Wednesday, May 14, 2014

A really scummy multiculturalist

Mittal is an Indian surname

A thieving GP stole £130 from a mother’s purse after she left the consulting room to attend to her sick baby son.

Kelly Wissenden, 29, caught  family doctor Nurpal Mittal rifling through the handbag she had left with her son’s buggy in the office.

The physician, 33, now faces being struck off the medical register after a jury found her guilty of theft.  She is also likely to receive a large fine for ‘breaching the sacred trust between doctor and patient’, the court heard.

Judge James O’Mahony told Mittal: ‘A patient has the right to expect that the last person in the world who would steal from them was a doctor.  ‘I want to know why on earth you could have done this.’

Miss Wissenden took her nine-month-old son Zaio Headley, who had an upset stomach, to White Cliffs Medical Centre in Dover on June 19 last year.

During her appointment,  the mother of two was asked  to take Zaio to a baby changing room in the surgery to take  a specimen sample for tests. But when she returned to the GP’s office, she found Mittal going through her bag.

Prosecutor Andrew Forsyth told the court: ‘Miss Wissenden described seeing Dr Mittal  fiddling round near the change bag and the buggy, looking very  flustered.’ He added: ‘She thought it strange at the time but didn’t say anything.’

Cross-channel ferry stewardess Miss Wissenden had £130 cash in her purse, which she had withdrawn earlier that day to pay for a car repair. But she said she realised the money was missing only after she had left the surgery.

Miss Wissenden returned to the practice straight away and spoke to a receptionist, Canterbury Crown Court heard. They searched the doctor’s room and the changing area where she had taken Zaio, finding nothing.

But when Mittal persuaded them to check the changing area again, the cash had mysteriously appeared on the floor.

Miss Wissenden reported the incident to police later that day.

In the evening, she received a phone call from Mittal asking her to withdraw the theft allegation, the jury was told.

After being convicted of theft, Mittal, from Shepherdswell, near Dover, was bailed until June when she will be sentenced.  The court heard she had previously received a caution for shoplifting in Scotland.

The judge told Mittal: ‘This is a sad state of affairs. The jury have found you guilty on overwhelming evidence of being a thief, and not just a thief but one who stole from one of your own patients.’

He requested a mental health report before sentencing, saying: ‘Given the fact she probably receives a healthy salary, who knows why she would want to steal £130 or go shoplifting?’

Miss Wissenden said: ‘It’s really shocking, it’s horrible. ‘I put my faith in her, my son’s life was in her hands and she stole from me. It’s been such a stressful time. The reaction you get when you tell people is, “Really, but she’s a doctor?”

‘The barrister even told me to expect a not guilty verdict because the jury was more likely to believe a doctor over me.’


Lessons Learned from the 'Brave German Woman'

The spirit of the Lord rose up in her

On November 10, 2013, a Muslim imam was invited to give the Islamic call to prayer inside the Memorial Church of the Reformation in the city of Speyer, Germany—a church dedicated to honoring Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.

"When the brave German woman, whose real name is Heidi Mund, heard about the event, she prayed," reports CBN News. Not sure what she would do upon arrival, she grabbed her German flag emblazoned with the words "Jesus Christ is Lord" and headed for the concert:

"Until the imam started with his shouting ["Allahu Akbar!"], I did not really know what to do. I was just prepared for what God wants me to do," she told CBN News.

Then the Muslim call to prayer began, and Heidi said she felt something rising up inside her.
"I would call it a holy anger," she recounted. "And then I rose with my flag and I was calling and proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord over Germany"…

And she repeated the words of Martin Luther in 1521 after he refused to recant his faith in scripture alone: "Here I stand. I can do no other" and "Save the church of Martin Luther!"

Video shows another concert-goer trying to calm her by saying, "This is a concert for peace."

Mund can be heard responding in German, "No it's not! Allahu Akbar is what Muslims scream while murdering people! Don't be fooled! Don't be fooled! This is a lie!"

She was thrown out of the church.

"They should have thrown the imam out and not me because I am a believer in Jesus Christ, but he serves another god. This Allah is not the same god. And this is not the truth."

"This 'allahu akbar,' they use it when they kill people," she argued. "This is, for me, worship to an idol, to their god. And when a Muslim calls 'allahu akbar' in a church, that means this church is not a church anymore, it's a mosque."

For more details on this story, check out CBN News' various interviews and videos of and with Mund.

Now for some lessons concerning the significance of this anecdote:

Mund's observations about the phrase "Allahu Akbar" are spot-on. Islam's war cry, signifying the superiority of Muhammad's religion over all things, the takbir ("Allahu Akbar"), is habitually proclaimed in violent contexts, specifically attacking and slaughtering non-Muslims, whether beheading "infidels" or bombing churches.

Muhammad himself used to cry it aloud prior to attacking non-Muslim tribes that refused to submit to his authority and religion.

Accordingly, Mund's outrage at hearing an Islamic imam hollering out Islamic supremacist slogans is justified. Proclaimed in a church, "Allahu Akbar"—which in translation literally means "Allah is greater [than X]"—means "Allahu is greater than the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and Father of Christ."

And assuming the imam proclaimed Islam's credo or shehada as is standard in the Muslim call to prayer (that "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger") that too is tantamount to declaring that the biblical God is false, and the message (or Koran) delivered by Muhammad—which includes a denunciation of Christ's divinity, death, and resurrection—is true (see for examples Koran 4:157, 4:171, 5:17, 5:116, 9:30-31, 19:35).

This is precisely what the vandal who earlier painted in Arabic the phrase "Allahu Akbar" across the door of another German church likely had in mind.

Yet despite all this, despite the fact that only two or three generations ago, almost every Christian would have been incensed to hear a Muslim shouting Islamic slogans that by nature contradict Christianity inside a church, Mund was chastised by fellow Christians for her stand and kicked out.

This speaks volumes about how far Western European nations have plummeted into a cesspool of moral relativism, where even in prominent churches Christian truths are attacked, and those who take a stand are ostracized for being "intolerant"; it speaks of the naivety and nihilism that predominate in the West; of the effects of years of brainwashing and indoctrination in the name of "multiculturalism," crippling the ability to think rationally; of how political correctness has censored not only words but the ability for people to connect-the-dots in the quiet of their own minds.

There is, however, a flipside to all this: Mund's video denouncing the imam "went viral," says CBN News, signifying its appeal; and many who saw it interpreted her actions as "brave"—hence the appellation. "Bravery" often refers to an act that, while laudable, few have the courage to do. That this title is so naturally and widely applied to Mund suggests that there are many who agree with her; they just lack the same courage, or conviction, to take a vocal stand—hence why she is the "Brave German Woman."

The fact is, beneath Western Europe's nihilistic veneer, many there would agree with Mund's sentiments. Not all are sheep. But due to the aforementioned forces—decades of indoctrination in militant secularism/atheism, multiculturalism, Christian-bashing, and political correctness—they are unable to articulate their grievance.

Yet, whether they are able to express it or not, they remain disgruntled at Muslim affronts and weak responses from European elites.

After all, Muslims hollering Islamic slogans inside European churches is not quite an infrequent phenomenon. Last Christmas, the Chaplain of Royal Holloway University invited a veiled Muslim woman to read Koran verses during church service, again, despite the fact that the Koran contradicts the key tenets of Christianity.

Sometimes Muslims "invite" themselves to churches. Thus, days ago, also in the UK, a Muslim man—"dressed like a terrorist" and wearing a bandana with the Arabic phrase, "Allahu Akbar"—entered a church during service and started yelling things like "this is rubbish, you should be preaching Allah, turn to Islam, we send boys of 10 to war."

And last Easter in France saw a Muslim man dressed in traditional Islamic attire enter a church during mass, set up his carpet next to the altar and start reading the Koran.

This is to say nothing of the violent crimes and rapes Muslims are increasingly responsible for in Europe.

The point is, more and more Western Europeans are becoming disgruntled, even if most are not yet "brave" enough to show it, and even if the powers-that-be, including media and government, continue to downplay and suppress them.

Days ago, for example, Britain's Liberty GB party leader Paul Weston was arrested and is facing up to two-years' jail time simply for quoting Winston Churchill's unflattering observations about Islam in public.

In short, time will tell whether the powers-that-be will allow legitimate criticism of Islam to vent in Europe, or whether they will continue to suppress it—until the simmering cauldron of discontent spills over in ways much more dramatic than quoting Luther or Churchill, as has happened all too often in European history.


Ambiguous performer wins the judges but loses the people

I am beginning to appreciate Mr Putin for defending normality

After taking home the coveted title at the Eurovision Song Contest, Austria’s “bearded lady”, aka Conchita Wurst, has copped a slew of abuse for her less than traditional performing style.

In a bitter aftertaste, the singer’s stunning victory has been branded “the end of Europe” by Russia’s anti-gay lobby.

The hirsute alter ego of Austrian performer Tom Neuwirth took out the competition in Copenhagen with Rise Like a Phoenix, an anthem reminiscent of classic James Bond theme tunes.

Social media went into overdrive overnight after BBC Eurovision’s page posted in honour of the “gender neutral” performer.

But in an unexpected twist, users instead posted shocking grievances against the performer, calling to “wake up Hitler” and “kill it with fire”.  “I believe in future without “things” like these”, wrote one user.  “Go and kill yourself”, said another.  “The most messed up thing I’ve seen on TV. I can already tell the Eurovision 2015 winner. It’ll be a song about love between an old woman with a 6-year-old boy and they’ll end up kissing on stage. Easy win. Or a gay couple kissing. The world’s changing. Going so wrong.”

Among the posts were calls for the BBC to ensure homophobic abuse “is not tolerated”, but it took other users to step up in Conchita’s honour.  “I’m disgusted by the comments on this post honestly,” wrote Jordan Jon.  “Just when you think the future is getting better with LGBT, this comes up.”

But the “bearded lady” received a heroine’s homecoming in Vienna after winning the Eurovision Song Contest.  After the win, hundreds of excited fans gathered at Vienna’s International Airport to welcome Conchita — who was clutching her Eurovision trophy tightly — back to home soil.

But in Russia, some branded Wurst‘s win as an example of the West’s decadence.  After the victory, Russian state television broadcast a debate on Conchita, with anti-gay MP Vladmir Zhirinovsky calling the result “the end of Europe.”

“There is no limit to our outrage,” he said.  “It has turned wild. There are no more men or women in Europe, just it.”

The competition was marred by controversy over widespread persecution of gay people by Russia’s vocal anti-gay lobby, and its apparent sanctioning by the gonvernment.

Wurst’s inclusion adding oil to that fire even before the show; and during the final there was loud booing in the Copenhagen arena whenever Russia’s act received a vote.

Afterward, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s vice-premier Dmitry Rogozin tweeted that the Eurovision result “showed supporters of European integration their European future — a bearded girl”.

The drag queen, who was initially written off as too provocative for some socially conservative countries, was the favourite to win the contest.

The act proved so popular that Austria was declared the winner after 34 of 37 countries had given their votes on Saturday evening.

After being announced as the winner, Wurst said: “This night is dedicated to everyone who believes in a future of peace and freedom.”


Note also that Eurovision voters from the United Kingdom awarded an eye-catching performance from Poland's Donatan and Cleo first place in Saturday's song contest, despite the official UK jury placing the Polish entrants last.   The final judgment was probably much influenced by political correctness.

Welby tells Church schools to teach respect for gay and lesbian relationships

In the best Anglican style he manages to speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time  but if he were a Christian (so few of the Anglican clergy are!) he would tell schools to teach that homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord -- because that is what the Bible says

Children at Church of England schools must be taught to “revere” and “honour” gay and lesbian people despite its centuries-old teaching that homosexual acts are a sin, new rules published by the Archbishop of Canterbury insist.

Guidelines intended to combat homophobic bullying, make clear that words such as gay must not be used in a “derogatory” or “negative” way in Anglican schools.

The Most Rev Justin Welby, insisted that the Church’s official stance - that sex between people of the same gender is sinful - had been clear “for centuries” and had not changed.  But he said that even if the Church taught that it is “wrong”, that did not justify bullying or discrimination.

The document, sent to all CofE schools, says primary school pupils should be taught about same-sex relationships as a basic “fact of people’s lives”.  It adds that church primary schools should draw up policies specifically recognising the needs of transgender pupils.

Meanwhile older children who decide to come out are to be given “unequivocal support” from teachers and chaplains.

Secondary school children should, it adds, be given frank information to help them to “explore their identity”.

Meanwhile traditional Church doctrines on homosexuality are to be presented only alongside a range of alternatives.  It urges heads to ensure the atmosphere in church schools is like a “Bedouin tent” in which “different views can be aired and honoured”. [Bedouins are Muslims!  Hardly a model for Christians.  And Muslims are not tolerant anyway]

The 72-page document was drawn up following a call from the Archbishop last year that the Church must face up to a “revolution” in attitudes on sexuality. His remarks came just weeks after he had voted against the introduction of gay marriage.

The document acknowledges that the global Anglican Church is deeply divided about sexuality and that many clergy in England openly disagree with official teaching.  “Within the Anglican Communion there exists a wide spectrum of beliefs about this issue and it is a very divisive matter for the Church at this time,” it says.  “Within a school community of pupils, staff, parents and governors many different views may be held and it should be acknowledged that this is a sensitive topic.”

But it adds that church schools already have teachers who live with same-sex partners and that pupils will have gay friends and parents.  “This is the lived reality of educational contexts in modern England,” it says.
“To deny this reality is to choose to be blinkered.”
The document cites, at the top of a list of reasons why pupils might be involved in homophobic bullying, the belief that homosexuality is “wrong”.

But the Archbishop said: "No sense of something being right or wrong justifies another wrong.  "There is never a point in which because you say that a particular form of behaviour – whether it is this or any other – is wrong that that justifies you saying that it's OK to bully someone.”

Asked if this meant the Church of England would continue to teach that homosexual practice is a "sin", he said: "The Church of England's statement on this is absolutely clear in its canons and has been for centuries.”

The Archbishop, who was educated at Eton, added that he had seen anti-gay bullying at school and had been “appalled”.

During a visit to Trinity Church of England School in Hither Green, South London, he joined a discussion with pupils about homophobic bullying.  Among them, 15-year-old Ruby Tarrant described how told how Christians had told her she was “going to Hell” after she came out aged 12.  “I was made to feel that I wasn't a girl, I was pushed down stairs – I was told constantly that I was wrong, there was something wrong with me,” she said.
“In the changing rooms they would push me to change in the showers.”

Benjamin Cohen, publisher of the website PinkNews, who campaigned for same-sex marriage, said: “I think it is really positive that he is talking about it and listening to pupils – but there is a fundamental challenge.

“How can you tell 11-year-olds that it is OK to be gay and that it is wrong for people to be bullied for being gay but at the same time, theologically, to say that being gay is wrong and that same-sex relationships are not of equal value?”



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


No comments: