No Child Molester Left Behind
Alan Colmes has changed a lot since the election of Barack Obama. To be specific, he's gotten a lot dumber - so much so that I'm thinking about boycotting the "Hannity and the Other Guy" show that features him at 9 p.m. EST on Fox. Does anyone know if Keith Olberman has a show in that time slot? Colmes, whom I've always admired and respected (really), gave a disappointing interview to a couple of young women who work for an organization I admire called Students for Life America, or SFLA. By calling them a "radical anti-choice organization," Colmes was arrogant and disrespectful to the young ladies, one of whom is only a teenager.
Colmes, like other so-called liberals, doesn't understand that the pro-life position is not "anti-choice." By opposing one choice (the choice to abort) pro-lifers are supporting the over one-million choices the fetus is likely to make if it can escape the scalpel and suction tube - a symbol as sacred to the feminist as the hammer and sickle is to the communist.
Colmes rude mischaracterization of SFLA was bad. His effort to draw moral equivalence between a) one act of dishonesty by the pro-life organization towards Planned Parenthood and, b) a pattern of dishonesty by the latter organization was worse. That pattern of dishonesty regarding a willingness to report cases of statutory rape is one that fairly lands Planned Parenthood in the category of "radical anti-choice organizations."
A student intern, who works for SFLA did, in fact, lie to a staffer at Planned Parenthood when she claimed to be a 15-year old seeking RU-486, the co-called morning after abortion pill. She also lied when she said that she had sex the night before with her mother's live-in boyfriend whom she said was "30-something" years old. In response to the SFLA sting, which was recorded on video camera, the staffer did express a concern over the fact that this sexual encounter was statutory rape. This was before agreeing to sell her birth control to help facilitate more rape.
The staffer was right to characterize the encounter as rape. In North Carolina, if one is under 16, one has been statutorily raped if her sex partner is at least four years older. The idea behind the law is simple: Children are not able to offer "consent" to sex with those much older. Beyond a certain age difference, it is safe to assume the presence of coercion and, therefore, to call it rape.
It may well be the case that Planned Parenthood staffers do not want to report statutory rape because they think a fifteen-year old is fully capable of consenting to sex. After all, the organization's fight against any form of parental notification hints that they think the age of consent should be lower. But North Carolina does require Planned Parenthood to report cases of statutory rape, which it classifies as rape in the first-degree with a potential of life without parole. Though they said they did report the SFLA sting case, public records indicate Planned Parenthood did not. And that is more than a lie. It is an alliance with the child molester and against truly consensual sex, which is also called "choice."
Alan Colmes idiotically accused the women of SFLA of conspiring to file a false report of rape. That is just silly. A report is something you file with the police. SFLA fabricated the story to Planned Parenthood precisely because they knew no report would be filed. A woman's act of falsely accusing a specific man of rape is certainly illegal. It may be a simple case of defamation or it may amount to malicious prosecution. But consistently not filing reports of known cases of statutory rape is also illegal. And Planned Parenthood knowingly lies about these illegal breaches of duty. Those are the lies Alan Colmes should care more about. He may have a teenaged daughter some day.
The saddest part of the SFLA sting is not that it distracted Planned Parenthood from doing its job as Alan Colmes suggested. After all, no one criticized the American troops for distracting the Nazis with false intelligence reports during World War II. Distracting people who are committing genocide is probably a good thing in the final analysis.
The sad thing is that SFLA is doing the job the police and FBI really should be doing. I know Alan Colmes would agree that it is the job of both local and federal agents to run stings on local offices of nationwide networks when there is credible evidence that they are engaging in complicity with statutory rape. If they fail the sting, the organization should have its federal funding withdrawn. And, certainly, those running the rape stings cannot be held to the Colmesian requirement of revealing their true identity.
Human rights: British government to get tough and reform 'villains charter'
Jack Straw plans to overhaul the Human Rights Act amidst concerns that it has become a charter for criminals. The Justice Secretary wants to reflect complaints that the act protects rights but says nothing about responsibilities. In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, he says he is 'frustrated' by the way the legislation he introduced ten years ago has sometimes been interpreted by the courts. He blames 'nervous' judges for refusing to deport extremists and terrorist suspects despite assurances by ministers that their removal is in the national interest. A decade after it was passed at the height of New Labour's enthusiasm for constitutional reform, this is the first explicit acknowledgment of the Human Rights Act's flaws by its chief architect.
In a move which will alarm the civil liberties lobby, Mr Straw reveals that he is studying whether the act can be tightened and has taken legal advice. 'In due course I could envisage that there could be additions made to to work in the issues of responsibilities,' he says. The Justice Secretary sympathises with those who complain that the act has become used by prisoners to avoid punishment or by Islamic extremists to avoid deportation. He tells the Mail that he wants to ' rebalance' the rights set out in the Human Rights Act by adding explicit 'responsibilities', specifically to obey the law and to be loyal to the country. He is also looking at ways of promoting social rights such as access to health care, as well as social responsibilities such staying healthy or the education of children.
He said: 'I fully understand that Mail readers have concerns about the Human Rights Act. There is a sense that it's a villains charter or that it stops terrorists being deported or criminals being properly given publicity. I am greatly frustrated by this, not by the concerns, but by some very few judgments that have thrown up these problems.'
His offer to overhaul the act could form a cornerstone of the next Labour manifesto, making rights and responsibilities a battleground issue at the general election. It will be seen as a calculated attempt to outflank the Tories, who have promised to scrap the act altogether and replace it with their own British Bill of Rights.
Critics of the Human Rights Act say it has been exploited by unscrupulous lawyers to promote a culture of compensation, and to defend those who promote their rights at the expense of others. They complain that it has had a sweeping effect on the legal system by giving protection to spurious compensation claims, demands for privileged treatment and outright abuses. In recent times, it has been cited by travellers [gypsies] and squatters as a defence against the threat of expulsion. There are also concerns that it has put the rights of prisoners and criminals ahead of those of their victims. Last month Home Secretary Jacqui Smith admitted the act has made it difficult to remove terror suspects from the country. Mr Straw echoes her concern, but argues that even without the act it would be difficult to deport them.
In a separate development, he reveals that he has told his officials to fight workplace compensation claims at the Ministry of Justice, prisons, the probation service and any other sections under his control rather than settle out of court. And he urges the private sector to do the same to discourage what he dismisses as 'unscrupulous ambulance chasers'. He has been highly critical of so-called 'no win no fee' agreements, in which lawyers go unpaid but charge heavy costs if they win an action.
The arrangements were introduced a decade ago to make access to justice cheaper for claimants, but the growth of rogue firms which encourage clients to file inappropriate claims, in particular for personal injury, prompted Mr Straw to set up a Government review of charges. He accuses some lawyers of imposing costs which are 'nothing short of scandalous'.
A long-delayed Green Paper is likely in January, which will set out Mr Straw's ambitions for what responsibilities could be set out in a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, or added to the Human Rights Act. As the act is part of a law passed by Parliament, UK legislators have a perfect right to amend it - although any such move is likely to be subject to furious legal protests.
Australia: Extraordinary new laws in the State of Victoria encourage discrimination against white males
DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged in a bid to boost the status of women, the disabled and cultural and religious minorities. Such positive discrimination -- treating people differently in order to obtain equality for marginalised groups - is set to be legalised under planned changes to the Equal Opportunity Act foreshadowed last week by state Attorney-General Rob Hulls. The laws are also expected to protect the rights of people with criminal records to get a job, as long as their past misdeeds are irrelevant to work being sought.
Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke said males had "been the big success story in business and goods and services". "Clearly, they will have their position changed because they will be competing in a different way with these people who have been traditionally marginalised," she said. "Let's open it up so everyone can have a fair go." [She doesn't want a fair go. She wants a privileged go]
Victoria's peak business body expressed concern yesterday about the need for the proposed laws, and questioned if they would undermine the right of companies to make legitimate business decisions. At present, individuals or bodies wanting to single out any race or gender for special treatment must gain an exemption from VCAT. Companies and public bodies accused of discrimination can only be held to account after a complaint has been made. But the proposed changes go much further, allowing the commission to inquire into discrimination, seize documents and search and enter premises after attempts to bring about change have failed.
Businesses and individuals would be required to change their ways even if a complaint had not been received. Action could be taken where an unlawful act was "likely to occur", not just in cases where discrimination has taken place. The commission would also have real teeth to enforce its rulings via VCAT and, as a last resort, in the courts. The changes, shown in a Department of Justice report by former public advocate Julian Gardner, would also:
EDUCATE people so they know their rights.
GIVE more protection to people with disabilities, requiring companies and public entities to reasonably accommodate their needs.
GRANT the homeless and people who act as volunteers better protection from discrimination.
Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry workplace general manager David Gregory said business supported the objectives of equal opportunity legislation. "But I am concerned and curious about whether these changes mean the commission can second-guess the legitimate business decisions of individual businesses," he said.
The first raft of changes to the Equal Opportunity Act were introduced into Parliament last week.
Source. Andrew Bolt sums it up.
Politically correct Woolworths
Australia's Woolworths is very different from the now defunct U.S. Woolworths and the nearly defunct British Woolworths. It is in fact one of the world's most successful retailers, with a huge share of its national market. No matter where you go in Australia, Woolworths is most often the nearest supermarket. It is in some ways Australia's version of Wal-Mart. So they obviously have a management culture that repeatedly produces good decisions. And, as a result, I have a substantial investment in their shares.
I have noticed in recent times, however, that they have begun to abuse their market power. They only stock what they want you to buy rather than what you want to buy. And one aspect of that is politically correct stocking.
I went in there this morning with the aim of buying Christian-themed Christmas cards. Although I am an atheist, I think that a major Christian occasion should be recognized as such. But when I looked at the cards on offer, they were all Santas, reindeer, Holly etc. Nothing Christian at all. So I didn't buy.
Just outside the Buranda Woolworths however there is a small Indian shop which, in the best Indian tradition, crams an amazing variety of goods into its small space. So I popped in there to see if they sold Christmas cards. They did. And some of the cards on offer were Christian-themed! So I bought them. How odd that I had to go to a Hindu to buy Christian cards! A final irony, however, was where the cards were produced -- in Muslim Indonesia. What a crazy world!
As I set out at some length on Nov. 6th., another instance of Woolworths' abuse of their market power is their messianic zeal for twisty light bulbs. At that time, they did sell a few incandescent globes if you looked hard enough but their lighting display was dominated by every conceivable type of twisty.
It has now got worse. They no longer sell the old 60c incandescent globes at all. There still are incandescent globes there but they are advertised as "dimmable" and cost around $3. Which is total nonsense of course. People have been using the old 60c globes with dimmers for decades.
I am beginning to think that I should lodge a complaint under the Trade Practices Act alleging an abuse of market power. Since the Trade Practices commissioner is probably politically correct too, however, I may not bother.
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, OBAMA WATCH (2), EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.