Friday, April 01, 2016

Multicultural politician, 62, fleeced his mentally ill wife by selling their homes and leaving her to sleep in a park

He's not admitting guilt.  Blacks rarely do

A former Labour politician has vowed to clear his name after stealing from his mentally ill wife and selling their home - leaving her to sleep in a park.

Councillor Matthew Kyeremeh 'fleeced' his wife during their divorce proceedings, leaving her destitute and living on the streets, a judge ruled.

The 62-year-old was able to buy a new home while Angela, 54, ended up sleeping in a park in Thornton Heath, south London.

Kyeremeh was ordered to pay her more than £55,000 at the Croydon Family Court last week, and council leader Tony Newman has urged him to resign as a councillor.  He has since been suspended from the Labour party and sacked from his role as Croydon Council's justice chief.

But Kyeremeh, who represents Thornton Heath, said he will take legal action to clear his name.  He said: 'It is with great regret and sadness that I respond to events that have been reported, events which are a private family matter that has been ongoing since 2013.

'You would know that such matters are often, if not always, protracted, complex and deeply challenging for all concerned. 'I am extremely disappointed that the proceedings have made me out to be what I am now.  'I know what has emerged is very far from the truth and reality and I am seeking legal redress.

'I am very conscious of what we have suffered as a family prior to and after the divorce and I would have wished that this matter was not dragged on any further. 'But I believe that the interest of justice will be served in the end.'

District Judge Delia Coonan ruled that Kyeremeh had 'consistently lied' to the court and his wife during protracted hearings.

The judge has spoken of Mr Kyeremeh's 'mendacity' and said she had 'great difficulty in believing a word he said'.

She decided to publish the full judgement because Kyeremeh, described as an 'evasive and unsatisfactory witness', was deputy cabinet member for communities, safety and justice for Croydon Council.

The evidence showed he deliberately exploited his wife's mental illness to pocket most of the proceeds from the sale of two properties without her knowledge.

While the judge could not be certain Kyeremeh had forged his wife's signature on their divorce papers, she said even if his wife did sign them, 'such signatures were deliberately procured by the husband whilst the wife continued to suffer confusion and disturbance of mind'.

As a result of his 'significant financial misconduct' Kyeremeh was able to buy a new home while the mother of his child ended up sleeping rough.

Ms Kyeremeh complained that Mr Kyeremeh had 'fleeced her of assets' when she was mentally ill and left her 'homeless and destitute' and 'living rough in a park'.

The judge said decisions on how big a payout Ms Kyeremeh would get as a result of the divorce were pending.

She was eventually sectioned under the Mental Health Act and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.


White student  was attacked for having dreadlocks

More cultural appropriation nonsense.  The whole world appropriates lots of white North American culture so why are other cultures sacrosanct?  It's plainly racist

A white student who was stopped and attacked by a black girl for having dreadlocks in his hair has hit back at claims of 'cultural appropriation' saying its 'my hair, my rules'.

Footage emerged yesterday showing environmental science student Cory Goldstein being confronted at San Francisco State University by the woman.

After stopping him to say he's appropriating a traditionally black hairstyle, she asks her friend, who is nearby, if he has a pair of scissors.

Goldstein asks: 'You're saying I can't have a hair style because of your culture. Why?'

To which the woman replies: 'Because it's my culture.'

But now Goldstein has blasted claims of cultural appropriation, saying he loves and respects all cultures.

He told an interview on Xpress News: 'The girl apparently followed me down two flights of stairs to approach me about this whole situation, in which case I tried to leave multiple times and she wouldn't let me.

'She kept grabbing me pushing me back to try and make her point. I didn't want to talk or discuss this situation with her at all.

'I felt that I didn't need to explain myself. It is my hair, my rules, my body.

He then asks her why he's 'not allowed' to have his hair in locks
The woman asks her friend if he has scissors to cut Goldstein's dreadlocks off. He then asks her why he's 'not allowed' to have his hair in locks

'Someone within an activist group thought she could attack me based on my dreadlocks and that is not OK.'

The footage, which emerged yesterday appears to show the woman confront Goldstein as he tries to argue his dreadlocks are also part of Egyptian culture.

She then throws the question back at him asking him if he's Egyptian before asking over and over 'Where is Egypt?'

She then creates a physical barrier to prevent him from walking up a stairwell.

'Yo, stop touching me right now,' Goldstein tells her.

She then pulls him down the stairs saying, 'come here', and tells him not to put his hands on her.

'I don't need your disrespect,' he says as she finally releases her grip. He then walks away.

The woman then notices another person filming the video and asks him why he's filming.  'Just for everyone's safety,' he tells her.

She then slams her hand into the camera to cover the lens and the video ends.

Yesterday, SFSU released a statement saying they are investigating the confrontation:

They said: 'We are aware of the video made of an incident which occurred on campus yesterday afternoon. University police were called to the scene of the incident when it occurred.

'The two individuals involved in the incident are not San Francisco State University employees. Further, no criminal charges have been pressed at this time to the University's knowledge.

'San Francisco State University promotes the rights of the campus community to engage in free speech, but does not condone behavior that impedes the safety or well-being of others.

'We are taking the matter seriously and will promptly and thoroughly investigate this incident through applicable University channels, including our campus student conduct procedures'


French minister sparks outrage by comparing Muslim women who wear the veil to 'negroes who supported slavery'

A senior French politician today sparked outrage by comparing Muslim women who wear fashions designed for their own religion to 'negroes who supported slavery'.

Laurence Rossignol, the families secretary in the Socialist government, was reacting to new lines by designers who increasingly cater for followers of Islam.

They include millions of women in countries such as Britain and France who are increasingly drawn to the clothes in a market said to be worth more than £200billion a year.

Dolce & Gabbana's range includes 14 abayas, or ankle-length dresses matched with embroidered headscarves and hijabs.

Swedish giant H&M uses a veiled Muslim women in its advertising, while Japanese brand Uniqlo said it would sell hijabs in its London stores, along with Marks & Spencer which markets a full-body 'burqini' swimming costume online.

Ms Rossignol caused widespread anger on social media by saying Muslim fashion wearers were just like 'negroes who supported slavery'.

Later, she insisted she had not intended to cause offence but was simply referencing the French philosopher Montesquieu's work 'On the Enslavement of Negroes'.

Ms Rosssignol, who is also responsible for women's rights, admitted later to AFP that she had made 'an error of language' with her controversial comments.  However, she added: 'But other than that... I don't take back a word.'

Her supporters included fashion mogul Pierre Berge who agreed that designers were taking part in the 'enslavement of women'.

The former partner of the late fashion legend Yves Saint Laurent, said: 'I'm shocked. Creators should have nothing to do with Islamic fashion.

'Designers are there to make women more beautiful, to give them their freedom, not to collaborate with this dictatorship which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and make them live a hidden life.'

Mr Berge said firms should 'renounce the money and have some principles', adding: 'In life you have to choose the side of freedom'.

He insisted: 'I am definitely not an Islamophobe. Women have a right to wear headscarves, but I do not see why we are going towards this religion, these practises and mores that are absolutely incompatible with our western freedoms.'

While France - home of Europe's biggest Muslim population - bans face-covering veils, some of its big fashion houses were among the first to tentatively embrace Muslim-specific style.

DKNY, owned by French giant LVMH, pioneered the 'modest clothing' trend with a 'capsule collection' aimed at the Middle East for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan two years ago.

But designer de Castelbajac, who has dressed singer Lady Gaga, said he had grave misgivings about the trend. 'Fashion is secular and universal, and should bring hope.'

Veteran feminist Agnes b had earlier vowed to 'never do it'. 'There is something obscene about offering clothes to rich women from countries where many are fleeing bombs trying to keep their veils on their heads,' she told the Parisien daily. 'We should not normalise clothing which is significant in the way women are seen.'

In January, Dolce & Gabbana became the first major western brand to directly aim at capturing a corner of the Islamic fashion market - estimated to be worth 230 billion euros - with its Abaya range.

Last summer Zara, Tommy Hilfiger, Oscar de la Renta and Mango all launched varyingly 'modest' collections to coincide with Ramadan.

But Berge, 85, who ran the Yves Saint Laurent fashion house for four decades, decried their 'opportunism'. 'These creators who are taking part in the enslavement of women should ask themselves some questions,' he added.  'It is not because women are forced by their husbands to dress in that way that we too have to encourage it,' he insisted.  'In one way they (the designers) are complicit, and all this to make money. Principles should come before money.

'Rather than covering women up, we must teach (Muslim) women to revolt, to take their clothes off, to learn to live like most of the women in the rest of the world.'

A spokesman for M&S, which has begun selling its burkini, in the UK, said it was popular with customers internationally.


Last Stand for the Free Exercise of Religion in case of Little Sisters of the Poor

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke up early in the oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell.  This case carries the last names of the Catholic bishop of Pittsburgh (David A. Zubik) and President Barack Obama's secretary of Health and Human Services (Sylvia Burwell).

Ginsburg seemed to make a telling concession.  "No one doubts for a moment the sincerity of the belief of your client and all the others," she said to lawyer Paul Clement, who was representing, among others, the Little Sisters of the Poor.

"And since sincerity of their belief is accepted, it's off the table," said Ginsburg.

One of the beliefs Catholic organizations presented in Zubik was summarized in a brief presented by, among others, the Diocese of Pittsburgh: "Petitioners believe that in order to stay true to their Catholic faith, they may hire an insurance company only if it will not provide their students and employees with coverage that may destroy human life or artificially prevent its creation."

The Obamacare regulation at issue in Zubik mandates that Catholic organizations do this — or give up all health insurance for their employees and be fined.

The court, Justice Ginsburg seemed to signal, was not going to argue with the Catholic Church about what is and is not consistent with the Catholic faith.

But the voice of Justice Sonia Sotomayor presented another question: How can the government function if it cannot demand people do things they believe will damn their souls?

"Because every believer that's ever come before us, including the people in the military, are saying that my soul will be damned in some way," said Sotomayor.

"I'm not naysaying that that is a very substantial perceived personal burden by them," she said. "But if that's always going to be substantial, how will we ever have a government that functions? How will we ever have anything that the government can demand people to do in objecting ... that won't be a problem?"

The First Amendment itself answers Sotomayor's question: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

When federal regulators force Catholics to buy or provide health insurance plans that cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs and devices they are denying Catholics the "free exercise" of religion guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

But, according to the Supreme Court's official transcript, not one voice in the court during the oral arguments in Zubik used the term "free exercise" of religion.

That is because the court will not decide this case using the language and meaning of the First Amendment. It will decide using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

"Government," says that act, "may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

In the Hobby Lobby case two years ago, a 5-4 majority (including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia) ruled that the Obamacare regulation was a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Hobby Lobby's owners, who did not want to cover abortifacients. But that majority also "assumed" the government was furthering a compelling interest with the regulation.

Where the government failed in Hobby Lobby was in convincing five justices that it was furthering its compelling interest by the least restrictive means.

To win the power to require Catholic organizations to act against the Catholic faith — and, thus, surrender the free exercise of religion — all the government needs is one more justice than it had in Hobby Lobby.

What America needs are more voices on the court that will defend not only the free exercise of religion but every word in the Constitution.



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: