Thursday, July 26, 2012

Government liquor shops in Canada break the law to pander to Muslims

Three liquor stores recently sold booze to a 14-year-old boy whose identity was hidden because he was wearing a full-length burka and face veil at the time, a Sun News Network exclusive has found.

The teenager, clad in an Islamic female's traditional garb of a burka, headscarf and facial covering, shopped in three different LCBO stores north of Toronto last Wednesday.

In each location, the Grade 8 student paid cash for a bottle of sambuca liqueur.

Ontario's Liquor Licence Act requires that before liquor is sold, government-issued photo ID -- a drivers licence, for example -- must be inspected if the buyer is suspected of being under the legal drinking age of 19.

Under the LCBO's Check 25 program, employees can ask for ID from people who appear under age 25 -- a policy implemented in 1997 to prevent young people who appear older than their actual age from purchasing alcohol.

The stunt was co-ordinated and video recorded by Sun News Network host David Menzies, who has made a career out of lambasting Canada's politically correct institutions.  Menzies said the unopened bottles -- totalling just over $80 -- were promptly taken from the teen.

But Menzies suggested the fact the boy was never asked to uncover his face or show photo identification at multiple store locations reveals a deeply ingrained reluctance on the part of Canadian institutions to challenge cultural practices, even when they conflict with broader societal goals such as preventing underage drinking.

"The reason why you have to unveil is that is photo ID is absolutely useless if you don't see the actual face of the person," Menzies said, adding he came up with the idea after an acquaintance told him he had seen this happen at various LCBO locations.

"They didn't ask for an unveiling, and they didn't even ask for (photo identification) ... You say you're socially responsible, you have the policy codified ... but nobody follows it," Menzies said Monday.

LCBO spokesman Chris Layton said in an e-mail that employees have a responsibility to view customers' faces as part of the age-verification process, and if a customer's face is covered, "Staff are required to ask the customer to remove the covering." 

This includes religious face coverings, as well, Layton later said in a phone interview.  "Maybe we need to remind our staff of their obligations under the Liquor Licence Act," Layton said, insisting the employees may have been trying to be "culturally sensitive" in each situation.

"The last thing we want is minors purchasing alcohol ... That would be something we would certainly want to look into."

In his earlier e-mail, Layton mentioned past examples of customers attempting to buy booze with their faces covered, such as "a customer wearing a full-face helmet," and another wearing a Halloween mask. These customers, however, were told to reveal themselves.

Menzies, long a critic of the LCBO's "monopoly" over liquor sales in the province, attempted to meet with liquor board officials early Monday morning to ask why they were not enforcing their own policy but was sent an e-mail from Layton stating that stores "comply with the requirements of the Liquor License Act," and that they were not interested in discussing the matter on camera.

Menzies added it is ironic the LCBO places a strangle hold on the sale of liquor because it considers it a potentially dangerous and addictive substance, but that a 14-year-old burka-wearing teen can easily purchase booze at three of its stores, on the same day.


Quotas and Political Correctness: The Vice-Presidential Follies of 2012

Two weeks ago, before Matt Drudge roiled the waters by announcing that presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney would name former Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as his Vice-Presidential running mate, quiet news reports began to circulate that Romney was actively seeking a female to run with him on the Republican ticket. The Associated Press reported on July 5th, “Mitt Romney’s wife has confirmed a tidbit about the Vice-Presidential search…he’s considering choosing a woman.” (Drudge may have been reading these tea leaves before making his prediction) Despite speculation that Romney was vetting Kelly Ayotte, the conservative U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, Condi Rice won these mythical sweepstakes based on name recognition.

Despite the Rice boomlet and her expressed disinterest in the position, the fact remains that the Romney camp seems transfixed at the idea of a woman on the ticket. The question remains: Why this scramble for a female running mate? The simple answer is that we are now seeing the ill effects of the 2008 gambits with 20/20 clarity. The historic nature of an African-American candidate heading one national ticket, and a woman holding the Vice-Presidential slot on the other side set an unspoken, but ironclad precedent. From 2008 forward, a national ticket would be deemed illegitimate if a woman or a minority did not occupy one of the two slots, as a candidate for President or Vice-President of the United States.

This shift may be subtle in practice but it contains disturbing portents for the future, as it reflects a sea change in official attitudes on this subject. Traditionally, a Vice-Presidential running mate was nominated with an eye toward providing geographical balance or for shoring up a candidate’s perceived weakness in a particular area. Most Americans of a certain vintage remember Walter Mondale’s 1984 choice of the spectacularly mediocre Geraldine Ferraro as the publicity stunt that it was. Now, little more than a quarter-century later we have arrived at a point where the lords and ladies of political correctness demand a minority set-aside on presidential tickets.

In order to illustrate this new paradigm it is necessary to revisit 2008. From the beginning of the primary season that year most observers knew that the Democrats would set a precedent with an African-American or a woman at the top of the ticket. John Edwards never had a real chance of winning the nomination even before the truth concerning his evening devotions became common knowledge. The Republicans stuck to their formula of nominating a center-rightist, John McCain, who also happened to have compiled an outstanding military record. This stratagem failed with George HW Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996, but no matter. The fact that Senator McCain presented a tired, haggard image and excited no one caused a certain disquiet in GOP circles. The figures who ran the McCain effort decided that their campaign needed a good dollop of energy and zest. They got these things when they nominated Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and they got an initial burst of good press, as well. The mainstream media, however, soon decided that it was more important to elect a left-liberal as President than to give Palin a fair hearing. The comely Governor Palin was quickly ridiculed, vilified, and smeared. Who didn’t see that one coming?

Now we transition to 2012. The post-racial President is going racial. Most Democrats, and their allies in the media are peddling their “GOP is anti-woman” campaign nonsense and some Republicans seem to sense a certain degree of vulnerability. These campaign strategists see Condi Rice as an immunization elixir, simultaneously protecting them from the racism charge and the sexism charge. The fact that Ms. Rice represents no natural electoral bloc matters little to the campaign bean counters. She brings “legitimacy” to the ticket because she is a woman who also happens to be of African-American heritage.

Every Republican candidate since 1976 has been forced to run with the racism and sexism charges thrown in their path. The charge, created by Democratic strategists and advanced by their media allies, has proven to be a tiresome constant in American politics for the last full generation. Some Republican presidential candidates chose to defuse this charge by pandering, while others did not. The defamation didn’t hurt the Party in 1980, ’84, or ’88. Now, however, the world has changed and the GOP is attempting to build a foundation on the shifting sands of popular cultural standards. A national Party ticket containing a woman or a minority candidate is certainly legitimate, while a ticket consisting of two white men is somehow compromised. This explains the Republican enthusiasm for potentially good minority candidates like Senator Marco Rubio, and potentially poor ones like Condi Rice. It also explains the continually baffling Democratic Party love affair with Hillary Clinton.

It remains to be seen in the coming weeks who Mr. Romney will tab as his running mate. If it is a white male we can expect a cascade of booing, jeering and caterwauling from those who now believe that a woman or a minority must have a place on a national ticket. That we find ourselves in this position is disturbing and ominous. We can blame popular culture and big media for our predicament, but we must also remember the fateful decisions our parties made back in 2008.


Evangelical Christians more in tune with African values

The "human rights" campaigners are pissing into the wind if they think they can get Africans to approve of  homosexuals

CHRISTIAN evangelical groups in the US are attempting a "cultural colonisation" of Africa, opening offices to promote attacks on homosexuality and abortion, according to a study by a liberal think tank.

American religious organisations are expanding across the continent, lobbying for conservative policies and laws and fanning homophobia, says the Boston-based Political Research Associates.

The groups include the American Centre for Law and Justice (ACLJ), founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson, which has bases in Kenya and Zimbabwe. "The religious right [in effect] claims human rights activists are neocolonialists out to destroy Africa," the report states. Groups named in it vehemently rejected the claims.

Entitled Colonising African Values: How the US Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa, the study analysed data from seven African countries and employed researchers for several months in Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

It identified three organisations it believes are targeting the continent: Robertson's ACLJ, the Catholic group Human Life International and Family Watch International, led by Mormon activist Sharon Slater.

Each "frame their agendas as authentically African, in an effort to brand human rights advocacy as a new colonialism bent on destroying cultural traditions and values", the report says.

In the past five years, the report alleges, all "have launched or expanded Africa-based offices dedicated to promoting their Christian right world view. A loose network of right-wing charismatic Christians called the transformation movement joins them in fanning the flames of the culture wars over homosexuality and abortion by backing prominent African campaigners and political leaders."


“Danish Girls Must Learn to Behave Differently”

Our Danish correspondent Signe sends a summary of the latest news on culturally enriched rape in Denmark:

    "It makes you want to laugh or cry.

    Danish media are overflowing with Utøya memorials today. However, on page 23 in BT the following story surfaces (I’ve translated the salient parts):

        Every other convicted rapist is foreign.  Iraqis, Iranians, Turks and Somalis are dramatically overrepresented in Danish rape verdicts.

        More than every other time that judges in 2010 found a felon guilty of rape, the convict was an immigrant or Danish-born to immigrant parents, reveal the official numbers from Statistics Denmark. Specifically, 32 with Danish background, 27 immigrants and 7 children of immigrants were convicted in 2010.

    Karina Lorentzen from the Socialist People’s Party is shocked and appalled: “It is wildly concerning that immigrants and refugees are so overrepresented […] it would seem that some immigrants have not learned that in Denmark a short summer dress is not an invitation to sex.”

    She offers a socialist solution:

    “It is worth considering if Danish sexual morality should be taught in the course that immigrants and refugees take when they reach Denmark.”

    Adding insult to injury, Karin Helweg-Larsen, senior researcher at the National Institute of Public Health (and also, naturally, a socialist — she is regionally elected for the Red-Green Alliance), explains the numbers thus to BT:

    “Judges might have a subconscious tendency to acquit the fancy Hellerup-boy [Hellerup is a rich town with few immigrants – translator] and convict the young lad from Nørrebro. And Danish girls must learn that they should behave differently in relation to people from different cultures.”



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, GUN WATCHAUSTRALIAN POLITICSDISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.


No comments: