Sunday, May 17, 2015

Black American homosexual sentenced to 60 years in prison for recklessly infecting his sexual partners with HIV

A MAN who prosecutors accused of “recklessly infecting” two male sex partners with HIV in Missouri has been sentenced to 60 years in prison, in a judgment that has outraged AIDS activists.

Twenty-three-year-old Michael L Johnson faced felony HIV exposure charges and was also accused of knowingly exposing four others to the virus that causes AIDS over nearly 10 months after being diagnosed as HIV positive in January 2013.

He pleaded not guilty, although two of his sexual partners testified in court that Johnson told them he did not have any sexually transmitted diseases at the time of the encounters.

Fusion reported that a judge will determine whether some of Johnson’s sentences can be served cumulatively, potentially cutting his total prison term down to 30 years.

HIV activists reacted with anger and dismay to the sentencing, saying the laws in Missouri and more than 30 other states criminalise a medical condition, and that they will not kerb the spread of the virus.

The encounters occurred in Johnson’s dorm room and other campus housing at Lindenwood University, a private school in the St Louis suburb of St Charles.

The New York Daily News reported that Johnson used the name ‘Tiger Mandingo’ in his online dating profile and had filmed himself having unsafe sex with his partners. Missouri police found 32 video clips on his laptop showing him having unprotected sex with his partners, the site reported.

“He didn’t just fail to disclose. When he was specifically asked if he was clean ... he lied,” prosecutor Philip Groenweghe told jurors during the trial.

Johnson was a champion wrestler on the college team


BBC under fire after Home Affairs Editor 'compares hate preacher Anjem Choudary to Gandhi and Mandela'

The BBC is under fire after the Home Affairs Editor appeared to compare notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary to Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.

Following a lengthy report on last night's BBC News at Ten about Choudary's 'radicalising force', Mark Easton appeared to question whether there were similarities between Britain's most famous extremist and two of history's greatest civil rights campaigners.

Referring to Theresa May's pledge to clamp down on extremism, the journalist said Gandhi and Mandela had been seen as extremists and that those stances 'are sometimes needed to challenge very establish values'.

But outraged viewers slammed the comparison as 'disgusting' while campaigners said the 'ludicrous' comments gave credence to Choudary's 'complete rejection' of democracy and tolerance.

Speaking after a 'special report' which gave further airtime to Choudary and his radical views, Mr Easton said: 'It's one thing to ban someone for inciting hatred or violence, but quite another to pass a law that silences anyone who challenges established values.

'I was in Parliament Square today - a statue of Gandhi looking down at me who was jailed for being extremist; Mandela who was jailed for being an extremist.

'History tells us that extreme views are sometimes needed to challenge very established values that people at the time hold so dear.'  

Adam Deen, founder and executive director of The Deen Institute, a Muslim debating forum and think-tank, said the journalist was trying to make the point that dissenting views are essential in a democracy.

But he said that Choudary's views 'completely reject' democracy and tolerance - the very values by which Gandhi and Mandela's views were inspired. 

Mr Deen said: 'I think the journalist's point is underpinned by the view that dissenting views are important for a democracy and that these voices can highlight areas where a society may have gone wrong.

'Anjem rejects democracy, is very anti non-Muslim and is very much anti-western. So to regard Anjem as a legitimate dissenting voice - and to open up this topic, saying that "maybe we've got it wrong to clamp down on his organisation" - is absurd.'

He added: 'Anjem does not behave in the way that he does because he believes in the value of democracy and freedom of speech. It is because he is an extremist Muslim who believes that 'The Good' can only be derived from scripture.'

A spokesman for the Clarion Project, an organisation that challenges radical Islamism and promotes dialogue, added: 'It is ludicrous to compare Anjem Choudary, who promotes the most extreme form of Sharia law which denies entire segments of the population their basic human rights, to human rights champions such as Gandhi and Mandela.

'Choudary’s challenge of “established values” such as “rule of law, democracy, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of different faith and beliefs” has arguably led to more British citizens joining ISIS or committing acts of terror than any other single individual.'

Viewers also expressed their concern over the comments.  One user wrote on Twitter that 'to compare Gandhi with Choudary is not becoming of a respected journalist', while another asked: 'Are you trying to compare the islamist scum in uk to Gandhi and Mandela? If they are your views then they're disgusting?' Another simply said it was a 'silly analogy'.

A spokesman for the Gandhi Foundation added that it was an 'absurd comparison' because Gandhi took a non-violent approach.  Mark Hoda, chair of the trustees, said: 'By my understanding, Choudary is someone who advocates hate and violence and justifies terrible acts, so I think it is an absurd comparison.

'Of course, there is an issue of extremism being a relative concept but, even though Gandhi may have been seen as an extremist at a certain time, his philosophy was non-violent.

'He was also accommodating of other views, which is different to Choudary who has a narrow view of Islam.'

Mr Easton raised the topic following a special report by security correspondent Gordon Corera which asked: 'Is preacher Anjem Choudary a radicalising force?'

He studied the question in light of the government's changes to extremism laws which, in a bid to clamp down on radicalisation. could include banning and dispersion orders for those 'undermining British values'.

As part of the report, the corporation - which has already given Choudary airtime on several occasions - filmed Mr Corera meeting with the hate preacher in a café.

Talking about the report back in the studio, Mr Easton said: 'Against a background of hundreds of Muslims heading off to fight and with people like Choudhary whose rhetoric is encouraging them to go, the government thinks this (the new laws) needs to take place.'

Choudary, a trained lawyer, is a figurehead for a proscribed group which calls for Sharia Law to reign in UK. Yesterday, he claimed that Ms May's extremism laws would 'criminalise young people for upholding the values of freedom of religion and expression.'

The 48-year-old said: 'Are you going to start putting Communists in jail because they believe in a different way of life - where is it going to stop? I will continue to speak out against Draconian laws and injustices and snooper's charters.

'They are trying to silence anyone who is opposed to the government's foreign policy. The Conservative government is at war with Islam and Muslims.'

Choudary, who founded the radical Islamic group Al-Muhajiroun 20 years ago which was later banned, is seen as a recruiting sergeant for Britain's radical Muslims.

He was one of nine men held in a series of co-ordinated dawn raids by counter terrorism police in September last year.

All the men were held on suspicion of being a member of, or backing a banned terrorist group and supporting terrorism.


Rolling Stone gang-rape author — still employed

How does Sabrina Rubin Erdely — the author of the thoroughly discredited Rolling Stone gang-rape story — still have a job?

Erdely was not fired for her erroneous story, even after the Columbia Journalism Review released its damning report on the story. But it seems unlikely she could have a future in journalism.

A lawsuit filed by University of Virginia dean Nicole Eramo — who was vilified in the original Rolling Stone as being "indifferent" to sexual assault accusers —really lays into Erdely and her poor journalism. The lawsuit goes into detail about Erdely's past articles and their issues, including two other Rolling Stone articles that the author apparently didn't corroborate.

Erdely's past failure to verify facts could fit the same pattern as the University of Virginia rape story — narrative first and "facts" later.

When Erdely decided to construct her time-tested narrative of a woman's rape followed by an institution's indifference — this time at an American college — she went looking for an alleged victim to fit in to her predetermined story.

Eramo's lawsuit details some of the other victims Erdely spoke to prior to settling on Jackie at U.Va. and their skepticism of Erdely. Erdely initially wanted to set her story at an Ivy League university, but she couldn't find a victim who would fit the story she wanted to write. So she settled for a Southern university with a wealthy, white population.

Early on in her process of finding a victim to fit her narrative, Erdely spoke to Alexandra Brodsky at Yale University. At a recent panel in D.C. discussing campus sexual assault, Brodsky said that she "put [Erdely] in touch with a couple of students who had, like, normal rape stories, and none of them were good enough for her." Brodsky added that it was "unsurprising" to her "that the story [Erdely] eventually decided to publish is one that was, like, literally sensationalized."

Alex Pinkleton, who was interviewed for the Rolling Stone story, said she was skeptical of Erdely during their talks "because it seemed like she was unwilling to listen to anyone besides Jackie." Pinkleton added that "[Erdely] did have an agenda and part of that agenda was showing how monstrous fraternities are and blaming the administration for a lot of these sexual assaults."

Further, Pinkleton said that Erdely kept trying to get her to embellish the sexual assault she had suffered. Erdely wanted her to say that the perpetrator had deliberately gotten her drunk, according to Eramo's lawsuit. "I felt that she wasn't satisfied with my perpetrator as someone who wasn't clearly monstrous ... I didn't like that it seemed like she was looking for a story that had to be at a fraternity," Pinkleton said.

Eramo's lawsuit mentions another U.Va. student who "felt really uncomfortable" after speaking to Erdely because it was clear the Rolling Stone author had an agenda.

When rape victims disputed Erdely's narrative, she responded by marginalizing their claims, according to two U.Va. students. Emily Renda — who says she was raped as a freshmen — and Sara Surface, a student activist, both praised Eramo and believed she was portrayed unfairly by Erdely.

"Shockingly, when confronted with Renda and Surface's statements, Erdely insisted that they were 'confused,' and that their insistence that Dean Eramo was a strong supporter of students and that there was in fact an active activist community at UVA addressing sexual assault prevention and education, was simply 'another aspect of their denialism,'" Eramo's lawsuit says.

There are several possible reasons Erdely has not yet been fired. Publications are often reluctant to give in to outside pressure when it comes to matters of personnel. If Rolling Stone were to fire her, there is at least a possibility that a jury would view it as an admission of wrongdoing, which could bolster Eramo's lawsuit. Then again, prompt firings could have been used to argue for Rolling Stone's lack of malice in portraying Eramo as callous and indifferent.

Whether or not Erdely is fired or eventually resigns, her career in journalism is probably over.


Feminism and Frozen 'Huevos'

Sofia Vergara is the Spanish-accented sexpot on the ABC sitcom "Modern Family." She's also now the center of an unwanted controversy over a "modern family." She's fighting with an ex-fiance over two frozen embryos.

Back in 2013, Vergara granted a TV interview to Dr. Oz to discuss her baby-making plans: "I've been very concerned about fertility and I wanted to take advantage of science, so I froze my huevos." She and her fiance Nick Loeb had no success with a surrogate mother on two embryos, and they made two more before the relationship soured.

The current controversy began when Loeb recently wrote an op-ed for The New York Times publicly asking for his test-tube children, with no expectation of joint custody or child support payments: "When we create embryos for the purpose of life, should we not define them as life, rather than as property?"

Were Loeb not the ex-fiance of one of Hollywood's hottest stars, it's hard to imagine the Times making any space for this pro-life argument. Aside from the Times, the media clearly took sides with the more famous half of this duel. The New York Post carried the coarse headline: "It's time for Nick Loeb to STFU about Sofia's eggs."

That ignores entirely the proposition that the father had anything to do with it.

Then the fight moved to television. Loeb was awarded interviews, but was pounded for daring to publicize this issue. NBC "Today" co-host Hoda Kotb told him he should quit: "You each signed an agreement saying neither of you would bring this embryo to term without the other's consent. I mean, it sort of seems like a dead issue at this point."

So why did the "Today" show invite him for an interview?

On CNN, "New Day" anchor Alisyn Camerota also took a prosecutorial stance. "Not everyone [translation: Alisyn Camerota] believes that embryos are lives. Why do you believe that you've already created a life?" She insisted that if he moved on to a new woman, he wouldn't care about these embryos. The pro-life argument must be a desperate con job.

Both anchors lectured Loeb that "there are people [read: both anchors] though, who question your motives, and who question what you're doing." That's an obvious question, but what about the woman's motives?

And what about the media's motives? What really brought this fight into the news was a two-faced media that claim to sympathize with Vergara, but really wanted to exploit her fame for TV ratings and Internet clicks.

These posing female anchors tried to shame the less-famous half of a celebrity couple as a disposable boy toy and attention hound. If the genders were reversed, you can bet liberals would cry sexism.

Feminism demands that the woman is always right — especially about her career. Vergara has a 23-year-old son from a previous relationship and so it must seem shocking to her media fans that she would surrender to another cycle of parenthood at 42. Why should this one-trick superstar have to make any compromise in her white-hot career right now before it inevitably fades?

No one in the media takes the "ancient family" viewpoint on this mess. Embryos and surrogate mothers in this case weren't based on infertility, but on Vergara's refusal to carry a baby and complicate her hit TV show. Both sides of this mess should have realized that there is no room for "family" in this selfish squabble.



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: