Tuesday, September 07, 2021

Candace Owens denied medical treatment as Colorado lab cancels COVID test appointment

Conservative author and commentator Candace Owens was denied medical care in the form of a coronavirus test by a Colorado laboratory because of her political beliefs, Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson reported Thursday.

Owens was sent a letter by Aspen Laboratories co-founder Suzanna Lee informing her that her "booking" was being cancelled and that she would be "denied service" because of both her aversion to governmental facemask mandates and her analysis of the effectiveness of vaccination shots.

"We cannot support anyone who has pro-actively worked to make this pandemic worse by spreading misinformation, politicizing, and discouraging the wearing of masks and actively dissuading people from receiving life-saving vaccinations," Lee wrote in the letter obtained by "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Carlson noted it has not been unusual for Americans of certain political affiliations to be "singled out, punished and denied services" – but that it is likely one of the first such cases of an American citizen being denied medical treatment on that basis.

Owens said she does not actually want to be tested for coronavirus but that because of sudden governmental restrictions on "bodily autonomy", she has to get routine tests to be able to engage in normal activities.

"First and foremost, I'd like to not have to get COVID tested, but as you brought up in your previous segment – this is one of the only ways you can maintain your bodily autonomy right now and they're saying if you do not get the vaccination then you need a COVID test to move. If you go to an event you need a negative COVID test; if you want to leave the country or fly," she said.

"So I perpetually have to get tested to prove I'm negative," Owens said, noting she has traveled to three countries and 23 states in the last two years for her work and leisure.

Owens added that Lee's refusal of services begs the question as to the rhetoric of people like her who say it is "a pandemic of the unvaccinated."

"If this is a real deadly virus – if the unvaccinated are the people that are behind this pandemic, people like me … and you really believe this, why would you prevent somebody from complying with local COVID measures and trying to get a test and do the right thing? That doesn't make sense."

Such behavior "defies the science [they] claim is so true," said Owens.

Carlson noted that there are laws prohibiting doctors from refusing medical care to illegal immigrants or people who show up at emergency rooms uninsured – but that somehow an American citizen who has chosen not to get the COVID jab can suddenly be denied the same medical attention.

"Is that legal?" he asked.

"This is not about health anymore, this is about politics," Owens replied. "These people are sadistic, they are sadists. They like to manipulate you, they like control. They don't care about public health. This is a public health crisis she would say 'you know what I hate Candace Owen but of course she is in my town I'm going to give her a test and make sure she doesn't infect anybody else.'"

Carlson said Owens is essentially being lectured because she doesn't care enough, yet she was denied a coronavirus test she was seeking to take to show she indeed cares about local laws and policies.

"You can't get a COVID test and can't have a credit card," Carlson added. "This is getting really, really dark and I hope Republican members of Congress who still have some power would stand up for their voters."


Immigration and British identity

Lionel Shriver

The Afghans the Home Office is scrambling to resettle in Britain present one of immigration’s most sympathetic cases: translators and other support workers for allied troops whose lives are potentially imperilled by Taliban revenge against collaborators. Councils are searching for big, many-bedroomed properties to rent or repurpose, as fleeing Afghan families can have a dozen members. The Home Secretary has offered to resettle 20,000 Afghans in due course.

Yet if history serves, we’ll soon see many more than 20,000 Afghans land on British shores, all of whom won’t necessarily have worked for Nato and few of whom will wait to be invited. Like those of nearly all immigrants, their stories are bound to be heart-breaking. Surely only a monster would deny such decent yet desperate people ‘a better life’. That’s the winning moral reasoning that has currently turned America’s southern border into no more than a notional scribble on a map.

In Britain, Migration Watch released two reports this summer whose key findings I will try to present as succinctly and neutrally as possible. In the past 20 years, foreign-born residents of the UK have doubled to nine million, going from 8 per cent to 14 per cent of the population. In tandem, the white British proportion of the population has fallen from 89 per cent to 79 per cent, while ethnic minorities have grown from 10 per cent to 21 per cent. Since 2001, 84 per cent of UK population growth has been due to immigrants and their children, rising to 90 per cent since 2017 — the majority non-EU.

More than a third of UK births now involve at least one foreign-born parent; in parts of London, 80 per cent of births are to foreign--born mothers. Indeed, non-UK nationals are disproportionately concentrated in British cities. The majorities of London, Slough, Leicester and Luton have an ethnic minority background. About half the births in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Cambridge are to foreign mothers.

Unsurprisingly, then, a third of British school children are already from ethnic minorities; in 20 years, ethnic-minority children will constitute more than half the students in state schools. As of 2018, 90 per cent of immigrants were under 45. That means the ethnic transformation of the UK, whose white population is far older, is destined rapidly to accelerate.

Even delivering those dry statistics feels dangerous. As for their implications, none of you readers is supposed to care. In particular, white Britons who greet those figures with anything short of delight know perfectly well to keep their traps shut. The lineages of white Britons in their homeland commonly go back hundreds of years. Yet for the country’s original inhabitants to confront becoming a minority in the UK (perhaps in the 2060s) with any hint of mournfulness, much less consternation, is now racist and beyond the pale. I submit: that proscription is socially and even biologically unnatural.

We are a political and territorial species. Although Pollyannas push us to regard ourselves as members of one big happy human family, we compulsively clump into groups. These groups claim territory and, under normal circumstances, defend it. For westerners to passively accept and even abet incursions by foreigners so massive that the native-born are effectively surrendering their territory without a shot fired is biologically perverse.

This is not all about race. Kenyans resent Somali immigrants. Black South Africans resent Zimbabwean immigrants. Colombians resent Venezuelan immigrants. Anywhere, when the proportion of the ‘other’, however they might be defined, crosses a critical and perhaps even quantifiable statistical line, people who were born in a place stop getting excited about all the new ethnic restaurants and start getting pissed off.

With no sense of irony, Mexicans resent the droves of American retirees who settle on their coasts, radically transforming the local culture and nattering along the beach exclusively in English. I’m sympathetic, too. This is normal. Call them ‘xenophobic’ if you will, but most people want to live around people like themselves. Most people are capable of hospitality towards foreigners who arrive in modest numbers, but balk when outsiders are so populous that they seem to be taking over. Most people of any race or religion do not like vast numbers of people entering their territory from elsewhere and making themselves permanently at home. This is not some sick, especially western meanness. This is what human beings are like all over the world. The blithe welcoming of their own dwindling and loss of dominion now demanded of western majorities is fundamentally inhuman.

After all, try reversing the paradigm. If white westerners were immigrating by the tens of millions to developing nations — if Liverpudlians were pouring into Lagos — the left would decry the mass migration as neocolonialism. Such white flight would be denounced as invasion — as it would be. Yet for today’s left, non-white cultures must be protected, preserved and promoted, while evil European cultures deserve to be subsumed. That version of events is neither fair nor saleable.

In the perfect world, it’s Pakistan that would have to accept still more millions of disaffected Afghans, after harbouring the Taliban for 20 years. Yet plenty of Afghans are likely to make a run for Europe. For now, most Britons will feel magnanimous towards anyone who escapes the joyless oppression of rulers who hate music — although a guilty ‘we broke it, we buy it’ obligation to welcome all-comers doesn’t pertain; Afghanistan was already broken in 2001.

Many of these refugees will be wonderful people, and all 36 million arguably persecuted Afghans could probably qualify for asylum. But in the big picture, along with the native populations of other western countries, white Britons needn’t submissively accept the drastic ethnic and religious transformation of their country as an inevitable fate they’re morally required to embrace without a peep of protest. Over a third of the residents of your capital city weren’t even born in your country — a proportion that continues to climb — and a trace of dismay would seem fitting. I’m one of those foreigners myself, and should London have become majority-American, you’d have every right to be irked.


Colorblind Is the Moral Ideal

Dennis Prager

There is little that reveals the immorality and dishonesty of the left more than its labeling the term "colorblind" racist.

Here are just a few of countless examples:

The University of California publishes a list of "microaggressions" -- terms and ideas it considers racist -- that white people should avoid using. The list includes the term "colorblindness" as well as statements such as "there is only one race, the human race."

The left's racist war on colorblindness is everywhere.

Psychology Today published an article by a psychology professor titled, "Colorblind Ideology Is a Form of Racism."

HuffPost published a piece titled, "How Colorblindness Is Actually Racist," in which the author gives three examples of statements white people make that are racist:

"I am colorblind."

"I see people, not color."

"We are all the same."

The Walt Disney Co. recommends that its white employees atone for their racism by "challeng(ing) colorblind ideologies and rhetoric" such as ... "I don't see color."

Even the U.S. Army got into the act. It sent an email to all personnel saying that the word "colorblind" is "evidence of white supremacy." (The Army later withdrew the email after a congressman threatened a federal investigation.)

I could give dozens of other examples of the left's Orwellian labelling of "colorblind" as "racist."

Because becoming colorblind is precisely what people opposed to racism should aspire to.

That is why Martin Luther King Jr.'s most famous quote, from his most famous speech, is: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

The left's position is that Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong.

But it's the left that's wrong. The colorblind person is the very definition of a non-racist person.

Here's one obvious proof: The worst racists -- defenders of slavery, supporters of Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan, just to cite American examples -- were the least colorblind people. Color is the one thing they and all racists see in people. Precisely because they defined people by their color, they justified their subjugation of black people.

Colorblind means one does not believe a person's color is in any way significant.

Isn't that the ideal? Shouldn't we define a person by their heart, mind, personality and, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, above all, character? When people, of any color, look into a mirror, do they see color? No, they don't. They see a human being. When a white person looks into a mirror, does he or she think, "Look, a white person!"? When a black person looks into a mirror, does he or she think, "Look, a black person!"?

Of course not. When we look at ourselves, we see John, or Jessica, or Tameka, or Jose. We see ourselves -- not color. Why isn't that how we would want everyone else to see us?

The left's insistence that color is important is one of the most racist and anti-human doctrines of our time. It was precisely when America was most racist that people's color was deemed most important. Why would we want to return to that time?

Why is your skin color any more important than your hair color or, for that matter, the color of your shoes?

Name one important thing your color tells others about you. You can't.

Does your color tell us if you're kind, or smart, or what foods or music you like, or what you do for a living? Does it tell us anything about the most important thing about you -- your values?

No. Your color tells us nothing about you.

So, why should anyone not be colorblind? To be colorblind means one ignores the least important thing about you. Isn't that a good thing? And isn't the opposite position -- that your race is important -- racist?

Those of us who regard the Bible as the greatest book ever written, as the greatest repository of wisdom, must be colorblind. The only thing the Bible tells us about the first human being, Adam, from whom we are all descended, is that he was created in God's image. If the Bible placed any significance on race, wouldn't it have told us Adam's color?

That there were Christians who defended slavery on race grounds only proves that there were Christians who didn't take the Bible seriously. Conversely, some Christians who did take the Bible seriously organized the first large-scale effort in world history to abolish slavery.

One final thought: Imagine that tomorrow every human being became blind. Would the world be more -- or less -- racist?


Australian State commits to religious discrimination bill

The NSW state government has committed to outlawing religious discrimination in NSW but will not act until the Commonwealth’s own promised religious freedoms bill has passed Federal Parliament.

NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman said the Coalition was ensuring its laws “reflect modern community values” by introducing a bill to add religion to the state’s anti-discrimination legislation, joining most other states and territories in providing faith-based protections.

“NSW is a proudly multicultural and multi-faith society. We’re pleased to be taking this critical step to protect people of faith and of no faith from discrimination and to support freedom of religion,” Mr Speakman said.

It is already unlawful to discriminate against a person because of a range of other attributes, including sex, homosexuality and transgender status.

The announcement follows a parliamentary inquiry spurred by amendments to the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act proposed by One Nation NSW leader Mark Latham, which in March resulted in a majority of the 14-person committee concluding his bill was mostly a useful template for reform.

As well as explicitly outlawing discrimination of a person based on religion, Mr Latham’s bill also protects people such as former Wallaby Israel Folau from action by employers and professional bodies for comments made outside the workplace that are motivated by religious belief.

Mr Folau settled an unlawful dismissal case with Rugby Australia in 2019 after his contract was terminated for repeatedly posting on social media that homosexuals were destined for hell unless they repented their sins.

The majority of the committee said the bill had attracted support from peak Christian, Islamic and Jewish bodies, however Uniting Church NSW and ACT Moderator Simon Hansford put himself at odds with other denominations in slamming the bill as heavy-handed against minorities.

“Christians are not victims in Australia because of our faith, and we should not seek freedoms that are self-serving and come at the detriment of others in the community,” he said last year.

Greens MP Jenny Leong, one of three committee members to dissent from the majority view, urged Mr Speakman to disregard the majority’s findings, saying the need to protect people because of their religion wasn’t the same as “enshrining protections for people to engage in wholesale discrimination against women and the LGBTIQ+ community under the guise of religious freedoms”.

However, the substance of the proposed law change will remain up in the air for the near future.

To ensure constitutional consistency, the state plans to wait until the federal government’s religious discrimination bill passes before finalising the details of its legislation.

Independent MP Alex Greenwich, another of the dissenters, said it was irresponsible of the government to commit to a bill with “no detail, that could adversely impact the LGBTIQA+ community at a time of great anxiety.”

“If we are seeking to protect religion in the Anti-Discrimination Act, I use that as an opportunity to end the ability of religious education institutions to discriminate against LGBTIQA+ students and teachers,” Mr Greenwich said.

In June, the Commonwealth announced a plan to introduce a religious discrimination bill by the end of the year, with church groups lobbying to have legislation enacted before the federal election.

That bill, which arose from recommendations of Howard-era attorney-general Philip Ruddock’s 2018 religious freedom review, applies limitations on employers to prohibit individuals from expressing religious views outside work, as well as changing existing discrimination protections in schools and service settings.

Ghassan Kassisieh, legal director, of LGBTIQA+ national organisation Equality Australia, said the NSW government would be “well advised to avoid the mistakes of the federal government in this area.”

“Rather than only protecting people of faith from discrimination, previous iterations of the federal bill allowed people to discriminate on the basis of religion,” he said.

NSW Minister for Multiculturalism Natalie Ward said the proposed changes would support people facing religious discrimination through state agency Anti-Discrimination NSW.

“We have a harmonious multi-faith community in NSW which is grounded in respect. It deserves recognition and protection to thrive,” she said.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)


No comments: