Sunday, March 09, 2014
Violent multiculturalist in Britain gets no penalty
More black hostility towards whites
A mother taking her two young daughters to school was elbowed to the floor by a woman who shouted at her and two other parents for blocking the path.
Kirsty Livingstone, 28, was standing with other mothers and their pushchairs on a street in Southborne, Dorset, when she was knocked down by 34-year-old Telicia Henry.
Miss Livingstone suffered whiplash, a chipped shoulder bone and severe bruising from the fall.
Seconds before, Henry, who had recently emerged from an off-licence, started shouting and swearing at the group before angrily barging past.
After the assault, she continued to school and picked up her children Lillie, five, and Ella, seven, before calling police.
The pain from the injuries gave Miss Livingstone sleepless nights and has made her nervous of going outside, a court heard.
Officers arrested Henry, of no fixed abode, who later appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court where she pleaded guilty to common assault and received a six-week suspended prison sentence.
Mark Price, defending, said: 'When this offence happened she was faced with a crowd of mothers and pushchairs and couldn’t get past. 'So she forced her way through forcefully - it wasn’t a reckless assault.'
In a statement read to the court, Miss Livingstone said the assault left her unable to sleep for three nights because of the pain and she lost her confidence when out walking.
Henry was told: 'This offence was committed in a group of ladies with children around. 'The abusive language you used was totally unacceptable and resulted in the lady being totally and utterly intimidated.'
After the case Miss Livingstone, a part-time shop assistant, said: 'I was with some other mums and we had seen the woman go into an off-licence. 'We had about 20 minutes until we had to pick up the children from school.
'Then the woman came down the road and approached us. She elbowed me so hard that I fell over. 'I was in absolute shock, she could have easily avoided me but she knew what she wanted to do.
'I went to collect my children from school and when I got there I burst out crying and had a cup of tea with one of the teachers who called the police.
'The next day I went to hospital and discovered I had severe whiplash and a chipped bone in my shoulder. My arm was in a sling for two weeks because of it.'
DOJ: Sexual Assault, School Discipline, LGBT 'Rights' Are 'Next Generation' of Civil Rights Challenges
Silly old biddy Jocelyn Samuels
The head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division says the "next generation" of civil rights challenges includes addressing racial disparities in school discipline [i.e.turning a blind eye to black offenders]; defending the rights of LGBT Americans; combating discrimination in housing and in lending; protecting women from sexual assault and harassment; ensuring the fair treatment of [black] youth in the juvenile justice system; and defending the right to vote [i.e. without voter ID] in the 21st Century.
"In recent months, the Civil Rights Division has reached landmark consent decrees involving each of these issues," Jocelyn Samuels, the acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, told a civil rights symposium in Indianapolis on Tuesday.
Not only will those agreements provide remedies for the individuals involved -- they also will "serve as models for institutions across the country that are looking to voluntarily improve their own non-discrimination policies and practices."
Samuels said the country has come "a long way" over the past 50 years, but the "robust caseload" at DOJ's Civil Rights Division "is a stark reminder that too many in our nation continue to face barriers to equal opportunity."
According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the since 2009, the Civil Rights Division has filed more criminal civil rights cases than at any other time in the nation's history.
Many of those cases have resulted in legal settlements known as consent decrees. Other DOJ remedies take the form of "policy memos" or "guidance."
In some cases, Samuels noted that the Justice Department is "vigorously enforcing the law," but in others, it is looking for ways to get around the law (Samuels used the words "evaluating" and "interpreting").
For example, Samuels noted that the Civil Rights Division defends the rights of LGBT individuals through the "vigorous enforcement" of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act." That law, signed by President Obama in 2009, strengthened the Justice Department’s ability to prosecute crimes motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Samuels also said the Civil Rights Division is "enforcing" federal law to prevent sex discrimination at the nation's colleges and universities; it "vigorously enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace"; and "we enforce the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure employers do not deny employment opportunities to immigrants..."
But when it comes to same-sex marriage, Samuels said the Justice Department, including the Civil Rights Division, is "involved in evaluating and interpreting the Windsor decision’s application to federal programs." That means it is looking for ways to avoid enforcing laws barring homosexual marriage.
Last month, Attorney General Holder issued a "policy memo" saying that in all federal legal matters, the Justice Department "will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages."
And as CNSNews.com has reported, Attorney General Holder recently told a gathering of states attorneys they do not have to defend state laws banning same-sex marriage -- because Holder considers those laws to be discriminatory.
Catholic Church on Homosexual Acts: ‘Under No Circumstances Can They Be Approved’
Although Pope Francis in a March 5 interview seemed to leave open the possibility of approval for same-sex civil unions, the official teaching of the Catholic Church, from the Catechism, says that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.”
In an interview published in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera on March 5, as translated by Catholic News Service, Pope Francis says that, “Matrimony is between a man and a woman” but moves to “regulate diverse situations of cohabitation [are] driven by the need to regulate economic aspects among persons, as for instance to assure medical care.”
When asked how the Church could address the issue, Pope Francis said, “It is necessary to look at the diverse cases and evaluate them in their variety.” The Pope did not say that civil unions – “diverse situations of cohabitation” – were impermissible, but that the “diverse cases” could be evaluated “in their variety.”
The complete question and answer from the Holy Father were published and translated into English by the independent news agency Zenit, also sometime on March 5. The question and answer are as follows:
"Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
Holy Father: 'Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity.'"
In addition, the Catholic News Agency translated into English the Pope's response on March 5 as follows:
"Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different aspects of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn't know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety."
From either translation, the Pope reaffirms Church teaching on marriage between one man and one woman but also states that, when it comes to civil unions, they need to be reviewed and evaluated in their "variety" or "diversity." The Pope does not endorse same-sex civil unions or heterosexual civil unions but apparently is saying the different cases would need to be evaluated.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “homosexual persons are called to chastity.” (2359) The Catechism further says,
“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (2357)
As for civil unions, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) published a Q & A document in 2007. Question 9 asks, “What is the church’s position on legislation to allow civil unions or domestic partnerships?”
The USCCB answers, “On two different occasions, in 2003 and 2006, the USCCB Administrative Committee stated: We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage – by naming them marriage, civil unions, or by other means.”
The USCCB also answers, “In 2003 a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: ‘Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex.’”
SCOTUS Could Consider First Amendment photographer case
Last August, a New Mexico photographer lost her case before the state Supreme Court, which ruled that, despite her Christian faith, Elaine Huguenin did not have the right, First Amendment or otherwise, to decline to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony. Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth sued Huguenin and her husband Jonathan, with whom she operates the studio, despite there being other Albuquerque photographers who were happy to take their business. The case is a poster example of the intolerance foisted on us by the homosexual agenda, as the recent kerfuffle in Arizona also illustrated.
Now the Supreme Court will decide in the coming days whether to hear Huguenin's appeal. While she will “gladly serve gays and lesbians,” she doesn't want to photograph a same-sex “marriage” or commitment ceremony. She contends that her photography constitutes speech and she should not be forced to “create expression conveying messages that conflict with [my] religious beliefs.”
Ilya Shapiro of the libertarian Cato Institute, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, and University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter jointly wrote an amicus brief supporting the Huguenins, arguing, “Photographers, writers, singers, actors, painters and others who create First Amendment-protected speech must have the right to decide which commissions to take and which to reject.”
The state Supreme Court didn't see it that way, however. Justice Richard C. Bosson wrote in concurrence that the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.”
Furthermore, “at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation's strengths, demands no less.” That “compromise” is increasingly being demanded of only one side in this debate. Now it's up to the U.S. Supreme Court to either let this egregious violation of conscience and speech stand or to set the record straight.
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 and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.