"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press"
The primary site for this blog mirror is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archive index of this site
31 December, 2015
This is the Biggest Threat to Free Speech in America
Free speech is increasingly under attack in America. Ironically, it
comes from a political movement that only a few months ago was fighting
for “equality” and “freedom.”
The gay rights movement has become an opponent of free speech and
freedom of association. The latest example of this comes from a Reason
magazine write up of The Atlantic’s recent LGBT summit in Washington.
Besides the conviction that someone's right to shop for cake anywhere
trumps someone else's freedom of conscience, here's some other
conventional wisdom gleaned from the summit:
Being "safe" means not just freedom from actual or threatened physical violence but also avoiding offensive or hurtful language.
[...]The urge to police people's language at the summit was also strong—comically so, at times.
During one Q&A session, an aggrieved audience member suggested
panelists watch their use of the word "states" when referring to
American land, as it was exclusionary to those who live in U.S.
Homosexual and transgender activists not only want you to bake the cake,
but they want to restrict any speech that does not tell them how great
they are and how wonderful homosexuality is. So much for “freedom” and
Attendees of the summit was also concerned with the lack of “transgender
representation” on a panel dealing with transgender rights. This is
despite the fact that there are no transgender members of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, ACLU, or other groups represented at
Finally, the summit attendees and those participating on social media
showed a willingness to steamroll over religious freedom and freedom of
conscience in the name of “equality.”
If you think that this cannot be legislated, you’re mistaken. The
nation’s largest city has already adopted speech codes that requires
employers to call transgender employees their preferred gender. The New
York City Commission on Human Rights has issued a ruling that employers
who do not call transgender people by their preferred pronouns and not
allowing them to use their preferred gender’s bathroom is gender
discrimination. Employers can be penalized even if the transgender
employee does not change their name or undergo a sex change surgery. How
much could an employer be fined? Up to $250,000 per violation.
What’s been hitting the college campuses for years is now finally coming
into mainstream society. That’s bad news for anyone who values free
speech and freedom of thought. Source: AAN
A symbolic attack on the past
Symbols of the British and French colonial pasts are being
criticized, with a demand that reminders of the past be erased. Some
comments below the following news report
The student who called for the removal of Cecil Rhodes' statue at an
Oxford college previously said French flags should be taken down because
they are a 'violent symbol' akin to the Nazi swastika.
South African student Ntokozo Qwabe, who is on the prestigious Bachelor
of Civil Laws course at Oxford University, led the Rhodes Must Fall
group which has demanded Oriel College remove the statue of the
Now, it has emerged that Mr Qwabe has previously called for the French
flag to be removed because he believes it is a symbol of violence much
like the Nazi swastika.
Following the terrorist atrocities in the French capital last month, Mr
Qwabe wrote on Facebook: 'You can miss me with the buffoonery of
changing Facebook profile pictures to violent imperial flags &
hashtaging [sic] 'prayers for Paris' I will silently pretend to but not
kneel to carry out.'
'I refuse to be cornered by white supremacist hashtagism into believing
that showing my disgust for the loss of lives in France mandates
identifying with a state that has for years terrorised - and continues
to terrorise - innocent lives in the name of imperialism, colonialism,
and other violent barbarities.
'I do NOT stand with France. Not while it continues to terrorise and
bomb Afrika [sic] & the Middle East for its imperial interests. We
will not end terrorism by choosing the terrorist our subjective
sensibilities and popular propaganda normalise.'
He later clarified in a post written on his open Facebook profile, which
said: 'For those who were on the receiving end of French colonial and
imperial crimes in the name of the French flag, the flag means the same
to them as the Confederate flag does to those who were on the receiving
end of the crimes committed in its name.
'It means the same to them as the flag/symbols of Stalin Russia do to
those on the receiving end of the crimes of that establishment; it means
the same to them as the Nazi flag does to those on the receiving end of
Nazi crimes. I could go on and on.'
Then, speaking to the Sunday Times Qwabe described Cecil Rhodes as being
a 'racist, genocidal maniac' who was 'as bad as Hitler.'
Supporting a campaign to remove the French flag from universities, Qwabe
added: 'I would agree with that in the same way that the presence of a
Nazi flag would have to be fought against.'
Mr Qwabe's student campaign, called Rhodes Must Fall Oxford, says Rhodes
paved the path to apartheid by introducing discriminatory land
ownership and voting rules.
It is inspired by the Rhodes Must Fall protest movement that began on in
March, originally directed against a statue at the University of Cape
Town which commemorates Cecil Rhodes.
The campaign for the statue's removal received global attention and led
to a wider movement to 'decolonise' education across South Africa.
Rhodes was one of the era's most famous imperialists, with Rhodesia – now Zimbabwe and Zambia – named after him.
Mr Qwabe is one of 89 current Rhodes scholars who benefit from the
colonialist's legacy, which brings foreign students to Oxford at a cost
of £8 million a year.
After being accused of 'breath- taking hypocrisy' for accepting a
scholarship, Qwabe argued that he was simply taking back a portion of
what was originally looted by colonialists from Africa.
'It's completely, completely disingenuous to say I have somehow
benefited from Rhodes,' he told Channel 4 News, going on to talk about
pioneers such as Rhodes being 'able to murder a lot of people and make a
lot of money from it'.
Most of the above is somewhere between exaggeration and outright lies.
Cecil Rhodes looted nobody. He was a mine owner who paid his
miners better money that they had ever had before. Most were originally
subsistence farmers with no cash income. Without him and other
businessmen like him, there would have been no mines.
It is true that he believed in white racial superiority but just about
everybody in Britain and Europe did in those days. But he killed
or injured no-one because of his racial beliefs. If he was a
"genocidal maniac", how come he was buried with full native honours by
the Ndebele chiefs in what is now Zimbabwe? For the first time ever,
they gave a white man the Matabele royal salute "Bayete".
He negotiated with Africans via their chiefs. He did not go about
killing them. He was basically just a very clever businessman
The objection to the French flag is part and parcel of Leftist
"anti-colonial" rhetoric. The Left instinctively hate both the
present and the past of the societies in which they live. But their
objections to colonialism are quite pointless, as all the major colonies
were given independence years ago. They are re-fighting old battles.
It is true that by modern standards, there were some things in the
colonial era that were objectionable but there were benefits too.
When the British left Africa, they left behind them well-organized
countries with democratic institutions, a capable bureaucracy and an
impartial judiciary. But after independence, that soon decayed
into corruption, near anarchy and all sorts of bloodshed.
Generally speaking, the colonial era was a time of rapid civilizational
and economic advance for most people involved in it. But you will
never hear a Leftist saying that. If you look to the Left for a
balanced account of anything political, you will not find it.
30 December, 2015
The Law Banning Sex Discrimination has Become a Tool for Censoring Speech
Free speech and academic freedom are endangered species on American
college and university campuses. Speech codes, trigger warnings, the
heckler’s veto and politically correct inquisitions have become the
While there are many causes for this, the main culprit is Title IX, a
federal statute enacted in 1972 that prohibits discrimination on the
basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity.
Title IX goes beyond merely prohibiting sex discrimination; it also
requires that schools take proactive measures to eliminate any such
Originally, the most visible effect of Title IX was a reduction in the
number of scholarships given to participants in low-revenue men’s sports
such as wrestling and baseball — or, in some cases, elimination of
those sports altogether — and an increase in women’s athletic
scholarships. The idea was to achieve parity, with the ratio of
student-athletes in the school’s intercollegiate athletic programs
mirroring the male-female ratio of the school’s undergraduate population
as a whole.
In 2011, the Obama administration promulgated additional Title IX
guidelines to eliminate “hostile environments” and defining sexual
harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” Schools were
instructed to use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard in
adjudicating sexual harassment complaints rather than more vigorous
standards, such as “clear and convincing” evidence or establishing guilt
“beyond a reasonable doubt.” An epidemic of sexual harassment
complaints was thus born.
The lunacy of the “investigations” and kangaroo courts that have
resulted was exposed earlier this year when feminist Laura Kipnis, a
Northwestern University film professor, wrote an article in the
Chronicle of Higher Education criticizing Title IX regulations for
creating an atmosphere of paranoia on campus. For her efforts, Ms.
Kipnis was rewarded with a Title IX investigation, with student
activists claiming that her complaints about Title IX amounted to a
violation of Title IX. Ms. Kipnis was eventually acquitted by the
Broad speech codes banning free speech and anti-harassment policies are
being enacted across the country, with proponents claiming that Title IX
These codes go far beyond sex discrimination. Southwest Minnesota State
University, for example, bans “cultural intolerance,” which is defined
as “any verbal or physical contact directed at an individual or group
such as racial slurs, jokes, or other behaviors that demean or belittle a
person’s race, color, gender preference, national origin, culture,
history or disability.” Thus, a dirty joke, a lecture questioning the
propriety of affirmative action, or criticism of the Supreme Court’s gay
marriage decision are likely prohibited by the code.
Also troubling are the attitudes of America’s young adults to speech
restrictions. A survey by the Pew Research Center, released last month,
found that 40 percent of all young American adults said the government
should censor “offensive” speech. I find that offensive.
The academic grievance industry that Title IX spawned sends the wrong
message about the values that should govern a free society—let alone our
universities, which are supposed to be our most freewheeling
marketplaces of ideas.
The sad truth is that too many university professors and administrators
like Title IX and other questionable federal mandates because it creates
grievance-based jobs and fiefdoms and gives them legal cover to pass
speech codes and regulations that otherwise couldn’t be justified.
What is going on today on U.S. college campuses is inconsistent with the
American tradition, academic freedom and the First Amendment.
In its 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court declared
that “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it
is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea
simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” But
that is exactly what is happening on campuses across the nation.
“Making Title IX as strong as possible is a no-brainer,” Vice President
Joe Biden has said. But he’s wrong. What really should be a no-brainer
is repeal of Title IX.
This would deprive campus activists of a tool to stifle debate and
discussion. It would reinvigorate college campuses as marketplaces of
ideas, rather than closed societies on the Stalinist model.
Prohibiting sex discrimination is one thing. Prohibiting free speech is quite another — and it shouldn’t be tolerated.
Free speech: Is the West any better than Communist China?
In Beijing the other week, camera crews and foreign diplomats were
harrassed, pushed and punched by police outside a courtroom where the
civil rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang stood accused of “inciting ethnic
hatred”, and of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” His charges
relate to posts he left on social media which were critical of the
Chinese government, including one in which he questioned its
“excessively violent” crackdown on Uighurs in Xinjiang province. Looking
on, foreign powers tutted, then went back to not caring terribly much.
Earlier in December, a humanist group at Goldsmiths University in London
welcomed the activist Maryam Namazie to speak at an event. An Iranian
woman who fled that country after renouncing Islam, Namazie has
nevertheless consistently challenged “the erroneous conflation between
Islam, Islamism and Muslims” and lobbied for British Muslim women to be
afforded proper protection in family courts. To the Goldsmiths Islamic
Society however, she was persona non grata. Having previously hosted
Hamza Tzortzis, a man who advocates the beheading of apostates, has
likened homosexuality to cannibalism and regards free speech as
un-Islamic, it declared Namazie’s presence on campus to be a “violation
of [their] space”. Members showed up to intimidate her, turning off her
projector and shouting her down.
The response of the university was to put the humanist group under
investigation – almost as cowardly an action as the decision of the
students’ union at the University of Warwick, which in the autumn
blocked a visit from Namazie on the grounds that her presence might
offend Muslim students, only to relent when academics protested.
Meanwhile, the Feminist and LGBTQ+ Societies at Goldsmiths enacted their
own astonishing feats of gutless intellectual timidity in voicing
solidarity with those offended by Namazie. The latter organisation
explained that: “If [the speakers felt] intimidated, we urge them to
look at the underpinnings of their ideology. We find that personal and
social harm enacted in the name of ‘free speech’ is foul, and
detrimental to the wellbeing of students and staff on campus.”
29 December, 2015
PC Police in NYC Are Banning Free Speech
The PC Police in New York City are cracking down on free expression in a
big way. The new law? If you should dare refer to a transgender person
by the wrong pronoun, you could face a massive fine. Yes, really:
In another confirmation that political correctness means a draconian
police state, updated so-called “transgender discrimination” laws in New
York City will see landlords, employers and businesses fined and
possibly jailed for refusing to say that biology does not exist.
That’s right, if property owners identify employees or tenants by their
23rd chromosomal pair by using “improper pronouns” in reference to those
who “don’t identify with the gender they were assigned at birth,” they
could now see fines of up to $250,000.
On Monday, the New York City Commission on Human Rights updated the
city’s Transgender Rights Bill by releasing new guidance that makes
clear what constitutes gender identity and gender expression
According to NYC.gov, the guidance lists several ways employers, landlords, and business owners can violate the law:
Intentionally failing to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or
title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him”
or “Mr.” when she has made it clear that she prefers female pronouns and
a female title.
In the '60s, liberals demanded more free speech and less censorship. Now
that they're in power, they're using that power to enforce conformity
at gunpoint. This is an absolute outrage, and it's also what we should
expect from Democrats going forward.
NM: Appeal Filed In Free Speech Case Over Anti-Gay Essay
A judge dismissed a former University of New Mexico student's
lawsuit alleging she was ostracized by professors for anti-gay remarks
made in a paper, federal court documents revealed.
Monica Pompeo and her attorney, Bob Gorence, filed an appeal to the 10th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver and a hearing on the matter is
set for next month, according to court records.
Pompeo claims the university violated her First Amendment right to free
speech and kicked her out of a class in 2012 for describing lesbianism
as "perverse" in a critique of a lesbian romance film.
The Albuquerque Journal (http://bit.ly/1OeT0Jy ) reported that the
lawsuit alleges the teacher violated her own syllabus, which called for
"open minds" to examine "representations of a plethora of genders and
sexualities." Instead, Pompeo says, she was accused of resorting to
"hate speech," and the professor refused to grade her paper.
Pompeo alleges the professor also made it clear that it would be in Pompeo's best interests not to return to the class.
Apparently the university offered her the chance to revise her essay,
but why should she? She's entitled to her opinions. And offer or
no offer, it is still a case of censorship.
28 December, 2015
The year we forgot what free speech means
The free-speech wars of 2015 began in tragedy with the Charlie Hebdo
massacre, when Islamist gunmen murdered eight cartoonists and
journalists and four others at the Paris offices of that satirical
weekly. The free-speech year in the UK is ending in farce, with a
Belfast pastor facing a possible jail sentence for preaching the honest
evangelical Christian view that Islam is ‘satanic’, and thousands
demanding that the world heavyweight champion – of pugilism, not
philosophy – be blacklisted by the BBC for making homophobic and sexist
Rows over free speech have hardly been out of the news all year, the
battlegrounds ranging from the internet to the university campus.
Wherever the issue arises, the dominant response has been to warn about
the dangers of allowing ‘too much’ free speech and the need to restrict,
rather than defend and extend our most precious liberty.
In 2015, free speech in Anglo-American society has been under constant siege from its three main enemies of the modern age.
There are the official censors, such as Tory prime minister David
Cameron, who took a break from celebrating the 800th anniversary of
Magna Carta to pledge that the government’s new anti-extremism laws
would put an end to ‘too much tolerance’ of offensive speech; or the
Scottish National Party (SNP) government up north, under whose Offensive
Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act a man was this
year jailed for singing an unpleasant song in a Glasgow street.
Then there are the insidious unofficial censors, the witch-hunting
Twittermobs and online petitioners pursuing and trying to silence
everybody from Katie Hopkins to Germaine Greer, from Professor Tim Hunt
to Tyson Fury. Often foremost among them have been the students’ union
officials and activists seeking to No Platform anybody, feminist or
funnyman, who might make a student feel ‘uncomfortable’ in the
closed-minded, womb-like ‘safe spaces’ that our universities must
The third enemy of free speech is self-censorship. Unsure of which
opinions are now acceptable or even which words they are permitted to
use, many people now fight shy of expressing any strong views. And those
accused of talking out of turn are often quick to withdraw and
apologise at the first sign of a wagging finger.
What of the other side in the new free-speech wars? There have been some
important acts of defiance in 2015. Overall, however, the attitude of
our renegade liberals has been to surrender to or even to join in the
crusade against ‘offensive’ ideas and opinions.
It has become clearer that the true motto of our intolerant post-Charlie
Hebdo age is not so much ‘Je Suis Charlie’, more ‘Vous Ne Pouvez Pas
Dire Ca!’, which roughly translates as ‘You Can’t Say That!’. Those
Islamist gunmen acted not only as the fundamentalist agents of an old
Eastern religion, but also as the armed, extremist wing of a modern
Western culture of enforced conformism.
The year’s end seems a good time to remind ourselves of a few things we appear to have forgotten about free speech.
The first thing that seems to have slipped Anglo-American society’s mind
is that free speech is supposed to be Free. That’s free as in ‘free as a
bird’, to soar as high as it can and swoop as low as it chooses. Not as
in ‘free-range chicken’, at liberty to scratch in the dirt within a
fenced-in pen and only an executive decision away from the chopping
Here is the terrible truth about free speech: it is an indivisible
liberty that we defend for all or none at all. Not all of them will have
the purity of soul of Jesus Christ or Joan Rivers, the wisdom of
Socrates or Simon Cowell, or the good manners of Prince Harry or Piers
Morgan. That’s tough. They still get the same access to free speech as
the rest of us, whether we like it or not.
The second thing we have forgotten about free speech is that it is
speech, simply words. Words can be powerful tools, but there are no
magic words – not even abracadabra – that in themselves can change
reality. Words are not deeds. It follows that offensive speech should
not be policed as if it were a criminal offence.
‘Words can be weapons’ in a battle of ideas, or even just in a slanging
match. But however sharp or pointed, words are not knives. However
blunt, words are not baseball bats. No matter how loaded they are or how
fast you fire them off, words are not guns. And an argument or opinion,
however aggressive or offensive it might seem, is not a physical
assault. The answer to bad words is not to end speech or lock up the
speaker. It is more speech – to fight back.
And the third thing many have forgotten about free speech is that those
two words together make the most powerful expression in the English
language. Free speech is the historic key to progress, the single most
important factor in creating and sustaining something approximating a
civilised society. That has rarely been truer.
It might be hard to make a stand when unfettered free speech is so far
out of fashion. But that is what makes it so important today. The fact
that many feel there are now few principles or bold ideas worth fighting
for in political life makes it imperative that we should all stand for
free speech for all.
Because free speech is the indispensable midwife of new ideas. If our
society is ever to find a way out of its current malaise, we need an
open, no-holds-barred debate about everything from the real economy to
the roots of Islamist terror. We need, in short, more free speech rather
than less. The free-speech wars are far too important to lose without a
battle to the bitter end, never mind surrendering without a fight.
In 2016, let’s take the fight to the campus censors
It’s time the silent majority made a stand for free speech
I smiled when I heard Senator Lindsey Graham’s response to the recent
petition to ban US Presidential hopeful Donald Trump from the UK. ‘Don’t
deny admission to Great Britain to Donald Trump. Invite him to London.
Invite him to one of your universities. And let him get up in front of a
bunch of young British students and they’ll rip the hide off of him.’
Has Graham been to a UK university recently? A quick look back over
campus life this year, an experience akin to falling down some
especially surreal rabbit hole, would quickly disabuse Graham of his
optimism; higher education is now dominated by the language of ‘safe
space’, ‘microaggression’ and ‘cultural appropriation’, not robust
In February, spiked launched its groundbreaking Free Speech University
Rankings. It showed that 80 per cent of institutions have restrictions
on free speech, most of which emanate from students’ unions. The
University of Bristol, for example, aims ‘to ensure an accessible
environment in which every student feels comfortable, safe and able to
get involved in all aspects of the organisation free from intimidation
or judgement’. In 2015, this privileging of intellectual and emotional
comfort has led to student petitions demanding the No Platforming of
comedians, academics, Islamic preachers, feminists, journalists and
politicians. If, by some bizarre administrative oversight, Trump were to
be invited to a UK university, there would be howls of protest.
In 2015 universities redoubled their efforts to restrict thinking,
speaking and dressing up on campus. Students at the University of East
Anglia banned a Mexican restaurant from distributing sombreros because
of cultural appropriation and stereotyping. Although, in this instance,
the real risk was that some students might have had fun. This brings us
neatly on to Halloween and the highly problematic issue of choosing a
costume. Universities on both sides of the Atlantic went into overdrive
producing posters, films and helplines offering advice on how to avoid
offence with costume choice.
Throughout this year, many working in universities have looked on, some
cheering, some despairing, as students curb debate. Just occasionally,
one or two have raised their heads above the parapet and tried to tell
students to grow up. At Yale University, lecturer Erika Christakis
emailed students saying: ‘If you don’t like a costume someone is
wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other.
Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a
free and open society.’
The ‘Yale snowflakes’, as they came to be known, responded to
Christakis’s suggestion by bawling at her husband, college master
Nicholas Christakis. The students argued the university was their home,
and that they were not prepared to tolerate existential threats within
it. Unfortunately, many academics find this idea of a university
difficult to challenge because they perceive students as vulnerable and
stressed-out customers whose views must be continually solicited and
their feelings respected.
The purpose of higher education has been redefined; it is less about
being intellectually challenged than it is about having one’s identity
as a victim confirmed. Hence students are forced to seek out a continual
stream of ‘microaggressions’ to affirm their victimhood. Anyone who
calls this into question threatens this newly established status quo and
has to go. Erika Christakis resigned her post at Yale.
Students have sought identity-confirmation through campaigns to
‘decolonise the curriculum’, have statues removed and buildings renamed.
In the recent spate of US campus protests, the most high-profile of
which has been at the University of Missouri, student demands have
included anonymous reporting of microaggressions, compulsory
anti-oppression training and one confession of racism by a faculty
member each week. The upshot is a witch-hunt against those who refuse to
conform and acknowledge the original sin of their gender and race or
bestow the respect students consider to be their birthright. This has
led to a series of high-profile resignations from US universities.
There are now rumours of a backlash against student protesters. Barack
Obama pointed out the importance of debate to university life; a group
of Princeton students stood up to the campus protesters; and brave
individuals in the UK have also challenged the orthodoxy of consent
classes and Safe Space policies. When the No Platforming of high-profile
speakers has been publicly exposed it often gets overturned. Maryam
Namazie, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel and Milo Yiannopoulos all
eventually got to speak at UK universities after being initially banned.
This is to be welcomed, but it does not mean students are now more
likely to engage in the rigours of debate. When Namazie spoke at
Goldsmiths, members of the Islamic Society hijacked her presentation
with an infantile display of coughing and heckling. Members of the LGBT
and feminist societies have since offered their support to the Islamic
Society and defended the union’s Safe Space policy.
In the US, a survey out this month suggests 51 per cent of college
students are in favour of codes to restrict speech on campus and 72 per
cent support disciplinary action against students or faculty who use
offensive language. The belief that inclusivity and diversity are more
important than free speech highlights generational as well as political
differences in attitudes.
While students have even their most bizarre demands met, such as
dropping the title ‘master’ from those who run colleges, there will be
no end to the tyranny of identity politics on campus and all the
restrictions on free speech it supports. A real fightback needs
academics and institutional managers to say no to student censorship and
ensure debates take place. It also needs students who disagree with
protesters to stand up to those who would censor in their name – and
make their higher education a less valuable experience as a result.
To do this requires more than just defending academic freedom; it calls
for the posing of a more direct challenge to the culture of conformity
that has come to dominate our universities. We need to make intellectual
and political diversity as important to higher education as the
prominence currently given to issues of gender, race and sexuality.
Inviting Trump to speak at a British university would not be a bad place
27 December, 2015
British pub called the Blackcock Inn has its Facebook page suspended for 'racist or offensive language'
A pub called the Blackcock Inn has had its Facebook page banned for
‘racist or offensive language’ due to its name, according to its
The watering hole has served customers in Llanfihangel Talyllyn in the
Brecon Beacons, Wales, under the name since 1840 – but the social media
giant banned its page after a complaint from a member of the public.
Manager Lee Garrett said he had tried to explain the situation to
Facebook but had not had a reply and was not expecting the ban to be
‘In July I had this strange phone call from a woman who said she found
our name offensive and her child had to cover their eyes to avoid seeing
‘Then days after I put our Christmas menu on Facebook I tried to log
back in and had a notice come up on the screen saying my account was
suspended because of racist or offensive language.
‘I think someone has made this complaint and Facebook is just such an
automated service that once this complaint goes in it goes to a computer
and they just automatically banned us. There’s no one there to assess
it properly and use some common sense.’
He added: ‘We live in a historically agricultural area and there are
plenty of cockerel based names for pubs around here. We have the Three
Cocks, the Cock Inn, the Cock Hotel; it’s just a name.’
Hate speech is allowed to Leftists only
Last night’s Miss America pageant won’t only be remembered for its
unfortunate ending but also for its political correctness run amok. Miss
Puerto Rico Destiny Velez missed out on the pageant entirely after
being disqualified for taking filmmaker Michael Moore to task on the
issue of Islamic sympathizing. Here are a few of the remarks via Twitter
that landed her in hot water:
“All [that] Muslims have done is provided oil & terrorize this country & many others!”
“There’s NO comparison between Jews, Christians & Muslims. Jews nor
Christians have terrorizing agendas in their sacred books.”
“[The] Islamic god is NOT the same God of the Christians & the Jews.”
“All they do is build their mosques, feel offended by American values and terrorize innocent Americans…”
You can read all of them here. To be clear, Ms. Velez is
over-generalizing — not all Muslims disrespect Western values — but she
has a point. And pageant officials levied an embargo before she had an
opportunity to take her opinions to the main stage.
According to a statement: “[T]he Miss Puerto Rico Organization feels
that her words do not represent the integrity and esteem of our program.
Miss Velez’s actions were in contradiction to the organization, and
therefore as a consequence of her actions, she has been suspended
Oh, the horror. To refresh your memory, here are some unflattering
remarks Democrats have made — and gotten away with — talking about
“Syed Farook joins long list of murderous psychos enabled by NRA’s sick
gun jihad against America in the name of profit.” —NY Daily News
“You cannot negotiate when they take hostages and when they extort, period.” —Sen. Chuck Schumer
“What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.” —Dan Pfeiffer
“I call them legislative arsonists. They’re there to burn down what we should be building up.” —Nancy Pelosi
“[T]he anarchists have taken over,. They’ve taken over the House and now they’ve taken over the Senate.” —Harry Reid
“We need to act like adults, not like squealing political pigs.” —Sen. Dick Durbin
“The only phrase that describes it is political terrorism.” —Al Gore
“Those people are guilty of murder in my opinion.” —Sen. Angus King
“What I will not do is to have that negotiation with a gun at the head of the American people.” —Barack Obama
“We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have
made it impossible to spend any money.” —Rep. Mike Doyle
“It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the House
‘hostage takers.’ But they have now become full-blown terrorists.”
—Politico’s William Yeomans
“You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only
encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched
in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American
people.” —New York Times' Joe Nocera
“Today’s Tea Party movement is merely the latest of a series of attacks
on American democracy by the white Southern minority, which for more
than two centuries has not hesitated to paralyze, sabotage or, in the
case of the Civil War, destroy American democracy in order to get their
way.” —Salon’s Michael Lind
And let’s not forget Mr. Moore himself (via Twitter):
“My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards.
Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse.”
24 December, 2015
Students sign ‘petition’ to ban song ‘White Christmas’ because it’s ‘insulting to people of color’
MRCTV’s Dan Joseph recently presented college students with a “petition”
calling on radio stations to ban the song “White Christmas” because,
according to the petition, it’s “insulting to people of color and
perpetuates the idea that being white is automatically a positive
attribute in our society.”
Here’s some of the comments Joseph made to students as he talked to them about the song.
“It perpetuates the idea that white is naturally good, and that other
colors are bad, and we feel that that’s a micro-aggression,” he told one
“And we think that the song ‘White Christmas’ is insulting to people of
color because it says snow is white and therefore it is good – but we
know there are other kinds of snow,” Joseph told another student. “It’s
dirty on the ground, sometimes it turns brown, sometimes it turns
The effort, captured on video, infused humor as the signature gathering continued.
“What kind of Christmases do you like,” Joseph asked one student. “I like racially ambiguous Christmases to be honest with you.”
When one student told him the song wasn’t so bad, Joseph told him “check
your privilege.” At another point, he told a student the song should be
banned because “Black Lives Matter.”
He got 18 signatures from students in about an hour.
Joseph wasn’t serious – his satirical effort showcased just how over the
top political correctness has become on college campuses.
Debate is not a form of abuse
The UK National Union of Students (NUS) has published the results of a
survey claiming that 46 per cent of students have been ‘trolled’ on
social media over their political views and appearance. A further 32 per
cent said such experiences had forced them to lower their online
profile, and the same proportion said that this ‘bullying’ had affected
their mental health. NUS president Megan Dunn said she herself has
received rape and death threats on social media, and has reported
tweeters to the police no fewer than five times.
I would apologise for seeming unsympathetic, if it wasn’t for the fact
that I am not sympathetic in the slightest. Rape and death threats are
unpleasant and, where appropriate, should be prosecuted. But almost all
of what people call ‘threats’ on social media today amount to little
more than grotesque hyperbole. As for the 46 per cent who say they have
been ‘trolled’, I’m pretty sure most of them will find they were in fact
simply being disagreed with.
Disagreement is a fact of life, and an important one. It is the
foundation of democracy, but too many of our students confuse it with
abuse. Someone disagreeing with you over an issue, whether it be BDS or
transgender rights, should spark a debate, not a complaint to the
authorities. Crying about ‘bullying’ is now the natural reflex of so
many students when they stumble upon someone outside their own political
Britain’s students need to grow up and stop wanting to be treated like
children. Crying to mummy when someone calls you a nasty word is fine
for kids, but at least when I was young the standard advice was to
ignore the name-callers. Complaining because someone disagrees with you,
or is just trying to wind you up, is quite simply pathetic.
University is meant to broaden your mind, not reinforce your
preconceptions. If your views are challenged, defend them. Don’t throw
your toys out of the pram and complain that you’re being bullied or
23 December, 2015
Miss Puerto Rico Suspended for saying: 'Islamic God is NOT the Same God as Christians & Jews'
2015 Miss Puerto Rico Destiny Velez has been suspended after sending out
a series of tweets critical of Islam. The tweets were addressed
to filmmaker Michael Moore, who recently stood in front of Trump Tower
in New York holding a sign that read "We Are All Muslim."
In response Velez, 20, tweeted:
"There's NO comparison between Jews, Christians and Muslims. Jews nor
Christians have terrorizing agendas in their sacred books."
"All what Muslims have done is provided oil and terrorize this country
& many others! All they do is build their mosques, feel offended by
American values and terrorize innocent Americans and plant gas
"Most terrorist attacks have had a religion & a name associated with them & they have been from Islam religion."
"Many pull out the card of Muslims serving in our military. Are they in
the military cuz [because] they love our nation or to acquire benefits."
"Why do ppl [people] want to separate Muslims from Isis when ISIS is a group of Muslim fanatics."
"All they do is build their mosques, feel offended by American values
and terrorize innocent Americans and plant gas stations and get guns and
kills innocent ppl [people] and destroy precious artifacts."
"Muslims use our constitution to terrorize USA & plant gas stations."
"Islamic god is NOT the same God as Christians & Jews"
Must not speak the truth about Islam
Court Upholds Christian Views of Former Fire Chief
In a telling victory, a judge in U.S. District Court in Atlanta ruled
that former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran can proceed in his lawsuit
against the city after it fired him for publishing a book that
criticized homosexuality and gay marriage.
The city tried to get the case dismissed. “The city was looking to say
there’s no validity to this case — we were just in firing him, and the
court doesn’t even have to let the case go forward — and the court
rightly rejected that and said no, there’s enough evidence here to move
forward,” said David Cortman, the senior counsel for Alliance Defending
Freedom, which is representing Cochran.
The former chief, who once held a position in the Obama administration,
wrote a book explaining his faith and Christianity titled “Who Told You
That You Were Naked?” In one section, Cochran asserted that
homosexuality is a sexual perversion.
An openly homosexual member of the Atlanta City Council took issue with
Cochran and complained. First, Cochran was suspended without pay. Then,
on Jan. 6, he was fired and so Cochran responded with a wrongful
After all, expressing your beliefs while holding a government job is not
worthy of punishment, and no matter what the leftists may say Cochran
should not be made to bake the cake or made to care.
There are extremely tight limits on what you can safely say about queers; Free speech be damned.
22 December, 2015
Politically correct universities 'are killing free speech'
British universities have become too politically correct and are
stifling free speech by banning anything that causes the least offence
to anyone, a group of leading academics warns on Saturday.
A whole generation of students is being denied the “intellectual
challenge of debating conflicting views” because self-censorship is
turning campuses into over-sanitised “safe spaces”, they say.
Writing in The Telegraph, the academics, led by Frank Furedi, professor
of sociology at the University of Canterbury, and Joanna Williams,
education editor, Spiked, say it is part of a “long and growing” list of
people and objects banned from British campuses, including pop songs,
sombreros and atheists.
They say the “deeply worrying development” is curtailing freedom of
speech “like never before” because few things are safe from student
Because universities increasingly see fee-paying students as customers,
they do not dare to stand up to the “small but vocal minority” of
student activists who want to ban everything from the Sun newspaper to
the historian David Starkey.
The letter says: “Few academics challenge censorship that emerges from
students. It is important that more do, because a culture that restricts
the free exchange of ideas encourages self-censorship and leaves people
afraid to express their views in case they may be misinterpreted. This
risks destroying the very fabric of democracy.
“An open and democratic society requires people to have the courage to
argue against ideas they disagree with or even find offensive. At the
moment there is a real risk that students are not given opportunities to
engage in such debate.
“A generation of students is being denied the opportunity to test their
opinions against the views of those they don’t agree with.”
In recent months, students at British universities have banned,
cancelled or challenged a host of speakers and objects because some
found them offensive. Maryam Namazie, a prominent human rights
campaigner who is one of the signatories to the letter, was initially
banned from speaking at Warwick University because she is an atheist
who, it was feared, could incite hatred on campus. She spoke at Warwick
in the end.
In September, the University of East Anglia banned students from wearing
free sombreros they were given by a local Tex-Mex restaurant because
the student union decided non-Mexicans wearing the wide-brimmed hats
could be interpreted as racist.
Oxford University cancelled a debate on abortion after female students
complained that they would be offended by the presence of “a person
without a uterus”, in other words a man, on the panel.
Cardiff University students tried to ban the feminist icon Germaine
Greer because she once wrote that a man who was castrated would not
behave like a woman, which was construed as offensive to transsexuals.
Last month The Daily Telegraph revealed that students at Harvard had
asked for rape law to be dropped from lectures in case any students were
victims of sexual assault. And President Obama has said that “coddling”
students is “not the way we learn”.
Must not represent Australian Aborigines as cute
An ‘Australian Aboriginal Lucky Doll’ has been pulled from stores after
photos of the key-ring surfaced on social media and were widely
condemned as racist.
The wooden dolls were spotted at a store at Brisbane International Airport by Aboriginal activist Robin Taubenfeld.
They were painted with red, white, black and yellow and were attached to
a key-ring by a leather rope which some have said is reminiscent of a
A photo of the ‘Lucky Dolls’ was posted to Ms Taubenfeld’s Facebook page
on Thursday, which prompted their removal from shelves the following
day. Her post has since been shared more than 400 times.
One person commented that the dolls were ‘disrespectful to The Dreaming’.
Another person said the reference to the key-chain as a ‘Lucky Doll’ was
the source of people’s anger, given the conditions in Indigenous
Communities regarding health, life expectancy and high imprisonment
Others said it was an example of non-Aboriginal people misappropriating and profiting off stereotypes.
Many commented speculating that the dolls were likely not even made in Australia.
Some also left comments on Brisbane Airport Facebook page to express their dismay.
A spokesperson from Brisbane Airport confirmed to Daily Mail Australia that the key-chains were 'quickly' removed from shelves.
21 December, 2015
School District Casts Out Bible Verses From ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’
Elementary school students in Johnson County, Ky., performed a version
of “A Charlie Brown Christmas” purged of Bible verses after the school
district barred religious references in holiday programs.
School district officials censored the Thursday night performance of the
play at W.R. Castle Elementary School, along with other Christmas
productions, after receiving a lone complaint about mentions of religion
in school programs, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported.
Principal Jeff Cochran rid the script–based on the classic 1965
“Peanuts” TV special–of the key scene where the character Linus recites a
passage from the Bible detailing the birth of Jesus to explain to
Charlie Brown “what Christmas is all about.”
Cochran did so after Johnson County Schools Superintendent Thomas Salyer
notified him that Christmas programs had to “follow appropriate
Another school reportedly replaced the hymn “Silent Night” with a
Christmas rendition of the rap song “Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae),” which is
full of nonsensical rhymes.
Salyer said in a statement that the district’s holiday programs would
comply with federal law, which he said prohibits teachers and faculty
from promoting a specific religion at school
Protesters congregated outside Johnson County school district offices
for three days following Salyer’s announcement, criticizing his decision
to expunge religious references from all Christmas programs.
Lawyers from the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom
sent a letter to Johnson County school officials Tuesday urging them to
reinstate the deleted Bible verses (Luke 2:8-14) from the production of
“A Charlie Brown Christmas.” It read in part:
"There is no violation of the so-called ‘separation
of church and state’ by allowing children to learn about theater and the
origins of Christmas through participating in a stage version of this
beloved program that contains the same religious elements as the
ADF’s lawyers said courts consistently have ruled that Christmas
programs in schools can include religious references, concluding that
“there is no basis” for a district’s censorship.
Black dolls used to represent the baby Jesus in two Australian nativity scenes
Just a Leftist stunt of course. The Dandenong hospital doll
above. It is not literally black, of course, but it has the same
colour as many people who are called black. It is essentially a
representation of an African. As such, it is likely to be an inaccurate
representation of the historical Jesus, who would have had the coloring
of other Mediterranean people. He would have been a stocky little
swarthy-skinned guy with dark eyes and dark hair like a modern-day
Southern Italian. That is of no importance in itself as the
traditional European representation of Jesus as tall and blond is also
What is of some concern, however, is that this stunt
feeds into and encourages now-common misrepresentations of
history. Some Amerrican blacks claim that all sorts of European
inventions were in fact the work of Africans. And Muslims often
deny any historical association of Jews with Israel. These are
simply ego-salving lies but they do contribute to confusion about where
the truth lies. And this is essentially another lie. We all wade
through a sea of lies as we go through life so it is sometimes a major
challenge to figure out what the truth is. Adding to the lies is
therefore very unhelpful
Black achievements in many fields are
much less than white achievements and Arab achievements are much less
than Jewish achievements but the starting point for doing anything about
those gaps is to accept their reality -- not lie about them
In the wake of the controversy surrounding a black doll representing
baby Jesus at Pascoe Vale state Labor MP Lizzie Blandthorn’s office,
Dandenong Hospital has also used a similar doll for its scene.
Ms Blandthorn said her staff members had fielded complaints, but Shane
Butler, spokesman for hospital operator Monash Health, said feedback had
been positive. "The nativity scene at Dandenong Hospital features a
baby perhaps best described as being of Middle-Eastern ethnicity," Mr
"We have had no negative feedback from passers-by, and, in fact, our
staff have received a number of positive comments about the nativity
The doll’s colour sparked fearsome online debate yesterday. Fired up
readers were divided over the use of the black doll, with some arguing
that Jesus could have been black or olive-skinned, due to his Middle
Eastern roots, others saying history had always depicted him as a white
man, while some wondered why it was an issue because they did not
believe he existed.
Eddie had a simple message for those arguing over the colour of the
doll. "Really, it’s Christmas, so all who believe in the birth of
Christ, let’s just celebrate it and be grateful that someone has put up a
nativity scene," Eddie wrote.
Some said Ms Blandthorn was "grandstanding" and questioned if MPs should
be allowed to erect nativity scenes at all, considering the
multicultural electorates they represent.
"What is relevant here is simply that a Labor MP has deliberately done
this to get a negative reaction from people and I suspect to try and
prove a point," Leslie wrote.
Jason wondered: "Should politicians be putting nativity scenes in their
office windows? I think this might be a broader issue to talk about."
Paul thought Jesus had "blond hair and blue eyes". "You’re in good
company Paul, so did Michelangelo and Da Vinci," John replied.
Guy said readers were creating an "incredible amount of fuss over the accuracy of a depiction of... a fictional character! Lol."
Yesterday, Ms Blandthorn told Leader she wanted to present a
"multicultural" nativity scene in keeping with her diverse community it
"Some people have suggested it wasn’t appropriate because it was
dark-skinned, but my view is it’s more historically accurate given the
part of the world in which the nativity happened," she said.
Ms Blandthorn said people were free to represent the nativity how they
wished. "I’ve got a Mexican nativity set at home, which has dark-skinned
llamas," she said. "Culturally, people represent the nativity in
ways that mean something to them."
Maria, who didn’t want her surname published, said she felt using the
black baby was "changing what Jesus was". "I’m not saying he would
have been blue-eyed and blonde, but I don’t think he would have been
that black either," she said.
"It sounds like I’m being racist but I’m not. I’m Italian, I was born
here, and I used to get called a dago — I don’t like racism.
"All I can say is that he can’t have been black because that’s then going into Africa."
The Archdiocesan Vicar General Monsignor Greg Bennett said Jesus was
Jewish, "and we can presume his appearance would have reflected the
people of the Middle East".
"However, throughout the centuries, the images of the Holy Family in
art, sculpture and windows have reflected the diverse cultures of the
world and therefore the depictions of the Holy Family have reflected
this reality," Monsignor Bennett said.
"Jesus was born for all people — all nations — in history for history."
20 December, 2015
Australian bureaucrats say "Spooning Goats" is a bad name
A Sydney barman has for years been battling the city's liquor licensing
bureaucrats who have deemed the name of his establishment
"inappropriate" or "objectionable".
The case of "Spooning Goats" highlights, he says, the arbitrary powers of the NSW liquor authority.
Jason Newton first tried to register his York Street small bar under the offending name three years ago.
But the state government's liquor regulators stopped him from using it.
Under section 95 of the Liquor Act authorities do not need to justify
any decision to prohibit the use of a name.
Plainclothes agents from the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority
have twice visited the bar to make sure he wasn't secretly using the
("Spooning" for the uninitiated refers to a hug where two bodies interlock like utensils in a drawer.)
German Neo-Nazi charged over concentration camp tattoo
GERMAN prosecutors laid charges on Wednesday against a far-right local
politician over a tattoo bearing a notorious Nazi concentration camp
slogan and a picture of Auschwitz.
Marcel Zech, a 27-year-old council member of the National Democratic
Party of Germany (NPD) in a town just north of Berlin, faces up to five
years jail for inciting racial hatred, prosecutors told AFP.
Zech’s tattoo was photographed in November when he took his shirt off at
a public swimming pool in Oranienburg, in the eastern state of
Brandenburg which surrounds the capital. It features the German words
“Jedem das Seine” (To Each His Own) -- the message at the front gate of
the Buchenwald concentration camp — and a picture of the former
Auschwitz death camp in occupied Poland with barbed wire fences.
Oranienburg is the site of Sachsenhausen, a Nazi concentration camp, where tens of thousands of inmates died.
Zech faces court next Tuesday, said the local newspaper Potsdamer Neueste Nachrichten.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government has labelled his fringe party the
NPD, which is most popular in the formerly communist East Germany, “an
anti-democratic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-constitutional party”.
Its just a tattoo not hurting anyone but the more the Leftist policies
are similar to Hitler the more the Leftists are frantic to
distance themselves from him. And all the major parties in Germany
are both socialist and Green, just like Hitler. Only his
patriotism is missing among them.
18 December, 2015
Must not call a psychiatric hospital a "loony bin"
I suppose "madhouse" wouldn't do either. Some Leftist
dialogue sounds to me like it's out of a madhouse -- postmodernism
particularly. Am I allowed to say that?
A takeaway has been criticised for calling a mental health hospital a 'looney bin' on their delivery note.
The remark - written on the letter - was found by a member of staff at a
unit run by the Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust.
Staff took a photo of the note and posted it on Facebook alongside the
caption: 'Takeaway delivered to staff at one of our hospitals last week
with this delivery note attached. 'Still a long way to go to end
mental health stigma.'
The note showed the delivery date as December 10, 2015 at 18.08, with
the words LOONEY BIN in capitals handwritten alongside the blanked-out
The Trust says its staff were 'greatly distressed' at the phrase and it
has now removed the takeaway from its list of approved suppliers. It
says it will not be ordering food from them again until this matter is
Nativity Scene Removed and replaced with atheist display
Atheists like to tell us that they're not at war with organized
religion. That it's the other way around, and they want to live and let
live. What an absolute crock. What these extremist atheists did in
Nebraska would make the Grinch blush.
An atheist group has forced Nebraska to remove a nativity from its state capitol and replace it with an atheist display.
The nativity is allowed to stay up until Dec. 18 when it must be taken
down so that an atheist display can be put up. The atheist display will
feature a small model church and model capitol building with a large
wall between them to symbolize the separation of church and state, The
Lincoln Journal Star reports. The atheist display will be up through
Christmas, but not the nativity.
17 December, 2015
The Golliwog controversy surfaces again
I liked my Golliwog when I was a little kid -- and children still
like them. They were a very common soft toy once. They ARE
based on a caricature of Africans but there are plenty of odd-looking
rag dolls with fair "skin". Have a look here. I think it is fair to say that all rag dolls are a caricature to some extent
Glasgow gift shops have come under fire from shoppers and campaigners
for selling and displaying golliwog dolls in their windows.
The two shops, Cards and Gifts, and Party, which sit opposite each other
on Sauchiehall Street, in Glasgow, both have window displays featuring
the controversial dolls, dressed in minstrel clothing.
In both shops they are displayed next to other children's toys and
Christmas decorations, and members of the public and anti-racism groups
have slammed the shops for selling the items.
One angry shopper, who did not want to be named, said: 'It's ridiculous
in 2015 that people are still selling these things. 'They're very
offensive and I'm sure I'm not the only person to have noticed it.
'To not know they are a racist symbol is baffling, and I doubt anyone would buy one anyway.'
Nicola Hay, campaign manager at Show Racism the Red Card Scotland, said: 'We are deeply saddened to hear of this.
'Golliwogs are demeaning racist caricatures rendering black people as submissive and lesser.
'SRtRC are against the buying and selling of golliwogs as they hark back
to a time when mockery and stereotyping of black people was considered
acceptable. 'In today's more enlightened times such items really have no
The manager of Cards and Gifts confirmed the two shops had the same
owner. He said that he understood the dolls may be deemed offensive ,
but added the shops had the right to sell them.
The man, who would not give his name when asked, said: 'Now they are
available in big warehouses, we have permission to sell them. They're
sold in markets.
'I understand [why they might be offensive] but now they can be sold and that's why we have them.
He also said the dolls had been popular with visitors to the shops, and added: 'A lot of people buy them.'
Photographer criticised over image where females have their mouths taped up
On Sunday, Louisana woman Hannah Hawkes, who calls herself a “newly
established, local photographer”, posted a series images from a family
Christmas shoot on her Facebook page.
Most of the shots were lovely, showing a mother, father and their three
children smiling. But in one of the images, the mother and two daughters
wore bright green duct covering their mouths and the father held a sign
saying ‘Peace on Earth’. Their son’s mouth was duct tape-free.
The image was shared on Reddit yesterday and was slammed on social media.
“I can’t believe this sort of offensive photography is tolerated in our
society. Poorly composed, overexposed, uncreative. Your photography is
bad, and you should feel bad,” wrote one user on Ms Hawkes’ Facebook
Another said: “I can’t believe a female photographer would take part in
something so demeaning and damaging to women and girls. Women being
deprived of their voices by men is no laughing matter. It wasn’t cute.
It wasn’t humorous. It was horrifying.”
Ms Hawkes defended her photo on her Facebook page, after the image was
removed by Facebook. “I have been called every name in the book, and
have received some very hateful and vulgar comments and messages,” she
“I would like to say that as a female I do NOT and have never promoted
violence to women! I do not support abuse, or the degradation of women.
“My controversial photo was taken by request by the family, and was in
no way meant to promote abuse. This photo was taken with humour in mind,
and was meant as a comical Christmas photo. I personally know this
family, and have known them for many years.
“They are not abusive to their children in any shape or form. Also, I
would like to add that no one was harmed during the process.”
16 December, 2015
Evangelical Northern Irish preacher, 78, told worshippers ‘Islam is
satanic’: Pastor is charged with spreading ‘grossly offensive’ message
that was streamed online
When an expression of religious opinion is criminalized, Britain's
entire tradition of religious tolerance and free religious speech is
An evangelical preacher who branded Islam 'satanic' is standing trial
after being charged with spreading a 'grossly offensive' message online.
James McConnell from County Antrim, Northern Ireland, was charged in
connection with a controversial speech he made from the pulpit of the
Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle in Belfast in March 2014.
The sermon was streamed online and now the 78-year-old is being
prosecuted under the 2003 Communications Act, after saying: 'Islam is
heathen. Islam is satanic.'
At Belfast Magistrates today, a DVD of the entire May 2014 service
including prayers, scripture reading and hymn singing was played to the
Meanwhile, in his opening speech, prosecutor David Russell said the
decision to proceed with the case was 'proportionate and necessary.'
Mr Russell said: 'He (McConnell) characterises the followers of an
entire religion in a stereotypical way. And that's grossly offensive and
that's not protected from saying it from a pulpit.
'It has nothing to do with religion or freedom of expression of his freedom to preach.' [How come?]
The court was told that in a prepared statement given to police during
an interview, McConnell said he had not intended to cause offence,
insult, arouse fear or stir up tension. He abhorred violence and
apologised, the court heard.
Speech Police Attack Scalia
Must not suggest that affirmative action does blacks no favors
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was brutalized by the PC Police
after he offered comments last week about a theory related to
affirmative action utilized in academia. During arguments discussing a
lawsuit filed by a white female student against the University of Texas,
Scalia had the gall (in the race-baiters' estimation) to ask about the
mismatch theory. This is usually known as exploring the merits of the
case. Leading the charge against Scalia were both Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid (D-NV) and the “Reverend” Al Sharpton, who, like a hammer
looking for a nail, never misses a chance to hit someone as “racist.”
Let’s review the basic facts. The actual case before SCOTUS involves
Abigail Fisher, a Texas student who was not admitted to the University
of Texas, she alleges, because of racial discrimination. She did not
rank in the top 10% of her graduating high school class, which is the
first criteria for admission into the University of Texas. Some 81% of
those admitted during the year of her application met that threshold,
leaving 19% of admitted students needing to meet additional criteria
that included but were not limited to race. Fisher was among those
Scalia, the long-serving justice appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986,
referred to a theory labeled “mismatch” that places ill-prepared or
ill-equipped students in rigorous academic programs that result in
failure due to the criterion of race serving as the driving force.
In open court, Scalia offered comments on published assertions made by
others regarding this “mismatch”: “There are those who contend that it
does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of
Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a
less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. … One of
the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this
country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come
from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed
ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”
In an Oct. 2, 2012, piece published in The Atlantic, these statements were made regarding the “Mismatch Theory”:
The single biggest problem in this system — a problem documented by a
vast and growing array of research — is the tendency of large
preferences to boomerang and harm their intended beneficiaries. Large
preferences often place students in environments where they can neither
learn nor compete effectively — even though these same students would
thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools.
refer to this problem as “mismatch,” a word that largely explains why,
even though blacks are more likely to enter college than are whites with
similar backgrounds, they will usually get much lower grades, rank
toward the bottom of the class, and far more often drop out. Because of
mismatch, racial preference policies often stigmatize minorities,
reinforce pernicious stereotypes, and undermine the self-confidence of
beneficiaries, rather than creating the diverse racial utopias so often
advertised in college campus brochures.
No, Justice Antonin Scalia is not the author of that piece three years
ago. Instead, the excerpt is from authors Richard Sander, UCLA professor
and economist, and Stuart Taylor Jr., a legal journalist. The latter
also penned the book, “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students
It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.”
In summary, the overreaction to Scalia’s recitation of someone else’s
research and writings while engaging in public discourse over an issue
before the Court is just another example of the Left’s approach to
speech: Either consent and speak in uniformity blessed by the Left or be
silenced by insults and name-calling that generates a twisted narrative
relayed as fact by the Leftmedia presstitutes.
15 December, 2015
Google chairman wants to censor the internet for hate speech: ‘Spell check’ for terrorism is needed, says Eric Schmidt
Technology groups have a duty to combat terrorism using tools such as a
hate speech 'spell checker', according to Google chairman, Eric Schmidt.
Schmidt claims a widespread system capable of doing this would
'de-escalate tensions on social media' and 'remove videos before they
It follows an announcement by the White House that it is engaged in
conversations with the technology community about taking 'common sense'
measures to prevent terrorism.
'It's our responsibility to demonstrate that stability and free
expression go hand in hand,' wrote Schmidt in an opinion piece for the
New York Times.
However, Schmidt did not give any specific details about his proposed 'spell-checkers' for hate.
Quartz points out that people can't agree on the definition of hate
speech, so building algorithms to balance that fine line would be
Any such attempt in the USA would almost certainly be knocked on the
head on 1st Amendment grounds. And anyone can access U.S. sites
UK: Devout Christian great-grandmother who sent a letter to the
headmistress of a top Islamic girls school claiming 'all Muslims worship
Satan' is ordered to do community service
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
An eccentric great-grandmother who sent a letter to the headmistress of a
top Islamic girls school claiming 'all Muslims worship Satan' has
landed herself with a criminal record for 'causing harm.'
Devout Christian Rose White, 68, typed the three page note saying: 'I
was saddened to see you enforce full Muslim dress and force pupils to
accept the role of Satan' after seeing photos of pupils dressed in
burkhas on the school's website.
Accompanying the letter was a 23-page cartoon-strip booklet titled, 'Is
Allah Like You?' showing a Muslim family with a cruel father who then
becomes kind after turning to Christianity.
Police were called in after Mona Mohammed, headteacher at the 232 pupil
Manchester Islamic High School for Girls picked up the letter when
pupils and staff returned after a half term break.
Ms Mohammed who has been head at the £5,000 a year school since 1991 was
said to be 'deeply alarmed' by the contents of the letter and felt it
was a personal attack on her and her school.
White, a retired mill worker from Greetland in Halifax, later claimed
she became a Christian in 2014 following repeated callings from God and
saw it as her 'duty' to tell Muslims to convert to her religion.
At Manchester magistrates court she denied wrongdoing but was convicted
of sending an indecent or grossly offensive letter and was ordered to
carry out 100 hours of unpaid work.
Passing sentence Judge Duncan Birrell told her: 'You are not allowed to
conduct yourself in a way that causes other people harm. The court has
already determined you have crossed the line between freedom to express
your opinions and causing harm to others.' [What harm?]
'Ms White explained she had sent around 50 letters to various schools
and organisations. She believes it will show they "have a nice future
under Jesus and not Satan or Mohammed or whatever they call him".
After the case she said: 'The letter is not offensive - it just told the
truth. As a Christian it's my duty to tell them to start worshipping
She was also sentenced to a 12-month community order with £510 in costs.
14 December, 2015
Cookies must not look like fighter planes
Norway has apologised after baking a batch of gingerbread biscuits which resembled F-35 fighter jets.
A picture of the festive cookies attracted criticism when it was shared
on the country's official Instagram account reportedly by a member of
staff in a government department.
But hours after the photograph was uploaded Norway apologised to thousands of followers - claiming they too had 'a heart'.
One comment following the post read: 'Personally I associate Christmas
with peace and what one can do for others.' Another user branded
the move as 'pathetic'.
Hours later the government apologised for the post.
However some people defended the picture and said they weren't offended
by it. One post read: 'I, for one, did not get offended. And from what I
read, the offended are just a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of people, most
of us found this hilarious.'
Must not say that the poor mostly keep themselves poor
Why are these delicate flowers being shielded from this perfectly
reasonable nuts-and-bolts theory of poverty? Even were the theory
factually wrong, why are these nearly fully mature young minds in need
of protection from its consideration?
Clearly, the problem was
that Shapiro challenged the Leftist creed that poor people are helpless
victims of our wicked society who need the Left to save them
Ben Shapiro was told he 'crossed a line' during a speech sponsored by
Young America’s Foundation at Otay Ranch High School near San Diego.
Shapiro was talking about income mobility in the United States. “The
reason people are permanently poor in the United States isn’t because
they don’t have money, it’s because they suck with money. The reasons
people are temporarily poor can vary,” he said to the crowd of 450
“That’s not even controversial. If you’re permanently poor for your
entire life, you’re not great with money by definition,” he continued
before being interrupted by school administrator Dean Nafarrete.
“I’m sorry, Mr. Shapiro,” he began. “I’m at a point right now, where,
quite frankly, I’m going to dismiss the students… With all due respect,
Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Shapiro represents a narrative that he’s providing to
all you guys based on his opinions, what he believes, what he wants to
share with all of you. I know that the education was there for all of
you to understand, the left side, right side, whatnot, but also the
opportunity was allowed for him to impress some of his opinions on
certain things… I think what this is getting into now, it’s starting to
cross a line.”
Shapiro asked “what line would that be”, but Nafarrete continued to tell
students they could leave. This received boos from the crowd to the
According to Breitbart half of the students stayed and Nafarrete told
Shapiro that he dismissed the students to 'protect their feelings.'
“This is why young Americans are moving left,” said Shapiro. “The left
has hijacked our educational system from the bottom up. It doesn’t start
in college. It doesn’t even start in high school. Teaching American
children that they are victims of a cruel and unjust system is a nasty
lesson few Americans unlearn. And apparently, if you attempt to teach
that they have every opportunity in the freest nation in the history of
the world to succeed, you will ‘cross the line.’”
I know that Shapiro is right. In my early years, I lived on
government dole payments a couple of times. And not only did I
have a comfortable life then but I even saved money!
our society these days, poverty is mostly caused by foolish
behavior. All the poor people I have come across have plenty of
money for beer and cigarettes. And I used to run a 22-room
boarding house in a poor area so I do know the poor very well. I used to
see the boxes of "goon" (cheap white wine) coming into the building
every "payday" (the day when welfare payments arrived)
12 December, 2015
ACLU: Shoot Trump Voters
The ACLU is supposed to be about civil liberties but according to the
ACLU guy below your vote is apparently not one of your liberties.
What he says is just blatant hate speech. Leftist hate never
Loring Wirbel, board member of the American Civil Liberties Union’s
Colorado chapter and co-chair of the ACLU’s Colorado Springs chapter,
called for supporters of GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump to be
shot before they vote for the billionaire businessman.
Comparing Trump to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, Wirbel wrote in his Facebook page:
The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider
voting for Trump and say, “This is Goebbels. This is the final solution.
If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election
day.” They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone,
there’s always force, as Laurie would say.
Green/Left hate speech at Paris climate conference
Amid the light-hearted fanfare generated by environmental activists in
the French capital, the climate summit has also been notable for a
hardening of tone against perceived climate-change deniers — several of
whom have been subject to highly personalised campaigns.
Fiona Wild, a representative of the mining group BHP Billiton at the
talks, flew back to Australia on Thursday after becoming the focus of an
aggressive campaign against individuals in Paris accused of trying to
water down the final climate agreement.
Ms Wild and several others had their faces plastered on more than 1,000
large “wanted” posters, which were put up around luxury hotels in Paris.
The targets were accused of being “climate criminals” trying to “keep
fossil fuels at the centre of human development”.
A spokesperson for BHP Billiton said Ms Wild flew back to Australia
before the end of the summit “following a very concerning campaign by
French activists .?.?. which incorrectly claimed BHP Billiton [and Ms
Wild] were climate-change deniers”.
One person close to Ms Wild said she had also been warned that more
personal attacks against her were to come. The BHP Billiton spokesperson
called the campaign “highly personalised and unfair”.
The crusade reflected the generally hostile attitude to climate sceptics
in Paris, with senior policy figures making clear that this time they
were not welcome and their point of view was no longer valid.
Others on the “wanted” list included Benjamin Sporton, head of the World
Coal Association; Marc Morano, who runs the climate sceptic website
ClimateDepot.com; Myron Ebell, director of the US think-tank Competitive
Enterprise Institute; Bjorn Lomborg, Danish author of The Skeptical
Environmentalist; and James Taylor, senior fellow at the Heartland
Institute, another US libertarian think-tank.
Some were more relaxed than others about being branded “criminals”. Mr
Morano, who premiered his new climate-sceptic documentary Climate
Hustle, responded to a Financial Times request for comment by sending a
photograph of himself posing by his “wanted” sign with an expression of
“You have to wonder how strong their scientific case really is if
activists resort to accusing anyone who disagrees of being a wanted
criminal,” he said.
Others took it more seriously. Mr Ebell said it was a concern in a “free
society” that in a conference attended by thousands of environmental
non-government organisations, activists would want to “exclude and
silence” a small group of “climate realists”.
11 December, 2015
Must not mention homosexuals and pedophiles in the same breath
Or else people might think that some homosexuals fancy boys.
The numerous accounts of boys being sexually abused in British boarding
schools testify that some do. It wasn't Matron abusing the boys
Police are investigating comments made by Tyson Fury in which he appeared to link homosexuals to paedophiles.
The world heavyweight boxing champion linked abortion and homosexuality
with paedophilia, in an interview with the Mail on Sunday's Chief Sports
Writer Oliver Holt.
The self-proclaimed Gypsy King said: 'There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home.
'One of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is
abortion and the other is paedophilia. Who would have thought in the 50s
and 60s that those first two would be legalised?
'When I say paedophiles could be made legal, it sounds crazy. But if I
had said to you about the first two being made legal in the 50s, I would
have been looked upon as a crazy man.
'If I would have told you 120 years ago that a 1,000-ton aeroplane is
going to fly through the sky, a piece of steel, that would have been
'People can say, 'You are against abortions, you are against
paedophilia, you are against homosexuality', but my faith and my culture
is based on the Bible.'
His comments sparked outrage and Greater Manchester Police has today
confirmed they are investigating his comments after receiving a
complaint, accusing Fury of a hate crime.
Most American journalists just can't do objectivity -- even when they try
Apparently, Trump's comments about Muslims make him a racist.
Has anybody told them that Muslims are not a race? There are
Muslims of all races. Islam is a religion. You can change
your religion but not your race. And why is it OK to
criticize Christians but not Islam?
BuzzFeed journalists have been told they can call Donald Trump a “mendacious racist” on social media as a matter of fact.
In a memo to staff, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith said that
describing the Republican presidential candidate as a liar and a racist
would not violate BuzzFeed rules about avoiding political partisanship
on social media.
“It is, for instance, entirely fair to call him a mendacious racist, as
the politics team and others here have reported clearly and
aggressively,” wrote Smith. “He’s out there saying things that are false
and running an overtly anti-Muslim campaign. BuzzFeed News’s reporting
is rooted in facts, not opinion; these are facts.”
Figures from NBC released last week showed that Trump has managed to
build a lead despite spending just £217,000 on broadcast advertising,
the lowest figure among the leading candidates. In contrast, Jeb Bush
has spent more than £28m but has failed to make a significant impact on
10 December, 2015
Dem Rep Schakowsky: GOP Words ‘Are Terrorizing’ American Muslims
But nothing like the way Muslims are terrorizing Christians in the Middle East
Sunday on MSNBC’s “Politics Nation with Al Sharpton,” Rep. Jan
Schakowsky (D-IL) said Republicans “words are terrorizing”
I have a lot of people who believe in Islam in my district. They are
scared. People are afraid to send their children to school. They’re
afraid to cover themselves, and are being attacked right now. It’s
really frightening for law-abiding american Muslims in this country.”
She added, “You know, words matter, so when you have people who want to
be president of the United States saying they want to have all Muslims
register in the United States, when people who talk about Planned
Parenthood and clinics and talk about baby body parts and then the
killer repeated those words, echoed those words, when he shot the people
at the clinic, words really matter, and right now those words are
Must not call Obama a feline
But OK to call George Bush a Nazi, of course
Fox contributors former U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and actress Stacey Dash were each ordered off the air for two weeks
Both appeared on air while discussing President Barack Obama's speech on terrorism
Peters was appearing on a Fox Business Network program when he said: 'This guy is such a total p****'
Dash who appeared in Fox's program Outnumbered said Obama's speech was an epic fail said 'I felt like he could give a s***'
Senior executive vice president of programming at Fox said in both cases language 'was completely inappropriate for our air'
Peters was appearing on a Fox Business Network program hosted by Stuart
Varney when he was asked his reaction to the president's speech and said
he didn't like it. His comments were not bleeped out, according to CNN.
'Well, first of all he keeps speaking about "we can't give in to our fears." You know, "don't be afraid,' he said.
'Look, Mr. President we're not afraid we're angry, we're pissed off, we're furious.
'We want you to react, we want you to do something. You're afraid. I mean this guy is such a total p****, it's stunning.'
After he finished his response, Varney said that while he could tell
Peters was 'super angry,' he should not use such language which Peters
responded with 'I'm sorry.'
9 December, 2015
Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use 'Anti-Muslim' Speech That 'Edges Toward Violence'
The day after a horrific shooting spree by a radicalized Muslim man and
his partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta
Lynch pledged to a Muslim advocacy and lobbying group that she would
take aggressive action against anyone who used "anti-Muslim rhetoric"
that "edges toward violence."
Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocates' 10th anniversary
dinner Thursday, Lynch said her "greatest fear" is the "incredibly
disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric" in America and vowed to
prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.
"Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when
it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting
that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence
directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be
Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take
action," said Lynch.
It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is
far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than
protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly
is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions
predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it
UPDATE: After strong backlash against her comments on speech that "edges
toward violence," Lynch seemed to, as Politico puts it, "recalibrate"
her language in a press conference Monday, underscoring that her
department would only prosecute "deeds not words."
Gasp! Football Players Pray — In Public!
No, this is not from The Onion. The Huffington Post is protesting the
fact that some USAFA “football team members knelt and prayed —
ostentatiously, publicly — in the end zone prior to the game,” Ret. U.S.
Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson wrote. “They did not, as Christ’s disciple
Matthew advises, put themselves in a closet; they prayed in front of
And then HuffPo compared this to … religious oppression in Iraq, Syria
and Afghanistan. Apparently, Wilkerson thinks a pre-game prayer is akin
to the crucifixions, beheadings and stonings radical Islamists perform
in the pursuit of Sharia Law.
As a result of a complaint by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation,
the USAFA is investigating the team. But if the Air Force recived a
complaint about a Muslim praying, the person speaking up would probably
be the one under scrutiny for a hate crime.
This is the same Academy that struck the phrase “so help me God” from
the USAFA Cadet Handbook of oaths, as Mark Alexander noted in an essay
in September. The Left may try to make an end run on religion in the
ranks of the U.S. military, but the individual soldiers are keeping the
flame of Liberty and faith burning bright.
8 December, 2015
Facebook shuts down "Britain First"’s page under ‘hate speech’ rules
Facebook has shut down the page of far-right political group Britain First under rules prohibiting hate speech.
The page was followed by more than 1.1million people, which was the
largest following of any political social media page in the United
Facebook has now closed the page, citing its rules banning ‘hate
speech’. ‘While people can use Facebook to challenge ideas,
institutions and practices, Facebook removes hate speech,’ the
‘Hate speech includes content that directly attacks people based on
their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual
orientation, sex, gender or gender identity, or serious disabilities or
Britain First members responded angrily to the closure. Its leader, Paul
Golding, called it ‘a fascist attack’. ‘Facebook has launched a fascist
attack on a registered, legal British political party on the verge of a
major election campaign,’ he said.
The group said in a statement that Facebook had denied its 1.1million supporters ‘freedom of speech and expression’.
‘Facebook resisted attempts by political opponents hostile to Britain
First to get our page closed down, but now it seems they have
“unpublished” it,’ it said.
Britain First also said it had launched ‘an immediate legal fund to drag Facebook into court.’
The page has since been reinstated.
Some hate-speech from a Leftist columnist
Take heart, fellow citizens. In a few months, we’ll see that polls are
just fleeting snapshots and that we will not be electing a narcissist,
racist, lying, spewer of hate (Donald Trump) or a science-denying,
foreign-affairs-know-nothing (Ben Carson) or the scion of a famous
family who hasn’t been able to convince anyone he wants to be president
Of course, we’ll still be left with a loudmouth bully (Chris Christie); a
clever but insufferable tea-party showoff (Ted Cruz); an unproven,
young upstart who has no respect for process (Marco Rubio); a guy who
lost his Senate seat and once likened homosexuality to bestiality, which
he now regrets (Rick Santorum); a former Fox News host, preacher and
ex-governor whose statements have been 41 percent false or mostly false
(Mike Huckabee); a sitting governor who alienates the base of his party
(John Kasich); a fired CEO who loves attacking but hasn’t enough money
(Carly Fiorina); a retired former governor whose name people can’t
remember (George, uh, Pataki); a hawkish senator from the South who has
no base (Lindsey Graham); a libertarian senator who touts isolationism
(Rand Paul); and a former governor who can’t get on the debate stage
She will be shocked to be told her words are hate speech but they clearly ooze hate. Leftists have no self-insight.
7 December, 2015
Crazy mixed up gal in Norway
You can have free speech as long as you don't offend anybody, it seems
The Prime Minister and Minister of Children, Equality and Social
Inclusion Minister Solveig Horne unveiled the government’s policy
statement against hate speech.
- In a democracy, freedom of speech is inalienable. In Norway, we will
defend free speech. At the same time the individual’s right not to be
subjected to offensive and hurtful speech should be protected, says
Prime Minister Erna Solberg.
Solberg notes that hate speech which limits the individual’s
participation in the public sphere is a loss for the public debate and
for democracy. With this political declaration, we undertake efforts to
combat expressions that spread hatred, says she.
- I encourage as many as possible to join the political declaration and
sign it online. We have seen that the price for participating in the
public debate is high for many. We must have a debate climate where
everyone can participate, without being afraid of being harassed, says
PSU White Student Union: Free speech or hate speech?
The Portland State University White Student Union page on Facebook is an
open social media space. But PSU student John Monroe thinks the White
Student Union is little more than a front for white supremacists. In
just 4 days, the Facebook page has garnered more than 140 likes.
“What they’re calling for in many cases is tantamount to hate speech,
calls to action for acts against people of color which is illegal and
has been deemed not a free speech issue anymore,” Monroe told KOIN 6
He thinks the PSU administration should more strongly denounce the site,
which he said is little more than a forum for hate. “Anything like the
White Student Union will be encouraging and empowering white
supremacists, and that’s why its necessary to take a public stand
David Jones, a black student at PSU, told KOIN 6 News he’s not sure if
this is a real issue on campus. “I’m not on social media that much in
order to elaborate,” Jones said, adding he’s doesn’t come face-to-face
with the issue on campus.
Organizers of the Facebook page did not respond directly to KOIN 6 News,
but said in a statement white people have been discriminated against
and mocked by minority communities for too long. “Our one and only
goal is that we must secure the existence of our people and a future
for white children.”
6 December, 2015
Court Throws Out Suit to Dismantle Memorial Cross
Judge Deborah Chasanow, a federal judge in Maryland, rejected a suit by
the American Humanist Association Monday that tried to dismantle a
40-foot cross honoring the veterans who fought and died during World War
I. Despite the accusations, Chasanow — a Clinton appointee, by the way —
ruled that the Bladensburg Peace Cross in Maryland predominantly
fulfilled a secular purpose, which was to invoke the thousands of
crosses under which American soldiers lie buried.
“Although the record indicates that there were three isolated religious
services held at the Monument,” Chasanow wrote, “the predominant and
nearly exclusive use of the Monument has been for annual commemorative
events held on Memorial Day and Veterans Day.”
This suit was reminiscent of the fight over the memorial cross at Mount
Soledad in San Diego, which was targeted for removal by those that
wanted to strip every hint and inference of Christianity from the public
Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky wrote of the Bladensburg Peace
Cross, “The plaintiffs in this case, in essence, wanted to destroy a
90-year-old memorial to fallen soldiers based on thoughtless, vain, and
shallow motives that are an insult to the sacrifices of brave
Like their intellectual siblings in higher education, it sounds like these cross-phobic humanists need some “safe spaces.”
Three cheers for cultural appropriation
There have been many instances recorded on this blog where uses by
mainstream Americans of images associated with minority cultures have
been condemned because that constitutes "cultural appropriation".
So the takedown of that idea by Jeff Jacoby below is timely
FOR SEVEN YEARS, the Center for Students with Disabilities at the
University of Ottawa has sponsored free on-campus yoga classes, a
popular program taught by a professional yoga teacher from the city's
Rama Lotus Yoga Centre. To the reasonable among us, free yoga for
special-needs students may sound innocuous and gentle. But not to the
vigilantes of political correctness, who successfully pressured the
university's student government to suspend the classes as an intolerable
instance of "cultural appropriation."
According to the Ottawa Sun, the disabilities center confessed its
thoughtcrime in a public statement. While yoga may be "accessible and
great for students," it said, that doesn't excuse the "cultural issues
of implication" involved. The societies where yoga originated "have
experienced oppression, cultural genocide, and diasporas due to
colonialism and Western supremacy [and] we need to be mindful of this
and how we express ourselves while practicing yoga."
For votaries in the left's High Church of Perpetual Dudgeon, nothing is
safe from the outrage machine. Yoga is just the latest addition to the
list, and if you don't understand why it's insensitive, racist, and
neocolonialist for disabled students in Canada to take a weekly class in
mindful stretching — well, get thee to a reeducation camp.
Everywhere these days you can find the harpies of cultural correctness
ginning up a controversy over someone else's wrongful "appropriation."
They denounce Australian hip-hop sensation Iggy Azalea for rapping with a
"blaccent." They demand that Selena Gomez apologize for donning a
bindi. They fume when Americans embrace foods from Asian or Middle
Eastern societies while "ignoring . . . oppression faced by those
communities." They howl when white models wear their hair in cornrows.
They slam gay white men for adopting black women's gestures or
"Appropriation occurs," lectures "Hunger Games" actress Amandla
Stenberg, "when a style leads to racist generalizations or stereotypes
where it originated, but is deemed high fashion, cool, or funny when the
privileged take it for themselves." Stenberg is only 16, so her
self-righteous tone may be a function of adolescence. It's typical,
though, of cultural-sensitivity zealots who are quick to complain when
people reared in one culture take on elements of a different culture.
But the complaints are humbug. Cultural appropriators shouldn't be chastised. They should be cheered.
All culture is "appropriated." All human societies, tribes, religions,
and nationalities have been influenced by others. Ideas and tastes
aren't the exclusive property of any group, and they can no more be
confined behind rigid cultural or geographical boundaries than they can
avoid shifting over time. Obviously it is never right to gratuitously
give offense merely to be offensive. But there is nothing gratuitous
about borrowing from other people's cuisine or dress or music,
especially when it is done with appreciation and enjoyment.
All culture is 'appropriated' and all societies and nationalities are
influenced by the traditions and tastes of others. Here, Japanese
pianist Yukio Yokoyama poses for photographers in Tokyo before embarking
on a marathon performance of Chopin's piano music.
Writing in The Washington Post recently, Ruth Tam described "the shame
associated with immigrant foods" like the Cantonese dishes she grew up
eating in her parents' Chicago home. She recalled her mortification at
being told by a classmate that her house smelled of "Chinese grossness."
Today, many of those dishes have become trendy; foodies flock to
upscale eateries to try them. Yet instead of celebrating the swelling
popularity of foods she has always loved, Tam is angry. Those
fashionable diners are indulging a kind of "discount tourism," she
snaps. "American chefs . . . use other cultures' cuisines to reap
What a blinkered mindset! Human cultures aren't sealed beakers from
which no particle must be allowed to escape. We all have the right to
draw from each other's wellsprings of tradition and art, knowledge and
lifestyles. Not just because imitation can indeed be the sincerest form
of flattery, but because "cultural appropriation" is how we progress. We
learn, if we are fortunate, from the experience of others — we are
enriched by their contributions, deepened by their insights, broadened
by their disciplines.
Yoga, like all culture, belongs to everyone, and it is no thoughtcrime to say so.
I cooked a curry last night -- rather badly. Should I be condemned for "appropriating" a major symbol of India?
4 December, 2015
LOL. Another fake racism incident at a university
They found it out even before I could call it -- which I regularly do
NJ: Kean University President Dawood Farahi drew audible gasps from
faculty and students on Tuesday when he informed them that the suspect
who recently made “abhorrent” threats against black students was a black
former student and “active participant” in an on-campus rally on Nov.
“We are saddened to learn that the person allegedly responsible was an
active participant in the rally that took place on campus on Tuesday,
Nov. 17 and is a former student of Kean,” Farahi said to gasps.
Police say 24-year-old Kayla-Simone McKelvey, who is black, left the
Nov. 17 demonstration on Kean University’s campus and created an
anonymous Twitter account to post a threat against black students.
“I will shoot any black person I see at Kean University,” she allegedly
wrote in one tweet. In another she allegedly stated, “the cops
won’t save you….you’re black.”
A short time later, McKelvey returned to the rally and began to circulate details about the fake threat, according to police.
McKelvey, a former president of the Pan-African Student Union, has been
charged with third-degree creating a public false alarm, The Star-Ledger
In his address to students and faculty, Farahi said “no cause or issue
gives anyone the right to threaten the safety of others” and asserted
the “horrible tweets tried to tear us apart and tarnish our reputation,
but they have failed.”
However, some seemed undeterred to learn that the racist threats were
made by a black former student actively involved in on-campus protests.
James Conyers, director of the African Studies Department, reportedly
argued it “does not matter that it was a black person who did this —
this was all in the context of racism.” [The facts don't matter]
Court rules Bible Believers should not have been thrown out Arab American fest
At last a conclusion to this much noted case -- and a victory for
free speech. It's an important free speech case so I am giving the
full article below
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday found that Wayne
County violated the constitutional rights of a group of religious
proselytizers who were kicked out of an Arab-American cultural festival
In a rare reversal of a previous decision from three-judge appeals court
panel, an en banc review by 15 judges yielded a majority ruling that
Wayne County is civilly liable to the group of evangelical Christians
who sued after being ordered to leave the festival by sheriff's
The court found that even though the group attended the festival with
the intention of offending Muslims using "loathsome" messages of "gross
intolerance," their speech is protected by the First Amendment, and
should have been protected by the sheriff's office.
The lawsuit was originally filed in Detroit federal court by Ruben
Chavez, Arthur Fisher, and Joshua DeLosSantos, a group known as the
U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan threw out the case, and an earlier
appeals ruling upheld that decision, but the Wednesday opinion overturns
the first two, ordering the case back to the lower court for
calculation of damages.
"The only references to violence or lawlessness on the part of the Bible
Believers were messages such as, 'Islam is a Religion of Blood and
Murder,' 'Turn or Burn,' and 'Your prophet is a pedophile.' These
messages, however offensive, do not advocate for, encourage, condone, or
even embrace imminent violence or lawlessness," the majority found in
an opinion written by U.S. 6th Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay.
"Although it might be inferred that the Bible Believers' speech was
intended to anger their target audience, the record is devoid of any
indication that they intended imminent lawlessness to ensue. Quite to
the contrary, the Bible Believers contacted Wayne County prior to their
visit, requesting that the WCSO keep the public at bay so that the Bible
Believers could 'engage in their peaceful expression.'"
The group was asked to leave the Dearborn festival on June 15, 2012,
after an extended period of tense, somewhat violent interaction between
the proselytizers and a crowd of youths, some of whom threw bottles and
other objects including a milk crate at the men.
"As they had done the previous year, the Bible Believers traveled to the
Festival so that they could exercise their sincerely held religious
beliefs," Clay wrote. "Unfortunately for the Festival-goers, those
beliefs compelled (Chavez) and his followers to hurl words and display
messages offensive to a predominantly Muslim crowd, many of whom were
adolescents. These messages were written on their tee-shirts and on the
banners and signs that they carried... In addition to the signs, one of
the Bible Believers carried a severed pig's head on a spike, because, in
Israel's own words, it would 'ke[ep] [the Muslims] at bay' since
'unfortunately, they are kind of petrified of that animal.'"
The lawsuit against he Wayne County sheriff claimed deputies failed to
protect the group or stop the crowd from throwing objects.
Deputies cited one 21-year-old man who was caught throwing a bottle, and
issued three verbal warnings to three juveniles who were briefly
detained and released to their parents.
At least one youth tried to get the crowd to ignore the group, and at
least one parent scolded a teen for participating, but most of the
threatening behavior by the crowd toward the group went unchecked, the
Video footage of the incident showed deputies telling Chavez they could
not provide officers for every group that wanted to roam the festival.
And eventually, deputies told the proselytizers they would be cited for
disorderly conduct if they didn't leave the festival, which they then
"This case calls on us to confirm the boundaries of free speech
protections in relation to angry, hostile, or violent crowds that seek
to silence a speaker with whom the crowd disagrees," Clay wrote.
"Set against the constitutional right to freedom of speech, we must
balance the state's interest in insuring public safety and preventing
breaches of the peace. The scenario presented by this case, known as the
'heckler's veto,' occurs when police silence a speaker to appease the
crowd and stave off a potentially violent altercation... Bearing in mind
the interspersed surges of ethnic, racial, and religious conflict that
from time to time mar our national history, the constitutional lessons
to be learned from the circumstances of this case are both timeless and
"In this opinion we reaffirm the comprehensive boundaries of the First
Amendment's free speech protection, which envelopes all manner of
speech, even when that speech is loathsome in its intolerance, designed
to cause offense, and, as a result of such offense, arouses violent
The festival, held annually for 17 years, ceased to exist after legal trouble stemming from the incident arose.
So the aggressive Muslims who attacked the Christians ended up by closing down their own festival
3 December, 2015
Wanting to save the lives of babies is "hate"?
Projection again. They are seeing in others what is really true
of themselves. They are completely oblivious of how hate-filled
their own speech is. The words of Abortion opponents are "spew" for
instance. See below
Ilyse Hogue, president of the abortion advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice
America, derided pro-life activists David Daleiden of the Center for
Medical Progress and Troy Newman of Operation Rescue after they
condemned the Friday shootings at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood.
Hogue implied that the shooting was a consequence of their pro-life
work, saying that while they had freedom of speech, they “are not free
from the judgment of the consequences of your hate-filled rhetoric.”
“Sorry, David Daleiden. You don't get to create fake videos and accuse
abortion providers of ‘barbaric atrocities against humanity’ one day and
act shocked when someone shoots to kill in those same facilities the
next,” Hogue wrote.
David Daleiden is the founder of the Center for Medical Progress, which
released a series of undercover videos over the summer showing Planned
Parenthood’s harvesting of aborted baby parts and allegedly selling
those organs. The Center for Medical Progress issued a statement
following the shootings.
“The Center for Medical Progress condemns the barbaric killing spree in
Colorado Springs by a violent madman,” the statement reads. “We applaud
the heroic efforts of law enforcement to stop the violence quickly and
rescue the victims, and our thoughts and prayers are with the wounded,
the lost, and their families.”
Hogue went on to blast the president of Operation Rescue, writing, “And
you, Troy Newman -- using Operation Rescue to call for state-sanctioned
execution of doctors who serve women -- and then crying crocodile tears
when someone takes that vision into their own hands.”
“It's America. You are free to have your speech. The language you choose
matters. You are not free from the judgment of the consequences of your
hate-filled rhetoric,” Hogue concluded.
Newman also condemned the shootings in a statement Friday.
“Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at
abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful
channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies. We express
deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of
those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement
personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without
further injury to anyone,” Newman wrote.
Hogue was likely referencing comments in a 2000 book, “Their Blood Cries
Out,” co-authored by Newman, and which Australian MP Terri Butler
recently invoked to deny Newman’s visa for a speaking tour on character
The Guardian reports that Butler pointed out this passage of the book:
“In addition to our personal guilt in abortion, the United States
government has abrogated its responsibility to properly deal with the
blood-guilty. This responsibility rightly involves executing convicted
murderers, including abortionists, for their crimes in order to expunge
bloodguilt from the land and people.”
“Newman has never advocated violence against abortion providers or
facilities and has instead adamantly encouraged pro-life activists to
work through the legal, legislative, and justice systems to bring
abortionists who are breaking the law and harming women to justice,”
Operation Rescue replied in a September statement.
Hogue was not alone in blaming the “rhetoric” of pro-life activists
following the shooting. Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain CEO Vicki
Cowart also blamed “hateful language, hateful speech” as part of a
“negative environment” that encourages people to target Planned
Planned Parenthood also tweeted Sunday: “To all of the trolls who spew
hatred and lob attacks at us, PP family, or supporters online, you are a
part of the problem.”
Fashion label slammed for 'disgusting' violation of sacred Inuit laws after using shaman's holy design for a £600 sweatshirt
If it's not copyrighted, anyone can use it. There is no reason
why primitive superstitions should be given special protection
A British fashion label has come under furious attack from a descendant
of an Inuit holy man for selling £600 rip-offs of his sacred garment.
Awa, a shaman who practised the indigenous religion of Nunavut, Canada,
made the black-and-white parka from caribou skin in the 1920s, and
decorated it with holy symbols to protect him from drowning.
The piece of clothing, which has featured in anthropology text books and
films about the Arctic region, is supposed to be unique to the shaman
who created it, to preserve its spiritual powers.
But this year the design began to appear on designer sweatshirts by London-based Kokon to Zai.
Its 'Shaman Toweling Sweatshirt' features an exact replica of Awa's
design, but rendered as an 'oversize' cotton sweatshirt and on sale for
as much as £600.
The garment was on sale for months, but has been suddenly pulled from
shelves after Awa's great-granddaughter noticed the lifted design and
attacked the fashion house for trampling over Inuit culture.
Salome Awa, who works for CBC News in Iqaluit, Nunavut, said she was
'furious' to see the religious imagery used for profit, and that they
had ignored the Inuit dictum not to copy sacred designs.
Speaking to the broadcaster, she said: 'It's a protection parka. Only
him himself thought of it and wanted to design it, so he can save his
'These are sacred images that they are using. They are breaking the
Inuit sacred laws of duplicating someone else's shaman clothing - for
profit of all things.'
Kokon to Zai claims that it 'credited the Inuit community' in publicity
when it launched the range - but the excuse did little to placate Mrs
Awa, who insists the pattern is 'stolen'.
It featured at the London Collection Mens fashion show at the start of this year, where it was praised for being 'dystopian'.
In what designed Marjan Pejoski described as a fusion of Inuit culture
with the aesthetic of Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, skinhead
models wore the sweatshirt with bowler hats and black leather boots.
According to The Times, Mrs Awa has spoken to lawyers and intends to sue the label for breach of intellectual property.
The paper reported that she said: 'It was disgusting to see a sacred
design used as a sweater. We are a proud people and our ancestors and
traditions are very important to us.'
The label issued an apology, but did not explain how it came across the design.
2 December, 2015
Australian feminist gets a man fired for free speech
What the man said was undoubtedly an offence under Australia's hate
speech laws and it would be hurtful for most women to be so
described. But if this had happened in the USA, it is probable
that the speech would be regarded as protected by the 1st
Amendment. Though a defamation action could succeed if the
utterance were held to be a serious claim rather than mere abuse.
am not too critical of the outcome for Mr Nolan, however. He should
learn some manners and stop abusing people he disagrees with. He will
now have learnt that lesson, I assume. Users of foul language tend
to reveal themselves as unpleasant people and Mr Nolan's employers
would appear to have seen it that way.
The amusing thing,
however, is that they may have fallen foul of Australia's unfair
dismissal laws. Firing a man for a single offence without warning
is not normally allowed. If he puts in a claim Mr Nolan might end
up a few thousand dollars in front.
I don't think Ms Ford is
beyond criticism in the matter, however. I think feminists are
insane. Any claim that there are no significant inborn differences
between men and women betrays a severe lack of reality contact. And a
lack of reality contact is the defining feature of insanity.
if Ms Ford is a feminist in that sense, I claim that she is
insane. Is that as bad as calling her a slut? Rather worse, I
suspect. But it is a serious and reasoned claim by a Ph.D.
psychologist with extensive academic publications on mental health
issues so it will be amusing if Ms Ford takes issue with it. If she does
not however she would appear to have let the claim stand.
often told that fat is a feminist issue too so how is it that the
pictures of her in the newspapers show a slim person (as far as we can
tell) when her appearances on TV show a woman who is -- dare I say
it? -- FAT. That seems to me to show a certain hypocrisy
A SYDNEY man as been fired from his job as a hotel manager after calling
popular feminist writer and commentator Clementine Ford a ‘sl**’ on
Facebook. On Friday, Ms Ford shared a screenshot of her interaction with
Michael Nolan with her 80,000 Facebook followers and tagged Mr Nolan’s
employer Meriton Apartments in the post.
“I wonder if the folks over at Meriton Apartments are aware that a man
listing himself as a supervisor for their business likes to leave
comments on women’s Facebook pages calling them sl**s. I wonder if they
are also aware that he is a racist,” she wrote. Mr Nolan has posted
several racist jokes and memes on his personal Facebook page.
In a statement to Ms Ford, Meriton Apartments said they do not condone
Mr Nolan’s behaviour and he has since been let go from his job. “Michael
Nolan was removed from the Meriton site on Saturday 28th November
pending an investigation, and as of 2:30pm today 30th November 2015, he
no longer works for the Meriton Group,” the statement read.
Ms Ford hit back against those who criticised her for getting Mr Nolan
fired. 'To anyone who suggests I have caused a man to lose his
job, I’d like to say this: He is responsible for his actions. He is
responsible for the things he writes and the attitudes he holds. “It is
not my responsibility to hold his hand and coddle him when he behaves in
an abusive manner just because it might have consequences for him.
Online retailer popular with teenagers faces backlash over £12 cropped jumper emblazoned with the word 'slut'
I imagine that some defiant women, feminists maybe, might want to
wear such a garment. If so the firm is just meeting consumer
demand and should be allowed to do so. Nobody is forcing anybody
to buy it
An online retailer Missguided is facing a social media backlash after
advertising a branded crop top with the word 'Slut' emblazoned across
The website, which sells high fashion, low cost designs that are a firm
favourite with teenagers, provoked criticism on Twitter for selling the
A Twitter user called Liv, wrote: 'Girls are fighting for sexual freedom
and ending slut shaming. "Slut" should not be a fashion trend.'
Eden was also one of dozens of Twitter users offended by the jumper's
slogan. 'Yeah 'cos saying, "I'm a self proclaimed slut", is a
really good message to be sending to girls Missguided.'
Alongside a picture of the jumper Ella Cairns wrote: 'I don't understand Missguided sometimes.'
Meanwhile a Ellellecoolj posted an image of the jumper on Instagram, writing: 'Missguided doing their bit for feminism.'
1 December, 2015
Must not make fun of Pakistanis
Or women, or blacks, or homosexuals. But mocking Christians and white males is fine
It has already been cancelled - but you won't catch any reruns in
Pakistan. Jack Black and Tim Robbins' series The Brink has come under
fire in the south Asian country where it is partially set.
According to a report by NBC news, the political comedy was slammed by
native critics who said the show 'portrayed the country in a negative
and one-dimensional way'.
The series follows United States Secretary of State Walter Larson,
played by Robbins, who is forced to rely on a lowly Foreign
Service Officer assigned to the US Embassy in Islamabad, played by
Black, when tensions break out in the area.
NBC claimed both a cable TV provider and one of the country's leading
pirate DVD franchises have both been advised by 'the powers that be' not
to air or sell the show.
'We have been advised to not run this, either in regular cable or in
video on-demand services we offer,' said one staff member at the
Islamabad-based cable operator, who did not want to be identified for
fear of reprisals.
Pakistan's embassy in Washington accused the show of 'maligning' Pakistan and said that it 'reinforces stereotypes'.
'This is also an affront to the people and institutions in both
countries who have invested a lot over the decades in blood and treasure
in building this important and mutually beneficial relationship,'
embassy spokesperson Nadeem Hotiana said.
He also criticised the 'repeated insinuations that an intelligence
agency of Pakistan is complicit in protecting the terrorists at the
expense of innocent Pakistani civilians'.
After premiering on HBO in June, a second series was initially ordered before the network changed its mind and cancelled it.
Director apologises for 'whitewashed' casting in "Gods of Egypt"
Blackface is bad and white faces are bad: The great Leftist obsession with race
Australian filmmaker Alex Proyas has apologised for how he cast Gods of
Egypt, an action fantasy movie shot in Sydney that has proven
controversial for featuring predominantly white actors.
After criticism that followed the release of the poster and trailer this
month, the director of Dark City, I, Robot and Knowing issued a
statement indicating that he had erred in casting the movie set in
ancient mythical Egypt.
"The process of casting a movie has many complicated variables but it is
clear that our casting choices should have been more diverse," Proyas
said. "I sincerely apologise to those who are offended by the decisions
The $US140 million movie centres on a young thief, played by former Home
and Away star Brenton Thwaites, who enlists the help of the gods to
bring his beloved (Australian actress and model Courtney Eaton from Mad
Max: Fury Road) back from the dead.
Scotland's Gerard Butler, Australia's Geoffrey Rush and Denmark's
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau play the Egyptian gods Set, Ra and Horus
The cast also includes fellow Australians Abby Lee, Bryan Brown and Emma
Booth, England's Rufus Sewell, American Chadwick Boseman and France's
The studio releasing the film, Lionsgate, also issued an apology,
saying: "We recognise that it is our responsibility to help ensure that
casting decisions reflect the diversity and culture of the time periods
portrayed. In this instance we failed to live up to our own standards of
sensitivity and diversity, for which we sincerely apologise.
It's just a movie, after all -- with no claim to being a history lesson
This is Tongue-Tied 2
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press"
Posts by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
HOME (Index page)
Alternative (monthly) archives for this blog are here
Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general
rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at
2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or
nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea
offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The
First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and
religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar
Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that
speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change
is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is
directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
to incite or produce such action."
The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying
that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian
says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"
One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson
"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many
Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically
repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters
that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to
talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn
A prophetic comment on Norwegian hate speech laws: As Justice Brandeis
once noted, repressive censorship “breeds hate” and “that hate menaces
stable government,” rather than promoting safety; “the path of safety
lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and
Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's
thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said
himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree
with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
I am of a similar mind.
The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will
break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today
are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.
The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it
A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and
"homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally
ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse
masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is
engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective
Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless
they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda
aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about
race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The
most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement
is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race.
Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl
that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of
them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by
itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less
intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he
could simply be mistaken or misinformed.
Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left
define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor
wrong. It is simply human
Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply
mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise
from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that
mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?
If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are
racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We
have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any
other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but
this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think
your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while
ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If
this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be
separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862
Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as
racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as
the "Full spectrum of light" House?
The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is
right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies
there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.
While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save
it." -- Judge Learned Hand
Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out
Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to
Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them
is the only freedom they believe in)
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.
It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher
Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that
foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment
that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your
own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not
to let your impressions carry you away."
"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so
necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error
to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less
danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all
manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet
John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response
Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you
said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize
something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech
"Negro" is a forbidden word -- unless a Democrat uses it
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper
Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts
Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such
thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles
that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt
When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing
the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal
Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.
naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not
find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have
been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in
life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding
oneself in the ranks of the insane."
I despair of the ADL. Jews have
enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish
organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians.
Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry --
which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish
cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately,
Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish
dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.
Email me here (Hotmail address).
DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:
"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
To be continued ....
Coral reef compendium.
Australian Police News
My alternative Wikipedia
BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED
"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Bank of Queensland blues
There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)
Mirror for this blog
Mirror for "Dissecting Leftism"
Longer Academic Papers
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup 2
My alternative Wikipedia
MONOGRAPH ON LEFTISM
CONSERVATISM AS HERESY
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism
Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)
Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the
article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename