refresher on the Siege of Vienna—the anniversary of which is today—is in order:

The largest Islamic army ever to invade European territory—which is saying much considering that countless invasions preceded it since the eighth century—came and surrounded Vienna, then the heart of the Holy Roman Empire and longtime nemesis of Islam, around July 15, 1683.

Some 200,000 Muslim combatants, under the leadership of the Ottomans—the one state in nearly fourteen centuries of Islamic history most dedicated to and founded on the principles of jihad—invaded under the same rationale that so-called “radical” groups, such as the Islamic State, cite to justify their jihad on “infidels.”  Or, to quote the leader of the Muslim expedition, Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa, because Vienna was perceived as the head of the infidel snake, it needed to be laid low so that “all the Christians would obey the Ottomans.”

This was no idle boast; sources describe this Mustafa as “fanatically anti-Christian.” After capturing a Polish town in 1674 he ordered all the Christian prisoners to be skinned alive and their stuffed hides sent as trophies to Ottoman Sultan Muhammad IV.

Such supremacist hate was standard and on display during the elaborate pre-jihad ceremony presaging the siege of Vienna.  Then, the sultan, “desiring him [Mustafa] to fight generously for the Mahometan faith,” to quote a contemporary European source, placed “the standard of the Prophet…into his hands for the extirpation of infidels, and the increase of Muslemen.”

Once the massive Muslim army reached and surrounded the walls of Vienna, Mustafa followed protocol. In 628, his prophet Muhammad had sent an ultimatum to Emperor Heraclius: aslam taslam, “submit [to Islam] and have peace.”  Heraclius rejected the summons, jihad was declared against Christendom (as enshrined in Koran 9:29), and in a few decades, two-thirds of the then Christian world—including Spain, all of North Africa, Egypt, and Greater Syria—were conquered.

Now, over a thousand years later, the same ultimatum of submission to Islam or death had reached the heart of Europe.  Although the Viennese commander did not bother to respond to the summons, graffiti inside the city—including “Muhammad, you dog, go home!”—seems to capture its mood.

So it would be war.  On the next day, Mustafa unleashed all hell against the city’s walls; and for two months, the holed-up and vastly outnumbered Viennese suffered plague, dysentery, starvation, and many casualties—including women and children—in the name of jihad.

Then, on September 12, when the city had reached its final extremity, and the Muslims were about to burst through, Vienna’s prayers were answered.  As an anonymous Englishman explained:

After a siege of sixty days, accompanied with a thousand difficulties, sicknesses, want of provisions, and great effusion of blood, after a million of cannon and musquet shot, bombs, granadoes, and all sorts of fireworks, which has changed the face of the fairest and most flourishing city in the world, disfigured and ruined [it] . . . heaven favorably heard the prayers and tears of a cast down and mournful people.
The formidable king of Poland, John Sobieski, had finally come at the head of 65,000 heavily-armored Poles, Austrians, and Germans—all hot to avenge the beleaguered city.  Arguing that “It is not a city alone that we have to save, but the whole of Christianity, of which the city of Vienna is the bulwark,” Sobieski led a thunderous cavalry charge—history’s largest—against and totally routed the Muslim besiegers.

Although a spectacular victory, the aftermath was gory: before fleeing, the Muslims ritually slaughtered some 30,000 Christian captives collected during their march to Vienna—raping the women beforehand.  On entering the relieved city, the liberators encountered piles of corpses, sewage, and rubble everywhere.

It is this history of Islamic aggression—beginning in the fourteenth century when Muslims first established a foothold in Eastern Europe (Thrace), and into the twentieth century when the Ottoman sultanate finally collapsed—that informs Eastern European views on Islam.  As one modern Pole, echoing the words of Sobieski, said, “A religious war between Christianity and Islam is once again underway in Europe, just like in the past.”

Whereas Western nations cite lack of integration, economic disparities, and grievances to explain away the exponential growth of terrorism, violence, and sexual assaults that come with living alongside large, resistant-to-assimilation Muslim populations, Eastern nations tend to see only a continuity of hostility.



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


22 July, 2019

Conservative Christians Denounce APA's Promotion of Polyamory, Swinging

As a libertarian, I don't care what other people do between the sheets but I can't think trios will ever have much of a following

The American Psychological Association's (APA) decision to establish a "Consenual Non-monogamy Task Force" to promote "polyamory, open relationships" and "swinging" as normal sexual behavior was condemned by the Catholic League and the Ruth Institute, respectively, as a form of "mental breakdown" and another step in a long march "to normalize aberrant sexual behavior between adults."

"The APA is not a scientific body—it is an activist organization in service to sexual libertinism," said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. "The latest APA endorsement of polygamy and swinging (and my favorite, the all-inclusive 'relationship anarchy') was announced this month as part of the APA's 'Non-Monogamy Task Force' program; it says it is promoting 'inclusivity.'"

"It has not yet endorsed bestiality (which is no doubt a tribute to the animal rights folks), but who knows what lies beyond the bend?" said Donohue. "That may be next. Isn't that what 'inclusivity' is all about?"

Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse said, "In plain English, 'non-monogamy' means multiple concurrent sexual partners, sometimes known as polyamory.... The APA’s position is that as long as sex is consensual, no judgement should be attached. In the #MeToo era, we have learned just how thin a reed 'consent' can be. This idea that individuals are entitled to whatever sex life they want, regardless of the consequences, is a basic belief of the Sexual Revolution."

"In the past half-century, this has been a recipe for disaster, as statistics on divorce, out-of-wedlock births and fatherless families show," said Morse.

Earlier this month, the American Psychological Association disclosed that it had launched the "Division 44 Consenual Non-monogamy Task Force." The purpose of the task force is to promote awareness and inclusivity about consensual non-monogamy and diverse expressions of intimate relationships," said the APA.  "These include but are not limited to: people who practice polyamory, open relationships, swinging, relationship anarchy and other types of ethical non-monogamous relationships."

The APA clarifies that its goal is to make sleeping round with multiple partners in a variety of situations, i.e., swinging, acceptable. "Finding love and/or sexual intimacy is a central part of most people’s life experience," stated the APA. "However, the ability to engage in desired intimacy without social and medical stigmatization is not a liberty for all. This task force seeks to address the needs of people who practice consensual non-monogamy, including their intersecting marginalized identities.”

Back in 1973, the APA followed the lead of the American Psychiatric Assocation to declare that homosexuality was no longer a form of mental illness, although there was no new scientific evidence to back up that change. In 2009, the APA rejected the idea that homosexuals could alter their behavior through gay conversion therapy.

"Let's face it, the APA leadership is actively pushing the radical gay agenda, the goal of which is to eradicate the cultural basis of Western civilization, namely the Judeo-Christian ethos," said Donohue.  "Their ideology is so entrenched that they are unable to see the psychological and social damage that is done to everyone, especially women and children, when a sexual ethic based on restraint is destroyed. And have they not learned of the body count attributed to lethal sex practices?"

"Since the 1970s, the APA helped to normalize aberrant sexual behavior between adults," said Dr. Morse, Ph.D. "No one has stopped to ask about the long-term price children have paid, and that society continues to pay. Now it’s taking that one step further, by trying to get the pubic to accept multiple sexual partners. If they succeed, children and society will pay a steep price."

Dr. Morse futher asked, “What happens when little Johnny comes home and finds Mommy in bed with a strange man? If she explains to him that the relationship is ‘consensual,’ and Daddy knows about it, will that lessen the emotional trauma? What about the rights of children? Will their consent be sought too?"

Dr. Morse’s latest book is The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies are Destroying Lives (and how the Church was Right All Along).


Miss World America Strips Conservative Activist Kathy Zhu of Miss Michigan Title Over Her Refusing to Wear Hijab

Miss World America has stripped beloved conservative commentator Kathy Zhu of her Miss Michigan title over “insensitive” political tweets and her refusing to wear a hijab during a leftist campus event in 2016.

The heartbroken 20-year-old University of Michigan student posted screenshots of the email and text exchanges that she had with MWA’s State Director Laurie DeJack on Twitter.

In the exchanges, DeJack continuously declared that there was a “problem” without explaining the situation to a clearly increasingly worried Zhu.

Eventually, she finally revealed that one of the issues was a tweet in which Zhu declared that the majority of black deaths are caused by other black citizens.

DeJack also sent Zhu an email demanding that she return her crown and sash, as well as remove any mention of having participated in MWA from all of her social media.

The organization also took issue with an incident in which Zhu refused to allow an activist to put a hijab on her head during an event on campus.  [so you can be ordered to wear a religious garb against your will, or else?]

Zhu responded by saying that “what is ‘insensitive’ is that women in the Middle East are getting STONED TO DEATH for refusing to obey their husband’s orders to wear hijabs.

A Muslim woman tried to FORCIBLY put a hijab on my head without my permission. I tweeted about it on my social media, and it got the attention of the media. Almost everyone was supportive of me refusing to be put in that situation.”

Following her refusal to wear the hijab, angry Twitter users had attempted to get the Chinese-American student expelled from her university.

“Are the people in MWA implying that they advocate for the punishment of women who refuse to wear a hijab?” Zhu asked DeJack.

Zhu refused to back down or bow before them throughout her email response.

“I am completely disheartened by this situation. I was so excited to represent the state of Michigan and advocate for ‘don’t be afraid to speak your truth’ as my main statement. For them to take my title away due to right-leaning tweets shows that they only want pageant girls to have brainless statements like ‘world peace’ and not meaningful ideals that would actually make a difference,” Zhu told The Gateway Pundit.

The Gateway Pundit has reached out to MWA for comment and will update this article if one is provided.


Things Haven’t Always Been This Way:  The decline of civility

Walter Williams

Here’s a suggestion. How about setting up some high school rifle clubs? Students would bring their own rifles to school, store them with the team coach and, after classes, collect them for practice.

You say: “Williams, you must be crazy! To prevent gun violence, we must do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of kids.”

There’s a problem with this reasoning. Prior to the 1960s, many public high schools had shooting clubs.

In New York City, shooting clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training, and Stuyvesant high schools. Students carried their rifles to school on the subway and turned them over to their homeroom or gym teacher. Rifles were retrieved after school for target practice.

In some rural areas across the nation, there was a long tradition of high school students hunting before classes and storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars, parked on school grounds, during the school day.

Today, any school principal permitting rifles clubs or allowing rifles on school grounds would be fired, possibly imprisoned.

Here’s my question: Have .30-30 caliber Winchesters and .22 caliber rifles changed to become more violent? If indeed rifles have become more violent, what can be done to pacify them? Will rifle psychiatric counseling help to stop these weapons from committing gun violence?

You say: “Williams, that’s lunacy! Guns are inanimate objects and as such cannot act.”

You’re right. Only people can act. That means that we ought to abandon the phrase “gun violence” because guns cannot act and hence cannot be violent.

If guns haven’t changed, it must be that people, and what’s considered acceptable behavior, have changed. Violence with guns is just a tiny example.

What explains a lot of what we see today is growing cultural deviancy.

Twenty-nine percent of white children, 53% of Hispanic children, and 73% of black children are born to unmarried women. The absence of a husband and father in the home is a strong contributing factor to poverty, school failure, crime, drug abuse, emotional disturbance, and a host of other social problems.

By the way, the low marriage rate among blacks is relatively new. Census data shows that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults from 1890 to 1940. According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year only 11% of black children and 3% of white children were born to unwed mothers.

In 1954, I graduated from Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin High School, the city’s poorest school. During those days, there were no school policemen. Today, close to 400 police patrol Philadelphia schools.

According to federal education data, in the 2015-16 school year, 5.8% of the nation’s 3.8 million teachers were physically attacked by a student. Almost 10% were threatened with injury.

Other forms of cultural deviancy are found in the music accepted today that advocates murder, rape, and other vile acts. In previous generations, people were held responsible for their behavior. Today, society at large pays for irresponsible behavior.

Years ago, there was little tolerance for the crude behavior and language that are accepted today.

To see men sitting while a woman was standing on a public conveyance was once unthinkable. Children addressing adults by their first name, and their use of foul language in the presence of, and often to, teachers and other adults was unacceptable.

A society’s first line of defense is not the law or the criminal justice system, but customs, traditions, and moral values. These behavioral norms, mostly imparted by example, word-of-mouth, and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error.

Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society.

Today’s true tragedy is that most people think what we see today has always been so. As such, today’s Americans accept behavior that our parents and grandparents never would have accepted.


Polish towns are declaring `LGBT-free zones' while the ruling party cheers them on

KIELCE, Poland - Pop music accompanied about 1,000 rainbow-draped activists as they embarked on this city's first-ever LGBT rights march last weekend. But the music could barely drown out the boos from bystanders.

The marchers proceeded past banners that compared gays to pedophiles. They pressed on in the face of counterprotesters making threatening gestures and Catholics praying on the sidewalks in silent protest.

The scene reflected a growing tension in this country - between a burgeoning rights movement and a conservative backlash. It's a tension that the ruling party has been accused of fueling and exploiting.

Regional party officials have pushed to declare cities and entire provinces in the country's conservative southeast "LGBT-ideology free." Activists have counted around 30 such declarations so far.

Ahead of fall elections, the ruling Law and Justice party has thrown its full weight behind a campaign that is marginalizing Poland's LGBT community, its critics say.



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


21 July, 2019

Pin The Male And The Honky

 Mike Adams

Dr. Kimberly Cook, a Sociology and Criminology professor at UNC Wilmington, has written an op-ed piece that ostensibly seeks to explain the high rates of “violence in low-income communities” in our hometown of Wilmington, North Carolina. Under normal circumstances, I ignore political screeds written by my Marxist colleagues. However, this recent op-ed is so mired in intellectual incompetence and academic dishonestly as to require a column-length response.

Cook begins her op-ed by saying that “As a criminologist, (she) can offer some insights into this persistent problem (of violence in low-income communities).” By reminding people she is a criminologist she seeks to establish credibility. But she destroys her credibility in the next sentence by adding that, “arrest and incarceration exacerbate the problems” she is addressing.

When Cook eschews incarceration, she draws no distinction between petty offences such as drug possession and more serious crimes of violence such as murder, which have been on the upswing in Wilmington’s low-income neighborhoods. Hence, her suggestion that arresting people and incarcerating them would be detrimental raises some serious red flags. Were I the editor of our local Wilmington McTimes, I probably would have passed on Cook’s request to publish her “expert” commentary.

Continuing to speak “as a criminologist,” Cook states that another cause of violence is “a heteronormative masculinity that celebrates dominance, power and control.” This is the kind of socio-babble that offers nothing of relevance in the realm of public policy. No one would seriously suggest we encourage “homo-normative masculinity” or “hetero-normative femininity” as a means of controlling crime.

Cook also laments that the upswing in crime in Wilmington’s low-income neighborhoods is due to the fact that, “economic opportunity is not available.” The main obstacle she faces here is, of course, the evidence. While crime has been increasing in these neighborhoods, economic opportunity has also been on the upswing. While the nation is experiencing rapid economic growth, we are also seeing the lowest black unemployment rates in decades. There has been no downward shift in economic opportunity, which would explain the sudden uptick in crime in lower-income Wilmington neighborhoods.

Fortunately, Cook does recognize - at least at some level - how the crimes of her fellow Democrats have affected our community. She states that “Still, our community remains wounded by historical harms of racialized violence (the violence of slavery; the 1898 coup and massacre).” For those not from Wilmington, the 1898 massacre was a political coup perpetrated by white supremacist Democrats against black Republicans. But it has absolutely nothing to do with current rates of violence in poor black communities.

Cook only mentions these historical factors because she simply cannot communicate at length without blaming societal ills on whites and males, unless of course, the males are gay. The proclivity for identity politics is in her genetic code as a Marxist feminist revolutionary. As preposterous as they may be, her suggestions that slavery (ended in 1865) and the Wilmington race riot (of 1898) are somehow responsible for the high rate of violence in low-income minority communities in 2019 must be explored. So please allow me to speak as a criminologist who is not a disciple of Karl Marx.

Other nations, such as France, kept national crime statistics prior to the American Civil War. But the United States did not do so until the early 1930s. Hence, it is difficult to measure the effects that slavery and local political events of the late 19th century had on rates of violent crime. We can, however, use the statistics to pin the blame on other atrocities carried out by the Democrats. (While you consider these statistics, please note that the Democrats launched the War on Poverty in the 1960s).

For the first two full decades for which we have official crime statistics – the ‘40s and the ‘50s - we see that the homicide rate among black males fell dramatically. That drop was 18 percent in the 1940s and 22 percent in the 1950s. Then, the black homicide rate suddenly shot up by 89 percent in the 1960s.

Thus, to clear thinking people, Cook’s analysis of black crimes rates is more hysterical than historical. Rational minds simply cannot attribute this huge increase in black crime in the 1960s, which occurred nationwide and in Wilmington, to the “legacy of slavery.”

Nor did increases in homicide among blacks have anything to do with terrorist acts committed by white Democrats against black Republicans around the turn of the century. Cook has simply identified the wrong Democratic atrocity. She should be focusing on the War on Poverty, which resulted in skyrocketing rates of black illegitimacy. When that war began, families headed by only a single mother raised about a fifth of black children. Within a third of a century, families headed by only a single mother became the normal environment in which black children were raised.

But Cook cannot speak honestly on this issue because she supports welfare. She also supports slavery reparations. So she has to ignore the more recent data in order to make demonstrably false insinuations about the legacy of slavery. In a nutshell, she is not interested in addressing realities. She is interested in maintaining visions.

Sadly, this is more than professional incompetence on Cook’s behalf. She is knowingly advancing a false narrative. In her op-ed, she states, “For example, we know that prior to 1898 African Americans here owned homes and successful businesses, and there was a thriving African American middle class.” But that was after the Civil War. So the legacy of slavery argument does not hold water.

Nor does she have the moral authority to condemn the riots of 1898, which were perpetrated by her political party and which resulted in blacks having their property taken away. She states that, “The generations to follow lost the inherited prosperity that would have come to them had the massacre never happened.”

This would seem to be a strong moral condemnation of taking people’s property with force. But Cook is a Marxist. Thus, her political ideology revolves around taking other people’s property with force. At least Professor Cook isn’t a racist who would take property only from blacks. Seeking equality, her fellow Marxists would take it from everyone.

Cook furthers her intellectually dishonest brand of identity politics by stating that, “we need to acknowledge that most violent crime is perpetrated by men and boys. We also have to acknowledge that young African American and Latino men have shockingly high rates of violent victimizations.” She could have also stated the obvious point that:

Other African American and Latino men commit the vast majority of these crimes against African American and Latino men.

But Cook will not say that because she is committed to only repeating statistics in a manner that denigrates men and panders to racial minorities.

Cook concludes her manifesto with this glib suggestion: “Let’s establish and fund a truth and reconciliation program to better understand and address the historical harms of racism in our city. And let’s deliberately cultivate a version of masculinity that promotes peace and responsibility, repairing the harm inflicted on our children.”

I have a better idea. Let’s reject the ideas of incompetent Marxist feminists who distort history in an effort to advance failed visions.


Tommy Robinson: 'Our Free Speech and Our Rights Are Disappearing in the UK'

In a final interview the day before being imprisoned for nine months on contempt of court charges, British activist Tommy Robinson spoke to MEF Sentry Radio on June 10. The charges stem from his livestream reporting in March 2018 outside a courthouse where members of the predominantly Muslim Huddersfield rape gang were on trial.

Under the 1981 Contempt of Court Act, British courts have the power to impose reporting restrictions on the media when "necessary to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the case." However, Robinson told MEF radio that this law has been used to cover up what he calls a "massive epidemic" in Britain:

[I]n this country, 90% of the convictions for child gang rape, [by so-called] "grooming gangs" are Muslim men. 2% of the population is Muslim but they are responsible for 90% of the convictions. ... So this is a massive epidemic across our country. What we saw over a 12 month period was 72 investigations in towns and cities that were identical. They are all Muslim gangs. They use taxis, they use pizza shops, they use their businesses as honey-pots to trap the children in. They offer them free food, they give them drugs, they give them alcohol and then they enslave them. ... Multiple children have been murdered.

For the past decade, he said, there has been a "conspiracy of silence" about the epidemic by government and media elites who

don't want the public being aware of this problem because of their utopian world they are trying to create with open borders and mass immigration. These are the realities that come with some of the cultures that are imported. These are the problems that come, the intolerant views towards women, the intolerant views towards non-Muslims.

Their reaction, he says, has been to "cover it up." The judiciary has been a useful tool for this:

What we now see in our courts is rather than keep 12 members of the jury in the dark over issues, we keep 60 million members of the British public [in the dark], unlike in America. What they now do is for every single one of these trials they put a reporting restriction where no one can even mention that there is a court case on. Now that doesn't make any sense at all ... How can you prejudice a jury by simply saying there is a trial?

The specific allegations against him don't hold water, insists Robinson, particularly concerning his questioning of defendants as they entered the courtroom for sentencing:

[The] charge is that I caused anxiety to the convicted Muslim child pedophiles by asking them the question, "how do you feel about your verdict?" I was calm. I was polite. They said that that caused them anxiety that could have impeded the course of justice because they might have felt worried about coming to court. They don't worry about coming to court because they have been raping children. They shouldn't have had bail anyway and been walking the streets. They have all been convicted.

Robinson alleges that this selective prosecution has more to do with his growing influence than the details of his case:

Now I have become the most watched journalist in the UK very quickly. I had 9 million people watch my videos in a 4 week period. 172 million read my tweets in a 4 week period. So I have become very strong as a journalist and I am the most famous journalist in the UK. And now they are not in control of the narrative anymore or the stories that are going out and now I am going straight to the truth, straight to the facts.

A 2014 UK Law Commission report concluded that "the current [reporting restrictions] notification system is unreliable and inconsistently applied."

Robinson notes that he took great pains to operate within the letter of the law.

He scoured the Leeds Crown Court website and found no reporting restrictions for the case, then visited the court itself and "was told they don't know."

Finally, he adopted what he assumed to be a fail-safe method of respecting any restrictions that might be in place:

[I]t states on the judiciary's own website that a judge has no power under section 4.2 of the reporting restriction guidelines to put a reporting restriction on any information that is already in the public domain. ... Even though I couldn't find any evidence of reporting restrictions I wanted to err on the side of caution. So I literally stood outside and read a BBC news article. But what they said in court is, "No, that's not right. What it says on the website, that's not right, that's not the law."

"They are lying saying I jeopardized the trial," insists Robinson, emphasizing that in both this case and in a similar grooming gang case for which he was convicted of similar charges in 2017, judges ruled that his broadcasts did not compromise the proceedings.

It has been proven in two courts that nothing I have done could have prejudiced the jury. I have not been convicted of nearly collapsing the trial. I have not been convicted of prejudicing the jury. I have been convicted of causing anxiety to child rapists by asking them a simple question.

The "corporate globalist media" has willfully ignored all of this, instead spreading the lie that his broadcasts nearly caused both trials to collapse. He finds it curious that this assault comes as major social media have de-platformed him:

They will lie to everyone and now that that I have been completely removed from all social media. I had the biggest reach of any political Facebook page in Britain. I have been deleted from all of them – Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook – so my reach to tell people actually to look at the facts is gone. They now completely control the narrative.

Robinson said his freedom of speech shouldn't depend on whether one agrees with his controversial views on Islam and immigration:

The fight for freedom of speech shouldn't come to politics on who thinks what and who disagrees with whom. This is a fundamental right. And the fight now is the left is celebrating the fact that our free speech and our rights are disappearing in the UK. The media are celebrating, Journalists are celebrating on about me being in prison for journalism.


We’re told that too much screen time hurts our kids. Where’s the evidence?

If you had attended the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ international congress in London last week you could have been forgiven for coming away with the following thoughts. Addiction to Fortnite, the online game, is a real disorder; social media is depleting “our neurotransmitter deposits”; and “excess screen time has reduced our attention span to eight seconds, one less than that of a goldfish”.

Scary stuff! Only problem is, none of these claims is supported by facts or a drop of scientific evidence.

Fears that the digital world is harmful have proliferated for years. Narratives about smartphones, social media or video games causing mental health problems are especially popular. Rarely a month goes by without former tech luminaries turning on their creation, or the launch of a book cataloguing the negative or addictive impacts of digital technologies.

There are subtle variations, but the core idea peddled by these moral entrepreneurs and gurus follows a well-worn script. It includes headline-grabbing ideas – smartphones are destroying a generation, say, or Silicon Valley founders are pushing digital heroin while sending their own children to tech-free schools, or apps are driving teens to self-harm or even suicide.

However, in a world witnessing ecological destruction, political polarisation and growing social divides, should fears about technology really occupy the limited space in the forefront of our minds? Concerns about smartphones might fade away in the coming decade, just as anxieties about video arcades, Dungeons & Dragons and Elvis’s hips did in previous generations.

Unfortunately, the accelerating and highly lucrative hyperbole – of course, there are books to sell, detox clinics to market, speaking tours to book – has left us no closer to an answer to the key questions. Essentially, do digital technologies actually harm our children? And should we, as a society, act rapidly to stop this? The basic idea underlying these genuine concerns – one of us writes also as a parent – is that time spent on digital devices negatively affects young people; kids forgo “organic” opportunities for face-to-face socialising, opting instead for lower quality experiences such as app-based Snapstreaks or TikTok reactions.

As the story goes, a steady digital diet of this social “junk food” isn’t psychologically nutritious and it crowds out wholesome analogue experiences. Consequently, young people are falling prey to the innovative technological and psychological tricks of the all-powerful puppet masters of Silicon Valley.

While it is true that some research suggests that young people who report higher social media use show slightly lower levels of wellbeing, most of these findings are unreliable and their conclusions might amount to little more than statistical noise.

These problems are well known to scientists working on the topic, but many commentators don’t know – or don’t care – that they are cherry-picking from an evidence base riddled with errors. What’s more, sitting in on the psychiatry conference in London, you’d have had no way of knowing this is shoddy science. Instead of speculating about technology effects, we need to test how social media and life satisfaction influence each other and to do so over time. To that end, for our work (published recently in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), we focused on a sample of more than 10,000 preteens and teens, analysing nearly a decade of longitudinal data collected from British adolescents.

Each year, teens and preteens rated their social media use and told us how satisfied they were with aspects of their life. We were interested in testing both whether changes in social media use over time actually preceded shifts in life satisfaction and whether such changes influenced subsequent social media use. In simple terms, are you more likely to “use” if you’re happy or sad?

What did we find? Well, mostly nothing! In more than half of the thousands of statistical models we tested, we found nothing more than random statistical noise. In the remainder, we did find some small trends over time – these were mostly clustered in data provided by teenage girls. Decreases in satisfaction with school, family, appearance and friends presaged increased social media use, and increases in social media use preceded decreases in satisfaction with school, family, and friends. You can see then how, if you were determined to extract a story, you could cook up one about teenage girls and unhappiness.

But – and this is key – it’s not an exaggeration to say that these effects were minuscule by the standards of science and trivial if you want to inform personal parenting decisions. Our results indicated that 99.6% of the variability in adolescent girls’ satisfaction with life had nothing to do with how much they used social media.

But instead of seeing these results as disappointing – as they might be in a journalistic story sense – in science the lack of an expected finding is inherently valuable, making us reconsider, challenge and update our notion of how social media is affecting us.

Where do we go from here? Well, it’s probably best to retire the idea that the amount of time teens spend on social media is a meaningful metric influencing their wellbeing. There are many good reasons to be sceptical of the role of Facebook, Snapchat and TikTok in our society but it would be a mistake to assume science supports fears that every minute online compromises mental health. In fact, this idea risks trivialising and stigmatising those who struggle with mental health on a daily basis.

Moving beyond screen time to explain the interplay between technology and the wellbeing of our adolescent population requires us to face some tough questions. It’s all well and good to remember “neurotransmitter deposits” aren’t a thing, and this goldfish nonsense has been repeatedly debunked. But it remains the case that we don’t understand fully the impact of big tech on our society.

The fact is that much of the data that would enable scientists to uncover the nuanced and complex effects of technology is locked behind closed doors in Silicon Valley. Until Google, Facebook and the large gaming companies share the data being saved on to their servers with every click, tap or swipe on their products, we will be in the dark about the effects of these products on mental health. Until then, we’ll all be dancing to the steady drumbeat of monetised fear sold by the moral entrepreneurs.


'Tell them to make their own breakfast

Famous children's author John Marsden slams Aussie helicopter parents for doing 'irreparable damage' to their kids by telling them they're perfect

One of Australia's most prolific authors has spoken out against what he perceives as the 'disempowerment' and' impotence' of today's youth through damaging parenting.

John Marsden, most known for his Tomorrow When the War Began series, has written a non-fiction book entitled The Art of Growing Up where he shares some of the insight he from 30 years of writing for young adults.

Mr Marsden said the country is in the midst of an 'epidemic of damaging parenting' which will likely have long term ramifications.

He wrote the number of parents who don't just love their children but are 'in love with them' had reached 'critical levels'.

As a result Mr Marsden believes parents could be passing on their own narcissism.

'They minimise their child's transgressions, have no regard for those hurt by their child's narcissism … and blame others for their child's aberrant behaviour. They are doing irreparable damage to their kids,' Mr Marsden wrote. 

Mr Marsden, who has six stepsons of his own, told The Australian elaborated on his viewpoint and said he was keenly aware many parents would balk at his suggestion.

'I do think there's a need to be more direct in the way we talk to parents ­because parenthood has become this great untouchable area, this sacred topic, which you dare not criticise except in the most insincere ways,' he said. 

The major theme of Mr Marsden's argument was giving children more freedom and refraining from putting too much undue pressure on them from a young age.

He encourages parents to allow their children to explore their physical and intellectual world with more freedom and to allow them to make mistakes.

Mr Marsden wrote in his book saying no to children at least once a day could go a long way towards this goal.

His advice to parents early in the book is to be brutally honest and aware of the parenting techniques they use which are unhelpful to adolescents.  

To rethink their 'prejudices' and realise their children do not have to be perfect because no one alive is perfect.

A key piece of advice given to parents in the book is to simply set out the goal of helping their children live their lives to the fullest, including the joys and sorrows. 


1) 'The first principle of good parenting is to be aware of the unhealthy ways we construct childhood and adolescence. Parents may need to rethink their prejudices. Their children may not be as perfect as they pretend to be, and their teenagers might be better than is generally acknowledged.'

2) 'We must give our children fear. It is a rich and immensely valuable experience to know fear. The only myths many modern parents want to offer children are Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. We are scared to give them the Bogeyman as well, not realising how nourishing the Bogeyman can be.’

3) 'We can reasonably assume that a parent who does not say ‘no’ at least once a day to their child is failing as a parent.'

4) 'Parents should strongly — even forcefully! — encourage teenagers to get paid jobs. They are, after all, members of a family, not business class passengers on a plane.'

5) 'People who feel angry or upset when they get a glimpse of children’s hatred or greed or sexuality or rage or dishonesty are overlooking the fact that the child is acting in the same way as every other human being in the history of the world.'

6) 'The only important academic skill needed by children is literacy. We must ensure that children have access to books with realistic characters, credible situations, authentic language and we must not shrink from showing life in all its many forms.'

7) 'It is worth teaching your children how to be interesting conversationalists. Face it, some kids, like some adults, are boring. Some are excruciatingly boring.’

8) 'Parenting means teaching children to get their own Weet-Bix.'

9) 'Every parent should wish for their child nothing more than ‘I want him or her to experience life to the fullest’. Every child should be able to exult in the 10,000 joys that life brings, and feel with full force the sadness of the 10,000 sorrows.'



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


19 July, 2019

Planned Parenthood Ousts Insufficiently 'Woke' CEO

Leana Wen apparently wasn't nearly zealous enough in advocating abortion on demand

Just eight months into her tenure, Leana Wen was fired as Planned Parenthood’s president Tuesday. She succeeded Cecile Richards last November, but Wen, a woman of color and a committed leftist, wasn’t radical enough for the nation’s largest abortion mill. Given that Planned Parenthood rakes in more than $500 million every year from American taxpayers, many of whom view abortion as a tragedy to be ended, this is significant news.

The specifics are even more galling. Wen last year insisted, “People aren’t coming to Planned Parenthood to make a political statement. They’re coming because they need their vaccinations. They need their well-woman exams. They’re getting HIV tests.” (Definitely not mammograms, though.) She also said in her departure statement, “I believe the best way to protect abortion care is to be clear that it is not a political issue but a health care one.”

Planned Parenthood’s board members, however, clearly view abortion as their mission (PP averages 320,000 abortions each year), and Wen was not sufficiently on message. (That mission was always clear to most Americans, but the board explicitly declared it by removing Wen.) Board members also see abortion as primarily a political issue and wanted a social-justice warrior, not a physician like Wen, to lead the charge, especially when so many states are directly challenging Roe v. Wade with restrictions on abortion and the Trump administration implemented a new rule cutting $60 million in funding from Planned Parenthood.

In a sense, the board is right. The Hippocratic Oath historically taken by physicians says, “I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm.” (The phrase “first, to do no harm,” is a later development along the same lines.) An abortion by definition harms (i.e., terminates the life of) a preborn human. Ergo, abortion is arguably better understood as a political and cultural issue.

Furthermore, there was the whole issue of Wen not submitting to the transgender movement’s increasing power. She reportedly refused to use “trans-inclusive” language and would not agree that men can have babies. Apparently, in today’s “woke” radical-leftist climate, Planned Parenthood couldn’t be effectively led by someone who believes in that science.

Wen will be replaced temporarily by board member Alexis McGill Johnson during the search for a permanent replacement. Of course, no leader of this massive taxpayer-funded abortion mill is going to be palatable to those who value the sanctity of life, and as long as Planned Parenthood is violating the very right to life given each human by his or her Creator, there will continue to be a political and cultural fight.


Defund Lutherans for Open Borders Now!
If you were shocked by the images of the Mexican flag flying over an Aurora, Colorado, immigration detention center this weekend, you’ll be appalled at an even more disgusting spectacle:

One of the top promoters of the so-called Lights for Liberty nationwide protests by Trump-hating, ICE-bashing radicals was a nonprofit religious organization known as the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. As a designated “host,” LIRS played a key role in publicizing, organizing and participating in demonstrations against President Donald Trump’s deportation enforcement actions targeting some 2,000 illegal immigrants and their families who have ignored removal orders or skipped out on court hearings.

Brazen hatred of cops, Border Patrol and ICE agents were on full display at the open borders protests fronted by LIRS and other left-wing groups, including Code Pink, CASA and CAIR. Marchers echoed the “Close the Concentration Camps” rhetoric of Congressional Brat Pack Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). They carried signs declaring “ICE=Gestapo” and “Free the People, Burn the Camps.” It’s not just idle rhetoric. Antifa thug Willem Van Spronsen, armed with a rifle and incendiary devices, attempted to set a Tacoma ICE facility on fire on Saturday before being shot dead. He has been hailed as a “hero” and a “martyr” by fellow “progressive” travelers, while sympathetic mainstream reporters and activists look the other way.

The president and CEO of LIRS, Krishanti Vignarajah, is a Sri Lankan refugee and former Michelle Obama policy director who led the Lights for Liberty event in Washington, D.C. She argues that Americans are obligated to open the floodgates at the southern border (since she turned out so great) and vehemently opposes what she calls “militant border enforcement.” To these border-sabotaging radicals, of course, any border enforcement is “militant.”

LIRS sounds like just the kind of extremist group you’d expect to be kept afloat by billionaire George Soros’ big bucks. But hold on to your wallets and your American flags, folks: In 2016, LIRS relied on $64.7 million in government subsidies from taxpayers — that’s you and me — to fund a whopping 96.2% of its budget.

LIRS is one of nine agencies that receives tens of millions of dollars to resettle refugees from around the world. The organization brags that it is “a vital arm of the United States refugee admissions program” that has worked with the State Department to import “over 500,000 refugees” to our country. One of LIRS’ most famous clients? Somalian-born Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, whose immigration, marriage and tax fraud problems I reported on in my column last month.

If only a fraction of LIRS clients share Omar’s contempt for our security and self-governance, you can see the trouble we’re in. And that’s just the caseload of one of the nine resettlement giants that together rake in an estimated $1 billion a year.

In addition, the Lutheran nonprofit is one of two specially designated groups (the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is the other) that is contracted by the government to provide social services and benefits (including “psycho-educational support” and “low-cost or pro bono immigration legal assistance”) to sponsor families hosting illegal immigrant children.

Disguised as compassion and Christian morality, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service’s activism is a profit-seeking machine — even as the agency has been plagued by allegations of mismanagement that prompted an external probe two years ago. Last week, the group unveiled yet another initiative: “United Sanctuaries of America.” You should know, especially if you are a citizen of faith who believes in the sovereignty of our country, that the following organizations are partnering with LIRS, possibly to erase our borders:

–New Sanctuary Coalition

–Hispanic Heritage Foundation

–League of United Latin American Citizens

–Washington Office on Latin America

–Mary’s Center and Hispanic Federation

–Gethsemane Lutheran Church

–Good Shepherd Lutheran

–Church of the Reformation

–Christ Lutheran

–Christ the Servant Lutheran

–Our Savior Lutheran

Bottom line: Open borders equals cash flow: more aliens, more grants, bigger paychecks.

Exit question: Will a single American elected official please stand up and challenge the continued public funding of this subversive religious racket bent on hoisting foreign flags and alien interests above our own?


Parents are encouraging children as young as three to change gender without consulting specialists, experts warn

Parents are pushing children as young as three to change gender without consulting a specialist first, experts have warned.

Some children are starting school with a new name and gender identity after 'socially transitioning' – without teachers having been told.

The NHS's top psychologist for transgender children warned yesterday of a major increase in the trend, saying parents are researching the subject online and taking advice from internet forums and transgender lobby groups.

The warning comes as the latest figures show the number of referrals to England's only specialist clinic for children has almost doubled in four years.

Bernadette Wren, head of clinical psychology at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust which runs the service in London, said parents are researching the subject online and taking advice from internet forums and transgender lobby groups    +1
Bernadette Wren, head of clinical psychology at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust which runs the service in London, said parents are researching the subject online and taking advice from internet forums and transgender lobby groups

Last year 2,590 children were referred to the Gender Identity Development Service. Ten were aged three and four, and dozens more were of primary school age.

Bernadette Wren, head of clinical psychology at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust which runs the service in London, said: 'We have had some children who have gone to school and nobody in the school knows.'

Dr Wren cited the example of a five-year-old whose name was changed from Billy to Ellie by his parents because 'he was always at his happiest when he could wear a dress'.

Billy insisted his body was wrong wanted it 'fixed'. Dr Wren said: 'He was deeply unhappy and asked his mother to take him to the doctors to cut his willy off.'

The clinic proposed a 'watchful waiting process' during which the parents were encouraged to help Ellie 'tolerate the reality of the body'.

But the parents acted 'more affirmatively' and the child is formally known as Ellie at school and in other settings and is now 'unequivocally related to as a girl'.

The parents are now waiting for Ellie to turn 12 when they expect the clinic to provide hormone blockers, believing that anything less would be 'unthinkable and cruel'.

Children can be given puberty blockers on the NHS from the age of 12 and sex-change hormones from the age of 16.

Many 'socially transition' at a younger age – but Dr Wren warned that doing so prior to puberty can lead to problems when the child is hit by a 'wall of reality' as their body starts to change.

She said: 'We think that is setting up problems for later. There is no magic solution.

'Some families think the social transition means it is all going to be fine, but it is much more complicated.

'We are anxious that there's some magical thinking that they won't really go through puberty. I'm not condemning these parents, but I think there's much more to learn.'

Dr Polly Carmichael, director of the Gender Identity Development Service, added: 'There are some families where they will talk about it being a hate crime if you get the pronoun wrong with a very young child who has made a social transition.

'There are internet forums where parents talk and, if a parent has a good experience of something, other parents will follow. Parents do want the best for their kids.'

Youngsters sent to the London clinic, or its outreach centres in Leeds and Bristol, are given counselling and around 45 per cent of initial referrals lead to physical treatment such as hormone injections.

The clinic, which has a two-year waiting list, has come under fire for 'rushing' children into potentially irreversible medical treatment.

In April five specialist clinicians resigned over concerns some children had been wrongly diagnosed and sent for life-changing medical intervention without a thorough assessment of the other options.


The sinister suppression of the Freedom of Speech in China is  not too dissimilar to the restrictions of freedoms in Australia and New Zealand

Ron Owen

While Israel Folau explores legal avenues, the broader fight for freedom of religion and belief continues.

Supposedly, the new federal parliament is now in session and the government is promising religious freedom legislation. I will only believe that their intentions are honourable when not just 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act is removed, but when all of this Act is removed, plus the all inclusive State Anti Discrimination Acts are removed.

These Acts do not just suppress the freedom of speech, they create public funded witch hunt inquisitions that use the power of the State to create legal precedents that nullify any safeguards that were put in these Acts to sell them to the dumbed down majority.

Just recently, a man described as the “UK’s Israel Folau” recently won a similar case, the British Justice system must not be as polluted as ours in Australia.

Christian student Felix Ngole was expelled from his social work course at Sheffield University for posting comments critical of homosexuality on Facebook.

After fighting a four-year legal battle, the UK Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of Ngole.

The decision, which overturned an earlier High Court ruling in the university’s favour, found that “the University adopted a position from the outset… which was untenable” and that the university “wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination.”

The presiding judges pointed out that “The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.”

Ngole’s comments were made in the course of a debate on Facebook over the jailing of US marriage registrar Kim Davis. Davis, you might recall, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky and was jailed briefly for contempt of court in 2015.

Our Australian courts have always taken the opposite view ‘that if any person could be offended, no matter how slightly then there is breach of the Act which has to be prosectured.

Senator Eric Abetz describes this sort of  discrimination correctly:

“In an exercise of Orwellian proportions, these sports stars were targeted for exclusion in the name of inclusion and discriminated against in the name of tolerance. You don’t have to agree with Izzy to agree with his right to express his religious views, or his wife’s right to back him.”

The Senator then outlined why the Folau precedent is a threat to our freedom.

“Today it’s Izzy’s religious views and his wife’s loyal support. Yesterday it was the Professor Ridd’s scientific views. Tomorrow it might be somebody’s political view. The next might be someone’s environmental view. This is a fight for freedom of speech which impacts us all. The government must, and I am confident will, respond to the expressions of the quiet Australians on 18 May and ensure our freedoms, which were bought with the highest of prices, are not sacrificed and squandered on the altar of political correctness.”

Any normal Australian who does not have the financial backing or profile of Andrew Bolt or Israel Folau stands no chance before government selected Tribunals, composed of one person.

Their selection is not based on their knowledge but on their opinion and in most of the Tribunals the Rule of law and the Rules of evidence do not apply. One Tribunal member in my case bragged from the bench that he could take his opinion on evidence presented from what he read in the morning papers and ignore whatever I presented in my defence.

We do not have a Constitutional Monarchy, or a Constitutional democracy when we cannot comment or we are prevented from reading comments from others, without the freedom ot interchange information we are no better off than the Chinese people, or the Hong Kong people, the difference in the degrees of suppression we are in is just academic debate.

One Law For All

We are either one nation with equal justice for all, or no justice for those without government support. Government now will support Muslins, homosexuals, and people with a darker skin colour, but won’t support Christians, firearm owners, and white skinned people. That is Discrimination in itself.

If we had a correct justice system we are all at liberty to take any offence of Libel or Defamation to the civil courts, if the government wanted to do something right for once they could easily make the Justice system more affordable. Instead, they increase court fees and work to keep the legal profession exclusive.

Without Justice we have nothing to fight for, we are just slaves and unfortunately very soon we are going to have to fight to exist in our troubled 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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


18 July, 2019

Dutch airline panders to puritanical religious beliefs

Anglicans, presumably.  I doubt that I need to name more likely religions.  I would have thought that this was contrary to Dutch law.  Most Western countries these days have laws supporting public breastfeeding

A mother issued a warning to any nursing mothers who are considering travelling with KLM Royal Dutch Airlines: don't.

In a Facebook post to the airline's page, Shelby Angel detailed an incident on a flight from San Francisco to Amsterdam where she said the attendant told her to cover up while breastfeeding her 1-year-old daughter.

Angel said she nurses her child to calm her during the flight and make her comfortable.

"I do my best to be discreet, but sometimes some skin shows. Before we even took off, I was approached by a flight attendant carrying a blanket. She told me (and I quote) 'if you want to continue doing the breastfeeding, you need to cover yourself,'" the mom wrote. "I told her no, my daughter doesn't like to be covered up. That would upset her almost as much as not breastfeeding her at all."

According to Angel, the flight attendant told her that if anyone on the flight complained then it would be the attendant's issue to deal with. While no one protested her breastfeeding in public, Angel said she felt disrespected by the flight attendant.

The mom said she filed a complaint with the airline when she got home, to which they told her their employee was acting in accordance with their policy and she needs to be respectful of other people's culture.

"So instead of standing up for and protecting breastfeeding mothers and our children, already under the duress faced by flying with our young children, KLM would rather hold up antiquated values that shame women's bodies," Angel wrote.

KLM confirms breastfeeding policy

A spokesperson for the airline Manel Vrijenhoek, said that although breastfeeding is allowed on their flights, not everyone is comfortable with it, which results in complaints to cabin staff. "To keep the peace on board, in such cases we will try to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone and that shows respect for everyone's comfort and personal space," the statement read. "This may involve a request to a mother to cover her breast."

Angel's post received an overwhelming amount of comments from fellow travellers saying they would boycott the airline for their behaviour.

"Thanks for the heads up, will (definitely) not book with KLM," wrote one commenter.

But a few backed the airline's decision. "I wouldn't have any problem covering up," wrote another. "I breast fed both my children on planes under a light scarf or something similar. I understand that there are people in the world who object for religion reasons or otherwise. I am happy to go about my life doing what I want ( breastfeeding my child) but being considerate of others beliefs and cultures."


Business owner who says he offered a Florida panhandler a job but was told 'absolutely not!' joins him on intersection with his OWN sign

A Florida resident is taking a stand against panhandlers in his town after a homeless man allegedly rejected his offer of a $15 per-hour job by unceremoniously kicking his car and swearing at him, demanding instant cash instead.

Ryan Bray was travelling back to his home in Bradenton on Sunday when he encountered a panhandler, one of five or six encounters he has each week, on the corner of Manatee Avenue West and 75th Street.

Determined to offer the man in need a more permanent solution to finally get off the streets rather than just handing over cash, Bray offered a proposition for the man instead.

Bray, who works for his family's remodeling business, says he offered the man a $15 per-hour job doing yard work with the firm, as well as offering guidance to help find the man a permanent place to stay.

But instead of being grateful, the panhandler reportedly lashed out. 'He reached his arms inside my vehicle, resting them and said 'Hey, do you have any money?' Bray recalled for FOX35. 'I said, 'No I have one better for you.'

According to Bray, the panhandler responded, 'Absolutely not!', before becoming physically aggressive and cursing at him. He then kicked the tire of Bray's Jeep and told him to leave.

But Bray was determined for that not to be the end of the interaction, and instead returned home to make up his own sign begging for change – urging passing motorists to start ignoring the beggars and stop handing money over in a bid to drive them out of town.

The sign reads: 'I offered him $15 an hour to do yard work for me and he refused. If we as a community stop paying them, they will leave our neighborhood!'

Bray explained: 'I can't have my 13-year-old daughter and my wife driving with their windows up and being berated the entire time if they don't get money. 'Every time anyone comes down 75th they are there. None of us want them in our neighborhood. They get irate and curse at you if you don't give them any money. 'One guy was yelling, 'I'll rape your mother and kill your wife,' Bray claimed.

Bray returned to the corner with the sign, standing next to the same culprit who apparently kicked his car, telling passing motorists the man begging for their hard-earned cash wasn't willing to work for it himself.

During the three-hours, Bray said the man 'didn't receive a dime' but said more needed to be done among neighbors to end the issue once and for all.

'It's not the way I wanted to spend my Sunday,' Bray added. 'I care about our homeless veterans and such but these people yell profanities at you if don't give them money. So the only way to get them to leave is people need to stop giving them money. We're tired of it.'

Speaking to Fox, the homeless man, who didn't want to be identified, insisted he wasn't doing anything wrong for asking for passing drivers' help. 'You can't shut me down brother,' the man insisted.

Her later told ABC News that Bray was the aggressor and never offered him a job.

'He's a rich preppy f***ing, piece of s*** who thinks I'm supposed to take his f***ing job because he's got money and he lives down here. I don't care what you got brother,' Alabama said. 'I never had no trouble until this dude shows up. Just because he's got money, don't mean as homeless people, we don't have rights.'

Bray is urging the local council to take a harder stance against aggressive panhandling in Bradenton.

'I understand the plight of homelessness,' Bray said. 'I feel bad for him. But, this isn't homelessness. They are making more money sitting here on this corner than they would doing an honest living.

'Enough is enough. It's out of control. It's getting worse and worse and worse now they are coming into northwest Bradenton.'

He said the intersection has been worked by a group of homeless people for the past year, each taking it in turn to work the corner.


Exodus Movement Launches State Chapters to Battle LEFT-Wing Anti-Semitism

The Exodus Movement, a group of self-described “proud Jewish Americans who reject the hypocrisy, anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism of the rising far-left” announced today that they are launching a nationwide chapter program “to educate Jewish Americans – and all Americans more broadly – about the dangerous creep of anti-Semitism emanating from far-left extremists.”

“These chapters, which are located in diverse, strategic locales, will serve as a means for supporters of The Exodus Movement to gather and push a platform of opposition to liberal anti-Semitism and will enable Jewish Americans to unite in support of issues that reflect their Jewish values,” states the organization on its website.

The chapters will be located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas. Of these states, five have a higher-than-average Jewish population.

“As an American-Jewish elected official in New Jersey, I’ve found that college campuses and local communities are often the front lines of combating anti-Semitism, including for example the appalling BDS movement,” said Mark Schwartz, the deputy mayor of Teaneck County, New Jersey, as reported in the Daily Wire.

“Unfortunately, too often our voices in opposition are not adequately heard. Organizations like The Exodus Movement are urgently needed right now in our political discourse to encourage active participation and engagement to confront the very real issues of concern for the Jewish community, such as rising anti-Semitism and security,” said Schwartz.

David Ludwig, president of the Maricopa County chapter in Arizona, said, “I’m honored to be working with the Exodus Movement as president of the Maricopa County Chapter here in Arizona. Given the current political climate where supporting Israel and recognizing critical Jewish concerns seems to be taboo among the far-Left, an organization like the Exodus Movement is needed now more than ever.”

“With such a strong, diverse Jewish community in our county and across Arizona, I’m very excited to be involved, helping to highlight the issues that are truly relevant to our people, and encourage broad participation across the spectrum,” said Ludwig.

The goal of The Exodus Movement is to speak out against anti-Jewish and anti-Israel forces on the liberal/left side of the political aisle.

“Progressives, Democrats, and far too many Jewish organizations have taken our support for granted for far too long,” states the organization.  “We are now determined and unafraid to speak for ourselves.  We’re done standing with allegedly supportive liberals who consistently side with our enemies, and disregard our values and beliefs.”

The founder and president of The Exodus Movement is Elizabeth Pipko, a model, athlete, and writer from New York City. A Millennial Jew, Pipko is the “daughter of immigrants and granddaughter of world-renowned Jewish artist Marc Klionsky, known for his work with Elie Wiesel,” states the organization.


Australia: The Federal Court has dismissed action by Aborigines against a nuclear waste dump in South Australia

The Federal Court has dismissed a bid by a group of native title holders to influence and potentially block the construction of a nuclear waste dump on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula.

The Barngarla people had argued that a poll of residents planned by the Kimba District Council, to gauge local support for the dump, was unlawful because it excluded native title holders.

Two sites near the town have been short-listed as potential locations for a low-level radioactive waste storage facility, while a third is near the Flinders Ranges town of Hawker.

The federal government is yet to reveal its preferred location but following the court ruling said it was mindful of the need to reach a decision.

It has also vowed to continue to consult with all stakeholders as it thanked local communities for their patience.

The Barngarla had claimed their exclusion from the Kimba ballot was based on their Aboriginality and would impair their human rights or fundamental freedoms as native title owners.

But on Friday, Justice Richard White ruled that the council's actions did not contravene racial discrimination laws.

Justice White found the council had not excluded the Barngarla because of their Aboriginality but had reasonably restricted the ballot to members of the Kimba community who had the right to elect council members.

"An enlargement of the franchise for the purpose of the ballot would have required a number of subjective judgments about the extent of the enlargement and raised issues concerning the proper identification of those within the expanded franchise," the judge said.

The federal Department of Industry, Innovation and Science said it would study the judgment in detail before advising communities on the next steps in the selection process.

Jeff Baldock, who has nominated his Kimba farming property as one of the possible sites, welcomed the ruling and urged the government to move forward.

He said the project had good support in the local community and was a "once in a lifetime opportunity to secure Kimba's future."

Mr Baldock said the waste facility would potentially provide jobs and much-needed revenue for the region, which was beginning to lose businesses and services, for hundreds of years.

But the Greens said the court decision had sidelined traditional owners and called for an independent expert panel to take over selection of the waste site.

"The entire process has been badly botched from the start, with community concerns ignored and the Adnyamathanha and Barngarla people sidelined," South Australian Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said.

"South Australia is not going to just roll over and be the country's dumping ground. This plan would lock generations of South Australians to nuclear waste."

The Kimba council had been about to distribute ballot papers for a vote on the dump when the ballot was halted by a South Australian Supreme Court injunction last year.

The council said on Friday it would make a comprehensive statement on the court judgment in the coming days and would continue to liaise with the federal government on the conduct of the ballot.



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


17 July, 2019

Acceptance of gay sex in decline in UK for first time since Aids crisis

Homosexuals have given intolerance in return for tolerance.  As soon as they got general tolerance, they proceeded to harass in any way they could people who accept the Bible teaching  that God condemns them.  Many of them have revealed themselves as vicious bigots. No wonder acceptance of them has declined. It is all their own work

Number of people believing there is nothing wrong with gay sex has fallen, survey finds

Thirty years of increasingly liberal attitudes towards gay sex may be coming to an end after the number of people who said they considered it wrong rose for the first time since the Aids crisis.

In 1987 when every household received sombre leaflets warning “don’t die of ignorance”, nine out of 10 people thought there was something wrong with sexual relations between two adults of the same sex.

Every year since, tolerance had increased, but now the British Social Attitudes Survey has found the number of people believing there is nothing wrong with gay sex has fallen, leaving a third of the population in some way opposed.

The finding, based on a survey of 2,884 people, coincided with the first dip in more than a decade in people saying they think sex before marriage is not at all wrong, with people from non-Christian religious groups the most likely to disapprove.

“Liberalisation of attitudes does seem to be slowing down,” said the independent social research agency NatCen, which carried out the research. “While social norms have changed, there is a significant minority of the population who remain uncomfortable with same-sex relationships and as such we may have reached a point of plateau.”

The gay rights activist Peter Tatchell said it was “a worrying trend”, while the Christian Institute, an educational charity that believes sex should only happen in a marriage between a man and a woman, said signs of a reversal may be a result of pushback against a “new orthodoxy that not to celebrate same-sex relations is homophobic”.

The survey also found that a third of people consider that prejudice against transgender people is only “mostly” or “sometimes” wrong, while 6% said it was rarely or never wrong.

The authors of the study cautioned it would require future polling to confirm whether the small rise in people who consider gay sex to be in some way wrong was statistically significant. But they predicted that the minority of opponents to same-sex relations, including religious groups, would become increasingly determined to make their socially conservative views heard in public discussions on gender and relationships.

Religious and politically conservative groups have been increasingly vocal in their resistance to social liberalism. This week, parents at Parkfield community school in Saltley, Birmingham, restarted protests over the teaching of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in schools, arguing the lessons are inconsistent with their understanding of Islam.

They had previously won support from senior Conservative politicians including Andrea Leadsom and Esther McVey, who said parents should have the right to choose what their children were taught.

Tatchell said Ukip, the Brexit party and the European Research Group (ERG) of Conservative MPs had all attracted politicians who were vocally opposed to gay rights.

The former Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge quit the party last year saying it was seen as “a vehicle of hate towards Muslims and the gay community”, while the Brexit party MEP Ann Widdecombe last month said science could one day “produce an answer” to being gay. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the ERG, has said he is opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds.


Theatre company are forced to rewrite play on eve of its world premiere after Manchester festival banned them from having an able-bodied actor playing a disabled character – so they made him badly injured instead

A theatre company has been forced to rewrite a play on the eve of its premiere after a Manchester festival banned them from having an able-bodied actor playing a disabled character.

Studio Orka, a Belgian theatre company, chose to change the character in their show Tuesday to someone recovering from a serious injury - prior to it's premiere at the Manchester International Festival.

Festival boss John McGrath said its policy was to ensure disabled actors were given priority for disabled roles and create 'authentic representation.'

He told The Stage: 'As co-commissioners, when we became aware in a run-through in Belgium that a disabled character in Tuesday would be played by a non-disabled actor, we asked for the part to be recast as it is against MIF's policies for a non-disabled actor to play the role of a disabled person.

'Studio Orka, whose work is devised with its actors, felt this would not be possible and suggested the character be changed to someone who has a serious injury and makes a full recovery over time.

'While we felt this wasn't ideal, we agreed to this change to ensure that the show, of which we are in general very proud and which has many wonderful elements – including the involvement of a large community cast – could go ahead.'

Artistic director of Studio Orka, Martine Decroos, said the compromise had been made 'in the right way.'


Anti-LGBTQ group calls for boycott of Toy Story 4 over scene showing lesbian couple dropping toddler off at Kindergarten as they accuse Disney of 'pushing an agenda of normalisation'

An anti-LGBTQ group has called for a boycott of Toy Story 4 over a scene which shows as same-sex couple drop their child off at Kindergarten.

One scene at the start of the movie, shows Woody's new owner Bonnie attend her first day of pre-school, in the background a lesbian couple are seen with their child.

Later, they are pictured again picking up their son. They have no lines.

The Christian fundamentalist group claim Disney deliberately kept the scene quiet in order to expose as many people as possible.

Monica Cole, spokesperson for One Million Moms, said in the campaign statement, 'The scene is subtle in order to to desensitise children. But it is obvious that the child has two mothers, and they are parenting together.'  

'It was a noticeably small scene with the sole purpose of attempting to normalise this lifestyle'

'Not to mention there was a brief comment made about not hiding in a closet also in the movie. Some children may not catch this reference, but it was extremely unnecessary as with the lesbian couple.'

The movie has been a Box Office smash hit, grossing $118 million for its opening weekend in the US alone, and $237 million overseas. It took at further $57.9 million in its second weekend.

The Disney and Pixar film raked in £13.3 million ($16.67 million)  for its opening weekend in the UK and Ireland, pushing it to take the record for the biggest ever three day opening weekend for an animation.

It's also been a highly acclaimed by critics, scoring 98 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes.

The film again features the unmistakable voices of Tom Hanks as Woody, the ever-eager but empty-holstered cowboy doll, and Tim Allen as the impulsive Buzz Lightyear.  

The third film left Woody, Buzz and the rest of the toys in the care of a new owner, Bonnie, as Andy has gone off to college.

Toy Story 4 picks up with toys two years after settling with Bonnie and follows their adventures getting back to her after getting separated on the family's RV trip. 


China separates thousands of Muslim boys and girls from their parents before brainwashing them in 'children's education camps', reports claim

This is wrong in many ways but it may be good for humanity.  It's a heck of a lot better than putting up with incessant terrorism

China is keeping thousands of Uighur children away from their Muslim parents before indoctrinating them in camps posing as schools and orphanages, new evidence has shown.

Boys and girls as young as three are taught to speak Mandarin, forsake their religion and love the Communist Party of China in a systematic effort described by one expert as 'cultural genocide' in Xinjiang, reported BBC.

Many of the children's parents are believed to be both detained in the so-called internment camps across the vast region in far-west China, which has been home to ethnic Muslim minorities such as the Uighurs and Kazakhs for centuries.

Up to one million Uighurs and other Muslim minorities are believed to be held in extra-legal detention in Xinjiang, according to previous UN estimates, prompting an international outcry.

Human rights experts claim that these controversial centres are run like 'wartime concentration camps' and former detainees revealed they had been forced to eat pork and drink alcohol in the camps. Evidence of forced labour has also been found there.

BBC's investigation suggests that the Chinese authorities are now systematically controlling and influencing the children of the Muslim detainees and dissidents.

Many Uighurs living in exile in Turkey told BBC that their children had been kept in Xinjiang by the authorities and they did not know their whereabouts.

The reporter visited one kindergarten in Xinjiang where the authorities keep Muslim children with detained parents, and found the facility to be surrounded by barbed wire and security cameras.

Adrian Zenz, a German researcher specialising in China's minority policies, accused Beijing of conducting 'state-sponsored cultural genocide' towards the Uighurs. He told MailOnline: 'Because parents and children are separated, so that the state can be like the parent, raising children without their traditional language, religion and culture.

'[The Uighur children] are being raised like the Han Chinese, and with [Communist] Party ideology and atheism rather than their religious beliefs.'

Mr Zenz said the Beijing's policies allow the Xinjiang authorities to put certain Uighur children in centralised boarding schools, or in full-time kindergartens.

'These children are not in "camps", but the schools and kindergartens are highly secured compounds, with high walls, barbwire, at times electric fences, security cameras, and students are there often full time.'

He added: 'In some way, these schools perform a similar function as internment camps, and the students are in a sense effectively interned there, since they cannot leave without permission.'

BBC's findings are echoed by another investigation from Vice News Tonight.

A video report from reporter Isobel Yeung, who visited Xinjiang posing as a tourist, found mounting evidence to suggest that Xinjiang children with detainee parents were held in state-run institutions described as 'children's education camps'.

Vice News Tonight found one such 'free, full-time kindergarten' in the city of Hotan for children whose 'parents cannot care for them for a variety of reasons'.

Ms Yeung told MailOnline that during her undercover visit to Xinjiang 'one 7 year-old Uighur girl told us that her sister was in a re-education camp, and 13 of her classmates had parents who were locked away'.

'In Hotan, a Han Chinese businessman told us that Uighur children whose parents had been taken away were now living inside state-run kindergartens,' she added.

Former inmates have told of the horror after being detained in the controvercial indoctrination camps for Muslims

Amnesty International's research has also shown that children in Xinjiang are sent to 'some kind of orphanages' where they are required to have Chinese lessons with content that praises the Chinese leaders and the Chinese Communist Party.

'And in some cases the children are only occasionally allowed to meet their relatives, for the luckier ones,' Patrick Poon, a researcher at Amnesty International told MailOnline.

'We also learned from some people that their children stay at home in Xinjiang but are under tight surveillance together with their grandparents.

'It's definitely all about controlling the ethnic groups with a strong tendency to erase their cultural identity.

Chinese government has been building a large number of new kindergartens in Xinjiang after ramping up efforts three years ago in the indoctrination of Muslims in adult re-education camps - facilities that China initially denied and later branded as 'vocational training centres'.

According to data released by the Bureau of Statistics of Hotan Prefecture, the region saw a surge in the number of kindergartens and kindergarten pupils between 2016 and 2017.

The former more than doubled from 481 to 1,265 and the latter increased by 98.3 per cent to 251,900. The authority said there were also two 'special education schools' in the region with 320 students without giving more details on them.

Research conducted by Mr Zenz showed that Xinjiang's pre-school enrollment in three southern prefectures with Uighur majority populations increased by a staggering 148 per cent from 2015 and 2018; while the equivalent national figure was only eight per cent.

In March, China's vice foreign minister defended what Beijing calls its vocational training centres for Muslims and said its 'campuses' would be closed down gradually as extremist ideology is vanquished in the region. 

Officials from Xinjiang Propaganda Department denied to BBC that separation of Uighur detainees and their children would cause lasting-psychological damage.

Beijing has also claimed that it had arrested nearly 13,000 people it describes as terrorists and broken up hundreds of 'terrorist gangs' in Xinjiang since 2014.



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


16 July, 2019  

The book that dares to take on transgender myths told to children: Experts reveal psychologists scared to question transgender ideology, GPs afraid of being branded transphobic and teens being wrongly diagnosed

The rocketing number of children seeking to change sex has become a national scandal, a powerful coalition of whistleblowers, academics and medical experts warns today.

In a dramatic intervention marking a watershed in the transgender debate, they have come together to express fears about the dire consequences faced by thousands of youngsters changing gender – including infertility and long-term health problems.

A whistleblower from Britain's only NHS gender clinic for children said: 'I'm really angry at what's happening to these children. What I've witnessed feels incredibly distressing and disturbing and like something that should be stopped.'

The experts' concerns are laid bare in a forthcoming book of essays entitled Inventing Transgender Children And Young People. It challenges what it calls the 'dangerous' transgender ideology promoted in schools, universities, the NHS and other public institutions.

Heather Brunskell-Evans, a former research fellow at King's College London, who co-edited the book, said that 30 years ago the thought of a child being born in the wrong body would have made no sense to the public.

She added: 'Now the idea, which was invented by specialists in gender medicine and transgender activists, has become universally accepted.

'But we are collectively arguing that this unquestioning acceptance poses a serious threat to children's well-being and safety. We hope through this book to bring the world's attention to the public scandal of transgendering children.'

The book warns:

Doctors are failing to tell young people they are 'sacrificing' their chance to have children by taking powerful sex-change drugs;

Psychologists are scared to question transgender ideology;
Clinicians who resist diagnosing children as transgender face accusations of transphobia;

Britain's only NHS child gender service is failing to acknowledge other reasons for youngsters wanting to change sex, such as autism;

Teenagers who have 'normal feelings' of discomfort with their bodies are being classified as transgender.

Another contributor to the book, due to be published later this year, is Dr David Bell, consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in North London, where the NHS child Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) is based.

Other authors include Professor of Sociology at Oxford University Michael Biggs; psychotherapist Bob Withers, a former senior lecturer at Westminster University; and Dianna Kenny, Professor of Psychology at the University of Sydney, Australia.

Dr Bell, who wrote the book's foreword, called for an 'urgent investigation' into the reasons for the huge rise in the number of gender identity referrals. The latest figures from GIDS show 2,590 children – three quarters of whom were girls – were referred last year. In 2009, the figure was below 100.

More recently there has been a trend of mainly teenage girls declaring, seemingly out of the blue, that they want to change sex, a phenomenon dubbed rapid onset gender dysphoria.

The Tavistock clinic is the only NHS service for under-18s diagnosed with gender dysphoria, an individual's belief they are trapped in the wrong body.

Dr Bell, a former governor of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, said: 'The rapid escalation of referrals, the large increase in natal [born] females seeking to change gender and the sudden appearance of so-called rapid onset gender dysphoria, cannot be explained by individual factors alone. Nor is it likely to be caused by a large number of individuals feeling free to 'come out' in this new liberal atmosphere.'

The psychiatrist, who last year produced a critical internal report on GIDS which branded the service 'not fit for purpose', further warned: 'Many services have championed the use of medical and surgical intervention with nowhere near sufficient attention to the serious, irreversible damage this can cause and with very disturbingly superficial attitudes to the issue of consent in young children.'

The Mail on Sunday has also seen interviews with whistleblowers who work at the Tavistock clinic, and whose accounts are due to be included in the book. They have chosen to remain anonymous.

One of the NHS gender specialists said: 'I keep thinking about all of the children, adolescents and families who are being harmed by the one-dimensional discussion and the attack on truth and on thinking and on what we know about adolescent well-being.'

Another added: 'I'm angry with all the grown-ups, all the clever people, all the thoughtful people, who are letting this happen.' One of the issues causing 'turmoil' at the clinic is the prospect that children are being rendered infertile by the medication prescribed for them.

This newspaper has previously reported that the service has prescribed controversial puberty- blocking drugs to hundreds of children in England, many of whom have been under 14.

The clinicians' damning verdict:

Heather Brunskell-Evans, former research fellow at King's College London: 'The idea of a child born in the wrong body, invented by specialists in gender medicine and activists, has become universally accepted. This unquestioning acceptance poses a serious threat to children's well-being.'

Anonymous NHS child gender clinician: 'There's something really dishonest about the effort going into getting children to preserve their fertility. It would be more honest to say, 'You are almost certainly sacrificing having children.'

Dr David Bell, consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust: 'Many services have championed medical and surgical intervention with nowhere near sufficient attention to the serious, irreversible damage this can cause.'
The powerful monthly hormone injections stop the development of sex organs, breasts and body hair.

Young people are advised by GIDS that the treatment is reversible and that if they stop having it, their adult reproductive functions will continue to develop as normal.

But the whistleblowing staff at the service say the drugs – which can permanently weaken bones and stunt growth – put children on an inexorable path to further treatment which is irreversible.

Research has shown the vast majority of those who take puberty blockers go on to start 'cross-sex hormone therapy' at 16, which involves doses of oestrogen for males and testosterone for females. This strong hormone medication begins the physical process of changing individuals from one sex to another and is likely to lead to a loss in fertility.

Yet the concerned clinicians claim the fact puberty blockers are putting youngsters on a pathway to infertility is 'completely swept under the carpet' at the Tavistock. Instead, they say children and teens are being given false hope that they will be able to conceive in the future by being offered the chance by the clinic to freeze their sperm or eggs. In actual fact, it is unlikely they will ever have babies – with boys facing the minefield of finding a surrogate mother to have a baby using their sperm and the relatively low chances of frozen eggs producing a child, the clinicians say.

One GIDS staff member said: 'There's something really dishonest about the effort going into getting children to preserve their fertility. What are we setting them up for? We aren't talking enough about the reality of any blocker or hormone treatment massively reducing the chances of them being able to preserve sperm or eggs. It would be more honest to say, 'you are almost certainly sacrificing having children.' '

At the same time, the gender specialists interviewed for the book raised concerns about children being exposed to physical and psychological harm because Tavistock clinic staff bow to pressure from transgender lobbyists.

They also described how many young people referred to GIDS have suffered homophobic or misogynistic bullying, while some have been victims of sexual abuse.

And as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last year, a third of the young people being referred have clear signs of autism.

The Tavistock clinic was last night involved in a furious war of words with an Oxford academic who questioned why its medics gave teenagers puberty-blocking drugs in a 'flawed trial'.

Writing in the book, Inventing Transgender Children And Young People, Professor Michael Biggs alleges that a Tavistock trial in which 50 children were given the controversial drugs was a 'pretext' for widening access. But the clinic hit back saying the sociologist was not properly qualified to comment, adding: 'We refute these claims, which we consider to be serious, unfair and inaccurate.'

Puberty blockers like triptorelin halt physical development by suppressing the release of sex hormones. They are medically licensed to treat 'precocious puberty', where children start developing before the age of 10.

However, they have never been licensed in the UK to stop puberty in otherwise healthy, but gender-questioning children. Doctors can prescribe them to such youngsters if they think they will benefit, but 'off-licence' prescribing is usually considered a stop-gap until solid trial-based evidence is available.

To that end, in 2010 the clinic started putting teenage patients on the blockers on a trial basis. But Prof Biggs claims, based on examining publicly available data, that medics ignored best scientific practice designed to ensure a fair trial, and then selectively publicised 'positive' results – showing improvements in mental states following blocker treatment – while ignoring 'negative' ones.

He also claims an information sheet given to children and parents contained 'incomplete and misleading information' which 'minimised or concealed the risks'.

A copy of the sheet obtained by Prof Biggs under Freedom of Information rules claimed children would return to normal sexual development if they came off puberty blockers. It also claimed the drugs 'will not harm your physical or psychological development'.

Dr Biggs claims this was an 'astonishing statement' and concludes the trial was 'flawed from the outset'.


Starbucks brilliance

Kicking cops out of your shop has got to have consequences


Atheism and Islam on the rise in the UK as Christianity suffers 'dramatic decline'

Christian belief has halved in Britain in 35 years with just one in three people now identifying as Christian - while atheism and Islam continue to rise.

Figures published by the British Social Attitudes Survey reveal the widest ever margin between staunch atheists and believers who are certain that God exists.

Of almost 4,000 people polled by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), 38 per cent described themselves as Christian - a fall from 50 per cent in 2008 and 66 per cent in 1983.

Those identifying as Muslim increased from 1 per cent in 1983 to 3 per cent in 2008, and 6 per cent in 2018.

The survey shows that the biggest change is in the number of people who define themselves as "confident atheists", which rose from 10 per cent in 1998 to 18 per cent in 2008 and its record high of 26 per cent in 2018.

In contrast, researchers found that an overall 55 per cent of the population express some sort of belief in some kind of God.

Nancy Kelley, deputy chief executive at NatCen, said that the steady decline in religion and belief among the British public is "one of the most important trends in post-war history".

"As our society has become more secular, the role of religious institutions and religious identities in determining our moral and social norms has weakened. Other world views, such as scientific rationalism and liberal individual-ism, now play a more significant part in British society."

The report's authors said the survey suggests Britain is becoming more secular "not because adults are losing their religion" but because older people with an attachment to Christian denominations are "gradually being replaced in the population by unaffiliated younger people".

They added that religious decline in Britain is "generational" as people tend to be less religious than their parents.

Dave Male, the Church of England's director of evangelism and discipleship, said: "For many people ticking a box marked 'Church of England' or 'Anglican' is now an active choice and no longer an automatic response. In spite of this, the Church of England remains at the heart of communities."

Andrew Copson, the chief executive of the non-religion charity Humanists UK, said: "With these trends set to continue, policymakers in every field, from education to constitutional law, to health and social care, need to wake up to such dramatic social changes."


"Humanitarian" campaigners criticise Prince Harry's Invictus Games for being sponsored by Britain's biggest arms dealer

It's British armaments that saved Britain from Hitler.  Does that matter?  Would a Nazi Britain be better?  It might not be too good for "humanitarians"

Injured British troops competing in Prince Harry’s Invictus Games are to wear the logo of the UK’s biggest arms exporter in an ‘immoral’ sponsorship deal condemned by veterans and humanitarian campaigners.

Members of the Invictus UK team will wear shirts with the logo of BAE Systems for the first time when they compete at trials in Sheffield later this month after the company paid a six-figure sum.

The arms manufacturer has sold billions of pounds of weaponry around the world, including to Saudi Arabia for its war in Yemen, which began in 2015. Since then, many thousands of civilians have been killed or maimed amid allegations of war crimes.

Last night, Amnesty International accused BAE Systems of attempting to ‘sportswash’ its reputation.

Former Special Forces soldier Ben Griffin, who served with the SAS in Iraq, said: ‘It seems deeply inappropriate for BAE to sponsor a team of disabled war veterans at a sporting contest when arms sold by this company to Saudi Arabia have wounded so many people, leaving them disabled.’

Prince Harry – who counts many Invictus UK members as friends – is patron of the Invictus Foundation, which is responsible for the Games. Around 350 Invictus UK competitors will wear the BAE Systems’ logo, with 65 of them then travelling to Holland for the 2020 Games.

A BAE Systems spokesman said: ‘We are proud to be the presenting partner of Invictus UK and of the opportunity it presents to support the competitors who have made significant personal sacrifices in service to our nation.’

An Invictus UK spokesman said: ‘BAE Systems’ long-standing commitment to our veterans and personnel at home and abroad makes them well-placed to support Invictus UK.’


San Francisco School Board Votes to Paint Over George Washington Mural

The San Francisco Board of Education unanimously voted last month in favor of painting over a George Washington mural series on a school wall depicting Washington standing over a Native American’s corpse and another in the company of slaves on his Mount Vernon estate.

“This is reparations,” Education Board Commissioner Mark Sanchez said in a KQED report when asked about the estimated $600,000 price tag for its removal. It could reportedly take a year to complete. 

The 1,600-square-foot mural series titled “Life of Washington” was painted on San Francisco’s George Washington High School in 1936 by a Russian-American artist and Stanford University art professor Victor Arnautoff.

It was funded by the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration and shows a variety of scenes from Washington’s life.

School district spokeswoman Laura Dudnick confirmed that although only two mural pieces stand out as offensive to members of the community, the board’s decision would apply to all 13 panels of the mural.

School board members had to decide whether to cover and preserve the painting using panels or textile, or completely erase it by painting over it. Buckling under pressure from those who find the images offensive to certain members of the school community, the board decided to paint over it.

Advocates for removing the mural included local high school students, George Washington High School graduates, and Native Americans.

During a public comment portion of the June 25 meeting, Paloma Flores, program coordinator for the district’s Indian Education Program, said, per KQED, “It’s not a matter of offense, it’s a matter of the right to learn without a hostile environment.”

“Intent does not negate lived experience,” she added.

According to KQED, mural critics in the community “believe the artist’s intentions are irrelevant in light of the harm to young people of color daily confronted by images of their ancestors debased.”

Native American Barbara Mumby-Huerta, who staffs the San Francisco Art Commission, challenged statements on historical accuracy, saying that the mural is ignorant of indigenous people.

“To portray a Native person face down, dead, you are trapping their soul so that they can not move on,” she said, per KQED.

One mural supporter says he plans to legally challenge the move to paint over the mural. Lope Yap Jr., vice president of the school’s alumni group, vowed to “use every tactic available” for litigation, according to KQED.

Before the school board meeting, the San Francisco Chronicle polled art leaders in the Bay Area about the controversy.

“I am deeply sensitive to the pain that this situation is causing the student body and Washington High School community,” said Neal Benezra, director of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

“A decision to paint over the mural is irreversible,” he added. “The option to cover the artwork with panels to allow future educational research keeps open that opportunity.”

Jarrett Stepman of The Daily Signal wrote about the removal of the mural, citing a historian’s account of Arnautoff, “a man of the left in his own time,” and his intention of making Washington “less glamorized” by painting images of the slaves he owned or the price paid with Native Americans’ blood during westward expansion.

In his interview with historian Fergus M. Bordewich, Bordewich explains:

[Arnautoff] included those images not to glorify Washington, but rather to provoke a nuanced evaluation of his legacy. The scene with the dead Native American, for instance, calls attention to the price of ‘manifest destiny.’ Arnautoff’s murals also portray the slaves with humanity and the several live Indians as vigorous and manly.

Those who condemn the murals have misunderstood it, seeing only what they sought to find. They’ve also got their history seriously wrong. Washington did own slaves—124 men, women, and children—and oversaw many more who belonged to his wife’s family. But by his later years he had evolved into a proto-abolitionist, a remarkable ethical journey for a man of his time, place, and class.

The removal of the mural is expected to take at least a year, according to district staff. Before proceeding with painting over the mural, its historical significance requires an environmental review.

In the case that the painting takes more time than expected, the district could cover it with panels. Three years, Sanchez said, would be considered “undue delay.”



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


15 July, 2019

Bizarre: £10k for Ulster civil servant offended by royal portraits

The Northern Ireland Office paid a senior civil servant £10,000 in compensation because he was offended at having to walk past portraits of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, it has been claimed.

Lord Maginnis told the House of Lords the NIO made the “scandalous” payment in an apparent effort to salve the official’s “hurt feelings and distress”, and later promoted him.

It was not possible to independently verify the claim. In a brief statement the NIO declined to confirm or challenge its accuracy. “The government takes its obligations under fair employment legislation very seriously. We will not comment on individual personnel matters,” it said.

Maginnis, a former Ulster Unionist party MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, told the Lords on Wednesday night the official was Lee Hegarty, who serves on the Parades Commission, a body that has angered unionists by banning and redirecting marches.

“This individual, who had worked in the NIO for between 15 and 20 years, claimed that under human rights legislation it was unfair to him to have to work where he was offended by portraits,” said the peer, in a speech first reported by the Belfast News Letter.

The portraits were removed and Hegarty was consulted on what should replace them, said the peer. “He suggested that the portraits of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh should be replaced with photographs of, at best, the Queen meeting people during engagements in Northern Ireland.”

One replacement featured the Queen shaking hands in Belfast with Martin McGuinness, the late Sinn Féin deputy first minister, said Maginnis.

“I do not mind that; what I mind is that the case brought by the complainant was settled secretly and that the sum of £10,000 was handed over, presumably for hurt feelings and distress.”

Theresa Villiers, who served as Northern Ireland secretary of state from 2012-16, signed off the settlement on the recommendation of her permanent secretary, Jonathan Stephens, said Maginnis.

He contrasted the alleged payment with the delay in compensating victims of historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland who have been “shamefully left out in the cold when it comes to their justifiable claims for compensation”.

Maginnis called it a scandalous indictment of the NIO and the Conservative government. He urged the NIO to restore the original portraits and to expedite payments to victims of institutional abuse.

If verified, the peer’s allegation will put scrutiny on the Parades Commission, which regulates marches, at the height of the loyalist marching season. Hegarty currently serves as the commission’s secretary and accounting officer.


'I won't let trans militants drown me out':  Sharron Davies  she defies her online hate mob to continue her campaign against male-born athletes muscling in on women's sport

Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies has had a lesbian living over her garage, has two grown-up mixed race children from her former marriage to British sprint champion Derek Redmond, gay friends, transgender friends and... well, let's just say she's raised her blended family (she also has a 12?year-old son, Finley) to be a thoughtful, open-minded bunch.

'I'm really proud I brought up my kids to think of other people and not judge anyone. That's what hurts me most about being called these names. All my life . . .'

For a moment, tears threaten. Sharron, 56, pauses to collect herself. She's not going to let those tears fall. Absolutely not.

A steely resolution flashes in her eyes: 'I refuse to allow these activists to get to me,' she says.

'These activists' are part of the transgender community who have hurled all sorts of truly vile names at her this week from 'gay-trans hater' to 'bitch'. She even stands accused of advocating incest and rape.

The reason? Sharron posted a tweet five days ago which read: 'If you put 2 biological females on an island humanity dies out (but they'd talk loads) if you put a biological male & a trans woman on an island humanity dies out.

'But if you put a male & a female there we might stand a chance! Providing they can fish of course. Binary Sex matters.'

She followed with a second tweet: 'And we haven't killed all the fish with plastic first!!!'

Sharron is a passionate environmentalist who cares deeply about the sort of planet we leave our children.

She is also a campaigner for equality in sport, which is where she has found herself at odds with 'these activists'.

She's found, to her enormous cost, that even the most innocent rattle of this particular Twitter cage can invoke a terrifying response.

For her tweet was not a random attack upon the transgender community but part of an on-going debate among some of the sporting world's most prolific athletes who question the 'fairness' of trans women competing on the track, field and in the pool with biological women.

Sharron's outspokenness comes three years after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) changed guidelines which stated trans women had to have a medical diagnosis, had to have undergone sex reassignment surgery and had to have lived as a woman for several years if they wished to compete in women's sport.

Now trans women are eligible for female competitions if they self-identify for a year and reduce their testosterone levels to ten nanomoles per litre of blood [nmol/l].

A healthy range in biological men is 9.2 to 31.8 nmol/l and in females ten times lower, between 0.3 and 2.5 nmol/l.

While she has every sympathy for the torment suffered by trans people, that, says Sharron, is simply unfair. 'The potential for abuse is massive,' she adds.

Testosterone is the hormone which controls bone and muscle mass, fat distribution, and strength. It's what makes men stronger, bigger, faster, and is why there are separate male and female events.


Standing With Israel
Thousands of pro-Israel activists are here in Washington, DC, for the 14th annual Christians United For Israel Washington Summit.

As you may know, Christians United For Israel was founded by Pastor John Hagee, who announced yesterday that CUFI now has 7 million members! As Pastor Hagee explained, “We stand with Israel because Israel is not a political issue. Israel is a Bible issue.”

Yesterday, attendees heard from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The prime minister thanked Pastor Hagee for his enduring support of the Jewish state, and he also thanked President Trump for all he has done for Israel. Netanyahu said:

A simple truth is clear: Israel has no better ally than the United States and I believe the United States has no better ally than Israel.

Vice President Mike Pence also addressed the summit. Like Prime Minister Netanyahu, Vice President Pence praised the hard work and dedication of Pastor Hagee and the millions of CUFI supporters. Pence also gave a shout-out to yours truly and my efforts as director of CUFI’s Washington office.

Pence warned Iran not to mistake American restraint for a lack of resolve. He vowed that President Trump would never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and he also promised that there would be “no more pallets of cash to the mullahs of Iran!”

The vice president concluded his remarks by explaining why America has always stood with Israel, saying:

We stand with Israel because her cause is our cause, her values are our values, and her fight is our fight. We stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, in liberty over tyranny. And we stand with Israel because we cherish that ancient promise … that those who bless her will be blessed.


Australia: Pauline Hanson worried Muslim extremists could exploit religious freedom laws

Pauline Hanson has predicted new laws banning religious discrimination could be exploited by Muslim extremists to justify child brides, female genital mutilation and polygamy.

The One Nation leader has voiced her fears as Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government plans to introduce legislation making it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their religious beliefs.

'I am concerned that such a bill could be used by radical Islamic extremists as a shield to protect the worst aspects of their political ideology,' the Queensland senator told her 278,000 Facebook followers on Tuesday night.

'By forcing this through without scrutiny the government may be creating a pathway for extremists to practice polygamy, genital mutilation, or even under-aged marriage and this cannot be allowed to happen.

'We must always be on guard for the unintended consequences of good intentions.'

The Coalition last year flagged a new Religious Discrimination Act, following a review into faith freedom by former attorney-general Philip Ruddock.

Plans for a new Religious Freedom Commissioner were announced in December, five months before Rugby Australia sacked star Wallabies player Israel Folau for tweeting that 'drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters' needed to repent or face hell. 

Section 116 of the Constitution already bans the federal government from 'imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion'.

It also says there shall be 'no religious test' to hold a Commonwealth position. That aspect of the Constitution, however, doesn't cover private sector employment.

Senator Hanson accused the government of failing to properly explain the details of its proposed legislation. 'Many people, including myself, are concerned about the rights of Australians who practice a legitimate religious faith,' she said. 'But what do we do when a belief clashes with the laws and customs of our land?

'The government wants to force a bill through parliament they say is aimed at protecting religious freedom but have failed to give any details of the bill.'

The Labor Opposition is expected to back the government's religious discrimination legislation, after suffering at the May election strong swings against it across south-west Sydney, where a swathe of electorates voted against gay marriage in a 2017 postal vote survey.

Government MPs from the Liberal Party's right faction are reportedly pushing to strengthen religious discrimination laws.

Existing laws already allow religious schools to sack homosexual teachers for leading lifestyles that contravened church teaching.

Attorney-General Christian Porter last week held a workshop for Coalition MPs to explain the bill, with more sessions to follow for other backbenchers.

The draft laws are likely to come under scrutiny from a parliamentary committee, making it unlikely religious freedom protections will pass the Parliament until at least late this year.

Senate Hanson is opposed to Muslim immigration and in August 2017 wore a burqa into the Senate to demonstrate her case for banning full facial coverings in public.



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


14 July, 2019


I suppose it is regrettable in some ways but sexual attraction is well rooted in our evolutionary past -- and it is unrelenting. 

And the reality is that both sexes are very physically oriented.  Men like a woman to have some approximation to an hourglass figure and women want a man who is tall and well-built.  A man of 6' and around 200lb just has to have a nice smile for something like 90% of women to find him attractive. A man only 5' tall  will only be attractive to about 1% of women, most of them fatties.

So our hero below is rightly aggrieved.  But he is fishing in the wrong pool.  He evidently wants an attractive woman. He should be realistic and look for a fatty

The bagel shop customer who left a larger-than-life impression after he went on a rant about being vertically challenged claims he is the 'Martin Luther King' of short people.

Chris Morgan says he's enjoying his newfound notoriety since video of his meltdown at a Long Island, New York, bagel shop went viral.

In a rambling interview with DailyMail.com, Morgan said that he felt pushed to breaking point by discrimination against short people.

The five foot tall 45-year-old, of Long Island, even said he saw himself as a 'prophet' and 'modern day Martin Luther King' for people of his height as he called for equality for smaller men.

'I got to the point where I'd had enough,' he added. 'The girls hate me, they don't like me, that's fine,' he added. Now I have a mission. 'I'm not stopping and the world is going to hear me. I want equality for everybody. '

He does look rather ridiculous amid much taller people.  A human Chihuahua?

But in the same breath, the divorced cleaning company owner, who has no children, said he resented all women, branding them 'gold diggers' because they kept dumping him 'because of his height.'

He said: 'I'm sick of getting constantly lied to and used on dates. And then they dump me. They tell me I'm too short,' he explained. 'They don't have a job, or a job as good as mine. They don't have a car. They are more overweight... and they are judging ME?

'Whatever happened to the love of the 60s?' he asked. 'When people loved each other for themselves?'

Morgan, who got married in 2007 before getting divorced five years later, clarified that he was 'tired of the immaturity.' And while he was seen in footage being the aggressor, he asserts that he just wants 'justice.'

'I'm just not tolerating this any more,' Morgan declared. 'Some of those girls found it funny. That's why I have resentment towards women. I find them all to be stupid, gold digging liars.'

But he claims that since video of him screaming and ranting about how the world treated 5ft-tall men, that women have been unfathomably throwing themselves at him.

The incident began yesterday at the Bay Shore bagel when Morgan claims the girl behind the counter struggled to understand his order.

'The third time I asked, she smirked with her friends,' he shared. 'She was laughing and talking with her friends, putting her hand over her mouth and laughing, like girls do when they reject me on a date.

Morgan has a history of confrontations, as seen on his YouTube page which is inundated with clips of him getting in fights with gas station employees and mothers. Some videos even contain racist language. Others do show him playing with a bird and fishing.

In one video, Morgan storms into a 7/11 and has a argument with a Pakistani employee who he claims asked how tall he was. He proceeds to scream at the man about how he is from a 'third world country.'

Morgan attempted to get the employee detained by police, but officers refused to file harassment charges.

Shocking video filmed by Diana Reyes, 18, showed the irate customer shouting at staff at Bagel Boss East in Bay Shore, New York, on Wednesday.

Reyes told the DailyMail.com that she and her friend - 19-year-old Olivia Bradley - were waiting in line for their breakfast when the man started mouthing off in front of them to staff. 

'He just seemed a little agitated and as soon as the woman turned her head, he started going off,' Reyes said. 'No one provoked him.'

The brief clip shows a woman asking the man why it is OK to 'degrade women.'  The man retorted: 'Why is it OK for women to say "Oh you are 5ft' on dating sites. "You should be dead. That's OK!'

As other patrons point out that no one has said that inside the establishment, the Napoleon-esque man asserts that 'women in general' make the distinction.

The vertically challenged patron then shouted: 'Everywhere I go I get the same fucking smirk with the biting lip.'

A man in the store, who is twice the angry customer's size, tries to get him to calm down.

'Shut your mouth,' he stated. 'You're not god, or my father or my boss.' The little man tells the larger man he isn't scared of him and chest bumps him in an attempt to intimidate him.

But as he continues boasting about his fighting abilities, another man comes and slams him to the ground.

Additional clips show the man storming out of the store as employees try to hand him his bagel.

The 18-year-old also said that the man who tackled the angry customer, immediately letting him get up and walk away.


Tommy Robinson jailed for nine months for contempt of court over social media video

Tommy speaks the truth about Muslims --- unforgiveable in Britain

Tommy Robinson has been jailed for nine months, but will serve just 10 weeks, after being found in contempt of court for broadcasting a video on social media which featured defendants in a criminal trial.

Riot police were called in to attend as crowds of Robinson's supporters reacted to the sentencing outside the Old Bailey. Eight people were arrested last week when Robinson previously appeared in court. 

The founder of the English Defence League (EDL), whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was found to have committed contempt of court following a two-day hearing at the Old Bailey last week.

Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Warby found Robinson was in contempt in three respects when he filmed men accused of the sexual exploitation of young girls and live-streamed the footage on Facebook, in breach of a reporting ban, outside Leeds Crown Court in May 2018.

Passing sentence, Dame Victoria said: "Nothing less than a custodial penalty would properly reflect the gravity of the conduct we have identified."

"The respondent (Robinson) cannot be given credit for pleading guilty. He has lied about a number of matters and sought to portray himself as the victim of unfairness and oppression.

"This does not increase his sentence, but it does mean that there can be no reduction for an admission of guilt."

Because Robinson has already served 69 days for the Leeds contempt case, which was eventually overturned and retried last week, Dame Victoria said he would be required to serve nearly 10 weeks in prison.

Speaking after the sentencing, the Attorney General said: “Today’s sentencing of Yaxley-Lennon serves to illustrate how seriously the courts will take matters of contempt.

"Posting material online that breaches reporting restrictions or risks prejudicing legal proceedings has consequences, and I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court.”

Giving reasons for the decision on Tuesday, Dame Victoria said Robinson encouraged "vigilante action" in the video, which lasted an hour-and-a-half and was viewed online 250,000 times on the morning of the broadcast.

The judge said the words he used in the video would have been understood by viewers as "an incitement" to harass the defendants and "gave rise to a real risk the course of justice would be seriously impeded".

Throughout the Old Bailey hearing, Robinson denied any wrongdoing, saying he did not believe he was breaching reporting restrictions and only referred to information that was already in the public domain.

Robinson was jailed for 13 months after being found in contempt of court on the day of the broadcast.


Washington State Wants to Force This Church to Pay for Abortions 

Opponents of religious freedom love to use “separation of church and state” as a misguided battle cry to remove prayer from public schools, erase historical religious landmarks, and even block faithful Christians from public service.

Meanwhile, real violations of separation of church and state are increasing.

Across the country, we’re seeing numerous incidents in which the government is trying to control what churches teach, where they worship, and how they exercise their religious freedom.

Look no further than what’s happening to Cedar Park Assembly of God. The state of Washington has passed a law that forces churches like Cedar Park to pay for abortions through their health insurance plans.

Let’s take a look at Cedar Park, its pastor, and how they are standing up to this unconstitutional state law.

Jay is the senior pastor at Cedar Park, a church that continually lives out its pro-life views in a variety of tangible ways. Cedar Park’s pro-life ministries include partnering with a local pregnancy center and foster care providers, hosting an annual camp for children in foster care, and hosting an annual prayer service to pray for couples struggling with infertility. Jay’s predecessor even co-founded an adoption provider for frozen embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization.

But it gets even more personal than that. When Sandy found out she was pregnant in high school, she and Jay were taken by surprise. Sandy briefly considered abortion. But, instead, the couple decided to get married, and they had their first of four daughters together. Jay and Sandy have no regrets – they consider their oldest daughter to be one of their greatest blessings.

So, when they found out that Washington had passed a law that would require their church to pay for abortions, it felt like a slap in the face. And they knew they had to do something about it.

In early 2018, the Washington State Senate passed SB 6219 or the so-called “Reproductive Parity Act.” This act mandates that healthcare plans in the state that offer maternity care must also pay for elective abortions. This means that when Cedar Park provides its more than 180 employees and their families with quality, affordable health insurance, they have to fund abortions. Failure to do so could mean fines and criminal penalties, including jail time.

Jay and Sandy knew that their religious freedom was being violated. So, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on Cedar Park’s behalf.

When we hear people invoking the “separation of church and state,” it often means they want to shut believers out of the public square. But that isn’t what the “separation of church and state” is supposed to mean—far from it.

When the Founders drafted the First Amendment, they were more concerned with protecting believers from the government and not the other way around.

The state of Washington is violating this separation by trying to impose its pro-abortion views onto churches like Cedar Park by requiring them to pay for abortions. This is a violation of churches’ religious freedom. Unfortunately, Washington isn’t the only state with such a requirement. That’s why Cedar Park challenged this law in federal court.

The Bottom Line: Churches should be free to operate according to their faith without being threatened by the government.


New Religion, old hypocrisies

A view from Australia

This is a parable about a new religion that has deep roots on the secular left side of politics. The starting principle for moderates and extremists alike is that those who challenge their moral code are not just wrong, they are immoral; nonbelievers have no legitimacy in the public square. And hence, why the new moral code is part of a new religion.

A fortnight ago, Andy Ngo was bashed by a mob of antifa protesters, who are best understood as extremists from the new religion. Ngo is a young Asian man, a journalist who is not part of the left-leaning media. He carried his new GoPro camera to report on antifa’s march through the streets of Portland, Oregon. Ngo has been reporting on stories that major US media outlets would rather ignore, including the activities of antifa. Their name suggests they are anti-fascists, but bashing a journalist is a common tool of fascists.

While Ngo was mobbed by thugs in masks, police stood back. He ended up in hospital, treated for head injuries including a sub­arachnoid haemorrhage. Film of the violent assault went viral. Yet news outlets went largely silent, eventually shamed into some cynical coverage.

Ngo is the gay son of Vietnamese immigrants, which is worth juxtaposing against antifa’s make-up and mission. A group of angry white millennials protesting against white supremacy violently assaulted a young Asian gay man. Make sense of that.

The lack of concern from major media outlets speaks to the hypocrisy of the left’s moral code. Imagine their rightful outrage if Trump supporters bashed a young left-leaning journo. The same media organisations that routinely pounce on Donald Trump for his media baiting at campaign rallies — think CNN, The New “Woke” Times and The Washington Post — seemed relaxed with antifa’s excuse that Ngo deserved it because he reported on antifa.

When some media outlets finally popped up, Ngo was painted as a troublemaker who deserved no sympathy. “Don’t worry about Ngo. He’s been discharged from hospital, with a big fat GoFundMe of around $160,000 and any number of armed, right-wing groups offering to act as ‘bodyguards’,” wrote one misguided, or malevolent, pundit in The Independent.

The same chap suggested that the far right wanted to treat the assault on Ngo as “their own (cut-price) Horst Wessel moment”. Wessel was a 22-year-old Nazi stormtrooper who was fatally shot by communists on January 14, 1930, his death becoming a rallying cause that propelled the Nazis to power.

Ngo is not a Nazi stormtrooper. He is a curious journalist who challenges modern cant working in a liberal democracy, like ours, that is increasingly imperilled by a new religion that seeks to punish nonconformists in various ways.

Over two thousand years ago, Christianity set down a moral code for people. Biblical stories tell of deadly sins and heavenly virtue, commandments guide us, there are offers of forgiveness and paths to redemption. There were also dark periods when those who questioned rising and rigid religious orthodoxy, and hypocrisy, were shut down. And non-­believers were persecuted.

Today, there is a new religion, with a new moral code enforced by a new sainted class that includes corporate leaders, government bureaucrats, those at the top of industry groups, university vice-chancellors and sporting bosses too. Like old established religions, the clerics of the new ­religion presume to hold a monopoly over morality. This new papal class also enforces a rigid ­orthodoxy similar to old established ­religions.

Those who stray from this new moral code do so at their own risk. There are public condemnations so fierce they aim to rewrite history. Think of those same-sex marriage activists who have not just attacked tennis player Margaret Court for her beliefs but consider her thought crimes so ­serious that the Margaret Court Arena must be renamed. According to Billie Jean King, Court’s Christian views justify trashing her record of 24 Grand Slam singles titles. Note that Court is not asking King to subscribe to her views. But King demands that Court change hers or lose her standing as a tennis legend. Only in degree is that different from historical cases of estab­lished religions persecuting heretics.

The new religion makes no room for nonconformists. Its followers want to shut down voices of dissent. Instead of changing the channel or reading a different newspaper, Richard Di Natale was caught during the last election saying that he wanted sections of Sky and News Corp shut down.

Proponents of the new religion search and punish people for tiny transgressions, confecting fake outrage. And they make no room for redemption or forgiveness. The orthodoxy is so powerful that conservatives are even sacking their own when faced with the shitstorm unleashed by disciples of the new religion. In Britain, Roger Scruton and Toby Young were both sacked from their quangos when the May government succumbed to social media outrage. Burning witches at the stake in a grassy field is an old variant of new witch-hunts on ­social media platforms.

It did not help that Young, a man with a passion for education, apologised unreservedly for comments he made during an earlier career as what he called a “journalistic provocateur”.

When you start from the same point — that dissidents are so morally depraved they must be stopped — only the consequences differ. Some adherents of the new religion chose to bash Ngo, while others demanded that Young be sacked.

It used to be the case that we rendered unto Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, and unto God the things that were God’s. The new moral code is so omnipresent it reaches on to sporting fields, into boardrooms, universities and ­bureaucracies.

The sacking of Israel Folau is bigger than a legal biff about a contract and a code of conduct. Folau was sacked for sinning against the new moral code. It is a totemic clash of religions, between old ones such as Christianity (but it could be Islam next) and the new religion promulgated by a new secular class that wants to stop a man from posting different moral judgments drawn from a centuries-old code of conduct called the Bible.

Some followers of the new religion have become blind to what is at stake. The ABC, for example, struggles to show much curiosity. Interviewed this week on Radio National about religious freedom, Barnaby Joyce mentioned the Folau saga. Presenter Hamish Macdonald interrupted, saying that Folau had been covered enough. Except it has barely been covered at all on the taxpayer-funded ABC.

Later, on Monday evening, a Q&A audience member raised the Folau matter. Host Tony Jones directed it to the openly gay panel member Penny Wong. No one else was asked for their views.

If the ABC is the media arm that spreads the new religion, Rugby Australia’s Raelene Castle has become its self-appointed priestess. During Folau’s code-of-conduct hearing, Castle seemed to suggest it was fine for Folau to post good bits from the Bible, but not bad bits. Was she presuming to sit in judgment of a book that is thousands of years old, with a few billion followers? Who is Castle to decide what individuals should decide for themselves?

People who presume to speak about moral issues for others, rather than just themselves, are found in droves in corporate Australia. A new class of corporate clerics presumes to speak for shareholders on everything from same-sex marriage to changing the Australian Constitution to preference one race of people with a special chamber of their own.

Corporate clerics are easily identified. They spend more time virtue-signalling about getting the right gender balance and exposing society’s unconscious bias than they do on issues that go to the core of their business: boring ­issues such as tax reform and industrial relations reform.

Alas, this hard work is handballed away by faux trust-seekers who would rather feel the warm glow that comes from standing in a room of like-minded corporate clerics signing up to social campaigns using other people’s money. And those quick to attack Qantas’s Alan Joyce should remember he is one of the few to ­advocate for social change and sound economic policy.

The reverence paid to diversity by corporate Australia mirrors the hypocrisy of Billie Jean King in sport. They make no room for political diversity. It’s another sign that the new moral code is religious in nature, because few ­religions, not old ones and not this new one, handle diversity of thought well.

A spokesman for the self-­appointed corporate virtue-signallers, former KPMG chairman Peter Nash, told this newspaper last week that companies needed to push social causes to rebuild trust with people.

Here’s my advice — and it’s free. Companies will rebuild real and lasting trust by treating customers fairly, respecting the diversity of shareholders whose money pays their generous wage, and advocating economic policies that allow companies, workers and our economy to flourish.

At universities too, bureaucrats use codes of conduct to enforce new moral codes using vaguely drafted commandments that you must not behave in an uncollegial manner.

At James Cook University, vice-chancellor Sandra Harding used the university’s code of conduct to remove physics professor Peter Ridd from his job. Ridd taught at JCU for decades. Students adored him. His sin was to challenge the quality of research by some JCU colleagues about the state of the Great Barrier Reef.

A university committed to the liberal education of its students, and finding the truth, would have been curious about Ridd’s work. Instead, JCU sacked him.

How is his removal different to heretics being removed by established ­religions?

When it comes to thou shall implement gender equality, the new religion has become irrational and fanatical. As The Australian reported this week, the Queensland Mines Minister could not seek expert advice from the Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Committee because the committee, lacking 50-50 gender representation, was forced to cancel meetings.

Meanwhile six workers died in Queensland mines and quarries in the past 12 months.

It’s early days. But this new religion and sections of its ruling class are already so corrupted with hypocrisy, it needs a reformation, a Martin Luther to post 95 theses exposing the equivalent of those old papal indulgences. Consider this Thesis # 1.



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


12 July, 2019

Ruth Institute: MTV is 'Selling Gender Confusion,' People Can't Change 'Their Sex'

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D, an economist and the founder of the pro-family Ruth Institute, said MTV's use of "gender fluid" cast members for its latest season of "Are You the One?" is MTV's way of selling "gender confusion" and a "pathetic attempt to make itself relevant."

She added that an individual "can no more change their sex than they can change their species." Dr. Morse further noted that, according to Forbes, MTV "has lost 50% of its audience in the lucrative 18-49 demographic" since 2011.

MTV's "Are You the One?" is a dating show whereby matches are determined by an algorithm -- known only to the producers -- and the 16 contestants pair up and swap dates, etc., and try to correctly identify those "perfect matches" for a prize of $1 million.

In Season 8, which launched on June 26, all of the male and female contestants are allegedly "gender fluid," meaning they are open to dates with males, females, homosexuals, transgenders, and whatever else MTV may view as sexually "fluid."

“MTV isn’t promoting tolerance,” said Dr. Morse in a statement. “They’re selling the ideological agenda of the Sexual Revolution."

"An individual can no more change their sex than they can change their species," she said. "Your sex is biologically given at birth. The gender-confused should seek counseling to live with that reality.”

MTV is "selling gender confusion," said Morse.

She also noted that Jamie Shupe, whom an Oregon Court declared America’s first “nonbinary person” three years ago, is now living as a man again. Shupe says his gender change "was all a sham."

"I’m one of the lucky ones," said Shupe in March 2019.  "Despite participating in medical transgenderism for six years, my body is still intact. Most people who desist from transgender identities after gender changes can’t say the same."

"But that’s not to say I got off scot-free," he said.  "My psyche is eternally scarred, and I’ve got a host of health issues from the grand medical experiment."

The June 26 start of "Are You the One?" Season 8 was "a pathetic attempt" by MTV to make itself relevant," said Morse. "The cable network should be helping those with gender dysphoria, not trying to make their condition attractive.”

The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love, according to its website. The organization "provides decades of research and educational tools to support individuals and families harmed by divorce, the hook-up culture, and other forms of family breakdown."

The institute believes that, "Every person has the right to know his or her cultural heritage and genetic identity; and, "Every child has a right to a relationship with their natural mother and father except for an unavoidable tragedy."


Veteran Devon coastguards quit in beach rescue health and safety row

Inhuman British bureaucracy

Two veteran volunteer coastguards have resigned after they say they were reprimanded for taking a teenager to hospital in a van instead of an ambulance.

The officer in charge (OIC) of Croyde Coastguard Rescue Team, in Devon, said he quit after being told he would have to start his training again.

He said a female colleague with 18 years' experience also resigned.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) confirmed the two resignations. However, it said there would be no reduction in the quality of service in the area.

The Croyde OIC, who does not want to be named, told the BBC he had 32 years' experience - the last 10 being in charge of the team in North Devon, but was told he would lose his OIC status.

He said he had seen "so many changes" since he started, but health and safety regulations had "gone absolutely [mad]".

The former coastguard said on Sunday 23 June at 01:00 BST his team was called to help an 18-year-old man who had drunk too much and was unconscious, cold and wet in the sand dunes. They found him and together with a paramedic put him on a stretcher to wait for an ambulance.

"We had a couple of ambulances on route but they were diverted," he said, adding that the paramedic said it could be two hours before an ambulance was available.

He said they put the young man in the back of his van with the paramedic and drove to hospital.

He was reprimanded the next day and told he would have to go back through the training process, he said.

The former coastguard said he accepted he did not follow the guidelines, but had acted in the best interests of the casualty.

'Rolling around'

He said the rule he broke was using coastguard equipment - the stretcher - in a private vehicle.

"If I had taken him off the stretcher I might have had a lesser telling off but he would have been rolling around in the back of my van," he added.

In a statement the MCA confirmed the resignations, but said it would be inappropriate to comment further.


In defence of Englishness

The idea that English identity goes hand in hand with racism is a myth.


Sending both the liberal-left and far right into a tailspin, recent survey figures show that support for a more open and inclusive English identity has strengthened in recent years. Now around 90 per cent of English people say that being English is not about skin colour or ethnicity.

According to British Future and the Centre for English Identity and Politics, just over 10 per cent of people believe ethnicity is an important factor in determining Englishness, compared with 20 per cent from a 2012 study. Interestingly, the drop has been particularly sharp among those over the age of 65 – a section of the population often smeared as backward and regressive. From 2012, the importance of ‘whiteness’ to English identity among this demographic has dropped from 35 per cent to 16 per cent.

For most people, Englishness is far more about doing your bit, with over 70 per cent feeling that paying taxes in England, and contributing to English society, were important to being English. The data challenges the perception that the UK’s decision to leave the EU reflected the rise of a xenophobic English identity, framed in exclusivist, ancestral terms. The findings actually show that people increasingly view Englishness in ethnically inclusive terms.

The association often drawn between British Euroscepticism and xenophobia is dubious to say the least. Indeed, a 2018 study found that people of black African descent faced ‘widespread and entrenched prejudice and exclusion’ across the EU. Debunking the highly speculative connection between Euroscepticism and xenophobia, the UK in fact had one of the lowest levels of reported race-related harassment and violence in the 12-country study.

Roughly one in three of the respondents to the study said they had experienced some form of racial harassment in the past five years, while only 21 per cent of respondents in the UK said they had. To put this in perspective: the corresponding figure in Finland was 63 per cent. With regards to racist violence, the highest rates were reported in Finland (14 per cent), closely followed by Austria and the Republic of Ireland (13 per cent each). The figure among UK respondents was three per cent.

These survey figures strongly discredit two deeply questionable claims that are often peddled by the chattering classes – that English identity is increasingly being framed in ethno-racially exclusivist terms, and that English xenophobia itself drives British Euroscepticism.

The figures are a huge blow to both the liberal-left chattering classes who depict Englishness as an exclusionary, narrow-minded identity, and also to an increasingly diminishing far-right faction who believe that having a certain racial and ethnic ancestral background is integral to Englishness. Neither, it seems, are actually representative of the views of the English public at large.

Commenting on the new findings, former Labour MP Professor John Denham, a leading authority when it comes to research on English identity, said: ‘The idea that English is an ethnic identity is widely repeated in the media and politics… Ethnicity is clearly much less important outside a small hardcore of residents. The further development of an inclusive Englishness would benefit from positive engagement by leaders across the political spectrum.’

The Guardian has repeatedly produced disparaging pieces about Englishness. The consistently outlandish Paul Mason once declared that he did not want to be English, and ‘any attempt to create an English identity will fail’. This attitude is visible in our politics, too. Who could forget when the queen of the North London metropolitan elite, Emily Thornberry, snobbishly tweeted out a photo of a house in Rochester draped in English flags with a white van parked in the drive.

On the flipside, we have organisations such as the English Defence League, which has tried its utmost to take ownership of the English flag through its divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. We are subjected to the incoherent ramblings of rabble-rousing frauds such as Tommy Robinson, who advertise themselves as ‘true patriots’ but are ultimately focused on stoking community tensions in the name of individual gain.

Interestingly, the subject of Englishness brings together an unlikely alliance of the liberal-left and the far right – neither is remotely interested in cultivating a positive, uplifting, optimistic Englishness, based on shared values and common purpose. One which is family-oriented and community-spirited, emphasises the value of hard work and promotes equality of opportunity – an Englishness which understands the importance of human relationships and encourages social responsibility. And most crucially, one which firmly rejects the divisiveness that comes with group identity politics.

But this is precisely what has developed. I was raised in Luton and spent my entire spell in further education at Royal Holloway in the village town of Egham. I have interacted with both working-class, dyed-in-the-wool Labour voters and middle-class, socially conservative Tories in decent numbers – two constituencies that are generally bound by their dedicated work ethic, strong family values, and deep sense of patriotism. Being of South Asian origin, I have never once encountered hostility or funny looks when expressing my love for England.

In fact, it is the opposite – it is those shared bonds of affection and the comfort found in common values which are integral to tying together England’s people.


Australia: Rush to climb Uluru rock before it’s closed permanently

Climbing the rock is a popular tourist activity.  Closing it off is disgusting pandering to Aboriginal superstitions.  The government does not support other religious ideas.  Why this one?

Tourists travelling to climb Uluru have hit a “historic high” in anticipation of the climb being closed permanently in October.

Three months out from the closure, the tourist influx has sparked claims of trespassing, illegal dumping of rubbish, and disrespect in the rush to climb the rock.

Stephen Schwer CEO of Central Tourism Australia said there has been a massive influx of people in the run up to October 26, when the climb will be closed permanently.

“We are seeing a lot of forward booking for September school holidays so I have a feeling (the influx) will continue until the climb closed,” Mr Schwer told The Australian,

“There is a lot of domestic drive traveller coming for the express purpose of climbing the rock, and a lot of (accommodation) is booked up so we are urging people to plan ahead.”

CEO Voyages indigenous Tourism Australia Grant Hunt said the rush was causing a massive safety concern for those climbing the rock, as well and problems with people disrespecting the land they are travelling on.

“We are under a lot of pressure with the camping and caravanning sector, “ Mr Hunt said.

“Down the highway and on the Aboriginal Trust land … there are people who when they can’t get a booking they are finding themselves alternate locations which in most cases is trespassing and they do not have the same facilities so they are dumping their waste wherever they can,” Mr Hunt said.

“(There are) definitely safety concerns about the amount of people climbing — there are only finite resources and it is closing because it is not safe, I’m just crossing my fingers there isn’t a tragedy before October 26,” Mr Hunt said.

The Anangu traditional land owners and Alice Springs locals reportedly say visitors are leaving rubbish bins overflowing, and illegally dumping human waste on roadsides.

Uluru is sacred to indigenous Australians and the climb has always been discouraged by the park’s traditional owners, who deem it disrespectful due to the sacred nature of the area.

Some tourist operators have discouraged tourists climbing in recent times, both in respect of indigenous wishes and also because of safety factors.



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


11 July, 2019

Cycling festival is caught trying to appear more diverse by photoshopping a black woman rider into a promotional picture

Why can't they just treat people as people, without worrying about what groups they belong to?

A London to Surrey cycling festival has faced backlash after photoshoping a black female rider into a promotional image to make the ride appear more diverse.

Ride London posted the edited photo to their website to promote the cycle ride from London to Surrey next month.

However eagle-eyed cyclists spotted the image manipulation and criticised the afterthought, asking why the organisation hadn't directly addressed the lack of diversity, reports The Times.

The organisation which is backed by Sadiq Khan and sponsored by Prudential instead decided to add diversity through Photoshop.

Photo editors added two women from ethnic-minorities, only one of whom participated that year, to an image of the 2017 ride featuring nearly all male attendees.  

An unidentified knee wearing yellow shorts appears to be under the woman's arm - while the cyclist behind her wears black shorts, leading viewers to question the image's authenticity.

Jools Walker, a black cyclist and blogger who runs Velo City Girl told The Times: 'All I can imagine is a group of white marketing executives looking at this image and thinking: there's a problem.

'But instead of trying to address why people from these groups don't see cycling as inclusive, they decide to photoshop in ethnic minority women — badly. They should be embarrassed.'

London Marathon Events, which organised the event, have since removed the picture from its website after admitting they had combined three images.

Hugh Brasher, Event Director for Prudential RideLondon, said: 'This is a composite image, created to illustrate the range of participants in the Prudential RideLondon sportives.

'Three images have been combined to create this composite image: the female cyclists on the bottom left and bottom right were added to the central image of the two male riders bumping fists as they come down The Mall.

'All images are from riders who have participated in sportives at Prudential RideLondon and there was absolutely no intention to mislead.'  'It is not our usual practice to use composite images and this image has been removed from our website.

'We know that cycling needs to do more to encourage people from all backgrounds to get involved and that is one of the key aims of Prudential RideLondon. 'We believe that we have led the way for mass participation cycling events.

'More than 100,000 cyclists take part over the weekend in a range of different events that cater for everyone.


Texas Conference Cuts Christian Speaker After Local Group Gets Nasty

Buzzwords like “tolerance” and “inclusion” are thrown around a lot lately, but more and more it looks like they only apply in one direction.

A communications director for a large church in Texas was recently disinvited from a conference simply because an LGBT-allied group also attending the event refused to tolerate his personal religious views.

To make matters worse, the conference has nothing to do with either religion or gay rights issues, but is a creative design forum for graphics and design professionals.

“David Roark, communications director for The Village Church, a Texas megachurch, was uninvited from the Circles Conference, a three-day event for graphics and user experience designers, because of his religious views,” Fox News reported on Friday.

“The Dallas-Fort Worth chapter of AIGA [American Institute of Graphic Arts] refused to partner with Circles Conference if Roark was on the roster,” the report continued.

It might be one thing if Roark was some outspoken controversial figure or ranting extremist. But by all accounts, the main reason that the oh-so-tolerant group didn’t want him to attend an event about graphic design is because of where he worships.

“We feel it would be hypocritical of us to be involved in the conference and tacitly endorse the policies of The Village Church,” the local AIGA chapter wrote. “This would be a misallocation of our membership resources and a disservice to all members of our community against whom the organization discriminates.”

Ah, yes: Discrimination as a way to fight alleged discrimination. What was that about being “hypocritical?”

Ironically, a promotional banner on AIGA’s own website declares that “we come in all shapes and sizes.” The membership page for the same site promises that “no matter who you are, you’re one of us.”

Unless you happen to a design professional for a church. If that’s who you are, you’re not invited.

“Since the beginning, one goal of Circles Conference has been to bring people of different world views and creative backgrounds together,” conference organizer Ismael Burciaga said, apparently blind to the hypocrisy of his statement.

“While cultivating a collaborative and creative culture is our top priority, we also respect the concerns of our fellow creatives and we will always be open to dialogue and transparency,” he continued, before confirming that the conference had effectively banned Roark from speaking. So much for that dialogue.

It’s worth wondering if the conference would have had the same response if the speaker’s religion hadn’t been Christianity. Consider for a moment if he had happened to be Muslim, or perhaps Hindu. Would a design conference that claims to value diversity ban a speaker for being associated with one of those faiths? It seems unlikely.

For his part, the disinvited speaker handled the matter gracefully on social media, taking a calm stance that makes the hysteria over his appearance even more ridiculous.

“I believe that to end division and pursue unity in our world, we must be willing to listen well, enter into dialogue and understand that we can show love, honor and dignity to one another while still disagreeing,” he said, according to Fox News.

“I want the creative community to be a place where individuals of all backgrounds, beliefs and lifestyles can learn from one another, regardless of differences, not a place where we shut each other out,” Roark continued.

We’re rapidly approaching a strange time when words like “tolerance” mean the opposite of what they once did, and left-leaning groups pat themselves on the backs for how many people with different beliefs they can ostracize.

You cannot promote true inclusion by excluding everyone with whom you disagree. Doing so does nothing but create an echo chamber, a vapid place where real diversity of thought is rejected and everyone must parrot the same lines.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” used to be the proud maxim of intellectuals and classical liberals everywhere, but no longer. Up is now down, and diversity is being replaced by group-think.


Man Who Bravely Fought Off Islamic Terrorists Put On Terror Watchlist By UK Gov't

The ‘Lion of London Bridge’ who bravely fought off Islamic terrorists has been put on an anti-radicalization terror watchlist by the UK government over fears he could become a right-wing extremist.

Yes, really. 49-year-old Roy Larner screamed “f*** you, I’m Millwall” as he defended himself against jihadists who ended up killing 8 people and injuring 38 others during the horrific attack in London two years ago.

The attack left Larner with more than 80 stitches to his head, ear, arms and hands after two of the terrorists slashed at his head and neck.

Following the attack, Larner revealed that the terrorists had shouted, “This is for Allah” and “Islam, Islam, Islam” during the rampage.

Now Larner himself is being treated as a potential terrorist by the UK government.

Because he was allegedly contacted by far-right anti-Islam activists, Larner has been put on the government’s Prevent terror watchlist over fears he might become an extremist.

“They treat me like a terrorist but I’m not political at all,” said Larner, who revealed he has been forced to attend de-radicalization classes and is being monitored by the police.

Despite being hailed as a hero after the attack, with speculation that he could even be given the George Cross, the highest civilian award for gallantry, Larner is now literally being treated as a potential terrorist by his own country.

The United Kingdom is so addled with political correctness, it treats those who fought back against Islamic jihadists as terrorists.

Let the sheer intensity of that level of clown world insanity sink right in.


Whitewashing the truth of why men kill themselves

Relationship troubles, not mental health, lie behind the plague of male suicides, writes Bettina Arndt, reporting from Australia

Imagine the outcry if a man was appointed head of a leading domestic violence prevention organisation? So how come the federal government has just proudly announced a woman, Christine Morgan, as National Suicide Prevention Officer? This is just the latest move by a government determined to deny the fact that suicide is overwhelmingly a male problem, with six out of eight of our daily suicides taking the lives of men.

Amazingly the recently released National Suicide Prevention Implementation Plan is proudly “gender neutral”, failing to acknowledge that men not only dominate suicide statistics but offering no special programmes to address the unique causes of male suicide, which differ dramatically from those of women who end their own lives.

The alleged link to mental health problems is the most glaring mistake. “Around 80 per cent of people who die by suicide have a mental health issue,” declared ScoMo yesterday when announcing Morgan’s appointment. No, Prime Minister. That’s simply not true of men, the major group at risk. Australian research shows over half of all male suicides, 78 per cent of male farmer suicides and 83 per cent of suicides in older men were not predominantly associated with a mental health diagnosis – according to the Australian Institute of Suicide Research and Prevention and other related studies.

The government proudly declares they are working towards a zero suicide goal yet the PM lists as those most at risk, “veterans, Indigenous Australians and young people”. Not one word about the most vulnerable group – the ordinary men, particularly family men in their 30s and 40s losing their families.

That’s the elephant in the room that our governments are determined to ignore. There’s solid evidence that the major cause of suicide in this country is not mental health problems but rather the toll taken by family break-up, where fathers often face mighty battles trying to stay part of their children’s lives, up against a biased family law system which fails to enforce contact orders, and often facing false violence allegations which are now routinely used to gain advantage in family court battles. Research by the Australian Institute of Suicide Research and Prevention found that almost half of male suicides are linked with relationship issues, one in 20 are linked to child custody issues, one in 10 to pending legal matters. That’s the glaring gender difference – with male suicide three to four times more likely than female suicide to be linked to relationship break-up and child custody.

This evidence has been accumulating for years and no one wants to talk about it. Remember that lavish ABC series, Man Up, made by radio star Gus Worland? Hours of television focusing on the high male suicide rate, endlessly discussing why men won’t talk about their feelings – and barely a word about why men are killing themselves. Last year Worland’s new charity, Gotcha4Life, raised nearly half a million dollars to “save the lives of men suffering mental illness”, money to be spent mainly on programmes in schools teaching boys to express their feelings.

Whenever there’s a known link to female suicide, like post-partum depression, the money pours in to properly address the problem. Yet men struggling to deal with the devastating consequences of dealing with family break-up are given no support. Key organisations providing support for men in these circumstance – like Dads in Distress – face constant battles for funding.

Maybe it is time for the quiet Australians to speak out about this shocking whitewashing of the proper facts about suicide in this country. Contact your MP, ring radio stations, use social media posts to protest the government’s wrong-fisted handling of this important social issue. The six men dying each day in Australia deserve the truth to be told.



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


10 July, 2019

Anti-white discrimination in Detroit

A Detroit music festival which was harshly criticized by one of its scheduled performers for charging white ticket holders more money than minority spectators has announced that it has changed its pricing after alleged threats by white supremacists.

'For the safety of our community, family, elders who received threats from white supremacists,& youth who were subjected to seeing racist comments on our IG pg, Afrofuture Fest has changed our ticketing model to $20 General Admission & suggested donation for nonPOC on Evenbrite,' the festival organizers tweeted on Sunday.

The announcement came after a biracial rapper pulled out of the festival in her hometown of Detroit after she learned that whites were being charged twice as much as minorities.

Jillian Graham, who is known to her fans by the stage name Tiny Jag, says that she learned of the separate price tier for ‘non-people of color’ after a white friend sent her a screenshot of the festival program to her Instagram account.

Those looking to attend the AfroFuture Fest in the Grosse Pointe Park section of Detroit on August 3 were charged $20 for an ‘early bird non-POC ticket’ while an ‘early bird POC ticket’ cost $10.

‘I was immediately enraged just because I am biracial,’ Tiny Jag told the Metro Times of Detroit.

‘I have family members that would have, under those circumstances, been subjected to something that I would not ever want them to be in ... especially not because of anything that I have going on.’

She says she inquired with festival officials about the ticket pricing. When they confirmed the tiered pricing, she made the decision to back out. Tiny Jag also asked festival organizers to remove her name and likeness from all promotional material related to the event.

The festival is being billed as a fundraiser for an organization which promotes the arts among the black youth of Detroit.

Tiny Jag says that she was offended by the fact that her white grandmother would have had to pay more to attend.

‘A lot of the songs that I perform are from my first project called Polly — that is my grandmother’s name,’ she says.

‘How do you want me to come to a performance and perform these songs off a mixtape that is titled after this white woman that you would have charged double to get in here?

‘Like, it’s just outrageous from so many different angles.’

The festival organizers wrote on the Eventbrite page that the event is about ‘co-creating the future necessary for Black thriving’ and to support ‘equality’ and ‘equity.’

‘Our ticket structure was built to insure that the most marginalized communities (people of color) are provided with an equitable chance at enjoying events in their own community (Black Detroit),’ the event organizers wrote.

‘Affording joy and pleasure is unfortunately still a privilege in our society for POC and we believe everyone should have access to receiving such.’

But Tiny Jag says she is not convinced. She says charging white people more to attend does not solve the problem. 'It’s non-progressive and it’s not solution-focused in my eyes,’ she says.

‘It seems almost like it has spite, and unfortunately with spite comes hate, and that’s just not obviously going to be a good direction for us to go if we’re looking for positive change.’


Starbucks Forces Six Police Officers Out the Door When Customer Complains of Feeling Unsafe

“Yesterday, on Independence Day, six Tempe police officers stopped by the Starbucks at Scottsdale Road and McKellips for coffee. The officers paid for their drinks and stood together having a cup of coffee before their long 4th of July shift,” the union tweeted on Friday.

“They were approached by a barista, who knew one of the officers by name, because he is a regular at that location. The barista said that a customer ‘did not feel safe’ because of the police presence. The barista asked the officers to move out of the customer’s line of sight or to leave. Disappointed, the officers did in fact leave.

“This treatment of public safety workers could not be more disheartening. While the barista was polite, making such a request at all was offensive.

Rob Ferraro, president of the police union, said the incident is symptomatic of the larger problem gripping America, KSAZ-TV reported.

“It’s become accepted to not trust or to see police and think that we’re not here to serve you, and again, it goes back to — we take great pride of the level of customer service we provide to citizens, and to be looked at as feeling unsafe when you have law enforcement around you is somewhat perplexing to me,” Ferraro said.

The union has not called for a boycott but has made its displeasure with Starbucks known.


Starbucks HQ has subsequently apologized, rather surprisingly.  But they did not fire the erring staff member, unlike the previous occasion when a staff member chipped two freeloading black men

Nice Guys Finish First? Study Claims Finding A Kind Partner More Important Than Compatibility

Countless dating sites and apps claim to use sophisticated algorithms and  techniques to connect users with their “perfect match.” While sharing interests certainly doesn’t hurt, a new study out of Michigan State University claims that at the end of the day, simply finding a nice and pleasant partner is more important.

“People invest a lot in finding someone who’s compatible, but our research says that may not be the end all be all,” explains lead study author Bill Chopik in a release. “Instead, people may want to ask, ‘Are they a nice person?’ ‘Do they have a lot of anxiety?’ Those things matter way more than the fact that two people are introverts and end up together.”

Chopik and his team claim to have conducted the most comprehensive study ever on relationship happiness. More specifically, researchers utilized a long-term survey of more than 2,500 heterosexual couples who have been married around 20 years. Using this data, the study’s authors measured the impact of personality traits on well-being in these relationships.

Researchers were shocked when their results indicated that shared interests and similar personalities had little to no effect on relationship satisfaction. Even among couples sharing personality traits, the study found that having a conscientious and nice partner leads to a more satisfying relationship. The study also concluded that relationships including a person who is especially neurotic, or extroverted, leads to lower relationship satisfaction.

The study’s authors say that dating apps attempting to match people based on shared interests may need to rethink their approach.

“When you start to get into creating algorithms and psychologically matching people, we actually don’t know as much about that as we think we do,” Chopik says. “We don’t know why the heart chooses what it does, but with this research, we can rule out compatibility as the lone factor.”

The study is published in the Journal of Research in Personality.


Candace Owens: ‘What Kaepernick & Nike Are Advocating for Is Segregation’

By encouraging black Americans to shun the American flag, sports apparel manufacturer Nike and former NFL Quarterback-Turned-Social-Activist Colin Kaepernick are actually promoting segregation, conservative commentator Candace Owens said Wednesday.

Owens, leader of the “Blexit” movement seeking to introduce conservative values to urban society, made the comment on Twitter in reaction to Nike’s decision to pull its “Betsy Ross Flag” shoe line because Kaepernick – famous for protesting during the National Anthem at NFL games – complained:

"People may not realize it but what Colin Kaepernick & Nike are advocating for is segregation.

"They are telling black people that the American flag is not for us and that we need something “separate but equal” to represent us.

"They are reintroducing segregationist mentality."


Feminist fanaticism: Australian Mining health and safety committee in hiatus over ‘gender imbalance’

A Queensland government mine safety committee was forced into hiatus for nearly four months because it didn’t have the right “gender representation,” during a spate of six mining deaths in the state.

Queensland Mines Minister Anthony Lynham today confirmed the committee — which has representatives from the government mines inspectorate, the Queensland Resources Council, and relevant unions — would be re-established this week.

The committee has not met since March 20, but had to cancel its June meeting, The Australian understands.

“The committee has to be, certain representation has to be made in the committee, you have to make sure of gender representation is respected,” Dr Lynham said.

“Because of the significance of the appointments, that has been difficult, so the committee has been reestablished just recently.”

There have been six mining and quarry worker deaths in Queensland in the past 12 months, including four in the past six months. There have been two deaths since the mining safety committee last met in March. Most recently, a 27-year-old mine worker died at Baralaba in central Queensland on Sunday.

At his press conference this morning, Dr Lynham misspoke and said the committee had not sat at all this year. However, his office later clarified that the committee had met in March for two days.

Dr Lynham will meet with unions and the industry in Brisbane this afternoon, in light of the fatalities.

Liberal National Party Opposition leader Deb Frecklington called for a parliamentary investigation into mining safety in light of the recent deaths. Ms Frecklington said the disbanding of the mining safety advisory committee also needed to be probed.

“That needs to be investigated, along with reports the mines budget has been cut and why we have gone from two chief inspectors to one,” Ms Frecklington said.

“It’s crucial Queensland learns lessons from these tragedies to ensure our mines are safe.”

Queensland Resources Council boss Ian Macfarlane said the QRC had supplied its nominations for committee members, including two women, to the government six months ago.

“I’m not sure why that committee is not operating; we have asked that that committee start operating,” Mr Macfarlane said.

“We want to be doing everything we can … every committee makes a meaningful difference.”

Just hours after the fatality at Baralaba North, a man fell about 10 metres from a platform at Glencore’s Collinsville Coal Mine. Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Tania Constable extended her sincere sympathy to family, friends and colleagues of the Baralaba miner who died yesterday and the Collinsville miner injured this morning.

“Australia’s minerals industry’s number one value and commitment is the safety and health of the workforce, where everyone who goes to work in the industry returns home safely,’’ Ms Constable said. “The loss of life in Australian mining is unacceptable.’’

She said the minerals industry would work harder to become fatality and injury free.

“Clearly even greater effort is needed based on leadership, systems, people, culture and behaviour,’’ Ms Constable said.

CFMEU Queensland mining and energy president Steve Smyth has called for the mining industry to be shut down for at least 24 hours for a “major reset”.

“It means stopping every operation for a period of 24 hours, sitting down with your workers and engaging them around what’s going on with your mine site,” Mr Smyth said.

“I don’t know how many fatalities or major accidents we need to have before industry and the regulators take real action. It’s trending in a really, really concerning 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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


9 July, 2019

Chronic fatigue syndrome is NOT all in your mind

As was often said in the past.  It is probably an as-yet unidentified virus.  I had it for about a month but I have a very good immune system so I got back to normal relatively quickly.  I had it over a Christmas period and all I could do during the celebrations was lie on the floor

Advances in Understanding the Pathophysiology of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Anthony L. Komaroff

When does an illness become a disease? When the underlying biological abnormalities that cause the symptoms and signs of the illness are clarified.

The illness now called myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) was first described in the mid-1980s. At that time, nothing was known about its underlying biology. Indeed, because many standard laboratory test results were normal, some clinicians explained to patients that “there is nothing wrong.” There was, of course, an alternative explanation: the standard laboratory tests might not have been the right tests to identify the underlying abnormalities.

Over the past 35 years, thousands of studies from laboratories in many countries have documented underlying biological abnormalities involving many organ systems in patients with ME/CFS, compared with healthy controls: in short, there is something wrong. Moreover, most of the abnormalities are not detected by standard laboratory tests. In 2015, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that ME/CFS “is a serious, chronic, complex systemic disease that often can profoundly affect the lives of patients,” affects up to an estimated 2.5 million people in the United States, and generates direct and indirect expenses of approximately $17 billion to $24 billion annually.1

Over the past several years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has expanded its research efforts directed toward this disease. It has initiated an unusually comprehensive multisystem study at the NIH Clinical Center, funded 3 extramural ME/CFS research centers and 1 data coordinating center, awarded supplemental support to 7 existing grants, and held regular telebriefings on the illness (as has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).2

A 2-day conference at the NIH in April 2019 highlighted recent progress. New research was presented that both reinforced and expanded on previous reports. Equally important, several plausible models were proposed that could explain many of the abnormalities that have been described.


A great deal more is known today than 35 years ago about the underlying biology of ME/CFS. It is clear that many biological measurements clearly distinguish patients with ME/CFS from healthy control individuals.

At the same time, some areas of ME/CFS research remain a challenge, and research has not yet given practicing physicians 2 important tools. First, there are as yet no US Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments. Second, although various biological measurements distinguish patients with ME/CFS from healthy controls, none yet have demonstrated the high sensitivity and specificity required for a good diagnostic test. However, 1 small study (20 cases and 20 controls) described at the NIH conference (and recently published9) reported perfect sensitivity; the specificity of the test in individuals with other fatiguing illnesses remains to be shown.

With growing international interest in the illness, and increased research support from the NIH, the day is coming when physicians will be able to explain to patients not only that there is something wrong but also that advances in understanding the pathophysiology have led to effective therapy.

More HERE  

Sheriff's office loses accreditation after Parkland shooting

About time

Florida's largest sheriff's office has lost its law enforcement accreditation after criticism over its handling of fatal shootings at a high school and airport.

The Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation voted 13-0 last week not to renew the Broward Sheriff's Office's accreditation. Commission members include law enforcement and other local officials from across Florida.

They cited the agency's handling of last year's Parkland shooting and a 2017 shooting at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport as reasons for the decision.

Sheriff Gregory Tony said in a prepared statement that it's disheartening for the agency's 5,400 employees to lose their accreditation for the previous administration's mistakes. BSO's former sheriff, Scott Israel, was suspended by the governor earlier this year.

"Since recently taking command, I have worked on improving BSO and repairing the effects of bad leadership and negligence by focusing on training and community relations," Tony said. "I will continue working hard to ensure that all Broward residents feel safe and that our agency's reputation and honor are restored."

CFA Executive Director Lori Mizell says 166 agencies have the voluntary certification. An agency can keep operating without accreditation. Mizell says having accreditation means an agency meets more than 250 professional standards.

Meanwhile, Israel is running for his old job. He filed paperwork Monday stating his intention to run in the August 2020 Democratic primary. Israel is fighting the suspension before the Florida Senate and had previously committed to running for the seat regardless of whether he was reinstated.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has accused Israel of incompetence and neglect of duty for failing to properly train his deputies for an active shooter situation.

Israel's lawyer says DeSantis' decision to suspend the sheriff was politically motivated.


Is This the End of Female Athletics? Not If This High School Girl Can Help It

The girls should refuse to compete against men

In high school, I wanted nothing more than to compete at the collegiate level in swimming. It was my goal, my dream. But there was one problem: My high school didn’t have a swim team. And the only way I could get noticed by college scouts was to make it to the high school state meet.

Wanting the best for their daughter, my parents approached the high school about starting a swim team, and thankfully, the school administration agreed. I became the high school swim team of one. And eventually, I achieved my dream to compete as a college athlete, which was one of the highlights of my college experience.

But now, that same opportunity is being stripped from some female high school athletes. These girls are losing their spots at high-level competitions. But it’s not because their schools don’t have their particular sports. And it’s not because they weren’t good enough or didn’t work hard enough.

It’s because the spots of these female athletes are being taken by biological males. And that means these female athletes, who have worked so hard and for so long on their dream, are losing opportunities to compete in front of college scouts.

That’s exactly what happened to Selina Soule, a high school track athlete in Connecticut. And it’s why Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a complaint representing Selina and two other female athletes with the Office for Civil Rights.

At the Connecticut indoor track championships earlier this year, Selina placed eighth in the 55-meter dash – just one spot away from qualifying for the 55m final and a chance to compete for a spot in the New England regional championships, where many college scouts attend.

As an athlete, it can be disappointing to narrowly miss a goal – to be one spot out of medaling or a hundredth of a second off of a qualifying time.

But this was different.

Selina had not simply been outrun by seven other girls. She had been outrun by only five other girls, while first and second place were taken by two biological males. These two athletes – one who had competed in the boys competitions just one season prior – identify as girls and have been allowed to compete as such.

Had they not been permitted to do so, Selina likely would have competed at the New England regional championships in front of college scouts.

While students who experience confusion about their gender need compassionate support, there are many ways to offer that without compromising fair competition.

The fact is that Title IX was passed to ensure that women would receive equal opportunities in education. But now, biological males are being allowed to compete in sports with girls for scholarship opportunities – and they’re winning. Connecticut isn’t the only place where this is happening.

A male high school sprinter qualified for the girls’ finals at the Alaska state track championships.

A male college runner won three titles in the Northeast-10 Championships for women’s track, and received the Most Outstanding Track Athlete award.

A male softball player took one of 15 spots on his California high school girls’ varsity softball team.

That’s not progress. It’s just plain unfair.

Still, many female athletes have been hesitant to speak out. And it’s no wonder why.

Those who dare to question whether biological males should be allowed to compete against females are ridiculed and bullied. Transgender activists lashed out against tennis legend Martina Navratilova when she wrote that a biological man competing as a woman is “cheating.”

Likewise, when Selina and other female competitors have voiced their criticism, they have been portrayed as sore losers.

Since when does speaking the truth make you a sore loser?

It is a physiological fact that men and women are built differently. Men have more muscle mass and a higher bone density – making them physically stronger than women.

And as Navratilova pointed out, “Simply reducing hormone levels — the prescription most sports have adopted — does not solve the problem. A man builds up muscle and bone density, as well as a greater number of oxygen-carrying red blood cells, from childhood. Training increases the discrepancy.”

Did you catch that? No amount of training can change the fact that males have a physiological advantage over females in some sports.

That’s why we have separate men’s and women’s sports. But somehow, the line between the two is becoming increasingly blurry. And women and girls are suffering the consequences.

Just ask Selina.


Corruption of kindness: How the RSPCA has been infiltrated by a motley bunch of militants with an extreme agenda that's ruining its precious legacy

Jane Tredgett is a veteran animal rights activist who lives in rural Humberside with her husband and a small domestic menagerie that includes two dogs, a cat and several chickens.

A ‘committed vegan’, she devotes much time to running eccentric and occasionally somewhat muddled campaigns on what she regards as the pressing issues of our times.

Not long ago, for example, the 52-year-old used Facebook to endorse a bizarrely worded appeal to stop the Queen ‘killing bears’.

Of course, Her Majesty has never personally killed one. But the campaign targeted the Foot Guards of the Household Division, whose bearskin caps (often mistakenly called busbies) are made from the skins of black bears, which are culled in Canada to keep numbers in check.

Tredgett therefore urged her friends to bombard Buckingham Palace with letters telling the Queen that ‘killing bears should stop immediately’.

Shortly afterwards, she mounted a campaign against the Bank of England’s new £5 note, which is made using tallow to increase durability. ‘I avoid buying products with animal derivatives so I should not be forced to have them in my banknotes,’ she announced.

Tredgett has also circulated a host of petitions, targeting (among other things) restaurant chains that allegedly serve eggs from caged hens, London Fashion Week for allowing fur on its catwalks, the government of India (where monkeys are supposedly culled), rabbit farms and circuses that use wild animals.

‘What an awful world we live in,’ she once declared. ‘We destroy everything we touch and kill any animal for any reason as and when we see fit. Humans are most definitely the real vermin.’

Such views are, of course, widely held by more fanatical proponents of the animal rights agenda. They view almost any interaction between man and beast, from farming to medical research, the pet trade and even horse riding, as a legitimate target for righteous, occasionally violent indignation.

For the outspoken vegan with a penchant for banning things has, for almost 18 years, held a seat on the ruling Council of Trustees for one of Britain’s wealthiest charities, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA).

Currently, she is vice-chairman of the organisation, which has 1,750 employees and an annual budget of nearly £130 million.

In this role, she and other trustees are responsible for the charity’s leadership and meet to decide policy, strategy and the allocation of its funds.

All of which leads us to why Tredgett has made headlines after being identified as one of a cabal of ‘radical animal rights campaigners’ on the council who are accused of pushing for the RSPCA to devote its resources to outlawing two of Britain’s most popular sports: angling and horse racing.

They have apparently called for bans at recent policy committee meetings.

To a casual reader, the idea that this supposedly mainstream charity could even consider taking such a radical step might seem outlandish.

After all, the RSPCA has for generations held a cherished place in our national psyche.

Formed in pre-Victorian times, when animal welfare meant preventing horses and donkeys being routinely flogged to death, it began life as an enlightened extension of the anti-slavery campaign.

Indeed, it says much about Britain’s affection for animals that the RSPCA was formed before the modern police force and predated the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) by 60 years.

Over time, the charity morphed into a well-meaning organisation which saved pets from malnutrition, looked after injured wild animals and ran cat and dog rescue centres.

To many Britons, and a good proportion of supporters, that remains the RSPCA’s raison d’etre.

So how is it now considering whether to seek a ban on angling, a pursuit enjoyed by four million Britons who work tirelessly to conserve fish stocks and maintain the nation’s rivers and lakes?

It is because of the dominance of the charity’s ruling council by hardliners such as Tredgett — the result of almost half a century of ‘entryism’.

This is when an organised group, often with extreme views, join a mainstream organisation to take control, subvert policies and expand their influence — just as the hard-Left group Momentum has infiltrated the Labour Party.

So far, radical animal rights campaigners on the council have been successfully opposed by moderate members who are anxious not to alienate other RSPCA members, potential donors and the charity’s patron, the Queen, a lifelong racing fan.

Yet the delicate balance of power that has effectively blocked this radical agenda could soon be upset.

More Here  

Australia runs concentration camps? You can’t be serious, Tom

Thomas Keneally is a good novelist but is also an hysterical Leftist with no sense of proportion.  That illegal immigrants housed in Australia's detention centres can get a free ticket home just by asking for it he fails to mention.  The inmates at Auschwitz had no such opportunity.  Some differences do matter

Most Australians appreciate the cut and thrust of the domestic political debate. However, when talking to foreigners all of us have a responsibility to be as factual as possible and to avoid hyperbole.

Bestselling author and Booker Prize winner Thomas Keneally did not meet this standard when interviewed by Zeinab Badawi on the BBC World Service’s Hardtalk program on June 18. The writer spoke sensibly in refuting the claim of US-based commentator John Oliver that Australia is a ­racist country.

But earlier in the interview, ­Keneally threw the switch to alienation when discussing the issue of refugees and asylum-seekers. Whatever anyone thinks about the policy of successive governments on this issue, the fact is that Australia, on a per capita basis, is one of the most generous nations in the world when it comes to settling refugees.

Settling refugees means accepting them as individuals who qualify for the free health and education available to Australians — along with access to a generous welfare system. And, in turn, refugees become eligible for residential status and eventually full citizenship. Some of Australia’s most successful citizens came here as refugees. But you would not know this from watching or hearing the Hardtalk interview.

Keneally told Badawi that Australia has failed the test of “national honour and honesty” with respect to asylum-seekers. He went on to accuse Australian governments of lying but did not specifically identify the (alleged) lies to which he was referring.

Keneally told Hardtalk: “We began by arguing that to save Australia from terror we had to keep these people in permanent detention. So we have what can only be called concentration camps in Australia … in which people are punished psychologically for having the ambition for being Australians.”

This is simply misleading. Keneally is a social democrat and a supporter of mainstream Labor governments. He should know that detention for asylum-seekers entering Australian territory ­unlawfully was an initiative of Paul Keating’s Labor government in 1992. It had nothing to do with the threat of international terrorism, which became a concern some time later.

Also, the reference to concentration camps is grossly inaccurate in this instance. Since the end of World War II, this term has been associated with the camps constructed by the Nazi Germany ­regime in the late 1930s and early 40s. Some were forced labour facilities, others were death camps. No one willingly entered these institutions.

Contrary to ­Keneally’s claim, no one is punished for having the ambition to become an Australian. Tens of thousands with such an ambition enter Australia as immigrants every year, as do thousands of refugees. Detention was established to restore Australian control of Australian borders. This became increasingly necessary as individuals arriving by boat destroyed their personal papers on the ­advice of people-smugglers. This means that authorities have no way of assessing the character of individuals arriving on Australian shores.

Keneally told Badawi that Australia has adopted a policy of “punishing people, not the people- smugglers”. This overlooks the fact that the only way to stop the people-smuggling trade is to cut their customer base. The Coali­tion governments led by John Howard, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison understood this.

So did Labor’s Kevin Rudd ­during his second term as prime minister. During Rudd’s first time as prime minister and in the early years of his successor, Julia Gillard, about 50,000 unlawful ­arrivals came to Australian shores and an estimated 1200 drowned at sea. At this time, Australia’s ­immigration system was effect­ively contracted out to people-smugglers.

It’s rare indeed for a BBC ­journalist to criticise an interview from the right. But that’s what ­Badawi felt compelled to do. She pointed out to Keneally that while he ­referred to concentration camps, others described them as detention centres. And she added that “you can’t allow unfettered numbers of asylum-seekers to come in”.

Quite so. Keneally’s proposal is to use the money saved from closing existing detention centres on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island to set up centres in Indonesia designed to process asylum-seekers for settlement in Australia.

However, it is not clear why asylum-seekers who make it to Indonesia or a nearby nation should get preference when it comes to settlement in Australia. There are tens of millions seeking asylum — in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and elsewhere. There is no reason why Australia should give preference to individuals with the money to make it to our northern shores ahead of those who, say, may have been in a UN camp somewhere in Africa for 15 years.

Refugees and asylum-seekers in offshore detention are now free to leave if they wish. They are in no sense incarcerated in a concentration camp. Moreover, the Coali­tion has been successful in resettling some of these men, women and children in the US.

The sensible approach to an ­almost intractable problem is to put a red flag up the front and ­operate a green flag out the back. In other words, it makes sense for Australia to adopt a hard line ­towards people-smugglers and those who engage them while slowly and quietly resettling those on Nauru and Manus Island. In ­effect, this has been Australia’s policy for years.

Such a process is not assisted by exaggerated statements made by prominent Australians to international media outlets. If, as Ken­eally states, the Australian gov­ern­ment is an institutional liar and committed to maintaining concentration camps to punish people, then it is reasonable to come to the view that a majority of Australians will prevail against such ­deceit and injustice.

They won’t — as recent election results have indicated — ­because the view put by Keneally to the BBC is flawed.

These are the facts. Australia is a generous ­recipient of refugees compared with most other democracies, ­including New Zealand. Moreover, the present asylum-seeker problem worldwide is so great that no government or international body can resolve it in the short term. Despite what Keneally told the BBC.



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


8 July, 2019

Meet Tom Harwood, a most articulate young British conservative

He is supporting those who want Britain to leave the EU.  He may also be the most good-looking journalist in Britain. 

When the EU parliament convened recently the delegates of the Brexit party turned their backs on the EU anthem.

Tom is defending that action. The EU is certainly a monstrosity

Click HERE

PLO Fumes After US Officials Mark Jewish Heritage in Jerusalem With Excavation of Ancient Road

How on earth do they think anyone will believe their claim that Jews have no historic connection to Israel

A long-running campaign by Palestinian leaders and their Islamic bloc allies to deny Jewish heritage in Jerusalem has been dealt a blow with the opening of an excavated ancient road used by Jewish pilgrims 2,000 years ago to ascend to the Temple.

Particularly galling for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was the fact that the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, and President Trump’s special representative for Mideast peace negotiations, Jason Greenblatt, participated in the inauguration of the significant archeological site on Sunday.

Friedman used a sledgehammer to break through a ceremonial cardboard wall, revealing the excavated “Pilgrimage Road” – a wide set of stairs and walkway leading from the Pool of Siloam in the City of David south of the Old City to the Temple Mount, location of the biblical Temple.

Now underground – beneath an Arab residential area – the walkway is believed by archeologists to have been built by King Herod 2,000 years ago for Jewish pilgrims to use when going from the pool, where they ceremonially purified themselves, to the Temple.

Historians record masses of worshipers going up to the Temple for the three key annual biblical feasts – Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Feast of Weeks or Pentecost) and Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles). Jesus visited the Temple frequently, as recorded in the New Testament.

In a tweet after the ceremony Greenblatt described the ancient road as “Bedrock (solid) proof of the Judeo-Christian heritage and values that our two countries share.”

But PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat, speaking to reporters in Ramallah, was quoted as saying that the excavation project was “based on a lie that has nothing to do with history.”

On Twitter, Erekat also slammed the American dignitaries for taking part in the event, saying, “One day the US will say that Friedman and Greenblatt were not American diplomates [sic], they were extremist fanatic Israeli settlers.”

PLO executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi called the project a “war crime.”

“We consider the participation of Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman to be criminal collusion in the commission of a war crime that must be condemned as well as universally and unequivocally confronted,” she said in a statement.

Ashrawi appealed to “all relevant multilateral organizations, including [the U.N. cultural agency] UNESCO and the OIC [Organization of Islamic Cooperation], to take immediate steps to protect Jerusalem and Palestinian rights.”

U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, left, and White House Mideast envoy Jason Greenblatt during Sunday’s inauguration event. (Photo by Tsafrir Abayov/AFP/Getty Images)
The OIC duly weighed in, accusing Israel in a statement on Tuesday of actions “aimed at changing the historical and legal status of Jerusalem.”

The bloc of Muslim-majority nations “stressed the need to preserve the Arab, Islamic and Christian identity of the city and its cultural heritage, and to safeguard the sanctity of the holy places therein.”

The OIC has backed Palestinian efforts to deny Jewish heritage in Jerusalem, which in some cases have seen officials dispute the existence of the Temple altogether. (The OIC has referred to “the purported temple.”)

The Arab League, in a statement cited by the PLO news agency WAFA, slammed what it depicted as Israeli attempts – with U.S. support – to “judaize” Jerusalem.

Arab League assistant secretary-general Saeed Abu Ali said the participation of Friedman and Greenblatt “proves the American administration’s absolute bias and full adoption of these settlement projects in violation of international consensus and legitimacy.”

Responding to the development Al-Azhar, the Cairo-based institution considered the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, rejected what it called “a flagrant violation of international law, the principles of religions, and agreed upon international conventions.”

‘Stop pretending it isn’t true’

Responding to the Palestinian criticism, Greenblatt tweeted, “We can’t ‘Judaize’ what history/archaeology show. We can acknowledge it & you can stop pretending it isn’t true! Peace can only be built on truth.”

The Jerusalem Post said in an editorial, “Trying to erase the Bible stories and the thousands of years of Jewish history in which Jerusalem has always been the focus of prayers and yearning does nothing to add credibility to the Palestinian cause.”

In a fundraising appeal Tuesday, the liberal U.S. Jewish group J Street called Friedman’s participation in the event “insane,” noting that past U.S. ambassadors rarely set foot in Jerusalem’s Old City “because they didn’t want to upset the delicate status quo in the city in any way, or appear to be promoting the claims of either side.”

The Temple Mount is the location of two important mosques – including al-Aqsa, regarded by Muslims as Islam’s third-holiest – but it is also the site where the two ancient Jewish Temples stood, as attested by historical, archeological and biblical sources.

The later of those two Temples, the one in which Jesus was dedicated as a baby and later preached, was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, 500 years before the birth of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed.

The Temple Mount is Judaism’s most revered site. It came under Israeli sovereignty during the 1967 Six Day War, but Israeli authorities ceded its administration to an Islamic trust, and the nearest point observant Jews are generally able to pray publicly is the Western Wall on its western flank.

Abu Ali of the Arab League claimed this week that UNESCO recognizes Jerusalem as “an exclusive Islamic heritage.”

UNESCO resolutions used to do so implicitly, by referring to the Temple Mount only by its Islamic name, al-Haram al-Sharif.

After it did so in a 2016 resolution, then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said in a statement, “The United Nations’ attempt to disconnect the State of Israel from Jerusalem is a one-sided attempt to ignore Israel’s 3,000-year bond to its capital city, and is further evidence of the enormous anti-Israel bias of the U.N.”

Since 2017 UNESCO resolutions have included a reference to the importance of Jerusalem’s Old City “for the three monotheistic religions.”


Is Christianity making a comeback?

The scene is rocking, and the most racially diverse I have encountered in contemporary London. Lots of Afro-Caribbeans, plenty of Asians, lots of white folks, too, and almost every other variety you can imagine. The joint is hopping. Singer and guitars and a big, big sound. Boom! Boom! Boom!

After the “concert” the big crowd, as diverse in age as in ethnic origin, spills out on to a precious patch of green in central London, there to enjoy an informal lunch of many ethnic cuisines — curries, paella, chilli con carne, pizzas and ice cream. There’s no cost, though you can make a don­ation if you like.

I am attending the Sunday morning service of Holy Trinity Brompton, one of the most dynamic and important Anglican parishes in the world (though the good folks there would never make such flattering comparisons about themselves).

The big feature of the service is the music. But the spiritual highlight, perhaps, is the legendary pastor, Nicky Gumbel, interviewing Christian musician couple Matt and Beth Redman. Gumbel and the Redmans are stellar names in British evangelical Christianity. One of Gumbel’s books sold more than a million copies. The Redmans have both written books of Christian testimony and they are sellout musicians in the US and Britain.

The Word on the street

The big story of contemporary Britain is the radical loss of belief and meaning. It is a transforming social dynamic. But there are now, perhaps equally important, tentative signs of a counter-trend.

Right next door to Holy Trinity Brompton, its good neighbours live in the Brompton Oratory, the historic and also in its way world famous Catholic church. Just a little before the rocking and rolling at HTB, the Catholic priests at Brompton Oratory celebrated the old Tridentine mass.

Not only is this mass conducted in Latin, the liturgy follows the ancient rites from the 16th-century Council of Trent, which was universal in the Catholic Church until it was replaced with an updated liturgy in vernacular languages by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. The music at the Tridentine mass­es is sublime, exquisite, liturgical, stylistically a world away from rock ’n’ roll contemporary style.

I have been to mass and other services at the Brompton Oratory a few times and they, too, are strikingly well attended.

These two churches, so superficially different, are, in my view, not so different after all. One, with its ancient Latin liturgy, looks shockingly countercultural. The other, hip and groovy, seems to be riding the wave of contemporary culture. But the liturgy and music in both places is based squarely on the words of the Bible, Old Testament and New, and the message of basic Christianity is also essentially the same. Tellingly, both forms of Christianity are thriving, in London and elsewhere.

Holy Trinity Brompton uses contemporary cultural style but it does not endorse the contemporary culture in toto any more than the Latin mass Brompton Oratory folks do. Beth Redman, in her impressive comments, recounts how she has basically gone off Twitter and scaled back her Facebook.

Partly this is theological; the Bible says do your good works in secret. Partly it is, like everything in this tradition, experiential. She found that even when she was trying to pray, her iPhone distracted her. She was inclined to check it. So she chucked it. She also tells people to be careful of the films and television they consume, of the evil they put in their heads.

She and her husband had much else to say about more profound issues of life. But I was struck by the good sense and uncompromising nature of her social media advice. It offers a clue to the genius of this style of Christianity. It is as hip and groovy and contemporary as you like, but it doesn’t shirk tough messages that in other contexts may sound wowserish.

The question is whether the two Bromptons and all the other signs of life in contemporary British Christianity are really signs of hope, maybe of a turn at last, or are they really more like crowded lifeboats bobbing around in the wake of a sinking ocean liner?

Whether you are religious or not, the pivot point of history that we have reached in Britain and western Europe is awe inspiring, epochal and little understood. Britain and western Europe have abandoned the faith of their ­fathers, and even more their mothers, and with it much of their cultural and civic inheritance.

Secular default

Before asking whether the trend has reached a turn, we must realise how staggering the trend is.

According to well-based research published last year, among 18 to 29-year-olds in France, there are as many practising Muslims as there are Catholics. As many young Muslims go to mosque in France as young Catholics go to mass. In London, paradoxically the most religious part of Britain, of a total population of more than eight million, there are 4.1 million people who self-identify as Christian and 2.4 million who self-identify as Muslim (although Christians at last seem to be holding their numbers). According to survey results of two years ago, 7 per cent of 18 to 29-year-old Brits identify as Anglicans, while 6 per cent identify as Muslims.

This is not to criticise Muslims. There are three reasons their numbers have grown so fast. They have been a very big part of the immigration cohort. They generally have more children than non-Muslims do. And they are much, much more successful than European Christians in passing on religious affiliation to their children.

It is not necessary to be in any way anti-Muslim to recognise that this represents a huge, epic shift in the cultural and civic identity of Europe. People who follow other religions are also growing in Britain, among them Hindus and Sikhs, and even, off a very low base, Orthodox Haredi Jews. All of these religious groups are more successful than Christians in maintaining their religious affiliation across generations.

There is one critical point of context that is slightly mitigating. For a long time now, Christianity has been a nominal affiliation for huge chunks of European populations. So secularisation, the loss of God, has meant in part the end of nominal Christianity.

As Nick Spencer from the influential London think tank Theos tells me: “For the last generation or two, Christian identity and ethics are no longer the default position. That’s been replaced by a default liberal outlook — me and my choices.”

But the civic identity of Europe, and its civilisation more broadly, derived overwhelmingly from the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Britain is now, according to the surveys, a majority atheist society, as are some other west European nations. This is a much stronger trend in western Europe and Britain than it is in the US or Australia, though all Western nations are experiencing some version of the same symptoms.

There is a long debate about whether secularisation is a process that has progressed over centuries — from the Renaissance de-­emphasising the divine in art, through the wars of Christianity to all the savage disruptions of the 20th century — or something much more sudden. The classic account by Callum Brown, The Death of Christian Britain, argues that the process was much more sudden.

It was kicked off by the cultural revolution of the 1960s, the sexual revolution and everything that followed. Brown’s book suggests that Christianity reached a high point in Britain in the first years of the 20th century, but the proportionate numbers of Christians were still not far below those highs in the 50s. Indeed, there had even been some serious revival of Christian sentiment and practice in the 40s and 50s.

There is some evidence, at least a suggestion, that the decline of Christianity in Britain has now hit bottom and may be slowly turning around. If that is so, it is in part at least because of the efforts of Gumbel.

He is the son of a German secular Jewish refugee. Oxbridge educated, he was a highly successful barrister. He converted to Christianity through reading the New Testament. Although he did not found it, he has run the Alpha program, one of the most successful Christian formation and evangelisation efforts in modern history, since 1990.

It is an approach to teaching the basic Christian faith mainly to non-Christians, although so many nominal Christians have so little knowledge of Christianity, and contemporary Western culture provides almost no positive signs or clues to it, that the distinction between non-Christian and nominal Christian when people first come into contact with Alpha can be pretty meaningless.

Decline and rise

Around the world, perhaps 26 million people have taken the Alpha program. Within Australia alone, a half-million have done so. A week and a half after I attend the service at Holy Trinity Brompton, a friend arranges that I might go and see Gumbel at his home near the church.

Whatever his success with selling books and the like, his house is modest. He makes me a cup of tea and we walk through to his study, which is book-lined and lived-in, a little ramshackle, and contains more than one chair that doesn’t bear very vigorous use.

He doesn’t think Christian decline is inevitable, ongoing or irreversible: “If you take the church in the UK, people think it’s a steady decline. But actually it’s back and forth. In 1750 the church had declined to almost nothing.

“There were 10,000 sex workers walking the streets of London and 16 people at St Paul’s Cathedral on Easter. Then along came the Wesleys (John Wesley was an Anglican minister who founded the Methodist congregation) and William Wilberforce and it (Christianity) builds all the way to 1910.

“From 1910 onwards there’s been a decline. But even within the cycles there are reverses. When Billy Graham came there was a blip of growth.

“The question is: are we at the end of that decline? The old (Christians) are still dying but the young are still coming forward. There’s been a huge rise in Anglican ordinands (people studying for the Anglican ministry).”

Paul Bickley, like Spencer also of Theos, points me to research that shows that religious communities of “experiential difference” are flourishing. This term “experiential difference” means two things: the idea that there is “something different” about being a Christian, and combined with this some kind of transcendental experience of God.

Gumbel’s movement of Anglicans has been involved in “church planting” in Britain and around the world. Where a church is about to close or there is a need on a housing estate or some other part of the community, the HTB network, as it is sometimes called, tries to step in with volunteers and energy and passionate commitment and see what they can do.

Alpha better

A decade ago HTB founded a seminary, a college to train new ministers. In many churches, certainly Anglicanism and Catholicism, for hundreds of years now the typical way to train to become a priest was to go away to a residential college and study theology and philosophy and the like for years.

This college offered a new model. For a few days a week students for the priesthood studied, but for a couple of days a week they worked in a parish and on Sundays they took part in parish life. All the while, they lived at their homes. This has now become one of the biggest and most successful Anglican training colleges in Britain.

I ask Gumbel just why Alpha has become such a phenomenal worldwide success.

“One thing I think is the genuine community. There’s food, people are welcomed, it’s non-confrontational, everyone’s loved for who they are.”

Alpha is organised around a ­series of talks, each followed by group discussions in which the Alpha leaders don’t provide direction but facilitate discussion of the talk just held. At a certain point there is a weekend away.

Gumbel adumbrates some of the Alpha themes: “People are searching for meaning in life, and purpose. The talks are organised around that. The first asks: what is the purpose of life? The second is: who is Jesus, why did he die? It’s all around forgiveness. The next is about faith — who do you trust?”

The average age of Alpha course participants is 27: “The weekend away is about the Holy Spirit, it’s an opportunity to experience God. This generation is much more interested in experiencing God than learning facts about God. There is an evening on healing — healing and mindfulness are very in now.”

The success of Alpha crosses Christian denominations: “Alpha is running in all parts of the church — the Reformed Church, the Pentecostals, the Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Salvation Army. We’re Church of England. That’s very good because we’re less of a threat than anybody because no one really knows what the Church of England believes.”

Finally, I ask Gumbel what a person loses if they lose the knowledge of God. In a long, animated, fluent conversation, it is the first time he pauses.

“I was not brought up as a Christian,” he says slowly. “I know the difference between belief and not having belief. Ultimately, you can lose everything.

“A person obviously can find purpose outside of the faith, but I don’t think you can find ultimate purpose and meaning outside of a relationship with God.”

Another pause: “And if Jesus did rise from the dead, there’s hope, and meaning. And love.”


Acute British derangement:  A show trial of a prominent but dead Jew

You couldn't make this up.  It's almost Soviet

The Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), established in 2014, is scheduled to hold preliminary hearings on almost every day next month. One of the inquiry’s 14 separate investigations will focus on Greville Janner.

Lord Janner died in 2015, after being ruled unfit to stand trial in relation to historic allegations of sexual abuse. Three previous inquiries into allegations against him ended with no charges being brought. His son, Daniel Janner QC, described the IICSA in The Times as veering ‘between a bloated expensive irrelevance and a vindictive witch-hunt’. The IICSA has responded to allegations of unfairness against Janner by claiming that its scope is limited to ‘the conduct of institutions as opposed to that of individuals’.

This is rubbish. The IICSA’s own website makes clear that this strand of investigation is concerned with the ‘institutional responses to allegations of child sexual abuse involving the late Lord Janner’. Of course, considering the ‘institutional responses’ to these allegations will involve considering the veracity of the complaints – and therefore the alleged conduct of Janner as an individual. To claim that the inquiry will focus solely on institutions is bizarre. It is an attempt to disguise what this investigation really represents: a showtrial of a dead man.

The Kafkaesque characteristics of this ‘investigation’ do not end there. Anyone accusing Janner as part of the inquiry is known as a ‘complainant Core Participant’. A ‘restriction order’, which was made under provisions of the Inquiry Act during March last year, prohibits ‘disclosure or publication of any information that identifies or tends to identify any complainant Core Participant’. In other words, these participants are going to give evidence anonymously. Of course, neither Janner nor his family have ever been afforded the same protection.

As well as anonymising all of its witnesses entirely, the IICSA has dropped all pretence of impartiality. One of its three ‘projects’ is called the ‘The Truth Project’. This project will ‘allow victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to share their experiences with the inquiry’. The inquiry’s documents state that the ‘Truth Project’ process will not be used to establish particular facts but to ‘create a broad picture’, which will be used to inform how they find facts in relation to their substantive investigations.

No amount of legalistic wordplay can hide the fact that the conclusions of this inquiry are largely foregone. This is not an investigation in any real sense. It is a legalistic ceremony to confirm the status of Janner’s accusers as ‘victims’ without any need for a trial.

The list of Core Participants, all anonymised, can be found on the Inquiry’s website. The list also discloses the lawyers acting for victims in the inquiry. A small network of ‘abuse law’ practitioners are acting for large numbers of these Core Participants. Meanwhile, Janner is listed as ‘not currently represented’. So his anonymous accusers are supported by top lawyers, while Janner has no one to present his case. Of course, he is no longer here to give his side of the story, even if he did have a lawyer.

It is particularly concerning that Janner himself is the only individual with his own strand of investigation. (Other investigations focus, for instance, on the Catholic Church, Westminster and the internet.) From 1978 to 1984, Janner was the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. His daughter is a prominent rabbi. Labour peer Lord Campbell-Savours told the House of Lords that he detected ‘a hint of institutional anti-Semitism’ in the singling out of Janner. Daniel Janner has argued that the inquiry has become ‘contaminated with anti-Semitism’. Martin Smith, solicitor to the inquiry, rejected these claims as ‘completely without foundation’. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion, in our era of hypersensitivity to allegations of racism, that had Janner been of any other ethnic minority, then these claims of racial prejudice may have been taken more seriously.

The inquiry amounts to little more than a cruel showtrial, in which groups of well-heeled lawyers go through the motions of ‘investigating’ what they already believe to be true. This legalistic farce will do nothing to help establish the truth. It may destroy the reputation of a dead man who was never found guilty of anything in his life. This inquiry is a stain on the justice system.


Australia: Rock climbers outraged as scaling cliffs in world-famous national park is banned to 'protect indigenous culture'

There are fears one of Australia's most popular destinations for rock climbers could become a scale-free zone.

Climbers fear their enjoyment of Mount Arapiles is under threat after Parks Victoria recently imposed a ban on many routes in the Grampians National Park in the state's west to protect their rich Aboriginal cultural heritage.

The bans affect 30 per cent of climbing areas in Victoria's fourth biggest national park, which climbers claim was done without public consultation.

Thousands of climbers flock to the world renowned Mount Arapiles each year, with growing fears it could be one of the next to become off-limits.

Local John Fischer insisted climbers frequently interact with indigenous groups.

'Arapiles is the heart of trad­itional climbing in Australia,' Mr Fischer told The Australian. 'If we lose Natimuk, we lose the chance to connect to country, place and respect indig­enous culture.'

A Parks Victoria spokeswoman assured Daily Mail Australia that no-impact climbing is allowed on Mount Arapiles. 'Parks Victoria is not currently reviewing rock climbing in Mount Arapiles-Tooan State Park,' she said.

'Climbing is allowed in Mount Arapiles-Tooan State Park, as it is in around 100,000-hectares of Grampians National Park that is outside of Special Protection Areas.'

'We appreciate that there were rock climbers, tour groups and other park visitors who were not previously aware the Grampians National Park's Special Protection Areas.'

The spokeswoman acknowledged that climbers and tour operators have had to modify their activities in other areas of Grampians National Park.

'We do, however, have a responsibility – a legislated one ­– to protect and conserve the incredible natural and cultural values of Victoria's parks and reserves,' she told Daily Mail Australia. 'We intend to continue working with rock climbers, tour operators and other park users on how they can continue to enjoy the national park in a way that ensures it is protected as a national treasure.'

Penalties of up to $1.6 million apply to groups that fail to protect indig­enous heritage.

Parks Victoria announced on Friday that tour operators  that offer rock climbing and abseiling in affected areas in the Grampians National Park can continue undertaking activities in Barc Cliff, Back Wall and a section of Wall of Fools until September 30.

The extension allow operators to work with traditional owners to understand and protect the area's unique Aboriginal cultural heritage. Additional three-month extensions could be offered if strict conditions are adhered to.

'Summerday Valley is located in a Special Protection Area that excludes activities like rock climbing and abseiling, and Traditional Owners understand the pressure licensed tour operators might face while we work through the long-term future of the park, so we thank them for their consent,' Parks Victoria chief executive Matthew Jackson said in a statement.

'We continue to welcome all visitors into this precious part of the world, sharing the natural and cultural wonders that make this park so special.'

Grampians Climbing author Simon Carter accused Parks Victoria of pitting traditional owners and climbers against each other.'

'These bans are bewildering, they close some of the safest climbing in the state, they will ­seriously damage lifestyles, livelihoods and businesses,' he told The Australian.

'It's outrageous that Parks Victoria have not consulted climbers and involved them in the process here, instead parks have demonised climbers, and some at parks have maliciously misled the public about the impact that climbers have had.'

A Change.org petition calling for the climbing ban in the Grampians to be reversed has attracted almost 28,000 supporters so far. It compared the closure  of these sites to climbers similar to akin to surfers losing access to Bells Beach.

'Climbing in the Grampians/Gariwerd is globally significant, with climbers travelling from not only all over Australia but also from all across the world to visit and climb,' the petition states.

'We believe that genuine collaboration between climbers and land managers will allow any restrictions on climbing to be finely and intelligently targeted, without resorting to the blunt instrument of the blanket bans that will drastically impact climbers' access to areas and also have immediate and profound effects on local tourism.'



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


7 July, 2019

Female pilots in Ireland forced to abort their babies or lose their job: advocate

Female pilots in Ireland are being told by their employers to “terminate” their pregnancies or their employment.

According to Capt. Evan Cullen, who leads the Irish Air Line Pilots’ Association, approximately half of all pilots serving airlines registered in Ireland are self-employed contractors, thus making them reluctant to complain about work conditions. Some of the female pilots, Cullen said, have been told they should not become pregnant.

Female pilots, he said, are being told “you have a choice, you terminate your employment or you terminate your pregnancy. You can’t have both. So that is absolutely what goes on.”

In a hearing before the Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection in Ireland’s Dáil — the lower house in Ireland’s Oireachtas national legislature — Cullen said self-employed pilots are afraid to speak out about pensions and wages, sick pay, collective bargaining, maternity leave, and other issues. These pilots do not have the same rights as regularly employed pilots.

Cullen told the committee that “all Irish airlines” hire contract pilots. In some airlines, he said, 100% of the pilots are self-employed contractors. Dáil member Joan Collins of the Independents4Change party said this is “happening to women” because multinational companies use Ireland as a tax haven. She said she fears that Ireland may be returning to the days 100 years ago before the Easter Rebellion that brought about Ireland’s separation from the United Kingdom. That was a time, she said, when people were going “down the docks and looking for work and really afraid they are not going to get that work.”

Dáil member Paul Murphy of the leftist Solidarity Party deplored the airlines’ policy, saying, “The idea that any woman would have been effectively forced to choose between her employment and her pregnancy, and would have been faced with a situation of being forced to have a termination in order to maintain her employment is obviously horrifying.” According to the Journal, when Murphy asked Cullen to cite cases of female pilots being asked to choose between their jobs and pregnancy, Cullen said, “Female pilots have told me that they’ve terminated pregnancies because they’d no entitlement to maternity leave and therefore no guarantee of a job after they come back.”


Viral ice-cream licker faces decades in prison, felony charges for ‘food tampering’ prank

A woman is facing decades behind bars and more than $14,000 in fines after a supermarket prank went viral and caught the attention of food manufacturers and police.

The woman was filmed licking a tub of tin roof-flavoured Blue Bell ice cream in an apparent prank video that has been viewed over 10 million times in less than a week.

The woman pictured in the video has been identified by detectives from the Lufkin Police Department who said yesterday police worked in co-ordination with the Texan ice-cream manufacturer to track down the alleged food tamperer.

Police have now told NBC News in an email the woman could face a second-degree felony charge for licking the ice-cream tub.

The charge relates to tampering with a consumer product and, according to the Texas penal code, comes with a sentence of two to 20 years if found guilty. She also faces fines of up to $14,239.

In addition to the second-degree felony, police are also seeking advice from the US Food and Drug Administration into whether additional federal charges could be brought against the woman.

Police added they were also seeking a male seen with the woman in CCTV obtained from the Walmart in Lufkin, Texas.

A man, apparently encouraging the woman, can be heard in the video saying, “Lick it, lick it, lick it.”

The man then urges the woman to “put it back!” as she squeals and shoves the ice cream back into the freezer.

“Our detectives are working to verify the identity of the female suspect before a warrant is issued for her arrest on a charge of second-degree felony tampering with a consumer product,” a police spokesperson told NBC News in an email.

“As that portion of the investigation continues, detectives are focusing on identifying the male (in the green shirt) behind the camera seen in images of the two entering the store together.”

Lufkin Police yesterday indicated they intended to charge the woman over the incident.

The department said in a statement the hunt for the woman involved police from a number of different departments who received tip-offs from around the state and directly from Blue Bell employees.

The tainted ice-cream container was located when a Blue Bell employee identified merchandising products in a Lufkin Walmart by watching the viral video.

From here, authorities moved, located and removed the tainted half-pint of ice cream and quickly obtained CCTV from last Saturday, showing a woman they believe to be the woman in the video.

Following Lufkin Police Department’s announcement yesterday, Blue Bell released their own statement, saying the store where the “malicious act of food tampering” allegedly occurred had been identified.

“Our staff recognised the location in the video, and we inspected the freezer case,” a Blue Bell statement read.

“We found a tin roof half gallon that appears to have been compromised. Based on security footage, the location and the inspection of the carton, we believe we may have recovered the half gallon that was tampered with.”

The company yesterday removed the remaining tin roof-flavoured tubs of ice cream from the store as a precaution. Today, reports emerged the freezer aisle was being patrolled by an armed security guard.


Italy Again at Odds With EU Partners Over Rescued Migrants

Radically different approaches to illegal migration have again put Italy at odds again with its leading European Union partners, after Italian authorities arrested the German captain of a ship which disobeyed an Italian directive not to land migrants, rescued in the Mediterranean, on Italian soil.

Operated by Sea Watch, a German non-governmental organization, the ship called Sea Watch 3 landed 42 migrants at an Italian port on the island of Lampedusa on Sunday, in violation of Interior Minister Mattéo Salvini’s instruction.

The arrest of the vessel’s captain, Carola Rackete, drew condemnation both in Germany and in France. An Italian judge has since released her without charge, but the controversy continues.

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier told public television in his country, “Italy is not just any state. Italy is in the middle of the European Union and a founding state of the European Union. That’s why we have the right to expect from a country like Italy that it manages such a business otherwise.”

Sea Watch 3, which sails under the Dutch flag, had been in international waters for more than two weeks after recovering 53 migrants from a boat off the Libyan coast. Eleven migrants were handed over to the Italian coastguard for medical reasons.

Rackete docked the ship after two weeks of negotiations, and the 42 remaining migrants are now at a reception center on Lampedusa. Five E.U. countries agreed to take the 42 migrants in varying numbers, with France agreeing to take ten of them.

France’s interior ministry said French officials would allow the ten to be “transferred without delay onto our territory,” where they will apply for refugee status.

The ministry denounced Salvini’s strategy, saying “France has already welcomed to its territory in recent months nearly 400 people who landed in Italy and Malta and are in need of protection,” it said in a statement, adding that that had been done in coordination with the E.U. and other member-states.

French government spokeswoman Sibeth Ndiaye slammed Salvini’s approach. “There is a rule in maritime law that says you have to be able to drop off migrants in the nearest and safest seaport,” she said in a radio interview. “Italy has to respect international standards in this area.”

Ndiaye said France expects the E.U. to show “solidarity” on the issue.

Salvini hit back, saying Italy did not need to take lessons from anyone, France especially. Since the French presidency has said all French ports are open, he said, Italy will suggest the French port of Marseille or the French island of Corsica as destination for migrant ships.

Italy’s approach won support of a lawmaker from France’s far-right National Rally, Stéphane Ravier. “The only method that will stop any more dramas in the Mediterranean is the Salvini method,” she told French television.

“It is out of question to give you any rights if you set a foot in our house,” she said. “And you won’t be able to set down the second foot because you’ll be expelled”.

Meanwhile Martine Aubry, the socialist mayor of Lille in the north of France, has said she is ready to welcome the ten migrants from the Sea Watch 3 to settle in that city.

“I have always thought that France and other European countries are not doing enough to fulfill their humanitarian duty,” she told French television, praising Rackete.

Last summer the Aquarius, a boat belonging to a French NGO with 629 rescued migrants on board, was refused permission to dock in Italy and Malta. Spain eventually allowed it to dock in its port of Valencia, and the migrants were resettled, through negotiation, in France, Germany, Portugal, as well as in Spain.


Religious freedom is remarkably unprotected in Australia

Regardless of what the courts eventually say about the sacking of Israel Folau, the real blame for the sportsman’s religious persecution does not rest with Rugby Australia, Alan Joyce and Qantas. It rests with generations of politicians who have allowed the manifestation of religious belief to be viewed as something shameful.

That is the effect of the network of anti-discrimination laws that has been put in place and supported by successive federal governments. It treats religious freedom as a form of discrimination that is only grudgingly recognised as an exception to the law.

It is therefore easy to understand how sports administrators and businessmen may have got the wrong idea: that the manifestation of religious belief is something vaguely grubby that is acceptable only if it is done behind closed doors, so nobody can take offence.

This is at odds with the structure of international human rights law where all rights are of equal importance and where public displays of religious belief are protected by treaties to which Australia is a party. Yet instead of giving positive protection to religious freedom, the inaction of parliament could be viewed as confirmation that in Australia religion is not that important.

By refusing that task, parliament has vacated the field and left it to others to draw their own conclusions about where the boundary should be drawn between religion and other conflicting rights.

In the Folau case, Rugby Australia was the first to step into the void, and it now looks as if the courts will determine whether this man’s rough and ready version of what is written in the Bible is so offen­sive that he should lose his job.

Rugby Australia terminated Folau’s $4 million contract after he said on social media that hell awaited “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters” if they failed to repent.

Everyone has an interest in the outcome of this case. It raises the question of whether Australians can be required to sign away fundamental human rights in return for money — even a very large amount of money. The manifestation of religious belief is protected by international law.

This case may also give the courts an opportunity to rule on how far employers can go in determining what employees do and say outside the workplace.

It is already clear, however, that corporate Australia may need to reconsider the wisdom of taking a stance on social issues. If Folau wins against Rugby Australia, sponsors such as Alan Joyce’s Qantas may be required to chip in for the damages bill — if they are found to have encouraged any wrongdoing.

The effect on the airline’s reputation would not be insignificant.

If Folau does win — and the Morrison government pushes ahead with its promised religious discrimination act — some may consider this affair to have come to an end. Such a view would be misplaced. The fundamental error in the design of Australia’s human rights laws still needs to be fixed to drive home the reality that religious freedom is a fundamental right, not an exception to the law.

With luck, the fallout from this case eventually could put an end to this idiosyncratic treatment of religion.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises freedom of thought, conscience and religion in article 18(1). It says everyone has the right to manifest their religion, belief, observance, practice and teaching. Article 18(2) says nobody shall be subject to coercion that would impair their freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of their choice.

The government’s planned legislation will help by giving statutory effect to article 26 of that treaty that says discrimination based on religion should be outlawed. But the significance of a federal religious discrimination act needs to be kept in perspective: religious discrimination is already unlawful in most states.

The real test is whether the government’s proposed scheme would have protected Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous against what happened to him four years ago.

Folau, unlike Porteous, has the benefit of provisions of the Fair Work Act that target religious discrimination in the workplace. What happened to the archbishop was not a workplace dispute.

In 2015, Porteous explained the Catholic doctrine of marriage in a widely distributed booklet. That prompted Martine Delaney, a transgender activist and Greens candidate, to complain that she felt offended.

Because he was an archbishop, Porteous thought he had a right under Australian law to explain his church’s teachings. Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commission disagreed and found he had a case to answer.

The real problem with the Porteous case was that it was unresolved. It came to an end only after Delaney, in the face of widespread media attention, withdrew her complaint. That means there is still a risk that the public dissemination of Catholic doctrine in Tasmania could trigger a repeat of that affair.

And it looks as if a federal religious discrimination act would make no difference. “It would not solve all or even most of the problems with religious freedom in Australia at all,” University of Queensland dean of law Patrick Parkinson says.

“It is a minor reform that will fill a lacuna in federal law. The religious discrim­ination bill, as the government envisages it, will have no impact whatsoever on vilification law in the states — it is irrelevant to the Porteous case.

“All it will do is make it unlawful under federal law to discriminate against somebody because of their faith. The problem in Tasmania was that a state law was used against Archbishop Porteous on the basis of causing offence to somebody. That is a totally different matter that raises very significant issues about freedom of speech and freedom of religion,” says Parkinson, who is part of the Freedom for Faith lobby group.

Before Rugby Australia moved against Folau, Parkinson’s group had urged the Ruddock review of religious freedom to support a federal religious freedom act that would be far more robust than Morrison’s proposed scheme.

The Ruddock report did not go that far, preferring the more modest route that has been accepted by the government.

Parkinson, however, argues that a religious discrimination act would still allow Tasmania to take action against religious leaders over the public dissemination of doctrine that left people feeling offended. He sees this as a major weakness with the government’s plan. But he is also opposed to the radical option of a federal charter of rights that would empower the judiciary.

His preferred option is “a very targeted piece of legislation, focused around freedom of speech and freedom of religion”.

Its goal would be to prevent state laws from being applied in a way that would put Australia in breach of the nation’s international obligation to protect religious freedom.

This is how Parkinson’s group explained the concept in its submission to the Ruddock review: “It would be up to a court, interpreting and applying the state law, to determine whether its application so interfered with fundamental freedoms in any given situation that to the extent of the inconsistency with federal law it should be regarded as invalid, or alternatively, read down to avoid inconsistency.”

Parkinson makes the point that the federal government intervened 20 years ago to override Tasmania’s law criminalising homosexuality. “It is no more appropriate that Tasmanian law interferes with freedom of religion than when it criminalised homosexuality,” he says.



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


5 July, 2019

10 Medical Myths That Everyone Should Stop Believing

Identifying practices and theories that were contradicted by rigorous studies.

You might assume that standard medical advice was supported by mounds of scientific research. But researchers recently discovered that nearly 400 routine practices were flatly contradicted by studies published in leading journals.

Of more than 3,000 studies published from 2003 through 2017 in JAMA and The Lancet, and from 2011 through 2017 in The New England Journal of Medicine, more than one in 10 amounted to a “medical reversal”: a conclusion opposite of what had been conventional wisdom among doctors.

“You come away with a sense of humility,” said Dr. Vinay Prasad of Oregon Health and Science University, who conceived of the study. “Very smart and well-intentioned people came to practice these things for many, many years. But they were wrong.”

Some of those ideas have been firmly dislodged, but not all. Now Dr. Prasad and his colleagues are trying to learn how widespread are discredited practices and ideas.

Here are 10 findings that contradict what were once widely held theories.

1. Peanut allergies occur whether or not a child is exposed to peanuts before age 3.

Pediatricians have counseled parents to keep babies away from peanuts for the first three years of life. As it turns out, children exposed to peanuts before they were even 1 year old have no greater risk of peanut allergies.

2. Fish oil does not reduce the risk of heart disease.

This idea did seem logical: People whose diets contain a lot of fatty fish seem to have a lower incidence of heart disease. Fatty fish contains omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 supplements lower levels of triglycerides, and high levels of triglycerides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease. Not to mention that omega-3 fatty acids seem to reduce inflammation, a key feature of heart attacks.

But in a trial involving 12,500 people at risk for heart trouble, daily omega-3 supplements did not protect against heart disease.

3. A lifelike doll carried around by teenage girls will not deter pregnancies.

These dolls wail and need to be “changed” and “cuddled.” The idea was that girls would learn how much work was involved in caring for an infant. But a randomized study found that girls who were told to carry around “infant simulators” actually were slightly more likely to become pregnant than girls who did not get the dolls.

4. Ginkgo biloba does not protect against memory loss and dementia.

The supplement, made from the leaves of ginkgo trees, was widely used in ancient Chinese medicine and still is promoted as a way to preserve memory. A large federal study, published in 2008, definitively showed the supplement is useless for this purpose. Yet ginkgo still pulls in $249 million in sales. Did people just not get the message?

Smart people practiced these things for many, many years. But they were wrong.

5. To treat emergency room patients in acute pain, a single dose of oral opioids is no better than drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen.

Yes, opioids are powerful drugs. But a clinical trial showed that much safer alternatives relieve pain just as well among emergency room patients.

6. Testosterone treatment does not help older men retain their memory.

Some men have low levels of testosterone and memory problems, and early studies had hinted that middle-aged men with higher testosterone levels seemed to have better preserved tissue in some parts of their brains. Older men with higher testosterone levels also seemed to do better on tests of mental functioning.

But a rigorous clinical trial showed that testosterone was no better than a sugar pill in helping older men avoid memory loss.

7. To protect against asthma attacks, it won’t help to keep your house free of dust mites, mice and cockroaches.

The advice from leading medical groups has been to rid your home of these pests if you or your child has asthma. The theory was that allergic reactions to them can trigger asthma attacks. But intensive pest management in homes with children sensitized to mouse allergens did nothing to reduce the frequency of their asthma attacks, researchers reported in 2017.

8. Step counters and calorie trackers do not help you lose weight.

In fact, the reverse is true. Among 470 dieters followed for two years, those who wore devices tracking the steps they took and calories they burned actually lost less weight than those who just followed standard advice.

9. Torn knee meniscus? Try physical therapy first, surgery later.

An estimated 460,000 patients in the United States get surgery each year to fix knee cartilage that tears, often because of osteoarthritis. The tear is painful, and many patients fear that if it is not surgically treated, the pain will linger.

But when patients with a torn meniscus and moderate arthritis were randomized to six months of physical therapy or surgery, both groups improved, and to the same extent.

10. If a pregnant woman’s water breaks prematurely, the baby does not have to be delivered immediately.

Sometimes, a few weeks before a woman’s due date, the membrane surrounding her fetus ruptures and amniotic fluid spills out. Obstetricians worried that bacteria could invade what had been a sterile environment around the fetus, causing infection. Better to deliver the baby immediately, doctors thought.

But a clinical trial found that if obstetricians carefully monitor the fetus while waiting for labor to begin naturally, the fetus is at no greater risk for infection. And newborns left to gestate were healthier, with less respiratory distress and a lower risk of death, than those who were delivered immediately after a break.


Biden was right. Busing was wrong
Jeff Jacoby

"VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN," demanded Kamala Harris in the climactic encounter of last Thursday's Democratic debate, "do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America then?"

Biden wasn't wrong. The forced busing of schoolchildren for purposes of racial desegregation was a wretched, wrongheaded policy that caused far more harm than good. As a young, liberal Democratic senator 45 years ago, Biden firmly opposed busing, and he was right to do so.

In the days following the debate, the liberal media chorus declared that of course opposition to forced busing was wrong, of course Biden had been on "the wrong side of history," and of course he should acknowledge the error of his ways. A visitor from Mars could be forgiven for assuming that racial busing had been wise and beneficial, and that no reasonable mind could deny it.

Perhaps some history is in order.

On June 21, 1974, US District Judge W. Arthur Garrity issued an order to desegregate Boston's public schools through massive crosstown busing of the city's schoolchildren. It was the first of what would add up to some 400 orders signed by Garrity over the next 11 years, and it had the staunch support of Boston's most important institutional voice of racially enlightened liberalism: The Boston Globe.

Twenty years later, the Globe's support had vanished.

"Busing has been a failure in Boston," the editorial board concluded bluntly in June 1994. "It achieved neither integration nor better schooling." Repudiating the "delusions and pretensions that drove the busing controversy," the Globe called for an end to the "obsessive, dead-end tinkering with racial proportions."

Garrity's orders had convulsed Boston and fueled the ugliest antibusing backlash in the nation. Photographer Stanley Forman won a Pulitzer Prize for The Soiling of Old Glory, a shocking photograph of a black man being assaulted by a white teenager with an American flag outside City Hall. But the damage caused by hoodlums was minimal compared to the damage inflicted on the city by the federal judge.

As scholars Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom wrote in America in Black and White, their sweeping 1997 survey of US race relations, Garrity's desegregation plan was deliberately punitive, meant to humble residents he and his advisers regarded as uneducated and bigoted. "The plan thus paired Roxbury High, in the heart of the ghetto, with South Boston High, in the toughest, most insular, working-class section of the city.... Both neighborhoods already had much more than their share of housing projects, gangs, and street violence. Adding racial friction to the mix did not seem likely to promote more tranquil race relations and a better atmosphere for learning."

No surprise, then, that busing was intensely resented. Some of that resentment manifested itself in racial epithets, riots, and the stoning of buses transporting black children. Gunshots were fired into the Globe's Dorchester newsroom. But by no means were all busing opponents racist, or white.

"Polls taken during the early days of busing show that only bare majorities of blacks favored the policy," Matthew Richer wrote in a 1998 Policy Review essay. Just days before Garrity's decision, black legislators had been pushing for more community control over the schools, not busing. By 1982, a Globe poll found that only 14 percent of black Boston parents still favored busing. The overwhelming majority preferred a free-choice plan, allowing parents to send their children to any public school in the city. In practice, that would have meant schools their kids could walk to.

Busing was disliked so intensely, wrote the Thernstroms in their 1997 volume, above all because parents resented their powerlessness "at the prospect of having their children bused to schools on the other side of town." They had been "accustomed to dealing with a school system that was democratically governed, one in which their opinions mattered. As a result of desegregation suits, basic decisions about how the schools operated were removed from officials responsive to majority opinion and put in the hands of just one person," a federal judge with no educational expertise.

All the turmoil and bitterness busing engendered might be forgivable if it had also produced success in the classroom. But it was a near-total failure. As the Globe conceded in its 20th-anniversary editorial, it achieved neither integration nor better schooling, and turned out to serve no educational purpose.

Busing made everything worse. Public school enrollment plummeted. In Boston, 78 school buildings were closed. In 1970, 62,000 white children had attended the city's public schools — 64 percent of the total. By 1994, only 11,000 white students remained. Before busing began, the average black child in Boston attended a school that was 24 percent white. By the mid-1990s, the proportion was 17 percent. Far from reducing racial isolation, busing had intensified it.

And all for the sake of a delusion — that racial composition makes a meaningful difference in student performance. What has always mattered most is the standards and culture of a school, not the color of the children in its classrooms.

Which is what Biden and other liberal opponents of busing were saying in the 1970s.

"Who the hell do we think we are," Biden fumed to a Delaware weekly in 1975, "that the only way a black [child] can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?"

He was right. Biden may have gotten many things wrong over the years, but busing wasn't one of them.


African woman's foul act with a tub of ice cream in a supermarket has prompted a response from a major ice cream manufacturer

Police say they have identified a woman seen in a viral video licking a tub of ice cream before replacing it in a Walmart supermarket freezer in Texas.

A short video posted to Twitter on the weekend quickly went viral, after it showed a woman licking the top of a full Blue Bell ice cream tub, before resealing it and stuffing it back into the freezer.

A man, apparently filming the video, appeared to be egging the woman on and can be heard saying, “lick it, lick it, lick it.”

The man then urges the woman to “put it back!” as she laughs loudly as she reseals the “Tin Roof” flavoured ice cream and shoves it back into the supermarket freezer.

The nine second video was posted to Twitter with the caption, “What kinds psychopathic behaviour is this?!” and quickly went viral. Since Saturday it has attracted over 11 million views and over 27,000 retweets.

The video attracted a huge amount of outrage and disgust, with users online calling for the ice cream tub to be located, and the woman to be charged for food tampering.

“This not funny in the least! She needs to be charged … especially (because) this likely prompts others to behave ignorantly for ‘hits’,” one woman commented.

“I don’t know if she’s more gross for doing it, or stupid for letting someone take a video and post it,” another person commented.

“This why you should never grab front row products,” another commenter said. “Always three or four rows back.”

Following the incident, Blue Bell responded saying they were working directly with local law enforcement to investigate the incident. In tweets, the company referred to it as “food tampering”.

Earlier today, Lufkin Police in Texas released an update on the case, along with a CCTV image of the alleged ice-cream licker walking through a shopping centre with a man.

Police say they believe they have identified the woman in the viral video, and they intend to charge her.

The search for the tainted ice cream container involved a co-ordinated effort between Blue Bell, who manufacturer the ice cream, and a number of local police districts, Lufkin Police said.

They got two tip offs for San Antonio and Houston, but both turned up nothing. A final tip off from Blue Bell itself, based on the store’s merchandising, led police to a Walmart in Lufkin, Texas.

Here they were able to retrieve the tainted ice cream tub from the freezer.

Police then quickly obtained CCTV, from the store on June 28, showing the woman they believe to be the same woman in the viral video.

Appropriate charges will be filed, according to Lufkin Director of Public Safety Gerald Williamson.

“Our biggest concern is consumer safety — in that regard we are glad to see the tainted product off the shelves,” Mr Williamson said.

“We are recommending that as a precaution Blue Bell remove products from the Lufkin Walmart shelves until our investigation is complete.”

Blue Bell released their own statement, saying the store where the “malicious act of food tampering” allegedly occurred had been identified.

“Our staff recognised the location in the video, and we inspected the freezer case,” a statement from Blue Bell said.

“We found a Tin Roof half gallon that appears to have been compromised. Based on security footage, the location and the inspection of the carton, we believe we may have recovered the half gallon that was tampered with.”

The company have removed every Tin Roof flavoured tub of ice cream from that store as a precaution.

“Food tampering is not a joke, and we will not tolerate tampering with our products,” the company added.


Masculinity under siege in schools, politics, online

Comment from Australia

Is there a crisis in masculinity? Based on an article by the American Jordan Black, “Masculinity in Menopause: The Emasculating Effects of Fatherlessness and Feminism”, the answer is yes.

Black highlights how, across the Western world, falling levels of testosterone and low sperm counts are contributing to significant changes in how masculinity is defined. Add the impact of so many boys raised without fathers and the global #MeToo movement that gives the impression that all men are inherently violent and misogynist, and it should not surprise that Black concludes: “We are not making men like we used to; in fact, we are not making them at all.”

The same is happening here, where similar forces are at work undermining masculinity and radically redefining what constitutes manhood. As Bettina Arndt says in her book #MenToo, men are unfairly demonised and attacked by radical feminists more intent on winning gender wars than peacefully coexisting.

Even to suggest men’s rights are being undermined is to incur the wrath of the sisterhood. Victorian Women’s Trust executive director Mary Crooks wrote this week in Nine’s The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald newspapers: “Men’s ‘rights’ are about treating women as inferior; objectifying them by denying them any personhood. Men’s ‘rights’ are about being able to stalk, harass or abuse women online, on the streets, in the home or at work.”

Another example of this fatwa against men is how every time a woman is attacked or murdered the response is to blame all men and to suggest that violence occurs only because society is patriarchal and misogynist.

After last month’s horrendous murder of Courtney Herron in a Melbourne park late at night, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said women travelling alone should be safe regardless of where they were or what the hour, and that crimes such as this were “most likely about the behaviour of men”.

Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius mirrored the Premier’s views. He said: “This is about men’s behaviour. It’s not about women’s behaviour” — implying that, instead of the act being perpetrated by one demented evil soul, all men were implicated.

When detailing the death of masculinity, Black also says the US education system is guilty of “encouraging feminine behaviour for both genders”.

Feminist Camille Paglia makes the same point when she bemoans “the plight of physically active boys in a public school system dominated by female teachers”.

The Australian school system also disadvantages boys as a result of the feminisation of the curriculum. Research suggests boys, compared with girls, need greater structure and discipline to learn, especially in relation to learning to read, where the ­absence of a phonics and phonemic awareness approach puts them at risk.

Today’s approach to education is more about “care, share and grow”, where teachers facilitate and students self-direct, manage their own learning and where competition is shunned. It’s an approach that favours girls.

Not surprisingly, girls out­perform boys in reading as measured by the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy, and achieve stronger Year 12 results as measured by the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank. It’s also true that material such as the gender-fluidity Safe Schools program and the Respectful Relationships program being implemented in Australia disadvantage boys, as both present a negative and biased view of masculinity and manhood.

The view of boys and men presented is one that implies masculinity is inherently violent against women and that Western societies such as ours are patriarchal ones in which women are ­oppressed and treated as second-class citizens.

Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence reported that 25 per cent of family violence victims were men but the Respectful Relationships program implies it is only women who are at risk.

Students also are never told that such is the way the law now operates that men often are assumed to be the guilty party.

Another example of how the curriculum has been feminised is the way school programs present traditional male characteristics such as fortitude, courage, physical strength and mateship as negatives instead of being worthwhile.

Even worse, many schools ban physically active and risky playground activities and behaviour, and it’s not unusual for primary schools to ban boys wearing ­superhero costumes on the basis that play-acting reinforces ­negative and potentially violent behaviour.

More radical feminists go as far as saying traditional male qualities lead to what The Age journalist Anna Prytz describes as a “man box”, a situation where men are constrained because they mistakenly believe they should be “unemotional, hyper-sexual, physically tough, stoic and in ­control”.

Instead of accepting the feminist argument that the characteristics that typically define men are toxic, Black argues in favour of what he describes as “virtuous masculinity”. Paglia makes a similar point, arguing that feminists guilty of misandry should learn to respect and admire positive masculine qualities.



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


4 July, 2019

Britain has abandoned the presumption of innocence

Now there is a presumption of guilt

In recent years, the police have adopted a policy of ‘believing all victims’ when it comes to accusations of rape and sexual assault. This forms part of a broader trend of ‘victim-centred’ justice in the criminal law, and, of course, the #MeToo movement in wider society. But when victims are assumed to be telling the truth, what are the consequences for the accused?

Former JLS singer Oritsé Williams was accused of raping a fan in 2016, only to be cleared by a jury last month. Sandra Paul is a leading criminal lawyer at Kingsley Napley who recently advised Williams on his successful defence. spiked caught up with her to find out more about the failings in the criminal-justice system and the dangers of the victim-centred approach.

spiked: What did the Oristé Williams case reveal about the state of the justice system?

Sandra Paul: I can’t speak for Oristé – these are just my own observations on the case. The things that ultimately resulted in his acquittal were all identified to the prosecution as problematic in the first instance. In this case, there was a real lack of rigour in the investigation.

Firstly, it took a long time to decide whether there would be any investigation into the allegations at all. For me, it seemed like the police were undecided about how to go about the investigation. I say this because things like the seizing of phones and other evidence from the prosecution witnesses didn’t happen until a late stage. As is typical, both suspects’ phones were taken immediately, but other evidence was not sought for some time afterwards. Even things as basic as the evidence on the police’s body-worn cameras, it wasn’t until we asked for that evidence that it was sought out.

And that’s really important evidence. It includes the complainant’s first account of what happened, which, in my view, was markedly different from her first police interview. [I]n her initial account, the complainant said that she was dragged by Oritsé from the club. When the CCTV was eventually seized, you could see that she had not been dragged. Had a client of mine made these claims, I’d ask them to go through everything like this, again and again, to find out how it fits with the evidence. Clearly, this process either didn’t happen or wasn’t done very well.

I’d like to say this case was exceptional but I don’t think it is. Even though it was obvious that this case would attract some media attention, the prosecutors still didn’t handle it well.

The difficulty with cases like these is that they put off genuine complainants. They will say: ‘Here we go again, another high-profile individual, the police would have done a really good job on this, and if he is not prosecuted to the point of conviction, what chance is there for my case?’ That’s a real issue for me.

It also sends another bad message regarding suspects that if they are high-profile they can ‘get away’ with it. But in this case, Oritsé was genuinely not guilty. Had the prosecutors properly tested the evidence at an earlier stage to see if there was enough for a realistic prospect of conviction, Oritsé would have never been charged in the first place.

spiked: Are we putting the beliefs of victims before the facts?

Paul: Absolutely. And that comes from lots of different sources. The stated policy of the police is that ‘we believe all victims’ when they report. That doesn’t set officers on the right track to start looking at the evidence critically. The Henriques Report [the inquiry into the collapse of Operation Midland, a high-profile investigation into alleged Westminster paedophile rings] made clear that we need to stop assuming that complainants are victims as this is not a good way to get officers to investigate claims independently and robustly.

Getting rid of the ‘believe the victims’ policy would not prevent police from having empathy with victims, from taking victims’ accounts seriously or from being sympathetic and respectful when taking evidence. But the natural consequence of saying ‘we will believe you’ is that you look for evidence which supports an allegation and you blind yourself to evidence which contradicts it.

spiked: Have you noticed changes since the #MeToo movement?

Paul: We are seeing a lot more complaints to the police. People are much more likely to have a perception of themselves as a victim. There are pros and cons to this. Probably, on balance, it’s right that if people think they’ve been wronged that they make a report. The way the police then go about things compounds the problem, though. Previously, the police might have said, ‘I can see why that person has made you unhappy, but that doesn’t make it rape’ or ‘I accept that your trust has been betrayed but that does not make it rape’.

What the police do now is they go through the motions in all cases. Officers will take the complaint, interview the complainant and the accused, even though they might have an inkling from a very early stage that it isn’t going to be something that will go to court. So they are less likely to be robust from the very beginning.

What the police might do is go to the CPS for early advice, which is actually a useful opportunity for police to get some guidance about what they should be doing and to find out if a case is likely to make the grade for prosecution. Where this is possible, it can be a useful resource. They can learn early on that some cases might not be offences.

Or they might see that their case has been compromised. Sometimes in a case of workplace sexual harassment, for instance, an internal investigation by the company might trample upon a crime scene to such an extent that the evidence cannot be used. In the internal investigation, the accused might not have been allowed to seek legal advice and so he or she ended up providing a poor account of their behaviour. When the police come to investigate, they cannot use this account as evidence because the police’s procedural requirements have not been met. There might also be a non-disclosure agreement where relevant evidence has been destroyed.

So there are all kinds of reasons why cases need to be weeded out by the time they reach the CPS: either for having insufficient evidence, the evidence that is available can’t be relied on, or no offence has been committed in the first place. In those circumstances, an early-evidence review is useful.

However, problems can arise with this because the complainant has a right to review, and often they don’t agree with the early advice from the CPS. Then, the investigation can take just as long as if the police had just gone through a full investigation. And so lots of problematic cases are getting through, often because the police don’t want to be criticised, or in circumstances where the CPS provides robust advice with which the complainant will often disagree.

spiked: Has ‘victim-centred’ justice been good for victims?

Paul: All of the measures we have put in place for victims have had advantages and disadvantages for them. Victims want a particular answer from the criminal-justice system, but often that just isn’t the one they are looking for.

By the time a case reaches the CPS, a complainant has been treated like a victim all the way through. They have been given victim support and have been offered counselling. So even if they didn’t feel like a victim when they first complained, they certainly feel like one by the end of the process. Then, if after all that, the CPS says there will not be a charge, they feel doubly hard done by.

I’m not saying that some of these people haven’t been wronged. But there is a huge gap between a wrong that is a discourtesy, or ungentlemanly behaviour, and what the criminal-justice system can deal with. The criminal-justice system can’t do it all.


Booker: ‘We Do Not Talk Enough About Trans Americans

I would have thought we talk far too much about them.  They're of no importance in the national life

Stopping violence against African-Americans, in general, isn’t enough, because Americans need to specifically address the concerns of transgender African-Americans, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said during Wednesday night’s Democrat U.S. presidential debate.

Supporting the Equality Act isn’t enough, either, because transgender African-American children especially vulnerable to bullying and some are even afraid to go to school, Booker said:

"Look, civil rights is someplace to begin, but in the African-American civil rights community, another place of focus, was to stop the lynching of African-Americans. We do not talk enough about Trans Americans, Especially African-American Trans Americans. And the incredibly high rate of murder right now.

We don't talk enough about how many children, about 30% of LGBTQ kids, who do not go to school because of fear. It's not enough just to be on the Equality Act. I'm an original co-sponsor. We need to have a president that will fight to protect LGBTQ Americans every single day from violence."


Some sanity from Russia

Consideration for minorities is perfectly fine -- but that should not be made compulsory

Vladimir Putin last night boasted that liberalism in Europe and the US had ‘outlived its purpose’.

The Russian president criticised Western views on gay rights, immigration and multiculturalism – which he claimed were an attack on ‘traditional family values’.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Putin said ‘the liberal idea’ was on its way out as the public turned its back on these issues.

And he claimed German chancellor Angela Merkel made a ‘cardinal mistake’ in her 2017 decision to allow a million refugees into the country.

He said: ‘[Liberals] cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over the recent decades. This liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to be done.

‘That migrants can kill, plunder and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants have to be protected.’

He added: ‘Every crime must have its punishment. The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population.’

Mr Putin reserved special praise for Donald Trump for trying to stem the flow of migrants and drugs into the US, and said Anglo-Russian relations were beginning to improve ahead of his face-to-face meeting with Theresa May at this weekend’s G20 summit in Osaka, Japan.

Relations have been rocky since the UK pointed the finger at the Kremlin for the attempted assassination of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in March last year.

Mr Putin said: ‘I think Russia and UK are both interested in fully restoring our relations, at least I hope a few preliminary steps will be made.’

But he declined to condemn the poisoning of the Skripals, saying: ‘Treason is the gravest crime possible.’ He added: ‘I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the way to do it . . . but traitors must be punished.’

Mr Putin said liberal governments had ignored their people in pursuit of multiculturalism and tolerance of gay people. He said: ‘I am not trying to insult anyone because we have been condemned for our alleged homophobia. But we have no problem with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live as they wish.

‘But some things do appear excessive to us. They claim now that children can play five or six gender roles. Let everyone be happy, we have no problem with that.

‘But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of people making up the core population.’

Mr Putin said the threat of a new nuclear arms race between Russia and the US was a concern, adding: ‘The Cold War was a bad thing... but there were at least some rules that all participants in international communication more or less adhered to or tried to follow.’


The Australian Labor Party is willing to work on religious freedom

Marvellous what an election defeat will do

Labor senator Kristina Keneally has confirmed the opposition is ready and willing to work with the government on new religious discrimination laws.

Labor has locked in firmly behind Scott Morrison's push for new religious freedom laws. The prime minister intends to make it unlawful to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. He is proposing to amend existing marriage, charities and anti-discrimination legislation to achieve this end.

A religious discrimination commissioner would also be appointed at the Australian Human Rights Commission.

"We are willing to have discussions with the government and work with the government on a religious discrimination and freedom act," Labor senator Kristina Keneally told ABC radio on Wednesday. "We are waiting to have those conversations. We do stand ready, though, to work with the government on this."

The new Religious Discrimination Act could be brought before parliament as early as July 22.

The prime minister has told coalition colleagues he wants to work "carefully" through the issue and consult Labor on the changes.

Government backbenchers will be given the chance to shape it through a series of workshops with the attorney-general, starting later this week.

"What the government are talking about is an issue that goes to protecting religion in an affirmative way as a freedom," Senator Keneally said. "That's a conversation we are having with them."



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


3 July, 2019

Trump Admin To End Obama’s Transgender Rule: “Women and girls are entitled to privacy…”

Arguing that battered women in shelters should be protected from male predators who claim they are female, the non-profit legal group Liberty Counsel is praising a rule change proposed by the Trump administration.

It would eliminate an Obama administration rule in 2016 requiring that shelters allow people to enter based on their “gender identity.”

The Obama rule turned shelters for the homeless and for abused women into a battleground for the transgender-rights agenda.

The Trump administration now has proposed a rule to fix the problem.

It would protect vulnerable women and children by letting federally funded shelters consider a range of factors, such as biological sex, in deciding whether to provide lodging to certain people.

The rule is set to take effect next month.

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver commended the Trump administration for protecting women and children through the new HUD rule.

He said the current rule “does not consider the practical concerns of shelter providers who serve vulnerable clients who are seeking refuge from violence and abusive relationships.”

“Women and girls are entitled to privacy and protection from predators who ‘identify as females’ with the intent of committing sexual assault,” he said.

The new rule allows shelters with bathrooms and sleeping quarters separated by biological sex to establish policy that considers “privacy, safety, practical concerns, religious beliefs, any relevant considerations under civil rights and nondiscrimination authorities, the individual’s sex as reflected in official government documents, as well as the gender which a person identifies with” before allowing people entry.

Liberty Counsel said Obama’s 2016 Equal Access Rule “mandates that federally funded single-sex homeless shelters admit residents based on their stated gender identity.”

The new rule provides “that grant recipients, subrecipients, owners, operators, managers and providers under HUD programs which permit single-sex or sex-segregated facilities (such as bathrooms or temporary, emergency shelters and other buildings and facilities with physical limitations or configurations that require and are permitted to have shared sleeping quarters or bathing facilities) may establish a policy, consistent with state and local law, by which such shelter provider considers an individual’s sex for the purposes of determining accommodation within such shelters and for purposes of determining sex for admission to any facility or portion thereof.”


How Same-Sex Marriage Creates A Court-Mediated Market For Orphans

The Leftist contempt for biology ramps up

Pop quiz. Name one great novel in which a child embarks on an epic quest in search of his missing uncle. Just one. No? Okay.

How about this? Name a major motion picture in which the central drama surrounds the main characters desperate search for their mother’s long lost boyfriend.

Nothing? Of course not. No one would bother. You’re coming up empty because such relationships are not central to a child’s identity, formation, and development.

Now, name a great story where a child searches for her missing father. Your answers probably range from classics like Marina’s reunion with her father in Shakespeare’s “Pericles” to the cartoon “An American Tail” to the blockbuster “Guardians of the Galaxy 2.” We can all identify with these stories because the relationship we have with our father is identity-constituting and central to our development. “Luke, I am your stepfather” would have been tremendously unsatisfying.

These works of literature and pop culture reflect one of the deepest human longings—to be known and loved by the two people responsible for our existence. Until about five minutes ago, our laws reflected these universal longings by recognizing parenthood on the basis of a biological connection.

But, as we have all witnessed, drastic changes are possible in just five minutes of this me-centered epoch of history. Now, some courts are recognizing parenthood based on an adult’s “intent” to parent, regardless of the fact that it means the child will have to lose one (or both) of his or her biological parents in the process.

This dangerous legal trend is evident in a petition submitted to the Supreme Court last month. The case involves my friend Frank, a gay dad who created two children through surrogacy with his former partner, Joseph. Joseph’s sister, their genetic mother, was paid for her services as a surrogate, which, if you’re following, makes Joseph the children’s biological uncle. Complicated, I know. If this makes your head spin as an adult, just imagine the emotional confusion these two children will have to sort out.

Frank is the biological father of his twins and, for their first seven years, he was their sole caregiver. Relationship issues arose soon after the twins were born, and he and Joseph eventually broke up. Before that, Joseph had minimal involvement in the children’s lives and was in and out of the home. Sadly, the biological mother does not want a parental relationship with her children.

Two years ago, Joseph sued Frank for custody of the twins in New York state and, even though the court found no evidence that Frank was an unfit parent, Joseph won. Now the kids only see Frank, their father, a few days a month. The decision means that a man who isn’t a biological parent, isn’t an adoptive parent, and isn’t even married to the children’s parent now has a “right” to these kids.

In essence, the court has deemed that in the parent-child relationship, biology is irrelevant. Frank is taking his case to the Supreme Court.

Gay Marriage Is Responsible for This Father’s Loss
You may be surprised to hear that the very law that was supposed to be Frank’s “new civil right”—gay marriage—played a significant role in the court’s decision. The problem stems from the law equating two very different things: same-sex and opposite-sex couples. While there may be no difference in the level of commitment and connection of these two pairings, there is a stark difference in what they offer to children. As I explained in The Federalist earlier this year:

The law now demands that the two couplings be treated equally in matters of parenthood, that same law must now codify what biology prohibits—namely, making two adults of the same sex the parents of a child…state after state is now scrubbing parenthood laws of references to ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in the name of ‘non-discrimination.’

In parenthood, biology discriminates, big-time. In an effort to be gay-friendly, however, courts have opted for the progressive “intent-based parenthood” over biology-based parenthood. It was on the basis of “intent to parent” that a New York court awarded Frank’s ex-partner near total custody of his children.

To put a finer point on it, Joseph wasn’t awarded custody of his children. Joseph was awarded children. The twins didn’t get their Italian heritage from Joseph, had never lived at his house, and didn’t feel comfortable in his care. But the court decided Joseph was their parent anyway. Because equality!

The lower court has made its decision. The biological mother has refused to take a parental role. Joseph has made his case and now gets to parent the children (or rather, the nanny he hired who watches them all day gets to parent them). Frank has spent years battling it out in the court for his parental rights.

When Children Are Subject to Adult Desires
Do you see anyone’s perspective missing in this messy legal row? If you answered “the children,” you are one of the few adults who understands what’s really at stake whenever we discuss issues of marriage, parenthood, and reproductive technologies.

But, like all children, Frank’s kids don’t get a voice in these legal proceedings. They can’t hire lawyers. They can’t petition the court. They can’t even share their perspective in a Federalist article. Still, it’s these two children who have the most at stake if the justices choose to hear this case.

That’s why my nonprofit Them Before Us, devoted to defending children’s rights in the family, just filed an amicus brief on behalf of Frank’s children. We packed our brief with family structure experts and the quotes of kids who have walked in those 9-year-olds’ shoes. The justices need to know what’s at stake for Frank’s children, and all children, if the government decides that biology is irrelevant in the parent-child relationship.

What exactly is at stake? Children’s deepest longings, identity, and safety.

Here’s an Overview of the Main Issues at Play
For those of you who aren’t interested in digesting the 6,500-word document, here’s the section-by-section summary of our SCOTUS brief.

The court should clarify children’s fundamental liberty interests in their biological family bonds. “No doubt Petitioner has a fundamental liberty interest in parenting his children. But this right should not guide the Court’s decision to grant review. Instead, the Court should grant review to clarify that children have an enumerated right to be known and loved by their biological parents.”

“Intent-based” parenthood is about what adults want, not what children need. “When the basis for parenthood is no longer biological but ‘intentional,’ it endorses scenarios…where children are swapped and traded, cut and pasted into any and every conceivable adult arrangement.”

Children long for their biological parents regardless of their family structure. “In the heart of a child, not all adults are created equal. There are two people children innately long to know and be known by—their biological mother and father…This longing to be known by one’s biological parents exists regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation. For children, it is not about their parent’s sexual identity. It is simply about biology.”

Biology gives children their identities. “A child’s relationship to his biological parents is the closest of that child’s human relationships. It is identity-determining. To be born of different parents is to be an entirely different person…children can miss the love of absent biological parents even if they are well-loved by others.”

Biology is crucial to children’s safety and wellbeing. “There are committed non-biological caretakers. But studies show that unrelated cohabiting adults are less invested in and protective of the children in their care. This phenomenon is known among evolutionary biologists as the ‘Cinderella Effect.'”

Only biology and adoption are the basis for parenthood. “The trend toward ‘intent-based’ parenthood is grievous. It is never necessary to give a child to an unrelated adult without requiring that adult to undergo vetting, training, and supervision.”

Frank’s Case Has Severe Implications
Obviously, this case has major implications for Frank’s two children, who are getting a firsthand education of the “Cinderella Effect.” I’ve spoken with family court expert Francesca Banfield, who filed a complaint with Child Protective Services (CPS) stating that Joseph has been slapping Frank’s nine-year-old daughter in the face.

This case also has the potential to either strengthen or degrade every parent-child relationship in the country. When biology isn’t the basis for parenthood, it’s a major power grab for the state, which can override anyone’s claim to their own children. As a result, it’s a threat to every parent—and every child.

What’s worse, if the state has the authority to disregard children’s rights to their mother and father and award them to any adult who “intends” to parent them, then children are reduced to commodities. Did we not fight a civil war to end that practice?

I wish that the redefinition of marriage had simply expanded the pool of people who could participate in this institution that has, historically, been the most child-friendly the world has ever known. But it was only child-friendly because, in nearly every case, marriage united children to the two people to whom they had a natural right.

Redefining marriage has forced the principles of this institution to work in reverse—the children who grow up within a same-sex-headed household are separated from one parent in every case. And in Frank’s case, they are separated from not one but both of their biological parents.

The case before the high court is not a gay, lesbian, or heterosexual issue. It’s is a children’s rights issue. We can go ahead and make mothers and fathers legally optional, but the law is powerless to alter the desires of a child’s heart. There’s a reason why Barack Obama’s book was not titled “Dreams from my Inconsequential, Unimportant, and Totally Optional Father.”


Shoving "pride" in everyone's face is yielding less acceptance

June, so-called "Gay Pride Month," ended on a low note for homosexual advocacy groups that promote gender confusion and identity dysphoria among young people. The trends regarding acceptance of that agenda among those 35 and under are showing promising signs of decline.

The nation's oldest (1985) and one of its most prominent homosexual groups, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which has since expanded its advocacy to include the other manifestations of gender confusion — LGBTQ+ (ad infinitum) — just received the results of opinion research it sponsors annually. And the news was not good ... for homosexual advocacy.

The report notes: "Five years ago, GLAAD partnered with The Harris Poll to launch a unique index to measure Americans' attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people and issues. In the first three years of the Harris Poll study, the Accelerating Acceptance report showed positive momentum year-over-year, with Americans stating they were more comfortable with LGBTQ people and more supportive of LGBTQ issues. ... Last year, however, the acceptance pendulum abruptly stopped and swung in the opposite direction. More non-LGBTQ adults responded that they were 'very' or 'somewhat' uncomfortable around LGBTQ people in select scenarios. ... The decline in acceptance and rise in discrimination found in the survey corresponded to an increase in hateful rhetoric in our culture."

By "hateful rhetoric," GLAAD is referring to the empowerment of dissenting social and cultural views that it attributes to Donald Trump's election. However, I would argue that the decline in support for GLAAD's constituency is the result of the absurd extent to which these thugs have taken their jack-boot agenda, from men invading girls' dressing rooms and bathrooms to battles over the use of pronouns that dare imply there are only two genders. Of course, only the most reality-challenged heterophobic gender deniers argue that point.

In fact, the Harris survey results regarding what parents would want for their children is the most revealing trend indicator. Among the Left's most dependable demographic of useful idiots, those aged 18-34, a full third (33%) said they would not be comfortable with their children in a class with a gender-confused teacher — and that was up from 25% in 2016 and 29% in 2017. And 39% of young adults indicated they did not want their children exposed to an LGBTQ-themed history lesson, up from 27% and 30%, respectively, in 2016 and 2017. The survey also found that only 45% of young people indicated they were "very" or "somewhat" comfortable around gender-confused/dysphoric individuals — and that was down from 63% and 53%, respectively, in 2016 and 2017. The number of young people indicating they would be distressed by finding out a family member was homosexual rose from 29% in 2017 to 36% in 2018.

Remarkably, there was a significant drop in acceptance among young women — 64% were "comfortable" with homosexuals in 2017, down to 52% in 2018. As I have noted previously, women voters are the largest Democrat Party voting block, and their collective LGBT sympathy is a major reason Democrats pander to that gender-confused subset.

Harris Poll CEO John Gerzema tipped his biased hand with this observation about his company's GLAAD poll: "We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant. These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination." According to GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis, the "rise in divisive rhetoric both in politics and in culture" has had "a negative influence on younger Americans." She insists that "LGBTQ people and allies must urgently address today's cultural crisis by being visible and vigilant."

However, as I previously noted, the outcome of homosexual advocates "being visible and vigilant" is precisely why their support is dropping. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family agrees. He says that the drop in acceptance is because "the 'gay' movement continues to over-play its hand and that will certainly continue." He adds, "Rather than simply being 'live and let live,' they are forcing Americans to embrace their politics, and often with overwhelming muscle and the life-crushing public accusations of a person's so-called 'bigotry' and 'hatefulness' if they dare disagree."

As for the absurd gender-pronoun variants, GLAAD's Ellis notes that it's "a newness that takes time for people to understand." Or it takes time for people to reject.

The most ridiculous example of corporate support for gender-pronoun confusion came when Nabisco announced a new packaging scheme for its Oreo cookies: "We're proud to celebrate inclusivity for all gender identities and expressions. In partnership with National Council of Teachers of English, we're giving away special edition Pronoun Packs and encouraging everybody to share their pronouns with Pride today and every day." Seriously, Nabisco's advertising department has become that detached from gender reality.

Regarding how LOUD the "LGBT+" crowd has become, another just-released research report found that Americans think one in four people are LGBT+. According to the report, "Americans' estimate of the proportion of gay people in the U.S. is more than five times Gallup's more encompassing 2017 estimate that 4.5% of Americans are LGBT, based on respondents' self-identification as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender."

Finally, for those who are quick to label others who don't embrace their gender-bending orthodoxy as "haters," we as Christians are called to love other sinners but not to embrace sin. That distinction is too often lost in rancorous rhetoric from the Left, as was the case over the weekend during New York's "gay pride" parade. The storefront of a Chick-fil-A in Manhattan was desecrated with signs reading "F—k haters," a reference to the fact the business is Christian owned. Of course, the "haters" were those who posted that message.


Australian PM  was asked about freedom of religion on public broadcaster

When Leigh Sales put a hypothetical question to the PM, Scott Morrison refused to budge and be drawn into “extreme” examples.

Scott Morrison has weighed in on Israel Folau’s fight against Rugby Australia after being asked about the controversy during an interview on ABC’s 7.30 program last night.

After speaking about the religious freedom bill being put forward by the Liberal Party this year, Leigh Sales asked the prime minister for his view on Folau’s recent sacking following the comments he made about homosexuals on social media.

Despite the PM skirting around the question, Sales pushed the issue, asking if being a public figure made any difference to the type of views you can express.

“If a public figure said, for example, that Jews are going to hell, they would be rightly and roundly condemned for that,” Sales said.

“But if a public figure says gays are going to hell, it can be defended as religious freedom. Do you see any problem with that situation?”

But Mr Morrison said he would not let the debate around anti-discrimination legislation “derailed” by “extremes of examples” like Sales had put forward.

“Well, again, I mean, the issue is making sure you get the balance right in the legislation, which respects the same principle of anti-discrimination as applies to many other cases,” He replied.

“We already have anti-discrimination legislation which deals with these sensitivities in other areas, and that will apply also to religious faith.

“And what I would hope is that we can have a sensible and adult debate about this one - not one that is drawn to extremes of examples or things like that to try and derail debates, but one that actually keeps people together and honours the key principle.

“I mean, religious freedom is a core pillar of our society. And it’s not unreasonable. And I think there are many millions of Australians who would like to see that protected, and I intend to follow through on that commitment.”

Sales also asked the PM about the Folau case, where the Wallabies star is fighting his sacking by Rugby Australia over an Instagram post.

“Under the changes you introduce, would you like to see somebody like Israel Folau be able to make the remark he made and be safe from being sacked,” Sales asked.

Mr Morrison was very brief with his response, saying a balance needs to be struck between an employer’s expectation of their employees and how much say they should have over what they do in their personal lives.

“I think it’s important, ultimately, that employers have reasonable expectations of their employees, and that they don’t impinge on their areas of private practice and private belief or private activity,” Mr Morrison said.

“And there’s a balance that has to be struck in that, and our courts will always ultimately decide this based on the legislation that’s presented.”

He added that as the Folau case would likely be making its way through the court very soon he couldn’t really make any further comments.

Mr Morrison said there is currently a gap in the law when it comes to expressions of religious faith, and the new bill aims to close that gap.

“We’re looking at a religious Discrimination Act which I think which will provide more protections for people because of their religious faith and belief in the same way that people of whatever gender they have or sexuality or what nationality or ethnic background or the colour of their skin — they shouldn’t be discriminated against also,” he said.



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


2 July, 2019

Poland: Ikea worker sacked for posting anti-gay Bible quotes

An Ikea worker has been sacked for quoting Bible verses condemning homosexuality after the company invited employees to celebrate an LGBT event.

The worker, named in local media only as Tomasz K, has filed a lawsuit accusing the world’s largest furniture retailer of religious discrimination, sparking outrage in the heavily Catholic country where LGBT rights lag well behind the developed world.

Mr Tomasz, a long-term employee at the Krakow store, was sacked after he refused to take down Bible verses he posted in response to a notice on the company’s intranet promoting a pro-LGBT event in May.

“I was shaken up,” he told Polish national broadcaster TVP Info on Thursday, in comments translated by the Church Militant website. “I’ve been hired to sell furniture but I’m a Catholic and these aren’t my values.”

Ikea had asked workers to join in celebrating the International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia on May 16 and “to stand up for the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender plus people of all sexual orientations and gender identities”.

The company’s head of equality, diversity and integration, Sari Brody, wrote a follow-up post requesting that employees “ask for the transgender person’s preferred pronoun (hers, theirs, etc.)” and “engage LGBT+ people in conversations about their partners and families”.

Mr Tomasz wrote under the post that “acceptance and promotion of homosexuality and other deviations is a source of scandal”, quoting two Bible passages.

“Woe to him through whom scandals come, it would be better for him to tie a millstone around his neck and plunge him in the depths of the sea,” (Matthew 18:6) and, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them,” (Leviticus 20:13).

Mr Tomasz said he made the post because he signed a contract to sell furniture, not implement “so-called LGBT values” or promote “ideological propaganda”. “It upset me,” he told TVP Info.

“I do not think it was my duty. I put my entry, in which I expressed that it is unacceptable, and quoted two quotations from the Holy Scriptures — about stumbling and about the fact that intercourse between two men is an abomination.”

He was summoned into an interview where he was asked to explain himself and told to remove the posts — but he refused. “As a Catholic, I cannot censor God,” he said. “I was told there would be consequences.”

A few days later he was “informed immediately that Ikea decided to terminate the employment contract, I was supposed to pack right away, empty the cabinet, give up my ID”.

On Friday, Ikea responded by saying it had sacked Mr Tomasz for “using quotes from the Old Testament about death and blood in the context of what fate should meet homosexual people” and “expressing his opinion in a way that could affect the rights and dignity of LGBT+ people”.

Mr Tomasz is being represented by the conservative legal group Ordo Iuris, which describes its mission as defending the Polish constitution against “various radical ideologies that aggressively question the existing social order”.

The group, which has filed a lawsuit in the Krakow District Court seeking compensation and reinstatement for Mr Tomasz, accused Ikea of issuing a “false statement” about his dismissal.

It said Mr Tomasz did not call for violence in posting the quotes but was simply expressing his religious conviction.

“The insinuation contained in the Ikea statement is unacceptable and violates Mr Tomasz’s personal rights,” Ordo Iuris chairman Jerzy Kwasniewski said, adding it “can be read as motivated by prejudices against Christians”.

Mr Kwasniewski said Ikea was attempting to “censor the Holy Bible” by pointing to a quote from the Old Testament as “legally unacceptable and justifying the dismissal of an employee”.

On Friday, the country’s justice minister Zbigniew Ziobro said he had ordered the prosecutor’s office to look into the case to determine whether Ikea had broken any civil or criminal laws. Mr Ziobro described it as “shocking matter” and “absolutely scandalous if confirmed”.

On Sunday, a second employee told TVP Info he had resigned as an act of solidarity with Mr Tomasz. “(If Ikea) promotes equality and diversity, why was this Catholic thrown out of work for expressing his opinion?” he said.

According to the Church Militant website, Ikea was threatened with a boycott by Polish Catholics in 2008 after featuring a same-sex couple in its catalogue with the caption “Ian and Steve have no intention of having children” but “enjoy their command centre”, an Ikea kitchen.

Earlier this year Ikea produced a special rainbow flag to mark Pride Month but, acknowledging Catholic sensitivities, said the product would not be available in Poland.

In a statement to news.com.au, a spokeswoman for Ikea holding company Ingka Group said while the company welcomed people of all religious backgrounds, “using your religion as a reason for excluding others is considered discrimination”.

“At Ingka Group we believe everyone has the right to be treated fairly and be given equal opportunities whatever their gender, sexual orientation and gender identity, age, nationality, religion and/or any other dimension of their identity,” she said.

“Inclusion at Ingka Group means respecting our individual differences and creating a safe environment for all. Everyone’s views and opinions are welcome with the common goal to build a great place to work.

“This involves taking a stand on which types of behaviours and expressions are in line with our values and ambition for equality and which are not. Personal behaviours and expressions in the workplace cannot intrude on someone else’s personal sphere.

“Our human rights and equality policy, supported by our rule of equality and by our code of conduct specifically address lack of tolerance for discrimination and for exclusive behaviour.

“Using your religion background as a reason for excluding others is considered discrimination. While we welcome people of all religious backgrounds and celebrate our differences, this doesn’t mean that we endorse exclusive behaviours in the name of religion.”


UK: Blasphemy is now a sackable offence

An Asda worker has lost his job for sharing an ‘anti-Islamic’ Billy Connolly video

If you’re not a fan of religion – or political correctness – then it looks like a job at Asda isn’t for you. Examiner Live reports that Brian Leach, a 54-year-old disabled till worker, has been sacked from his job in a Dewsbury Asda because he shared a Billy Connolly video about religion on his personal Facebook page. This is a case so mad and authoritarian it really makes you double take.

He says he was grassed up by a colleague, from head office, who found the joke offensive. ‘I was then pulled into a meeting a couple of weeks later’, Leach told Examiner Live. ‘I was summarily dismissed without notice following a disciplinary meeting for breaching the company’s social-media policy.’ In the offending clip, says the Mirror, Connolly takes aim at Christianity, Islam and calls suicide bombers ‘f****** idiots’.

According to a dismissal letter shown to the press, Leach removed the post, admitted guilt and removed his colleagues from his Facebook circle. But this wasn’t enough. His bosses ruled he had committed gross misconduct by sharing something with the ‘potential to bring the company into disrepute’. This was not before his bosses extracted a quasi-Stalinist apology, quoted in the Mirror, nodding specifically to Connolly’s jokes about Islam:

‘I have spoken to affected colleagues apologising for my post, taking their feedback onboard. I have realised people’s faiths are very important to them, and the nature of the post regarding the sensitive nature of it relating to the holy place of Islam… If I had faith I can imagine being very upset myself… I will think very carefully before posting online or saying anything that could be interpreted as hurtful to others and my place of work.’

When sharing a blasphemous video – on your own private Facebook feed, no less – becomes a sackable offence in supermarket chains, you know something has gone very, very wrong.


The British establishment has lost its marbles

The "great and the good" are now the dim and the gullible

The Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr should be given an award. No, not the Orwell Prize, whose committee debased itself in rewarding conspiracy theories over actual journalism by giving Cadwalladr the award last year. And no, not the Pulitzer Prize, for which Cadwalladr was nominated this year – perhaps she pipped rival conspiracist David Icke for the spot on the shortlist? She should instead be given an award for her services to Brexit.

That may sound counterintuitive. Cadwalladr’s conspiratorial journalism is, of course, motored by a passionate hatred of Brexit. She has tried to blame Brexit on Facebook, on data-mining firm Cambridge Analytica, on Russian money, Russian bots, Russian disinformation and Russia Today. She writes of a ‘Great British Brexit robbery’, of democracy being ‘hijacked’ by ‘shadowy global operations’, made possible by ‘dark money’. She weaves webs of intrigue that connect a whole host of characters from Vladimir Putin to Donald Trump to Nigel Farage to Julian Assange – all of whom are apparently in it together to bring about Brexit. Cadwalladr’s work is littered with caveats like ‘we can’t be sure’ or ‘Is it true? Who knows?’. Nevertheless, ‘questions’ are always ‘swirling’: ‘Did Leave.EU seek to obtain foreign support for a British election?’; ‘Why did Vote Leave donate £625,000 to a 23-year-old fashion student during the referendum?’; ‘Could this be why Farage is ignoring me?’

The great irony in all this is while Cadwalladr believes she has ‘exposed’ the key to understanding and undermining Brexit, what she has in fact exposed is the mental and moral disorientation at the heart of the British establishment. She has been given awards from the Orwell Prize, Reporters without Borders, the Hay Festival, the Political Studies Association and more. Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson (recently described in a public inquiry as a ‘patsy for fake news’ and a ‘vehicle for conspiracy theorists’) has hailed her work as ‘brilliant and brave’. That the journalistic establishment falls over itself to lavish her codswallop with awards, and the fact that Remain MPs cite her codswallop in parliament, tells us a great deal.

It tells us that many people who hold positions of power have still not accepted the referendum result of 2016, and will cling to any excuse to avoid doing so. It tells us how little they trust the public, you and me, with making important decisions. They really do believe that we are too easily duped by social media and foreigners to truly know what we want. The willingness of the great and the good to indulge in wacky conspiracy theories demolishes their credibility as serious political actors – and Cadwalladr has done a great service in, inadvertently, bringing these faults and failures to light.

Unfortunately, one of her greatest bugbears, Arron Banks, is now suing her for defamation. Banks is the pro-Brexit businessman who bankrolled UKIP when Nigel Farage led the party and who helped to set up Leave.EU, an unofficial Leave campaign.

Banks is a regular target of Cadwalladr’s, but two statements in particular have caught his ire. In June, in a speech delivered to The Convention: Never Again, Cadwalladr said: ‘We know that the Russian government offered money to Arron Banks.’ She made similar allegations in a TED talk back in April. ‘I’m not even going to go into the lies that Arron Banks has told about his covert relationship with the Russian government.’ For a while, Banks seemed to enjoy trading in a bad-boy image. When appearing at a select committee hearing, he made no apologies for meeting the Russian ambassador – nor for their six-hour, boozy lunch. But clearly he has now had enough of the constant questioning.

Banks is wrong to do this. Not only does Cadwalladr deserve to be defended on free-speech grounds – her right to write her bizarre columns ought to be protected in a free society – but on practical, partisan grounds, too. Her fevered ramblings – and the establishment’s embrace of them – are an absolute gift to the Brexit cause. Banks should take one for the team, and let Carole carry on.


Dumped from an Australian Writer's Festival

Bettina Arndt

Writer's festivals have long been a joke in this country - well known as lovefests of ideologues preaching feminist and leftist claptrap to their rapt devotees. Even Germaine Greer found herself banned from a writer's festival last year for daring to challenge the party line on rape.

 Imagine my surprise when I received an invitation recently to appear at this year's Canberra Writer's Festival, to speak about my new book #MenToo. I happily agreed to take part in two panels, one on "Women, Men and the Whole Damn Thing" - supposedly on the consequences of #MeToo - and the other on women over 50.

Yesterday, Michaela Bolzan, the Artistic Director of the CWF wrote excitedly informing me of the "super" panel they'd put together for the first women/men panel:

* There's self-described "card-carrying feminist", our former Human Rights Commissioner, Gillian Triggs.
 * Domestic violence campaigner and journalist Jane Gilmore, known for her anti- male bile.
* LGBTIQ activist, advocate for Safe Schools, and former GetUp campaign director, Sally Rugg, currently embroiled in a campaign to take down rugby player Israel Folau for posting his religious views on social media.
* And writer David Leser whose virtue-signalling article (and forthcoming book) produced the title for this panel. "Why is it that men have killed, enslaved, scarred, diminished and silenced women of every age, race and class, on every continent, for so long?" Leser ponders.

I advise you to read the rest and marvel at the stupidity and misandry of this man.

So that was the "super" panel now proposed to talk about women and men in the age of #MeToo. There was no longer any pretence of including balance in this proposed orgy of male-bashing - I was dropped from the panel and asked to moderate the session. Ditto the panel on women over 50, where I was asked to moderate a panel which included - wait for it - the dreaded Jane Caro, now notorious for her foul-mouthed election night tweet accusing "truculent turds" of sending Australia backwards by voting conservative. Her anti-male tirades are equally well known.

Unsurprisingly, I have pulled out of the event, pointing out I have no interest in being a punching bag for this line up of loonies and their followers. But it says a great deal about the huge waste of government funding supporting this divisive rubbish. The Canberra Writers Festival is supported by the ACT Government, ACT Libraries and ABC Radio Canberra plus there's an annual grant from ACT Labor of $125,000.  How about some of you lobbying these organisations to provide more balanced discussion at these events?

Via email


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


1 July, 2019

An emasculated civilization

'Attacked by Antifa, bleeding, they stole my camera'

This is the moment militant anti-fascist protesters attacked and 'milkshaked' a Conservative writer during a rally in Oregon.

The footage shows Andy Ngo, an editor at the online publication Quillette, being punched, kicked and covered in milkshake by members of the 'Antifa' movement.

Ngo, who describes himself in his Twitter bio as 'hated by Antifa', is seen attempting to get away from the crowd, some of whom follow him and throw milkshakes and other objects at his head.

At least three demonstraters from Antifa, the collective term for a militant progressive protest movement, who oppose the far-right, were arrested.

The writer tweeted afterwards that he was bleeding and had been robbed of his camera equipment and was heading to the hospital for treatment.

He said: 'Attacked by antifa. Bleeding. They stole my camera equipment. No police until after. waiting for ambulance . If you have evidence Of attack please help.'

Adding: 'On way to hospital. Was beat on face and head multiple times in downtown in middle of street with fists and weapons. Suspects at large.'

At least three groups had planned rallies or demonstrations at different sites in the city, including members of the so-called Proud Boys and anti-fascist groups that include 'antifa,' and the fights occurred when participants of the opposing groups met, according to The Oregonian/OregonLive .

Sporting several welts and cults, Ngo was speaking into the camera when police arrived. Ngo asked the officers where they had been when he was being attacked

Ngo shared a video to social media after the attack where he said his GoPro camera had been stolen and that he had been punched several times in his face.

Sporting several welts and cults, Ngo was speaking into the camera when police arrived. He said: 'Where the hell were you? I was assaulted twice.' 

In a statement Saturday night, the Portland Police Bureau said: 'During today's events, there were multiple assaults reported, as well as projectiles thrown at demonstrators and officers.

'There were also reports of pepper spray and bear spray being used by people in the crowd. Officers deployed pepper spray during the incident.

'There were reports of individuals throwing 'milkshakes' with a substance mixed in that was similar to a quick drying cement. One subject was arrested for throwing a substance during the incident.'


Buttigieg attributes police shooting to ‘Systemic Racism’

Mayor of South Bend Indiana explained how his city’s police department is falling short of his expectations when it comes to policing and racial bias, during the second part of the 2020 Democratic debate, Thursday.

He said that the case of Eric Logan, a black man who was allegedly shot by a police officer without a body cam, demonstrates a larger problem of systemic racism in policing.

“Until we move policing out of the shadow of systemic racism, whatever this particular incident teaches us we will be left with the bigger problem of the fact that there is a wall of mistrust put up, one racist act at a time.”


Heroic Boston police let a black shoot at them twice before shooting back

The dumb black could have saved his life just by obeying the police command to put down his gun

Leonard Lee, a lifelong Dorchester resident and antiviolence crusader, had just sat down for dinner Monday after a long day at work when he heard someone shouting outside his window: "Put the gun down!"

Lee rushed to the window - on the second floor of the home he has lived in for 20 years - and looked outside toward the street, he said, where a deadly confrontation between a 19-year-old Boston man and two city police officers was unfolding.

The front of the home faces Penhallow Street, where the officers had arrived on bikes after a chase shortly before 5:30 p.m. Lee said there were no trees obstructing his view, so he could see the teenager clearly - down to the horror in his eyes.

"Put the gun down, put the gun down,'' the officers screamed several times, Lee said.

As someone who has devoted decades to working with at-risk youth, Lee has seen the effects of violence on the front and back ends of urban confrontations. He's never watched the whole thing play out before his eyes.

Lee said he saw the teenager, later identified by police as Jaymil Ellerbe, holding a handgun and backing away from the officers. The police had arrived on Penhallow Street after responding to reports of shots fired in Town Field in Fields Corner. They had seen the teenager and a second suspect running from the park onto Melville Avenue and were now in a face-off.

Lee, who did not know Ellerbe, said he saw the officers get off their bikes and implore the teenager to put the gun down.

Lee said he also began screaming: "They are going to kill you. Put the gun down. Put the [expletive] gun down."

The teenager looked up at him, Lee said. "He could have easily shot me because I was in clear view,'' said Lee, who kept looking out his window.

Lee said he saw the teen fire two shots in the direction of the officers, who ducked for cover behind Lee's brown Volvo, which was parked on the street.

Lee said Ellerbe continued to walk backward down the street while facing the officers.

Everything went in slow motion, and Lee felt frozen in the window, fearing the worst.

"I wasn't thinking of moving,'' Lee said. "I responded. It wasn't until later that I said, `What the hell am I doing?'?"

Ellerbe stopped at a small tree and took two more shots at the police, and that was when, Lee said, the officers returned fire.

One of the shots appeared to hit Ellerbe in the left leg. He fell, Lee said, but kept holding the gun, which was pointed to the sky. The officers, along with Lee, repeated their plea: Drop the gun.

"I was screaming . . . as loud as I can because I [thought] that if he didn't put the gun down they were going to continue to fire at him," Lee said.

But, Lee said, he saw the teenager point the weapon at the officers. Then there were gunshots.

Lee said he saw the teenager jerk as though he had been hit in the stomach and then in the left shoulder. Then he was still.

Lee said he saw one of the officers run toward Ellerbe. The other officer shouted, "He's still alive. Don't go over there," Lee said.

The first officer continued to approach Ellerbe and then knocked away the gun, and immediately performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Lee said.

"Come on. Hang in there,'' the officer said, according to Lee. Then Lee heard him say, "He's deceased."

At that time, Lee said, he bolted downstairs and outside.  "And I just started bawling. I lost it. This kid . . .'' he said, choking up and pausing. "I could see the white in his eyes and he was distraught. He just looked like my son. He looked like my nephew. He looked like the kids I worked with over the years."

Lee said the teenager did not look like he was "trying to shoot his way out of this." And, he said, the officers showed a lot of restraint in trying to end the confrontation peacefully.

Lee has headed nonprofits and was part of the "Boston Miracle" in the 1980s that helped curb gang crime. He also ran the Division of Violence and Injury Prevention for the Department of Public Health. In short, he's seen a lot of the effects of violence through the years. But this was something else, something more profound. "I don't know why God put this experience in front of me,'' he said.

He wished he could have done more to save Ellerbe. It haunts him. "I took responsibility I should have been able to save this kid's life,'' he said. "I know the cops . . . based on their temperament and how this went down, I know they didn't want to kill this kid."


Australia: No forgiveness for Folau’s sins against the PC church

The take-home message of the Israel Folau scandal is as clear as it is terrifying: Christians are no longer welcome in public life.

If you adhere to core Christian beliefs about sin, hell and damnation, you will be purged from polite society.

If you think St Paul was right to argue in his Epistle to the Romans that it is sinful for men to neglect “the natural use of the female” and instead to become “inflamed by their lust for one another”, you will be cast out of the community. If you agree with the word of God — that man “shall not lie with mankind as with womankind”, as Leviticus puts it — you will be branded a moral transgressor.

The irony is almost too much to bear: critics of Christianity now use the tactics Christianity itself once used in its darker moments in history. They demonise certain ideas as heretical, rage against those who holds these ideas and subject these sinful creatures to a PC inquisition.

“Are you now or have you ever been an adherent to the Bible’s beliefs on homosexuality…?”

Answer yes and you’re out, packed off to the moral wilderness, with a metaphorical placard saying “homophobe” — a modern word for evil — hanging around your neck.

Folau’s crime, his sin against political correctness, is to believe that people who have gay sex are destined for hell.

He expressed this belief in a meme he shared on his Instagram page, which said “hell awaits” certain wicked people, including drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolaters and homosexuals.

As an atheist who has engaged in boozing, fornication and idolatry at various times in his life, I guess I’d better prep for an eternity of fire and torture. I don’t share Folau’s beliefs. I was brought up a Catholic, so I know there are many people who genuinely believe homosexuality is a sin. But I’m a lapsed Catholic now, and godless too, and it bothers me not one iota who people choose to have sexual intercourse with. Knock yourselves out. Wear a condom!

Yet I find the persecution of Folau repulsive and an alarming sign of the times.

It demonstrates how far PC intolerance has gone and how thoroughly anyone who doesn’t slavishly subscribe to contemporary orthodoxy can expect to be punished.

It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or an atheist, straight or gay, uptight about sex or a cheerleader for sexual debauchery — you should still be deeply concerned that a man can be persecuted simply for what he believes, for the convictions that reside in his head and his heart.

Persecution is not too strong a word for it. The dictionary definition of persecution is “hostility or ill-treatment” especially because of one’s “race or political or religious beliefs”.

This aptly describes what Folau has faced. He has had hostility heaped upon him because of his religious beliefs. He has been ill-treated because of his faith.

First, in April, he was dumped by the rugby world. Rugby Australia and NSW Rugby — which oversees the team Folau played for, the Waratahs — issued a joint statement announcing the termination of his contract.

The statement was perverse. It will surely be studied by future generations who want to understand the moral contortionism of the early years of the 21st century.

It claimed Rugby Australia is keen to create an environment in which everyone can feel “safe and welcome” and in which there is “no vilification based on race, gender, religion or sexuality”. And so, because of his Instagram post, Folau had to be cast out.

It is testament to the blinkered arrogance of political correctness, and of those who do its bidding, that these people could not see the profound moral contradiction at the heart of their chilling statement. In the name of preventing “vilification based on race, gender, religion or sexuality”, they vilified Folau on the basis of his religion. In the name of creating a safe environment where everyone can feel “welcome”, they made it clear that Folau — because of his religion — is not welcome.

This Orwellian statement translates as follows: “We will not tolerate vilification on the basis of religion — unless your religion is traditional Christianity, in which case we will vilify you. And we are welcoming of everyone — except people who believe the words of the Bible, whom we will sack and shame.”

This repugnant statement summed up what is the first and last commandment of the ideology of political correctness: “We love and accept everyone. Except anyone we disagree with. We hate those people and we will destroy them.”

Authoritarianism dressed up as acceptance. Intolerance under the guise of tolerance. This is the Newspeak of the PC era, and it is horrifying.

Even worse, Folau’s opponents then sought to make it more difficult for him to defend himself. The sports world effectively made him a moral reprobate; then the capitalist class decided he should not be allowed to raise money for his own defence in his case of unlawful termination against Rugby Australia.

GoFundMe Australia shut down his fundraising page. It did so because we do not “tolerate the promotion of discrimination or exclusion”, it said.

Again with the Orwellianism. We do not tolerate discrimination or exclusion, so we will discriminate against a biblical Christian and exclude him from our services — that is essentially what GoFundMe is saying. Shameless self-contradiction.

Thankfully, the Australian Christian Lobby stepped in, keeping open the possibility of charity for Folau after others almost closed that possibility down. It is testament to the strength of feeling around this issue that the ACL raised $2 million in the first day. Huge numbers of ordinary Aussies clearly want to take a stand for religious freedom and freedom of speech — good on ’em.

This terrible spectacle, this hounding of one man over his beliefs, reveals so much about the culture wars of the early 21st century.

First, it confirms that PC is the new religion. Political correctness now does what pointy-hatted priests used to do: seeks out thought criminals and moral transgressors and punishes them for their wicked beliefs.

No, nobody has been burned at the stake. Folau’s life is not at risk. But there is nonetheless an inquisitorial feeling to the witch-hunting of this rugby player whose only offence is that he thinks differently from the PC crowd.

The second thing revealed by this hounding is that the left will turn a blind eye to the use and abuse of capitalist power if it serves their purposes. So, just as leftists have cheered Silicon Valley oligarchs as they have expelled from social media anyone who has an anti-PC point of view, so they have applauded GoFundMe’s shunning of Folau. It’s a private company, they say, and private companies can decide for themselves who to host and who to ban.

Let’s break this down: what they’re really saying is that the speech rights of a “horrible” Christian come a poor second to the property rights of corporations. So, all their anti-capitalist bluster is stuff and nonsense. When push comes to shove, they will back the internet elites and online Big Business over those who they deem to be morally wicked.

This is a celebration of corporate power over individual speech rights. That’s the kind of thing you would expect from the libertarian right, but not from the supposedly socially conscious left.

And the third thing confirmed by this dispiriting affair is that Christianity is one religion it is acceptable to mock and persecute these days.

If you were to criticise Islam, you would be branded an “Islamophobe”. You would be accused of stirring up racist sentiment. You would be denounced and harassed and censured.

Yet the Koran also attacks homosexuality. It says any man who “practises your lusts on men” deserves to be driven “out of your city”. They should be visited by a “shower of brimstone” — that is, kill them.

I find these views of homosexuals as dreadful as the Leviticus view. But I support the right of Muslims and Christians alike to hold these views and to think that men who lie with men will be punished in the afterlife.

When did we forget this key principle of civilised, enlightened, democratic society — that people should be free to hold even difficult and disagreeable views, and should never be punished for what they think?

Folau should be free to think and say whatever he likes, and he should face no sanction whatsoever.



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


HOME (Index page)

BIO for John Ray

(Isaiah 62:1)

A 19th century Democrat political poster below:

Leftist tolerance


JFK knew Leftist dogmatism

-- Geert Wilders

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

Bible references on homosexuality: Jude 1:7; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Mark 10:6-9; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Leviticus 18:32; Leviticus 20:13

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

Racial differences in temperament: Chinese are more passive even as little babies

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

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

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

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Children are the best thing in life. See also here.

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE


Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

Some advice from Martin Luther: Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in christo qui victor est peccati, mortis et mundi: peccandum est quam diu sic sumus. Vita haec non est habitatio justitiae

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

Even Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly unimpressed by Africans

Index page for this site


"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism"
"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.
IQ 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
Bank of Queensland blues


Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Rarely updated)

Selected reading



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 (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:

OR: (After 2015)