Sunday, December 27, 2015

Multicultural dentist is jailed after he tried to kiss young woman patient and grabbed her breast as he worked on her teeth

A dentist who grabbed a patient's breast and joked he could cure a nurse’s intimate medical condition with his ‘magic tongue’ has been jailed.

Fadi Sukaria was already under investigation for repeatedly assaulting one of his colleagues when he tried to kiss and caress a young patient as he was filling her tooth.

The court heard how the 45-year-old, originally from Syria, 'deliberately engineered' a situation to ensure he was alone with the victim at his surgery in Leeds, West Yorkshire.

At the time, he was already subject to restrictions - including being unable to carry out work without a chaperone - due to a General Dental Council (GDC) probe into his behaviour.

He was later struck off over his behaviour towards his colleagues - which included asking the nurse if she had ever been raped - at the dental practice in Barnsley, South Yorkshire.

Sukaria will now spend Christmas behind bars after a jury found him guilty of one count of sexual assault.

Jailing Sukaria for ten months, Recorder Abdul Iqbal QC said the female patient had suffered emotionally and psychologically as a result of her ordeal.

He said: 'Health professionals are entrusted to a very high level by members of the public.

'With that high level of trust placed in you comes a high level of responsibility. The public deserve to be protected from professionals who abuse that trust.'

Recorder Iqbal added that Sukaria never accepted responsibility for what he did.

'You still maintain....that she has lied and she wants compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority even though there is no evidence that she has tried to make a claim,' he said.

Sukaria, who used to live in Leeds but now lives in London, was struck off by the GDC in March this year for professional misconduct while working at Gateway Dental Practice in Barnsley.

At GDC hearing heard how he repeatedly groped his colleague, made sexually explicit comments and asked if she had any 'rude' pictures or videos on her phone.

When he heard she was suffering from cystitis, Sukaria said: 'I have a magic tongue to make it better.'

The hearing was told how Sukaria also asked the woman, referred to as Nurse A, if she had ever been raped before adding: 'I’ve never raped anyone.’ He stroked her breast, groped her bottom and bit her arm.

Saba Naqshbandia, for the GDC, said the incident took place in November 2012 while they chatted about going to the gym.

'During this Sukaria stroked her bottom very lightly and said it was "nice". The complainant responded by saying: "Don't ever touch my bum",' the hearing was told.

'He stroked her breast saying: "I will touch these instead". She recalled that he was laughing.'

The panel heard the woman then had to lean next to him to use the computer. As she used the mouse, he stroked her right breast again, before grabbing her right arm with his teeth and sucking it.

Sukaria also showed another dental nurse - Nurse B - pictures of a woman's bottom on his phone. He also thrust his groin while laughing, the hearing was told.

Giving evidence, Nurse B said: 'I think he was a bit filthy minded. I don't think he thought there was anything wrong with what he did even though it was inappropriate.'

Sukaria, who qualified as a dentist in his home country before moving to the UK, denied all the allegations against him but was struck off.

GDC panel chair Mary Harley said: 'The committee takes a particularly serious view of your conduct because it took place in a professional setting.

'As a dentist working directly with these dental nurses, you were in a position of authority over them; you abused that position for your own sexual gratification.

'Your conduct would be considered deplorable by members of the dental profession and indeed by members of the public.' 

The court was told Sukaria, the sole breadwinner for his family in Syria after his brother was injured and left paralysed following a bombing, was now unable to find work and was living on Jobseekers' Allowance.


Houston Restaurant Chain Warns Customers: ‘This Store is Politically Incorrect’

The Berryhill Baja Grill says it will not let political correctness ruin its celebration of Christmas.

The Houston area restaurant chain put signs up in each of its five locations that warn potential customers to be prepared for a big serving of Christmas spirit and patriotism when they walk through the door.

“Notice. This store is politically incorrect. We say Merry Christmas. God bless America. We salute our flag and give thanks to our troops, police officers, and firefighters. If this offends you, you are welcome to leave. In God we trust,” say the signs, which are simply signed “Berryhill.”

Berryhill CEO Jeff Anon said he was inspired to put up the signs when he saw the generic red cups debuted by Starbucks this winter, which he and other Christians have interpreted as the company’s attempt to downplay the celebration of Christmas.

Anon’s son showed him similar signs at other stores across the country, and he decided to follow suit.

Even with the politically incorrect warning, Anon says business is still good at the popular Tex-Mex chain and most of his customers approve of the message.  “I’d say for every one who thought it wasn‘t appropriate, probably 10 to 20 who thought it was and supported it," he said.

“I guess the political correctness has gone overboard sometimes,” customer Randy Massy commented.

“I celebrate Christmas. I salute the flag. I’m an American. It doesn’t offend me at all,” said attorney Cynthia Bivins while eating lunch with her friend at the chain’s Post Oak location.

Employees at Schuler’s Bakery in Springfield, Ohio told The Blaze that despite a few angry phone calls, business doubled after they put up the sign, a photo of which went viral in November.

“We didn’t do it for the publicity,” bakery clerk Katelynn Jackson added. “It was just to prove a point. We still live in America, and we’re standing up for what we believe.”

“I had no idea it was going to turn out like this,” bakery owner Trent Schuler told Breitbart regarding the “overwhelming amount of support” he has gotten from the public.


Are we hardwired to be religious because of EVOLUTION? Fear of God may have led humans to co-operate more which gave us an edge over other animals

Religion is often seen as being at odds with the science of evolution, but according to a growing area of research, it may actually be a product of this fundamental biological process.

Fear of incurring the wrath of God, or a range of gods, may have played a key role in the development of our species, according to a leading expert in the evolution of human co-operation.

He argues that belief in a divine being who will punish bad behaviour may have allowed humans to co-operate in a way our relatives in the animal kingdom do not.

The sense of being watched by an omnipotent or supernatural being may have ensured members of early human groups behaved less selfishly.

Increased levels of co-operation is thought to be one of the key traits that allowed Homo sapiens to become so successful.

Researchers at North Carolina State University found that belief in all-powerful and moralising gods tended to appear at times of hardship in human history.

They claim that believing in such a supreme deity helps to ensure people within a society live by certain moral rules that are necessary when living in harsh environments or in times of hardship.

The researchers studied the origins of 583 religious societies around the world.

They compared these to climate, rainfall and plant growth data for each area to build up a historical picture of the conditions each society was living in.

The findings may help to shed light on how religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam first emerged and why stories of hardship play such a central role.

Professor Dominic Johnson, an expert in evolutionary biology and international relations at the University of Oxford, believes this may be why fear of God is such a dominant feature in world religions.

In his new book, God is Watching You, he said that belief in divine punishment is actually hardwired into us by evolution and so led to the development of the world's religions.

He suggests that rather than being an opposing theory of the world to the ideas of evolution by natural selection put forward by Charles Darwin, religion is actually a product of it.

'The ability to anticipate rewards or punishments arising from our behaviour would clearly have been favoured by Darwinian natural selection, because it promoted survival and reproduction,' he said.

'I argue this extended to the anticipation of supernatural reward and punishment.

'God-fearing people were better able to avoid raising the ire of their fellow man, lowering the costs of real world sanctions, and raising the rewards of co-operation.

'It offers a striking twist on the old science and religion debate - religion is not an alternative to evolution, it is a product of evolution.'

Professor Johnson added the reason why fear of punishment has become such an important force in religion rather than other aspects like love and altruism, which are also promoted in the major religions like Christianity, is mainly due to the way our brains our wired.

Psychological research has demonstrated that negative events tend to have a more potent impact on our thinking and behaviour than positive ones.

Indeed, people tend to value losses almost twice as much as when they make gains.

This is perhaps due to the innate drive among our earliest ancestors to avoid negative and dangerous situations that may pose a threat to their lives, and so their ability to pass on their genes.

As humans began to live in larger and more social groups, this led to a greater ability to understand each other's intentions.

Professor Johnson said: 'When humans evolved the capacity for complex language and theory of mind – the ability to know what others' know - our behaviour became increasingly transparent and selfish behaviour and social transgressions risked increasing costs from retaliation or reputational damage.

'Avoiding these costs ushered in a new era in which the suppression of selfishness became a vital ingredient of an individual's evolutionary success.

'The idea that one's good and bad deeds will be observed, judged and rewarded or punished by God or some other supernatural agent is a recurring feature of virtually all of the world's religions, both past and present.

'The looming threat of supernatural punishment deterred selfish behaviour and increased cooperation, and this was a good thing for individuals as well as society.'

He said that all of the major religions emphasise the importance of moral to avoid incurring the displeasure or anger of a god.

In Christianity, those who are faithful and ask forgiveness of God will be granted entrance into heaven, while those who do not will be sent to hell.

The Old Testament and Hebrew bible depict a far more vengeful God that actively punishes mankind for its transgressions.

Hindus believe that if they are sinful during their life they will be reincarnated as an undesirable animal.

Even the Romans and ancient Greeks believed in gods that were responsible for natural disasters and had to be appeased.

Professor Johnson claimed that pagan belief systems often feature spirits with powers of retribution and many indigenous cultures believe ancestral spirits watch over their activities.

He added: 'When we do something selfish or wrong, even if we are alone and could never be found out, we nevertheless find it hard to shake a sense that somehow our actions are observed and disapproved of by someone or something.

'It's not logical. It's not rational. But it turns out that such a belief is common to religious and nonreligious people alike.

'In fact, it seems to be ubiquitous across history and across cultures – part of human nature.'


The Rhetoric of Nonsense, Fabricating Palestinian History

For nearly two decades the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been denying Israel's right to exist, and a recent "Nakba Day" was no exception. In a Gaza speech on behalf of Mahmoud Abbas, his personal representative made the following statement:

"National reconciliation [between Hamas and Fatah] is required in order to face Israel and Netanyahu. We say to him [Netanyahu], when he claims that they [Jews] have a historical right dating back to 3000 years B.C.E.—we say that the nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7,000-year history B.C.E. This is the truth, which must be understood, and we have to note it, in order to say: "Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history."[1]

This remarkable assertion has been almost completely ignored by the Western media. Yet it bears a thorough examination: not only as an indication of unwavering Palestinian rejection of Israel's right to exist but as an insightful glimpse into the psyche of their willfully duped Western champions.

Archaeologists have only the dimmest notion of prevailing ethnic concepts in 7000 B.C.E. There may have been tribes and clans of some sort, and villages may have had names and a sense of collective or local identity, but their nature is completely unknown. Even with the elaborate symbolism of the period, as seen in figurines, and other data such as the styles of stone tools and house plans, nothing whatsoever is known regarding the content of the makers' identities. Writing would not be invented for almost another 4,000 years and would only reach the Levant a thousand years after that, bringing with it the ability to record a society's own identity concepts.

There were no Jews or Arabs, Canaanites, Israelites, or Egyptians. There were only Neolithic farmers and herders. In fact, none of the concepts that Abbas used developed until vastly later. The Plst—a Mediterranean group known to the Egyptians as one of the "Sea Peoples" and who gave their name to the biblical Philistines—arrived around 1200 B.C.E. Arabs are known in Mesopotamian texts as residents of the Arabian Peninsula from around 900 B.C.E. The concept of a "nation" emerged with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their neighbors sometime after 900 B.C.E. The Romans renamed the Kingdom of Judea "Palestina" after the biblically attested Philistines, the hated enemy of the Israelites, following the defeat of the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 C.E. The ethnic identity called "Palestinian," denoting the local Muslim and Christian inhabitants of the region south of Lebanon and West of the Jordan River, tenuously developed as an elite concept at the end of the Ottoman era and did not propagate to the grassroots until the 1920s and 1930s.[2]

Is there perhaps genetic continuity between modern Palestinians and Neolithic farmers and herders? Perhaps, but that is not what Abbas claimed. Is there cultural continuity, a nation with a name? Hardly.

Why then should Abbas make such an incredible fabrication? And why lie in such a ludicrous and extravagant fashion? Part of the answer is that for Abbas, as it was for PLO leader Yasser Arafat before him, there is a reflex that simply and absolutely cannot accept the antiquity of Jews. Arafat famously told then-U.S. president Bill Clinton that there was no Jewish temple in Jerusalem, causing the usually unflappable Clinton to nearly explode.[3] Denials regarding the Jewish historical connection to the Land of Israel generally and categorical denials that Jews constitute a nation are all frequently heard from Palestinian leaders, intellectuals, and others.........

An example of the erosion of Western critical filters was the unchallenged appearance of an opinion piece in The Washington Post in December 2011 that effectively repeated some of Abbas's absurd statements regarding the antiquity of the Palestinians. Maen Rashid Areikat, the PLO representative to the United Nations, stated that Palestinians had "lived under the rule of a plethora of empires: the Canaanites, Egyptians, Philistines, Israelites, Persians, Greeks, Crusaders, Mongols, Ottomans, and finally, the British." Throwing history out the window, he added

"we are Arabs with black, brown, and white skin, dark- and light-colored eyes, and the whole gamut of hair types. Like Americans, we are a hybrid of peoples defined by one overarching identity. Many in the United States forget that Palestinians are Muslims and Christians. They ignore the fact that Palestinian Christians are the descendants of Jesus and guardians of the cradle of Christianity."

Palestinians can simultaneously be Arabs, who arrived in the Levant in the seventh century C.E., and be more ancient than the Canaanites. At the same time, the empires they endured and that infused them include everyone except Arab ones, notably the Umayyad and Abbasid, which brought Arabs and Islam to the region in the first place. The fact-checkers of The Washington Post editorial page fall mute and shared reality is eroded further. Unfortunately this sort of rhetorical nonsense resonates deeply, especially with some Christian supersessionists committed to anti-Zionism.[19] History no longer matters.

It is often stated that peace can only come when Israelis and Palestinians recognize one another's narratives. Claims regarding the Neolithic Palestinian nation indicate this unlikely to occur either in the future or in the past. In the meantime, anti-reality continues to spread.

Much more HERE


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: