Sunday, July 26, 2015

Australia: Facebook REFUSES to shut down 'racist' 'Humans of Sunnybank' group which mimics Asian accents and labels the Brisbane community 'dog meat eaters'

Ethnic self-segregation is a common thing and the Brisbane suburbs of Sunnybank and Sunnybank Hills seem to have been adopted by East Asians, mainly Han Chinese.  And the Asian presence really is amazing at times.  I remember standing in a queue outside a popular Japanese restaurant there with my son -- and noting that my son and I were the only exception in a sea of black hair around us. We were taller than most of them so we could see that sea.

I was actually pleased by that.  Asians are a lot more peaceful and patient than we Anglo-Australians are.  My son and I in fact were not patient.  We decided not to wait and went to another less popular restaurant instead.

And there is no doubt that the food in the area is great value.  My son and I often go to a Japanese fast-food joint there called "Mos burgers".

Because they tend to be exemplary citizens by any standard, there is in general very little hostility to Asians in Australia these days.  There are a lot of them and they fit in seamlessly. Just this morning on an outing I saw a Chinese lady rush up to an  old-Australian lady and give her a big hug.  They were obviously old friends. And I know of no physical attacks on Asians aside from what emanates from our small African sub-population.

The sort of negative comment about Asians that you get from old-Australians is mild criticism and the site objected to below is in that mould.  It is clearly jocular. With their history of persecution elsewhere, it is understandable that the site makes overseas Chinese nervous but all it is likely to lead to is laughs

An advocacy group have called on Facebook to take down a ‘xenophobic’ page that they believe perpetuates ‘incorrect stereotypes’ about the Asian community in a Brisbane suburb.

The group Global Asians for Action and Social Change (GAASC) have slammed the ‘Humans of Sunnybank’ page for posting ‘harmful and offensive’ images that ‘insult the English language abilities’ of Asian migrants and ‘falsely’ portray the community as dog meat eaters.

The page, which has amassed 16,000 followers, is loosely based on the popular blog Humans of New York and has published more than 60 images, accompanied by captions that 'crudely mimic' an Asian accent.

GAASC said this is a clear attempt to ‘create an atmosphere of xenophobia’.

‘Unlike the ground breaking Humans of New York which showed faces which build New York as a cosmopolitan destination and shares enriching human interest stories, Humans of Sunnybank instead insults and offends by using various incorrect and offensive stereotypes regarding Asian people, and posts it in a fashion that promotes continued racism,’ GAASC said in a statement.

According to GAASC, Sunnybank is home to almost 3,000 residents of Asian heritage, making up approximately 35 per cent of the region's population.

The page, which predominantly use stock images of Asian people, claims to use 'genuine first-hand interviews' to paint a picture of the culturally diverse suburb- 'one story at a time'. 

Others play on the stereotype that Asian people are bad drivers

One posts uses a stock image of seven Asian men squatting in a circle, a common practice in Vietnam.

The caption reads: ‘Wei, Brother Chow, I see you shaking.. You going to give up so easiry? Do the squat is wery important! We no skip the leg day in Sunnybank. Even the white boy can do better than you!’

Another used a stock image of an elderly man who appears to be driving a car.

The caption reads: ‘Before I come Australia, I no learn to use car. So I have 8 try for pass driving test. But my wife even worse, one day she do a 15-point turn to get out from garage. That’s why she only allow to drive Toyota Camry. She go to Market Square a lot, please be careful, don’t crash her.’

Erin Chew, a founder of GAASC, reported the page to Facebook administrators for ‘promoting hate speech’, however it was found the page did not violate Facebook’s community standards.

The posts are written in broken English which Erin Chew said encourages racist stereotyping

Ms Chew said Facebook needs to have a ‘deeper evaluation of its community standards’ if they want to become a ‘more responsible and conscientious global citizen.'

She said the social media giant should understand the difference between allowing free speech and allowing a group to use its platform to racially vilify another.

'I understand about freedom of speech and expression, and I believe in that, but at the same time there has to be a limit when it starts to offend a race or community,' Ms Chew told Daily Mail Australia. 'You can have artistic expression but this is just in poor taste.'

A spokesperson from Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Commission told Daily Mail Australia that some of the material that features on the 'Humans of Sunnybank' Facebook group would be considered vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

'The Act states that a person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race, religion, sexuality or gender identity of the person or members of the group.'

She said anyone who believes they have been subjected to 'unlawful vilification' can lodge a formal complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland.

'They would need to provide the identity of the person who they allege has vilified them, rather than just naming the Facebook page. This can sometimes be difficult.'

She said the only other alternative is to continue lobbying Facebook to have the page shut down.

GAASC have started a petition demanding Facebook to remove the page from its site.

Ms Chew said she plans to lodge a formal complaint with Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland and the Australian Human Rights Commission on Friday.

Daily Mail Australia contacted Facebook and the administrators of 'Humans of Sunnybank' however neither were available for comment at the time of publication.


Britain must ban SPANKING to protect human rights, say United Nations "experts" from Uganda, Algeria and Egypt

Those who live in glass houses are throwing rocks these days

UN human rights officials sparked fury tonight by telling parents they should not smack their children.

A committee including representatives from Uganda, Algeria and Egypt said reasonable punishment laws were wrong and breached children's human rights

They demanded that all smacking be 'fully outlawed in the home' in a report attacking Britain's compliance with human rights standards.

Currently parents are allowed to discipline children with a short smack as long as it complies with the 'reasonable chastisement' defence. Anything which leaves a bruise or other serious mark is banned.

The committee also condemned Britain for not giving prisoners the right to vote, and attacked Tory plans to replace Labour's Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights.

In a report which will enrage ministers, they attacked legal aid cuts, counter-terrorism laws and said the age of criminal responsibility was too high at 10.

They said: 'The Committee remains concerned that corporal punishment is still not fully outlawed in the home and certain educational and alternative care facilities in the United Kingdom and in almost all British Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

'It is further concerned about the lack of explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in the home and the existing legal defences of 'reasonable punishment' in England, Wales and Northern Ireland or 'justifiable assault' in Scotland.

Justice Minister Dominic Raab said: 'A Bill of Rights will strengthen not weaken human rights. Our reforms will protect our fundamental freedoms, prevent abuse of the system and restore proper democratic accountability, so the application of human rights commands greater public confidence.

'As for Prisoner Voting it's for Parliament to decide if prisoners get the vote - not the UN. Frankly, it's pretty absurd for a UN committee, with various individuals sent by governments that don't hold proper democratic elections at all, to be lecturing us on this issue.' 

The committee also aired claims of discrimination against gipsies and traveller communities, and the representation of women in the upper levels of the judiciary.

It examined claims that the definition of terrorism in English law is too broad, and that the age of criminal responsibility is too low.

The report also looked at stop-and-search powers used by the police, which have recently been pared back by ministers.

Most contentiously, it reported on controversial criticisms of surveillance powers used by the security and intelligence agencies that were made public in material stolen by ex-CIA employee Edward Snowden.

Security chiefs say the episode has done lasting damage to Britain's effort to defeat terrorism, and ministers are gearing up to grant new powers so they can better track extremists and criminals online.

Mr Salvioli, the director of Argentina's Human Rights Institute, has written that Britain's military victory in the Falkland's war 'doesn't give any political rights to fix limits or decide over sovereignty'.

Tory MP Henry Smith said: 'Having just celebrated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta we don't need lecturing on a proud tradition of human rights in this country – indeed we played a leading role in drafting the original European Convention, in the wake of the horrors of the concentration camps of Nazism and the gulags of Communism.

'We certainly don't need to be told to give prisoners the right to vote when there are real and greater injustices being perpetrated round the world.'

It is only the latest broadside from the UN against Britain's human rights record, which is widely seen as among the best in the world. In 2011, professor Yves Cabannes, the UN adviser on forced evictions, visited Dale Farm in Essex, where Europe's largest illegal travellers site was located, to accuse the local council of breaking human rights.

Two years later, Raquel Rolnik, the UN housing rapporteur – who dabbled in witchcraft – was dubbed the 'Brazil nut' after she demanded the Coalition's shake-up of housing benefit be axed, including the spare room subsidy.

Earlier this year Francois Crepeau, the special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants said Britain risks taking the path of Nazi Germany if the Tories pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Also this year Peter Sutherland, the special representative of the secretary-general for international migration, said Britain should be taking in a fairer share of Mediterranean refugees.


Planned Parenthood videos should appall even pro-choice advocates

by Jeff Jacoby

IT'S NOT often that a business-lunch conversation becomes a viral YouTube video. But then, it's not often that a top Planned Parenthood official is recorded discussing, over a leisurely lunch of salad and red wine, the business of selling fetal organs harvested from aborted babies.

More than 2.5 million people have seen the undercover video in which Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services, readily details the ins and outs of harvesting the body parts of aborted fetuses, which are then sold for research. Nucatola thought she was speaking to buyers for a fetal-tissue supply firm in California. In fact, her lunch companions were researchers for the pro-life Center for Medical Progress, which posted the recording online — both the full footage, as well as a nine-minute abridged version.

The video came as a bombshell. Selling fetal organs for profit is illegal under federal law, yet Nucatola appears quite candid in describing Planned Parenthood's lively commercial interest in human tissue from abortion. She is alert to market demand — "I'd say a lot of people want liver," she tells her lunch companions — and understands how to carry out an abortion to maximize the quality of the organs that can be supplied to buyers afterward.

"We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that," says Nucatola, "so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact." She talks about properly-trained abortion doctors using ultrasound to ensure that forceps don't damage organs destined for sale. She explains that rotating the fetus so it emerges feet first can make it easier to remove the head and brain undamaged. When she is asked for a "price range," Nucatola replies: "I would say it's probably anywhere from $30 to $100" per specimen, depending on the facility.

Planned Parenthood adamantly insists that it does not traffic in fetal remains. Women who have abortions "sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research," the organization said in a formal statement, and Planned Parenthood receives "no financial benefit" for facilitating such donations — merely compensation for its "actual costs," which is legal.

As a matter of law, Planned Parenthood may well be on solid ground. Dollars are fungible, but as long as the nation's leading abortion provider formally designates the payments it collects for organs harvested during abortion as reimbursement of expenses, the Nucatola footage offers little indication of a crime or a cover-up.

But it isn't illegality that makes the video so scandalous. It is amorality. It is the blithe nonchalance with which Planned Parenthood's senior medical director schmoozes, between swigs of wine and forkfuls of salad, about dismembering a healthy unborn child and selling its parts for "anywhere from $30 to $100" apiece. It is the sheer indifference to the enormity of destroying life in the womb and then "donating" the wreckage for money.

On Tuesday, the Center for Medical Progress released a second undercover video, even more odious than the first. This one shows Dr. Mary Gatter, the president of Planned Parenthood's medical directors' council, haggling over the price for fetal organs. "We're not in it for the money," Gatter says; still, the payment "has to be big enough that it's worthwhile for me." She settles on $100 a specimen — but leaves open the door to a higher price tag, because it would be nice to get a "Lamborghini." Gatter even says she'll talk to the doctor who performs the abortions about using a "less crunchy" technique, in order to retrieve more intact body parts.

You don't have to be a pro-life activist to be sickened by such ghoulish banality. Even pro-choice advocates — especially pro-choice advocates — should insist that abortion and its aftermath be approached at all times with the gravest dignity and respect. For nothing turns hearts and minds against the culture of abortion than its tendency to dehumanize. And what could be more dehumanizing than the reduction of an unborn baby to its parts? Well, this could: the sight of abortion providers confirming, over lunch, how much less that baby was worth alive than its parts are now that it's dead.


Scott Walker ‘Absolutely’ Supports First Amendment Defense Act

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa—GOP presidential candidate Gov. Scott Walker says he supports the First Amendment Defense Act, a bill that would prevent the federal government from taking action against individuals or businesses because of their religiously held beliefs on traditional marriage.

“Absolutely. To me, protecting our constitutional rights shouldn’t just take a piece of legislation,” Walker said during an interview with The Daily Signal aboard his campaign bus in Iowa. “That’s something the president and elected members of the House and Senate by the oath we take, I take an oath as a governor to not only support the Constitution, not only of my state but the United States. I think that’s implicit. The oath that any federal officer takes is about upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear about protecting those rights.”

The religious liberty bill was introduced in the Senate by Mike Lee, R-Utah, and in the House by Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, about a week before the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Walker called that ruling a “grave mistake” and is pushing a constitutional amendment that would allow states to define the marriage issue, not the courts.



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: