Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Non-Darwinist doctor refused job
A doctor was denied employment at a Norwegian hospital because he did not believe in the Theory of Evolution.
Saying, “we are quite far apart when it comes to a view of the world”, an Oslo University Hospital official claimed the doctor would not get the job “because I don’t think this will quite work.”
The psychiatrist, who wished to remain anonymous for his future professional career possibilities, told Christian newspaper Vårt Land, “Both I and colleagues reacted strongly to that such a justification could be allowed.”
“I therefore decided to bring the matter further before an independent body to verify this was unacceptable.”
The Equality and Discrimination Ombudsman subsequently found in favour of the doctor, saying he had been subject to discrimination.
Agreeing that considering views about the theory was legitimate for an employer, as it central to understanding how the human mind develops, the ombudsman nevertheless ruled the hospital had violated the Equal Opportunities Act by not giving other grounds for refusal.
The psychiatrist accused hospital officials of narrow-mindedness, saying, “It’s about tolerance for thinking differently, [...] and having more openness to other perspectives, which should be seen as a resource.”
“An employer should be allowed to ask about philosophy, even if they cannot handle the answer. The problem is how my view has been used as an argument to disqualify me as a professional. The refusal has not affected me, but it was an important matter of principle.”
Parents must have the right to spank their children to instil discipline, says Boris Johnson
The Mayor of London spoke after a senior Labour MP blamed his party’s partial ban on smacking children for last August’s riots.
Former education minister David Lammy called for a return to Victorian laws on discipline, saying working-class parents needed to be able to use corporal punishment to deter unruly children from joining gangs and wielding knives.
He claimed parents were ‘no longer sovereign in their own homes’ and feared that social workers would take their children away if they chastised them.
Labour’s 2004 law did not completely ban smacking, but said a smack should cause no more than a reddening of the skin.
Last night Mr Johnson supported Mr Lammy, saying the current law was ‘confusing’, meaning that parents do not know how far they can go in terms of smacking their children.
‘People do feel anxious about imposing discipline on their children, whether the law will support them,’ he told the Pienaar’s Politics programme on BBC Radio 5 Live.
'Obviously you don’t want to have a licence for physical abuse or for violence and that’s very important.’
The Mayor said he believed he had the support of Education Secretary Michael Gove.
‘I know that people will have their own views, but let me just say on the issue that’s been raised a lot of times with me; the issue of are you allowed to chastise, are you allowed to impose discipline?’
Pet-loving people haters in America
They sound a lot like Leftists and Greenies
People who rescue animals can be reluctant to believe anyone deserves the furry creatures. Some rescue groups think potential owners shouldn’t have full-time jobs. Others reject families with children. Some rescuers think apartment dwelling is OK for humans but not for dogs, or object to a cat’s litter box being placed in a basement. Some say no to people who would let a dog run around the fenced backyard “unsupervised,” or allow a cat outside, ever.
It used to be that people who wanted to get an abandoned or abused animal went to the local pound, saw one they liked, paid a small fee, and drove home with a new pet. Since the 1990s, however, the movement to reduce animal euthanasia and the arrival of the Internet have given rise to a new breed of rescuer. These are private groups, or even individuals, who create networks of volunteers to care for needy animals.
The new organizations take potentially adoptable pets out of the shelters and foster them, usually in private homes, until the right owner comes along. They control the fate of an increasing number of animals. In New York City, for example, almost 45 percent of the dogs and cats that come into the Animal Care & Control system are passed to one of more than 150 private rescue groups.
Groups like these have high standards for who gets to adopt. Applicants are sometimes subjected to an interrogation that would befit Michael Vick. After receiving this hostile treatment, several would-be pet owners told me, they got offended and gave up. Others push on, answering pages of questions (“As a dog ages, it often becomes incontinent and arthritic. How do you intend to handle your dog's age-related problems?”), supplying personal and veterinary references, and submitting to home inspections. Even after going through that ordeal, you can be told that you are unworthy for pet ownership, for reasons often left mysterious.
At this point, many frustrated animal lovers can commit an act they’d previously thought abhorrent: They buy a dog, cat, bird, or guinea pig from a pet store or breeder. I know because that’s what happened to me.
A few months ago during a Dear Prudence chat, I mentioned in passing how ridiculous some rescue groups were. When my family decided to get a second rescue dog, I felt it was my job to prove to the groups we contacted that I wasn’t a vivisectionist. Fed up, we decided to buy a puppy and found a lovely breeder, and our Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Lily, has made us all ecstatic.
After I wrote this, I expected to be skinned alive by animal lovers. Instead, dozens of people posted comments about their own humiliation and rejection at the hands of these gatekeepers.
Katie wrote that she wanted to adopt a retired racing greyhound but was told she was not eligible unless she already had an adopted greyhound. Julie got a no from a cat rescue because she was over 60 years old, even though her daughter promised to take in the cat if something happened to Julie. Jen Doe said her boyfriend’s family lives on fenced farm property with sheep, but they weren’t allowed to adopt a border collie—whose raison d’être is herding sheep—because the group insisted it never be allowed off-leash. Philip was rejected because he said he allowed the dog he had to sleep wherever it liked; the right answer was to have a designated sleeping area. Molly, who has rescued Great Danes for more than 30 years, was refused by a Great Dane group because of “concern about my kitchen floor.”
My friend M., who looked into getting a family dog when her children were 6 and 9, had a similarly vexing experience. After she and her husband decided rescue was the right thing to do, they looked online and found a mutt named Rusty. Rusty’s rescue group was having an adoption day and the family made the long drive to see him. Adopters were told not to mingle with the animals, but that specific dogs would be brought to them. While Rusty was otherwise engaged, M. asked if they could look at some of the other dogs but almost all were declared not suitable for children.
As the family waited, the children sat on the ground and started writing in the dirt with sticks. A volunteer came over, alarmed. He reprimanded them, saying that if a dog sees a stick in a person’s hand it will expect that stick to be thrown, and it’s not fair to frustrate a dog.
Eventually, Rusty was brought over. He was a little hyper but everyone agreed he was fine. M. told the rescue group they wanted him, and when the family returned home they started buying dog supplies. But a call from the group aborted their plans. “We had a report about inappropriate behavior by your children,” M. was told, which meant they would not be allowed to adopt.
M. and her husband were astounded and the children were crushed. “We still really wanted a dog, so we did the wrong thing and went to a breeder,” M. says. They bought a Bernese Mountain Dog who basks in constant attention from M. and her husband, who both work at home. “He loves his life,” she says. “Too bad for Rusty.”
Let’s posit that many people who are drawn to humane work don’t have a particularly positive view of humanity. This natural aversion is exacerbated by years of helping abandoned, abused, and neglected animals, which means seeing the worst people do to innocent creatures. Unfortunately, a subset of these people who dislike people have become like admissions officers at selective colleges, rejecting applicants who don’t fit an ideal template.
Besides being as much fun to fill out as a Form 1040, many group’s applications are full of tricks and traps. Some are obvious. Anyone who gets to this question on one group’s application—“Do you plan to tie or chain the dog out at anytime?”—should know the answer is “never.” (I agree that dogs shouldn’t be chained outside). And you should know that the answer to this inquiry—“Have you ever had a cat declawed? Will you be declawing your new cat?”—is, “I would rip out my own fingernails with a pliers before declawing a cat.”
But other questions are conundrums. If you think having a dog would be great for your kids, or that your personal reproductive plans are not the business of strangers, then consider how to answer this question from a Labrador rescue group: “Are you considering having children within 10 years?” And who knows what number is disqualifying when answering this one: “How many steps are there to reach your front door?”
If an applicant manages to get approved, the adoption papers should be read carefully before signing. It turns out the contract often specifies the adopter is not the actual owner of the animal. Sure you’re responsible for the pet’s food, shelter, training, and veterinary care, but the organization might retain “superior title in said animal.” This means the group can drop in unannounced at any time for the rest of your pet’s life and seize Fluffy if it doesn’t like what it sees.
There are people in the rescue community who are aware that zealotry is damaging their cause. After all, since fewer than 20 percent of new pets come from rescue groups, driving down that proportion is self-defeating. Jane Hoffman is the president of the Mayor’s Alliance for NYC’s Animals, the organization that transports potential pets from animal control to private groups and provides training and other services. “You have two ends of the spectrum,” she says. “Pet stores will sell to anyone with the money. And then there are rescue group who won’t adopt to anyone. We need a happy medium.”
Being an animal rescuer can be a potent source of identity, combining salvation and self-sacrifice. But in recent years the ASPCA has seen that, for some people, this identity crosses over into pathology. Dr. Randall Lockwood, a senior vice president of the ASPCA, says that around 25 percent of the 6,000 animal hoarding cases reported in the United States each year involve purported rescuers, up from less than five percent 20 years ago.
“They are trying to do something good,” he says, “and they end up doing something bad.”
Segregation is back in Knoxville, TN: Anti-Gay Senator kicked out of restaurant
Stacey Campfield and I don't agree on much, he thinks only gays spread AIDS, he supported a "Don't Say Gay" bill, and he probably believes in what I refer to as "socialist sexuality" or the idea that we should all have the same sexuality. So what? I deal with people I disagree with everyday and I don't discriminate against them.
If Stacey Campfield came to my restaurant or wanted to do business with me, I would treat him with the same respect I give all my customers. You would think this kind of common sense would be popular, you would think everyone does that, yet that's not always the case:
"“Martha Boggs, owner of the Bistro at the Bijou, said she ordered the controversial Republican legislator out of her restaurant Sunday in disgust over his recent remarks about the origin of AIDS. ‘He’s gone from being stupid to dangerous,’ Boggs said today. ‘It’s just my way of standing up to a bully.’ ‘He didn’t have much to say,’ Boggs said. ‘He left graciously.’”
What a hypocrite! These liberals preach tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness all day long yet look at how they treated Stacey Campfield, they threw him out like a black man trying to eat in the white section of a segregated restaurant in 1952. Where's the EEOC? Where's the NAACP? Oh right, Stacey is white and Christian so he doesn't have "La Raza" fighting for him. I guess he's the wrong raza.
Sorry Stacey, if you had been born brown that Bistro of BS would have been firebombed by now. I guess blonds don't always have more fun, specially when dealing with progressive supremacists. Hey Martha, what kind of cross will you be burning? One made of sage and potpourri?
Remember those "No Blacks, No Jews, No Dogs" signs they used to put outside restaurants? Will be the new sign for Bistro at the Bijou be "No Republicans, No Christians, No Insensitives"?
You want to know why some people hate gays? THIS IS WHY! All you had to do was shut up, serve your customer and take his money. Is that so hard? Didn't they teach that at Culinary School?
I'm an insurance salesman, you think I discriminate against my customers? You think I'm going to tell a liberal "you don't need life insurance"? You think I'm going to reject selling policies to people who voted for Obama? Of course not! I've gone into houses that smell like crap and I still manage to smile, listen to my customers, and see if I can help them.
Politics is politics and business is business, and although you do have the right to discriminate against certain people, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO!
That is why I'm calling freedom-lovers everywhere to Boycott the Bijou until Martha Boggs APOLOGIZES to Senator Stacey and treats him to a FREE DINNER in her restaurant.
You want to disagree with the Senator? Go ahead, but when he comes to your restaurant you serve him just like any other customer! Boycott the Bijou!
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. 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.