Sunday, April 02, 2017

Heal From Your ‘Toxic Whiteness!’

Some seriously disturbed people.  It's self-hatred that is toxic

Even among the crazy alt-left, "Everyday Feminism" has a bad name. A Slate article described EF as, “the website that encompasses everything insufferable about social justice culture.”

That’s an understatement. It includes sections on “Privilege,” “Trans and GNC” (Gender Non-Conforming), and of course, “Fem 101.” Like most alt-left sites, it’s not just pro-LGBT. It’s strident to the point of hating straight people. In fact, you almost have to apologize for being white, male and straight just to go to their moronic website.

EF is a big list site: “6 Ways to Love Yourself When You’re Undocumented in the US,” – remember “You are a magical human being.” Or “6 Affirmations for Trans Folks Who Don’t Feel ‘Trans Enough’” – “Your body doesn’t determine what your gender is.” But my favorite item at EF is “Healing from Toxic Whiteness – an online training program for white people commited [SIC] to racial justice.”

For just $97 (or you might get a scholarship!) you can learn “that the US has deeply normalized white supremacy and is built on a foundation of systemic oppression.”

Actual quote: “You may be finding yourself coming to terms with just how prevalent and harmful white supremacy is – and how your white privilege has kept you ignorant and in denial of this reality in the first place.” If you are a white guy reading this, you are doubly toxic!

Actual quote two: “Similar to toxic masculinity, toxic whiteness is something that was created by white supremacy and done to white people.” So go try to learn your Compassionate Activism today!


No to 'Racial Impact Statements'

The Federalist Society blogsite has an interesting post by James Scanlan on proposed legislation in New Jersey that would require racial and ethnic impact statements for any legislative measure that affects pretrial detention, sentencing, probation, or parole policies. Mr. Scanlan notes that racial-impact-statement laws have already, alas, been enacted in Connecticut, Iowa, and Oregon and that similar legislation has recently been introduced in Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Wisconsin; and, what’s more, frequently the legislation addresses not just post-arrest and conviction policies, but what is made criminal in the first place.

Mr. Scanlan does a wonderful job of pointing out how this law is methodologically flawed and practically unworkable, and we’d like to elaborate briefly on why the whole approach is bad policy and probably unconstitutional as well.

There are, for starters, no laws that don’t have a disparate impact on some racial or ethnic group — tax laws, antitrust laws, environmental laws, criminal laws, you name it. In the criminal context, this is because human beings don’t commit crimes in the same exact proportion that their particular racial or ethnic group is to the general population, and indeed those proportions change over time.

And what is the government supposed to do with this information, anyway? What it should do, of course, is ignore it: Criminal laws should be written without regard to race, and let the chips fall where they may. It is disturbing to contemplate a legislature carefully crafting a law with an eye on racial and ethnic outcomes; such race-based decision-making is precisely what the Constitution enjoins, and its presence will only encourage lawsuits.

But obviously there is an expectation here that the disparities will be addressed and, in some way, diminished. There are two ways that this might be done, both bad.

The first is not to make some type of behavior illegal that should be illegal because it is dangerous or in some other way bad for the community. This will be unfortunate for the public generally, and especially for those who live in the area where the activity is going on — most often, poor urban areas with high crime rates. But as is often the case, the Left appears more concerned with the race of the perpetrator than it is with the race of his or her victims, even though they are usually the same.

The second way to deal with a predicted disparity is to tweak the law so that more white (or, likely, Asian American) people are arrested, too. That’s probably not what the ACLU has in mind, but one could see an effort to bundle together two bills so that there is racial “balance”: the original one that had a disparate impact on blacks, say, and a second one written not because it is really needed but so that it has a disparate impact on whites. So, for example, a bill that increased penalties for some of the types of street crime that happen in poor, inner-city neighborhoods would be combined with a bill that increased penalties for some types of white-collar crime.

The next white-collar criminal prosecuted under that law would then have a ready-made challenge, namely that the law being applied to him was passed with racially discriminatory intent. That’s unconstitutional.

According to the crime statistics amassed by the FBI for 2015, it is an unfortunate, and politically incorrect, fact that African Americans commit crimes at a greater rate than other racial and ethnic groups including Asian Americans, whites, and Hispanics. But the reason for this is that too many African Americans grow up in homes without a father and live in broken and dysfunctional communities; and those problems will not be solved, and indeed will be exacerbated, by the Left’s ignoring and excusing this reality and instead insisting that any disparity is due to “institutional racism” in our criminal justice system.


California Shoots the Messengers

California has charged two pro-life journalists with 15 felonies — essentially for committing acts of journalism. Two years ago, David Daleidan and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress made undercover videos to expose Planned Parenthood's practice of selling and profiting from the body parts of aborted babies. The videos shocked much of the American public and brought about renewed calls for a congressional investigation and government defunding of the nation's largest abortion mill. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a former Democrat member of Congress, leveled charges against the two journalists for secretly recording conversations with those involved in Planned Parenthood's aborted baby-parts selling scheme. "The right to privacy is a cornerstone of California's Constitution, and a right that is foundational in a free democratic society," Becerra declared. "We will not tolerate the criminal recording of confidential conversations."

This story stinks of unabashed partisanship, cronyism and government tyranny. Former California AG Kamala Harris, a long-time supporter of Planned Parenthood, chose not to investigate the damning evidence found in the videos, but instead focused her investigation on the pro-life journalists. During the investigation Harris secretly worked with Planned Parenthood to craft legislation designed to protect the organization. Harris has since been elected to the U.S. Senate where she is a staunch advocate for Planned Parenthood, which just happened to help fund her campaign.

California's case against Daleidan and Merrit is suspect at best. The undercover videos were recorded in public areas. Arguably it was done under false pretenses, but that was necessary for candid discussion. Even during one of the recorded discussions, top Planned Parenthood executive Deborah Nucatola says it's not a good idea to talk about the selling of aborted baby parts in a "non-confidential setting."

If found guilty on all felony charges, the two Daleidan and Merrit could be looking at up to 15 years in prison. The abortion industry is clearly seeking to use the force of government to put fear into those who would dare to expose and endanger their vile business. The Left will stop at nothing to protect its most sacred cow — abortion.


Australia: Urfa Masood to be Victoria's first female Muslim magistrate

Will sharia principles creep into her verdicts?

Victoria has appointed its first Muslim woman to the bench.

Attorney-General Martin Pakula on Tuesday morning announced the appointment of Urfa Masood to the Magistrates' Court of Victoria.

Ms Masood, who is of Sri Lankan background, will be the first Muslim woman to sit on the bench of any Victorian court.

Ms Masood started practising criminal law in 2003 and has worked for the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and the Australian Tax Office. She has worked cases in the Magistrates', County, Children's, Family and Federal Courts.

In 2012 she became an adjunct lecturer at the College of Law, where she teaches advocacy.

Mr Pakula congratulated Ms Masood on her new position, saying she brought to the role extensive experience in criminal and family law.

"Ms Masood has extensive experience in criminal law, child protection and family law, as well as with the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, which will prove invaluable in her role as a magistrate," he said.

Annette Vickery, deputy chief executive of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, said it was important to have magistrates with an understanding of the issues facing Aboriginal communities.

"The Aboriginal Legal Service has long been recognised as a development ground for exceptional legal talent and we congratulate one of our previous staff members on her appointment to the bench," she said.



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: