Tuesday, May 15, 2007

NYPD Frisking too Few Blacks

"Reverend" Al Sharpton - can't you just have a heart attack and die already? There may be a race-related problem in New York City. But apparently Al Sharpton is confused about what it is. He thinks the problem is that the NYPD is racist. (Really, he probably thinks that all white people are racist - so his actions suggest). And he wants to file a lawsuit. He just loves lawsuits. What's the reason? 55.2% of the people subject to "stop and frisk" searches by the NYPD have been black. Only 25% of New York's population is black.

Why is Sharpton dumber than Paris Hilton? He's neglected the fact that out of all the alleged criminals described by victims and witnesses, 68.5% were black. So if 68.5% of reported suspects are black, but only 55.2% of the people stopped by the NYPD were black, what is the basis of thinking that the NYPD is racist? If we're going for proportionality, the NYPD should be frisking more blacks.

Maybe I should file a class action lawsuit against the NYPD for charges of racism. Why? Because while 11.1% of the people who are stopped and frisked are white (44% of New York's population is white), only 5.3% of reported suspects are white.

What's really going on here? Who knows. Maybe the NYPD is actually being over-zealous in searching white people because crazies like Al Sharpton keep trying to convince everyone that the NYPD is biased against blacks. If the primary purpose of the police force is to catch criminals and in doing so deter further crime, perhaps this is the real problem. It is, in any case, certainly more serious than the one Al Sharpton is trying so hard to invent out of thin air.

My suggestion to Al Sharpton: If you actually care about anything other than getting your name in the news for fighting imagined racism, you should look into the problem of why it is that 68.5% of reported criminals suspects are black when only 25% of the population is black.


Bill requires hiring homosexuals and cross-dressers

'Perceived sexual orientation or gender identity' protected

Following on the heels of an 'anti-discrimination' plan Christians insist would virtually outlaw their religious beliefs comes another proposal - introduced by openly homosexual U.S. Rep. Barney Frank - that requires businesses to give special privileges to "gay" and "transgendered" individuals.

Shari Rendall, director of legislation and public policy for Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest women's public policy group, said H.R. 2015, the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007," would be a disaster. "This bill would unfairly extend special privileges based upon an individual's changeable sexual behaviors, rather than focusing on immutable, non-behavior characteristics such as skin color or gender. Its passage would both overtly discriminate against and muzzle people of faith. Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he said, 'Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument,'" Rendall said.

The proposal, from U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., follows H.R. 1592, the House-approved plan that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to a list of valid arguments for allegations of a "hate crime" and allow the federal government to intervene when those occur, or even in order to "prevent" one.

The White House has issued a statement saying the proposal is "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable" and the president's advisers would recommend a veto if it advances to his desk. The new bill's goals are within the same agenda, critics say. "According to proponents, this bill merely seeks to insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors ("sexual orientation") or who suffer from gender confusion ("gender identity") against employment discrimination," said the CWFA station. "But regrettably this legislation would effectively codify and encourage the very thing it purports to prevent - workplace discrimination."

It would apply to any business with 15 or more employees and would declare "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."

"This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic morality," added Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for CWFA. "ENDA would essentially force employers to check their First Amendment protected rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the workplace door. It's absurd! For instance, female employees would have to endure both systematic sexual harassment and a hostile work environment by being forced to share bathroom facilities with male employees who get their jollies from wearing a dress, high heels and lipstick," Barber said. "Over the years, the homosexual lobby has done a masterful job of co-opting the language of the genuine civil rights movement in their push for special rights. This bill represents the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys," he said.

Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, also suggested voters contact Congress and urge members to reject ENDA "and the insanity of forcing businesses across the nation to accommodate and subsidize gender confusion in the name of 'civil rights.' "Several giant corporations have already settled on pro-'transgender' bathroom and dress policies - probably the same companies who would subject their employees to biased, pro-homosexual 'diversity' lectures - but can you imagine inflicting these 'transgender' regulations on small and mid-level companies through federal law via ENDA?" LaBarbera asked. "What female employee wants to share the company restroom with a big-boned man claiming to be 'transitioning' to 'womanhood?' Will companies have to build 'transgender male' and 'transgender female' restrooms?"

He said there are some unsatisfactory exemptions for religious-oriented employers, but secular companies whose owners choose to run their operations on biblical guidelines would have no option. The law would require companies to allow workers to use the restroom of the sex they "present." "What about the privacy rights of [a transgender's] female co-workers? Don't they have the right not to feel personally invaded as they go to the restroom at their job?" he asked. "Of course, the larger goal here - shared by the 'gay' and 'transgender' lobbies - is to change your mind and heart regarding gender-confused conduct. The law is merely a tool in their never-ending quest to overturn America's Judeo-Christian norms regarding family, sex and marriage," he said.


British "diversity" dogma in trouble

Since Macpherson, few institutions in British society have escaped the charge of institutional racism, with some even revelling in the charge as a kind of mea culpa. The former head of the BBC, Greg Dyke, famously declared the BBC to be `hideously white'. New Labour arts minister, David Lammy MP, has accused museums and galleries of being `too white'. Lord Patel recently accused the mental health sector of institutional racism, while the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) is currently investigating the Department of Health to see whether it is institutionally racist.

Official anti-racism has been implemented with full legal force. The Race Relations Act 1976 outlawed direct and indirect discrimination and victimisation in a range of areas such as education, housing and employment. Over 20 years later, the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, which extended the law to cover 43,000 public authorities, was significant in that it placed a general duty on them to `have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups'. The main significance is that the duty requires bodies to take action to prevent acts of racial discrimination before they occur, meaning pre-emptive measures or racialisation have proliferated throughout public life.

Under New Labour, diversity management has flourished to become an effective strategy of behaviour management. The seemingly innocuous injunction to `respect diversity' has become common in workplaces, schools and hospitals, voluntary organisations and civic venues such as churches, charities and local neighbourhood associations. Most organisations in the public sector have a diversity manager in place, as do large private sector firms. Targets for making workforces more `diverse' have become accepted norms, despite the obvious drawbacks of positive discrimination. At the micro-level of workplace interaction, people have acquiesced to the regulation of their speech and behaviour towards others with little resistance, because it has been done in the name of tolerance. Diversity training - once viewed as a bizarre and probably inappropriate import from America - has now become a growth industry.

The thrust of identity politics was already strong prior to New Labour taking power in 1997, coming as it did off the back of social fragmentation and the weakening of older political and collective identities. Lobby groups and `community leaders' representing religious, ethnic and minority communities were already entering the political domain and vying against each other for resources. In 2001, the Cantle report into the northern mill town riots in Oldham, Bradford and Burnley pointed to the way in which local authorities' policies had deepened segregation in parts of Britain.

New Labour further institutionalised this trend and turned identity into the cornerstone of political engagement. Local and national state institutions developed `partnerships' with community groups and leaders, offering recognition of their supposedly different needs. This process has encouraged a demand amongst groups for recognition of their difference, and in some cases, the protection of difference.

The most obvious case is that of the Muslim lobby in the guise of the Muslim Council of Britain, which gained significant encouragement by New Labour in its early years and particularly after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. From being marginal players, the MCB leaders began to assert their importance, claiming to hold the votes of Muslims in the palm of their hands. MCB head Iqbal Sacranie was rumoured to have turned down requests to meet with lower level ministers, insisting instead on meeting with the prime minister himself.

The MCB has since fallen out of favour, but its shortlived success reflected the strategic importance of `community leaders' under New Labour, as a way to engage the citizenry. In the case of Muslims, this engagement has not led to a rise in political engagement but an exacerbation of their political alienation. Like most young people, Muslims are disillusioned with the political elite. But their cynicism has grown exponentially due to the government's engagement with unelected, and largely irrelevant community leaders who are themselves out of touch. This cynicism no doubt fuels the aggressive anti-politics of some younger Muslims.

Of course, identity politics is something that exists far beyond young Muslims - most other ethnic groups have joined the fray and demanded their own recognition and protection. New Labour's Religious Hatred Bill was supported by an alliance of religious groups who share only their sense of vulnerability and victimhood in common. These momentary alliances coexist with the moments of heated conflict, most recently between gay groups and the Catholic Church over the sexual orientation law and adoption agencies - begging the question of whose identity required the greatest protection. As the state has gradually intervened into the private world of belief and identity, so now it is called in to manage those differences and act as the arbiter.

Many of the trends discussed so far will no doubt inform the work of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights (as the CRE is renaming itself), which starts operating this autumn. Its extended powers to bring cases and enforce anti-discrimination measures will encourage even greater regulation between individuals and groups, possibly exacerbating rather than ameliorating tensions.

More broadly, recent criticisms of multiculturalism and fears of social fragmentation have led to a new phase in New Labour's approach, already being nurtured by prime-minister-in-waiting, Gordon Brown - the call for a new national identity. But lacking any political vision and burdened with the obligation to protect its own cherished diversity policies, New Labour has struggled to show what this identity might look like. No doubt we can look forward in the coming years to various contrived measures such as `Britishness Day', the rebranding of bank notes, or the celebrations for the 2012 Olympics, in the hope of bringing national identity to life.

The word `multiculturalism' may be increasingly unpopular these days but all the things it gave rise to - as outlined above - are still in place. They need to be tackled with a more universalist approach.

More here

Gasp! Hard-Left public broadcaster funds anti-Moore doco

What a blunder for them. No way would they have funded it they had known how it would turn out!

A controversial documentary about Oscar winner Michael Moore, which is creating hot debate in North America, was partly funded by Australian money. The film, Manufacturing Dissent, explores Moore's life and questions some of his ethical practices during the making of documentaries including Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 911. Although the filmmakers were initially supporters of Moore who simply wanted to explore his remarkable career, the documentary eventually turns nasty, claiming Moore has fudged some facts in his famous docos to drive home his agenda. Moore, who is considered the most powerful documentary maker in the world, is said to be outraged by the film's emerging profile on the documentary circuit.

Although it was made by Canadian filmmakers Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine, the movie was completed only because of early funding from SBS in Australia. While Manufacturing Dissent takes a few easy pot shots at Moore's phenomenal wealth, it also raises questions about ethical documentary making. The documentary had its premiere in North America nearly three weeks ago, with film fans queuing for hours in the hope of gaining entry to the screening.

The film is expected to be one of the biggest drawcards on the global film festival circuit this year, with every likelihood it may screen at one of Australia's key film festivals before being aired on SBS this year. A spokeswoman from SBS confirmed the Australian link to the project, saying early funding had helped the filmmakers finish the Moore project. SBS executives pre-bought the licence to the film. "The money for that is given at an early stage in the filmmaking, which guarantees some funding to the filmmaker so they can finish the program," the spokeswoman said.

Moore is yet to comment publicly on the documentary, but in at least one segment of it, his minders are seen forcing the crew to stop filming.



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, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: