Friday, May 12, 2017

Australia: A really poisonous example of political correctness

An Egyptian con-artist achieved enormous acceptance because everyone WANTED to believe in a female Egyptian of probably Muslim origin. "Affirmative action" towards her meant believing everything she said and checking nothing

It's the redemption story that everyone wanted to believe: a teenager forced into an arranged marriage to her first cousin, widowed at 29 with two young sons, having endured years in a violent marriage.

She emigrates from Egypt, gaining not one but two PhDs, rising to become chief executive of government funded health services that care for new migrants and earns a long list of community honours – including as a finalist for an honour from her adopted country on its national day.

Dr Eman Sharobeem migrated to Australia more than 30 years ago. Since then she has earned two PhDs and campaigned against issues such as forced marriage and family violence.

But with an announcement this week that ICAC will hold public hearings into former Australian of the Year finalist Eman Sharobeem, following an investigation by Fairfax Media that revealed an asset freeze by the powerful NSW Crime Commission, the charade has come crashing down – allegations of misuse of credit cards, false invoices, spending on personal items, using public money to renovate a property she owned.

On top of the alleged fraud ICAC is investigating is the outright deceit, also revealed by Fairfax Media, that Sharobeem paraded fake academic and professional qualifications.

Now a string of high-profile organisations and governments have egg on their faces – state and federal, Liberal and Labor, that appointed her to trophy boards; organisations such as SBS that gave her a high-profile job; and the Australian of the Year Foundation that not only waved her through to the final round of its awards but appointed her to their advisory council.

What's more, they all called her "Dr Sharobeem" – despite there being no proof of the degrees and evidence revealed by Fairfax Media that she was not a psychologist.

The high point of the charade came in late 2014, when then NSW Premier, Mike Baird, stood beside an Australian of the Year finalist, handing her a commendation from her adopted country, smiling for the cameras.

It begs the question – who did due diligence on Eman Sharobeem? Who checked anything about her?

As her star rose around 2012-14 it doesn't appear to have been the media who focused on the story of her forced marriage as a child and escape from a violent marriage and her claims of academic achievement in Australia.

Fairfax Media understands workers at the Non-English Speaking Housing organisation (also run by Sharobeem) raised concerns about financial mismanagement around 2015. And it was the auditor of the Immigrant Women's Health Service accounts Nathan Boyd who rang alarm bells when he qualified his opinion on the organisation's 2015 accounts, saying the CEO owed at least $100,000 in wrongly claimed reimbursements, as revealed by Fairfax Media.

So how did Sharobeem seemingly hoodwink everyone?

Sharobeem ran the IWHS based in Fairfield for 11 years until 2015. Government funding was cut at the end of that year with a governance investigation acknowledged by the health department as the centre was about to close in June 2016.

It was around this time broadcaster SBS hired Sharobeem to be its community engagement manager. It's understood SBS went through a regular recruitment process to hire her. A press release hailing her appointment in April 2016 used the honorific Dr in the opening sentence. Almost every achievement SBS heralded is now under question: "Eman is a Member of the Settlement Services Advisory Council, Justice Multicultural Advisory Council, State Library CALD Advisory Board and an Advisory Board Member of Multicultural NSW. In 2014, Eman was honoured as an Australia Day Ambassador and became a finalist for The Australian of The Year Award. In 2013, she was a finalist in the Premier's Woman of the Year Award and was selected as one of 100 Most Influential Women in 2015 by The Australian Financial Review."

Perhaps the most revealing tale surrounding background checks can be gleaned from Social Services Minister Christian Porter appointing her to the Settlement Services Advisory Council. When Fairfax Media inquired last month about the circumstances surrounding her appointment, a department spokeswoman said the department performed "due diligence", including on a "resume from Dr Eman Sharobeem identifying her educational background, including the attainment of a PhD in psychology, family and community and a PhD in management in organisational leadership".

But having confirmed details from the CV she submitted claiming to have two PhDs, the spokeswoman suddenly claimed it would be a breach of privacy to disclose further information from the same CV when asked which institutions she claimed to have attended.

Fairfax Media was able to challenge her claim to be a psychologist in one phone call – to the Australian Health Professional Regulatory Agency. A search of their database revealed nobody named Eman Sharobeem was currently registered or had been removed as a psychologist. It's illegal to practise as a psychologist if unqualified.

Our politicians also wanted to believe. In 2014, the Upper House of the NSW Parliament moved a motion of congratulations to Sharobeem, listing in full glory what it understood to be her achievements. It makes for tough reading.

She is lauded for her professional roles and the subsequent awards she achieved.

The parliamentary motion mentions "Dr" Sharobeem's "greatest contributions in Australia" being her involvement in the Immigrant Women's Health Service.

Our elected officials praised her for working with volunteer and part time workers at the health service – the same one she is now alleged to have defrauded, claiming bogus expenses and spending government money on a house she owned.

Parliament members moved to wish "Dr Eman Sharobeem all the very best in her future endeavours".

In truth, ICAC wants to know if she robbed us blind.

The story that we all wanted to be true was, in fact, something else: it was too good to be true.

SOURCE.  Latest report on the ICAC enquiry here

The Feminization of Everything Fails Our Boys

 by David French

Let me share with you two troubling — and, I believe, closely linked — news reports. The first, from this weekend, comes courtesy of the American Enterprise Institute’s Mark Perry. In one chart, he highlights the dramatic and growing gender gap in higher education. In short, women are dominating:

    The second comes from The Atlantic’s Emma Green. Detailing the findings of a survey conducted by her magazine and the Public Religion Research Institute, she notes that 61 percent of white working-class men view college as a “risky gamble ..." . Green’s report contained this explanation:

“The enduring narrative of the American dream is that if you study and get a college education and work hard, you can get ahead,” said Robert P. Jones, the CEO of PRRI. “The survey shows that many white working-class Amer­icans, especially men, no longer see that path available to them. . . . It is this sense of economic fatalism, more than just economic hardship, that was the decisive factor in support for Trump among white working-class voters.”

    Make no mistake, if these numbers showed an equivalent (and increasing) educational gender gap running in the opposite direction, the feminist Left would declare a cultural emergency. Indeed, it has declared a cultural emergency in spite of the dominant educational performance of women. As Perry notes, our colleges are full of “women’s centers” and “gender equity” initiatives that are dedicated exclusively to female success (or almost exclusively; some non-gender-binary folks get gender-equity aid as well). When will there stop being a crisis for women on campus? When they reach two-thirds of the higher-education population? When three out of every four college grads are women?

    Our society is unlearning masculinity, it’s feminizing every stage of male life, and boys are paying a steep price. Consider the feminization of the home — occurring on two fronts simultaneously. First, and most important, the dissolution of the family brings increased fatherlessness, and for all of our culture’s single-mom worship (and moms’ sometimes — but not always — heroic efforts to fill the gap), boys need dads. It’s that simple. Men and women in general have different roles to play in their kids’ lives, and a boy sees in a good dad the fruits of properly channeled and properly lived masculinity. He has a model, often a hero, who lives in the closest possible proximity.

    But beyond fatherlessness is the increasing feminization of even the intact, two-parent household. Models of domestic life intentionally crafted to break old stereotypes and cultural norms increasingly treat parents not as “mom and dad” but as “Parent 1 and Parent 2.” Kids aren’t brother and sister, but “Child 1 and Child 2.” There are no longer different paths for boys and girls but instead unique paths for special snowflakes. Who’s to say what’s masculine? Who’s to say what’s feminine? The one thing we do know, however, is that stereotypically male characteristics of aggression, risk-taking, and high-energy work and play are “toxic” and need to be medicated or educated right out of the home.

    Adding to the feminized home is the feminized school, complete with its zero tolerance, mortal fear of anything remotely martial, and its relentless emphasis on compassion and nurturing rather than exploration and adventure (unless the adventurer is a woman). We love the Earth. We don’t conquer it. Elementary school is a place of hugs, not conflict, and play is to be peaceful above all else. No more re-enacting the Battle of the Bulge. No more toy guns. No more drawings of tanks mowing through stick-figure Nazi hordes. And when nature asserts itself against the ideologue’s wishes? Medication and education take their toll.

    Finally, one graduates to the increasingly feminized workplace. Part of this is a function of political correctness, and part of it is simply a function of the changing economy. We don’t need as many strong backs and strong arms to make America great. There are more cubicles, more people typing, and more people talking. It’s great to be glib. Strength is strictly optional. Oh, and when cubicle-working men do try to carve out their own spaces for hobbies, sports, and other pursuits, they’re often mocked. Why does an accountant need a Ford F-150? Look at that lawyer buying a chainsaw. Doesn’t he know how ridiculous he looks?

    In place of teaching men to channel their aggression and adventurous spirits in productive ways, we ask them to stifle their truest natures. In place of teaching them to protect others, we lie and declare all violence to be bad. Instead of telling the truth that men and women are different, we try to transform men into women. We privilege the stories of those who found traditional gender norms oppressive (like gay men and their metrosexual cousins) and celebrate the demise of traditional masculinity that better served the vast majority of men and boys. Is it not possible to preserve masculinity while demonstrating compassion for those who don’t conform? Must we burn it all down?

    There are few sights more profoundly meaningful than watching a son grow up with a good father, to see him take on his dad’s best characteristics, while at the same time forging his own path. It is important to see and know that throughout that young man’s life, his dad wasn’t just nurturing him, he was also challenging him — pushing him to be stronger mentally, physically, and emotionally. To that end, it’s time to remember that strength is a virtue, rightly channeled aggression creates and preserves civilization itself, and there is nothing at all inherently toxic about masculinity. The feminization of everything doesn’t just fail our boys; over the long run it will fail our nation.


Racism Is Only Racism if It Comes From Groups the Left Hates

Ben Shapiro

This week, an odd tweet appeared in my mentions from verified Twitter users — users prominent enough to be granted a blue check mark by Twitter itself. This one came courtesy of a rapper named Talib Kweli Greene. I’ll admit I’d never heard of Greene until he suddenly appeared in my mentions calling me a “racist ass.” It turns out Greene is a rapper with well over one million Twitter followers and a long history of “social activism.”

A quick search of Greene’s Twitter feed showed a wide variety of instances of the rapper calling people “white boy” and “coon.” He says that this does not make him racist, of course — only the term “black boy” would be racist, since Greene maintains that white people cannot truly be victimized by racism. When I pointed out that seeming incongruity, Greene replied: “What’s the problem white boy? You think ‘white boy’ is racist? Wow. You’re dumber than I thought.” He then dared me to call him “black boy,” which, of course, I would never do, since that would be racist.

What’s Greene’s actual argument? It seems to be that since the derogatory slur “black boy” was thrown around by lynch mobs, any other derogatory slur can no longer be derogatory. This is the rhetorical equivalent of the argument your mother used to make back in grade school: You’re not truly hungry, since there are children in China who are starving to death. The argument fails for the same reason: Yes, it turns out there are gradations of racism, just as there are gradations of hunger. But you were hungry when you were a kid, even if your bowels weren’t distended, and you’re a racist if you call someone “white boy” in a derogatory fashion, even if you’re not attempting to lynch him.

Thanks to the theory of intersectionality, however, such logic goes by the wayside. Intersectional theory has now taken over the college campuses, leaving the broken corpses of decency and reason in its wake. Intersectionality classifies social categories of race, class, gender and sexual orientation into a hierarchy of victimhood that decides how you should be treated. If you are a black lesbian, for example, you outrank a black straight man and your view must be treated with more care and weight than that of the black straight man. More importantly, since society somehow classifies you as “lesser” than the black straight man, you are incapable of ever doing anything to victimize that black straight man — social powerlessness means that your individual victim status never changes.

This is why Greene and others on the Left believe it’s just fine to use “white boy” as a slur: Black people have historically seen discrimination in America that whites have not; whites benefit from a more powerful status in society at large; and therefore, black people cannot possibly be racist against white people. As Morehouse College Professor Dr. Marc Lamont-Hill said last year, “black people don’t have the institutional power to be racist or to deploy racism.”

There’s only one problem with this notion: It’s racist.

Racism bolstered by power is obviously more dangerous than racism without it. But racism can be used to achieve power, too — generally through the polarization of racial groups against one another. Tribalism is a powerful force, and resorting to a victimhood mentality to explain tribalism away doesn’t make it any less toxic. The faster Americans learn that, the faster racism can actually be curbed rather than exacerbated.


Why Islamists and Fascists Persecute Christians

A study from the Europe-based Center for Studies on New Religions recently confirmed that "Christians continue to be the most persecuted believers in the world, with over 90,000 followers of Christ being killed in the last year [2016]," which computes to one death every six minutes.  The study also found that as many as 600 million Christians around the world were prevented from practicing their faith.

Which group is most prone to persecute Christians around the world?  The answer to this was made clear by another recent study; it found that, of the ten nations around the world where Christians suffer the worst forms of persecution, nine are Islamic, though the absolute worst-North Korea-is not.

What is it about Christians that brings the worst out of some people, Muslims in the majority?  Three main reasons come to mind, though there are more:

    Christianity is the largest religion in the world. There are Christians practically everywhere around the globe, including in much of the Muslim world.  Moreover, because much of the territory that Islam conquered throughout the centuries was originally Christian-including all of the Middle East, Turkey, and North Africa-Muslims are still confronted with vestiges of Christianity.  In Egypt alone, which was the intellectual center of early Christendom before the Islamic invasions, at least 10 million Christians remain.  In short, because of their sheer numbers alone, Christians in the Muslim world are much more likely to suffer under Islam than other "infidels."

    Christianity is devoted to "proclaiming the Gospel" (literally, "the good news). No other major religion-not Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism-has this missionary aspect. These faiths tend to be coextensive with certain ethnicities and homegrown to certain locales. The only other religion that has what can be described as a missionary element is Islam itself.

Thus, because Christianity is the only religion that actively challenges Muslims with the truths of its own message, so too is it the primary religion to be accused of proselytizing, which is banned under Islamic law. And by publicly uttering teachings that contradict Muhammad's-including Christianity's core message-Christians fall afoul of Islam's blasphemy law as well.  Hence why most Muslims who apostatize to other religions-and get punished for it, sometimes with death-apostatize to Christianity.

    Christianity is the quintessential religion of martyrdom. From its inception-beginning with Jesus, and followed by his disciples and countless others in the early church-many Christians have been willing to accept death rather than to stop spreading the Gospel-or, worse, renounce the faith; this was evident in ancient times at the hands of the pagan Roman Empire and in medieval (and modern) times at the hands of Muslims and other persecutors. 

Practically no other religion encourages its adherents to embrace death rather than abjure the faith.  Thus, whereas Christ says "But whoever denies me before men, I will deny him before my Father in heaven" (Matthew 10:33; see also Luke 14:33), Islam teaches Muslims to conceal and even publicly renounce Muhammad, rather than die.  Moreover, other religions and sects approve of dissimulation to preserve their adherents' lives.  A nineteenth-century missionary observed that in Iran "Bahaism enjoys taqiyya (concealment of faith) as a duty, but Christianity demands public profession; and hence in Persia it is far easier to become a Bahai than to become a Christian."[i]

Of course, Islam's oppressive laws target people of all or no religions.  Many outspoken Muslim apostates in the West who never converted to Christianity must fear execution should they ever fall into the hands of their former coreligionists.  However, they are here now, alive and well in the West and warning us, precisely because they were not challenging the spiritual truths of Islam then, when they were living under its shadow-and why should they have been?  If life is limited to the now, as it is in the secular worldview, why risk it, especially when merely not rocking the boat, as many "moderate Muslims" do, will save it?

It is in fact Christianity's penchant to refuse to toe the line that, from its beginnings till now, has caused fascists[ii] and supremacists of all stripes-from the ancient Roman Empire (whence the word fascist is derived) to modern day North Korea-to persecute Christians.  The latter have a long history of refusing to be silent and paying the sort of lip service that everyone else is willing to offer to get by.

Just as Jesus irked Pilate by refusing to utter some words to save his life-"Don't you realize I have the power either to set you free or crucify you?" asked the bewildered procurator (John 19:10)-his disciples and countless other ancient Christians defied the Roman Empire, prompting several emperors to launch what, at least until now, were deemed history's worst persecutions of Christians; and today, countless modern day Christians continue grieving and thus being punished by their totalitarian and supremacist overlords-from North Korea to every corner of the Muslim world-for the very same reasons.



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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: