Tuesday, August 07, 2018


The Muslim grooming gang whistleblower finally wins his freedom.

The jailers of newly freed human rights activist Tommy Robinson deliberately subjected him to inhumane treatment behind bars in England, according to independent journalist Ezra Levant of the Canadian news website, TheRebel.media.

The goal of the authorities seems to have been to silence Robinson, perhaps permanently.

“Tommy has endured two months as a genuine political prisoner, and I say that thoughtfully,” Levant said. “I don’t want to throw around the word political prisoner. Britain is still a great liberal democracy, but not in the case of Tommy Robinson, they weren’t.”

Robinson's lawyers, Carson Kaye of London, released a statement celebrating his release: "The rule of law and the right to a fair hearing are fundamental to every individual and this ruling [is] an example of the procedural safeguards of our system, and its potential for protecting every citizen equally."

Robinson, a tanning salon owner and anti-Islamization activist whose real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, was taken into custody May 25 when he reported outside Leeds Crown Court. Robinson had been trying to bring transparency to an opaque legal system distrusted by the public. The 35-year-old married father of three used his smartphone to live-stream on Facebook the arrival of accused rapists on trial for acts allegedly committed while being part of a so-called Muslim grooming gang.

The filming of the alleged pedophile rapists infuriated trial judge Geoffrey Marson Q.C. because he had imposed a ban on publishing news from their criminal proceeding. Within five hours Robinson had been railroaded and sentenced to 13 months in prison.

But on Wednesday a judicial panel headed by Baron Burnett of Maldon, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, quashed Robinson’s contempt of court conviction and ordered him released on bail. The Court of Appeal ordered that Robinson be released pending a fresh trial on the contempt charges before a different judge.

Reporting from the U.K., Levant said the appellate tribunal found that Marson was wrong to rush through the contempt trial and made many serious errors.

Marson failed to provide sufficient particulars of the contempt allegation, which meant Robinson did not know what case he had to meet. Because of the extreme rush, Robinson didn’t have sufficient time to work with counsel to prepare a defense. In fact, the proceeding was so expedited he had to rely on a public defender –as opposed to his own regular lawyer— who had no time to prepare. The appeals court questioned the appropriateness of the 13-month sentence and found it was wrong of Marson to hand it down so quickly without sober reflection, Levant said.

According to a three-page summary of the decision provided by the appeals court: “The order at Leeds Crown Court was also erroneously drawn up to suggest the appellant had been convicted of a criminal offence rather than having been committed for contempt of court.”

Marson’s mistakes were grave. "Errors like this have serious consequences upon the classification of prisoners, resulting in the deprivation of privileges and release on licence."

According to Levant, Robinson’s “brutal incarceration, solitary confinement, and the constant threats of violence he faced in prison, all flow from the errors of the judge in Leeds.”

Initially, Robinson was sent to Her Majesty’s Prison Hull, which is “one of the safer prisons in the U.K. for Tommy,” Levant said. “By safer I mean it is not dominated by Muslim prison gangs.”

But then a faceless bureaucrat in the prison system ordered Robinson transferred to the much tougher, Her Majesty’s Prison Onley, which is “a much more Islamized prison,” he said.

According to Levant:

Because there’s only reason to move Tommy from a safer prison to Her Majesty’s Prison Onley and that is either to get Tommy killed at the hands of a Muslim prison gang, or to force him to do what they knew he would do because he’s done it before – to request to be put into solitary confinement to save his own life. But the thing is you cannot live for 13 months in solitary confinement. You'll go mad. It would be regarded as torture. But that’s where Tommy was placed.

Levant continued:

Prisoners would regularly be given access to the front of Tommy’s cell and they would open up the flap to his cell and shout at him threats. And this was permitted by the prison. It’s obviously a form of psychological torture. Let me give you more examples. There is also a window in Tommy’s cell for a breeze in the hot summer. The prisoners were permitted to go up to the window and spit into Tommy’s cell which is a form of assault and battery and it's gross and it’s psychologically abusive so Tommy had to shut his window in this particularly hot British summer.

Distressingly, Levant added, “On at least three occasions his cell door was accidentally not locked. Accidentally, eh?”

Reviled by the Left and milquetoast Conservative Party leaders like Prime Minister Theresa May, Robinson has been trying for years to raise awareness about the Islamization of the U.K.

The deck is stacked against those skeptical of Islam. In the United Kingdom the police now monitor statements on social media and jail those who express frowned-upon sentiments. In the U.K., Big Brother is no longer just something from George Orwell’s prophetic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Political correctness and fears of being smeared as racist or Islamophobic have led authorities in the United Kingdom to downplay or ignore sex crimes committed by unassimilated, misogynistic Muslims who rape Britons. From the 1980s to the 2010s, as many as 1,400 Britons, mostly white girls, were raped largely by Muslim men in Rotherham, England. In recent years Muslim rape gangs have been uncovered in Rochdale, Telford, Aylesbury, Banbury, and in many other British communities.

To no one’s surprise, Britons do not trust their government to deal with such grooming cases fairly or protect the public from such sexual predators. British politicians worship at the altar of multiculturalism and would rather protect criminals from victims.

And this seems to be why the British authorities felt they needed to silence Robinson.


On the Constant Hunt for Fresh Outrage

It’s a perfect mess befitting our imperfect age. The New York Times announced it was hiring a Sarah Jeong to join its editorial board. A respected reporter on technology and the internet, Jeong is Asian-American.

Nanoseconds later, a number of her objectively racist tweets emerged. “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” reads one. “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins,” she mused in another.

Jeong, issued a statement explaining that she was satirically “counter-trolling” at racists who attacked her. She says her comments were not intended for a “general audience.” As someone who’s been subjected to vicious anti-Semitism from trolls, I’m inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Meanwhile, The New York Times issued its own statement saying it would stand by its decision to hire her, but that “type of rhetoric was not acceptable” at the Times.

One reason this episode is difficult to look at in isolation is that it is just one episode in a long-running series, with any number of spin-offs. Roseanne Barr lost her hit TV show for posting something racist on Twitter. One of the people who led, or at least joined in, the virtual mob was Hollywood director James Gunn, who tweeted during that controversy: “Roseanne is allowed to say whatever she wants. It doesn’t mean @ABCNetwork needs to continue funding her show if her words are considered abhorrent.”

Two months later, Gunn’s own past offensive tweets were unearthed and he lost his job directing the “Guardians of the Galaxy” franchise.

Old tweets aren’t the only thing that can ignite a digital prairie fire of protest.

My friend Kevin Williamson was hired by The Atlantic and before he could figure out where the bathroom was, a comment he made on a podcast — that was deliberately misconstrued — was held up like Caesar’s bloody toga to incite the shock troops of social justice. The Atlantic fired him.

The back and forth reprisals resemble a mob war. And each time, the decision to fire — or not fire — invites entirely legitimate charges of hypocrisy, which prime the kindling for the inevitable next bonfire.

That’s one reason why I think the Times’ leaders are correct to stand by Jeong, even though they open themselves to the hypocrisy charge (In February they hired Quinn Norton, another technology reporter, and then immediately un-hired her when some of her offensive tweets were weaponized).

The idea of free expression traces itself back to the Peace of Westphalia, which put an end to the continent-wide, tit-for-tat religious wars that wracked Europe for centuries. Simple exhaustion and the acceptance of “the essential futility of putting the beliefs of the mind to the judgment of the sword,” in the words of C.V. Wedgwood, led the West to grudgingly accept the right to be wrong.

Admittedly, the analogy is flawed in several ways. But the lessons for everyone are relevant. We live in a time when partisan affiliation and ideological worldviews serve as substitute religions. And if we’ve learned anything from the last few years, the capacity for outrage on the left and right is near infinite. There’s nothing wrong with forcefully expressing disagreement, but the constant hunt for scalps will leave everyone bald and bloodied.

Newspapers, magazines, and other businesses have every right to hire and fire whomever they want, but if they do hire someone, they should stand by their decision until the new employee does something worthy of firing while employed by them, not because a mob chooses to weaponize something they said in the past. And even then, they should make the decision on the merits, not simply to appease jackals. Obviously this can’t be an inflexible law, but it should be the rule of thumb.

At the same time, people shouldn’t tweet — or say — indefensibly stupid, racist or dumb things on the assumption that only “their people” will see it, hear it or process it in precisely the way the author intended. The Internet has made it impossible for such “narrowcasting” to stay narrow. As Jeong has learned, we all live in one “general audience” now. Again, it can’t be law: people shouldn’t hold themselves hostage to the most excitable and humorless among us. But it’s a worthy principle.

And so is this: We should all save our outrage for when it’s really needed.


San Francisco to BAN COMPANY CAFETERIAS: ‘Another Stupid Plan For The Most Expensive City In The USA’

Typical Leftist Jealousy at work.  If everybody can't have it, nobody can

SF is already the most expensive USA city to live in . . . Now This.  San Francisco city supervisors are proposing new legislation that will ban new company cafeterias; hoping to shore up “failing restaurants” near major office buildings.

More micro-legislation to destroy a once thriving city

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Supervisors Ahsha Safaí and Aaron Peskin are the co-sponsors behind the proposal, which would prohibit new construction sites from building “employee cafeterias.” The legislators believe the low-cost lunches are having an adverse impact on local restaurants.

“The idea here is to bolster, not only the restaurant business, but other ground-floor retail businesses that are suffering.”

“This is another way to help support small businesses,” said Peskin. “We don’t want employees biking or driving into their office, staying there all day long and going home. This is about getting people out of their office, interacting with the community and adding to the vibrancy of the community.”

According to Hannity.com, the proposal was harshly rejected by the San Francisco business community, whose employees view low-cost or free meals as a corporate benefit.

“Food in the workplace plays an important role,” said one executive. “All of that helps company culture, and it also helps companies create an attractive environment.”


Carnivore diet: Jordan Peterson and his daughter, Mikhaila, say eating only beef cured their depression

For those familiar with the world of Jordan Peterson, it may come as no surprise that he is a red-blooded carnivore. I do not mean that as some kind of intellectual metaphor. Yes, the Canadian psychology professor turned lifestyle guru to millions of young men worldwide has always regarded intellectual pursuits as something of a blood sport, but now he has become evangelical about his diet. “I eat beef, salt and water. That’s it,” he says. Or rather, meat seasoned with the controversy he finds so appetising.

For Peterson has joined the new fashion for a “carnivore” diet, claiming it saved him from his lifelong depression. This comes just as mainstream medical bodies are becoming more concerned about our red meat intake, which is associated with cancer among other diseases.

The idea that someone would go to the other extreme and eat only red meat is so countercultural as to be somewhat delicious, and that is of course just the way Peterson, scourge of political correctness, likes it. You can imagine him being deeply suspicious of quinoa — thinking it some kind of liberal conspiracy. Or having a problem with salad — as being perhaps too feminist. Peterson is the kind of person who can make breakfast political. Of course, he dines in a manner that is radical and retrograde, but, in fact, his feasting like a tiger in a zoo opens up a fascinating and fast-evolving field of new medical research into the neglected area of depression and diet.

“I need less sleep. I’m not anxious, not depressed,” Peterson said last month with the air of someone reeling from a miracle, and in fact the beef and water diet is so ascetic as to feel semi-religious. “I am intellectually at my very best at the moment. The depression is gone.”

What do we know so far about diet and depression? I spoke to half a dozen medical researchers in the field and the consensus is that we do not know enough. What we are just learning is that diet probably will turn out to have a significant impact on mental health, be it because of foods that cause inflammation or starve a healthy gut microbiome.

Mikhaila Peterson is Jordan Peterson’s 26-year-old daughter and the inspiration for his radical diet. She has an Instagram account subtitled “Beef, salt, water and bourbon = cured” and a food blog called Don’t Eat That, subtitled “Many (if not most) health problems are treatable with diet alone”, in which she chronicles her and her father’s remarkable recovery from depression and anxiety. He now wakes without a feeling of doom, she reports jubilantly, and adds, in Peterson defiance mode, “F*** you, world — we won.”

This all makes Mikhaila the poster girl for the carnivore-diet movement, gaining traction among a similar crowd who already idolise Jordan, the highly influential bestselling author of 12 Rules for Life, whose YouTube videos have been viewed more than 50 million times. Mikhaila has also done a lot of YouTube interviews. Yet what I find so appealing when I talk to her is that she knows that what she is doing sounds weird and can laugh about it. “Sounds absolutely insane,” she says, and she knows there is no medical evidence to back it up. She laughs when I say her family have become “reluctantly kooky”.

“Yes. Totally. I was always really sceptical about diet. I thought it was for silly Californian girls. My father certainly did not want to get into this. He was always against diet as a solution because there was no hard scientific evidence linking to diet. At the beginning he was, like, ‘I’m not even going to mention this — it’s too weird.’ Now I’m literally eating the most extreme diet I’ve ever heard of. It’s absurd.” She laughs again.

She looks gorgeously healthy and has a baby daughter, who is nearly one year old (and, by the way, survives only on meat and breast milk), but from infancy Peterson was very ill. She had severe juvenile rheumatoid arthritis that degenerated to the point that she had to have a hip and ankle replacement at the age of 17 and suffered chronic, severe pain. Given the new research into the link between depression and inflammation, it’s no surprise that, as a sufferer of an inflammatory illness, she developed depression in her late teens. It became so crippling that she could not finish university. She became “desperate to try anything” and began eliminating food groups. She remembers typing “allergic to everything” into Google. Then “allergic to everything except meat”. She says that she discovered “beef is what makes me feel the best”. She fries strips of it with “just salt. Pepper doesn’t work.”

Mikhaila Peterson knows there is no medical evidence to back up her claims about the benefits of the carnivore dietMikhaila Peterson knows there is no medical evidence to back up her claims about the benefits of the carnivore diet

Oh, I say, not even a few grains of pepper? Some tea? “No,” she says. “Nothing else. Just sparkling water.” She reports that since January her depression and arthritis have resolved. Her doctors, she says, believe the results are a “placebo effect”. She, by contrast, thinks that her microbiome is unsuited to anything other than meat. She knows this goes against every “eat your greens” dietary guideline — “Completely, yes.” She has not yet got scurvy, she says, and adds that most studies showing meat to be unhealthy find it hard to get around the problem of meat-eaters generally living unhealthily in other ways.

So far, the results of research into the relationship between diet and mood look conflicting. In some, vegetarians were less depressed; in others, more. One study from Bristol University last year found vegetarian men were more likely to be depressed and an Australian study in 2014 found that women who ate little meat were twice as likely to be depressed as others. These were counteracted by a much larger meta-analysis last year that found that “meat consumption may be associated with a moderately higher risk of depression”.

Really, they tell you little until you start testing diet in the same way as you would a drug, with randomised control trials. It is universally accepted that there are way too few of these in the case of depression, but last year Professor Felice Jacka, the director of the Food and Mood Centre at Deakin University in Australia, randomly assigned depressed patients to either visits from social workers or the Mediterranean diet (their medications remained the same). A third of the diet group improved significantly, as opposed to 8 per cent of the non-diet group. The diet they followed was high in olive oil, nuts and vegetables, but restricted lean red meat to no more than three times a week. “The immune system, brain plasticity and gut microbiota seem to be central not just to our physical health, but also our mental health,” Jacka said.

What about the Masai and the Inuit, though? This is the cry of the meat champions, Michael Mosley warns me. Mosley is a doctor and broadcaster with a special interest in diet and health; he once put himself on an experimental high-meat diet. “Everyone talks about the Masai, but the idea that they exist on meat and blood is based on some very dodgy observations in the 1940s; it’s a myth,” he says. It’s the same with the Inuit, whose high-blubber diet gives them just as much or more heart disease as the rest of us. Mosley’s research for his new book, The Clever Guts Diet , shows that your microbiome feeds on fibre “and you are not going to get that from meat”. A healthy microbiome in your gut produces special fatty acids that are anti-inflammatory. “That depression and anxiety is linked to inflammatory foods is strong in animals and emerging in humans.”

James Hébert is a professor of epidemiology at the University of South Carolina who for the past decade has been researching the connection between health and the foods that cause an inflammatory response in the body. He told me that all of his and his colleagues’ studies showed that “increased meat intake led to a higher risk of depression. There was a dose response.” This, he says, came as a shock.

“Of course, colorectal cancer was the most strongly associated with inflammatory foods, which makes perfect sense,” Hébert says, “but I have to emphasise how surprised I was to find such a strong relationship with depression.”

His work aligns with emerging theories about depression and inflammation. Herbert now restricts his meat intake to special occasions. His team’s research suggests that “we can provoke the same outcome on mental health as stress by messing with diet”. By “messing” he means reducing vegetables and wholegrains and upping sugar and meat.

Emma Morano was one of the longest-living women in history; she died at 117, cheerful to the last. Her diet was surprising. She subsisted on biscuits and three eggs a day and, when she turned 100, added raw mince with a little pasta. She was famed for her good cheer, so is not a great example for the “anti-inflammatory” diet proponents, but Professor Valter Longo likes to tell her story anyway.

Longo is the director of the University of Southern California Longevity Institute and the author of The Longevity Diet. He is famous for his research into fasting, diet and longevity. “Meat is nearly absent from the diet of the longest-lived people in the world,” he says. Sardinians traditionally eat meat less than once a week, “and lead long, very happy lives”.

Drawing together what we know so far, Longo says that “a diet with a lot of meat is the worst you could follow” and as a result he gave it up decades ago. However, he acknowledges that individuals such as Jordan and Mikhaila Peterson, “with a particular genetic condition”, can buck the trend.

Longo says there’s a twist, though. Research shows that a low-protein diet is good for you up until the age of 65, he says. Then your inflammatory response to meat seems to drop, and the protein and iron may be useful. As an Italian, Longo is a friend of Morano’s doctor, Carlo Bava. Bava was the one who suggested to Morano that she up her meat intake in her second century. “When you get to 100, meat may start to be a really good idea.”



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: