Sunday, November 07, 2010

Attempts to "reach out" to Muslims have been an abject failure

A new international poll shows the folly of Washington's strategy of winning Muslim "hearts and minds." Despite all our help, Muslims still hate us. Titled "The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other," the new Pew study reveals that Muslim countries generally view Westerners as violent and immoral. Large majorities of even British Muslims think Westerners are "selfish" and "arrogant."

Above all, foreign Muslims hate American foreign policy, which in a disturbingly large share of their minds justifies terrorism. Fully 57% of Jordanians think it's OK to attack civilians in jihad. A simple majority of Egyptians agree.

Even so-called moderate leaders are against us. "Yes, Muslims are against the West," responded Adnan Abu Odeh, 73, former political adviser to Jordan's King Hussein. "Why? Western foreign policies, especially on two issues: the Palestinian issue and now Iraq. "These are the issues people talk about day and night. And which the news focuses on day and night. And they come to the eyes and ears of the Muslims who have been surveyed, daily in the bloodiest way - it's killing, women screaming and yelling, and soldiers frowning. So what they hate is American foreign policy."

Muslims also blame us for their lack of prosperity. Nearly half of Turks, among the better educated of Mideast Muslims, say Western policies rob them of wealth. This Jordanian pharmacist is typical of respondents: "There is no prosperity because the United States has seized all our products, all our oil and all our wealth. All of it goes to the United States and the West," Hassan Omar Abdel Rahman said. "It is not about the internal politics. Look at Saddam, you see what happened to him - did he come out with anything?" Agreed Mohsen Hamed Hassan, a Cairo doctor: "I believe the American foreign policy is responsible for the greedy image. They support dictatorships because they want their oil."

A majority of Americans more accurately blame Muslim government corruption and a lack of education for chronic Muslim poverty.

Though they are beneficiaries of $10 billion in direct U.S. aid since 9/11, Pakistanis still hold us in contempt. Pew found that most think we are "selfish, immoral and greedy." "The West has an expansionist policy and they want to get hold of this portion of the world," said Sadia Omar, a 34-year-old housewife from Rawalpindi. "They will never be friends with us."

Laughably, majorities of Muslims in Pakistan and the Mideast think we are less "respectful" of women than they are. But perhaps the biggest divide comes over who's responsible for 9/11.

Americans overwhelmingly blame Arab Muslims, while Muslims abroad, including 56% of British Muslims, insist someone else carried out the attacks. Denial, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt.

We suspect Pew would find similar hostility among the American Muslim community if it had included it in its survey. A recent Gallup poll of U.S. Muslims found that, despite herculean outreach efforts and remarkable tolerance toward them, "Muslims are the most likely group to report feeling anger compared with the overall population."

America has gone trillions in debt and sacrificed thousands of its sons and daughters saving Muslims from tyrants and terrorists in Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. And this is the thanks we get?


Deaf diplomat who sued British diplomatic service for discrimination loses fight

Jane Cordell, a deaf foreign diplomat who sued the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for discrimination, has lost her case at an employment tribunal.

Ms Cordell, 44, joined the FCO in 2001, and was offered the post of deputy head of mission on Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, earlier this year. Soon afterwards, however, the FCO revoked the offer on the basis that the high cost of providing Ms Cordell with specialist interpreters, estimated at around œ0.5 million over the course of a two-year posting, made the position unfeasible.

Ms Cordell took her case to a London employment tribunal, where she was supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), but lost the case this week.

In the ruling, the tribunal said: "The likely annual cost amounted to five times the claimant's salary or, put another way, it would have paid salaries for five more employees at the claimant's grade. we are aware, of course, that the FCO has a large overall budget, but the likely costs of these adjustments would have to be met from existing resources."

In a statement, Ms Cordell said: "I am proud of working for the FCO and of making a positive difference, particularly in Poland where I helped raise awareness of disability issues. I am also proud to have brought my case to tribunal. People with disabilities and long-term illnesses who want to be economically active and independent need answers to the questions the case poses."

A spokesman for the EHRC said said that the outcome of the trial was disappointing. "It has left her career in a state of limbo as she has no clarity around what level of adjustments the FCO will fund - a decision which directly influences whether she can be posted abroad in the future.

"It is important that reasonable adjustments are provided to allow disabled people to participate fully in the workforce and allow talented people like Jane to realise their full potential."

According to a recent EHRC report on fairness in Britain, only around 50 per cent of disabled people are employed compared to 79 per cent of non-disabled adults. For those disabled people who are employed, there is on average an 11 per cent pay gap between what they earn and what a non-disabled man earns.


Some realism about race and racism in a prominent British Leftist magazine

Words below from "Prospect" magazine -- by Munira Mirza, who is of Pakistani ancestry but who had all her education in England.

The following articles are by people who want to change the way in which racism and diversity are discussed in Britain and question the assumptions of some "official anti-racism." None of them is white and therefore cannot be easily dismissed as ignorant, naive, or unwittingly prejudiced. They write about the effect of anti-racist policies in education, psychiatry and the arts. It is because they care about equality and our common humanity that they wish to challenge some of the assumptions in policymaking today.

The authors make some common points. Race is no longer the significant disadvantage it is often portrayed to be. In a range of areas-educational attainment, career progression, rates of criminality, social mobility-class and socio-economic background are more important. Indeed, a number of ethnic groups in Britain, particularly Indians and Chinese, perform better than average in many areas. Today a higher proportion of people from ethnic minorities enter university than white people and these second and third generation Britons make ambitious career choices.

Perhaps most importantly, we are afraid to discuss race in an honest way, even with our colleagues and friends. The famous Ali G phrase, "Is it cos I is black?" is funny precisely because it hits a nerve. Many of us have seen an innocent remark misinterpreted as racist. Being falsely accused of racism is, at best, unpleasant and at worst, can destroy a career. Meanwhile, some people from ethnic minorities are left unsure whether an opportunity or promotion has been given to them on the basis of merit or box ticking, and can face the quiet resentment of colleagues.

Much more here

Australia: Spanking children OK with nearly 90 per cent of Queensladers

ALMOST nine out of 10 Queenslanders support smacking children. The Sunday Mail-Nine News State of Families Survey has revealed that 85 per cent of people agree parents have the right to smack their children, with more than a third in "strong agreement".

The new data comes in the middle of an explosive debate about physical discipline, reignited by comments last week from international singer Pink. "I think parents need to beat the crap outta their kids," she said during an interview. "I think that the whole spanking thing has gotten all PC."

More Queensland men than women support smacking - 50 per cent of men surveyed "strongly agree" that parents have the right to smack their children, significantly higher than females at 33 per cent.

Australian Childhood Foundation chief executive Dr Joe Tucci said he wasn't surprised by the results, but didn't agree with them. "It doesn't surprise me that parents want to keep the perceived right to discipline their kids," he said. "They think they have the right to self-regulate, but smacking is not the answer.

"I'd be happy if 100 per cent of respondents insisted on parents being allowed to discipline their children, discipline is absolutely essential, but not by physical force. "It is impossible to draw a line in the sand to separate smacking and assault. There is much research to highlight that physical punishment can hinder a child's development."

The Queensland law on physical punishment by parents has been labelled a joke. The foundation and many other child welfare groups have lobbied for many years for clearer guidelines.

"The law at the moment is a farce," Dr Tucci said. "Basically it says if I hit someone else's child I will be in more trouble than I would be if I hit my own. Why should my own son or daughter have less rights than any other child?

"Under section 280 of the Queensland Criminal Code school teachers and others in authority have the right to use force with a child. Luckily, bodies like education departments and child welfare agencies have had the sense to override the law by banning such action."

Section 280 states: It is lawful for a parent or a person in the place of a parent, or for a schoolteacher or master, to use, by way of correction, discipline, management or control, towards a child or pupil, under the person's care such force as is reasonable under the circumstances.

But as a Queensland Police Service spokesperson said: "Each circumstance is considered on its merit."

Dr Tucci said "reasonable" was open to too much interpretation and shouldn't give parents a loophole in court in serious cases. According to the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Elizabeth Fraser, debate should focus on the best method of discipline from a child development perspective rather than parents' rights to discipline.



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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: