Friday, February 15, 2013
Official German harassment of old lady who collects signatures against mosque
Maria Frank, a 74-year-old woman, who leads an organisation called “Association for the Future of Germany” peacefully gathers signatures calling for a referendum on whether an “Islam in Europe” centre should be built in Munich. She is constantly mobbed by antifa, green and trade union activists, so her placards are hardly visible. Despite that, she is prosecuted for incitement to hatred.
In Rotkreuzplatz the 74-year-old pensioner exhibited a placard on this day, which among other thing said that after the siege of Vienna by the Ottoman empire in 1683 now “the arrogant Turks and Muslims … [are threatening] Europe again”. The accused thus established and suggested the reference to a war of aggression, at least “implicitly accepting” that fear of Islam and Turks would be generated, argued the state prosecutor. She thus disturbed the public peace.
Maria Frank was given a warning and ordered to pay 1000 euros to Amnesty International. She said she doesn’t like this organization and asked to be allowed to pay the money to a charity for persecuted Christians instead. The judge said no, it had to go to Amnesty International!
In addition the judge warned Frank, who has made numerous negative statements about Turks and Muslims on the internet, sometimes in a much more drastic way than on the placard. “You need to stop that and become aware of what is acceptable and what isn’t.”
If she commits a similar “offence” within the next three years, she has to pay a fine of 3,600 euros.
Some advice on women in combat from a female veteran
I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.
We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.
I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?
Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?
Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.
Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.
Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.
I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.
Did the Associated Press BAN the use of 'husband' and 'wife' to describe people in civil unions and same-sex marriages?
The Associated Press is under fire by gay rights groups after the wire agency released a memo directing its reporters to refer to legally wed homosexual couples as 'partners' rather than 'husbands' or 'wives.'
'We were asked how to report about same-sex couples who call themselves "husband" and "wife,"' the memo states. 'Our view is that such terms may be used in AP stories with attribution. Generally AP uses couples or partners to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages.'
Media critic Jim Romenesko posted the memo on his blog and it was quickly circulated among gay rights groups. Romenesko later removed the post.
AMERICAblog called the directive a 'ban' on using the words 'husband' and 'wife' to describe the members of a homosexual couple.
'So clearly AP is admitting that it has a different standard for legally-wed gay couples than it has for legally-wed straight couples,' John Aravosis wrote on AMERICAblog. 'It’s almost as if AP is squeamish, or somehow, uncomfortable with the notion that a man might marry another man, even though it’s now legal in many states and countries.'
Gawker claimed the directive was a form of 'separate but equal.'
'This particular style choice makes a jarring "separate but equal" standard for married couples,' Gawker's Robert Kessler wrote. 'As we learned with segregation, a separate standard is inherently unequal.'
As the controversey grew surrounding the directive, the AP released a second memo to clarify the first.
'Our view is that such terms may be used in AP content if those involved have regularly used those terms ("Smith is survived by his husband, John Jones") or in quotes attributed to them,' reads a sentence added to the memo.
So if the legally-wed subjects of a story refer to themselves as husbands or wives, than the reporter should follow suit.
But generally speaking, the AP recommends using the terms 'couples' or 'partners' to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages.
As the leading global authority on journalistic standards, the AP regularly publishes memos regarding its style, punctuation and grammar rules.
Do churches and other religious organizations have the right to discriminate? Even advocates of discrimination laws in general are usually willing to make an exception for churches and religious organizations to practice discrimination in employment based on religious creed, sex, marital status, or sexual orientation.
Thus, a church of a particular denomination is free to limit offers of employment to ministers of that particular denomination and discriminate against all others; a church that considers homosexuality to be a sin is free to hire only heterosexuals and discriminate against homosexuals; a church that believes in having only men in leadership positions is free to hire only men and discriminate against women; and a church that believes in having an unmarried priesthood is free to employ as priests only those who are unmarried and discriminate against those who are married.
Regardless of our personal feelings about religion and morality, that is what we expect. That is, we expect a Jewish community center to be staffed by Jews, we expect a Catholic mass to be said by an unmarried male priest; we expect the minister of a theologically conservative church to be a heterosexual; we expect a Baptist church to be pastored by a man who is a Baptist; and we expect a Christian school to have Christian teachers.
Yet a Christian school in Thousand Oaks, California, and two former teachers are fighting over that very point.
Calvary Chapel, a Christian church in Thousand Oaks, purchased the previously secular Little Oaks School in 2009. According to the Ventura County Star,
While the vast majority of religious schools are nonprofit and tax-exempt, church leaders said they organized Little Oaks as a for-profit because they were on a tight deadline. They said forming a tax-exempt corporation is a lengthy process. They said the school is operated not as a profit-generating entity but as a spiritual arm of the church. Its students include about 130 children in preschool through fifth grade.
In 2012, the church requested from all employees a statement of faith and a reference from a pastor in order to have their contracts renewed. Two teachers, Lynda Serrano and Mary Ellen Guevara, refused to provide the documents and lost their jobs.
“We’re a Christian school,” said the Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of the church and headmaster of the school. “We were coming to the point where we were establishing a Christian curriculum. We wanted to make sure teachers subscribed to that faith.”
The teachers retained a law firm in Los Angeles and were prepared to sue, but asked for $150,000 apiece from the school to settle the case. “They did not believe they should be required to obtain a pastoral reference in order to continue their employment,” their attorney wrote in a letter to the church.
The church and school say their right to hire teachers who share their beliefs is protected by civil rights laws, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution, which says in its Declaration of Rights in Article I,
SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of his or her opinions on religious beliefs.
The teachers cite the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which, although it has some religious discrimination exemptions, supposedly don’t include for-profit religious groups.
But instead of settling, church and school leaders filed their own lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking an injunction to prevent the teachers from filing their lawsuit in a different venue because they wanted to make sure litigation took place in federal court. Their suit alleges that the Fair Employment and Housing Act is unconstitutional when used to restrict a religious school’s hiring practices, even if the group is for-profit.
The lawyers for the teachers maintain that the “Fair Employment and Housing Act has been upheld in hundreds of cases in state and federal courts.” They described the school’s lawsuit as a desperate attempt to “avoid the consequences of their illegal and discriminatory practices.”
But the lawyer representing the church and its school believes “the question is ultimately, do the nondiscrimination rights of the teachers under state law trump the religious rights of the school under federal law?”
There is no question that California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act outlaws discrimination in employment as a matter of public policy:
12920. It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation.
It is recognized that the practice of denying employment opportunity and discriminating in the terms of employment for these reasons foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the state of the fullest utilization of its capacities for development and advancement, and substantially and adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general. Further, the practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information in housing accommodations is declared to be against public policy.
It is the purpose of this part to provide effective remedies that will eliminate these discriminatory practices.
This part shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the welfare, health, and peace of the people of this state.
Therefore, according to section 12921(a), “The opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.”
But there is also no question that the Fair Employment and Housing Act contains a religious exemption: “12922. Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, an employer that is a religious corporation may restrict eligibility for employment in any position involving the performance of religious duties to adherents of the religion for which the corporation is organized.” And, as it states in section 12964(b)(5)(j)(4)(B), “Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for purposes of this subdivision, ’employer’ does not include a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit, except as provided in Section 12926.2” (which has to do with religious entities that operate health-care facilities that are not restricted to adherents of the religion that established the entity).
The problem is that a religious organization not organized for profit (Calvary Chapel) operating something as a for-profit entity (Little Oaks School) is not something that was envisioned by the writers of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
But there is an even bigger problem here: the folly of discrimination laws in the first place.
First of all, if discrimination is wrong; if discrimination is bad; if discrimination is mean-spirited; if discrimination is hateful; if discrimination is bigoted; if discrimination is immoral; if discrimination is racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic; if discrimination “foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the state of the fullest utilization of its capacities for development and advancement, and substantially and adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general,” then it doesn’t suddenly cease to be or do those things because the entity doing the discriminating is religious instead of secular, or nonprofit instead of for-profit.
Second, it would be madness for employers not to discriminate in hiring. People with physical disabilities are discriminated against by owners of coal mines. People without accounting experience are discriminated against by owners of accounting firms. People without a driver’s license are discriminated against by owners of taxi companies. People without typing skills are discriminated against by executives looking for secretaries. Any company that requires a college degree is discriminating against those without degrees.
Third, “discrimination” is not a dirty word. Discrimination is not necessarily something bad. Discrimination is not something inherently evil. To discriminate is simply to distinguish, differentiate, or make a distinction. Discrimination involves choosing between or among options. We used to say that a man had discriminating taste.
Fourth, to discriminate against someone is not an act of aggression against him. The underlying premise of libertarianism is the nonaggression principle; that is, it is wrong to threaten or employ violence against someone unless in defense of one’s person or property. No one of any race, religion, sex, color, national origin, or sexual orientation has the right to be employed by anyone else. Not hiring or not promoting someone on the basis of any of those things — however undeserved or irrational it might be — is not aggressing against him.
And fifth, to outlaw discrimination is to outlaw freedom of thought and freedom of association. Every man has the natural right to think or not to think whatever he wants about any other man. Every man has the natural right to associate or not to associate with any other man who is willing to associate with him. It doesn’t matter if those decisions are or are not based on someone’s identification with a group. It doesn’t matter if the decisions are unwise, unreasonable, or ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if they are based on prejudice, bigotry, or racism. Every free man has the right to think or not think what he wants about anyone else and associate or not associate with anyone else on any basis and for any reason. At least in a free society he does.
A free society must be free of discrimination laws altogether, not just laws without exceptions for religious discrimination.
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, 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.