Thursday, October 21, 2021


UK: Priti Patel announces fines or jail for Travellers [Gypsies] who trespass

Long overdue

Travellers and trespassers who leave piles of rubbish, cause noise or generate smell from bonfires will face up to three months in prison under a government crackdown to be announced today.

Priti Patel, the home secretary, will announce additions to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which MPs will debate.

The changes are aimed at those who set up camp illegally on private or public land. They will cover “excessive littering, noise or smell”, the Home Office said, including, for example, bonfire smoke. Individuals could also be prosecuted if they verbally abuse or intimidate local residents. Even if local residents “fear leaving their house to avoid walking past an encampment” it could land Travellers in trouble.

*****************************************

Liberal Anti-Semitism Strikes Again

Caroline writes here about how the progressive climate-activist group Sunrise DC just withdrew from speaking at a D.C. statehood rally over the participation of Jewish organizations:

The Washington, D.C., chapter of climate activist organization Sunrise movement canceled its speaking appearance at a rally for D.C. statehood and federal voting legislation over Zionist Jewish groups’ participation in the event.

Sunrise DC cited the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism as groups that support Zionism and the State of Israel in its withdrawal letter.

“Given our commitment to racial justice, self-governance, and indigenous sovereignty, we oppose Zionism and any state that enforces its ideology,” the statement read.

The organization then accused Israel, which it called a “colonial project,” of illegally occupying Palestine and engaging in “violent oppressive tactics that go against the values we advocate for as a hub.”

Sunrise DC also urged a sponsor of the march to revoke the groups’ membership in its coalition.

This reminds me of an incident over the summer when organizers of a Philadelphia food festival disinvited the cooks behind an Israeli food truck, apparently fearing protests over their presence.

In the fallout from this decision, the event, which was supposed to celebrate diversity, was canceled. An organizer also claimed they had to shut things down because a Palestinian food truck couldn’t also attend — creating a presumably unacceptable imbalance in what style of falafel people would chew.

The entire episode was idiotic and smacked of anti-Semitism. The same is true here.

Let’s look at the groups that Sunrise DC finds to be “incompatible.”

Jewish Council for Public Affairs: They support a two-state solution along with a strong U.S.–Israel relationship; they oppose the BDS movement; they speak out on behalf of climate justice and racial justice; they oppose policies like the Muslim travel ban.

National Council of Jewish Women: They seek to empower Israeli and American women; they advocate for abortion access; they fight “xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and anti-refugee policies.”

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism: They advocate for racial justice, economic justice, and reform of the criminal-justice system . . . as well as “religious pluralism within Israel” and foreign aid for Israel’s security.

This is standard progressive-advocacy fare. The only areas out of alignment concern their focus on anti-Semitism and their open support for the existence of Israel and for its security (not necessarily for every action taken by the government of Israel), often balanced out with support for democracy, pluralism, and the peace process.

But that’s not enough. Groups such as Sunrise DC appear incapable of viewing Jewish-aligned groups — even chefs! — in America as distinct from the Israeli government and its policies. It’s the kind of generalizing they’re supposed to stand against. These outfits support Israel and its right to exist, without being in lockstep all the time; just this month, one organization affiliated with the Religious Action Center condemned attacks by West Bank settlers on Palestinians and pressured the Israeli government to investigate.

Surely, the many colors of the progressive rainbow could find room in their tent for such a group. Instead, they perpetuate a self-defeating and self-refuting cycle. Rigid enforcement of a narrowly defined doctrine of inclusivity and equality ends up excluding anyone holding even slightly differing views, in this case amounting to that one particular type of discrimination that just doesn’t rate these days.

**********************************************

How "Prevent" became 'political correctness' battleground

The UK's flagship anti-terror strategy is being undermined by a politically correct emphasis on right-wing extremism over more dangerous Islamist radicalism, critics have said - as a review prepares to overhaul the 'broken' system.

Prevent has come under fresh scrutiny after it emerged Ali Harbi Ali, the suspected terrorist accused of murdering Tory MP David Amess, was referred to the programme but his case was not deemed enough of a risk to be passed on to MI5.

Prevent is said to be spending growing amounts of time and money combating other types of extremists, such as the far-Right, even though they make up a smaller proportion of the threat to national security.

In recent years, much of its resources have been diverted to tracking suspected right-wing extremists, the far-right made up 43% (302) of cases considered among the most serious last year compared to just 30% (210) concerning Islamism, official data shows.

By comparison, in 2015/16, 262 cases (69%) were for Muslim extremism and 98 (26%) for far right. The number of cases counted as serious far-right extremism has increased year on year since then, while Islamist ones have fluctuated.

Today, an intelligence source said that 'although some right-wing extremists are dangerous people... by and large they are hoodlums'.

'They do not present the same risk as Islamists by any distance, by a factor of four or five to one,' the source told the Telegraph. 'Everyone was trying very hard to be politically correct and not Islamophobic. But the whole process has become unbalanced.

'More time has been spent than appropriate on right-wing extremism and not Islamism. There needs to be some honest appraisal about where the threat is actually coming from.'

It comes amid fears of a growing threat from so-called 'bedroom radicals' who have soaked up extreme beliefs from the Internet over lockdown.

Intelligence agencies are struggling to monitor these people because of the difficulty of distinguishing between those spewing hate-filled propaganda and genuine terrorists, security sources told the Times.

Since 2015/16, there has been an 80% drop in the number of initial referrals over concerns of Islamic radicalisation and a steady increase in those concerning far-right beliefs +7
Since 2015/16, there has been an 80% drop in the number of initial referrals over concerns of Islamic radicalisation and a steady increase in those concerning far-right beliefs

Prevent places a duty on local public servants including teachers, doctors and social workers to flag concerns about an individual being radicalised or drawn into terrorism.

Since 2015/16, there has been an 80% drop in the number of initial referrals over concerns of Islamic radicalisation and a steady increase in those concerning far-right beliefs.

While alleged cases of Islamic extremism were slightly more common for initial Prevent referrals last year - at 24% (1,487 referrals) to 22% (1,387) for far-right cases - they were less common at the Channel phase.

At this point - after cases deemed to be less serious were filtered out - suspected right-wing extremists made up 43% (302) of cases versus just 30% (210) concerning Islamism, Home Office figures show.

The Henry Jackson Society argued that counter-extremism professionals had 'lost sight of their duty to prevent terrorism'.

'There has been an under-referral of Islamist cases and an over-referral of extreme Right-wing cases and we are now seeing the deadly consequences,' the think tank said.

'The Prevent review has been derailed by Left-wing groups trying to litigate every aspect of its work and yet a cold hard look at the number of cases in which Prevent has fallen short shows this is only the latest in a long line.'

A security source told the Times: 'Police and security-focused agencies are more likely to put people on to support programmes.

'The NHS, schools, local authorities and other agencies are often much weaker at intervention because they don't want to antagonise faith groups.'

Sources say the Prevent review, led by former Charity Commission chair William Shawcross, is also expected to recommend that 'inconsistent, disorganised and unstructured' panels of up to 20 people are slashed down to five.

Another likely recommendation will be to place suspected extremists on three-year deradicalisation programmes rather than the current one, it is claimed.

***********************************************

Australia must fix a few problems before we can increase immigration

Abul Rizvi

In the past week we have seen NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet, federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry advocate for much higher levels of immigration.

State bureaucrats have pushed Perrottet to lobby for an increase in Australia’s net migration to an unprecedented 400,000 a year for five years. The ACCI is calling for the government to issue 200,000 skilled migrant visas annually. And Frydenberg says Australia needs to rethink its migration targets after losing almost 100,000 people last financial year.

Only once in our history has net migration been a little more than 300,000 and that was just before the global financial crisis. I am not suggesting immigration had anything to do with that crisis, but net migration fluctuates with economic conditions, particularly the labour market. While the labour market is weak right now, there are predictions it will bounce back next year.

When John Howard was prime minister, I was responsible for firstly managing Australia’s immigration intake down, and then increasing it again from about 2001. Oddly enough, I found increasing numbers was more difficult than cutting them.

One of the challenges was that while the smaller states and regional Australia wanted more immigration, the NSW government insisted Sydney was full and any increase in the intake had to be directed away from Sydney. Presumably, Perrottet does not have the same concerns.

Leaving aside “trivial” questions of whether our infrastructure and services such as health, education, housing and transport can be ramped up quickly enough to accommodate the proposed unprecedented increase in immigration, the immediate question is how the increase would be designed and delivered.

The crucial means by which we increased immigration from 2001 was through an increase in overseas students, with clear pathways to permanent residence. These pathways became far more opaque from about 2008-09, but overseas students still represented more than 44 per cent of net migration in 2018-19.

The decision to make the pathways to permanent residency less clear has left hundreds of thousands of overseas students and graduates who have moved on to temporary visas to develop their skills in immigration limbo.

Despite huge numbers of students completing accounting degrees and accounting firms saying they can’t find qualified accountants, these students are struggling to secure jobs using their qualifications, which makes it harder for them to stay in Australia.

This is the status quo in many occupations. The business sector and education providers must address this problem before we again boost student numbers. Education providers need to encourage students to enrol in courses that meet long-term demand in Australia. And they must ensure they are teaching content and skills employers need. Employers too must be prepared to give students the chance to develop their skills without exploiting them.

Even if these problems are addressed, returning to pre-pandemic international student levels will not be simple given our tensions with China – our largest student source country – and the fact the student visa policy was tightened in 2019 for students from India, Nepal and other major source countries.

Some increase in immigration could be achieved by fixing the problems Peter Dutton created as immigration minister, when he made employer-sponsored visas more expensive, more complex and more restricted, leading to a significant decline in their use. But this will not be nearly enough to deliver the numbers NSW and ACCI want.

To reach these figures, the federal government will need to make it easier for older people and people with more limited English and/or lower skill levels to migrate to Australia. This risks large numbers of new migrants finding it even harder to secure a job using their qualifications, and with no access to social support for four years, many would have to accept very low paying and highly exploitative jobs to avoid becoming destitute.

As a country, we need to ask ourselves if that is a consequence we are willing to accept.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

No comments: