Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Multiculturalist (Maori) 'punched teenage rugby league referee in the face' during under-12s match because he sent off his son

The brother of former Canterbury Bulldogs star Willie Talau has been charged after allegedly punching a 16-year-old referee at a junior rugby league match.  Jucy Talau, 34, is accused of assaulting Kurt Portsmouth, 16, who had been refereeing an under-12s match in Sydney's south.

The alleged assault occurred after the young referee ruled that Talau's son had to be subbed out of the match - the junior rugby league equivalent of being sent off.

Talau allegedly attacked when the young referee made the call, leaving the teenager with bruises on his face, a broken eye socket, and fractured jaw reported Channel Seven News.

Kurt's father, Scott Portsmouth, told the Daily Telegraph that he 'never seen anything' like the incident. 'The crowd just groaned and I ran out on to the field to be with my son,' he said.

Kurt had been refereeing the junior match between the Engadine Dragons and Gymea Gorillas at Anzac Oval when he was allegedly attacked.

He was was taken to the Children’s Hospital in Randwick in a stable condition.

Talau, who is a trainer for the Gymea Gorillas, was arrested and charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He has been granted conditional bail to appear before Sutherland Local Court on Wednesday June 22.

Sutherland Shire’s Facebook page said the student from De La Salle College, was given a standing ovation when he was stretchered off the field and into a waiting ambulance.


Boris nails it

Vote Leave to take control of your family's destiny, Boris tells women: Former London mayor says 'out of control' immigration is depriving families of access to schools, homes and healthcare

Boris Johnson today warns the ‘out of control’ immigration system is depriving families of certainty over access to school places, housing and healthcare.

In a direct appeal to women voters, he says the only way for families to be in control of their own destiny is to vote to leave the EU on Thursday.

Mr Johnson yesterday insisted he was a huge supporter of immigration – and even suggested there should be an amnesty for illegal workers who have been in the UK for 12 years or more.

But in an exclusive Daily Mail interview, he said uncontrolled EU immigration was preventing the public sector from properly planning to ensure there are enough schools, GP surgeries and homes.

He warned that – in turn – this is depriving families of the ability to plan for the future of their children.

Mr Johnson said: ‘It is about control. It is about security, safety of your country and your economy and being in charge.

‘You want to be able to manage your household yourself, you want to be able to manage how things work pretty exactly.

‘If we take back control of immigration we can help local authorities plan for vital services. That will mean that young people will have a better chance of getting on the housing ladder and there will be less pressure on school places or the NHS. At the moment the system is out of control and no one can plan effectively.’

He added: ‘It will take time – but if you have an immigration system that is based on the needs of the economy rather than just a doctrine and ideology of free movement, I think you get to plan better.

‘You’re thinking about your kids and whether they are going to be able to afford a home. That is of great importance. Whether your kids can be part of an economy that is outward-looking and mobilised – able to do deals with growth economies not locked into the EU.

‘I’d be thinking where is Britain going – what is it going to be like for us in 20 or 30 years’ time. Are we going to be part of this very closed system or are we going to take back control and really set our priorities?’

Mr Johnson dismissed the doom-mongering of David Cameron and the Remain camp, saying: ‘I have seen no evidence of an economic shock.’ He went on: ‘The only way to end this tidal wave of gloom from the Government is to vote Leave.

‘I think the negativity is very intense and I do not think it is doing anybody’s mood much good. If I were them I would not have fought the campaign this way.’

At a rally in London yesterday, Mr Johnson said the way to ‘neutralise’ extremist views in Britain was for the country to regain control of its borders. He said those who ‘play politics’ with immigration would be silenced if the UK was able to take charge of a ‘completely out of control’ system.

The former London mayor also repeated previous calls for an amnesty on illegal immigrants who have been here for more than 12 years.

He said: ‘If we take back control of our immigration system with an Australian-style points-based system, we’ll be dealing fairly and justly with every part of the world and we will be neutralising people in this country and across Europe who wish to play politics with immigration and who are opposed to immigrants. That is the way forward.’

Mr Johnson said the TV cameras would turn to ‘[European Commission president] Jean-Claude Juncker celebrating with what looks suspiciously like champagne, and then go to Peter Mandelson and the rest saying the way is now clear for Britain to join the euro’.

He added: ‘We will have missed a fantastic opportunity for change and improvement for Europe and this country ... We cannot vote for a status quo, with the EU morphing relentlessly into a superstate, with activist judges making decisions including who can be on our streets whether they are terror suspects and convicted criminals or not.’

Attacking the Remain side, he added: ‘They endlessly say we can’t do it, we daren’t do it, we mustn’t do it – and we say that we can.’

A group of powerful US Congressmen yesterday said Britain will be at the ‘front’ of the line for a trade deal in the event of Brexit.

The 11 politicians demolish a central plank of the case that Britain will not be able to trade freely with the world outside the EU.

In a letter to President Obama, they also attack him for his ‘misguided effort’ to try to bully Britain into a vote to remain.

In April, Mr Obama made the extraordinary threat that we would be at the ‘back of the queue’ for a trade deal – even though his presidency is nearly over.

The signatories to the letter include Devin Nunes and Pat Tiberi, two former chairmen of Congress’s Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade.

Their letter states that while a Brexit vote ‘may open new opportunities for cooperation with our British friends’, it ‘will not diminish any of our vital ties’ . It adds: ‘For us, Britain stands at the front of the line.’


Why Speaking the Truth About Islamic Terrorism Matters


I had planned to weigh in on the slaughter in Orlando right after it happened, but a sense of nausea intervened.

There was plenty of nausea to go around. You might think that the chief catalyst would be the scene of slaughter itself: the nearly fifty revelers at a gay nightclub dead, and scores more wounded by a single jihadist.

In a normal world, the spectacle of that carnage would have been the focus of revulsion. I confess, however, that the repetition of such acts of theocratic barbarism these past few decades has left me somewhat anesthetized.

The long, long list of "Islamist terrorist attacks" that Wikipedia maintains comes with this mournful advisory:

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.

Indeed, and alas. Take a look at that list: one thing you will note -- apart from the fact that the terrorist attacks are correctly denominated as "Islamist" terrorist attacks -- is that most years include more attacks than the years before.

There were some 35 in 2014. I stopped counting at 100 for 2015.

So my initial reaction to the news from Orlando was a mixture of anger, outrage -- and weariness. "Here," I said to myself, "we go again."

First came the casualty figures. Twenty dead. No, make that 30. Wait, it's 40, no, 50 dead and scores wounded, many gravely. And the murderer? The world held its breath and the media prayed: Please, please, please make him a white Christian NRA member, or at least a crazed white teenager.

No such luck. Omar Mateen was the 29-year-old scion of Afghan immigrants. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Right off the bat his father assured the world that he was "saddened" by the massacre (wasn't that nice?) and that Omar was "a good son." Religion, he said, had "nothing to do with" his son's rampage. He was just "angry" at gay people. So he suited up and headed down to the Pulse nightclub where he methodically shot some 100 people. Oh, and Mateen père has supported the Taliban, and claims to be running for the presidency of Afghanistan. (Cue the theme music from The Twilight Zone?)

It did not take long before the media realized that none of its preferred narratives was operative.

There was a flicker of hope that Mateen might at least be a gay-hating nearly white male (shades of George Zimmerman, the "white Hispanic"). But, no, although Mateen himself might, according to his ex-wife and others, have been gay, he had pledged himself to ISIS. He had also, in fact, attracted the interest of the FBI. It had interviewed him twice but decided that there was nothing to see here, move along please.

In most respects, this act of Islamic slaughter was a matter of déjà-vu all over again. There was the wrinkle that the Pulse, unlike the nightclub in Bali or the concert hall in Paris, was patronized mostly by gays. But homosexuals are only one of many groups that Islamists wish to exterminate. (Hence the Arab slogan "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people," which can be seen and heard through the Middle East. First we'll get rid of the Jews, then the Christians.)

And this brings me to the chief source of my nausea in response to the massacre in Orlando: the rancid, untruthful, politically correct nonsense emitted by the MSM and their chief pet, Barack Obama.


Does it matter how many women sit on corporate boards?

by Jeff Jacoby

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER REPORT bewailing the number of women on corporate boards of directors. According to a tally released on Tuesday by Catalyst, a nonprofit group that focuses on women in the workplace, 27 percent of new appointments to the boards of companies listed on the Standard & Poor's 500 Index in 2015 went to women. That boosted to 20 percent the total share of women serving as directors at S&P 500 companies.

Catalyst gloomily describes these findings as "dismal." The group's president, Deborah Gillis, laments that "men continue to be overrepresented, holding more than their fair share of board seats and, in some cases, all the board seats."

Professional pessimists can always be counted on to find the clouds in a clearing sky, especially when it draws media attention. Catalyst's annual census of women on corporate boards routinely generates a bumper crop of headlines about how little headway has been made in diversifying boardrooms by sex. But is "dismal" really the right word for the advance of women onto boards of directors?

In 2015, according to Catalyst, only 2.8 percent of S&P 500 companies, just 14, had no women on their boards. One decade earlier, those numbers were more than four times as large: Twelve percent of the S&P 500 — 60 companies — had all-male corporate boards in 2005. And the shift is accelerating. As of this week, the number of corporations on the S&P Index with no female directors is down to eight.

Continuity and stability tend to be highly valued in the makeup of corporate boards. Less than 10 percent of directors' seats turn over in a typical year. So the fact that one-fifth of all board members at the nation's biggest companies are women — a percentage that keeps rising, slowly but steadily — signifies not a persistent and inflexible "glass ceiling," but the vanishing of a cultural hurdle that was once as common as hoop skirts and dance cards.

To some gender warriors, of course, the situation will remain "dismal" until the share of women on corporate boards matches the share of women in the population. Gillis's complaint that men have more than their "fair share" of board seats reflects the fallacy that the sexes would be equally represented in institutions and occupations if only discrimination, whether overt or institutional, weren't in the way.

But it's no more logical to expect parity between men and women in boardrooms than to expect it in professional athletics (where men tend to earn far more than women), or in the awarding of college degrees (where women outperform men). Notable gender disparities exist in everything from imprisoned criminals (overwhelmingly men) to single home buyers (overwhelmingly women). Obviously there was a time when blatant sexism and outrageous double standards made it all but impossible for women to climb the corporate ladder. In 2016, however, women run some of the nation's largest and most influential companies — General Motors, IBM, PepsiCo, Xerox. It is hard to make a convincing case that an entrenched and toxic patriarchy is blackballing women from the ranks of the business world's elite.

Today, any company that would exclude a highly talented woman from its top ranks out of pigheaded male chauvinism would only be harming itself. It would be putting itself at a disadvantage to any competitor shrewd enough to recognize and embrace the excluded executive's value. Indeed, many gender-diversity advocates now make their case not just in the language of fairness, but in terms of profitability.

In 2012, for example, Morgan Stanley launched an investment fund — Parity Portfolio — which restricts its holdings to corporations with at least three women on their corporate boards. "Extensive research . . . reveals a correlation between gender diversity on corporate boards and company financial strength," the fund's strategy statement says. The evidence of that relationship, Parity Portfolio's co-creator Eve Ellis told The Wall Street Journal, should be too clear for any company to ignore: "More diverse boards have stronger financials."

If she's right, her fund will have no trouble attracting investors and keeping them happy. But the evidence that more female board members means higher corporate profits is murky at best.

In a recent paper for the Journal of Social Issues, Northwestern University professor Alice Eagly analyzed the many studies that test whether more women directors can be linked to a stronger bottom line. What she found was that the boldest claims of a connection were usually based on the "least informative studies, which are those containing only simple group comparisons." Other papers, more academically rigorous, found neutral or even negative correlations between gender diversity and financial performance. Either way, what no study has managed to nail down is causation. It may be that more women are named to boards of companies that are already more successful — that their appointment, in other words, is a result of financial strength, not a cause.

At all events, it trivializes gender equality, in the corporate world or anywhere else, to be reduced to nothing but a body count. What should concern those who value male-female diversity is not whether 20 percent or 40 percent or 60 percent of board members are women, but whether 100 percent of women with the drive, aptitude, and skill to be corporate executives can pursue that goal on the same basis as men with similar drive, aptitude, and skill. In the aggregate, women may be less likely to set their sights on the corporate boardroom or CEO's corner office. So what? All that matters is that arbitrary gender restrictions not hold back individuals who are drawn to a career in business leadership — and that arbitrary gender quotas not be allowed to warp the judgment of those who are responsible for directing America's corporations.



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: