Monday, September 29, 2014

Multicultural arrogance in Britain

Muslims think that women should be subservient so get enraged when women are not

A Poundland worker who became 'obsessed' with his female colleague beat her with a claw hammer after she rejected him, leaving her with a brain injury.

Zeeyarat Khan, 27, spoke of marrying co-worker Samera Suleman but when she turned him down, he threatened to kill her.  Miss Suleman, 32, a single mother, tried to quit her job at a branch of Poundland in Birmingham, but as she went to hand in her notice, Khan launched an attack.

Running out from behind his till, he grabbed a claw hammer from one of the selves, then used it to beat Miss Suleman in broad daylight.

Birmingham Crown Court heard Khan struck her twice over the head before launching a 'determined and sustained' assault, witnessed by a mum with three young children.

Miss Suleman was left with skull fractures, a brain injury and a fractured finger after the attack.

Jailing Khan for 18 years, Judge James Burbidge QC told him: 'You wanted the relationship to be more permanent but she gently rebuffed you. 'You rushed out of the store and pursued her, attacking her in the most public of places. You rained blows on her fast and furious.  'She is very fortunate to have survived the brain injury but it will change her life for ever.'

Khan, 27, of no fixed address, had previously admitted a charge of attempted murder.

Miss Suleman, a teaching assistant, worked part-time at Poundland’s St Andrews Retail Park branch.

Hugh O’Brien Quinn, prosecuting, told Birmingham Crown Court: 'Although they were friendly they seldom socialised outside work.

'It seems the defendant became obsessed with Miss Suleman. It became known among other staff he was attracted to her.

'He told Miss Suleman he had feelings for her and wanted to marry her. She told the defendant she did not have feelings for him.'

The court heard she tried to avoid Khan as his mental health declined. But Mr O’Brien Quinn said the defendant repeatedly threatened to kill her.

He lashed out when she arrived to hand in her notice on October 9 last year, leaving her with several skull fractures and a similar finger injury.

Mr O’Brien Quinn said: 'He ran from his position at the till and selected a claw hammer from one of the aisles. He then ran after her.'

Mr O’Brien Quinn said Khan was seen by police officers in Digbeth ten minutes later - still holding the bloodstained weapon.

He said Miss Suleman had been severely affected by the attack and was still receiving counselling.

Graham Henson, defending, said Khan felt he had been rebuffed and it had been an 'explosion' of spontaneous anger.


Every identity-politics activist known to humanity is attacking Canada’s human rights museum

Last week, the Canadian Museum For Human Rights officially opened in Winnipeg — an event described by the museum’s numerous local civic boosters, PR officers, fundraisers, in-house academics, Conservative government liaisons, and commissioned coffee-table book authors as a landmark in the history of humans rights.

Unfortunately, as commentators long have predicted, the museum’s 100-metre tall “Tower of Hope” spire has been transformed into a powerful homing beacon for every single aggrieved identity-politics activist known to humanity.

These include an aboriginal band that was scheduled to play at Saturday’s public gala, but backed out at the last minute — apparently because its members didn’t like the museum’s portrayal of Canadian indigenous issues. The Manitoba Métis Federation decided to boycott the museum because the gala organizers rejected their suggested Métis musical act. Arab Canadian protestors told National Post reporter Joseph Brean that the museum didn’t have enough information about the Palestinians. (On Sunday, a Quebec man named Pete Kirby was campaigning to have Israel’s war against Hamas included in the museum — because of the suffering endured by Gazan civilians.) James Kafieh, an Ontario lawyer and chair of an anti-museum group called Canadians for Genocide Education is protesting the museum on the basis that it was built on “stolen” (i.e. aboriginal) land, and elevates one atrocity (the Holocaust) over all others, in pursuit of what he calls an “emotionally manipulative indoctrination.”

Then there is the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, which has been protesting the Canadian Museum For Human Rights for a decade. Lubomyr Luciuk, who wants Canadians to boycott the museum, calls it “an Olympics of genocide.” He doesn’t like that the Jews get the gold, the Ukrainians a mere bronze.

The response of Canadian identity groups to the museum overall is perhaps best epitomized by a statement put out by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress last year, complaining that the museum’s treatment of Stalin’s forced starvation of millions of Ukrainians was fatally undercut by the fact that a panel on the subject was located too close to the public toilets. (Whose exhibit should be closest to the toilets? The Rwandans? The Cambodians? The Armenians? The Ukrainian Canadian Congress hasn’t told us.)

Over at the left-wing site, meanwhile, the museum is dismissed as “a headstone, hypocrisy and a terrible waste of resources.”

“The CMHR, run by wealthy children of settlers, decided local Indigenous people’s heritage does not deserve the same respect as their own ancestors and history,” writes author Kimlee Wong. “[It is] a decision rooted in cultural superiority, arrogance and privilege … The CMHR was constructed with the same Eurocentric arrogance that stole peoples lands, food sources and eventually their children; Eurocentric arrogance that determines that their pet projects are more worthy of public funds than affordable housing and justice for missing and murdered Indigenous women.” Now there’s someone who won’t be patronizing the gift shop.

Which of these complaints from anti-museum critics have merit and which don’t? Till now, the museum has responded on an ad hoc basis — ignoring some groups, consulting with others. But surely, now that the museum is open, a more systematic approach is needed, one that recognizes the plain fact that the proper curation of human-rights-related material in a museum explicitly dedicated to the issue of human rights must itself be treated, legally, as a matter of human rights.

Fortunately, Canada already has an expert body dedicated to such matters — The Canadian Human Rights Commission. As the web site informs us, “anyone who works for or receives services from a business or organization that is regulated by the federal government can make a complaint.” That would appear to include the Museum for Human Rights, which was established by Parliament in 2008.

And so the path forward is clear: The Canadian Human Rights Commission must establish a special human-rights tribunal to address human-rights complaints pertaining to the presentation of human-rights issues at the Canadian Museum For Human Rights.

But why not go further?

If the true goal of the Canadians Museum For Human Rights is to create a “national hub for human rights learning and discovery,” as its web site boasts, shouldn’t visitors to the museum be able to file a human rights complaint at the museum itself?

The museum claims to provide visitors with “an immersive, interactive experience that offers both the inspiration and tools to make a difference in the lives of others.” What “tool” could be more “interactive” and “difference”-making than a special in-museum kiosque that invited visitor to sue the museum itself under applicable Canadian human rights law?

In special circumstances, visitors to the museum might even be permitted to sue each other — Indians versus “wealthy children of settlers,” and Ukrainians vs. Jews, for instance. Following on the 2013 Ukrainian-Canadian toilet-related protest described above, human-rights complainants at the museum might also seek injunctive relief to prevent fellow museum-goers from using the bathrooms.

Where human rights are at stake, no remedy should be off-limits.

In time, the number of successful human-rights claims against the Canadian Museum For Human Rights might become so enormous that these cases would, themselves, become the subject of an entirely new museum — the Canadian Human Rights Museum-Related Human Rights Museum. And since this, too, would be built on “stolen land,” and would necessarily include some cases and exclude others, the cycle of human rights violation, complaint, litigation and resolution would be guaranteed to blossom anew.


Britain’s Counter-Terror Raids: The End of Londonistan?

The era of Londonistan may be over. A series of dawn raids at addresses across the capital on Thursday appeared to signal an abrupt change in Britain’s policy towards the radical Islamic figures that have operated in London for years. Britain arrested nine radical Islamists in a series of dawn raids on Thursday, including a powerful imam whose acolytes tried to behead a soldier in London last year.

Among those seized by Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism officers was Anjem Choudary, Britain’s most outspoken Islamist, who said this week that he had no sympathy for Alan Henning, the latest hostage to be threatened ISIS. Choudary, a lawyer and preacher who has been linked to around 70 people with convictions for terror-related offenses, has been accused of inciting violence and working with banned pro-terror groups for more than a decade—but his public proclamations have always remained on the right side of the law.

At a briefing earlier this year, a senior Scotland Yard official explained that Choudary had been monitored intensively but his clear grasp of anti-terrorism legislation meant it would be difficult to bring a successful prosecution against him. Britain’s stance has changed, however, since it became clear that hundreds of British citizens were fighting for ISIS, including the hooded executioner seen in their most despicable videos.

On Friday, the British parliament will vote in favor of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, reflecting a shift in the mood of the public who were previously wary of intervention in the Middle East. The authorities are also showing a renewed aggression towards extremists. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, recently proposed a change to British law so that Choudary’s extreme rhetoric would be criminalized. Meanwhile, Thursday’s arrest of nine men in London, all with alleged links to the banned radical Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, suggested a different approach to the current terror legislation.

“David Cameron and the security community see an opportunity to stamp on these people. It’s clear that the volume has been turned up,” a former government security advisor told The Daily Beast.  “There is a clear perceived national danger in letting people like Choudary get away with incitement, when there are already British Muslims fighting for the Islamic State. This is a real threat; not a worry about what might happen.”

In the hours before his arrest, Choudary took to Twitter to denounce airstrikes against ISIS.  “The war being waged by the US/UK & Co is a war against Islam & Muslims,” he wrote. “The Islamic State could not wish for a better rallying call for Muslims worldwide to join them than for the USA to start bombing again.”

Speaking to The Daily Beast about three weeks ago, Choudary insisted that none of his statements ever amounted to incitement to violence or encouraging terrorism, both of which are illegal in Britain. “I’m not encouraging anyone to do anything quite frankly,” he said. “I would never encourage anyone to go abroad, I would never encourage anyone to undergo military training.”

Many of Choudary’s former acolytes have gone on to commit, or attempted to commit, acts of terrorism, including Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, who murdered and tried to behead off-duty soldier Lee Rigby in a daylight attack on the streets of London.

Both of those convicted killers had been seen at protests and events with members of al-Muhajiroun, which was co-founded by Choudary. According to an investigation by anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate, 75 British citizens associated with al-Muhajiroun or one of its front organizations have subsequently been convicted on terror charges or carried out suicide attacks.

“We welcome these arrests,” said Nick Lowles, chief executive of HOPE Not Hate. “Since our own extensive investigations into Anjem Choudary and his disciples, we’ve been saying that more must be done to curb this hate-supporting and recruiting organization.”

After raids on 18 properties in London and one in Stoke, a Scotland Yard spokesman said that the nine men had been arrested on suspicion of being a member of a proscribed organization, supporting a proscribed organization and encouraging terrorism.


Infertility and Incomprehension at Slate

I would like to think that if I ever wrote an article criticizing a religious body’s teaching on a subject, I would try to find out what that teaching actually is first. No such compulsion seems to have been deeply felt by Slate writers Joel Baden and Candida Moss, who attack Catholic teachings on the ethics of fertility treatments without showing the slightest interest in understanding them.

The Church opposes in vitro fertilization both because it almost always involves the destruction of human embryos and because it always, in the Church’s view, threatens to reduce human lives to the status of “products” rather than “gifts.” Baden and Moss quote Catholic officials saying that “[t]he Church promotes treatment of infertility through means that respect the right to life,” but then add this scornful gloss: “[T]hat’s the Catholic Church saying that it’s OK for women to chart their menstrual cycles.” No, it isn’t. It’s the Church saying that it’s okay to use a variety of treatments, including hormonal ones. You can agree or disagree with the distinctions the Church makes, but you shouldn’t misrepresent them.

The authors are also utterly ignorant of what “giving scandal” means in Catholic parlance. When a sinful activity is additionally objectionable because of “scandal,” it is because it is not only wrong in itself but spreads confusion about Church teaching. The authors seem to think that “scandal” is being used in a different sense, and Catholic priests who talk about it are merely trying to protect the reputation of clerics.

Probably the biggest doozy in the article is this sentence: “Though not often expressed, the default position of the church is that childlessness is an intentionally chosen state, and a sinful one at that.” Baden and Moss then claim that Pope Francis expressed this view in a June sermon. The link they provide offers no support for this contention. The pope said that married couples should not choose childlessness. He neither said nor implied that childlessness is always or usually a choice. It is baffling that Baden and Moss treat these obviously distinct propositions as if they were equivalent.

Baden and Moss continue: “Francis’s softly worded caveat about those for whom ‘children do not arrive’ makes no difference unless infertile couples out themselves to everyone they encounter.” I am sure that there are Catholics, even Catholic priests, who assume that the childless couples in their parishes have rejected Church teaching, and that this attitude can cause these couples emotional pain. It’s something pastors should address. But there is no “default position” of the Church that underwrites those attitudes.

The authors just can’t let go of their mistake. “But what happens when, despite all the faith one can muster, one remains infertile? What does this say about a person’s worth within a community that explicitly describes childbearing as a duty?” Catholicism does not “explicitly” or even implicitly describe childbearing as a duty for all couples, which is why the authors never offer any evidence for this repeated contention of theirs.

“It is unclear,” Baden and Moss write, whether the Catholic Church grasps “the specifics of modern infertility.” Such condescension is especially inappropriate coming from people who don’t know what they’re talking about.



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: