Wednesday, November 11, 2015
More multicultural behaviour in lucky old Britain
Police have arrested a teenager after she was caught on CCTV allegedly punching an 87-year-old woman in the face on a bus.
Detectives said the elderly victim had 'just wanted to get home' but was left with a black eye when two grinning young women verbally abused her and then attacked her.
The unnamed 87-year-old had intervened when the driver confronted the suspects after they boarded the 166 bus on Brighton Road, Coulsdon, south London but refused to pay.
Scotland Yard said today they had arrested a 14-year-old on suspicion of ABH and were pursuing her alleged accomplice.
Footage of the incident shows the 87-year-old stand up to speak to the teenagers at around 3.20pm on Friday, October 16.
Most of the passengers then left the bus after the girls began arguing with the driver and the elderly victim.
One girl then appears to throw a punch and the 87-year-old woman is shown holding her face.
Both girls, described as black and aged between 14 and 18, ran away from the bus.
Another woman passenger came to the aid of the victim, who was taken to the nearby St Helier Hospital and discharged later the same day.
Police sergeant Arran Hillier, from the Croydon Safer Transport Team, said: 'This was a nasty attack on an elderly woman, who just wanted to get home. I urge anyone who may recognise the suspects to contact the police.'
Muslim charity boss in Britain promotes an antisemitic myth and gets away with it
English antisemites Simon Sheppard and Steven Whittle spent 4 years in jail over similar opinions
A trustee of the Ghulam Mustafa Trust has made a video in which he claims Jews track Samsung smartphones.
The man, who posted the footage on the charity’s Facebook page, has been allowed to continue to run the organisation by the Charity Commission.
Ghulam Mustafa Trust, run by a voluntary group in Rochdale, is a registered charity which aims to ‘prevent or provide relief to those who suffer from poverty’.
In the homemade video, the campaigner accuses Jews of using secret microchips in Samsung smartphones to track users’ photographs.
As he dismantles his new phone, the man says: ‘They [Jews] are recording every photo of yours on your battery. I’m seeing if they have on mine.’
Peeling off what appears to be a tracking system, he adds: ‘You should take that off because they are recording every photograph of yours, these f***ing Jews. You should take this off. Look at that, they should not be on your phone battery.’
But in spite of the anti-Semitic myth proposed in the clip, which was originally posted online in June, the Charity Commission merely demanded that the video be removed from Facebook.
They also asked the charity improve its bureaucracy by adopting a social media policy, review offensive postings and to agree on a code of conduct for the charity’s trustees.
Jonathan Sacerdori, Director of Communication at the Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: ‘David Cameron has spoken about how “ideas based on conspiracy that Jews exercise malevolent power” contribute towards dangerous extremism.
‘Yet here we see the charity commission leaving a trustee in place running a charity, when he has personally made and spread exactly such a conspiracy theory via online video and social media.
‘We know also that more and more Islamist extremists are influenced by social media videos and other content. Regulatory bodies like the Charity Commission have to use the powers they have to show this behaviour is totally unacceptable, rather than feebly giving actively antisemitic trustees a free pass.’
SCOTUS takes Up Little Sisters of Poor Case Against Obama Administration
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to take up the case that the Little Sisters of the Poor--an order of Catholic nuns--has brought against the Obama administration for violating the sisters' right to the free exercise of religion.
"All we ask is that our rights not be taken away," said Sister Loraine Mari Maguire, the Mother Provincial of the order, in a statement released by the Becket Fund, the nonprofit law firm that represents the sisters.
At issue is whether the federal government can force these Catholic nuns to cooperate with the government in making sure that the health care plan they provide to their employees covers sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.
The Catholic Church teaches that all of these things are intrinsically immoral.
"The Little Sisters of the Poor are Catholic nuns who devote their lives to caring for the elderly poor," the Becket Fund said in its appeal to the Supreme Court to take up the case. "The governent has put them to the impossible choice of either violating the law or violating the faith upon which their lives and their ministry are based.
"HHS insists that the Little Sisters must comply with a mandate that their employee healthcare plans 'provide coverage' for free contraceptives," said the appeal. "Although there is no dispute that the Little Sisters sincerely believe that all the available compliance methods would make them morally complicit in grave sin, HHS refuses to give them the exemption it has given to other religious employers, and instead requires them to comply, either directly or by executing documents that authorize and obligate others to use the Little Sisters' healthcare plans to accomplish the 'seamless' provision of contraceptive coverage."
When Pope Francis was in the United States in September, he visited the Little Sisters' nursing home in Washington, D.C., to show support for their cause.
The Obama Justice Department has argued--including in a brief presented to the Supreme Court--that in forcing the Little Sisters to allow their health care plan to be used as a conduit to provide sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs and devices the federal government is not placing a "substantial burden" on the sisters' free exercise of religion.
The administration wants the court to force the sisters to cooperate with the government in ensuring that their employees are covered for abortion-inducing drugs and devices through the health-care plan the sisters' provide.
Abortion-inducing drugs and devices terminate innocent human lives.
"The Becket Fund is grateful that the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on this important case," said Mark Rienzi, the lawyer for the fund who is handling the case. "The Little Sisters spend their lives taking care of the elderly poor--that is work our government should applaud, not punish.
"The Little Sisters should not have to fight their own governemnt to get an exemption it has already given to thousands of other employers, including Exxon, Pepsi Cola Bottling Company, and Boeing," said Rienzi. "Nor should the government be allowed to say that the sisters aren't 'religious enough; to merit the exemption that churches and other religious ministries have received."
Sister Loraine said: "As Little Sisters of the Poor, we offer the neediest elderly of every race and religion a home where they are welomces as Christ. We perform this loving ministry because of our faith and cannot possibly choose between our care for the elderly poor and our faith, and we shouldn't have to."
UN human rights review: Countries line up to criticise Australia for its treatment of asylum seekers
Amusing that Australia should be getting criticized at a time when much of Europe is wishing that it had Australia's successful border defence policies
Geneva: Australia has copped a barrage of criticism at a United Nations human rights forum over its treatment of asylum seekers on the high seas and in offshore detention centres.
But Australia was defiant as dozens of countries called on it to wind back or end boat turn-backs and mandatory detention, and grant refugees their full rights.
Australia's delegation, which included MP Philip Ruddock, insisted that turning back asylum seeker boats and putting asylum seekers in overseas detention centres was necessary, and had saved lives.
The UN Human Rights Council's official review of Australia's human rights policies took place at the Palais des Nations in Geneva on Monday. The scrutiny comes at a time when Australia is vying for a two-year term on the council.
During the review, representatives from more than 100 countries gave recommendations on how Australia should improve its human rights record.
Countries including Brazil, Turkey, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Bangladesh - even Rwanda, Iran and North Korea - expressed concern over Australia's treatment of refugees. [What a laugh!]
The presence of women and children asylum seekers in detention centres came in for particular criticism.
Many countries called for Australia to ratify 'OPCAT' – an international convention against torture, which would expose offshore asylum seeker detention centres to new international oversight and review.
Countries taking part in the review also noted Australia's inadequate treatment of Indigenous people, the high level of violence against women, and the spread of Islamophobia.
France's spokesman Thomas Wagner called for Australia to "develop alternatives to the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, especially when dealing with children".
Germany's representative said Australia should "critically review" offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island. He recommended Australia "remove children and their families, and other individuals at risk – in particular survivors of torture and trauma – from immigration detention centres".
Bangladesh's representative said Australia's response to migrant arrivals had "set a poor benchmark", calling for the repeal of mandatory detention for asylum seekers – and she was also concerned by "firsthand reports of discrimination and racism, particularly associated with Islamophobia".
The United States encouraged Australia to "ensure humane treatment and respect for the human rights of asylum seekers, including those processed offshore". The US said the processing of refugees and asylum seekers should be "closely monitored", though it stopped short of calling for the offshore centres to be closed.
Countries not normally celebrated for their human rights records joined the criticism of Australia.
North Korea's representative said his country was "seriously concerned at continued maltreatment of and violence against the refugees and asylum seekers".
Iran expressed its "deep concern about the mandatory immigration detention regime".
And China said Australia should safeguard the human rights of "all refugees and asylum seekers who reach Australian shores".
Most countries acknowledged that Australia had made progress since its first human rights review in 2011.
However Russia pointed out that Australia had fully implemented just 10 per cent of the 145 recommendations it had accepted from that review – a statistic it plucked from this year's report by the Australian Human Rights Commission.
In pre-written responses, Australia's delegation defended government migration policy during the three-hour session.
Steve McGlynn, from the Immigration Department, said Australia was committed to strong border protection measures – and a "critical element is to send a clear message that people smugglers do not offer a path to Australia".
Fewer asylum seeker boats were attempting to reach Australia, so the policy had "saved countless lives at sea", by damaging the people smuggler trade, he said. The drop in boat numbers meant Australia was able to resettle more refugees through other channels.
Mandatory immigration detention was "viewed by Australia as vital to ensuring the integrity of our migration and visa programs", he said.
As of September 30 there were 2044 people in immigration detention, and 113 children in 'alternative detention', down from a peak of almost 2000 in 2013.
Andrew Goledzinowski, ambassador for people smuggling issues, said Australia had "experimented with the free arrival of asylum seekers by boat", which had led to people smuggling networks mobilising a flotilla of more than 800 boats.
"The seas around Australia are wider, deeper and more dangerous than even the Mediterranean," he said. "More than 1200 people of whom we are aware died in the attempt to reach my country.
"Those who criticise (Australia's) policy positions need to appreciate the reasons (for them)." Regional processing "allows us to save lives", he said.
After the session, Mr Ruddock said he thought it was "a very positive performance by Australia and very well-received"....
The HRC's recommendations from the review will be made public on Thursday. They are not binding under international law.
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.