Tuesday, March 28, 2017



‘Political correctness’ in modern America

The phrase “politically correct” is about as combustible as any. Bring up those words and you know you’re treading into ideological war territory.

So, gulp. Here I go.

For many, I think the term “politically correct” represents a type of stifling of honesty. People feel hemmed in by a societal pressure to conform to a belief system that they don’t accept — an “elitist” message, which restricts language and actions. I feel that’s why there’s such a fierce rejection of “political correctness.” It’s received as a type of pat of the head, a sort of “let me tell you how to think, cause you’re an idiot and not intellectually or morally on my level.”

Does anyone ever respond well to that sort of feeling? I’ve always felt bitter when I’ve thought someone is looking down on me. I think our partisan politics have been reduced to this disrespect battle. One side is bitter at the perception of intense disrespect. The other side feels exactly the same thing. And because we all feel so angry and disrespected, we’re ready to lash out with a hostile dismissal of strangers’ humanity, which is a circular problem, a tornado gathering velocity.

I think Donald Trump has so much power because he is the big societal voice of a common individual rage against a perceived collective pat on the head. He is absolutely a finger in the eye of that idea of liberal condescension. Because of this, his questionable behavior and statements seem to pale in comparison — for many, at least — to his aggressive fight against liberal condescension, which he rails against without apology. I think that’s why he gets a pass on things that would surely doom other politicians and why there is such huge passion at his back. Let me add, I don’t claim to know what you think. This is just my perception of bigger political trends. And I may be wrong.

Of course, when we talk of “political correctness,” we inevitably turn to college campuses. And I think colleges have erred in a really big way — acting out of fear, not bravery when it come to ideas. What I mean is, I don’t think colleges should have “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings” regarding ideas. A college should be a place where ideas aren’t muzzled but are expressed with passion, whether they’re left or right, nice or mean. Then, such speech should be opposed with whatever passion and eloquence another speaker can muster. College is not a place to restrict thought but to realize that the world is big and that your own worldview is contradicted, no matter how right you think you are. And how are you going to deal with that? Well, that inner conflict is actually critical to education and critical thinking. Hateful speech calls for forceful rejection, but it doesn’t call for a muzzle. It calls for more speech, delivered, hopefully, without mirrored hate.

But I also think “political correctness” is used in lazy ways these days. Any action, any language that angers someone can be dismissed as “politically correct.” But I think actual “political correctness” can apply to left and right. I see it simply as the pressure of a societal norm on an individual, which can be good or bad, depending on the pressure. For instance, it’s good for someone to feel pressure not to call someone the “N” word in public, right? That form of political correctness was once not there. But, for the good of civilized society, it needs to be. However, shutting down conservative dissent on a college campus would be an example of such political correctness gone too far. So, there’s a sort of balance worth seeking.

We should recognize that there is always societal pressure on you to be a certain way depending on where you are. And what is that pressure anyway? Well, it’s the battle over common decency. We feel there’s a type of common sense that we understand and that others should see too. And we’re horribly frustrated — furious, actually — when they can’t see things the way we do. If they can’t agree with my decency, well, then they’re indecent, right? Who hasn’t felt this? And sometimes, maybe we’re right. But it’s worth being skeptical of our own passionate judgment about strangers, because people are usually more complicated than we understand.

Many people don’t seem to have any hesitation to judge strangers with extreme passion based on very little information. I don’t find this admirable in a Democrat or a Republican or in myself — which I certainly do at times. Who doesn’t? But I can at least recognize that what is admirable is the effort to learn more about others and to resist simple judgments in my head.

SOURCE






London attack: Why no amount of political correctness will save the world from Islamist terrorism

The attack near the British Parliament, we have been told, was carried out by a Birmingham-based Briton called Khalid Masood whose birth name was Adrian Elms before he converted to Islam. The 52-year-old was a history-sheeter who had previously dallied with terrorists, without throwing his hat into the ring, and was briefly a subject of interest for British spy agency MI5.

Reuters quoted London police as saying that Masood "had a range of previous convictions for assaults, including GBH (grievous bodily harm), possession of offensive weapons and public order offences" but there was "no prior intelligence about his intent to mount a terrorist attack."

Till this Wednesday.

The Islamic State connection

A petty criminal without any known linkages with religious fundamentalism, Masood fits right into the profile of individuals targeted or recruited by Islamic State which has since claimed responsibility for the attack. The New York Times correspondent Rukmini Callimachi, who covers Islamic State/Al-Qaeda operations and has done extensive research in areas of global terrorism, recently wrote in an article how a "secretive branch" of Islamic State built a global terrorist empire by tapping into the local criminal network. Harry Safro, an Islamic State defector from Germany, told her that "new converts to Islam" with no established ties to radical groups are extensively targeted either online or through sleeper cells.

The bond between Islamic State and so-called 'lone wolf' attackers (who may have never travelled abroad and have either been self-radicalized or via an operative) is a trade-off. Islamic State finds it easier to transfer petty criminal "skills" to jihadism and for the crook, the act of terror offers a path to glory and perhaps even redemption.

A study on the link between petty crime and jihadism by authors Rajan Basra, Peter R. Neumann and Claudia Brunner (referred to by Callimachi in a tweet) finds evidence for this 'redemption narrative'. According to the study, "jihadism offered redemption for crime while satisfying the same personal needs and desires that led them to become involved in it, making the ‘jump’ from criminality to terrorism smaller than is commonly perceived."

At this stage it is not very clear whether Masood had been in any contact with an operative or had pledged allegiance to Islamic State but the telltale signs indicate that he perhaps got self-radicalised, becoming what the media describes him — 'the lone wolf'.

'Lone wolf', a semantic jugglery and study in self-delusion

There is already a mountain of literature, reports, studies and articles on why the term 'lone wolf' is misleading when it comes to Islamist terrorism. In an article for The Guardian Jason Burke has written why "talk of lone wolves misunderstands how Islamic militancy works"; research analyst Bridget Moreng has written in Foreign Affairsjournal on how Islamic State inspires, recruits and trains 'lone wolves' and Callimachi has cited the example of an aborted terrorist attack in Hyderabad to explain this in her article: 'How ISIS Guides World’s Terror Plots From Afar'.

Media has already started calling the London terrorist incident a 'lone-wolf' attack even though London Metropolitan Police have acknowledged its links with "Islamist terrorism" and have since arrested several people after raids in Birmingham and in other parts of Britain.

The term 'lone wolf' is a semantic jugglery and a study in self-delusion. It is an attempt to disconnect any instance of terrorism from larger ideological moorings and transfer the onus of the moral failing from society to the individual, as if he was "acting on his own".

Jason Burke, writing for The Guardian, says that this "implies that the responsibility for an individual’s violent extremism lies solely with the individual themselves or with some other individual or group, all of which could be eliminated. The truth is that terrorism is not something you do by yourself. Like any activism, it is highly social, only its consequences are exceptional… People become interested in ideas, ideologies and activities, even immoral ones, because other people are interested in them."

Reuters, quoting a US government source, has already informed us that though some of Masood's associates were suspected to have keen interest in travelling and joining jihadi groups overseas, he "himself never did so." But the signs are interesting.

The Kent-born Briton became a religious convert and according to Sky News, he was a "very religious, well-spoken man. You couldn't go to his home in Birmingham on Friday because he would be at prayer."

It's Birmingham again

This brings us to the curious case of the West Midlands city of Birmingham and its close links with Islamist terrorism. According to NBC News, cops have arrested two women in their twenties and four men in their mid to late twenties from separate addresses in Birmingham. Another person, a 58-year-old man, was arrested on Thursday morning at another address in Birmingham, according to the report.

This would then point us to the inference that Birmingham had some sort of influence on Masood in his transformation from a petty criminal to a jihadist. The city has a troubled connection with Islamist terrorism and Reuters tells us, quoting a study by Henry Jackson Society (a British think-tank), that 39 of 269 people convicted in Britain of offences related to terrorism between 1998 and 2015 came from the city. British newspaper The Independent further parses the figures, pointing out that one in 10 of all those linked to Islamist terrorism in Britain and abroad came from just five council wards in the city — Springfield, Sparkbrook, Hodge Hill, Washwood Heath and Bordesley Green. A fifth of Birmingham's population are Muslims (2,34,000) and Masood's vehicle was rented from the Birmingham branch of a car rental firm.

In an article titled: 'Why has Birmingham become such a breeding ground for British-born terror?', The Independent's Kim Sengupta writes that most of the terrorists (linked to 7/7 London bombings, 9/11 attacks) "have family links to Kashmir. Many young men went to Pakistan to train to fight against Indian forces in Kashmir… Some joined Al-Qaeda and Islamic State. Indoctrination took place in mosques which had been taken over by radical clerics and, it is claimed, a number of schools. Birmingham is in the centre of the so-called 'Trojan Horse' plot in which, it is alleged, an organised group of Islamists seek to infiltrate and take over state education establishments."

Why "inclusiveness" alone can't prevent terrorism

This clearly points to a huge problem of assimilation of culture and belies liberalism's core argument that multiculturism is the only antidote for Islamist terrorism. London's top counter-terrorist officer Mark Rowley recently said that if 13 plots of terrorism have been busted in the UK since 2013, when Lee Rigby was murdered,   then it stands to reason that despite its all-pervasive political correctness and fierce inclusiveness, there exists deeply dissenting areas of defiance against England's multicultural ethos.

From London Mayor Sadiq Khan, France President Francois Hollande to former US president Barack Obama, political leaders have harped on the grievance narrative of Islam whenever there have been Islamist terrorist attacks. Wide range of excuses — from poverty to victim-hood to alienation — have been offered to contextualise terrorism and the world at large has been constantly reminded that the moral failing of a terrorist attack lies with the people who have been victimised, not the poisonous ideology that lies behind it.

A little scratching of the surface exposes the truth. In an erudite article, Praveen Swami ofThe Indian Express explores the reasons behind Britain's brushes with Islamist terrorism and finds that the "idea that the English terrorist is a product of the well-documented economic and educational backwardness of its Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities isn’t true in all cases." He gives examples of a student from King's College, or members of Britain's affluent middle class or even the wealthy among 800 of its nationals who are actively engaged in terror or another 600 who have been reportedly prevented from doing so.

Swami argues that the problem lies with Britain's identity politics: when Britain "outsourced its engagement with ethnic minorities to a new contractor-class" and in time, this strategy backfired as it created pockets of profound resentment against the "secular-democratic order."

Swami writes: "Instead of a rich cultural landscape, official multiculturalism created a homogenised Muslim identity. Thus, Choudhry defended her attempt to kill Timms by pointing to his support of the Iraq war — a land she had never visited. 'We must stand up for each other,' she said. 'We must fight them,' said Adebolajo — 'I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same'. "

The solution

This then, right here, is the biggest problem with the argument that 'political correctness and more stress on multicultural inclusiveness will be enough to tackle terrorism'. France tried and failed. Britain, too, seems to be failing. The failure lies in the fact that we are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of throwing money or trying to figure newer and newer methods of contextualising and justifying terror and floating a multiplicity of grievance narratives, the world must encourage Muslims to have an honest self-engagement on terrorism.

Hussain Haqqani, member of US-based think tank Hudson Institute and a former Pakistan envoy to US, puts his finger on the pulse in his column for The Telegraph, UK.

"The violence over 'Islam’s honour' is a function of the collective Muslim narrative of grievance. Decline, weakness, impotence, and helplessness are phrases most frequently repeated in the speeches and writings of today’s Muslim leaders. The view is shared by Islamists – who consider Islam a political ideology – and other Muslims who don’t. The terrorists are just the most extreme element among the Islamists."

Let the liberal media and politicians urge Muslims to tackle the problem on their own while, as senior journalist R Jagannathan says, empower the reformist voices from within the community, only then may we rid the world of this scourge.

SOURCE






Stand up for our right to criticise Islam

Since the Enlightenment we’ve been free to poke fun at religion and a blasphemy offence has no place in a modern society

‘It is wrong to describe this as Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist terrorism. It is a perversion of a great faith.” This is what the prime minister said last week in parliament. While I completely accept that the sins of extremists should never be visited on the vast majority of moderate believers, I am increasingly uneasy about how we handle the connection between religion and extremism. The ideology to which Khalid Masood was converted in prison may indeed be a perversion of Islam, but it is a version of it. We should not shy away from saying so.

After Nice, Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation wrote that saying such terrorism has nothing to do with Islam (as some do) is as dangerous as stating that it has everything to do with Islam. The terrorists in London, Paris, Brussels, Nice, Munich, Berlin, Würzburg, Ansbach, Orlando, San Bernardino, Sydney, Bali, New York, Bombay and many other places have been white, black and brown, rich, poor and middle class, male and female, gay and straight, immigrant and native, young and (now) older. The one thing they have in common is that they had been radicalised by religious preachers claiming to interpret the Koran.

Moreover, while a few sick individuals find within Islam justification for murder and terror, a far larger number find justification for misogyny and intolerance. We must be allowed to say this without being thought to criticise Muslims as people.

Islamist terrorism has become more frequent, but criticism of the faith of Islam, and of religion in general, seems to be becoming less acceptable, as if it were equivalent to racism or blasphemy. The charge of Islamophobia is too quickly levelled. Friday’s press release from Malia Bouattia, president of the National Union of Students, is a case in point. It failed to mention by name the murdered policeman Keith Palmer, and highlighted how Muslims “will be especially fearful of racism”. Race and religion are very different things.

I admire many religious people. I am prepared to accept that being religious can make some individuals better people, though, as a humanist, I also think it is possible and actually preferable to be moral without having faith. I am even open to the possibility that the best defence against extremism is a gentler version of religion rather than none at all — though I need to be convinced. But I think that, rather than there being good religion and bad religion, there is a spectrum of religious belief from virtuous, individualist morality at one end to collectivist, politicised violent terror at the other.

At one end are people who are inspired by faith to think only of how to help those in need. At the other are people who kill policemen and tourists, throw homosexuals off buildings, punish apostasy with death, carry out female genital mutilation and throw acid in the face of women who have stood up against the male code (there were 431 acid attacks in Britain last year).

In between, though, are positions that also contain dangers, albeit more subtle ones. There are people who would not commit violence themselves, but think women should be the chattels of men, wearing of veils is mandatory and that Sharia should reign. Then there are people (and here I include those in other Abrahamic faiths) who think homosexuality is sinful, contraception is wrong, evolution could not have happened and slaughtering animals by cutting their throats is more moral than stunning them. I do not condemn such beliefs as evil, but nor do I respect them.

On LBC radio last week the journalist James O’Brien said of those, like Masood, who have made the journey from faith to extremism: “Don’t we have to start mocking the early stages of that journey? People who believe that chopping off a child’s foreskin is going to make it easier for them to get into heaven. People who believe that eating fish on Fridays is somehow going to please their god.”

In 1979, some Christians took offence at Monty Python’s Life of Brian, a witty if mordant satire on the phenomenon of cults (and Romans). The Christians were angry but the Pythons did not go into hiding.Two years ago, in the wake of the murder of his fellow satirists at Charlie Hebdo, the late Australian cartoonist Bill Leak went further than simply saying “Je suis Charlie” and drew cartoons of the Prophet. As a result he was forced to sell his house and move to a secret location. That does not feel like progress to me.

In 2004, after the media was filled with discussion of how the Boxing Day tsunami was an “act of God”, I said to a friend, in all seriousness: the tsunami was not an act of God, but 9/11 was. I was consciously echoing Voltaire’s mockery of the argument that the destruction of Lisbon in an earthquake must be a punishment for the sins of its inhabitants. Would I dare say the same today about the events of last week, or would I pause now to consider how it would get me into trouble?

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali wrote at the weekend of the “creeping Islamisation of communities” and called for an Islamic reformation to respect freedom of religion, abjure legal punishment for blasphemy or apostasy and agree that women should be free and equal in law. Yet, despite two decades of partly religion-inspired violence, those who call for an Islamic reformation, such as Mr Nawaz, or the ex-Muslim campaigners Sarah Haider, Taslima Nasreen and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are increasingly vilified by many on the left.

Three days before the Westminster attack, the BBC’s Asian Network quite rightly apologised for asking “what is the right punishment for blasphemy?” shortly after an outspoken atheist had been hacked to death in Coimbatore, India, for expressing his views. There have been 48 murders of atheists in Bangladesh in recent years. Yet it is now more acceptable to attack “militant atheists” than militant theists. Blasphemy is back.

We can and must make an offer to the fundamentalist Muslims: abandon your political ambitions and become a religion as this has come to be understood elsewhere in an increasingly diverse and tolerant world — a private moral code, a way of life, a philosophy — and you will find the rest of us to be friends. But threaten the hard-won political, intellectual and physical freedoms now accorded to every man and woman, yes even and especially women, in our essentially secular society and you will be resisted and, pray god, defeated.

SOURCE





Political correctness has become the new truth

Rex Jory

THE Australia I love is disappearing. It’s been hijacked by faceless people who worship at the altar of political correctness and personal offence.

These messengers of the new morality paint themselves as victims. They believe they are entitled to compensation or apology if they are offended. They seek reward or retribution for the slightest inconvenience.

These self-proclaimed victims use social media with such devastating effect they have wrested control of the nation’s political, social and moral agenda. They tear down people who dare express a contrary view. They humiliate and intimidate anyone who challenges their beliefs. Megaphone politics.

They know best. Their view of Australia in 2017 must prevail. My way or the highway. Never mind that it is not the view of the majority of people.

These purveyors of the new morality are reminiscent of the racially-based Ku Klux Klan in the US. They plant a burning cross in the front yard of someone they accuse of breaching their often warped moral code while dressed anonymously in white robes and pointed hats.

They have crushed free speech and free expression by destroying community debate. People are now too frightened to say what they believe.

Political correctness twists and manipulates truth. It has become the new truth, the selective truth. Yet truth is no longer a defence. Just because someone expresses an opinion based on fact, they are not immune from being attacked and discredited on social media.

If someone dares criticise or even raise political, religious or racial issues which are contrary to the beliefs of the anonymous purists, the reaction and retribution can be swift and brutal. Often it resembles hate-speak.

Look at poor old Coopers, the beer makers. They were lampooned for being associated with a private discussion between two Liberal members of Parliament about same-sex marriage. The attack on social media was vicious. Then IBM copped it because one executive is in a Christian group.

Now they’ve turned on proposed changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which currently threatens freedom of speech.

The Kokoda Track in Papua-New Guinea has become a target, with words like mateship being quietly erased from the lexicon. Mateship has been replaced by friendship. Never mind the Diggers and their families — let alone the wider community — who are offended.

In the new social agenda, mateship has become hateship. It has transferred power from the individual and a structured system of authority to a faceless, intangible force fuelled by moral indignation.

We are no longer allowed to be involved in civilised debate or think for ourselves. If the trend continues, then as a nation we are no longer civilised.

The Australian character has been stripped and reconstructed in the image of political correctness. The Australian larrikin has become an endangered species. Whatever happened to Australia’s “have a go” spirit? What happened to our irreverent sense of humour? What happened to common sense and the brave “she’ll be right” credo which helped build this country?

The Australian community has fragmented. We are no longer a single, coherent society. People are judged on what they are, what they believe and not what they have achieved or contributed.

For too many people, the first reaction is to lay blame and seek compensation through intimidation or litigation. Whatever cloak they wear — race, colour, gender, occupation, age, religion, physical appearance — they claim the moral high ground.

I don’t begrudge people holding strong beliefs. That’s their right in a democracy. I agree with some of them. But I resent being bullied into accepting those views under duress — or remaining silent.

Those promoting victimhood and personal offence as the path forward have used social media to promote their agenda by fear and suppression.

It’s time those who have taken the alternative path of meek silence spoke out and exposed the politics of victimhood as a false god.

If not the face and character of Australia, the Australia I love, will be lost. At the moment the people with the loudest megaphone are winning.

SOURCE

*************************

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

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

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

***************************

Monday, March 27, 2017






Justice and "Social Justice" Are Two Very Different Things

It wouldn't need the adjective "social" if it were justice

Recently, Harvard political theorist Danielle Allen wrote in the Washington Post of “The most important phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance” — “with liberty and justice for all.”

Allen recognized that justice required “equality before the law” and that freedom exists “only when it is for everyone.” But she confused democracy — defined as progressives “build[ing] a distributed majority across the country, as is needed for electoral college victory” — with liberty, which is very different.

Similarly, she replaced the traditional meaning of justice (“giving each his own,” according to Cicero) with a version of “social justice” inconsistent with it. And her two primary examples of rights — “rights” to education and health care — were inconsistent with both liberty for all and justice for all.

Americans cannot have both liberty and this type of social justice — under whose aegis one can assert rights to be provided education and health care, not to mention food, housing, etc. Positive rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must violate others’ liberty, because a government must take citizens’ resources without their consent to fund them. Providing such government benefits for some forcibly violates others’ rights to themselves and their property.

The only justice that can be “for all” involves defending negative rights — prohibitions laid out against others, especially the government, to prevent unwanted intrusions — not rights to be given things. Further, only such justice can be reconciled with liberty “for all.” That is why negative rights are what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, were intended to protect. But those foundational freedoms continue to be eroded by the ongoing search to invent ever-more positive rights.

Echoing John Locke, The Declaration of Independence asserts that all have unalienable rights, including liberty, and that government’s central purpose is to defend those negative rights. Each citizen can enjoy them without infringing on anyone else’s rights, because they impose on others only the obligation not to invade or interfere. But when the government creates new positive rights — which require extracting resources from others — these new “rights” violate others’ true unalienable rights. In other words, people recognize these positive rights as theft except when the government does it.

Almost all of Americans’ rights laid out in the Constitution are protections against government abuse. The preamble makes that clear, as does the enumeration of the limited powers granted to the federal government. That is reinforced by explicit descriptions of some powers not given, particularly in the Bill of Rights, whose negative rights Justice Hugo Black called the “Thou Shalt Nots.” Even the Bill of Rights’ central positive right — to a jury trial — is largely to defend innocent citizens’ negative rights against being railroaded by government. And the 9th and 10th Amendments leave no doubt that all rights not expressly delegated to the federal government (including health care and education) are retained by the states or the people.

Liberty means I rule myself, protected by my negative rights, and voluntary agreements are the means of resolving conflict. In contrast, assigning positive rights to others means someone else rules over the choices and resources taken from me. But since no one has the right to rob me, they cannot delegate such a right to the government to force me to provide resources it wishes to give to others, even if by majority vote. For our government to remain within its delegated authority, reflecting the consent of the governed expressed in “the highest law of the land,” it can only enforce negative rights.

Our country was founded on unalienable rights, not rights granted by Washington. That means government has no legitimate power to take them away. However, as people have discovered ever-more things they want others to pay for, and manipulated the language of rights to create popular support, our government has increasingly turned to violating the rights it was instituted to defend. And there is no way to square such coercive “social justice” with “liberty and justice for all.”

SOURCE






Tim Allen's "it's like 30s Germany" remarks caused a predictable backlash

As “50 Shades of Grey” proved, Hollywood considers nothing to be sin. Wait, there is one thing. In a scenario that smacks of a bad re-run, Tinseltown has again taken aim at one of its own for the unthinkable offense of not being liberal.

Tim Allen, the comedic star of “Last Man Standing” and “Home Improvement,” has gotten a lot of flak for telling Jimmy Kimmel what it’s like to be conservative in Hollywood. “You’ve got to be real careful around here,” Allen said. “You get beat up if [you] don’t believe what everybody believes. This is like ‘30s Germany. I don’t know what happened. If you’re not part of the group — [They say,] 'You know, what we believe is right’ — I go, ‘Well, I might have a problem with that.’”

Twitter went, well, atwitter over the remarks, with some criticizing Allen for the Nazi comparison and others simply blasting him for supposing he’s oppressed despite his millions of dollars.

First of all, Allen’s a comedian and he was making a joke, which Kimmel and his audience thought was funny.

That said, comparing anything that does not involve the mass, systematic extermination of an entire population to Hitler or Nazi Germany isn’t usually a good idea. Of course, that hasn’t stopped the Left from comparing Trump (and every other Republican or conservative) to Hitler early and often. Cher, Ashley Judd, Sarah Silverman and Spike Lee are just a handful of the many Hollywood leftists to compare Trump to Hitler in recent months. And they weren’t joking.

The definition of “Nazi” is not “that person or idea I don’t like.”

More to the point, Allen’s observation regarding Hollywood’s disdain for conservatives is grounded in fact. For an industry that crosses every boundary in its films and praises itself as the god of tolerance, it’s pretty intolerant of anyone who disagrees with the leftist mindset.

Take, for example, the case of actor Antonio Sabato Jr., who has appeared on shows including “Dancing with the Stars,” “The Bold and the Beautiful, ” and “Charmed.” Last year, he shared the rejection he’s faced for his non-liberal political views: “For the last seven-and-a-half years, I’ve seen this country led by a leader that’s made mistakes. I spoke my mind about it. But because I’m in the industry, you can’t talk about that. The media and the liberals act the way they act: They will back up the president until the end. It’s been interesting. I’ve had fantastic directors who have said officially to my agents and managers they will never hire me again. They will never even see me for projects. That’s unfair. It’s just like Communism.”

Stacy Dash, who starred in “Clueless” and “Renaissance Man,” had a similar story: “My acting opportunities have ceased because of my political beliefs. I’m being persecuted in Hollywood. I’ve been blacklisted. My agents have dropped me. I haven’t auditioned in over a year because of my beliefs and what I stand for.”

And Musician Joy Villa has been the subject of numerous attacks for daring to wear a “Make America Great Again” dress to the 2017 Grammy’s.

Even non-Republicans recognize being labeled an “R” has consequences — so much that they’ve seen the need to deny rumors to that effect. As Newsmax reported several year ago, after rumors swirled, “Desperate Housewives” star Terri Hatcher’s attorney told the media, “Please be advised that Ms. Hatcher is not a Republican.” Actress Mandy Moore’s publicist issued an even stronger denial: “Mandy is not, nor has she ever been, a Republican.”

Of course, Hollywood blacklisting is legendary. In the era of McCarthyism, dozens of actors, screenwriters, producers and directors were summoned before the House Un-American Activities Committee. On suspicion of communist sympathies, some lost their careers.

Hollywood today may be more appalled that the mid-20th-century blacklist targeted communists than that it existed at all. After all, finding a communist in Hollywood today is surely easier than finding a Republican. (And heaven forbid Hollywood formally renounce communism — or any other ‘ism’ other than capitalism. After all, they’re tolerant, remember?)

Yet, for all its talk of broad-minded acceptance, Hollywood has hung a scarlet letter around the necks of those who dare voice conservative opinions. It’s little wonder many Hollywood conservatives have gone underground with their political beliefs, congregating with other like-minded industry professionals through the Friends of Abe, a low-profile group where right-of-center Hollywood professionals can speak freely without fear of retaliation.

After all, in Hollywood, as in so many other elitist-populated arenas such as academia and journalism, diversity of thought is a beautiful thing — provided it all looks exactly the same.

SOURCE





The day I was accused of being racist, I saw how sick  political correctness had become



TREVOR PHILLIPS

A few weeks ago, I observed that Barack Obama’s iconic status as the first African-American U.S. President should not obscure his mixed political record.  For that, I was accused by one Radio 4 commentator of peddling a ‘racist narrative’.

As a black man and former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, you might think I would be surprised to face a charge of racism — but I was not.

For at a time when this country is crying out for frank discussion on issues such as race and sexuality, debate is being closed down because those who find offence in every-thing cry ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’.

The result — as I argue tonight in a TV programme — is that our political and cultural elite seem unable to speak plainly about things that concern many citizens.

While our rulers seem to have all the time in the world to debate who should use which lavatory (in deference to the transgender lobby), they dismiss anxieties about overcrowded schools or doctors’ surgeries as merely a bigoted dislike of migrants.

How has this come about?

Forty years ago, ‘identity’ politics was about trying to end discrimination. It led to revolutionary legislation on gender, disability and race.  But recently the recognition of diversity has grown into a cancerous cultural tyranny that blocks open debate.

In higher education, it has spread like wildfire.  Efforts to keep real racists off university platforms have been perverted so bans are imposed on, for example, speakers with unfashionable views on transsexuals.

Harmless academics are falling prey, too. Sensible people are appalled at the way Nobel Laureate Sir Tim Hunt was hounded out of his post at University College London for a weak joke about women crying in laboratories.

Hardly a day goes by on campuses without a demand for a statue to be removed or for ‘safe spaces’ where sensitive students can be sheltered from robust views in a cultural debate or sexual violence in a classic literary text.

But how is a young person to understand how precious are the freedoms we enjoy today without learning what the world was like before them?  Should I not tell my children about the agony and struggle for liberation of their own ancestors, who were once slaves on sugar plantations?

Unfortunately, this thin-skinned refusal to engage with the challenging realities of life is not restricted to academia.

There is no hiding place from the language police, even if you belong to a ‘vulnerable’ group.

Ten years ago, I suggested Notting Hill Carnival had become an international event and outgrown its roots in the West Indian community — hardly a deeply provocative observation.

In response, the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, opined I had become so Right-wing I really belonged in the British National Party.

Sometimes the pressures to conform are subtle and insidious but no less powerful.In 2009, several Labour MPs, including some ministers, mounted a private campaign to get Prime Minister Gordon Brown to dismiss me from the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). 

My principal sin, I think, had been to support the appointment of a leading black evangelical Christian. I thought the thousands of black and Asian Christians who are reviving our churches should be represented.

But it happens that many of these evangelicals take a dim view of homosexuality. I don’t agree with them, but I felt the EHRC had to respect and reflect all points of view.

Some government ministers saw things differently. They also wanted to see a black commissioner appointed — but only one whose views echoed their own in every way.  Without the intervention of Harriet Harman, Brown would probably have sacked me.

Yet by striving to appease special interests, even well-intentioned ‘equality warriors’ lay themselves open to the charge that they value diversity only as long as it serves their political purpose.

Take the recent decision by John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons, to try to ban President Trump from speaking in the Palace of Westminster because of his supposed Islamophobia.

There is no systematic persecution of American Muslims by their own government, yet in other countries Muslims fear for their lives.

Uyghur Muslims in China are forbidden from practising their religion if they are civil servants.

In Myanmar, thousands of Muslims have fled abroad to escape rape and murder at the hands of the country’s Buddhist majority.

And India’s Supreme Court ordered an investigation into prime minister Narendhra Modi’s complicity in the 2002 Gujarat riots in which more than 700 Muslims died.

Yet China’s president Xi Jinping, Myanmar’s leader Aung San Suu Kyi and India’s Modi have all been afforded the honour of speaking to both Houses of Parliament.

The new tyranny is also threatening the study of what really makes the world tick, even if that research might help to reduce inequality.

For example, we still have no proper explanation for the stunning academic success of pupils of Chinese heritage across the Western world.

My attempts to promote such research were resisted by academics, who claimed it would belittle other ethnic groups.

The real losers in this refusal to tackle race and gender issues honestly are, ironically, women and ethnic minorities.

A business leaders’ think-tank, the Centre for Talent Innovation, found that many female and minority executives in the U.S. complained their bosses were too afraid of being accused of racism or sexism to talk to them honestly about their performance. They only found out they had been failing professionally when they were fired.

Hypersensitivity about offending minorities has also stopped us having a grown-up debate about migration.

Last week, Tony Blair, in his speech on Brexit, said ‘immigration is the issue’. Whatever you think of him, most polls show he was right about that.

Yet since last June, most politicians have tried to pretend the Brexit vote had little to do with the cultural impact of immigration.

The Right fear sounding like racists; the Left won’t discuss it because their celebration of multiculturalism as a blessing makes them seem metropolitan elitists.

And when conventional politicians try to tackle the issue, they make a hash of it.

The hapless Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, recently called on Dutch Muslims to ‘be normal or be gone’. And he leads something that describes itself as the Liberal Party!

One Left-wing newspaper has denounced my TV film on political correctness as ‘unhelpful’. Unhelpful to whom, I wonder?

SOURCE





British rape reforms are wrong and unjust

The UK justice secretary Liz Truss has announced plans to allow rape complainants to give evidence via pre-recorded video. Rape complainants are already able to give portions of their evidence via video. Since 2009, they have been able to give their ‘evidence in chief’ – which is where they give their side of the story – on a video that is recorded almost immediately after they make their initial complaint. Truss’s plan is to allow pre-recording of their cross-examination, too. This is the part of the case in which their account is challenged, and the defendant’s version of events is put to them.

Of course, giving evidence about a crime you have been a victim of is deeply distressing. But Truss’s plans are terrible, for a number of reasons. First, they increase the inequality between the defendant and his accuser. Going to court as a defendant can also be extremely distressing, especially if you have been falsely accused. The fact that complainants will be afforded rights that are not afforded to defendants means their experience is uneven; it damages the ideal of legal equality.

In 2009, the Coroners and Justice Act introduced the giving of evidence in chief via video. The 1999 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act created ‘special measures’ for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses,  including a right to give evidence from behind a screen. So our justice system already treats the evidence of complainants as more worthy of protection and security than the evidence of defendants. This is a dangerous trajectory, heightening the possibility of miscarriages of justice. Truss’s plan will make things even worse.

There are practical problems here, too. The cross-examination process is when the defence’s case is put to the complainant. If the complainant says something new when she/he is giving evidence, then the defendant must be able to challenge this new evidence and put his own case. But if the cross-examination is pre-recorded, then the ability of the defendant to respond to evidence will be severely limited. The defence case will be incapable of adapting or changing in light of what is said by the complainant.

Truss’s proposals will make things worse for rape victims, too. Pre-recording all of a complainant’s evidence means the jury will never see the complainant in person. They will see the defendant only. I imagine these proposals will be unpopular with prosecutors, who appreciate that having a witness in front of the jury, live, helps to make their case more believable. Judges will no doubt have to direct juries not to disbelieve a complainant merely because they have not seen her in person. But juries might well be reluctant to convict someone when they have not heard from the complainant directly, in the court. We should not be surprised if the conviction rate for rape actually goes down if Truss’s plan comes to fruition.

Sadly, prosecuting rape has become a deeply politicised issue. Liz Truss is the latest in a long line of politicians who see rape reform as a way of generating favourable headlines, with little thought to the impact they might have on the justice system. These proposals further erode the principle that a defendant and his accuser are equal before the law, and they make it more difficult for the justice system to deal with rape effectively. Scrap them.

SOURCE

*************************

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

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

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

***************************


Sunday, March 26, 2017







London after the latest Muslim attack

This place is just like Sweden. Terrified of admitting the truth about the threat we face, about the horrors committed by the migrants we failed to deter — because to admit that we are sinking, and fast, would be to admit that everything the liberals believe is wrong.

That multiculturalism has not worked. That it is one big fat failure and one big fat lie.

President Erdogan of Turkey said there is a war being waged between the crescent and the cross. But he is wrong. Because the cross is not strong. We are down on bended knee, a doormat to be trodden on, a joke only funny to those that wish us harm.

The war is between London and the rest of the country. Between the liberals and the right-minded. Between those who think it is more important to tip-toe around the cultures of those who choose to join us, rather than defend our own culture.

How many more times?

And how many more attacks must pass before we acknowledge these are no longer the acts of ‘extremists’? That there is no safe badge with which to hold these people at arm’s length, in the way the liberals casually use the term 'far-right' for anyone who has National pride.

These events are no longer extreme. They are commonplace. Every day occurrences.

These people are no longer extremists. They are simply more devout. More true to their beliefs. Beliefs which will be supported endlessly across our state broadcaster for the next few months until we buy into the narrative that one religion is not to blame.

That in fact we should blame Brexit supporters. For believing in a Britain. As it was before.

Anything but the truth.

This is why there is no anger from me this time, no rage. No nod for those who pretend we will not be cowed, even as they rush home to text their mum they are safe. No surprise that the city of which I was so proud is now punctured by fear, and demarcated even more formally by places we cannot tread; there were always parts in which a white woman could not safely walk.

Now I feel only sadness, overwhelming sadness.

I will walk over the river tonight and look to the Thames, to the Union flag lowered at half mast, and the Parliament below, and I will wonder, just how much longer we can go on like this. 

SOURCE






We Have Now Hit Full-On Crazy

Ann Coulter  

Liberals are ecstatic that a judge in Hawaii is writing immigration policy for the entire country, and that policy is: We have no right to tell anyone that he can't live in America. (Unless they're Christians -- those guys we can keep out.)

As subtly alluded to in the subtitle of "Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third-World Hellhole," the goal of liberals is for the poor of the world to have a constitutional right to come here whenever they want.

I can't help but notice that the Third Worlders aren't moving to liberals' neighborhoods.

After nearly 1 million Rwandans were murdered by other Rwandans in 1994, our government asked itself: Why not bring more of this fascinating Rwandan culture to America? Ten thousand of them poured in. So far, nearly 400 have been convicted in the United States of lying on visa applications about their role in the genocide.

And that's why we have to tighten our belt, America! Massive international investigations don't come cheap.

Almost every immigration case is a con, something we find out every time there's a San Bernardino shooting and half the family turns out to have scammed our immigration officials. One hundred percent of the "humanitarian" cases are frauds.

Earlier this month, Rwanda's Gervais Ngombwa was convicted for lying on his immigration application by claiming to have been a victim of the 1994 genocide. In fact, he was a well-known perpetrator -- even featured in Rwandan newspaper articles as a leader of the genocide.

For most of the last two decades, Ngombwa has been living in Iowa with his wife and eight children in a house built by Habitat for Humanity -- because no Americans need houses. He came to the authorities' attention a couple years ago by setting that house on fire after a domestic dispute, then filing a fraudulent $75,000 insurance claim.

Another Rwandan genocidalist living in America was featured in "Adios, America": Beatrice Munyenyezi, granted refugee status as an alleged victim of the genocide, even though she, too, had helped orchestrate it.

Munyenyezi was living safely in Kenya when she applied for a refugee visa to America. The welfare is way better here. And, luckily for us, she had a "chronic medical condition" that required constant attention from a New Hampshire hospital.

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa, then immediately applied for "asylum" on the grounds that he was persecuted in Egypt -- for being a member of an Islamic terrorist group.

Being a member of a noted terrorist group cannot be used to block you from coming to America, thanks to Barney Frank's 1989 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, because liberals love this country so very, very much. Being a talented neurosurgeon from Switzerland, however, is disqualifying.

Hadayet's refugee application wasn't denied until he'd already been living here for three years. When he was called in for a visa overstay hearing, he didn't show up, and the INS didn't bother looking for him. After allowing Hadayet to mill about America for another year, our government granted him permanent residency and a work permit.

On the Fourth of July following the 9/11 attack, Hadayet shot up the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles International Airport. I guess the Egyptians were right!

As bodies were being cleared away from the ticket counter, including Hadayet's, his wife blamed America for the attack, denying her husband had anything to do with it. "He is a victim of injustice," she explained. "In America, they hate Islam and Arabs after Sept. 11."

At least immigrants are grateful.

Immigration bureaucrats are so determined to transform America without anyone seeing what they're doing that the INS initially refused to release Hadayet's file to congressional investigators, in order to protect his "privacy."

Of course, anybody could miss Egypt's designating someone a terrorist. And maybe the INS's test for Rwandan "refugees" is: Would this person be able to convince Rolling Stone magazine that "Haven Monahan" raped her?

How about Rasmea Yousef Odeh? She waltzed into America after having been convicted and imprisoned in Israel for a supermarket bombing that left two Hebrew University students dead, and also for the attempted bombing of the British consulate in Israel.

She was released in a prisoner exchange -- whereupon Odeh made a beeline for the U.S.

True, Odeh wasn't subjected to the Inquisition-like vetting accorded the humanitarian cases, like the Boston Marathon bombers (we were warned by Russia), Hadayet (we were warned by Egypt) or the Blind Sheik (same).

But how did our immigration authorities miss a CONVICTION FOR BOMBING IN ISRAEL?

Apart from the terrorism, welfare and fraud, what great things did any of them do for our country?

Ngombwa was a custodian at the Cedar Rapids Community School District in Iowa, a job that, evidently, no American would do. Munyenyezi had a job as an advocate for refugees -- just one of the many jobs being created by immigrants. Hadayet ran a failing limousine company and was $10,000 in debt. Odeh was an unemployed waitress and a Palestinian grievance activist. Recently, she's been heavily involved in anti-Trump, anti-white male protests, because who doesn't like incessant Third World unrest?

In 1960, 75 percent of the foreign-born in America were from Europe. Today only about 10 percent are. More than a third of all post-Teddy Kennedy act immigrants -- not just the wretched humanitarian cases -- don't even have a high school diploma.

What is the affirmative case for this? How is it making America better? Improving the schools? The job market? Crime? The likelihood of terrorism?

Can the liberals doing cartwheels over a district judge's announcement that everyone in the world has a right to come here (except Europeans and Christians), give us the cost-benefit analysis they're using? Twenty million Third World immigrants give us ( ) terrorists, ( ) welfare recipients, ( ) uncompensated medical costs, ( ) discrimination lawsuits, but it's all worth it because ( )?

SOURCE





Cognitive Dissonance in Europe

It had to be galling. Geert Wilders, a member of Dutch Parliament, was found guilty three months ago of "inciting discrimination against Dutch Moroccans" - the very people who have been trying to kill him since at least 2003. Newsweek reported that he has to go around, "wearing a bulletproof vest and being shuttled between safe houses to avoid assassination. ‘I'm not in prison,' he says. ‘But I'm not free, either. You don't have to pity me, but I haven't had personal freedom now for 10 years. I can't set one foot out of my house or anywhere in the world without security.'"

The Wilders trial perfectly illustrates Europe's state of cognitive dissonance. In many European Union countries, one is charged with "hate speech" for criticizing Muslims who are terrorizing the entire continent. France's Marine Le Pen has also been charged in France, along with Brigitte Bardot.

It was interesting to watch media spin last Wednesday's Dutch election results as Geert Wilders' PVV Party, which they always call "far right," gained five seats (33%), yet he was "defeated." Prime Minister Rutte's VVD Party lost eight seats (-20%), but he won a "great victory." Prime Minister Rutte's governing partner in the ruling coalition, the Labour Party, lost nineteen seats (-75%). How is this a victory? Because Wilders didn't thump him as badly as polls suggested he might.

I met Geert Wilders seven years ago at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. He was surrounded by large, shaven-headed, tough-looking, unsmiling, body guards with ear pieces who were constantly looking around at the rest of us in the hotel function room. He cannot go anywhere without them and it'll be that way for the rest of his life. Why? Because he's "far-right"? No, it's because he has dared to criticize Islam, comparing the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf as both advocate slaughtering Jews. For that, Muslims put a fatwa on his head. That means Muslims are obligated to kill him whenever they get the chance.

He's been living like this since he came to the defense of a fellow member of Parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was a Somali immigrant. Hirsi Ali got off a plane in Holland rather than go on toward Canada where her family had arranged she be married to an aging relative. She was granted asylum and then got elected to Parliament. Hirsi Ali's Muslim parents had forced her to undergo a genital mutilation procedure when she was a girl.

Together with filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (great-grandnephew of the famous painter) Hirsi Ali made a short film called "Submission" depicting Muslim treatment of women. For his effort, Van Gogh was shot and stabbed on the street in broad daylight by a Muslim immigrant. Pinned to his body with a knife was a note declaring that Hirsi Ali was next. In 2003, Muslims staged an hour-long grenade assault on a building in The Hague where Ali and Geert Wilders were working in an effort to kill both. In spite of all this, it's still criminal to criticize the "Religion of Peace" in Europe.

Angela Merkel and other European leaders said the Dutch election last week was a "good day for democracy" and for Europe because Wilders wants to lead Holland out of the European Union. All across Europe, however, there's rising opposition to the EU's open-borders policy of accepting millions Muslim "refugees" in spite of what millions of native-born citizens want. That's one of the factors propelling the rise other conservative leaders in France, Austria, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries.

Meanwhile, Turkey is threatening to release 15,000 more Muslim "refugees" a month to "blow the mind" of Europe. The Turkish foreign minister said, "Soon, religious wars will begin in Europe." President Obama's good buddy, President Erdogan of Turkey urged Muslims living in Europe to have at least five children. It's part of the Islamic concept of hijrah, which Islam historian Robert Spencer calls "jihad by emigration."

If you ask ordinary Dutch, French, German, and British people, they'd say the religious wars are already underway and have been for years. Every day there's a stabbing, a rape, a bomb, a truck attack, or some other Muslim terrorist incident somewhere in Europe, yet Merkel alone let over a million Muslims into Germany just last year. She's up for re-election in September.

The left in Europe has for decades been pushing for ever more centralized government through the EU and the UN - and for open borders. To pave the way, they've attempted to indoctrinate the populace with the multicultural myth that all cultures are equal. Dutch, French, British, German, or any other European culture is no better than Muslim culture. All should be able to live together in harmony. Ordinary Europeans, however, aren't buying it.

SOURCE





Princeton Seminary Disses Pastor Timothy Keller

Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, N.J. (AP Photo)
Can we all agree that modern leftists tend to politicize everything they can get their hands on — in every venue? Even the sacred isn't sacred.

Princeton Theological Seminary reversed its decision to bestow the annual Abraham Kuyper Prize to New York City pastor Timothy Keller — for essentially political reasons.

Keller leads an enormously popular Reformed church in the heart of New York City. Before you challenge popularity as a meaningful yardstick for evaluating a pastor, know that his popularity is not based on straying from Scripture or Christian principles, but on being faithful to them.

Yes, even in New York City there is obviously a deep spiritual hunger for the truth and that is what Keller and his church provide, in spades.

I am familiar with Keller and his preaching, as I own several of his books and his entire sermon archive, which I purchased through Logos Bible Software — an amazing resource that I've used to research my Christian-themed books. I have visited Keller's church, and though he wasn't preaching that day, the pastor who was delivered a biblical, Christ-centered message without a hint of politics.

Neither in Keller's writings nor his sermons have I detected the slightest inclination toward the political. He preaches the Gospel and the entire Bible with clarity and inspiration. His insights are invaluable and routinely profound. He is truly gifted and seems to practice the Christlike humility he preaches, not seeking to make himself a celebrity or otherwise leverage his talents to redirect the focus from Scripture to himself.

His disqualifying sin was not that he joined the now defunct Moral Majority or publicly endorsed some evil Republican politician. Nor was it that he rejected any of the church's doctrinal tenets. It was not that his teachings might lead people away from the church's mission to spread the Gospel. Rather, it was apparently his refusal to deviate from Scripture and conform his teachings to the current liberal political line on certain hot-button issues.

Certain people raised Cain about Keller's "conservative positions" and the seminary decided it better renege on offering the award. Keller is a leader in the Presbyterian Church in America, which, according to Princeton Theological Seminary President Craig Barnes, "prevents women and LGBTQ+ persons from full participation in the ordained Ministry of Word and Sacrament." The Seminary is part of a different denomination — the Presbyterian Church (USA), whose position on this issue conflicts with Keller and the PCA.

"Many regard awarding the Kuyper Prize as affirmation of Reverend Keller's belief that women and LGBTQ+ persons should not be ordained. This conflicts with the stance of the Presbyterian Church (USA). And it is an important issue among the divided Reformed communions."

The Kuyper Prize is "awarded each year to a scholar or community leader whose outstanding contribution to their chosen sphere reflects the ideas and values characteristic of the Neo-Calvinist vision of religious engagement in matters of social, political and cultural significance in one or more of the spheres of society."

Keller apparently satisfied the criteria when he was chosen, but the ubiquitous forces of political correctness and social justice would have none of it. So Keller got the axe.

Keller won't get the award, but not to worry — he'll still get the consolation prize of being allowed to speak at the school's annual conference in April.

Ah, liberal tolerance — it's everywhere.

Keller is especially worthy of such an honor and the school's action is disgraceful. "If you can't give an Abraham Kuyper award to Tim Keller," asked Southern Baptist leader Daniel Darling, "who can you give it to?"

Even in the church and church-affiliated institutions, those who subscribe to biblical views on marriage, even universally respected Christian leaders, must be scorned. The Bible and those entrusted with teaching it must yield to the moral strictures of the culture.

People sometimes ask what Christians and conservatives can do to reverse the relentless advance of secularism, progressivism and moral relativism in our culture. Well, they can start by waking up to the reality of the ongoing attacks on biblical and traditional values and the vilification of those who openly embrace them. They can quit ignoring these assaults because they prefer to avoid controversy. The truth is often controversial and should not take a back seat to pseudo concerns for harmony articulated by those who daily sew seeds of discord unless you unquestionably submit to their views.

The Bible should be our guide, not the shifting currents of political correctness and the bullying demands of leftist malcontents. Pastor Timothy Keller will not be harmed by this rejection. This good and faithful servant has already received an infinitely higher award.

SOURCE

*************************

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

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

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

***************************



Friday, March 24, 2017



This Is What It’s Like To Be Wrongly Accused Of Being A Paedophile Because Of A Typo By Police

With any allegation of sexual impropriety, you are guilty until proven innocent, according to the British police. After 13 years under Tony Blair, the British police evolved from being a generally admired body of men and women to become a collection of politically correct lazybones with little or no concern for decency, justice or community service. That their pursuit of the innocent has repeatedly been thrown out by the courts seems to have produced no penitence in them whatsoever

One extra digit added to an IP address saw Nigel Lang wrongfully suspected of being a paedophile. Speaking about his ordeal for the first time, he tells BuzzFeed News how the mistake ruined his life.

On a Saturday morning in July 2011, Nigel Lang, then aged 44, was at home in Sheffield with his partner and their 2-year-old son when there was a knock at the door.

He opened it to find a man and two women standing there, one of whom asked if he lived at the address. When he said he did, the three strangers pushed past him and one of the women, who identified herself as a police officer, told Lang and his partner he was going to be arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.

He knew he was innocent but was powerless to prevent what happened next, as over the coming days, weeks, months, and years, through absolutely no fault of his own, events took place that would cost him his health and his career, and put serious strain on his relationships with those he loved the most.
Lang described the arrest, and what followed, as “the most horrendous and horrific time of my life.”

What makes Lang’s ordeal all the more shocking, BuzzFeed News can now reveal, is that his wrongful arrest, and all the consequences of it, stemmed from what police called a “typing error”.

He was told that when police requested details about an IP address connected to the sharing of indecent images of children, one extra keystroke was made by mistake, sending police to entirely the wrong physical location.

But it would take years, and drawn-out legal processes, to get answers about why this had happened to him, to force police to admit their mistake, and even longer to begin to get his and his family’s lives back on track.

Police paid Lang £60,000 in compensation last autumn after settling out of court, two years after they finally said sorry and removed the wrongful arrest from his record.

Much more HERE





How far will the violence go?

By Ben Shapiro

Two weeks ago, political scientist Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute went to speak at Middlebury College. There, he was quickly surrounded by protesters chanting: "Racist, sexist, anti-gay. Charles Murray, go away!" On his way out of the venue, a violent throng surrounded him and his security, as well as one of the university professors. She ended up in a neck brace. The same week, supporters of President Trump held a rally in Berkeley, California, and anti-Trump protesters threw smoke bombs and began punching people.

This sort of political violence is becoming more and more common around the country. I've personally been smuggled onto and off the California State University, Los Angeles campus during a near-riot caused by one of my speeches. When a fellow guest on CNN's HLN grabbed me by the back of the neck on national television in 2015, leftist commentators celebrated. In Berkeley, we saw Antifa rioters run roughshod through the town in honor of an upcoming visit by provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. During the presidential campaign, we saw a Trump event in Chicago shut down by leftists who were intent on causing havoc, and we saw Trump supporters beaten in the streets in San Jose. Meanwhile, we saw Trump himself encouraging supporters to punch protesters and vowing to defend those who followed through from legal charges.

When despicable white supremacist Richard Spencer was punched on a city street in Washington D.C., the media quickly began asking whether it was OK to punch a Nazi. And many Americans concluded that it was fine. After all, Captain America did it!

Here's the problem: Once we start punching one another, there are only two ways such violence ends. First, an overarching powerful government could step in to stop the violence, to the cheers of the group represented by it. Second, one of the sides could literally club the other into submission. Both solutions are anti-American and frightening.

Not all ideas are created equal. Some are terrible and should be dismissed. But that's not the same thing as banning ideas or treating them with violence. In fact, the irony of those who claim to be doing political violence in the name of freedom is that political violence between citizens never ends in freedom — it nearly always ends in tyranny.

The rise of the Nazis was preceded by heavy violence in Weimar Germany between communist bands and brownshirts. The two sides would go to each others' rallies and speeches and launch into serious bloodbaths in which people were killed. Brownshirts deliberately started violence with communists in order to draw supporters to their cause. They used that violence to create martyrs (Horst Wessel was the most famous) and prey on the reality of communist violence to seize power.

America isn't Weimar. Law and order still prevails. But if we want America to remain a free country, we're going to have to back away from violence, condemn it roundly on all sides and kill the notion that ideas must be fought with fists rather than other ideas.

SOURCE





Germany moved to deport two terror suspects born in the country Wednesday in a first of its kind landmark case

The duo — a 27-year-old Algerian and a 22-year-old Nigerian — were arrested in February in connection to a “potentially imminent terror attack.” Police found a gun and an Islamic State flag in their homes, but the men were never charged with any crimes.

Prosecutors dropped the case due to a lack of evidence suggesting the men planned an attack. A federal court in Lower Saxony still moved ahead with a deportation order despite a legal bid to overturn it. The suspects will now be barred from the country indefinitely.

“We are sending a clear warning to all fanatics nationwide that we will not give them a centimeter of space to carry out their despicable plans,” Boris Pistorius, Lower Saxony’s Interior Minister, said after the ruling, according to Deutsche Welle. “They will face the full force of the law regardless of whether they were born here or not.”

Australia recently stripped the citizenship of an Islamic State fighter who left the country for Syria. Australian legislation allows the government to revoke passports of dual citizens who are suspected or convicted of engaging in militant acts

The Netherlands passed similar legislation in 2016.

SOURCE







Political correctness kickstarted populism in the West

Melanie Phillips

For several years now, Trevor Phillips has been on a political journey. Originally a fully paid-up member of the metropolitan liberal set, the former chairman of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission has been regularly denouncing some of the shibboleths to which he previously subscribed.

On Friday (AEDT) he will take this further. In a documentary on Channel 4, he will blame political correctness for the rise of populism throughout the West.

The reason nobody saw the people’s revolt coming is that political correctness is too easily dismissed. At best it is viewed as a kind of idiocy that takes the avoidance of giving offence to absurd lengths; at worst, as the unpleasantly assertive politics of identity and group rights.

Phillips appears to understand that, far more damagingly, it has corroded the very basis of moral accountability. “It was a clear statement,” he observes, “that some groups can play by their own rules.”

Those PC rules derive from secular ideologies such as anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, feminism, multiculturalism, moral relativism and environmentalism. All these and more are based on the idea that the white, male-dominated, Judeo-Christian West is the embodiment of oppressive global power — the political source of original sin.

So white Western men or Christians can never be offended or hurt because they are themselves innately offensive and hurtful, while “powerless” women or minorities can only ever be their victims. In other words, such victim groups are given a free pass for their own questionable behaviour.

The reason these secular and utilitarian ideologies are unchallengeable is that, in a pattern going back to the French Revolution, they are held to represent not a point of view but virtue itself.

Therefore, anyone who opposes them must be bad. This creates a moral imperative to drive dissenters out of civilised society altogether. For daring to question multiculturalism, Phillips found himself accused of being a fellow-traveller of the far-right British National Party.

Reason has thus been supplanted by a secular inquisition, complete with an index of prohibited ideas. It is in effect a dictatorship of virtue, drawing upon the doctrine first promoted by Jean-Jacques Rousseau of forcing people to be free.

Of course it’s not freedom at all but a form of moral extortion: extracting permission to behave badly or questionably under threat of character assassination and social opprobrium.

Phillips may not appreciate the comparison but my own experience echoes his journey. For nearly two decades I wrote for The Guardian and The Observer, from which Eden I was eventually driven out by the disgrace of my political heresies.

From the late 1980s, I followed where the evidence led me to challenge one politically correct doctrine after another. Lifestyle choice, I argued, was by and large a disaster for the children involved in such fractured families.

Multiculturalism would dissolve the glue that held society together. National identity, far from being xenophobic, was essential for democracy and the defence of liberal values.

I was appalled that women, ethnic minorities and the poor were being infantilised and even dehumanised by being treated not as grown-ups with responsibility for their own behaviour but as helpless victims of circumstance.

Racism was supposedly endemic in every institution. Social-work staff were reduced to tears when told their refusal to confess to racism was itself proof they were racist. Any curb on immigration was racist. To me this was absurd, oppressive and culturally suicidal.

The understanding that education involved a transmission of the culture was regarded as an attack on a child’s autonomy. When I supported a retired head teacher who protested that teachers were no longer guiding children but abandoning them to ignorance and under-achievement, I was denounced as “ignorant, silly, intellectually vulgar, vicious, irresponsible, elitist, middle-class, fatuous, dangerous, intemperate, shallow, strident, reactionary, propagandist, simplistic, unbalanced, prejudiced, rabid, venomous and pathetic”. All that over just one article.

Nor did it stop at name-calling. I found myself in a kind of internal exile. There was no more cosy camaraderie round the tea trolley or invitations to supper. I lost work and was blacklisted by every major publishing house.

As Phillips says, the social infrastructure of advancement, rewards and status depends entirely on having politically correct views. If not, social and professional ostracism follows.

People have finally had enough of this institutionalised attack on accountability, natural justice and freedom. It turns out that what I’ve been arguing for decades is supported by millions throughout the West.

Now those millions are being vilified in turn as neo-fascist, racist and too stupid even to know what they’ve voted for. Their uprising is being called populism.

I call it a return to decency and reason.

SOURCE

*************************

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

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

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

***************************


Thursday, March 23, 2017



Do gooder laws not helping ex-cons in Massachusetts

Blacks are a large part of the ex-con population so now that employers cannot check a person's criminal background, they tend to make worst case assumptions about blacks.  Suppressing criminal records has hurt, not helped blacks

When Massachusetts enacted a series of changes beginning in 2010 to help ex-offenders get back into the labor force, the timing seemed fortuitous: the economy was growing again after the recession, and it was widely hoped people with criminal records would find work more easily.

Instead, in the years after the changes, the employment rate of ex-offenders went down, compared with those without records, according to a study released Tuesday by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

The first change to the Criminal Offender Record Information system, or CORI as it is known, in 2010 forbid employers from asking applicants about their criminal backgrounds. Employers could still conduct background checks later in the process, but that little box prospective hires checked if they have a criminal record was dropped from job applications, a move known as “ban the box.”

Yet within the first two years of that change, the average employment rate of people with a criminal record dropped by 2.6 percentage points, compared with the employment rate of people without one.

“Clearly, the ban the box provision has not resulted in the policy outcome anticipated,” the study authors said.

Then in 2012, the state shaved five years off the time period an offender had to wait before getting his criminal record sealed so it is not subject to a background check — to 10 years after a felony conviction, and five years after a misdemeanor. Again, after those changes, the Fed analysts found no improvement in the job rate among ex-offenders.

There was one bright spot: Recidivism among ex-offenders, the rate at which they committed another crime, went down slightly after the changes to the records law. The Boston Fed analysts believe ex-offenders were more likely to stay out of trouble because they had higher expectations of getting a job.

“They know that at least they’d be able to get their foot in the door,” said Robert Triest, director of the Fed’s New England Public Policy Center, which conducted the study. “And so spending their time searching for a job might seem more fruitful than falling back on criminal behavior.”

As for their actual employment prospects, Triest and his colleagues aren’t sure why that hasn’t improved, but have several possible explanations: One is that with their criminal records no longer hanging over them, ex-offenders are pursuing better, but harder-to-get jobs, and turning down lower-paying opportunities they might have settled for in the past.

Conversely, the authors theorize employers are either hiring fewer ex-offenders, or requiring more work experience or education than in the past.

There are more people with records — 1.7 million in Massachusetts in 2014, up from 1.1 million in 2010, according to the Justice Department. And the FBI has been conducting more background checks on behalf of employers and others: roughly 17 million nationwide in 2012, six times the number a decade earlier, according to the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group in New York.

Differences in the tightening labor market were factored into the study, the authors said, as were other employment trends. And still the employment rates of ex-offenders took a hit.

The changes to the records law may have also increased the competition among ex-offenders for jobs, as more sought work, said Pauline Quirion, director of the CORI and Re-entry Project at Greater Boston Legal Services. This influx of applicants, many of whom were likely weeded out later by background checks, could be affecting the employment rate, she said.

The first change in the law, to job applications, went into effect just as employers started hiring again after the recession, she noted, which meant ex-offenders were competing with large numbers of unemployed people without records. “The reality is employers don’t like to hire anybody with a record,” Quirion said.

The new Fed study is in line with a previous analysis of the “ban the box” law by the Boston Foundation in 2012. That found ex-offenders were indeed getting more interviews, but those did not necessarily leading to jobs.

But in other states, similar changes to records laws have had a positive effect. In separate studies conducted in the District of Columbia and Durham County, North Carolina, the number of people with criminal backgrounds who found work increased after legislative changes.

So far 25 states, Washington, and more than 150 cities and counties have enacted policies to limit or delay employers’ access to candidates’ criminal histories. Nine states now don’t allow private employers to ask about a person’s convictions on job applications.

However, several other recent academic studies have found evidence that “ban the box” policies are hurting black applicants. Without the ability to see a candidate’s criminal history on a job application, employers are less likely to call back black applicants, according to the studies, suggesting employers assume these applicants are more likely to have a criminal record.

The Fed authors and advocates say more changes are needed to reintegrate ex-offenders into society. The wait times to seal records are still too long, said Lew Finfer of Jobs Not Jails, a coalition lobbying to cut the time to three years for misdemeanors, and seven for felonies.

The coalition also wants dismissed cases dropped from the CORI system, and charges for resisting arrest, which currently stays on a person’s record forever, to eventually be sealed.

Massachusetts changes have been limited, Finfer said, so it’s not surprising there hasn’t been much impact. “CORI is this huge barrier to people getting jobs,” he said. “It’s almost like prison continued.”

SOURCE






Homofascists target IBM executive

Marriage equality advocate IBM Australia is being targeted by ­militant gay rights activists who have condemned the company over a senior executive’s links to a ­Christian organisation.

Activists have criticised the IT giant and Sydney-based managing partner Mark Allaby, suggesting that his role on the board of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, an internship program for young Christians, is incompatible with IBM’s public support on the issue.

The social media campaign comes after the same activists shamed Adelaide brewer Coopers into pledging allegiance to Australian Marriage Equality after its ties with the Bible Society were ­exposed.

Michael Barnett, convener of Jewish LGBTI support group Aleph Melbourne, and Rod Swift, a Greens candidate in the 2014 state election, have targeted IBM with a barrage of messages via Twitter in recent days, accusing the company of hypocrisy for ­allowing an employee to be ­involved with “an anti-LGBTI ­organisation”.

“A bad look … that IBM managing partner Mark Allaby sits on the anti-LGBT Lachlan Macquarie Institute board,” Mr Barnett ­posted on Thursday.

The next day he followed with: “As an LGBT champion @IBM­Australia, why did you employ a board member of a high-profile anti-LGBT organisation.”

Mr Swift pitched in, calling on IBM to explain whether it would “request this guy to step down” from the institute.

“If you are having a bet each way @IBMDiversityANZ then you must justify to your staff and customers why your guy is on their board,” he wrote.

It is not the first time Mr Allaby, a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors who handles IBM’s financial services ­clients across Australia and New Zealand, has been targeted for his association with a religious organisation.

Last year, when employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, he was pressured into standing down from the board of the Australian Christian Lobby, which opposes changes to marriage law.

Both PwC and IBM are active supporters of Australian Marriage Equality, and their chief executives were among 20 corporate leaders to sign an unprecedented letter lobbying Malcolm Turnbull to legalise same-sex marriage, revealed in The Australian last week.

The letter has sparked heated debate about the role of business in lobbying on social issues, with conservative frontbencher Peter Dutton telling business leaders to “stick to their knitting”.

However, the increasingly ­aggressive tactics being employed by some marriage equality activists has highlighted the risks for corporations — and their employees — in taking a position on ­divisive political causes.

Leading anti-discrimination lawyer Mark Fowler said employees with religious beliefs in conflict with their employers’ stand on marriage equality were particularly exposed. “In NSW and SA there are currently no laws protecting individuals from expressing their religious beliefs,” Mr Fowler said. “Nor are there religious protections for ­individuals under commonwealth laws.”

Australian Christian Lobby managing director Lyle Shelton said the ACL, which helped set up the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, denied that the organisation was “anti-LGBTI”.

“Quite frankly we are tired of this slur being used to intimidate people because of their beliefs,” Mr Shelton said. “Corporate Australia is obviously free to have and express views on political matters.

“Sadly, same-sex marriage activists are intolerant of different views and have co-opted some in the corporate sector to assist them in enforcing this to the point where people fear for their jobs.

“All Australians, including corporate Australia, should openly and forcefully condemn every instance of bullying and intimidation.”

Mr Barnett defended his role yesterday, arguing that when an organisation such as IBM employed an individual in a high-profile leadership role who did not espouse company values, a disparity emerged. “I have no desire to see IBM sack Mark Allaby. I want the conflict to go away,” Mr Barnett told The Australian.

“Mark Allaby can make whatever decisions he needs to resolve this conflict, and if IBM needs to assist with that process then they can do that. “My goal is to see IBM, and any other pro-LGBTIQ organisation, remain strong to their stated values.”

Mr Barnett said he had nothing against Mr Allaby personally but his links with the Australian Christian Lobby meant he was a “target for equality campaigners like me”.

IBM did not respond to questions about whether staff were free to engage with external organisations, including religious groups, outside of their employment with the company. “We will not be responding on this,” an IBM spokeswoman said.

Mr Allaby, who lives in Sydney, did not return calls.

SOURCE






UK: Courts must protect men as well as women

alice thomson

The justice secretary’s plan to allow rape accusers to give video-recorded evidence does a disservice to feminists

Last weekend I was driving down the M40 discussing feminism with my 14-year-old daughter and why women are equal, if not superior, to men. It was all very relaxed without her three brothers. She was talking about a debate she had seen on gender equality with the Labour MP Jess Phillips and the women’s march against President Trump.

Suddenly the car ground to a halt in the slow lane with no hard shoulder. Lorries had to swerve around us, we couldn’t move. I rang the AA who explained we had to leave the car and call the police.

Two officers arrived promptly and I explained rather pathetically that I don’t drive often, I hadn’t quite worked out the automatic dashboard and the car might conceivably have run out of petrol.

The officers couldn’t have been more helpful; they towed us to the nearest garage, filled the car with fuel and sent us on our way. “They were very chivalrous,” I said. “That was humiliating,” my daughter replied. “You may have a career but you sounded like a useless woman who can’t do anything on her own.”

That’s the problem with sexual politics: it’s never straightforward. Emma Watson insists that Beauty and the Beast is a feminist movie because her character, Belle, has a job inventing a washing machine, but she then allows herself to swoon in the arms of the beast at the end — and to promote the film she bared her breasts for Vanity Fair.

Theresa May has become Britain’s second female prime minister yet still gave her first serious interview to American Vogue, where she says that she loves clothes and that Mr Trump held her hand down a ramp because “he was actually being a gentleman”.

Meanwhile Dame Jenni Murray, presenter of Woman’s Hour, said this month that “it takes more than a sex change and make-up” to “lay claim to womanhood”, making it sound as though female traits are always the opposite of male characteristics and the sexes share no common ground. This was while MPs were debating whether women could still be forced to wear heels at work. “What about men forced to wear ties?” one male MP asked.

The feminist discussion has become increasingly complex. How far should we be promoting women’s rights as distinct from men’s and what does equality look like?

The trickiest area is in the courts. Everyone has a right under British law to be treated equally, gender should not be an issue. This is why Liz Truss’s feminist intervention this weekend is more troubling than most. The justice secretary said that from this autumn rape “victims” would be spared cross-examination at the witness box and instead will be able to provide recorded video evidence.

Her sentiments are understandable. Women who have been raped must find it devastating facing their attacker in a courtroom and being quizzed about their ordeal. Ms Truss says she is “determined to make their path to justice swifter and less traumatic” so they can give “the best possible evidence” without having to undergo this ordeal.

Rape, domestic abuse and sexual offences now make up 19 per cent of the Crown Prosecution Service’s caseloads. The volume of rape referrals from the police rose to 6,855 in 2015-16, up 11 per cent on the previous year. Of those referred, 3,910 resulted in charges and 1,300 in convictions. However, only about 6 per cent of all reported cases result in a conviction for the perpetrator. It is important for women to have the confidence to pursue a rape case and to receive a fair trial.

But this change isn’t fair for men who may have been wrongly accused. Ms Truss calls all women who say they have been raped “victims”. But there are occasionally women who lie, for all sorts of complicated reasons. It is the wrongly charged man is these cases who is the victim.

Being falsely accused of rape can devastate a man’s life whether he is a student, a teacher, a politician or retired. The defendant will almost inevitably be vilified by some of his peers, his community and, if the case reaches the press, the country. Rape cases take on average 18 months to go through the courts; meanwhile the accused will find it difficult to get work or continue with normal family relationships.

When a jury at York crown court this month cleared Lewis Tappenden of raping a student in a drunken sexual encounter, he cried and explained his life had already been ruined. The woman told the court she was “OK with it” at first but changed her mind halfway through.

Elgan Varney, who was acquitted this week of raping a student while at Keele University, explained: “You are never allowed to move forward when the fact that you have been accused is one click away on Google.”

Women can already give evidence from behind a screen or by live link but juries need to be able to see the accuser’s face. Rape is such a serious offence they must feel confident they can weigh up whether a woman gave her consent to sex. The defendant should also be able to challenge any new evidence.

Ms Truss wants to allow judges to be able to edit evidence to exclude questions about previous sexual history but this would be treating the two parties unequally. It may also not help the accuser. Some jurors could feel reluctant to convict when they haven’t heard the complainant being examined in the court.

Not all men are beasts or women Belles; no one should be stereotyped. It doesn’t work in life and it’s even more unjust in the courts where everyone must have a right to a
fair trial.

SOURCE







Liberal boycott of North Carolina backfires

In April, the Center for American Progress estimated that the state of North Carolina would lose more than $567 million in private-sector economic activity through 2018 due to the passage of the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, otherwise known as the “bathroom bill.”

But indicators show that North Carolina’s economy is doing just fine:

    Tourism has thrived: Hotel occupancy, room rates and demand for rooms set records in 2016, according to the year-end hotel lodging report issued last week by VisitNC, part of the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina.

    Meanwhile, North Carolina ranked fourth in the nation for attracting and expanding businesses with the arrival of 289 major projects, and seventh in projects per capita — the same as in 2015, according to Site Selection magazine, which released its 2016 rankings in the March edition.

    North Carolina finished first for drawing corporate facilities in the eight-state South Atlantic region, said Site Selection, which uses figures tracked by the Conway Projects Database.

    And in November, both Forbes and Site Selection magazine ranked North Carolina the No. 2 state for business climate.

    Also unscathed was the state’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate, which registered at 5.3 percent in January 2016 and 5.3 percent in January 2017, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Ironically, those opposed to the bathroom bill are the ones hurting. The NBA moved its All-Star game from Charlotte to New Orleans in protest, and as a result suffered “the lowest ticket sales” in All-Star game history. Similarly, the ACC championship football game was moved to Orlando and attendance was the lowest in history.

Over and over again, liberal boycotts are failing. As this rate, business owners everywhere will start hoping that liberals complain about them.

SOURCE

*************************

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

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

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

***************************