Tuesday, March 08, 2016

A gutless church

The Church of England is devoid of any principles.  All it has is political correctness.  The Church condemned a deceased bishop on the basis of a single ancient, uncorroborated allegation of sex abuse

The former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has lambasted the Church of England for destroying the reputation of a celebrated bishop over unproven child abuse claims.

In a fierce attack on the church he once led, Lord Carey said he was ‘appalled’ at the way it handled the accusations against Bishop George Bell – whom he said had been judged guilty without a fair hearing.

Bishop Bell, who served in Chichester for 30 years until his death in 1958, was renowned during the Second World War as a peacemaker and almost certainly would have been Archbishop of Canterbury but for his denunciation of the Allied bombing of Dresden.

But last year an unnamed woman alleged that he had sexually abused her in the 1940s. The diocese gave credence to the claims, issuing an apology and paying compensation.

Chichester cathedral has now renamed its education centre –previously called Bishop George Bell House – and plans to change its prominent memorial to the bishop.

But in a move that will embarrass his former colleagues, Lord Carey has added his weight to protests that the diocese’s investigation into the claims had been flawed and unjust, saying an individual had been crushed by a ‘powerful organisation’.

He said in a letter to Bishop Bell’s niece Barbara Whitley that he had been ‘frankly appalled by the way the Church authorities have treated his memory.’

He said: ‘Your uncle was a man whose contribution to this country and the Church was outstanding.

'He was without question one of the greatest Church leaders of the 20th Century… The Church has effectively delivered a “guilty” verdict without anything resembling a fair and open trial.

‘His reputation is in tatters and, as you sadly point out, all references to him in the diocese he loved and served have been removed and renamed.’

Lord Carey, who was Archbishop between 1991 and 2002, told The Mail on Sunday he wanted a public inquiry to scrutinise the matter.

But the Church has said that although it could not release full details of the investigation for reasons of confidentiality, it accepted the woman’s account as true.

The Church said allegations ‘must be taken seriously … however high profile the individual may be’, and that the process had been ‘long, complex and carried out with all the sensitivity a case of this nature demands’.


Zuckerberg and the Facebook thought-police

Billionaire, alleged tax-dodger, CEO and all-round PC dullard Mark Zuckerberg has said Facebook is not doing enough to combat hate speech.

At a recent townhall event in Berlin he pledged to work closer with the German authorities, and even offered to fund a section of the German police, in order to help Facebook expand its view of ‘protected groups’ and restrict ‘hate speech against migrants’.

Pardon my German, but what utter scheisse.

What Zuckerberg seems to be missing is that Facebook is supposed to be about enabling the free interaction of people – all this talk of ‘protected groups’ and ‘hate speech’ should be anathema to him. But Zuckerberg subscribes to the typical metropolitan, Silicon-Valley-via-Ivy-League brand of faux-liberalism, which actually has a lot in common with the fascism he claims to despise.

‘Hate speech has no place on Facebook or in our community’, he said. ‘Until recently in Germany I don’t think we were doing a good enough job, and I think we will continue needing to do a better and better job.’

But how exactly is Zuckerberg, or anyone else, going to decide what hate speech is? It’s just as subjective as, say, people’s favourite songs. Just as one person’s ‘Stairway to Heaven’ might be another’s ‘Birdie Song’, so one person’s call for controlled migration is another’s idea of a Nuremberg speech.

Maybe you think we should open the borders, or maybe you think we should turn the boats back. The point is, both opinions (and all in between) have exactly the same right to be aired on the streets, on campuses and, yes, even on Facebook.

Believing in free speech means that everyone, whether they are a member of PEGIDA or Unite Against Fascism, should be entitled to express their view. They should also be prepared to be heavily criticised for their opinions. But they should not be silenced because a government, or a tech billionaire, disagrees with them.

In a truly free society there would be no ‘protected groups’ and there would be no bans on ‘hate speech’. Just because you approve of who the iron fist is punching today does not mean you are protected from receiving a ferrous uppercut tomorrow.


Why Islamic "radicalization" in Britain?

Radical Muslims are deeply delusional about the state of modern Britain and deeply idealistic about the worth of their own ideas. They see Britain as a den of depravity and moral corruption and think Islam is the solution for all that sin. In that respect they are identical with activists who see Britain as a capitalist dystopia, an environmental Armageddon or a racist/homophobic hell and who see the cult of equality and environmentalism as the answer to everything. The society both groups are estranged from is largely a figment of their imaginations, The West is indeed in a depressing state intellectually and it is in full cultural decline but it is still quite a civilized place to live. It is a stupid society, with its Greyson Perrys its George Monbiots and its Conchita Wursts, but a decent life is still possible if you learn to ignore the general idiocy.

Radicals are always very much alike. Muslims turn to violence because their numbers and influence are not high enough to exercise power. Radicals like the Greens are peaceful
because they dominate the market of ideas but they would be just as murderous as the Soviets or the French Revolution were in their time, if they thought violence is the only way to power.It is simplistic and all encompassing ideologies that are at fault, they promise paradise and this has the effect of magnifying whatever flaws there are in society. The world would be saved if only my ideology was implemented, Once this statement is believed, PC tyranny or terrorism will ensue.


Australian journalist wins gender discrimination case against Islamic group

An Islamic group has been ordered to stop segregating men and women after a journalist won a gender discrimination case against it.

Journalist Alison Bevege had attended a lecture hosted by Hizb ut-Tahrir on October 10, 2014, but was forced to sit in women's-specific seating at the back of a venue in Lakemba, in Sydney's south west - so she sued the group and five of its members for sexual discrimination.

On Friday, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal said the action was unlawful sexual discrimination, a decision welcomed by Ms Bevege, who told Daily Mail Australia it was a 'win for everyone - progressive muslims and non-muslims'.

In its finding, the tribunal ordered a member of the group to ensure attendees of further meetings were aware that segregated seating arrangements were not compulsory.

Ushers at such events also must be made aware and not instructed to enforce segregated seating.

Ms Bevege, who was 'really happy' with the outcome, said at the lecture she was made to sit with women, and she did not want to leave and give up the opportunity to ask questions at the end by arguing or leaving. 'I had to sit down the back like a second class citizen'.

She had attended the 'politics and plots of the American led intervention in Iraq and Syria' public lecture with the hopes of asking questions and writing an opinion piece, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

At the tribunal's hearing - which no representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir attended - it received documents which said Ms Bevege had not contested the seating and that she would have been allowed to sit with men if she asked.

The group's spokesperson, Ismail al-Wahwah, said the segregation - a 'fundamental consideration in Islam' - was so noisy children were at the back of the venue and did not distract from the lecture, and also so women and children were closer to exits in the case of an emergency.

Although the tribunal ruled against the Islamic group, it rejected a claim made by Ms Bevege for $100,000 compensation.

She had said the money would go to four charities, as she had not suffered financial loss or damage, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.



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: