Sunday, August 21, 2011

British black man discriminated against by liberal elitists because he speaks too correctly

Their racist stereotypes show. Black men must stay in their place

For as long as I can remember people have been mistaking me for a white man. Not in the flesh of course, but after speaking on the telephone. I have lost count of the times I have arranged business lunches with strangers, only to see them look straight through me as they scan the restaurant for a middle-class white gentleman who answers to the name of Ben.

When, eventually, they realise that I am he, the reaction is invariably one of barely concealed surprise. Conventional wisdom has it that my face and voice do not match. But look at it from my point of view. Why do people assume I am white? The answer is so depressingly obvious it exposes a fundamental prejudice at the heart of our society.

There is no way I could be a black man, the assumption goes, because I am well-spoken. Because my accent – instilled in me by my parents – is old-fashioned RP: Received Pronunciation. Quite simply, I speak with a degree of erudition beyond the ken of a black man.

We live in an age when class barriers have supposedly been torn down, yet the manner in which we speak is as important as ever. Every day people make assumptions based on our language and accent, and we ignore this fact at our peril.

As Britons we are blessed with a language of extraordinary depth and nuance – there is a reason so many other tongues steal from our own. It is almost criminal to witness the dismantling of our rich tapestry of expression by the next generation. Nevertheless, whites, Asians, blacks and children of all racial backgrounds are stampeding towards the low ground, stripping language down to a degree of banal, almost feral simplicity. It is homogenous nonsense, characterised by limited vocabulary and an absence of imagination.

In a sense, they can hardly be blamed. This nihilistic language is the fashion, and for teenagers that is an irresistibly powerful motivation. So it is that we find an entire generation speaking in the same peculiar slang. The Asian youth, the northern council estate boy, the South London gang member and the fashion- conscious public schoolboy all delving into the same preposterous manner of expression.

Poor language skills, epitomised by street talk, are holding back an entire generation. Interviews for jobs or further education places are never going to go well if the young person is incapable of expressing himself. Language is not a privilege of the few. It can be easily learned – just look at the Eastern European workers who quickly pick up the necessary skills.

The gift of self-expression can break down untold barriers and open up a world of achievement – Barack Obama gained the highest office on the planet due in a large part to the power of his oratory. We neglect language at our peril. More needs to be taught in our schools, as a matter of urgency, to instil a sense of justifiable pride.

People say I am an anomaly, that by rights I should be talking with the Jamaican patois so popular with young people today. Utter tosh, I would argue, given that my forebears hail from Barbados – more than 1,000 miles away from Jamaica – and my adoptive parents are from Teddington in Middlesex.

But never mind the prejudice against youngsters, with their ‘street’ language. In my experience the bias works equally powerfully in the opposite direction, in modern ‘liberal’ Britain. I have lost count of the number of white middle-class television producers who have rejected my voice because it is too posh. On one occasion I was told bluntly: ‘I’m sorry, you fit the bill perfectly but you’re not black enough.’

At auditions for acting roles I have been rejected because my pronunciation is too clear. Sir Alec Guinness must be spinning in his grave. Even on news programmes I have been deemed unsuitable to comment on black issues because my accent is ‘inappropriate’.

What a strange world we live in where being well-spoken and articulate is a burden.


NJ Bridal Store Refuses to Sell Wedding Dress to Lesbian

As a Lesbian, shouldn't she man up instead of blubbering?

This one’s sure to have gay marriage proponents buzzing. Here Comes the Bride, a bridal store in Somers Point, New Jersey, is feeling the heat after allegedly refusing to sell a wedding dress to a lesbian.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Alix Genter visited the store with six of her closest family and friends. After the woman tried on a number of dresses, she purportedly chose the one she wanted and placed an order for it.

But, when she filled out the associated form, she crossed out the word groom and wrote “partner” instead. Then, she wrote the name of her future wife on the document and left the store.

Later on, Genter was perplexed when the store’s owner, “Donna,” called her and said that Here Comes the Bride would not be providing her with a wedding dress. Consumerist has more:

“She said she wouldn‘t work with me because I’m gay…she also said that I came from a nice Jewish family, and that it was a shame I was gay. She said, ‘There’s right, and there’s wrong. And this is wrong.’ “

According to a Philadelphia Inquirer piece, written by Ronnie Polaneczky, Genter was extremely upset upon receiving this call. She said: “I was devastated. I was crying. I called her a bigot; I told her, ‘I am a happy person and you are a miserable person.’ Then she hung up on me.”

Apparently, there‘s also a voicemail from the store’s owner claiming that the wedding was not legal and that the store does not “participate in any illegal actions.”

The Inquirer piece essentially served as an apology letter to Genter. In composing the article, Polaneczky called the store’s owner to get her side of the story. But, rather than hearing a contradictory account, Donna allegedly validated Genter’s story. Polaneczky writes:

"You know what’s strange? When I called Donna yesterday to get her side of the story, she both confirmed your version of events and accused you of “stirring up drama.“ She said that your writing the word ”partner” was basically a provocation, evidence of a need “to show that she’s different.”

So, the store is sticking to its story — and its perspective — on serving homosexuals.

Public reaction to this incident has been noteworthy. On Yelp, the store’s rating has dropped to one star, as individuals have weighed in with their perspective on the matter. Also, people have been uploading images to the Yelp page that stand to support gays and lesbians.

This story is intriguing on a number of levels. One wonders what the legal ramifications of refusing service are, if any.


Foxy of the ADL promotes Sharia law in America

His job is to defend Jews; He's got Stockholm syndrome

Dear Mr. Foxman,

For centuries Vilna occupied a special place in the hearts and minds of Europe's Jewish communities. People celebrated the city as a study center, replete with libraries, schools, poets, playwrights, rich Jewish culture --- and especially, learned rabbis and Jewish legal intellects.

From Rabbi Samuel of Babylonia to Rabbi Gershom of Germany, scholars throughout Jewish history taught the people to adapt to their host nations --- and never demand the reverse. Rabbis also prized those students blessed with generosity and sufficient wisdom and humility to admit their errors and apologize to injured parties. No one is perfect, of course, but they correctly tutored Jewish men and women that those trying to achieve these charitable goals (among others) would at least reach goodness.

Alas, as a native of Vilna and child survivor of the Holocaust, none could have shouted more obstreperously than did your Aug. 10 JTA op-ed, headlined "Shout down the Sharia myth makers." Leaders do not shout. They speak, listen and continue to learn. Through off-key cheer-leading, you merely highlighted your own ignorance.

"The separation of church and state embodied in U.S. and state constitutions," you wrote, renders completely unnecessary, proposed "anti-Sharia bills" in several states. Our constitution already "prohibits our courts from applying or considering religious law in any way that would constitute government advancement of or entanglement with religious law."

Obviously, it would contradict every bedrock American principle to force any U.S. resident --- whether citizen, legal resident, or illegal alien --- to unwillingly comply with religious law. On this we agree. There, our agreement ends.

For you also allege that the bills --- addressing recently exposed U.S. state court outrages imposing foreign laws that infringed upon constitutional law and universal human rights alike --- were based not on reality or actual decisions. The bills rest on "prejudice and ignorance," you claim, advanced through "myth making ... about the threat of Sharia" in the U.S. These ills, you further assert, have effected "camouflaged bigotry" against Islam and Muslims.

Theoretically, American courts should strictly adhere to U.S. constitutional law concerning any and all religious practices, edicts or canons. But the record could not be more clear: they too often err on the side of foreign law --- and make no apology.

Criminal defendants asked U.S. courts, as I noted to you in March 2011, to substitute Islamic laws in lieu of domestic statutes. In Massachusetts, a federal court denied the motion of jihad-financiers to excuse their terror-funding tax fraud via First Amendment religious freedom guarantees, which they asserted to protect their rights to provide Islamically-mandated "charity." Based on sharia, however, a New Jersey court did absolve wife beating and rape before that state's appeals court reversed its ruling. And a Florida court similarly ordered parties in a civil dispute to follow Islamic, not U.S. law.

Face it, Mr. Foxman: for decades, U.S. courts have also miserably failed Muslim women and children on foundational precepts. On Mar. 24, 1986, for example, Laila Malak lost her 14-year old son and 9-year-old daughter when California's appeals bench enforced a Beirut sharia custody ruling --- given without her knowledge or participation, and allowing only 15 days from her post-facto notification to mount what would almost assuredly have been a futile "appeal."

Sharia courts always give custody of minor children to fathers, a fact mentioned in footnote 2 to the California's appeals bench decision. Married to Abdul in 1970 in Beirut, Laila in 1976 fled its bloody religious war with him and their son Fadi, and bore Ruha Jan. 25, 1977, in Abu Dhabi. In July 1982, without Abdul's permission (and therefore against Islamic law), Laila moved with her children to her brother's San Jose home, where she filed for a divorce and custody. Santa Clara county superior court denied three attempts by Abdul to enforce a Nov. 1982 Abu Dhabi sharia order that gave him custody, without due process, Laila's knowledge or court consideration of the children's "best interests."

Simultaneously, however, Abdul had secured a Beirut sharia custody order --- also without due process or the consideration of children's "interests" requisite in U.S. courts. Ostensibly, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) allows "comity" only for foreign rulings that hail from "legal institutions similar in nature" to U.S. courts --- with "reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard" for everyone. What should apply, however, does not always.

Sharia courts are not "similar in nature" to U.S. courts, Mr. Foxman. As strictly Islamic judiciaries --- neither secular nor civil --- these dictatorial forums often force religious law on unwilling victims without recourse. Likely, Laila Malak has never seen her kids again. By contrast, Jewish law would not allow this; nor would a Jewish Beit Din ask that its decision replace U.S. criminal, civil or secular law.

Laila Malak's tragic case could and would have been avoided had California previously adopted something like the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) bills recently passed in Tennessee (May 2010), Louisiana (Aug. 2010) or Arizona (Apr. 2011). While the bills vary somewhat, none mentions sharia, contrary to your assertions regarding the Tennessee and Louisiana laws.

Since the 1970s, in dozens of similar cases, American courts nationwide applied sharia in lieu of constitutional laws. Albeit incomplete, a review of state courts and appellate benches produced manifold instances of "unconstitutional application of foreign and religious law in our judicial system." Whatever their total, one cannot accurately describe cases unearthed thus far, as "a proverbial solution in search of a problem," as you want us to believe. For the women and children affected they were life-destroying cataclysms.

No American, nor any Jewish leader, should accept that. You head an institution founded to defend and protect the Jewish people from anti-Semitism. Mr. Foxman, in Islamic nations, sharia laws implement institutional discrimination against Jewish people and other non-Muslims. Sharia demands and requires non-Muslim subservience. Who are you to defend it? How dare you?

With or without your unwarranted shouting, many courageous citizens, state and national legislators fortunately have acted, and will so continue, to prevent future travesties of justice.

Based perhaps on the experiences of your early life, Mr. Foxman, many long trusted and believed you to represent the American Jewish mainstream. Nevertheless, you lack an ounce of the humility evident in most great men. Via your intolerance of scholarship --- and declarations on subjects of which you know less than nothing --- you have unfortunately relinquished the right to trust, on any account.


Australia: Melbourne's multicultural experience again

Hospital Emergency department a gang battleground

GANGS carrying guns, samurai swords and knives are terrorising doctors and nurses at a suburban hospital. Conflicts between the heavily armed migrant gangs are spilling from the streets into the emergency ward at Sunshine Hospital. A whistleblower said staff feared for their lives and were demanding 24-hour security in the casualty ward.

Warring Asian, Sudanese, Somali and Pacific islander gangs had taken their battles into the emergency department.

The whistleblower said incidents included:

ASIAN gangs threatening to throw chairs at each other when two groups arrived at emergency seeking treatment for separate stab victims.

A GUNSHOT victim forcing the evacuation of the hospital's emergency department after a security guard took him inside, despite fears he had a gun.

POLICE being regularly called to disperse gangs who were milling out the front of the hospital waiting for one of their members to be treated.

AT least one gang member a month presenting at the hospital with stab wounds.

Insiders estimated that about 70 "code grey" security alerts, where staff and patient safety is put at risk, occurred at the hospital each week.

The whistleblower, who is related to a hospital worker, said more needed to be done to protect staff. He feared that sooner or later, a staff member would be seriously injured or even killed at work.

"People come into the emergency department with samurai swords, gangs turn up with bullet wounds, and nurses and doctors go to work and put up with those things because they are dedicated," the whistleblower said. "You would think the hospital would be prepared to provide a security guard to give them some sense of safety."

A Western Health spokeswoman said the security of staff in the emergency department was taken "extremely seriously". "From time to time, there are incidents that can be very frightening for staff," she said. "But this is a constant challenge for emergency departments across Australia and the world. "We are examining security and working with staff on additional safety measures."



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: