Thursday, May 28, 2015
If you Google "women's space" you will find examples from all sorts of times and places of feminists demanding such spaces. They want man-free zones, where they can escape from the "patriarchy"
Such demands are more evidence of how egocentric radical feminists and Leftists generally are. If any other demographic category made such demands, that would be roundly condemned as segregation, apartheid, discrimination etc. "Segregation is good if we do it but bad if anybody else does it" is the implicit message.
It is not however an explicit message. My son reports that when he was recently on the campus of the University of Queensland -- of which he and I are both graduates -- he was approached by some young women who were handing out small gifts to anyone who signed a petition demanding a women's space on that campus.
He agreed to sign their petition, saying, "I think any group should have the right to exclude people they don't like". This utterance was greeted with horror, his signature was rejected and he did not get his gift. He was describing plainly what they wanted but they could not admit that -- in the best traditions of Leftist denialism. They no doubt thought of themselves as enemies of "discrimination".
And we can see how deeply entrenched the hypocrisy and dishonesty is when we reflect that feminists have a long history of opposing men's spaces. For over a hundred years all Australian towns had a men's space -- the public bar of a local hotel. Women were not allowed there. There was a separate "Ladies' lounge" where women drank.
Feminists have completely destroyed that. Women are now allowed in all bars, sometimes by force of law. I remember the process well. The big watering hole for UQ students was always "The Regatta", a large and imposing hotel on the way back into town from the university. And it too once denied women admittance to its public bar. So what did feminists do? They barged in anyway and chained themselves to various objects to make it difficult to remove them. They did so until the rule excluding them was abandoned.
And the efforts of women to have the membership of various gentlemen's clubs "opened up" are well known. Most such clubs have succumbed. That men might enjoy a place where they are free from women is not considered. But a place where women are free from men is just fine, righteous even.
So how does this ethical black hole arise? It arises from the general lack of principles among Leftists. Leftists are sub-clinical psychopaths. In pursuit of their hates, Leftists can turn around and march in opposite directions at the drop of a hat.
The classic example of that was the wharfies (dockers, longshoremen) during WWII. Nazism and Communism were always sibling rivals and outside Germany, dock workers were systematically Communist sympathizers. Not a few were actual members of the local Communist party. So when Hitler and Stalin jointly invaded the long-suffering Poles, dock workers did all they could to hinder the war effort against the Nazi/Soviet alliance. But when Hitler turned on his ally and invaded Russia, the dock workers, particularly in America, suddenly ceased their obstruction of the war effort. It was their hate that guided them, not any high principle. Stalin hated "the rich" and so did they -- so they were consistent only in supporting him.
But be that as it may, what is clearly going on among the radical feminists is an inability to empathize -- an ability to see everything only in the light of what they want. They have no principles and no honour or ethics of any kind. What they want defines righteous and nothing else matters. They are moral imbeciles. Their hate and anger is so strong that it blinds them to all else, even to basic decency and fairness.
Why do some women get that way? In the universities these days they are taught that. Barely articulate cries of feminist rage pass as education these days. In the society at large, however, feminism can be a temporary refuge from a bad experiece -- a relationship breakup usually. Such a refuge is usually abandoned after a time -- for a man. Lifelong feminism however can result from some physical difference -- abnormal hormone levels usually -- but it is more likely to be a convenient way to express the woman's Leftism, her hatred of the society about her generally.
It is sick
An unpleasant but important lesson
He forced the do-gooders to face facts: People eat animals, always have and always will. We have evolved that way. There are of course some vegetarians but they have to be quite careful to get a healthy diet
Outraged listeners are calling for a boycott of a talk radio station after a presenter bludgeoned a baby rabbit to death on air.
Asger Juhl hit the nine-week-old fluffy black rabbit, named Allan, over the head with a bicycle pump despite protests from animal rights campaigners in the studio.
Juhl, a presenter on Danish station Radio24syv, then took the animal home where he and his children cooked and ate it.
He claimed he was exposing the ‘hypocrisy’ surrounding meat-eating. Juhl, 34, killed the rabbit after debating animal welfare with Danish reality TV star and animal rights activist Linse Kessler on Monday.
She had tried to grab Allan and chased Juhl around the studio before being asked to leave.
Afterwards she posted a video on Facebook criticising Juhl’s actions. Miss Kessler said she thought she could have wrested the animal from him but feared it would die a more painful death if she grabbed it.
Juhl said he had been shown how to dispatch Allan humanely by a keeper at Aalborg Zoo who kills several baby rabbits each week to feed to the snakes.
‘They use an iron stick. I didn’t have an iron stick – so I used a bicycle pump,’ he said.
He and his children, aged six and eight, skinned the dead rabbit and made a stew for dinner.
‘Many people in Denmark are frustrated about us killing the rabbit but at the same time they are having meat for dinner,’ he said. ‘They are not taking into account that you are supposed to kill an animal before you eat meat. Let me ask you a question: Why would it be wrong to kill an animal and then eat it?’
Danish DJ describes moments leading up to rabbit's on-air death
Yesterday, there were growing calls for a boycott of Copenhagen-based Radio24syv over Juhl’s ‘disgusting’ behaviour.
One person wrote on social media: ‘You could probably easily have had the debate on air without having to kill an animal.’
Andother added: ‘Maybe somebody should hit you on the head with a pump, see if that provokes a debate.’
Others described the incident as a ‘brutal publicity stunt’.
The RSPCA said it would have investigated had the ‘shocking’ events taken place in England or Wales. A spokesman added: ‘The use of an animal in this way is completely unacceptable.’
The radio station defended the incident, saying it wanted to highlight cruelty in the farming industry and hypocrisy over animal welfare.
‘We didn’t do it for the sake of entertainment,’ it said. ‘Thousands of animals die each day so that people can eat them.’
It claimed that Allan had enjoyed a good life, unlike many of the animals which end up on the meat counter, and was killed in a humane manner.
Juhl later explained why he used a bicycle pump to kill the innocent rabbit. The 34-year-old said: 'I was very humane. I discussed this with people at the zoo before I did it'
Radio24syv added that it wanted to put more focus on ‘one of the world’s most industrialised agriculture sectors’.
It said that Allan was killed ‘in a sound manner’ and ‘did not suffer any harm’.
It added: ‘Our rabbit has had a good life, as a contrast to the way our industrialised agriculture treats animals every day.
‘Animals that end up in the meat counter, where most of us without any great reflection buy slaughtered animals, who have had a terrible life.’
MailOnline readers expressed their outrage on the website last night. Korotki from Devon wrote: ‘He should lose his job, and be prosecuted for animal cruelty.
‘I don’t care what his “justification” might allegedly be, the facts speak for themselves and this idiot’s killed an animal by brutal means as a publicity stunt.’
Chandelier from London said: ‘I understand that he wanted to make a point but doing it in this way is rather barbaric. Poor rabbit.’ And Dirk Bruere from Bedford wrote: ‘There is a vast difference between being beaten to death with an “iron stick” and a bicycle pump.
‘The former is quick and the latter slow and cruel.’
Last year there was outcry in Denmark after a baby giraffe called Marius was killed and dissected in front of children at Copenhagen Zoo, before being fed to the lions.
Prospective U.S. ‘Free Trade’ Partner Prohibits Catholic Paper from Using ‘Allah'
In Malaysia, one of 11 nations President Obama is seeking to bring into his “Trans-Pacific Partnership” free-trade zone with the United States, the government has prohibited a Catholic newspaper from using the word “Allah,” says the U.S. State Department.
“Allah,” the Arabic word for God, was adopted by the Malay language.
In Malaysia, as the New York Times explained in an article last November, the government has gone so far as to restrict its use in the Bible.
“According to a series of government orders and rulings by Malaysia’s Islamic councils, the word for God in the Malay language—‘Allah’--is reserved for Muslims,” the Times reported. “Malay-language Bibles are banned everywhere except inside churches. State regulations ban a list of words, including Allah, in any non-Muslim context."
The State Department’s Malaysia 2013 International Religious Freedom Report, published in July 2014, elaborated on Malaysia's treatment of Christians who use the word “Allah.”
“The Publications and Quranic Text Control Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs supervised the publication of religious texts, and restricted the use of the words Allah (God), baitullah (house of God), Kaabah (location toward which Muslims pray) and salat (prayer) to Muslim groups only, asserting that these words were the sole jurisdiction of the Muslim community,” said the State Department’s 2013 report.
“In a long running controversy stemming from the government’s ban on the use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims in Malay-language Bibles and other Christian publications, on October 14, the court of appeal overturned a 2009 decision by the High Court of Kuala Lumpur and upheld the government’s decision that the Catholic Herald cannot use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God in its Malay language edition,” said the State Department.
“The court of appeal held that: the use of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims would create confusion among Muslims; the word ‘Allah’ is not ‘an integral part’ of the Christian faith; and the use of the word ‘Allah’ in the Malay version of the Herald would potentially harm public order and safety,” said the State Department.
“Following the ruling, the attorney general emphasized that the court of appeal’s decision was confined to the publication of the Malay-language text of the Herald,” said the State Department. “Deputy Home Minister Junaidi Jaafar reportedly stated the ruling was meant for the weekly publication of the Herald only and would not affect other Christian publications or the Malay-language version of the Bible, the Al-Kitab, used widely in Sabah and Sarawak. The Catholic Church planned to file an appeal against the verdict in the Federal Court.”
This January, the Federal Court, Malaysia’s highest tribunal, rejected the Catholic Church’s appeal and upheld the ban on using “Allah” in the Malay-language Catholic newspaper.
Father Lawrence Andrew, the editor of the newspaper, was quoted by Agence France Presse as saying he believed this was just the start of what the Malaysian government would do.
"This is only the beginning," said Father Andrew. "I wouldn't be surprised if they come along and say 'don't use it (Allah) in your services.'"
In 2013, according to the State Department report, Malaysian authorities also targeted an Evangelical Christian organization for using the word “Allah” on their Facebook page.
“In May a former Selangor state lawmaker filed a police complaint against the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship of Malaysia (NECF), accusing them of attempting to convert Malays to Christianity through Facebook,” said the State Department. “In response, JAIS [Selangor Islamic Religious Department] began an investigation into NECF’s use of the word ‘Allah’ on their Facebook site.
“In January the Pahang mufti, appointed by the State Islamic Authority, declared that non-Muslims were prohibited from using the word ‘Allah’ and 34 other words associated with Islam,” said the State Department. “He told reporters that non-Muslims were barred from using the words in statements, speeches, publications, or in any broadcast as it could ‘mislead’ and affect the faith of Muslims. He said that doing so would violate the law, which, with a conviction, carries a fine up to RM 5,000 ($1,526) and/or imprisonment up to two years.”
Although the Obama administration has classified the draft text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Congressional Research Service has published a report that indicates its basic purpose is to eliminate tariff and nontariff barriers to trade between its would-be members. In addition to the United States and Malaysia, these include Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Peru.
“With over 20 chapters under negotiation, the TPP partners envision the agreement to be ‘comprehensive and high-standard,’ in that they seek to eliminate tariffs and nontariff barriers to trade in goods, services, and agriculture, and to establish or expand rules on a wide range of issues including intellectual property rights, foreign direct investment, and other trade-related issues,” says the CRS report.
Last week, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a bill to give the president “trade-promotion authority”—also known as “fast-track” power. This would allow the president to send his 12-nation trade deal to Congress for approval not as a treaty—which would require a two-thirds vote of all senators present—but as unamendable legislation needing a simple majority in both houses.
After the Senate passed the fast-track bill, Speaker John Boehner vowed to try to push it through the Republican-controlled House.
“This is a no-brainer,” said Boehner.
In 2014, according to the Census Bureau, U.S. producers sold $13.1 billion in goods to Malaysia and Malaysian producers sold $30.4 billion in goods to the U.S., resulting in a $17.3 billion U.S. trade deficit with Malaysia.
Conservative blogger silenced
He was censored for making things up but by that criterion a lot of Leftists should be silenced too. Hillary Clinton, for instance. Report below from an unsympathetic source
THE world’s most notorious troll has been banned from Twitter six years after he joined, but his social media silencing is unlikely to last.
Charles Johnson, a journalist and “debunker of frauds” from California, is known for his openly racist, homophobic and misogynistic remarks.
He has blamed the Amtrak train derailment on homosexuality, verbally attacked alleged rape victims and described black people as intellectually inferior to white.
On Sunday, the 26-year-old was finally removed from Twitter after he requested donations to “take out” the civil rights activist DeRay McKesson, who has been outspoken on the Ferguson riots. When he set up new accounts, @citizentrolling and @freechucknow, the social network also removed them.
Chuck is now raising money on his far-right website GotNews.com to have himself reinstated following this “censorship”. But his previous threats of legal action have never led to anything, with a website dedicated to the many times he has planned to sue for libel.
On May 13, after the Amtrak crash, Chuck posted about engineer Brandon Bostian: “Gays have a higher rate of mental illness than do straights. You decide if engineer’s homosexuality is worth noting.” He has also claimed that President Obama was gay.
The conservative blogger has been removed from Twitter several times before. He was previously temporarily suspended after posting photos of a woman he claimed had been exposed to Ebola.
He also wrongly accused two New York Times reporters of revealing the address of the police officer involved in the Ferguson shooting, and claimed victim Michael Brown was “obsessed with violence”. The reporters were forced to flee their homes after threats of robbery and rape.
The New York Times observed that Chuck represented the “toxic” side of citizen journalism, although the same profile noted that he has had some success — exposing foreign policy analyst Elizabeth O’Bagy’s conflicts of interest and fudged academic credentials.
More often, he has sown hatred, fear and inaccurate information.
He wrongly claimed another NYT reporter had posed for Playgirl and incorrectly said Senator Cory Booker did not live in Newark when he served as the city’s mayor.
Last year, he drew attention for flawed reporting on the Mississippi Senate Republican Primary. He then hit the headlines when he correctly cast doubt on a controversial Rolling Stone article about rape on the University of Virginia campus. The article was found to be riddled with journalistic errors, but the conservative blogger then published a Facebook photo of a woman at an anti-rape rally, who he claimed was the accuser. It was the wrong person.
On another occasion, the New York Times reported, he offered money for photos of Senator Thad Cochran’s wife in her nursing home bed. He also contributed to a completely fabricated story in the Daily Caller about New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez allegedly soliciting prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, Gawker reported.
Despite his mistakes, Chuck sees himself as an unbiased, independent truth-teller.
His ban appears to have been made possible under new Twitter guidelines on what constitutes a threat, but there’s little to stop him sharing his message with his 25,000 followers in other ways. He has also vowed to do a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything).
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.