Thursday, May 28, 2015

"Women's spaces"

If you Google "women's space" you will find examples from all sorts of times and places of feminists demanding such spaces.  They want man-free zones, where they can escape from the "patriarchy"

Such demands are more evidence of how egocentric radical feminists and Leftists generally are.  If any other demographic category made such demands, that would be roundly condemned as segregation, apartheid, discrimination etc.  "Segregation is good if we do it but bad if anybody else does it" is the implicit message.

It is not however an explicit message. My son reports that when he was recently on the campus of the University of Queensland -- of which he and I are both graduates -- he was approached by some young women who were handing out small gifts to anyone who signed a petition demanding a women's space on that campus.

He agreed to sign their petition, saying, "I think any group should have the right to exclude people they don't like".  This utterance was greeted with horror, his signature was rejected and he did not get his gift.  He was describing plainly what they wanted but they could not admit that -- in the best traditions of Leftist denialism.  They no doubt thought of themselves as enemies of "discrimination".

And we can see how deeply entrenched the hypocrisy and dishonesty is when we reflect that feminists have a long history of opposing men's spaces.  For over a hundred years all Australian towns had a men's space -- the public bar of a local hotel.  Women were not allowed there.  There was a separate "Ladies' lounge" where women drank.

Feminists have completely destroyed that.  Women are now allowed in all bars, sometimes by force of law.  I remember the process  well. The big watering hole for UQ students was always "The Regatta", a large and imposing hotel on the way back into town from the university.  And it too once denied women admittance to its public bar.  So what did feminists do?  They barged in anyway and chained themselves to various objects to make it difficult to remove them. They did so until the rule excluding them was abandoned.

And the efforts of women to have the membership of various gentlemen's clubs "opened up" are well known. Most such clubs have succumbed.  That men might enjoy a place where they are free from women is not considered. But a place where women are free from men is just fine, righteous even.

So how does this ethical black hole arise?  It arises from the general lack of principles among Leftists.  Leftists are sub-clinical psychopaths.  In pursuit of their hates, Leftists can turn around and march in opposite directions at the drop of a hat. 

The classic example of that was the wharfies (dockers,  longshoremen) during WWII.  Nazism and Communism were always sibling rivals and outside Germany, dock workers were systematically Communist sympathizers.  Not a few were actual members of the local Communist party.  So when Hitler and Stalin jointly invaded the long-suffering Poles, dock workers did all they could to hinder the war effort against the Nazi/Soviet alliance.  But when Hitler turned on his ally and invaded Russia, the dock workers, particularly in America, suddenly ceased their obstruction of the war effort. It was their hate that guided them, not any high principle.  Stalin hated "the rich" and so did they -- so they were consistent only in supporting him.

But be that as it may, what is clearly going on among the radical feminists is an inability to empathize -- an ability to see everything only in the light of what they want.  They have no principles and no honour or ethics of any kind.  What they want defines righteous and nothing else matters.  They are moral imbeciles.  Their hate and anger is so strong that it blinds them to all else, even to basic decency and fairness.

Why do some women get that way?  In the universities these days they are taught that.  Barely articulate cries of feminist rage pass as education these days.  In the society at large, however, feminism can be a temporary refuge from a bad experiece -- a relationship breakup usually.  Such a refuge is usually abandoned after a time -- for a man.  Lifelong feminism however can result from some physical difference -- abnormal hormone levels usually -- but it is more likely to be a convenient way to express the woman's Leftism, her hatred of the society about her generally.

It is sick

An unpleasant but important lesson

He forced the do-gooders to face facts:  People eat animals, always have and always will.  We have evolved that way.  There are of course some vegetarians but they have to be quite careful to get a healthy diet

Outraged listeners are calling for a boycott of a talk radio station after a presenter bludgeoned a baby rabbit to death on air.

Asger Juhl hit the nine-week-old fluffy black rabbit, named Allan, over the head with a bicycle pump despite protests from animal rights campaigners in the studio.

Juhl, a presenter on Danish station Radio24syv, then took the animal home where he and his children cooked and ate it.

He claimed he was exposing the ‘hypocrisy’ surrounding meat-eating. Juhl, 34, killed the rabbit after debating animal welfare with Danish reality TV star and animal rights activist Linse Kessler on Monday.

She had tried to grab Allan and chased Juhl around the studio before being asked to leave.

Afterwards she posted a video on Facebook criticising Juhl’s actions. Miss Kessler said she thought she could have wrested the animal from him but feared it would die a more painful death if she grabbed it.

Juhl said he had been shown how to dispatch Allan humanely by a keeper at Aalborg Zoo who kills several baby rabbits each week to feed to the snakes.

‘They use an iron stick. I didn’t have an iron stick – so I used a bicycle pump,’ he said.

He and his children, aged six and eight, skinned the dead rabbit and made a stew for dinner.

‘Many people in Denmark are frustrated about us killing the rabbit but at the same time they are having meat for dinner,’ he said. ‘They are not taking into account that you are supposed to kill an animal before you eat meat. Let me ask you a question: Why would it be wrong to kill an animal and then eat it?’

Danish DJ describes moments leading up to rabbit's on-air death

Yesterday, there were growing calls for a boycott of Copenhagen-based Radio24syv over Juhl’s ‘disgusting’ behaviour.

One person wrote on social media: ‘You could probably easily have had the debate on air without having to kill an animal.’

Andother added: ‘Maybe somebody should hit you on the head with a pump, see if that provokes a debate.’

Others described the incident as a ‘brutal publicity stunt’.

The RSPCA said it would have investigated had the ‘shocking’ events taken place in England or Wales. A spokesman added: ‘The use of an animal in this way is completely unacceptable.’

The radio station defended the incident, saying it wanted to highlight cruelty in the farming industry and hypocrisy over animal welfare.

‘We didn’t do it for the sake of entertainment,’ it said. ‘Thousands of animals die each day so that people can eat them.’

It claimed that Allan had enjoyed a good life, unlike many of the animals which end up on the meat counter, and was killed in a humane manner.

Juhl later explained why he used a bicycle pump to kill the innocent rabbit. The 34-year-old said: 'I was very humane. I discussed this with people at the zoo before I did it'

Radio24syv added that it wanted to put more focus on ‘one of the world’s most industrialised agriculture sectors’.

It said that Allan was killed ‘in a sound manner’ and ‘did not suffer any harm’.

It added: ‘Our rabbit has had a good life, as a contrast to the way our industrialised agriculture treats animals every day.

‘Animals that end up in the meat counter, where most of us without any great reflection buy slaughtered animals, who have had a terrible life.’

MailOnline readers expressed their outrage on the website last night. Korotki from Devon wrote: ‘He should lose his job, and be prosecuted for animal cruelty.

‘I don’t care what his “justification” might allegedly be, the facts speak for themselves and this idiot’s killed an animal by brutal means as a publicity stunt.’

Chandelier from London said: ‘I understand that he wanted to make a point but doing it in this way is rather barbaric. Poor rabbit.’ And Dirk Bruere from Bedford wrote: ‘There is a vast difference between being beaten to death with an “iron stick” and a bicycle pump.

‘The former is quick and the latter slow and cruel.’

Last year there was outcry in Denmark after a baby giraffe called Marius was killed and dissected in front of children at Copenhagen Zoo, before being fed to the lions.


Prospective U.S. ‘Free Trade’ Partner Prohibits Catholic Paper from Using ‘Allah'

In Malaysia, one of 11 nations President Obama is seeking to bring into his “Trans-Pacific Partnership” free-trade zone with the United States, the government has prohibited a Catholic newspaper from using the word “Allah,” says the U.S. State Department.

“Allah,” the Arabic word for God, was adopted by the Malay language.

In Malaysia, as the New York Times explained in an article last November, the government has gone so far as to restrict its use in the Bible.

“According to a series of government orders and rulings by Malaysia’s Islamic councils, the word for God in the Malay language—‘Allah’--is reserved for Muslims,” the Times reported. “Malay-language Bibles are banned everywhere except inside churches. State regulations ban a list of words, including Allah, in any non-Muslim context."

The State Department’s Malaysia 2013 International Religious Freedom Report, published in July 2014, elaborated on Malaysia's treatment of Christians who use the word “Allah.”

“The Publications and Quranic Text Control Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs supervised the publication of religious texts, and restricted the use of the words Allah (God), baitullah (house of God), Kaabah (location toward which Muslims pray) and salat (prayer) to Muslim groups only, asserting that these words were the sole jurisdiction of the Muslim community,” said the State Department’s 2013 report.

“In a long running controversy stemming from the government’s ban on the use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims in Malay-language Bibles and other Christian publications, on October 14, the court of appeal overturned a 2009 decision by the High Court of Kuala Lumpur and upheld the government’s decision that the Catholic Herald cannot use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God in its Malay language edition,” said the State Department.

“The court of appeal held that: the use of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims would create confusion among Muslims; the word ‘Allah’ is not ‘an integral part’ of the Christian faith; and the use of the word ‘Allah’ in the Malay version of the Herald would potentially harm public order and safety,” said the State Department.

“Following the ruling, the attorney general emphasized that the court of appeal’s decision was confined to the publication of the Malay-language text of the Herald,” said the State Department. “Deputy Home Minister Junaidi Jaafar reportedly stated the ruling was meant for the weekly publication of the Herald only and would not affect other Christian publications or the Malay-language version of the Bible, the Al-Kitab, used widely in Sabah and Sarawak. The Catholic Church planned to file an appeal against the verdict in the Federal Court.”

This January, the Federal Court, Malaysia’s highest tribunal, rejected the Catholic Church’s appeal and upheld the ban on using “Allah” in the Malay-language Catholic newspaper.

Father Lawrence Andrew, the editor of the newspaper, was quoted by Agence France Presse as saying he believed this was just the start of what the Malaysian government would do.

"This is only the beginning," said Father Andrew. "I wouldn't be surprised if they come along and say 'don't use it (Allah) in your services.'"

In 2013, according to the State Department report, Malaysian authorities also targeted an Evangelical Christian organization for using the word “Allah” on their Facebook page.

“In May a former Selangor state lawmaker filed a police complaint against the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship of Malaysia (NECF), accusing them of attempting to convert Malays to Christianity through Facebook,” said the State Department. “In response, JAIS [Selangor Islamic Religious Department] began an investigation into NECF’s use of the word ‘Allah’ on their Facebook site.

“In January the Pahang mufti, appointed by the State Islamic Authority, declared that non-Muslims were prohibited from using the word ‘Allah’ and 34 other words associated with Islam,” said the State Department. “He told reporters that non-Muslims were barred from using the words in statements, speeches, publications, or in any broadcast as it could ‘mislead’ and affect the faith of Muslims. He said that doing so would violate the law, which, with a conviction, carries a fine up to RM 5,000 ($1,526) and/or imprisonment up to two years.”

Although the Obama administration has classified the draft text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Congressional Research Service has published a report that indicates its basic purpose is to eliminate tariff and nontariff barriers to trade between its would-be members. In addition to the United States and Malaysia, these include Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Peru.

“With over 20 chapters under negotiation, the TPP partners envision the agreement to be ‘comprehensive and high-standard,’ in that they seek to eliminate tariffs and nontariff barriers to trade in goods, services, and agriculture, and to establish or expand rules on a wide range of issues including intellectual property rights, foreign direct investment, and other trade-related issues,” says the CRS report.

Last week, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a bill to give the president “trade-promotion authority”—also known as “fast-track” power. This would allow the president to send his 12-nation trade deal to Congress for approval not as a treaty—which would require a two-thirds vote of all senators present—but as unamendable legislation needing a simple majority in both houses.

After the Senate passed the fast-track bill, Speaker John Boehner vowed to try to push it through the Republican-controlled House.

“This is a no-brainer,” said Boehner.

In 2014, according to the Census Bureau, U.S. producers sold $13.1 billion in goods to Malaysia and Malaysian producers sold $30.4 billion in goods to the U.S., resulting in a $17.3 billion U.S. trade deficit with Malaysia.


Conservative blogger silenced

He was censored for making things up but by that criterion a lot of Leftists should be silenced too.  Hillary Clinton, for instance.  Report below from an unsympathetic source

THE world’s most notorious troll has been banned from Twitter six years after he joined, but his social media silencing is unlikely to last.

Charles Johnson, a journalist and “debunker of frauds” from California, is known for his openly racist, homophobic and misogynistic remarks.

He has blamed the Amtrak train derailment on homosexuality, verbally attacked alleged rape victims and described black people as intellectually inferior to white.

On Sunday, the 26-year-old was finally removed from Twitter after he requested donations to “take out” the civil rights activist DeRay McKesson, who has been outspoken on the Ferguson riots. When he set up new accounts, @citizentrolling and @freechucknow, the social network also removed them.

Chuck is now raising money on his far-right website to have himself reinstated following this “censorship”. But his previous threats of legal action have never led to anything, with a website dedicated to the many times he has planned to sue for libel.

On May 13, after the Amtrak crash, Chuck posted about engineer Brandon Bostian: “Gays have a higher rate of mental illness than do straights. You decide if engineer’s homosexuality is worth noting.” He has also claimed that President Obama was gay.

The conservative blogger has been removed from Twitter several times before. He was previously temporarily suspended after posting photos of a woman he claimed had been exposed to Ebola.

He also wrongly accused two New York Times reporters of revealing the address of the police officer involved in the Ferguson shooting, and claimed victim Michael Brown was “obsessed with violence”. The reporters were forced to flee their homes after threats of robbery and rape.

The New York Times observed that Chuck represented the “toxic” side of citizen journalism, although the same profile noted that he has had some success — exposing foreign policy analyst Elizabeth O’Bagy’s conflicts of interest and fudged academic credentials.

More often, he has sown hatred, fear and inaccurate information.

He wrongly claimed another NYT reporter had posed for Playgirl and incorrectly said Senator Cory Booker did not live in Newark when he served as the city’s mayor.

Last year, he drew attention for flawed reporting on the Mississippi Senate Republican Primary. He then hit the headlines when he correctly cast doubt on a controversial Rolling Stone article about rape on the University of Virginia campus. The article was found to be riddled with journalistic errors, but the conservative blogger then published a Facebook photo of a woman at an anti-rape rally, who he claimed was the accuser. It was the wrong person.

On another occasion, the New York Times reported, he offered money for photos of Senator Thad Cochran’s wife in her nursing home bed. He also contributed to a completely fabricated story in the Daily Caller about New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez allegedly soliciting prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, Gawker reported.

Despite his mistakes, Chuck sees himself as an unbiased, independent truth-teller.

His ban appears to have been made possible under new Twitter guidelines on what constitutes a threat, but there’s little to stop him sharing his message with his 25,000 followers in other ways. He has also vowed to do a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything).



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

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

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


Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Political correctness is making kids fat

You read that right. Warm, fuzzy well-intentioned yet poorly thought-out politically correct ideas are making our children obese. Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years.

The percentage of children 6–11 years old in the United States who were obese increased from 7 percent in 1980 to nearly 18 percent in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents 12–19 years old who were obese increased from 5 percent to nearly 21 percent over the same period.

According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, overweight and obesity are the result of “caloric imbalance” — too few calories expended for the amount of calories consumed. Kids today aren’t active enough to burn off the calories.

The 1980 statistics are from an era when elementary school gym class consisted of intense physical activities like basketball, rope climbing and an old favorite, dodgeball. As was the case in math, English or science, some kids were more gifted than others in physical education. Some excelled in the various forms of exercise and some did not, but every child participated. Everyone got a workout. In short, it was healthy.

As a youngster, I was competitive in the traditional sports, but didn’t have great arm strength. When we first started doing pull-ups in gym, my total was … zero. But after a couple of classes where the girls could witness our strength or lack thereof, some of the other boys and I found it in us to manage a few. Never underestimate the power of incentive.

Learning the concept of incentive and working toward goals is a big part of sports anyway. Understanding the importance of teamwork, measuring your own improvement and feeling good about being in shape are all benefits of athletics, even if it’s only in gym class.

At least those were the lessons until political correctness began to kick in. Many of the traditional sports have been removed from gym classes and are now considered “too competitive.” It is said they might harm the self esteem of the less athletic students.

Physical education classes today often consist of classroom/textbook type learning about the importance of exercise rather than actual exercise itself.

Every kid gets a trophy today simply for participating in Little League, Pee Wee Basketball or other organized sports. Gone are the days when you actually had to win in order to earn a trophy. Just showing up is enough. Gone is the incentive to excel. Winning or losing? It doesn’t matter. Why practice? Why improve? Just give me my trophy.

Ironically, at the same time that we’ve watered down PE classes and children’s athletics in an effort to assure that no kid sprains his self esteem, First lady Michelle Obama is pushing kale and cutting brownies from school lunch programs everywhere. The lunch changes and the loss of actual exercise are competing politically correct agendas. Who wins in this PC battle?

If you check out the number of fat kids, it’s obvious the easy trophies and PE classes with more pencils than balls are winning. The PC agenda is making our kids obese.


David Starkey takes a swipe at the thin lady: Historian tells Mrs Clooney to 'shut up', claiming Human Rights Act has gone too far

A man with dangerous spectacles

David Starkey has taken a swipe at George Clooney's lawyer wife, telling her to 'shut up' and accusing her of working in a 'human rights industry'.

Amal Clooney, 37, is a respected barrister specialising in human rights and international law.

But Dr Starkey, 70, said judges and lawyers have hijacked the European Convention on Human Rights and expanded it beyond the purpose proposed by Winston Churchill after the Second World War.

The result has been a society where people are too concerned about their human rights and do not think enough about their duties to society, he claimed.

The balance between the two, dating back 800 years to Magna Carta, has been thrown off-kilter said Dr Starkey, who recently published Magna Carta: The True Story Behind The Charter.

He said it could be restored if 'the Amal Clooneys and Shami Chakrabartis would shut up', also referring to the director of human rights campaign group Liberty.

Mrs Clooney may have shot into the public eye when she married her actor husband in a lavish Italian ceremony last year, but she has forged a notable career as an international human rights lawyer.

Among her previous roles she served as an adviser to Kofi Annan in his role as a United Nations special adviser for Syria.

She also represented WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in his extradition proceedings.

The Oxford graduate completed her Masters of Law at New York University and worked in the city at the firm Sullivan & Cromwell.

She returned to London in 2010, joining Doughty Street Chambers as a barrister.

Mrs Clooney has since lectured on international criminal law at SOAS (University of London), The New School in New York City, The Hague Academy of International Law, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.


The Decline of Christian America

"This is a Christian nation," said the Supreme Court in 1892.

"America was born a Christian nation," echoed Woodrow Wilson. Harry Truman affirmed it: "This is a Christian nation."

But in 2009, Barack Hussein Obama begged to differ: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

Comes now a Pew Research Center survey that reveals the United States is de-Christianizing at an accelerated rate.

Whereas 86 percent of Americans in 1990 identified as Christians, by 2007, that was down to 78 percent. Today only 7 in 10 say they are Christians. But the percentage of those describing themselves as atheists, agnostics or nonbelievers has risen to 23. That exceeds the Catholic population and is only slightly below evangelicals.

Those in the mainline Protestant churches -- Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians -- have plummeted from 50 percent of the U.S. population in 1958 to 14 percent today. By accommodating the social revolution of the 1960s to stay relevant, mainline churches appear to have made themselves irrelevant to America's young.

The decline in Christian identity is greatest among the young. While 85 percent of Americans born before 1945 still call themselves Christians, only 57 percent of those born after 1980 do.

If we want to see our future, we should probably look to Europe, where Catholic Ireland just voted in a landslide to legalize same-sex marriage and where cathedrals and churches are being turned into tourist attractions and museums and even bars and restaurants.

What are the causes of a de-Christianized America?

High among them is the Supreme Court, which, since the Earl Warren era began, purged Christianity from all public schools and the public square -- and has been met with a puzzling lack of resistance from Middle America to the secularist revolution being imposed upon it.

Second, an anti-Christian elite captured the cultural heights -- the arts, elite universities, popular culture, the media -- and began, through movies, books and magazines, an assault on Christian beliefs and morality.

Third was the social revolution of the 1960s, which began with the arrival of the baby boomers on campus in 1964. Five years on, Woodstock Nation was wallowing in the mud, listening to Country Joe & the Fish.

The counterculture of the '60s would be used as a foil to build 49-state landslides for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, but then the '60s views and values were embraced by the elites and came to dominate the culture in the time of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Given his baggage, "Slick Willy" of Yoknapatawpha County would have been a comic figure in the 1950s. Today he is the Democratic Party's beau ideal of a statesman.

Many churches came out to meet the cultural revolution halfway. The results were irrelevance and scandal -- too many Elmer Gantrys in televangelist pulpits and too many predators in priestly cassocks.

What are the consequences of a de-Christianized America and West? Si monumentum requiris, circumspice. (If you would seek its monuments, look around you.)

Half of marriages end in divorce. Fewer children are being born, and of these, over 40 percent are out of wedlock. Record drug use rates and dropout rates and soaring crime rates that have declined only because we have an incarceration rate that rivals South Africa's.

Despite astonishing advances in medicine, we have far more and far more varied and deadly STDs.

As Christianity dies, individualism, materialism and hedonism replace it. "Selfies" could be the name for the generation for whom Easter Sunday long ago took a back seat to Super Bowl Sunday. More than a million abortions a year, assisted suicide and euthanasia are seen as the milestones of social progress in the new America.

"Panem et circenses," bread and circuses, were what the late Roman Empire was all about. With us, it is sex, drugs and rock, with variations on all three.

Historically, as the faith dies, the culture and civilization to which it gave birth die, and then the people die. And a new tribe with its own gods comes to occupy the emptying land.

On the old and new continents, it is the native-born of European ancestry who are de-Christianizing, aging and dying. And the nations they created are the ones depopulating.

To occupy Rome, the barbarians came from the east and north. To occupy the West, they are coming from the south. And like the Romans of the fourth century, we seem paralyzed and powerless to stop them.

Christianity was the founding faith of the West. That faith and the moral code and culture it produced once united this disparate and diverse nation and civilization.

As Christianity fades away and the moral code and culture it generated recede into irrelevance, what will hold us together?

Economically, we are dependent on foreigners for the necessities of our national life. Our politics are poisonous. Our racial divisions, once ameliorated by shared belief in the same God and Bible, are rawer than they were in the 1950s.

As for equality, diversity and global democracy, who will march and die for that?

Historian Arnold Toynbee said it well: "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder."


Where Are All The Gay Marriages?

Ireland has just had a national referendum that passed a constitutional amendment to legalize gay marriage. Same sex couples can already get married in 36 states, and next month the Supreme Court is likely to recognize a right to gay marriage under the Constitution. It seems that gay marriage has already become as traditional as apple pie. And a disclosure, I support gay marriage as a basic legal right, and I recommend to my fellow conservatives to graciously accept that it will probably soon be the law of the land.

And yet, where are all the gay marriages? You would think from the massive PR campaign of the last few years that millions of gay couples were just pining away to get hitched and settle down in a cozy little house with a white picket fence. Well, so far the promised flood of gay marriage licenses has turned out to be not much more than a trickle.

There are now 380,000 married gay couples in America. Out of an estimated adult gay population of 12.5 million, that’s a marriage rate of 6%. That’s not negligible, but far less than a fervent embrace of a right that LGBT activists, liberals and other social engineers assured us was something that most gay people ardently desired.

In reality, the cause of gay marriage was always more of a political objective and a fund raising tool. If you even casually survey broader gay culture and society, you will observe that cruises and cruising, fashion and being fabulous are the main focuses of most gay people. Gay marriage became a rallying cry not so much because it was something a majority of gay people urgently wanted, but because it was something available to straight people but not to gay people. Call it the politics of envy more than a crusade for human rights.

And for some gay people, it is less about marriage per se than it is about weddings. If you take a cursory glance through any gay magazine or website (and I advise doing so with one eye and prepared to quickly avert your attention if you are in the least bit squeamish) you would conclude that very often the gay definition of “wedding” is essentially “a fabulously gay party” (forgive the - intentional - pun). Gay people love to dress up, and on what occasion do people get more dressed up for than a wedding? Of course there’s also lots of gaiety all around, with lavish decor, great dance music, and lots of fancy cakes. And a predictably liberal and boring churchperson there to officiate the ceremony with a lot of blathering about the beautiful rainbow of diversity and so forth.

But as I said, we conservatives need to start accepting the new legal and political realities. A rear guard campaign opposing the fact that gay marriage is here will not be a winning issue in 2016, and President Hillary should be a sobering enough thought. And yes, some people have perfectly justifiable religious and moral objections to same-sex marriages. But then the Republic has so far survived cultural calamities like The Village People and their anthem YMCA, it will almost certainly survive gay marriage as well.



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

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

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


Tuesday, May 26, 2015

UK: Another Surveillance Law: One More Step towards the Big Brother State

By Sean Gabb

At the beginning of April 2012, the BBC and a couple of newspapers reported that the British Government was considering a new surveillance law. This would allow it to monitor the telephone calls, text messages, e-mails and website visits of everyone in the United Kingdom. There was a flurry of debate about civil rights and the need to protect us all against terrorists. There was a side argument between those who said the law was required by the European Union, and those who said it would be in breach of European Union law. Since then, the various debates have gone quiet. Possibly, the Ministers have decided to drop the matter. More likely, the initial leak was to soften us up for something less ambitious to be announced in the Queen’s Speech. The Ministers will say they have “listened” to our concerns – and will use the lesser measure they had in mind all the time as a precedent for moving to the full measure in later stages. This being so, whether greater or lesser, another step will have been taken to a Big Brother police state.

In common with other civil libertarians, I have been arguing for thirty years that Britain is heading towards a police state. There are two main reasons why we were, until recently, ignored. The first is the residual inability to believe that a police state could emerge here. England is the land of the common law and habeas corpus and trial by jury, of freedom of speech and religious toleration, of accountable and representative government, of privacy and individualism. We have enjoyed these things, at least in outline, since the middle ages. We taught them to the rest of the world. The doctrines known as classical liberalism are, however abstract their statement can often be, a meditation on English history. That eight hundred years of development – and perhaps longer, if we look beyond the Conquest – could be swept aside in one or two generations is hard to conceive.

The second reason is that a police state is commonly defined by its extreme manifestations. We have no obvious secret police in this country, nor any counterpart of the Soviet and national socialist concentration camps. Children are not given medals for informing on their parents, and we can make jokes about our rulers. Oh, nasty things are beginning to happen. Last year, for example, Mark Duggan was dragged by the police from a taxi in London and shot to death. In general, the police are increasingly partial to killing members of the public – sometimes at random. Or there has been the arrest and prosecution of Emma West, for being rude to the other passengers on a South London tram. But these events are still exceptional. If you want to define a police state by South American or East European practice, Britain is not a police state.

However, a police state is less about enforcement than control. Its function is to make a ruling class irresistible when robbing and oppressing, or when imposing its utopian fantasies. If people can be made to obey without being clubbed to death in a police cell, why bother with violence? There is no British Gestapo or KGB or Stasi, because our own police state rests on a foundation of changes of investigatory and criminal procedure and of omnipresent surveillance. When people know that they are being watched in all that they do, and when they know that stepping over some invisible line will put them to great inconvenience and expense, they will change their behaviour and their attitudes to authority. It is not illegal to buy most kinds of pornography. It is not illegal to buy a bottle of whisky every day, or two hundred cigarettes a week. It is not illegal to join a group that works for the mass-conversion of the white population to Islam, or to join the British National Party. But how many people will decide not to do these things if the details are being logged against their names in a central database? After all, being a known consumer of pornography may bring the police to the door when a child goes missing from down the road. Smoking and drinking may compromise the right to NHS treatment, or to adopt children, or even to continue looking after their own without supervision and preaching by the authorities. Membership of disapproved organisations may bring all manner of quiet persecutions.

When watched in this way, people will be more inclined to conform to whatever may be the current preferences of those in authority. Moreover, many will be inclined to show cheerfully willing – after all, a state able to persecute is also able to reward. Perhaps, when it has become enough of a habit, cheerful obedience will even ripen to love of the authorities. After all, resistance to oppression has always been less common than loyalty to the oppressors. When Stalin died, it was not only from prudence that millions in Russia broke down and wept in public. Possibly much of the grief when Kim Jong Il died the other month was also genuine. Show most people a stick, and beat them with it, and their response will eventually be to kiss it.

And this is what makes the logging of our electronic communications so important. It is a central component in the apparatus of surveillance and control. Of course, the Ministers and the general authorities will never admit that this is its purpose. They insist on its need so we can all be kept safe from terrorists and other criminals. They tell us that no ordinary people will be affected – that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Well, this argument should by now be seen with the contempt it deserves. We all have something to hide, even if it is not presently against the law. And the argument has been used again and again. How often have we been told that a deviation from the old constitutional norms is needed in the face of some exceptional danger, and that the new powers will only be used against that danger? How often have the new powers been immediately used to spy on and control ordinary people?

Well, there was the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. This made it possible for criminal proceeds to be confiscated after conviction, and by reversing the burden of proof, so that the defence had to argue that any assets in question were not the proceeds of crime. Enoch Powell denounced this in the Commons as a gross breach of our due process rights. The Ministers in the Thatcher Government replied that the evils of drug trafficking were so great, they justified a specific departure from due process that would never be allowed to form a precedent. This “specific departure” was made general in the Criminal justice Act 1988, and was eventually widened and consolidated into the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 – a law that abolishes financial privacy for everyone but the rich, and that enables something like the American civil asset forfeiture.

Or there was the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This law to enable snooping, for any purpose, by any public authority, was brought in amid promises that it was needed for the fight against serious crime, and that it would never be used for normal crime investigation. The Act is mostly used by local authorities to check whether people are recycling their waste as demanded, or to check whether parents really are living in the catchment areas they put on school allocation forms.

Or there was the Extradition Act 2003. This made it possible for British citizens to be deported to face trial in the United States for actions committed in the United Kingdom that may not have been offences under British law. We were assured by the Home Secretary that this was needed for the fight against terrorism and “serious international crime.” Look at these uses of the Act:

Giles Darby, David Bermingham and Gary Mulgrew (the “NatWest Three”) extradited on charges of fraud committed in the United Kingdom

Babar Ahmad – awaiting extradition on charges of running web sites supporting the Chechen and Afghan insurgencies, without having left the United Kingdom

Ian Norris – eventually extradited on charges of price fixing that were not currently illegal in the United Kingdom
Richard O'Dwyer – facing extradition on charges of copyright infringement

Christopher Tappin – extradited on charges of breaching American sanctions against Iran, though the alleged offence was committed in the United Kingdom, and though he was entrapped by American officials who swore that no law was being broken

Even in the case of Abu Hamza – no doubt a very wicked man – the charge was only of conspiracy. If we add to all this a discussion of how the European arrest warrants have been used in practice, we see that the Extradition Act has been less about protecting us from global terrorists and Bond villains, than about exposing British citizens and residents to arbitrary deportation to foreign countries, usually with lower standards of justice than our own, and often for acts that are not criminal offences here.

This is how every law allegedly made to protect us from terrorism and serious crime has been used in practice. This is why we should be so suspicious of the new electronic surveillance proposals.

But, even if the authorities are acting this time in good faith, the proposals ought still to be resisted. Our British police state is extraordinarily careless about the data it collects. This is always being lost or stolen. In 2007 alone, the Department of Work and Pensions lost the personal details of 45,000 claimants; a London education authority lost the personal details of 160,000 children; HM Revenue and Customs lost the personal details of 25 million families who were claiming child benefit; The Driving Standards Agency lost the personal details of three million candidate drivers. Even if it does not hand them over to despotic foreign governments, or sell them to multinational corporations, can the British State be trusted to keep our electronic communications secret? How unlikely is it that a database of our credit card purchases will not be left on a memory stick in a pole dancing club?

But let us join this theme of incompetence to the main subject of a police state. I have admitted there is much that distinguishes us from really nasty places like East Germany. But one of these points of difference is that the East German police state at least kept people from being robbed in their homes or beaten up in the street. Whatever the price in human rights, the East German police state gave people a country in which they could feel safe. Our own situation is best described as “anarcho-tyranny.” People who urinate in bus shelters, or dig up and steal copper wiring from the National Grid, or make life hell for their neighbours, or may be involved in real terrorist offences, are not prosecuted, or are defended by an army of human rights lawyers at our expense.

The police state never touches them. Instead, the rest of us get our post opened by town hall snoops, who think we are trying to get our children into a better school. A man gets an ASBO for standing alone beside the Cenotaph and reciting the names of our war dead in Iraq. A student gets arrested for suggesting a police horse might be gay. Christian evangelists get arrested for quoting some of the less charitable verses from the Bible about homosexuals.

I suggest, given all the available evidence, that this county is ruled at best by some very stupid and incompetent people. At worst it is ruled by people who say they need a police state because they want to fight crime and terrorism, but in fact need fears of crime and terrorism because they want a police state. Whatever the case, they should not be given the right to gather and store details of our electronic communications.


HRA: giving democracy a hammering

Britain's Human Rights Act (HRA) is wrong for several reasons, but principally because it enables political issues (prisoner enfranchisement, assisted suicide, welfare reform, etc) to be treated as legal ones. In a democracy, political issues should be the sole responsibility of elected representatives who make laws after engaging with the public. Legal issues should be the sole responsibility of judges who give judgements after hearing submissions from lawyers about the law. The big political picture, informed by contested values and beliefs, should be the preserve of politicians; the detail, informed by settled laws, is for judges. Putting it simply, it is for parliament to make the law and judges to interpret and apply it.

In the name of democracy, the HRA should be repealed, not replaced. This would return the UK’s constitution to how it was before October 2000, when the HRA came into force, a time when the UK had a reasonable record, viewed in the historical context, of respecting liberty and democracy. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is overseen by the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights, dates back to 1950. Its impact on politics was negligible for several decades, but the Strasbourg court has now become so meddlesome that the UK should withdraw from it.

It is against these benchmarks, of repealing the HRA without replacement and withdrawing from the ECHR, that the current Tory proposals on human rights should be measured. These are the only reforms that are capable of confining judges to the legal sphere and making it possible for the political sphere to be re-energised with some big-picture, value-led aspirations and policies. However, by the benchmarks of repeal and withdrawal, the Tories’ proposals don’t just fall short - they are actually proposing to re-energise and bolster the human-rights project.

When the Conservatives launched their human-rights policy proposals last October, it was clear that they remained committed to the rights culture. The policy document was called Protecting Human Rights in the UK, and it described the ECHR as ‘an entirely sensible statement of the principles which should underpin any modern democratic nation’. The centrepiece of the Tory proposals was to be a new ‘British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities’ aimed at ‘deliver[ing] a coherent and comprehensive human-rights regime in Britain’. Indeed, this commitment to legislate for rights and responsibilities means that the human-rights culture will probably be extended under the Tory proposals.

The Tory election manifesto pledged that the next Conservative government would ‘scrap the Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights’. The key objective of Tory policy on human rights is to ‘break the formal link between British courts and the ECHR’ so as to ‘make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human-rights matters in the UK’. It’s the ‘E’ of ECHR that troubles the Tories, rather than the ‘HR’ bit of it. So long as human rights are administered by a court sitting in London, rather than Strasbourg, the Tories’ Eurosceptical demands will have been satisfied.

As for the tweaking of human rights, the October document proposed ‘to seek to limit the reach of human-rights cases to the UK so that British armed forces overseas are not subject to persistent human-rights claims’. The only specific reform mentioned in the manifesto is that the new British Bill of Rights would ‘stop terrorists and other serious foreign criminals who pose a threat to our society from using spurious human-rights arguments to prevent deportation’. And, as if to stress the timidity of the reforms, the manifesto stated that the Tories wanted to ‘restore common sense’ to human rights and that they would ‘remain faithful to the basic principles of human rights, which we signed up to in the original ECHR’.

Broadly speaking, the Tory proposals amount to this: it may become a little harder for British armed forces overseas to be sued; it may become a little easier for any future Abu Qatadas to be deported; and, in the name of common sense, convicted prisoners will not be enfranchised. In reality, what the Tories now call ‘Labour’s Human Rights Act 1998’ – omitting to mention that it was passed with the Tories’ support – will be replaced with the Tories’ British Bill of Rights. What is proposed is an expanded human-rights package that addresses broadly similar rights, with some responsibilities grafted on to them that will be branded with a new nationalistic name.

Given how tarnished human rights have become in recent years, the human-rights lobby might have supported the Tory proposals to rebrand human rights. But it isn’t supporting the Tory proposals. In fact, the human-rights lobby’s response to the Tories’ plan to publish a draft bill within 100 days, with Michael Gove driving it through as the new justice secretary, has been to put itself on a war footing.

The big guns took to the Guardian to warn of the dire implications of human-rights reform: barrister and new Labour MP Keir Starmer was so stirred by the prospect of the HRA repeal that he penned ‘some myth-busting’ arguments in support of the HRA; barrister Philippe Sands warned that the Tories’ plans were ‘clearly untenable’; and commentator Will Hutton claimed the Bill of Rights was ‘code for uninhibited Tory power unchallenged by “foreign” courts’, a desire for power being ‘driven solely by prejudice and low politics’.

The Guardian’s scouts went on reconnaissance missions to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Hull, reporting back that the Tory proposals were doomed to fail. In Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has threatened to block any change in human-rights law, which is written into the Scottish devolution settlement. In Northern Ireland, it seems unlikely that the Irish government would agree to tweak the human-rights provisions arising from the Good Friday agreement. And, from Hull, the Guardian’s scouts discovered a quote from the Eurosceptic MP David Davis saying that he might oppose his own government on human-rights reform. It is beginning to look as if even an English and Welsh Bill of Rights is unlikely.

Back on the battlefield, Liberty set up a ‘Save our Human Rights Act’ campaign; Amnesty International set up a similarly named version called ‘Save the Human Rights Act’; and the website RightsInfo urged its supporters to ‘get busy’, saying ‘the fight begins now’.

But it was left to Cambridge law lecturer Dr Mark Elliott to unveil the pro-HRA lobby’s big bazooka: the House of Lords. After noting that the Tories were outnumbered three-to-one in the Lords, Elliott peddled the idea that the ‘Human Rights Act is such a fundamental piece of constitutional legislation that it would be constitutionally negligent of the House of Lords — which has increasingly cast itself in the role of guardian of constitutional values — to wave through its repeal’. The launching of this big bazooka would be entirely consistent with Elliott’s notion of a ‘non-majoritarian form of democracy’, with which he hoped to rally the troops on the basis that losing a General Election doesn’t matter because their lordships have the wisdom to realise that the HRA is beyond repeal.

There is something incongruous about the Tory proposals to rebrand human-rights laws and the war-footing response of the human-rights lobby. It’s best understood by recognising the totemic nature of the HRA to the human-rights lobby, in comparison to its absence of popularity outside those elite circles. Most human-rights lobbyists are lawyers, academics and campaigners. But although these people are good at writing newspaper columns, good at tweeting and good at finding legal and undemocratic reasons to block any reform of human-rights laws, they are small in number.

Moreover, the human-rights lobby finds it difficult to connect with popular consciousness. Its project is comparable to the attempts of the Labour opposition in recent years to patronise people by presenting them as in need of state handouts and state support. This project ended in electoral defeat on 7 May. The project of the human-rights lobby is essentially the same, but with a legal twist. The human-rights lobby sees ordinary people as weak and vulnerable and in need of lawyers and campaigners to provide them with a voice.

Keir Starmer captured the essence of the human-rights project when he claimed that ‘the HRA has heralded a new approach to the protection of the most vulnerable in our society, including child victims of trafficking, women subject to domestic and sexual violence, those with disabilities and victims of crime. After many years of struggling to be heard, these individuals now have not only a voice, but a right to be protected.’

As the Labour Party comes to terms with its election defeat, its spokesmen are now discussing how it can connect with the aspirations of working people. Nevertheless, it cannot avoid seeing people as either vulnerable or victims. It’s this mentality that the human-rights lobby similarly cannot shake off because, once people are seen as aspirational, robust and resourceful, they have no need for a human-rights lobbyist to patronise them. Aspirational citizens can take their place in society without the need for people like Starmer – whether in the Labour Party, the legal profession, academia or campaigning groups – either to protect them or give them a voice.

The Tories have far more in common with their critics in the human-rights lobby than either cares to recognise. Both are committed to shackling the political sphere with human-rights laws, overseen by judges and lawyers. We should repeal the HRA, withdraw from the ECHR, and start a proper political conversation about the big-picture issues that could truly engage the people as aspirational, robust and resourceful citizens.


Dutch cabinet backs ban on Islamic veil in schools, hospitals and public transport

The Netherlands have approved a partial ban on wearing an Islamic face-covering veil out in public.

Dutch Muslims could be fined up to almost £300 if caught wearing a burqa and niqab in certain places after The Hague backed the ban on Friday.

It does not apply to anyone wearing one on the street but veils will not be allowed in schools, hospitals and public transport.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said the government were only introducing the bill 'in specific situations where it is essential for people to be seen' or for security reasons.

He added that it did not have any religious background but was to aid communication.

'Face-covering clothing will in future not be accepted in education and healthcare institutions, government buildings and on public transport,' the government said in a statement after the cabinet backed Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk's bill.

Between 100 and 500 Muslim women are currently thought to wear the burqa in the Netherlands, according to state broadcaster NOS.

A previous bill from Rutte's last government - which would have seen a full ban of the burqa even on the street - will now be withdrawn.

The government said it 'sees no reason for a general ban that would apply to all public places.'

It said that with this latest draft law, the government had 'tried to find a balance between people's freedom to wear the clothes they want and the importance of mutual and recognisable communication.'

The bill must now been sent to Netherland's Council of State to be debated.

France introduced a ban on women wearing the burqa in 2010, which was backed by the European Court of Human Rights last year.

Judges rejected claims the ban breached religious freedom and said it encouraged citizens to 'live together'.

Under the ban, women caught wearing full-face veils in public spaces can be fined up to 150 euros.

Belgium brought in a similar ban in 2011 which declared both the burqa and niqab 'incompatible' with the rule of law.

Now several other European countries appear to be considering introducing their own bans.


Animal rights nut aiming at top office in the RSPCA wants to 'phase out' pet ownership

An animal rights radical standing for election to the national council of the RSPCA has called for all pets to be neutered.

John Bryant, a veteran campaigner, said he wants pet ownership to be 'phased out' and all breeding ended.

Mr Bryant is one of a number of radicals hoping to be elected to the council of RSPCA trustees, in a vote held this month.

The charity's 22,000 members will vote to fill five of 25 seats on the council. Of the eight candidates, five has a history of radical views on animal rights.

The RSPCA has been criticised in the past for pursuing a 'political' agenda, including prosecuting fox hunts rather than focusing on animal welfare.

Television cook and rural campaigner Clarissa Dickson Wright called in 2013 for people to stop donating to the charity until it ended 'threatening policies'.

Countryside campaigners last night warned that the upcoming elections may spell an acceleration of a radical agenda.

Mr Bryant is one of the more radical of the candidates, who wants pet ownership phased out in the coming years.

In his 1982 book Fettered Kingdoms, he compared pet keeping to slavery, writing: 'Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles — from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.

'The cat, like the dog, must disappear. We should cut the domestic cat free ... The right of every single fish to live out its life as nature intended is an animal rights issue.'

Mr Bryant, a 'humane' pest controller who has previously served twice on the RSPCA council, told the Daily Mail that his views had changed little in the last three decades.

'My views in 1982 have been tempered, a bit, but they are still the same essentially,' he said.

'Some people say I want to take all animals out into the middle of nowhere and let them go. That is rubbish, of course.

'I have two dogs myself, I have never been without pets.

'I think it is the duty of anyone who is involved in animal rights, if they are able, to take animals out of kennels and pens.'

But Mr Bryant, who was previously chief officer of the League Against Cruel Sports, added: 'The human race has been a disaster for the animal kingdoms of the planet. Animals have been enslaved and they have been dominated by the human race.

'If I was king of the world I would say that all domestic pets should be neutered. The overpopulation of pets in this country is a disgrace.

'I was talking about releasing animals from the shackles of human control, not in a literal sense of letting them go, but neutering them, taking care of the ones we have got, and starting to deal with the massive overpopulation problem that is dominating animal welfare.'

The winners of the election will become trustees of the charity with responsibility for its leadership, direction and the use of its £125 million-a-year income.

Also standing for election are Dr Dan Lyons and Angela Roberts who run the Centre for Animals and Social Justice in Sheffield.

Their think tank is working on research into 'democratic theory and practice in relation to the representation of animals' interests'.

Their proposals include having seats in parliaments for representatives who will solely act on the behalf of animals.

In his election statement, Dr Lyons describes hunting as 'institutionalised sadism that has no place in a civilised society'.

Peta Watson-Smith, a vegan, compared the farming industry to the Nazi holocaust. Speaking to The Times [must credit], she said: 'I don't think people always appreciate what is the holocaust going on behind closed doors. You talk about the Jews.'

Tim Bonner, director of campaigns at the Countryside Alliance, said that the RSPCA had started to rebuild its reputation and finances by trying to focus on core animal welfare issues.

He told The Times: 'It would be a significant backward step to elect on to its council people determined to return the society to an extremist agenda.'

A spokesman for the RSPCA said: 'The RSPCA's Council comprises up to 25 members elected to serve as charity trustees.

'Council members are elected by the votes of the whole RSPCA membership and serve for three years, retiring on a rotational basis.

'This year there are eight candidates for five seats. The candidates are responsible for their own election addresses and the views and opinions they express are clearly their own.

'It is for the RSPCA's membership to decide which candidates are best suited to serve on the Council and to fulfil the role of a charity trustee.'

The results of the election will be announced at the RSPCA's AGM next month.



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

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

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


Monday, May 25, 2015

Multicultural Poisoner in Britain

A cleaner who was angry with a worker for walking in on the canteen while she was there took revenge on him by spraying toxic chemicals over his sandwiches.

Sharon Edwards was cleaning the kitchen in an office building when she was disturbed by Mohammed Omar Islam, who wanted to put his lunch in the communal fridge.

When he left the room again, she muttered 'mind how you go' and then sprayed telephone cleaning fluid and air freshener over his food.

Islam later noticed a smell of chemicals coming from his sandwich, and spat them out after a single bite because of the disgusting taste of the air freshener.

Edwards, 44, from Aston in Birmingham, today pleaded guilty at Birmingham Crown Court to administering a poison with the intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy.

The cleaner, described as a 'decent and hard-working woman' by her lawyer, was given a 26-week suspended jail sentence.

Joanne Barker, prosecuting, said both Edwards and her victim were working at an office block in Hagley Road, Birmingham on February 16 when the incident happened.

'Mr Islam entered the canteen to put his food in the fridge and the defendant was inside cleaning,' she said.  'Ms Edwards was clearly unhappy with him entering the area as she tried to clean and, in fairness to her, had put a chair against the door.

'There was a verbal altercation - Mr Islam told the defendant she was rude, and put his food in the fridge and left.'  Ms Barker added: 'But as he left, the defendant muttered something along the lines of "watch how you go".

'Ms Edwards then opened the fridge door and opened the lunch-box with Mr Islam's food inside, and sprayed it several times.'

At lunchtime, Mr Islam, a customer service worker, collected his food but noticed 'a strong chemical smell' coming from his sandwiches, Ms Barker said.

He passed the food around colleagues for them to inspect then took 'a small bite', which he immediately spat out.

The Selsafe telephone sanitiser had a label on the bottle saying, 'Warning: Harmful. May cause lung damage, if swallowed.'

Mr Islam went to hospital after vomiting, but did not suffer any long-term effects.

Edwards was identified thanks to CCTV footage and confessed as soon as she was arrested, telling police she did not intend to hurt Mr Islam.

Her barrister Henry Spooner described the affair as 'unfortunate and foolish', adding: 'This incident occurred from what she perceived, at the time, as his arrogant and in-her-face behaviour.

'He accused her of being rude, and she, him. Whatever the truth - and maybe they're both right - it didn't excuse her complete overreaction to that.

He added his client had been 'very angry' and accepted she 'behaved in a way that was totally inappropriate for what was, when all is said and done, a very trivial incident indeed''

Judge Francis Laird QC said: 'That spiteful moment and the potential consequences, had he consumed all the food, make this a serious offence which crosses the custody threshold.'


The equality tyranny of the ‘gay cake’ judgment

“Equality as an aim in itself through government action is doomed not merely to defeat but to totalitarianism.” So observed the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier this year at the Trinity Institute symposium ‘Creating the Common Good’. His context was wealth creation and disparity, and the needs and means of redistribution. But his principle holds for the extremist pursuit of all equality: as a political vision and civil imperative, it inclines toward totalitarian injustice because it denies liberty to difference.

The court ruling in the case of the ‘gay cake’ against the McArthur family and Ashers Bakery is really quite astonishing (if not at all surprising). It appears that by refusing to make a cake with a political slogan agitating for a change in the law of Northern Ireland to permit same-sex marriage, Ashers Bakery discriminated against Gareth Lee by on the grounds of his sexual orientation, despite the fact that they would have declined an order to make such a cake for a heterosexual. And so, once again, we see gay ‘hurt feelings’ targeting a Christian business, and a court ruling which diminishes religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

Ashers’ decision was never about the Gareth Lee’s sexuality (if the McArthurs ever knew it: can’t heterosexuals order pro-same-sex-marriage cakes? Isn’t it possible to be gay and opposed to the redefinition of marriage? Can’t those inclined to same-sex attraction choose to marry a person of the opposite gender?): it was about a political slogan which offended against their Christian beliefs. Are businesses now to be compelled to produce materials or convey messages which are incompatible with their owners’ deeply and reasonably held beliefs?

Peter Lynas, a former barrister and Northern Ireland director of Evangelical Alliance (and guest writer on this very matter), commented:

“This judgment will cause great concern for all those in business. It turns out the customer is always right and businesses have no discretion in deciding which goods and services to produce. The law rightly protects people from discrimination, but it has now extended that protection to ideas. While it’s absolutely vital to keep this case in perspective, this ruling will come as a shock to the vast majority of people who, polling shows, supported Ashers. While the case will hopefully be appealed, that will lead to a prolonged period of uncertainty and nervousness among business owners. It will no doubt lead to further calls to change the law.”

It is important to note that the McArthurs discriminated not only on the grounds of sexual orientation, but also on the basis of religion and political opinion. Presiding District Judge Brownlie was very clear on this in her ruling (which merits reading very carefully in its entirety). As Peter Lynas further observes:

“With respect to religion, a law designed to protect the belief of the customer or employee had been extended and used against a business owner. Mr Lee’s beliefs were not relevant to the decision not to produce the cake – they were and remain unknown. To extend the law to include the religious beliefs of the supplier is we believe a significant change in the law that will have wider implications. It seems that religion has been effectively banished from the commercial sphere. Even the right to freedom of religion under the European Convention of Human Rights could not save the McArthurs.”

“It is important to remember there was no mention of political opinion in the original letter of claim. The Equality Commission, which supports same-sex marriage and is by definition a political organisation, added this ground later. Will it now regulate which political opinions are allowed under equality law and which are unacceptable?”

And this is the very crux of the matter. We are dealing with ‘protected characteristics’ and political campaigns which agitate for a change in the law. What are the limits of these? If a gay man asks a Christian baker to make him a cake iced with the slogan ‘Abolish the Gay Age of Consent’, is the Christian baker now obliged by statute to become complicit in the propagation of pederasty? If a Christian man asks a Muslim printer to produce leaflets declaring ‘Jesus is Lord; Mohammed is a false prophet’, is the Muslim obliged by statute to become complicit in blasphemy?

How can it be, as District Judge Brownlie decrees, that the exercising of the Christian conscience must be restricted to ‘religious institutions’? How, then, is the Christian supposed to ‘walk in the spirit‘ (Gal 5:16) or ‘worship in spirit and in truth‘ (Jn 4:24)? Is our worshipping to be confined to Sunday church? Is our walking to be restricted by the walls of a ‘religious institution’?

If Joseph & Son had their carpenter’s shop not in first-century Nazareth but 21st-century Belfast, would they be obliged by statute to produce a wooden sign saying: ‘Support Gay Marriage’? If so, isn’t it clear that the law must now be changed so that people may not be coerced into supporting political causes to enact laws which offend against the religious conscience? The @HolyVote campaign is embryonic, but if there is to be no reasonable accommodation of religious belief, we are indeed being increasingly subject to a statist totalitarian equality.


Christian-owned bakery found to have discriminated against gay marriage will now only make cakes for 'birthday and baby-related celebrations'

The Christian-owned bakery which was found to have discriminated against a gay man has announced it is limiting its services - and will only bake birthday and baby cakes.

Ashers Baking Company will only provide birthday and baby-related celebration cakes, according to the firm's general manager.

Daniel McArthur said: 'Due to the recent legal developments we have decided to limit our celebration cake range to certain birthday and baby-related celebration cakes while we consider our policy and talk with our lawyers.'

The decision comes after a judge at Belfast County Court ruled that Ashers had acted unlawfully by declining an order from gay rights activist Gareth Lee last year.

Mr Lee, a member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space, wanted a cake featuring Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie with the slogan Support Gay Marriage.

It had been ordered for a private function in Bangor, County Down, to mark International Anti Homophobia Day last May.

Mr Lee, who paid in full when placing the order at Ashers' Belfast branch, said he was left feeling like a 'lesser person' when he was told his request could not be fulfilled.

The publicly funded Northern Ireland Equality Commission - which has a statutory duty to monitor the region's anti-discrimination laws - brought the legal action on his behalf.

Ashers, which is owned by the McArthur family, employs almost 80 people across six branches and delivers throughout the UK and Ireland.

The family said they opposed same sex marriage on religious grounds and could not produce the cake with a message that was contrary to their deeply held Christian beliefs.

In her judgement delivered on Tuesday District Judge Isobel Brownlie found the bakers had discriminated against Mr Lee on grounds of his sexual orientation and his political beliefs.

Ashers was ordered to pay agreed damages of £500.

Mr McArthur said the firm's website was being re-worked to reflect the changes. He added: 'The department represents a small part of the business and no jobs will be impacted.'

The high profile case has divided public opinion in Belfast and beyond.

Throughout the case, the McArthurs, who are considering an appeal, were supported by the Christian Institute which paid their defence costs.


Why I love 'hate speech'

By Mallory Millett, sister of the deranged feminist Kate Millet

I love Pamela Geller.  I have known and loved her for years.  She is a great American!  If only everyone who has the honor of calling himself American could grow courage like hers we would be un-terrorizable as a nation.  Pamela gets that we are at war and stands as an example for those of us who have lost our way. 

Many of you under fifty have been educated by the whackerino indoctrinators crowding reality out of our High Schools and Universities.  These liars and fantasists are so busy obliterating, truncating or revising history (when they're not entirely ignoring it), that our true history has drifted out the window like so much smoke wafting in the wind. As a consequence there are few Americans left to say, "Hey, whoa, that's not the way it goes...that's not the way it is"; especially when it comes to our Constitution.

The First Amendment is in the Constitution because not one scintilla of it could be taken for granted; it's an anomaly which needed to be boldly, emphatically, unequivocally stated due to it's being nonexistent in all of the places from which we ran to reach sanctuary on this continent.  There seems to be some grand misunderstanding that human rights or free speech has ever existed anywhere else

But, the thing didn't!

Forget about Greece.  I'm talking post-ancient.

The first time such rights came to be was the English Magna Carta, which mildly inspired such thinking. (Remember, many in 16th Century England lost their heads over "thought crimes.") It was America which took rights from that document and others and greatly elaborated on them. For this reason, the First Amendment needed to be drawn out most carefully so as not to be misconstrued. 

The entire point is that we have freedom of thought which flowers into freedom of speech.  Otherwise, if my speech can be curbed then so may my thought be curbed and then, of necessity, we will have "thought police."  America is where one comes to escape "thought police" who, to this day, predominate in the world.

Millions have died over this exact amendment. And here's the kicker:  the whole point is to cover detestable speech, the most hateful speech.  There would be no reason for its formation, were it just to cover acceptable speech.  It had to be put in there first and laid out meticulously as all the other freedoms are dependent upon it. 

Jonah Goldberg says, "She (Pamela) is contending that in America people are allowed to say offensive things (i..e. hate speech) without risking execution.  I am at a loss as to why anyone would disagree with that".

I wholeheartedly stand behind that along with Judith Miller and Alan Dershowitz. As Jeanine Piro says, "The First Amendment is "an ABSOLUTE".  This is contrary to Leftists, who would  re conform our culture of liberty to please the tastes of savage, knife-wielding hordes. According to a report, one-half of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to ban "hate-speech".  Whaaaa? Let’s just get rid of our sacred free thought amendment?

Has everyone forgotten Nazis are allowed to march in Skokie?  The KKK has the right of assembly and, by the way, Broadway just hauled in millions and many awards ridiculing, mocking and mercilessly pillorying The Book of Mormon.  If we harbored constraints against such stuff Don Rickles would have been separated from his head before we knew of him (wouldn’t you love to hear his riff on this?)

What is this new idea being put out by that wrecking-ball throng of teachers that anything is all right except hate speech!  Hate speech is the most protected speech. We're at liberty to spew hate-speech at anyone or anything.

Except the Muslims? ...because they are threatening to murder us because we object to their murdering us?  You are kidding me! We are free to object to whatever we wish and to hate whomever we wish. Because some primitives are holding a knife to our throats we should just throw it in and say, "Aw, shucks, guys, we never really meant free-free?

The smartest thing to get rid of these clowns and their love of menace would be regularly to hold a "Mohammad cartoon contest" in every town in the USA with every newspaper and outlet publishing them.  They will either go away and show themselves so we can dispatch them; or develop an ability to laugh at themselves and their shibboleths like every other person living in this motley nation.  We've had the foul-mouthed "Book of Mormon", the infamous piss-Christ, the Polish jokes, the Irishmen jokes, the Jewish and Catholic jokes.  It's an all-inclusive culture.  Everyone and everything is fair game in America.

We should become a nation of Pamela Gellers.  "Je sius Pamela Geller" needs to be our battle cry just as "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" came out of Paris in the same fashion as the Danes in WWII, who, to the one, put on The Star of David to stymie the Nazis.  Oops! I forgot history's been erased from our mind-screens.  Look it up. Denmark, WWII, Star of David.  Google it, millennials.  

Pamela sussed these beasts out of the woodwork.  They were here and planning horrific violence.  Let us drag the "lone wolves" and “terror-cells” who have come to invade and butcher us out into the open so we can weed them from our garden.

They came to kill and got killed.  Perfect! 

Pamela saved each life of those they would have massacred in whichever mall, theatre, school, hospital, church or gathering they had in their sights.  These men were planning a big hit like the ones in Australia or Paris; the bazaars, mosques and schools where they've wreaked havoc on their fellow Muslims.  Never forget: they are murdering Muslims by the hundreds of thousands.  But Pamela brilliantly provoked them and voila! they showed themselves. She deserves a medal. 

That's well-executed warfare.

Where are the men?  Where are the Christians?  Where are the Jews?  Where are the sane non-homicidal Muslims about whom we hear?  The war is upon us now and we have no choice but to win. Who, in this nation, is ready to face losing to these cutthroats?  They are already secreted among us.  Daily, hourly, we are being infiltrated...Ann Arbor, Florida, Minnesota, Idaho, the more innocent the place the better for entrenchment.

To win we must become inventive and clever like Pamela.

We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with her just as the Obamaless heads of state marched shoulder to shoulder through Paris. And anyway, this has nothing to do with speech. These radicals are here for the express purpose of murdering every one of us at random regardless of who we are, what we have done or what we say! 

What has happened to Americans? You listened to the liberals for forty years and now you have Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and the radical jihadists.  Oh, yeah, you liberals, you "free thinkers" who never saw provocative art you didn't now have the gall to denounce Pamela?  Yeah, we want you governing us as we face marauders...we want to stand shoulder to shoulder through the Revolutionary, Civil, and WWs I & II with such as you?

An Imam, in defending the fatwa on Pamela, had the gall to say, "You have to know that when you say such things there will be consequences!"  Pamela exploded, "Not in America, sir!  There are no punishing consequences for speech here."  She was forced to talk over his incessant shrieking to be heard.  "I am an American, sir, and, in America, you don't threaten my life over something I say."  The Imam was covering her words because the very idea of such freedom makes him hysterical.  He can't stop chattering as it's unbearably threatening to him.  Terrorists are terrified people.

There is only one thing we tolerant Americans absolutely will not tolerate and that is the startling intolerance of these religious radicals. We are in the throes of a great war, perhaps one of the last great wars on Earth and we must win it at all costs...but never at the cost of our consciences, standards or souls.

We, every man and woman, must be ready to rise to the occasion, well-armed, to defend our dear land. We got relaxed; brain-washed by fools in our Universities and Media which opened up voluminous vacuums and, of course, the rapacious invaders have arrived.  It's a simple law of physics:  "Nature abhors a vacuum." Nothing new!  Millennia old!  Are we really so ignorant as to insist on turning a blind eye to this monstrous assault?  We owe it to everyone who’s given life or limb in preserving this exact same liberty to close ranks against our predators.

The other day a Japanese statesman was quoted as saying that the thing the Japanese most feared about America throughout WWII was that so many individuals were armed.  They said they believed they could never conquer a country where every citizen was armed and ready.  Nuff said!



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

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

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


Sunday, May 24, 2015

It takes a woman  .... to scratch another woman's eyes out

Feminists prattle on about the "sisterhood"  -- but it just ain't so.  Women can be as destructive to other women as they are supportive to their female friends. 

I first became aware of that many years ago when I was married to an exceptionally bright woman.  I was reading an article about Margaret Thatcher that excoriated Margaret from head to toe -- from shoes to hair.  I remarked to my wife what an amazingly savage article it was.  She replied:  "Probably written by another woman".  I checked the byline.  She was right.

Below we have another example of the phenomenon.  Katie Hopkins is actually amusing in her vitriol but she can be quite unfair.  And we see that below.  She is very scathing about a perfectly attractive woman whom she seems to have taken a dislike to.

Kelly Brook

Katie Hopkins

Katie Hopkins has taken yet another swipe at Kelly Brook.  Writing in her weekly column for The Sun, the Celebrity Big Brother runner-up pointed out that Kelly had been seen 'hobnobbing with the rich, famous and exceptionally thin' in Cannes.

'Given that she is none of those things, I am guessing she is there to give a sense of scale - like using a coin near a small insect,' she added.

This is only the most recent vitriol that Hopkins has unleashed on poor Kelly.

In a New Years 'saints and sinners' roundup in December last year, Katie put the former Big Breakfast host in the latter category of being a 'chubber'.

'I think she does look like a chubber. I get the whole boobs thing - she's got amazing boobs - but the rest of it? No. And there isn't anything between the ears,' she wrote in New magazine. 'If you looked through you could see the other side of her head,' she said.

Kelly is just the latest celebrity that the acid-tongued Katie has made an enemy of, after attacking everyone from Denise Welch and Danny Dyer to Chloe Madeley. Last week, she used her column to brand Charlotte Church a 'fat, Welsh Russell Brand'.

[The bibulous Welsh singer Charlotte Church has taken part in far-Left demonstrations, as has addled "comedian" Russell Brand -- so the deeply wounding part of that description was, of course, "fat"]


Another multicultural sex attacker in Britain

An illegal immigrant who should have been kicked out of the country has been jailed for 16 years for three sex attacks on lone women.

Lamin Touray, 36, forced one of his victims to the ground and attempted to rape her in a car park after following her home from a Christmas party in Leeds, West Yorkshire.

He also sexually assaulted another woman in the entrance to her flat after following her home in the Leeds area and carried out a smiliar sex assault on a student in Newport, south Wales in 2009.

The Gambian national, who gave a false name and date of birth after he was arrested over the latest attack in December 2013, has now been handed a 12-year prison sentence with an extended licence of four years.

The judge at Leeds Crown Court imposed the extended licence because Touray 'posed a serious risk of committing offences against women in the future.' It means he will spend a total of 16 years behind bars.

It came after he admitted attempted rape, two offences of sexual assault and attempting to pervert the course of justice at yesterday's hearing.

Touray had originally been granted temporary permission to enter the UK to attend a relative's wedding but failed to return to Africa and was living in the country illegally.

He was detained after following a young student home following a Christmas night out in the early hours of December 2013 and attempting to rape her.

The court heard how a CCTV operator was so concerned after spotting Touray following the woman that he abandoned his post and ran to the scene in a bid to help her.

The attack came just two days after he sexually assaulted a woman outside her flat in the same area of Leeds, and four years after he targeted a young woman in south Wales.

Sentencing Touray, Judge Neil Clark told him: 'You present a significant risk because you are a man who will randomly attack females who are strangers to you.'

The judge said he had no powers to order Touray's deportation upon completion of the sentence but requested that his sentencing remarks be passed to the parole board and the Home Office.

He added: 'You are entirely detrimental to the public good in this country.'

Judge Clark also praised the 'remarkable bravery' of all three of Touray's victims in their efforts to fight him off.

Each one was also prepared to attend the court to give evidence, which resulted in Touray entering the guilty pleas.

The judge said: 'It is quite refreshing to see that there are young women in this country as brave and resilient as that.'

After the case, detective superintendent Jon Morgan, from West Yorkshire Police, said: 'Touray is a predatory sex offender who targeted women walking alone in Leeds city centre and put them through frightening ordeals. He is clearly someone who presents a very real danger to women.

'He was brought to justice through a combination of excellent detective work, forensic science and information from the public generated by appeals in the media.

'We hope the significant sentence he has received will provide some degree of comfort to the victims and some reassurance to the wider community.'


Another damaging false rape claim

Reality-deprived feminists commonly claim that there are no false rape claims.

A former Britain's Got Talent finalist has told how he lost out on a £1million record deal when an ex-girlfriend falsely accused him of as sault.

Singer Adam Chandler, 30, from Kent, was on the brink of stardom when his swing band Jack Pack wowed Simon Cowell and his fellow judges.

An hour after appearing in the TV talent show final last year he found out his former partner Amy Evans had gone to police accusing him of assault.

She claimed Adam had hit her during a row five months earlier and he was charged with assault before being cleared by a jury in just 20 minutes.

But the case came at a cost as his band mates threw him out of the group and replaced him with another member.

Despite losing out to boy band Collabro in the 2014 series, Jack Pack have signed with Simon Cowell's record label SyCo and are due to release their first album.

Speaking for the first time since being cleared in March, Adam, who also goes by the last name of Diplock, said he is 'gutted'.

He said: 'It is gutting to think that someone else is now taking my place, a position I had earned and had spent nearly 20 years crafting my trade to achieve.

'I know it is tempting to feel bitter. Of course it hurts. I was accused of being a woman beater and I knew I never did what I was accused of.

'I was genuinely petrified about being in a court and I found the whole thing surreal and a very lonely place to be.'

Despite his ordeal Adam, from Maidstone, Kent, says he feels no anger towards his former partner.  He added: 'I'm not that kind of person. I never want revenge.  'Life is too short to store up resentment and anger. It happened. I have just had to deal with it.'

He admits he still finds it hard to see his former band without him, considering how much of himself he'd given to achieving the dream the group now live.

'The band have their first album out soon, but I don't think I will buy a copy,' said Adam.  'It is still a little raw but I wish them every success.'

Since leaving Jack Pack, the singer has formed a new band, with whom he performs at weddings and corporate functions.


EU to decide on military action against traffickers as European Council boss admits it needs a migrant policy of 'sending them back'

The EU cannot welcome all migrants fleeing to its shores and will have to work out a new return policy to tackle the problem, European Council president Donald Tusk has said.

'I am realistic and I think that first of all we have to work out a new return policy, which would be a policy of sending them back,' he said in an interview in Polska The Times on Monday.

'In a responsible manner we can talk about welcoming only a defined group of immigrants. Those who say let's open the door widely are cynical since they know it is not possible.'

A series of disasters in the Mediterranean in which hundreds of migrants from North Africa have drowned after attempting to cross the sea in overcrowded and unsafe vessels has sharpened international focus on the issue of migration into Europe.

The European Commission is planning to legislate before the end of the year to ensure the burden of housing immigrants is shared across the bloc, according to binding quotas based on criteria such as economic health and population.

His comments come a day after the EU's foreign policy chief pushed for a naval mission in the Mediterranean to target Libyans smuggling people to Europe.

The European Union ultimately wants to capture smugglers and destroy their boats off the Libyan coast to help it tackle the rising number of migrants fleeing war and poverty in North Africa, but many EU countries want United Nations authorisation to act.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said EU foreign and defence ministers 'will be taking the decision to establish the operation at sea to dismantle the criminal networks that are smuggling people in the Mediterranean'.

'Once we adopt a decision today, it will be more urgent and clear for the (U.N.) Security Council,' she told reporters.



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

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

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