Monday, September 19, 2016
Geheimestaatspolizei wanted in Britain
Geheimestaatspolizei translates as "secret state police" -- usually abbreviated as "Gestapo"
Britain's most senior police officers are demanding that official complaints about their conduct and behaviour be kept secret.
The Chief Constables’ Council recently discussed moves that could be made to stop the public finding out about investigations into alleged corruption and misconduct.
Documents seen by The Mail on Sunday reveal that at a top-level meeting with the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Dame Anne Owers, force leaders said it was ‘damaging’ for such accusations to be made public.
At the moment, when investigations into the highest-ranking officers are launched by police forces or the IPCC, the identities of those facing disciplinary action can be revealed.
But chiefs want their names to be kept out of the public domain unless they are found guilty. It could mean details of the claims against them remain secret for several years – or even concealed for ever if the charges are not proven.
Last night critics said it was a worrying development that would risk confidence in the police.
David Burrowes, a lawyer and MP on the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: ‘There are many people like doctors and politicians who are named when allegations are made against them, so I don’t think police officers should have a special rule. It’s very important that law enforcers aren’t treated differently.’
The IPCC says it is currently investigating eight top-ranking officers, from six forces across England and Wales.
At least six more chief constables, assistant chief constables or deputy chief constables are having their conduct scrutinised by external police forces.
A record of the July meeting of the high-level Chief Constables’ Council reveals their concerns, stating: ‘Press releases can be damaging… as the media will run with big stories. It may then transpire that there is no case to answer.
'This is in contradiction to how the system protects the names of proposed criminals and the IPCC process seems out of kilter.’
Dame Anne told the chiefs’ meeting that ‘further consideration is currently being given to the issue of naming in media releases’.
But sources say that the watchdog is unlikely to place a blanket ban on their identities being revealed.
HUD Decrees That Limited-English-Speakers Are Protected Under Fair Housing Act
"People with limited English proficiency are not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act," said the Department of Housing and Urban Development on Thursday.
But they are now, by decree. Under the heading of "national origin," HUD is making non-English-speakers a protected class.
In its announcement, HUD noted that the Fair Housing Act "prohibits discrimination on seven protected bases, including national origin, which is closely linked to the ability to communicate proficiently in English. Housing providers are therefore prohibited from using limited English proficiency selectively or as an excuse for intentional housing discrimination," HUD said.
“Having a limited ability to speak English should never be a reason to be denied a home,” said Gustavo Velasquez, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “Every family that calls this nation home has the same rights when it comes to renting or buying a home, regardless of where they come from or language they speak.”
The new guidance from HUD warns against discriminatory practices, such as applying a language-related requirement to people of certain races or nationalities; posting advertisements that contain blanket statements, such as 'all tenants must speak English;' or immediately turning away applicants who are not fluent in English.
"Targeting racial or national origin groups for scams related to housing also constitutes intentional discrimination."
HUD noted that more than 25 million people in the United States -- nearly 9 percent of the population -- do not communicate proficiently in English.
Approximately 16,350,000 (65 percent) of these individuals speak Spanish; 1,660,000 (7 percent) speak Chinese; 850,000 (3 percent) speak Vietnamese, 620,000 (2 percent) speak Korean and 530,000 (2 percent) speak Tagalog.
U.N. Chief Also Slams Netanyahu’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Comment, While Failing to Address the Substance
Must not say bad things about Palestinians, even if it is true
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Thursday joined a chorus of criticism directed at Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s provocative assertion that the Palestinian Authority insistence that no Jews be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state is tantamount to “ethnic cleansing.”
“I am disturbed by a recent statement by Israel’s prime minister portraying those who oppose settlement expansion as supporters of ethnic cleansing,” Ban told the U.N. Security Council. “This is unacceptable and outrageous.”
“Let me be absolutely clear,” he continued. “Settlements are illegal under international law. The occupation, stifling and oppressive, must end.”
Netanyahu’s comments, in an online video message posted last week, earlier drew an earlier State Department reprimand and widespread ridicule from his critics.
But undisputed is the fact that if P.A. chairman Mahmoud Abbas had his way, half a million Israeli Jews living in areas he wants for an independent state – the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem – would have to leave.
At the same time, 1.77 million Palestinian Arab citizens make up 20.8 percent of the Israeli population, according to Central Bureau of Statistics figures released last May. That marked an annual growth rate of 2.2 percent for Israeli Arabs, compared to 1.7 percent for Israeli Jews.
No mainstream Israeli politician has ever suggested that those Arabs move to an envisaged Palestinian state under the “two-state” solution promoted by the U.S., European Union and broader international community.
Yet Abbas has declared unambiguously that no Jews will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state
“In a final resolution [of the conflict], we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands,” Abbas said during a visit to Egypt in 2013.
The following year, Abbas’ top negotiator Saeb Erekat reiterated that stance.
“No settler will be permitted to stay in a Palestinian state, not one, because the settlements are illegal and the presence of settlers on occupied lands is illegal,” he was quoted as saying.
When Israel withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip in 2005 as part of its undertakings under the Oslo peace accords, its government uprooted all 9,000 Israelis living there in the process.
Those accords signed in 1993 left the question of Israeli communities in the West Bank unresolved – a matter for later “final status” negotiations.
Every Israeli government since, on the right and left, has indicated that it expects a negotiated final agreement will leave at least major blocs of Israeli settlements intact in the area known by Israelis as Judea and Samaria, the country’s biblical “heartland.”
Netanyahu’s video message tackled the issue in his trademark direct manner, challenging not just Abbas but unnamed foreign governments as well.
“I'm sure many of you have heard the claim that Jewish communities in Judea Samaria – the West Bank – are an obstacle to peace. I’ve always been perplexed by this notion,” he said.
“Because no one would seriously claim that the nearly two million Arabs living inside Israel – that they’re an obstacle to peace. That's because they aren’t – on the contrary.
“Israel’s diversity shows its openness and readiness for peace,” Netanyahu continued. “Yet the Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: No Jews.”
“There’s a phrase for that: It’s called ethnic cleansing. And this demand is outrageous.
“It’s even more outrageous that the world doesn’t find this outrageous,” he said. “Some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage.”
State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau slammed Netanyahu’s comments, calling them “inappropriate and unhelpful.”
“We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank,” she said.
Trudeau repeated U.S. government policy that ongoing Israeli settlement activity is “an obstacle to peace.”
While she called Netanyahu’s terminology “inappropriate and unhelpful” Trudeau – like Ban Ki-moon on Thursday – did not address the P.A. demands that no Jews be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. She merely repeated the position that “settlements are a final status issue that must be resolved in negotiations between the parties.”
Trudeau also said the administration was “engaging in direct conversations with the Israeli government” about the comments.
Anne Bayefsky president of Human Rights Voices and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, called Netanyahu’s ethnic cleansing charge “the quintessential inconvenient truth.”
The State Department went on offense because they have no defense,” she wrote in an op-ed. “Playing the settlements card and advocating for a Jew-free Palestine is not a move to promote peaceful co-existence. It’s an intrinsic part of a 67-year old xenophobic attempt to wipe the only Jewish state off the map.”
-- In a letter to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2004, President George W. Bush recognized that any final peace agreement with the Palestinians would likely take into account the reality of at least some Jewish communities remaining in place in the West Bank.
“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” Bush wrote.
He added, notably, that “all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”
“It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities,” said Bush.
The president read out key excerpts of that letter during a joint appearance with Sharon at the White House. The substance of the letter was subsequently endorsed in resolutions by both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.
Libs Gone Insane: Cultural Appropriation, the Ultimate Sin
Liberals don’t believe in the double standard. They believe in one standard. Anything that the left does is great. Anything conservatives, Christians or even chefs, yes chefs, do is wrong.
It’s really simple. If you’re actress Emma Stone, liberals will freak out when you play a Hawaiian/Asian, but mostly Swedish character in the forgettable Aloha. Slate called the title “cultural appropriation” and using Stone “a preposterous casting choice” even though both the actress and character were mostly white. Stone even had to apologize for “whitewashing.” Horrors.
Amazing actress Zoe Saldana, a person of color herself, was criticized for playing the role of Nina Simone because Zoe isn’t black enough. Even faux dreadlocks are controversial.
Then there’s the popular Broadway hit Hamilton. In it, people of color play the Founding Fathers -- to make them appear cool. Founding the United States wasn’t cool enough for liberals and the media. I’ll let The New York Times tell you about that:
“‘Hamilton,’ the mega-buzzy bio-musical about Alexander Hamilton and the founding fathers, opened to glowing accolades unlike any in memory. It received 11 Tony Awards, including best musical, and 16 Tony nominations, the most nominations in Broadway history. It won the Pulitzer Prize and a Grammy Award. In his review, Ben Brantley writes: ‘Yes, it really is that good.’”
Hamilton had such an impact it’s one of the reasons why we are keeping Alexander Hamilton on the $10. While I’m fine with that, it’s is a ridiculous way to make policy.
When Hamilton was criticized for an openly racist casting call, the entirety of the left rose to its defense. Here’s The Atlantic, ever clueless.
“In an era when the lead Republican candidate is frequently understood to voice the resentment of whites who see their longstanding supremacy in American society threatened—an era where comments sections roil with apocalyptic mentions of ‘reverse racism’ and ‘black privilege’ — the notion of America’s founders de-whitened for a blockbuster Broadway show would seem like inevitable cause for a round of cultural warfare.”
Never fear, it’s OK to cast white people as People of Color, but anything white people use or do that they didn’t invent is CULTURAL APPROPRIATION.
Which takes us to our latest outrages:
The Foes Of Faux Pho: Bon Appétit’s readers might have noticed a recent piece that was originally called: “PSA: This Is How You Should Be Eating Pho.” The story included a video of Philadelphia’s Stock chef Tyler Akin. Stock serves Southeast Asian food and Tyler has a problem, he’s white. The video showed how he eats Pho. And that’s a no-no. The HuffPo thought police responded with, “Why The Outrage Over Bon Appétit’s Pho Article Is Completely Justified.” Not just “justified,” but “completely justified.” They proceeded to quote every idiot they could find who was angry that a white guy might be an expert in something that white people didn’t invent. One site even called it “whitesplaining.”
Bon Appétit went grovelling and responded “how we screwed up and what we can do about it.” Actual quote: “While Akin mentions in the video that he’s demonstrated his personal, preferred way of consuming pho, the outlet’s packaging still positioned him as an authority.” This is America 2016. It’s controversial to have a white chef make ethnic food. But no one on the left refuses to use electricity or the telephone because scary old white men were involved in their invention.
“The Case Against Pets”: The left is why we can’t have nice things: ethnic food, decent movies (OK, I didn’t mean Aloha.), football or a national anthem. Now it’s pets. This might be the most ridiculous piece I have read in a while. This is Fusion-level insane. The authors are naturally professors at Rutgers. They also wrote the page-turner: Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. They have six dogs, but they don’t call them dogs exactly. “These dogs are non-human refugees with whom we share our home. Although we love them very much, we strongly believe that they should not have existed in the first place.”
Here’s another actual quote: “A morally just world would have no pets, no aquaria, no zoos. No fields of sheep, no barns of cows. That’s true animal rights.” This is like the Peta version of John Lennon’s Imagine. I can imagine this future, too. Imagine no cute puppy videos. Imagine lefties showing up at your door seizing your pets and setting them free like they do at research facilities or mink farms. Rutgers has clearly outlived its usefulness. h/t Matt Philbin.
Dying To Get Your Death Suit: Forget the coffin. Skip that pair of pennies on your eyes, those aren’t recyclable. No, you need an environmentally friendly death suit. It’s only $999. You only wish I was kidding. The whackjobs who brought you Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth produce all sorts of lefty propaganda. Their site Take Part wants your whole life -- even your death -- sustainable. I’ll let the author’s actual quote help me out. “With the rise of electric cars, sustainable architecture, eco-friendly diets, composting, and countless other options, forging a sustainable life is often as easy as it is trendy. Now it’s even easy after death thanks to a bodysuit made from a decidedly old-school material: mushrooms.”
But wait, there’s more! Your death suit isn’t just a way to turn your carcass into a mushroom farm, it’s fashionable, too! Actual quote: “Although the mushroom suit provides a cost-effective alternative, the goal is to do so without losing the beauty of the process. The suit itself is a work of art thanks to designers such as Daniel Silverstein, who has designed clothing for Jennifer Hudson and Kristen Bell.” And you thought you were only kidding when you said you were dying to wear clothes just like the stars.
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.