Thursday, September 08, 2016

Why were the Black Lives Matter protesters at London City Airport all WHITE?

Because they are just attention-seekers

Black Lives Matter has insisted white people need 'to take responsibility' because they are 'privileged through racism' as it defended the all-white protest which brought London City Airport to a standstill today.

The group posted a series of inflammatory tweets this afternoon as it responded to criticism over a six-hour stunt which saw nine activists storm the runway after sailing up to the airport in a dinghy.

As photographs emerged of white men and women chained to a wooden tripod on the tarmac, alongside banners reading 'black lives matter', critics questioned why there were no black activists taking part in the protest.

But this afternoon, UK Black Lives Matter defended the protest, citing it as an example of 'white allyship under black leadership'.

Dozens of police officers were at the airport this morning in an attempt to move the protesters from the runway. Scotland Yard said it did not know how many officers were involved in the operation

In a series of tweets, the group said: 'There's a need for white people to take responsibility in a society that privileges them through racism and anti-black racism in particular.

Black Lives Matter UK spokesman Jacob Oti, 22, declined to go into detail about how the protesters gained access to the site, but confirmed it was via the Thames.

It is now claimed the activists launched from the University of East London campus in the Docklands before making the 40m journey.

Police and London City Airport have not confirmed if they are investigating these claims.

'Today's shutdown isn't about 9 white allies on the runway; it's about 200 million climate refugees by 2050.'

Another tweet read: 'How many white people does it take to change the subject from black deaths? 9.'  

One black anti-racism campaigner criticised the protest, saying it should be led by those who feel 'aggrieved'.

‘It’s a Black Lives Matter movement – the clue should be in the name,' he said. 'As with any cause, it should be led by the people who feel aggrieved, with other people as allies. Otherwise it’s just odd.'

But campaigner and journalist Wail Qasim, an activist with Black Lives Matter, said white people protesting had given black people a voice.

He told MailOnline: ‘This shows the sort of responsibility that white people should be taking. They should be willing to put bodies on the line for black rights.

‘You’ll notice that white activists have not been giving comment to the media. Really what’s happened is that black voices have been able to speak off the back of the actions of the white activists.

‘It should absolutely always be black leadership, not white leadership.’

The mayhem began at 5.40am when nine protesters chained themselves to a tripod in the middle of the tarmac to campaign against the UK's 'racist climate change', cancelling dozens of flights and delaying several more.

The incident triggered huge security concerns amid reports the demonstrators managed to get airside by sailing a blow-up dinghy across the Royal Docks.

The activists are alleged to have reached the site by launching the boat from the University of East London campus in the Docklands before paddling 40m to the airport. Neither the police nor the airport have confirmed whether or not they are investigating these claims.

Despite the security alert caused by the morning’s protest, a Daily Mail journalist was still able to walk to within 20ft of the runway yesterday afternoon, with just a narrow stretch of water blocking their path.

Police spent several hours 'negotiating' with those responsible as they waited for 'specialist resources' to unlock them, causing chaos for passengers.

It was only after six hours that all the protesters were successfully removed from the site and taken into police custody.

The Stop City Airport campaign group initially tweeted that the protest was a joint operation between Plane Stupid, a radical environmental group, and Black Lives Matter. But Plane Stupid later said that 'all credit' should go to Black Lives Matter. 

According to the protest group, the demonstration is focusing on the airport's expansion plans, which they claim will favour the 'wealthy' passengers and ignore the local population of Newham, the borough in which the airport is based.


Rev. Graham: Obama Promotes 'Ungodly Sexual Behavior' -- Now There Is 'All-Out War on Religious Liberty'

Commenting on the upcoming election and the state of the nation, Reverend Franklin Graham said America is "increasingly hostile and intolerant" of its Christian and Biblical foundation, and with President Barack Obama leading "the fight to promote ungodly sexual behavior" over the last eight years, there now is an "all-out war on religious liberty" in the United States.

Whoever is elected in November, that person "will take the helm of a nation that has grown increasingly hostile and intolerant of the very foundation and principles upon which it was so nobly founded -- the Christian faith and Biblical values," said Rev. Graham in his commentary for the September issue of Decision magazine, published by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA).

That's why this election is "the most significant since Abraham Lincoln," said Rev. Graham.

"For if the forces of evil that are allied against the free exercise of our faith succeed -- and they have done severe damage already -- then I have no doubt that the nation we love will devolve into moral anarchy more quickly than we can imagine," he said.

The reverend, who is the son of world-renowned preacher Billy Graham, then discussed how Obamacare's abortion-drug mandate is crippling (and closing) Christian-run businesses by directly violating the religious liberty of its owners and staff. Further, same-sex marriage is also destroying religious freedom, said Graham.

"Same-sex marriage zealots have launched an all-out war on traditional marriage, which is defined in Scripture -- and virtually every civilization in history -- as a union between one man and one woman," said Franklin Graham.  "Human sexuality itself is being completely redefined by elite sexual revolutionaries who seek to impose their warped views on society, resulting in fierce battles over such things as transgender bathrooms -- supported by none other than the president himself."

"The same anti-Christian forces are seeking to strip funding from Christian colleges to keep them from educating students with a Biblical worldview," said the evangelist.  "Business owners across the nation have been forced to close their doors because they refused to participate in same-sex ceremonies due to their religious faith."

Rev. Graham continued, "The skirmishes over moral standards have turned into pitched battles over the last decade and now have become an all-out war on religious liberty. Think of the moral degeneration that has transpired under our current president, who has helped lead the fight to promote ungodly sexual behavior while failing to protect basic religious liberties."

"What if that depraved trajectory continues over the next few decades?" he said.  "Can you imagine what our great nation, whose foundation was laid by a moral and religious people, will look like?"

Quoting Samuel Adams, Rev. Graham said voting is "one of the most solemn trusts in human society, for which [a person] is accountable to God and his country."

"My hope is in Almighty God alone," said Graham, who added that "a careful vote could extend the time we have to freely preach the Gospel."

"The Bible says, 'Sin is a reproach to any people' (Proverbs 14:34)," said Rev. Graham.  "The disgrace of America due to persistent, willful, rebellious sin is shameful. We will not survive as a 'city set on a hill' (Matthew 5:14) without God’s help."

Rev. Graham concluded, "I want God’s blessings on America, but that will only come to a people who forsake sin and pursue righteousness. That’s the vision of America that I have, and one that I hope will once again hold sway for our children, grandchildren and generations to come."


Connecticut Limits Free Speech Using Campaign Finance Rules

The clash over free speech and campaign finance has erupted in Connecticut, as two Republican state legislators have refused to settle a case with the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

Connecticut is one of at least three states that have a “clean campaign” system, in which a candidate collects very small donations of $5 from a large pool of people to qualify for a near fully-funded campaign by the taxpayer. In all, 13 states have some form of public financing for state elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

However, the enforcement action taken by the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission, or SEEC, against 16 Republican candidates—including state Sen. Joe Markley and state Rep. Rob Sampson—could be unprecedented, some national observers said.

The state’s sanction against the legislative candidates was for mentioning Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Democrat, by name in mailings that referenced “Malloy’s bad policies” and “Malloy’s tax hike” for their own races in 2014, when Malloy was also on the ballot. The lawmakers used similar reference in campaign literature this year and in 2012, but face no sanction because Malloy appeared on the 2014 ballot.

“A government that funds speech will seek to control that speech.” @campaignfreedom says.

“I don’t know how you can be a sitting state legislator and not mention the governor’s name,” Markley told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “This is not in the statute; this is an interpretation by the [State Elections Enforcement Commission].”

The State Elections Enforcement Commission will have a hearing on the matter in September, Markley said. He said he will challenge in state court if necessary on constitutional grounds. As a matter of being competitive in the state, he said candidates must take public funding. But, he believes putting the government in charge of financing campaigns is the problem.

“If it weren’t for the state funding campaigns, this wouldn’t have arisen as an issue,” Markley said. “It is frustrating for liberals to see government funds used to criticize them for a change.”

It’s hard to find a similar case nationally, said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes most campaign finance restrictions.

“What Connecticut is trying to do is both ridiculous and likely unconstitutional,” Keating told The Daily Signal in an email.

Still, Keating added that politicizing a program was likely inevitable once the state has the purse strings to campaign funding.

“A government that funds speech will seek to control that speech,” Keating said. “Bureaucrats who control the funding will try to penalize candidates for trivial violations.”

Keating said such a case has less to do with the Citizens United precedent on campaign finance than it would have to do with legal precedent barring government agencies from placing unconstitutional restrictions on receiving government money.

However, this matter typically comes up in the areas of welfare or in government contracting and not campaign funding, Keating said. Thus, he said there is almost no precedent for the Connecticut controversy.

State Elections Enforcement Commission spokesman Josh Foley said the agency doesn’t comment on ongoing cases.

Connecticut House Speaker Brendan Sharkey, a Democrat, defended the commission’s actions in a letter to the editor responding to a Hartford Courant columnist’s criticism of the sanctions.

“When candidates voluntarily sign up to receive taxpayer dollars to run their campaigns, they swear to abide by the law,” Sharkey wrote. “Instead, state Republicans in 2014 coordinated to violate the rules—including the protagonist in Mr. [Kevin] Rennie’s column—and most of them have already admitted their violations and settled their cases.”

Connecticut adopted a bipartisan public financing law in 2005 following a major corruption scandal. The law was passed by a Democratic-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor. In October 2014, the state election agency issued an advisory opinion warning candidates for the legislature to avoid referring to candidates in the governor’s race.

The state agency asserted that referring to candidates would have been permissible if the cost of the campaign had been shared by either the state Republican Party or the 2014 campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley.

The state election agency brought a case against 16 Republican candidates who mentioned Malloy by name during their 2014 campaigns. Most of those Republicans signed a settlement agreement, admitting an election violation in exchange for dodging a civil penalty. However, Markley and Sampson refused to sign, asserting that empowering the agency would violate the First Amendment.

“For me, this is a clear violation of my First Amendment rights, and an overt restriction on free speech,” Sampson wrote in an op-ed in The Southington Observer newspaper. “The government should not be able to restrict the issues we campaign about in a free election.”

Two other states that provide near-full state funding for all state offices, including the legislature, are Maine and Arizona.

Hawaii also provides a matching funds program for its legislative candidates, which provides tax dollars to candidates who cap their spending. Minnesota defunded its program in its last state budget, according to the Center for Competitive Politics.

Keating, president of the center, said candidates in most of the states do not use the public funding program any longer, largely because it inhibits their ability to campaign. So, he said, it’s doubtful a dispute similar to what is happening in Connecticut has occurred elsewhere.

The states of Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Vermont all provide some form of public financing to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor. Elections to the state Supreme Court are publicly funded in New Mexico and West Virginia.

The Connecticut public finance system could be on shaky legal footing because of this case, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“If providing public funding for candidates is being used as grounds to prevent criticism of candidates in other elections or of the governor then that would be a horrendous infringement on the First Amendment and probably the Supreme Court would throw that public financing system out,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

He referred to part of the Arizona public financing law that was tossed by the court. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Arizona public financing law that allocated more taxpayer money to candidates if a political action committee or independent group spoke against the candidate in ads.


‘I’ve Become a Racist’: Migrant Wave Unleashes Danish Tensions Over Identity

Johnny Christensen, a stout and silver-whiskered retired bank employee, always thought of himself as sympathetic to people fleeing war and welcoming to immigrants. But after more than 36,000 mostly Muslim asylum seekers poured into Denmark over the past two years, Mr. Christensen, 65, said, “I’ve become a racist.”

He believes these new migrants are draining Denmark’s cherished social-welfare system but failing to adapt to its customs. “Just kick them out,” he said, unleashing a mighty kick at an imaginary target on a suburban sidewalk. “These Muslims want to keep their own culture, but we have our own rules here and everyone must follow them.”

Denmark, a small and orderly nation with a progressive self-image, is built on a social covenant: In return for some of the world’s highest wages and benefits, people are expected to work hard and pay into the system. Newcomers must quickly learn Danish — and adapt to norms like keeping tidy gardens and riding bicycles.

The country had little experience with immigrants until 1967, when the first “guest workers” were invited from Turkey, Pakistan and what was then Yugoslavia. Its 5.7 million people remain overwhelmingly native born, though the percentage has dropped to 88 today from 97 in 1980.

A Friday prayer last month in the Grand Mosque of Copenhagen, also known as Hamad Bin Khalifa Civilization Center. © Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York Times A Friday prayer last month in the Grand Mosque of Copenhagen, also known as Hamad Bin Khalifa Civilization Center. Bo Lidegaard, a prominent historian, said many Danes feel strongly that “we are a multiethnic society today, and we have to realize it — but we are not and should never become a multicultural society.”

The recent influx pales next to the one million migrants absorbed into Germany or the 163,000 into Sweden last year, but the pace shocked this stable, homogeneous country. The center-right government has backed a series of harsh measures targeting migrants, hate speech has spiked, and the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party is now the second largest in Parliament.

There is new tension between Danes still opening their arms and a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims and shut Denmark off from Europe. Mr. Christensen, the retired banker, supports emerging proposals for his country to follow Britain in exiting the European Union.

There is tension, too, over whether the backlash is really about a strain on Denmark’s generous public benefits or a rising terrorist threat — or whether a longstanding but latent racial hostility is being unearthed.

Signe Gadeberg, right, and her friend Fatima Al-Gharawi, a native of Iraq, in Copenhagen last month. © Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York Times Signe Gadeberg, right, and her friend Fatima Al-Gharawi, a native of Iraq, in Copenhagen last month. Analysts say that the public voiced little opposition after 5,000 Poles and 3,300 Americans, among other Westerners, emigrated to Denmark in 2014, but that there has been significant criticism of the nearly 16,000 Syrian asylum seekers who arrived that year and the next. They and other migrants were not invited, and many ended up here by accident, intercepted on their route to Sweden.

Critics complain that these newcomers have been slow to learn Danish — though the immigration ministry recently reported that 72 percent passed a required language exam. Some Danes blister at what they see as ethnic enclaves: About 30 percent of new immigrants lived in the nation’s two largest cities, Aarhus and Copenhagen, where Muslim women in abayas and men in prayer caps stand out among the blond and blue-eyed crowds on narrow streets.

Perhaps the leading — and most substantive — concern is that the migrants are an economic drain. In 2014, 48 percent of immigrants from non-Western countries ages 16 to 64 were employed, compared with 74 percent of native Danes.

Sylvester Bbaale, who operates a food truck, came to Denmark from Uganda as a baby in 1989. He said he was beaten on the street last year by three men who told him to go back to Africa. © Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York Times Sylvester Bbaale, who operates a food truck, came to Denmark from Uganda as a baby in 1989. He said he was beaten on the street last year by three men who told him to go back to Africa. The immigration ministry has sought to avoid what it calls “parallel societies” of migrants living in “vicious circles of bad image, social problems and a high rate of unemployment.” Tightened immigration requirements, the ministry said in its latest annual report, weed out those “who have weaker capabilities for being able to integrate into Danish society.”

Omar Mahmoud, 34, an Iraqi engineer who entered Denmark a year ago and lives in a refugee center in Randers, a city of 60,000, is trying his best to fit in. He and his wife are taking Danish classes, and their three children are learning the language and making Danish friends in school. They are Muslim, but attend church to learn about Christianity, and he said he was not opposed to his son’s eating pork, a staple of the Danish diet, though it is forbidden in Islam.

Mr. Mahmoud said his family had not encountered direct insults or threats, but was frightened by the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim tenor in the public discourse.

“It’s like foreigners are put in a special clan, separate from the Danish people,” he lamented. Still, Mr. Mahmoud said that “some of the Danish people are angels” and that he was relieved to be far from the violence of Iraq. “I’m in my heaven now.”

Anders Buhl-Christensen, a center-right city councilman in Randers, said the influx had forced a more honest conversation about national identity. “Our problem in Denmark is that we’ve been too polite,” he said. “No one dared talk about” immigration, he added, “because they were afraid they’d be called racist.”

Denmark is just one of many European nations grappling with the wave of migrants amid a spate of terrorist attacks across the Continent by Islamic extremists: A recent Pew Research Center survey found that at least half the citizens in eight of 10 countries polled said incoming refugees increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks.

The confluence of these and other factors has prompted a re-examination of the postwar promise of a unified, borderless Europe. Macedonia, Hungary and Slovenia have all built border fences. Denmark imposed new identity controls on its border with Germany in January, and for the first time since 1958, Sweden requires entering Danes to show identity papers.

Many analysts saw Britain’s surprise vote to leave the European Union as an angry expression of concern that British — or, especially, English — identity was being diluted by the nation’s growing diversity. Debate is raging anew over whether certain Islamic modes of dress — full-body swimsuits, known as burkinis, in France and face veils in Germany — inherently contravene countries’ values.

Similar themes are seen as underpinning a wave of new measures here in Denmark.

The government has made its citizenship test more difficult and slashed by nearly half a package of integration benefits. A measure passed in January, though rarely enforced, empowers the authorities to confiscate valuables from new arrivals to offset the cost of settling them.

Last year, Denmark placed ads in Arabic-language newspapers stressing its tough new policies, essentially suggesting: Don’t come here.

Muslims do not assimilate as easily as Europeans or some Asians, said Denmark’s culture minister, Bertel Haarder, partly because, as he put it, their patriarchal culture frowns on women working outside the home and often constrains freedom of speech.

“It’s not racism to be aware of the difference — it’s stupid not to be aware,” Mr. Haarder said. “We do them a blessing by being very clear and outspoken as to what kind of country they have come to, what are our basic values.”

But much of the difference remains unspoken. This is a country where pedestrians wait for a green light to cross even when no cars are in sight, a contrast to the bustling streets of Middle Eastern capitals.

Birgitte Romme Larsen, a Danish anthropologist who has studied refugees and asylum seekers in rural areas, mentioned an African refugee who did not realize that closing his curtains during the day was interpreted as being unduly secretive. Other newcomers were not aware that congregating and talking loudly at a grocery might offend Danish sensibilities.

“These implicit expectations cannot be written into an integration folder” migrants receive, Ms. Larsen said.

Sherif Sulaiman, an organic food scientist who moved to Denmark eight years ago from Egypt, said Muslims must not close themselves off in enclaves but open themselves up for interaction.

He is the manager of an Islamic center that opened in 2014 and invites Danes in for meals and for an annual “harmony week.” Mr. Sulaiman pushed to have the mosque complex use Scandinavian architectural style and furniture, and lends its conference room to a church for meetings.

“We should be like this glass — transparent,” he said, pointing to a window. “As long as we follow the rules of the country, we are part of Danish society.”

But some dark-skinned immigrants who have lived in Denmark for decades say assimilation seems an elusive and ever-shifting target.

Patricia Bandak and her brother Sylvester Bbaale came to Denmark from Uganda as babies in 1989. Like their native neighbors, they are polite and punctual and ride their bicycles everywhere.

The siblings are not Muslim but said they frequently encountered racism: In school, they were called the n-word, and told that they should stop eating Ugandan food like matoke, a starchy fruit. Mr. Bbaale, who is 27 and operates a food truck, said he was beaten on the street last year by three men who cursed at him and told him to go back to Africa.

“For a lot of people, being Danish is in your blood, so I will never be Danish,” said Ms. Bandak, 28, who became a Danish citizen in 2010 and is studying documentary film. “I call myself a Dane of a different color.”

Then there is Ozlem Cekic, a Turkish-born Muslim who served as a leftist member of Parliament from 2007 to 2015. Her three children were born in Denmark, she wrote a 2009 memoir in Danish, and, she said, “I even dream in Danish.”

Yet Mrs. Cekic, 40, said she often received death threats and heard shouts of “Go home!” on the street. Every time terrorists strike Europe, she is bombarded by hundreds of hate messages. Lately, people have inundated her with accusations that Muslims are milking the welfare system and plotting against Danes.

While in Parliament, Mrs. Cekic held “dialogue coffees,” where she would explain — in fluent Danish — why she is as Danish as anyone.

“They meet me for coffee and suddenly they say their problem isn’t with me but with those other people,” she recalled. “I tell them: I am the other.”

‘Denmark is closing in on itself’

Karin Andersen is one of thousands of Danes trying to help the immigrants settle through groups formed on Facebook called Venligboerne, or Kind Citizens. She spends several days each month with Housam Mohammed Shamden, 38, his wife and two daughters, who fled Syria in 2014 and now live in Randers, with small Danish flags taped to the front door of their apartment and tucked into flower vases.

“Danes are so concerned about losing their culture,” said Ms. Andersen, 62, a retired teacher. “But how many help the ones who want to be part of it?”

However many, they are often drowned out by reports of Muslims being spat at and showered with racist slurs. In May, two Danes ripped the head scarves off two girls. The month before, a national controversy erupted after a public swimming pool in Copenhagen created girls-only lessons in response to Muslim requests.

“Freedom of speech is now interpreted as freedom to say anything hateful,” said Julie Jeeg, a law student who volunteers with an anti-racism group. “Denmark is closing in on itself. People are retreating inward.”

Witness the “meatball war.”

In January, after revelations that a Randers day care center had stopped serving pork meatballs since its Muslim students would not eat them, the Town Council narrowly passed a measure requiring that pork be served “on equal terms with other kinds of food.”

The councilman who pushed the measure, Frank Noergaard of the Danish People’s Party, said he was incensed that “pork could be abandoned in Denmark,” adding: “If you give in on pork, what’s next?”



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: