Marvel launches its first Muslim superhero on TV screens: Pakistani American called ‘Kamala’ who shapeshifts hits Disney

Marvel has cast its first ever on-screen Muslim superhero for an upcoming Disney+ series.

Iman Vellani, 18, will play Kamala Khan, who goes by the pseudonym Ms. Marvel, in the groundbreaking TV show, and Marvel bosses are reportedly planning to feature her in future films.

The character is a 16-year-old Pakistani American from New Jersey with shapeshifting powers and was Marvel’s first Muslim character to headline her own comic book.

Iman, herself the daughter of Pakistani Muslim immigrants in Canada, gushed on Instagram: ‘Speechless and excited! Wish me luck. #msmarvel.’

Created in 2014, Kamala develops ‘Inhuman’ genes in the aftermath of the ‘Inhumanity’ storyline and assumes the mantle of Ms. Marvel from her idol Carol Danvers after Danvers becomes Captain Marvel.

Adil El Arbi, Bilall Fallah, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, and Meera Menon will direct the show, according to Deadline.

Hugo Award-winning writer G. Willow Wilson – who penned the relaunched Ms. Marvel comics – tweeted of Vellani: ‘She is the real deal.’

The president of Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige, reportedly plans on using Iman in both the series and future Marvel films which might mean fans get to see Oscar winner Brie Larson play Captain Marvel in her show.

‘I just saw they cast Ms. Marvel and legit got teary eyed,’ Oscar nominee Kumail Nanjiani – who’s also a proud Pakistani-American Muslim – tweeted.

‘Congratulations Iman Vellani! Your work is going to mean so much to so many people, myself included. I can’t wait.’

Not much is known about the teen sensation, who directed two short films (available on Vimeo) and served on the Toronto International Film Festival’s Next Wave Committee last year.

SOURCE

Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Down Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s Pandemic Powers

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Friday that Governor Gretchen Whitmer had no authority to issue executive orders relating to the pandemic beyond April 30.

Whitmer had defied the Republican legislature which had been seeking to rein in Whitmer’s draconian response to the coronavirus, which included barring Michigan residents from moving between homes in the state or using motorboats, and stopping stores from selling carpeting, flooring, furniture, garden supplies, or paint.

Now the state Supreme Court has ruled those orders illegal.

CNN:

But the Michigan Supreme Court Friday ruled that Gov. Whitmer did not possess the authority under the EMA to re-declare a state of emergency or disaster based on the pandemic and that the EPGA was an “unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution.”

“Accordingly, the executive orders issued by the Governor in response to the Covid-19 pandemic now lack any basis under Michigan law,” the justices’ opinion reads.

This is exactly what Republican legislators had been arguing for months: Whitmer did not have the authority to supersede the legislature, even in an emergency.

The Supreme Court scolded Whitmer for her executive overreach.

Washington Examiner:

It notes a wide variety of businesses that had to close as a result of the orders, including “restaurants, food courts, cafes, coffeehouses, bars, taverns, brew pubs, breweries, microbreweries, distilleries, wineries, tasting rooms, clubs, hookah bars, cigar bars, vaping lounges, barbershops, hair salons, nail salons, tanning salons, tattoo parlors, schools, churches, theaters, cinemas, libraries, museums, gymnasiums, fitness centers, public swimming pools, recreation centers, indoor sports facilities, indoor exercise facilities, exercise studios, spas, casinos, and racetracks.”

“These policies exhibit a sweeping scope, both with regard to the subjects covered and the power exercised over those subjects. Indeed, they rest on an assertion of power to reorder social life and to limit, if not altogether displace, the livelihoods of residents across the state and throughout wide-ranging industries,” the ruling continues.

Long after other states had begun to relax the stay-at-home restrictions, Whitmer maintained her iron grip on the state. There was a petition to remove her from office and large, noisy — and armed — demonstrations were held at the Capitol building that scared the pants off Democrats and the media, although the protesters were never a threat to anyone.

The Michigan Supreme Court issued its opinion at the request of the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

The district court had asked the justices “to resolve questions concerning the constitutional and legal authority of the Governor to issue executive orders over the past six months limiting public and private gatherings, closing and imposing restrictions upon certain businesses, and regulating a broad variety of other aspects of the day-to-day lives of our state’s citizens in an effort to contain the spread of this contagious and sometimes deadly disease.”

It followed a lawsuit filed by three medical centers against Whitmer in federal court challenging her executive order that prohibited nonessential procedures during the pandemic.

How many other governors overreached but haven’t been called out on it? In Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzker had the state’s Democratic-dominated Supreme Court in his pocket, which ruled he had not overstepped his authority despite measures similar to Whitmer’s. But many states resisted challenges to the governors’ lockdown orders, claiming the emergency meant they could do anything they wanted to. They were backed by public health officials who wouldn’t know a Constitution from a scalpel. So Americans were brought to heel by measures that many Americans resisted but too many supported.

SOURCE

Laurence Fox says he is boycotting Sainsbury’s for ‘promoting racial segregation and discrimination’ after it announced support for Black History Month

Laurence Fox has accused Sainsbury’s of ‘promoting racial segregation and discrimination’ and said he will be boycotting the supermarket chain after they promoted Black History Month.

The actor, who recently announced he was launching his own political party to ‘reclaim British values, denounced the supermarket on Twitter.

He said: ‘Dear Sainsbury’s

‘I won’t be shopping in your supermarket ever again whilst you promote racial segregation and discrimination. I sincerely hope others join me. RT’

It came after Sainsbury’s announced they would be marking Black History Month, an annual celebration of achievements of the black community, recognising the central role black people have played in history.

The supermarket says it’s aim is to be ‘the most inclusive retailer’ where ‘every single one of our colleagues feels safe and supported at work’.

The company said it is actively pushing for change for black people in the UK and want all their customers and colleagues to be themselves and feel celebrated when they shop at Sainsbury’s.

In a statement, Sainsbury’s said: ‘We are proud to celebrate Black History Month, together with our Black colleagues, customers and communities and we will not tolerate racism.

‘We proudly represent and serve our diverse society and anyone who does not want to shop with an inclusive retailer is welcome to shop elsewhere.’

Fox told his 239,000 Twitter followers that despite it being his closest supermarket, they would not be getting his custom until they ‘address their regressive and segregationist policies’.

His response sparked debate on Twitter with some backing his views while others said Sainsbury’s tweet had had the desired effect.

Laurence Fox and his past controversies

January 16, 2020: Fox was involved in a heated debate with the academic and ethnicity lecturer Rachel Boyle after she called him ‘a white privileged male’ on BBC’s Question Time.

The 41-year-old accused Ms Boyle, an academic at Edge Hill University on Merseyside, of ‘being racist’ after she called him ‘a white privileged male’ for denying the Duchess of Sussex was hounded from Britain for being mixed-race.

As the row continued the following day he quoted Martin Luther King’s 1963 ‘I have a dream’ speech about living in a nation where children ‘will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character’.

He said: ‘This is the position I took last night and I live by in life. If you can improve on it, I’m all ears. Or you can keep screeching ”Racist!” at me and I can carry on having a jolly good giggle at your expense. The tide is turning’.

January 17, 2020: The actor later went on to reveal that he does not date women under the age of 35 because they are ‘too woke’ and many of them are ‘absolutely bonkers’ during an interview with the Delingpod podcast.

During the podcast , Fox said that he called off a relationship with a former partner because she praised a Gillette advert which highlighted ‘toxic masculinity.’

January 23, 2020: Fox apologised for his comments about the inclusion of a Sikh soldier in the First World War film 1917 by Sir Sam Mendes.

The actor had initially referred to ‘the oddness in the casting’ of a Sikh soldier and was met by widespread criticism by historians who confirmed that Sikhs had served in the British Army.

Fox later tweeted: ‘Fellow humans who are Sikhs, I am as moved by the sacrifices your relatives made as I am by the loss of all those who die in war, whatever creed or colour.

‘Please accept my apology for being clumsy in the way I expressed myself.’

June 18, 2020: In a piece for the Spectator, Fox, questioned if Meghan Markle stepped down as a working royal because she did not get the ‘limelight’

In September 2020, Fox said that he had been ‘cancelled’ by fellow actor Rebecca Front because she had blocked him on Twitter over his use of the ‘All Lives Matter’ counter-slogan in response to the Black Lives Matter movement.

Fox later apologised for revealing this through tweeting a private text conversation between the pair, in which Front had explained her reasons for blocking him.

One wrote: ‘Beautifully put! I cannot believe how wrong Sainsburys has got this.

‘This idiocy has to have come down from Board level. Really feel for their staff – how the hell do they handle this?’

Another posted: ‘Sainsbury’s say they don’t want racists using their shop and racists doing exactly what they have asked by going elsewhere, bants’

A third penned: ‘Will be making sure I pop there much more than I did before – will be a bigot free store by the state of the comments here.’

His website states: ‘Over many years it has become clear that our politicians have lost touch with the people they represent and govern. Moreover, our public institutions now work to an agenda beyond their main purpose.

‘Our modern United Kingdom was born out of the respectful inclusion of so many individual voices. It is steeped in the innate values of families and communities, diverse in the truest sense but united in the want and need to call this island home.

‘The people of the United Kingdom are tired of being told that we represent the very thing we have, in history, stood together against.

‘We are all privileged to be the custodians of our shared heritage. We can reclaim a respectful nation where all are included and none are ashamed to have somewhere to call home.’

He added: ‘I have been so encouraged by the support I have received by those wishing to add their voices to this reclamation of our values.

‘Our country is now in desperate need of a new political movement which promises to make our future a shared endeavour, not a divisive one. This is now my endeavour.’

Fox, who has been a fierce critic of the BBC, sparked controversy when he said suggestions of ‘racism’ over how the Duchess of Sussex was treated in some quarters was ‘boring’.

He also hit out at black and working class actors for complaining about the industry once they have ‘five million quid in the bank’.

A Westminster source said the new party is a version of UKIP for the culture wars and believes it could attract hundreds of thousands of unhappy Conservative voters.

Sources close to Fox said the party does not see itself as strictly left or right wing but will be a broad church.

Reclaim so far has three objectives, which include protecting free speech, reforming publicly funded institutions, and preserving and celebrating Britain’s cultural history.

Planning has been underway for the last two months and backers include former Tory donor Jeremy Hosking.

Staff are already being recruited for the party after Fox was launched into the political arena after his performance on Question Time in January.

Laurence Fox announced last month that he was launching a new political party called the Reclaim Party in a bid to ‘reclaim British values’.

The actor, 42, has received substantial sums from former Tory donors and hopes to stand dozens of candidates across the UK.

The Lewis star says he wants to provide a movement for people who are ‘tired of being told that we represent the very thing we have, in history, stood together against’.

He hopes to launch the party next month and the name is subject to the Electoral Commission’s approval.

SOURCE

Australian government cuts refugee places by thousands

The Morrison government has slashed the maximum humanitarian intake by thousands on the basis it is too difficult to bring refugees into Australia in the same numbers as before the coronavirus pandemic.

The humanitarian intake was reduced from 18,750 places to 13,750 over the next four years in Tuesday’s budget.

Asylum seeker advocates have slammed the move, which is expected to save almost $1 billion, saying the country should be accepting more refugees at a time when its net overseas migration will drop by hundreds of thousands a year.

But the government insists the number of humanitarian places had to be slashed because of international travel grinding to a halt and refugee services around the world being significantly impacted.

Most of Australia’s refugees are taken through the UNHCR’s resettlement program – meaning they have to fly here from other countries to get to Australia.

The humanitarian intake will still be reviewed every year, allowing the government to return the cap to pre-pandemic levels if the global situation improves.

The change will keep Australia as accepting the third-highest number of refugees via the United Nations resettlement program, behind the United States and Canada.

Acting Immigration Minister Alan Tudge said the new cap was in line with last year’s outcome of 13,171 and reflected the “global impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic”.

“The government will continue to focus on settlement and integration support for humanitarian entrants,” Mr Tudge said.

“This will include prioritising supporting people in work and improving English language skills.”

Opposition immigration spokesman Andrew Giles said the reduction in the humanitarian intake was a “very big change”.

“And while we are in very novel and uncertain circumstances it does require a proper explanation and then a very serious examination,” Mr Giles said.

“Who will be the next Frank Lowy, Majak Daw or Anh Do that Australia will miss out on due to the Morrison cuts to our humanitarian program?

“We can recover from COVID-19 and continue to provide a lifeline to people in need – like Frank, Majak and Anh who have contributed so much.”

Australia’s collapse in overseas migration and a falling fertility rate has forced Treasury to downgrade the nation’s population forecasts by about one million over the next two years, which is a long-term blow to economic growth.

Amnesty International campaigner Shankar Kasynathan said the government’s decision was “inhumane and makes no sense”.

“Throughout COVID-19, refugees across Australia have gone above and beyond to help their communities get through these difficult times,” he said.

“Instead of seeing these people as a financial burden, this government should be welcoming them with open arms.

“It’s the humane thing to do; it’s also, economically and for our communities, the most sensible thing to do. When refugees move to regional communities like Wagga Wagga and Armidale they restart their lives and in doing so support schools, infrastructure and businesses.”

SOURCE

---

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.
`