British foster parent who has looked after 80 children struck off...because a Muslim girl in her care became a Christian
Horrible Left-indoctrinated British social workers in action again. It takes publicity and/or legal action to squeeze decency out of them
A foster mother has been struck off by a council after a teenage Muslim girl in her care became a Christian. The carer, who has ten years' experience and has looked after more than 80 children, said she was `devastated' by the decision. `This is my life,' she revealed. `It is not just a job for me. It is a vocation. I love what I do. It is also my entire income. I am a single carer, so that is all I have to live on.'
The foster mother said she had recently bought a larger car and had been renting a farmhouse, with a pony in a field, so that she could provide more disadvantaged children with a new life. `That was always my dream and then suddenly, bang, it was gone. I am now in a one-bedroom flat,' she added.
The girl is understood to be back with members of her family, who have not been told of her conversion. A second girl the woman was fostering has been moved to another carer. The woman insisted that, although she was a Christian, she had put no pressure on the Muslim girl, who was 16 at the time, to be baptised. But council officials allegedly accused her of failing to `respect and preserve' the child's faith and tried to persuade the girl to reconsider her decision.
The carer, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is now preparing to take legal action against the council with the support of the girl, now 17, who also cannot be named. Her case follows the controversy over Caroline Petrie, 45, the Christian nurse in Somerset suspended without pay in December for offering to pray for an elderly woman patient. She was reinstated this week.
Yesterday, Christians expressed outrage over the foster carer's treatment, saying that it was a basic right for people to be able to change their religion and the woman should be praised, not punished. Mike Judge, a spokesman for the Christian Institute, a pressure group which is funding her case, said: `I cannot imagine that an atheist foster carer would be struck off if a Christian child in her care stopped believing in God. `This is the sort of double standard which Christians are facing in modern Britain. In recent months, we have seen grandparents, a nurse, adoption agencies, firemen, registrars, elderly care homes and now a foster carer being punished because of the Christian beliefs they hold. It has got to stop.'
The carer, a mother-of-two in her 50s, has worked with young children for much of her life and became a foster parent for the local authority in the North of England in 1999. In 2007, she was asked to look after the girl, who had been assaulted by a family member. She told council officials that she was very happy to support the girl in her religion and culture. `We had a multicultural household and I had no problems helping the young person maintain her faith of birth,' she said. `I have always prided myself in being very professional in what I do. If something works for a young person, whether I agree with it or not, I am happy to support them in that.'
But the girl, whom the foster mother describes as caring and intelligent, defied expectations by choosing not to wear overtly Muslim clothes or to eat Halal food. The girl, whose interest in Christianity had begun at school some time before her foster placement, also made it clear that she wanted to go to church. The carer, an Anglican who attends a local evangelical church, said: `I did initially try to discourage her. `I offered her alternatives. I offered to find places for her to practise her own religion. I offered to take her to friends or family. But she said to me from the word go, "I am interested and I want to come." She sort of burst in.'
The carer said that the girl's social workers were fully aware that she was going to church and had not raised any objections. The girl had told her auxiliary social worker of her plans to convert before she was baptised in January last year, and the social worker had appeared to give her consent. `At that point the brakes were off,' the carer said. `I couldn't have stopped her if I had wanted to. She saw the baptism as a washing away of the horrible things she had been through and a symbol of a new start.'
Three months later, however, senior officials complained that they had not been fully informed of the girl's intentions to become a Christian. They said that she should have undergone counselling to ensure that she understood the implications, especially as such conversions are dealt with harshly in some Muslim countries.
The foster carer said, however, that the girl had thought about her decision very carefully and was aware that members of her family might react strongly, so she was adamant that they should not be told. The carer said that as the auxiliary social worker knew about the baptism, she had not thought it necessary to tell the fostering team as well. But she received a phone call from the fostering manager who was `incandescent with rage' that the baptism had gone ahead. The carer said: `Up to that point, we had had a good relationship, so I was quite taken aback. I was very shocked.'
In April, council officials told the girl that she should not attend any church activity for six months, so that she could reconsider the wisdom of becoming a Christian. The carer was also instructed to discourage the girl from participating in any Christian activities, even social events. The council then told the carer there had been a breakdown of trust and in November removed her from the register.
`It never occurred to me that they would go that far,' she said. `I was concerned that the council seemed to view Christianity in such a negative light. I wonder whether if it had gone the other way - if one of my Christian young people had decided to embrace another faith - there would have been this level of fuss.' She added that the girl has been devastated by the experience.
The carer's solicitor Nigel Priestley said: `There is no doubt that the event that provoked the council was the decision by the girl to be baptised. This girl was 16 and has the right to make this choice, so for the council to react in this way is totally disproportionate. Even at this late hour, we hope that the council will resolve the issue.' A council spokesman said: `From the details provided, we believe that this information relates to a child who is the subject of a final care order in favour of the council. In those circumstances, we are unable to pass any comment. `We would never be able to comment on sensitive issues surrounding a child in care. `To do so would be irresponsible and in this particular case may put the child at risk of harm.' [They are hiding behind legalisms, in other words]
British "Men only" party incorrect
The invitation, which reads "men only", suggests a night of pleasure for the City's leading investment bankers. It shows nine scantily dressed models stuffing themselves with grapes as they paw both men and each other. A memento from the City's testosterone-fuelled past? No, it has been sent out by 3i, Britain's oldest and biggest private equity house which stands accused of sexism over the party to be held by Agent Provocateur, the lingerie firm, in London's West End this week.
Bankers from several City institutions - including Rothschild and Lazard - are on the guest list. The invitation reads: "3i and Agent Provocateur request the pleasure of your company at a special instore preValentine's men-only evening. Drinks and canap‚s will be served during a short lingerie presentation with sexy Agent Provocateur models." Critics say it is a throwback to the boom years when young City dealers had a culture of Porsches, easy money and strip clubs. Banks have tried to clean up their act after being hit by a number of high-profile compensation demands from women claiming sex discrimination. Female bankers said they were asked to leave dinners so their male colleagues could go on to lap-dancing clubs. 3i says it is holding the party at the request of its advisers to help support Agent Provocateur, in which it has invested, and to boost its sales.
"I could see people seeing this as exciting, but we are supporting business," said a spokeswoman. "We held three similar female-only events before Christmas." She said the lingerie would be modelled on mannequins. A spokeswoman for Agent Provocateur said: "It will be very intimate and quite personal. We are giving them what we call our mini trunk show." An insider at Agent Provocateur said: "We are expecting about 30 men, all of them bankers. There are going to be some models showcasing lingerie and some of the girls will be serving drinks and wandering around with canapes."
The irony is that 3i's chairwoman is the formidable Baroness Hogg, a former financial journalist who was head of John Major's policy unit when he was prime minister. Hogg answered the telephone at her London home but, when she was asked to comment, her husband Douglas Hogg, the former Tory minister, came on the line and said she was unavailable. She has already been embarrassed by internal problems at 3i. Last month it ousted Philip Yea, its chief executive, with a 773,000 dollar pay-off after a poor run. In his four-year reign its share price plummeted from 601p to 210p during trading last month. The new chief executive is Michael Queen, a former nonexecutive director of Northern Rock.
Some of the bankers invited have balked at attending. One said: "How it ever seemed a good idea to put forward a sexist, outdated marketing idea is beyond me, but given 3i's current state it seems particularly ill-conceived." It is potentially embarrassing for those who do attend. Rothschild has faced claims of sex discrimination by women staff in London in recent years, while William Cohan, a former Lazard banker, wrote a book two years ago exposing some of the nonbanking activities at its offices in New York's Rockefeller Center. One banker was found having sex in his office, forcing his boss to yell: "Why don't you go to a hotel room like the rest of my partners?" Another former partner, Edouard Stern, who was famed for eating 70 pieces of sushi at a single sitting, was shot dead by his girlfriend in his Geneva apartment clad in a skin-coloured latex body suit linked to sadomasochistic sex.
British Christian care home victorious in homosexual dispute
A Christian care home has won a victory against a council that cut its funding because it refused to ask elderly residents about their sexual orientation every three months
Brighton and Hove council agreed to restore the funding after Pilgrim Homes launched a legal action for religious discrimination. The council had cut the 13,000 dollar funds after accusing the home - which has former missionaries and a minister among its residents - of "institutional homophobia". Officials had told Pilgrim Homes to ask the pensioners about their sexual orientation four times a year under its "fair access and diversity" policies developed from New Labour's equality laws. It also wanted the home, which has 39 single Christian residents aged over 80, to use elderly gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in its leaflets.
The home, run by a 200-year-old charity that cares for older Christians, has now agreed to withdraw its legal action after the council said it would restore the funds, which paid for a warden, retract the homophobia accusation, and drop the request for details of residents' sexual orientation. Andrew Jessop, chief executive of the charity which has 10 Christian homes across the UK, said he was "delighted" and "relieved" that the council had backed down. "We are a Christian organisation for older Christians, and our chief concern has always been to protect their best interests," he said. "When they come into residential care or even sheltered housing they deserve the peace, comfort and security of an organisation that supports their dearly-held religious beliefs. "We do not think our Brighton home - and others like it - should be denied access to public funding just because of those beliefs."
Mike Judge, spokesman for the Christian Institute which supported the home's battle with the council, said: "Elderly Christians shouldn't be penalised just because of their religious beliefs. Christians pay their taxes too and they should have equal access to public grants without being required to drop their Christian ethos. I hope other councils take note. "There have been a number of recent cases where Christians are being treated less favourably than others. "Nurses, grandparents, firemen, registrars, adoption agencies, care homes are all finding themselves in the firing line for nothing more than holding the same harmless beliefs that Christians have had for 2,000 years." Mr Judge said Christians were "beginning to find their voice and discovering that a lot of people - Christian or otherwise - are agreeing with them."
Tom Ellis of Aughton Ainsworth, solicitors for Pilgrim Homes, said the council had shown "a total disregard and lack of respect for orthodox Christian beliefs and values" when it decided to cut the funding. "Pilgrim Homes has a right to provide its services within the context of its doctrinal belief without interference from the council."
Mr Jessop added: "We are willing to ask potential residents about their sexual orientation when they apply for a place at our home, on the understanding that they have the right to refuse, and that we will not be required to act in a way which goes against our doctrinal beliefs," he said.
The row began last year when the council sent a questionnaire to the Pilgrim Home in Brighton. It was part of a move to make organisations it supported financially "comply" with the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Care home officials were told to ask residents if they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual or "unsure". But the residents described the council's orders as "intrusive" and "inappropriate" and refused to fill in the forms. The council criticised the home's "negative response" and said that its Christian ethos might deter gay people from applying.
The council stopped the grant because there had been only "limited progress" in making the home "open to the gay and lesbian community". It said residents could choose whether to answer questions about their sexuality. The home replied that had given places to gay Christians and accused the council of being "institutionally discriminatory".
Australia: Truth-telling top cop accused of racism
Even using the euphemism "Middle-Eastern" instead of what he really means -- Lebanese Muslim -- does not let him off the hook. And in a way that is right. "Middle Eastern" tends to unfairly condemn Lebanese Christians -- who have been remarkably successful at integrating into Australian life -- and have in fact been making a large and positive contribution for at least 100 years. So the Leftist nonsense about it being wrong to call a spade a spade can hurt people who do not deserve it at all
A new underworld documentary series, in which a senior police officer claims Middle Eastern gangs in Australia have "perfected" crime, has become embroiled in a row over racism and ethnicity before it has even aired. Channel Seven's Gangs Of Oz has already been labelled "damaging" by Australia's race discrimination commissioner. His concern has been echoed by legal experts, a former detective and a leading group involved in community diversity which called on the network to re-edit the documentary before broadcast.
In the first episode, titled Middle Eastern Gangs, Detective Superintendent Ken McKay, the head of the state's Organised Crime Directorate, makes the remarks which have sparked outrage. "The Middle Eastern groups are involved in everything. If they didn't invent it, they perfected it in terms of crime," he explains. He then adds: "The criminal, in the Middle Eastern sense, is more cowardice [sic] than your general criminal. They'd rather use a gun than stand in a fistfight."
After watching the show, federal Race Discrimination Commissioner Tom Calma said Superintendent McKay's casual use of terms such as "Middle Eastern" caused communities to feel stigmatised. "Ethnic descriptors used by NSW police, and in particular the descriptor 'Middle Eastern appearance', is seen by the community as contributing to stigmatisation."
While Gangs Of Oz claims to be an expose on organised crime, its critics suggest it only serves to illuminate Channel Seven's "sensationalist" reporting techniques. Dr Michael Kennedy, a lecturer in social justice at the University of Western Sydney, who previously spent 18 years as a detective in the NSW Police Force, said: "What Ken has said in this show is completely counter-productive to what the police are trying to achieve. "Using cliches and one-liners will only serve to alienate the community who have Middle Eastern heritage and I'm afraid it will be officers on the ground that will have to put up with the backlash from these remarks."
Yasser Solimon, executive director of Diversity International and a prominent member of Victoria's Muslim community, said: "It's very sensationalist and deliberately tries to shock. I would like to see it re-edited before going to air or at least some sort of introduction put on which attempts to balance the views in the show."
The producers of the documentary, which is set to air on Wednesday night, are former Today Tonight host Neil Mercer and veteran tabloid reporter Steve Barrett. Mr Mercer said: "Ken was calling a spade a spade." "We are so used to police officers dancing around things and not engaging in plain speaking but nobody could accuse him of that." "He's a very senior member of the NSW Police Force and experienced in talking to the media. I certainly didn't take his comments as racist and I don't think anybody else should."
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, 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.