Friday, December 01, 2017

Feminist justice in Australia: Mother who admitted killing her own baby walks free

When a father kills a child he usually and rightly receives about twenty years in prison. Whether he has depression of not is irrelevant. But the maximum to which a woman can be sentenced for infanticide in Victoria is 5 years in prison. And she seldom receives that.

She might receive a year or two but more often walks free from court with an order to have counselling or to do some community work such as a few hours a week in a local op-shop. This week – along with white ribbon day – we had yet another woman walk free from court after deliberately killing her child.

There are plenty such cases of infants being killed – drowned, suffocated, stabbed with scissors, brains dashed out on door frame...  by their mothers and she not serving prison time or perhaps just a little.

Having one law for men and a lenient law for women is not equality. It is an example of feminists desire for rights without accountability

A MOTHER who admitted suffocating her 15-month-old daughter before throwing her body into a suburban Melbourne creek will be released from custody.

Sofina Nikat, 24, was on Thursday sentenced to a 12-month community correction order after earlier pleading guilty to infanticide over the April 2016 death of her daughter Sanaya Sahib.

“In the unusual circumstances you have already served 529 days of pre-sentence custody,” Victorian Supreme Court Justice Lex Lasry said.

Nikat served 529 days of pre-sentence detention after being charged over Sanaya’s death, before she was released on bail in September.

The maximum prison sentence for infanticide in Victoria is five years. Prosecutors had pushed for a jail term, but her lawyers said a non-custodial community corrections order was appropriate given Nikat’s mental state.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Lex Lasry said he accepted evidence from a psychiatrist that Nikat was depressed when she suffocated Sanaya and threw her body into Darebin Creek. “Since I accept the (psychiatric) conclusions, I will sentence you on that basis,” he said.

Nikat was originally charged with murder but this was downgraded because of her depressive disorder.

On April 9, 2016 she told police a barefoot man of African appearance who smelled of alcohol had snatched Sanaya from her pram while they were at a Heidelberg West park.

The Fijian-born woman later admitted she took the infant to the park and played with her before suffocating Sanaya until she stopped moving. A family who joined the public search found Sanaya’s body in Darebin Creek, and Nikat admitted what she did three days after the killing.

“It is a tragedy for you and everyone connected with your family,” Justice Lasry said. “I accept that the way you acted after you had killed Sanaya was consistent with your irrational mental state.”

Outside court, Sanaya’s paternal family said the sentence was unfair. “Our justice system has really failed us today. We have not had justice for her death,” Zahraa Sahib told reporters.
“We were expecting something, and I don’t think it’s fair that we’ve lost a little girl.”


Girlguiding UK Allows ‘Transgender’ Guides to Share Showers, Tents with Girls

Male guides who “identify” as female will be allowed to shower with girls during camping trips, Girlguiding UK literature has revealed.

Official guidance distributed by the organisation, which applies to Girl Guides between the ages of five and 25, tells guide leaders to let “transgender” members share changing rooms, toilets, tents, and cabins with girls while away on excursions.

The move came as the 107-year-old organisation updated advice regarding male guides who “identify” as female, a demographic it was revealed in January is now being admitted to the girls-only organisation.

On its official UK website, Girlguiding UK says that for transgender people, “the use of gendered facilities, such as toilets, can cause anxiety”.

“Members are entitled to use the facilities of the gender that they self-identify as,” adds the organisation, which confirmed when asked by the Mail on Sunday that this includes showers, toilets, and changing rooms.

Earlier this year, Girlguiding Chief Executive Julie Bentley stated that the move to allow male children to join as guides follows rules set out in the Equality Act 2010, which “makes clear organisations providing single-gender services should treat people according to their acquired gender”.

“In line with our values of inclusion, we welcome any young person who self-identifies as a girl or young woman,” said Bentley, a pro-abortion campaigner who describes Girlguiding as “the ultimate feminist organisation”.

The radical changes made to the Girl Guides’ single-sex policy in January apply to adults, and declare that it would be against the law for guide leaders to tell parents that their daughters are being supervised on trips by transgender people.

In addition, the guidance states that families should not be told if a “transgender” child joins their group, adding that it is not “best practice” for parents to know if their daughters are sharing facilities with males who “identify” as female while on trips away.

Conservative MP David Davies told the Mail on Sunday: “If transgender girls who are physically male are going to be sharing facilities, it’s going to make some girls threatened and uncomfortable and the Guides shouldn’t be doing that.”

As reported by Breitbart in 2013, Girl Guiding in the UK decided to do away with the oath to God as said by girls at meetings, replacing it instead with an oath to “myself”, arguing that continuing the strong Christian roots of the organisation discouraged some from joining.

Last week, Breitbart London reported how campaigners have warned that government plans to let people “self-identify” as the opposite sex without having even to see a doctor will put female prisoners at risk, after a study revealed more than 40 per cent of transgender inmates are sex offenders.


Archdiocese Sues D.C. Bus Transit Over Christmas Ad -- 'Clear Violation of Free Speech'

The Catholic archdiocese of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) advertising guidelines because the group rejected a Christmas season ad that reads, "Find the Perfect Gift," and which shows several shepherds in sihouette.

In full, the ad states, "Find the perfect gift," and includes the url and #PerfectGift.  There are three shepherds and two sheep in silhouette, and a few stars in the background.

"The rejected ad conveys a simple message of hope, and an invitation to participate in the Christmas season. Yet citing its guidelines, WMATA’s legal counsel said the ad ‘depicts a religious scene and thus seeks to promote religion,'" said Ed McFadden, the communications secretary for the Archdiocese of Washington.

“To borrow from a favorite Christmas story, under WMATA’s guidelines, if the ads are about packages, boxes or bags … if Christmas comes from a store … then it seems WMATA approves," said McFadden. "But if Christmas means a little bit more, WMATA plays Grinch.”

Kim Fiorentino, general counsel for the archdiocese, said,  “We believe rejection of this ad to be a clear violation of fundamental free speech and a limitation on the exercise of our faith.

Paul Clement, an attorney with Kirkland & Ellis LLP, who is representing the archdiocese in this case, said, “As the papers filed in Court today make clear, WMATA’s rejection of the archdiocese’s speech amounts to a violation of the First Amendment, plain and simple. We are bringing this complaint to vindicate the basic principle that the government may not allow a wide variety of speech in a forum and then turn around and deny the archdiocese access because of the religious nature of its speech."

Susan Timoney, secretary for Pastoral Ministry and Social Concerns for the archdiocese, said,  “Our ad was designed to be placed on metro bus exteriors to reach the broadest audience and to invite everyone to experience the well-accepted joyful spirit of the season, or to share their many blessings with others less fortunate through service opportunities. The archdiocese wishes to encourage our society to help feed, clothe, and care for our most vulnerable neighbors, and to share our blessings, and welcome all who wish to hear the Good News."

In the Archdiocese of Washington there are 620,000 Catholics, 139 parishes, and 93 Catholic schools.


These Gay Rights Supporting Groups Back Cake Baker’s Free Speech Rights

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on Dec. 5, in what will be one of the most closely watched cases of the term.

This is the case of Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, who declined to design a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.

The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which resulted in a finding that Phillips engaged in sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the state’s public accommodation law.

Now, the case is before the Supreme Court, and the justices will consider Phillips’ free speech and free exercise claims. More than 100 groups have filed amicus briefs supporting one side or the other.

The Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, and Individual Rights Foundation argue in their amicus brief that Phillips’ custom cakes are an artistic expression that deserves protection under the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

The three groups cite Wooley v. Maynard, a 1976 Supreme Court decision that makes clear that the First Amendment protects against compelled speech: “The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of … ‘individual freedom of mind.’”

In Wooley, the court considered whether New Hampshire could force Jehovah’s Witnesses to display “Live Free or Die” on their license plates, over their objections to displaying a message that violates their religious beliefs.

In ruling against the state, the court explained that forcing people to “becom[e] the courier[s] for … messages with which they disagree” interferes with the right to “refuse to foster … an idea they find morally objectionable.”

The three libertarian groups state that Wooley “secure[d] an important constitutional right to which all speakers are entitled—whether religious or secular, liberal or conservative, pro or anti-same-sex-marriage.” And this right applies to both the creation and distribution of speech.

Indeed, the groups point out that requiring someone to create speech “is even more of an imposition … than is requiring the person simply to engage in the ‘passive act of carrying the state motto on a license plate.’”

They also explain why the court should recognize Phillips’ trade of baking custom cakes as a form of art. They point out: “The art of baking and decorating cakes, particularly wedding cakes, exhibits all the characteristics of other expressive formats that this Court has recognized as constitutionally protected.”

The Supreme Court has previously found that many other forms of art qualify as speech—such as music without words, dance, theater, and movies. Even tattooing is considered expressive activity, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach (2010).

Though Phillips’ “media are icing and chocolate rather than ink or paint,” the three groups maintain, “that does nothing to diminish the artistic content of his work.”

“Baking and decorating a cake,” they continue, “involves hours of effort and a large range of artistic decisions. … Clients pay good money for such cakes, precisely because of the bakers’ expressive decisions regarding flavors, textures, structure, and decorations.”

But they draw the line at compelled expression, explaining that the First Amendment would not protect “caterers, hotels, and limousine companies” if they asserted a free speech right to refuse services for same-sex weddings. That’s because the free speech clause covers expression—not “all human endeavors.”

Creating expression is “constitutionally different” from nonexpressive activity, and courts “routinely police the line between expression and nonexpressive behavior.”

The libertarian groups conclude their brief noting that it’s understandable that a couple would be offended if a baker refused to make a cake for their wedding. But “the First Amendment does not treat avoiding offense as a sufficient interest to justifying restricting or compelling speech.”

For these reasons, the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, and Individual Rights Foundation maintain that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Phillips’ free speech claims and recognize custom wedding cakes as an expressive activity that is protected by the First Amendment.



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.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: