Monday, July 22, 2019

Conservative Christians Denounce APA's Promotion of Polyamory, Swinging

As a libertarian, I don't care what other people do between the sheets but I can't think trios will ever have much of a following

The American Psychological Association's (APA) decision to establish a "Consenual Non-monogamy Task Force" to promote "polyamory, open relationships" and "swinging" as normal sexual behavior was condemned by the Catholic League and the Ruth Institute, respectively, as a form of "mental breakdown" and another step in a long march "to normalize aberrant sexual behavior between adults."

"The APA is not a scientific body—it is an activist organization in service to sexual libertinism," said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. "The latest APA endorsement of polygamy and swinging (and my favorite, the all-inclusive 'relationship anarchy') was announced this month as part of the APA's 'Non-Monogamy Task Force' program; it says it is promoting 'inclusivity.'"

"It has not yet endorsed bestiality (which is no doubt a tribute to the animal rights folks), but who knows what lies beyond the bend?" said Donohue. "That may be next. Isn't that what 'inclusivity' is all about?"

Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse said, "In plain English, 'non-monogamy' means multiple concurrent sexual partners, sometimes known as polyamory.... The APA’s position is that as long as sex is consensual, no judgement should be attached. In the #MeToo era, we have learned just how thin a reed 'consent' can be. This idea that individuals are entitled to whatever sex life they want, regardless of the consequences, is a basic belief of the Sexual Revolution."

"In the past half-century, this has been a recipe for disaster, as statistics on divorce, out-of-wedlock births and fatherless families show," said Morse.

Earlier this month, the American Psychological Association disclosed that it had launched the "Division 44 Consenual Non-monogamy Task Force." The purpose of the task force is to promote awareness and inclusivity about consensual non-monogamy and diverse expressions of intimate relationships," said the APA.  "These include but are not limited to: people who practice polyamory, open relationships, swinging, relationship anarchy and other types of ethical non-monogamous relationships."

The APA clarifies that its goal is to make sleeping round with multiple partners in a variety of situations, i.e., swinging, acceptable. "Finding love and/or sexual intimacy is a central part of most people’s life experience," stated the APA. "However, the ability to engage in desired intimacy without social and medical stigmatization is not a liberty for all. This task force seeks to address the needs of people who practice consensual non-monogamy, including their intersecting marginalized identities.”

Back in 1973, the APA followed the lead of the American Psychiatric Assocation to declare that homosexuality was no longer a form of mental illness, although there was no new scientific evidence to back up that change. In 2009, the APA rejected the idea that homosexuals could alter their behavior through gay conversion therapy.

"Let's face it, the APA leadership is actively pushing the radical gay agenda, the goal of which is to eradicate the cultural basis of Western civilization, namely the Judeo-Christian ethos," said Donohue.  "Their ideology is so entrenched that they are unable to see the psychological and social damage that is done to everyone, especially women and children, when a sexual ethic based on restraint is destroyed. And have they not learned of the body count attributed to lethal sex practices?"

"Since the 1970s, the APA helped to normalize aberrant sexual behavior between adults," said Dr. Morse, Ph.D. "No one has stopped to ask about the long-term price children have paid, and that society continues to pay. Now it’s taking that one step further, by trying to get the pubic to accept multiple sexual partners. If they succeed, children and society will pay a steep price."

Dr. Morse futher asked, “What happens when little Johnny comes home and finds Mommy in bed with a strange man? If she explains to him that the relationship is ‘consensual,’ and Daddy knows about it, will that lessen the emotional trauma? What about the rights of children? Will their consent be sought too?"

Dr. Morse’s latest book is The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies are Destroying Lives (and how the Church was Right All Along).


Miss World America Strips Conservative Activist Kathy Zhu of Miss Michigan Title Over Her Refusing to Wear Hijab

Miss World America has stripped beloved conservative commentator Kathy Zhu of her Miss Michigan title over “insensitive” political tweets and her refusing to wear a hijab during a leftist campus event in 2016.

The heartbroken 20-year-old University of Michigan student posted screenshots of the email and text exchanges that she had with MWA’s State Director Laurie DeJack on Twitter.

In the exchanges, DeJack continuously declared that there was a “problem” without explaining the situation to a clearly increasingly worried Zhu.

Eventually, she finally revealed that one of the issues was a tweet in which Zhu declared that the majority of black deaths are caused by other black citizens.

DeJack also sent Zhu an email demanding that she return her crown and sash, as well as remove any mention of having participated in MWA from all of her social media.

The organization also took issue with an incident in which Zhu refused to allow an activist to put a hijab on her head during an event on campus.  [so you can be ordered to wear a religious garb against your will, or else?]

Zhu responded by saying that “what is ‘insensitive’ is that women in the Middle East are getting STONED TO DEATH for refusing to obey their husband’s orders to wear hijabs.

A Muslim woman tried to FORCIBLY put a hijab on my head without my permission. I tweeted about it on my social media, and it got the attention of the media. Almost everyone was supportive of me refusing to be put in that situation.”

Following her refusal to wear the hijab, angry Twitter users had attempted to get the Chinese-American student expelled from her university.

“Are the people in MWA implying that they advocate for the punishment of women who refuse to wear a hijab?” Zhu asked DeJack.

Zhu refused to back down or bow before them throughout her email response.

“I am completely disheartened by this situation. I was so excited to represent the state of Michigan and advocate for ‘don’t be afraid to speak your truth’ as my main statement. For them to take my title away due to right-leaning tweets shows that they only want pageant girls to have brainless statements like ‘world peace’ and not meaningful ideals that would actually make a difference,” Zhu told The Gateway Pundit.

The Gateway Pundit has reached out to MWA for comment and will update this article if one is provided.


Things Haven’t Always Been This Way:  The decline of civility

Walter E. Williams

Here’s a suggestion. How about setting up some high school rifle clubs? Students would bring their own rifles to school, store them with the team coach and, after classes, collect them for practice.

You say: “Williams, you must be crazy! To prevent gun violence, we must do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of kids.”

There’s a problem with this reasoning. Prior to the 1960s, many public high schools had shooting clubs.

In New York City, shooting clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training, and Stuyvesant high schools. Students carried their rifles to school on the subway and turned them over to their homeroom or gym teacher. Rifles were retrieved after school for target practice.

In some rural areas across the nation, there was a long tradition of high school students hunting before classes and storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars, parked on school grounds, during the school day.

Today, any school principal permitting rifles clubs or allowing rifles on school grounds would be fired, possibly imprisoned.

Here’s my question: Have .30-30 caliber Winchesters and .22 caliber rifles changed to become more violent? If indeed rifles have become more violent, what can be done to pacify them? Will rifle psychiatric counseling help to stop these weapons from committing gun violence?

You say: “Williams, that’s lunacy! Guns are inanimate objects and as such cannot act.”

You’re right. Only people can act. That means that we ought to abandon the phrase “gun violence” because guns cannot act and hence cannot be violent.

If guns haven’t changed, it must be that people, and what’s considered acceptable behavior, have changed. Violence with guns is just a tiny example.

What explains a lot of what we see today is growing cultural deviancy.

Twenty-nine percent of white children, 53% of Hispanic children, and 73% of black children are born to unmarried women. The absence of a husband and father in the home is a strong contributing factor to poverty, school failure, crime, drug abuse, emotional disturbance, and a host of other social problems.

By the way, the low marriage rate among blacks is relatively new. Census data shows that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults from 1890 to 1940. According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year only 11% of black children and 3% of white children were born to unwed mothers.

In 1954, I graduated from Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin High School, the city’s poorest school. During those days, there were no school policemen. Today, close to 400 police patrol Philadelphia schools.

According to federal education data, in the 2015-16 school year, 5.8% of the nation’s 3.8 million teachers were physically attacked by a student. Almost 10% were threatened with injury.

Other forms of cultural deviancy are found in the music accepted today that advocates murder, rape, and other vile acts. In previous generations, people were held responsible for their behavior. Today, society at large pays for irresponsible behavior.

Years ago, there was little tolerance for the crude behavior and language that are accepted today.

To see men sitting while a woman was standing on a public conveyance was once unthinkable. Children addressing adults by their first name, and their use of foul language in the presence of, and often to, teachers and other adults was unacceptable.

A society’s first line of defense is not the law or the criminal justice system, but customs, traditions, and moral values. These behavioral norms, mostly imparted by example, word-of-mouth, and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error.

Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society.

Today’s true tragedy is that most people think what we see today has always been so. As such, today’s Americans accept behavior that our parents and grandparents never would have accepted.


Polish towns are declaring `LGBT-free zones' while the ruling party cheers them on

KIELCE, Poland - Pop music accompanied about 1,000 rainbow-draped activists as they embarked on this city's first-ever LGBT rights march last weekend. But the music could barely drown out the boos from bystanders.

The marchers proceeded past banners that compared gays to pedophiles. They pressed on in the face of counterprotesters making threatening gestures and Catholics praying on the sidewalks in silent protest.

The scene reflected a growing tension in this country - between a burgeoning rights movement and a conservative backlash. It's a tension that the ruling party has been accused of fueling and exploiting.

Regional party officials have pushed to declare cities and entire provinces in the country's conservative southeast "LGBT-ideology free." Activists have counted around 30 such declarations so far.

Ahead of fall elections, the ruling Law and Justice party has thrown its full weight behind a campaign that is marginalizing Poland's LGBT community, its critics say.



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


Sunday, July 21, 2019

Pin The Male And The Honky

 Mike Adams

Dr. Kimberly Cook, a Sociology and Criminology professor at UNC Wilmington, has written an op-ed piece that ostensibly seeks to explain the high rates of “violence in low-income communities” in our hometown of Wilmington, North Carolina. Under normal circumstances, I ignore political screeds written by my Marxist colleagues. However, this recent op-ed is so mired in intellectual incompetence and academic dishonestly as to require a column-length response.

Cook begins her op-ed by saying that “As a criminologist, (she) can offer some insights into this persistent problem (of violence in low-income communities).” By reminding people she is a criminologist she seeks to establish credibility. But she destroys her credibility in the next sentence by adding that, “arrest and incarceration exacerbate the problems” she is addressing.

When Cook eschews incarceration, she draws no distinction between petty offences such as drug possession and more serious crimes of violence such as murder, which have been on the upswing in Wilmington’s low-income neighborhoods. Hence, her suggestion that arresting people and incarcerating them would be detrimental raises some serious red flags. Were I the editor of our local Wilmington McTimes, I probably would have passed on Cook’s request to publish her “expert” commentary.

Continuing to speak “as a criminologist,” Cook states that another cause of violence is “a heteronormative masculinity that celebrates dominance, power and control.” This is the kind of socio-babble that offers nothing of relevance in the realm of public policy. No one would seriously suggest we encourage “homo-normative masculinity” or “hetero-normative femininity” as a means of controlling crime.

Cook also laments that the upswing in crime in Wilmington’s low-income neighborhoods is due to the fact that, “economic opportunity is not available.” The main obstacle she faces here is, of course, the evidence. While crime has been increasing in these neighborhoods, economic opportunity has also been on the upswing. While the nation is experiencing rapid economic growth, we are also seeing the lowest black unemployment rates in decades. There has been no downward shift in economic opportunity, which would explain the sudden uptick in crime in lower-income Wilmington neighborhoods.

Fortunately, Cook does recognize - at least at some level - how the crimes of her fellow Democrats have affected our community. She states that “Still, our community remains wounded by historical harms of racialized violence (the violence of slavery; the 1898 coup and massacre).” For those not from Wilmington, the 1898 massacre was a political coup perpetrated by white supremacist Democrats against black Republicans. But it has absolutely nothing to do with current rates of violence in poor black communities.

Cook only mentions these historical factors because she simply cannot communicate at length without blaming societal ills on whites and males, unless of course, the males are gay. The proclivity for identity politics is in her genetic code as a Marxist feminist revolutionary. As preposterous as they may be, her suggestions that slavery (ended in 1865) and the Wilmington race riot (of 1898) are somehow responsible for the high rate of violence in low-income minority communities in 2019 must be explored. So please allow me to speak as a criminologist who is not a disciple of Karl Marx.

Other nations, such as France, kept national crime statistics prior to the American Civil War. But the United States did not do so until the early 1930s. Hence, it is difficult to measure the effects that slavery and local political events of the late 19th century had on rates of violent crime. We can, however, use the statistics to pin the blame on other atrocities carried out by the Democrats. (While you consider these statistics, please note that the Democrats launched the War on Poverty in the 1960s).

For the first two full decades for which we have official crime statistics – the ‘40s and the ‘50s - we see that the homicide rate among black males fell dramatically. That drop was 18 percent in the 1940s and 22 percent in the 1950s. Then, the black homicide rate suddenly shot up by 89 percent in the 1960s.

Thus, to clear thinking people, Cook’s analysis of black crimes rates is more hysterical than historical. Rational minds simply cannot attribute this huge increase in black crime in the 1960s, which occurred nationwide and in Wilmington, to the “legacy of slavery.”

Nor did increases in homicide among blacks have anything to do with terrorist acts committed by white Democrats against black Republicans around the turn of the century. Cook has simply identified the wrong Democratic atrocity. She should be focusing on the War on Poverty, which resulted in skyrocketing rates of black illegitimacy. When that war began, families headed by only a single mother raised about a fifth of black children. Within a third of a century, families headed by only a single mother became the normal environment in which black children were raised.

But Cook cannot speak honestly on this issue because she supports welfare. She also supports slavery reparations. So she has to ignore the more recent data in order to make demonstrably false insinuations about the legacy of slavery. In a nutshell, she is not interested in addressing realities. She is interested in maintaining visions.

Sadly, this is more than professional incompetence on Cook’s behalf. She is knowingly advancing a false narrative. In her op-ed, she states, “For example, we know that prior to 1898 African Americans here owned homes and successful businesses, and there was a thriving African American middle class.” But that was after the Civil War. So the legacy of slavery argument does not hold water.

Nor does she have the moral authority to condemn the riots of 1898, which were perpetrated by her political party and which resulted in blacks having their property taken away. She states that, “The generations to follow lost the inherited prosperity that would have come to them had the massacre never happened.”

This would seem to be a strong moral condemnation of taking people’s property with force. But Cook is a Marxist. Thus, her political ideology revolves around taking other people’s property with force. At least Professor Cook isn’t a racist who would take property only from blacks. Seeking equality, her fellow Marxists would take it from everyone.

Cook furthers her intellectually dishonest brand of identity politics by stating that, “we need to acknowledge that most violent crime is perpetrated by men and boys. We also have to acknowledge that young African American and Latino men have shockingly high rates of violent victimizations.” She could have also stated the obvious point that:

Other African American and Latino men commit the vast majority of these crimes against African American and Latino men.

But Cook will not say that because she is committed to only repeating statistics in a manner that denigrates men and panders to racial minorities.

Cook concludes her manifesto with this glib suggestion: “Let’s establish and fund a truth and reconciliation program to better understand and address the historical harms of racism in our city. And let’s deliberately cultivate a version of masculinity that promotes peace and responsibility, repairing the harm inflicted on our children.”

I have a better idea. Let’s reject the ideas of incompetent Marxist feminists who distort history in an effort to advance failed visions.


Tommy Robinson: 'Our Free Speech and Our Rights Are Disappearing in the UK'

In a final interview the day before being imprisoned for nine months on contempt of court charges, British activist Tommy Robinson spoke to MEF Sentry Radio on June 10. The charges stem from his livestream reporting in March 2018 outside a courthouse where members of the predominantly Muslim Huddersfield rape gang were on trial.

Under the 1981 Contempt of Court Act, British courts have the power to impose reporting restrictions on the media when "necessary to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the case." However, Robinson told MEF radio that this law has been used to cover up what he calls a "massive epidemic" in Britain:

[I]n this country, 90% of the convictions for child gang rape, [by so-called] "grooming gangs" are Muslim men. 2% of the population is Muslim but they are responsible for 90% of the convictions. ... So this is a massive epidemic across our country. What we saw over a 12 month period was 72 investigations in towns and cities that were identical. They are all Muslim gangs. They use taxis, they use pizza shops, they use their businesses as honey-pots to trap the children in. They offer them free food, they give them drugs, they give them alcohol and then they enslave them. ... Multiple children have been murdered.

For the past decade, he said, there has been a "conspiracy of silence" about the epidemic by government and media elites who

don't want the public being aware of this problem because of their utopian world they are trying to create with open borders and mass immigration. These are the realities that come with some of the cultures that are imported. These are the problems that come, the intolerant views towards women, the intolerant views towards non-Muslims.

Their reaction, he says, has been to "cover it up." The judiciary has been a useful tool for this:

What we now see in our courts is rather than keep 12 members of the jury in the dark over issues, we keep 60 million members of the British public [in the dark], unlike in America. What they now do is for every single one of these trials they put a reporting restriction where no one can even mention that there is a court case on. Now that doesn't make any sense at all ... How can you prejudice a jury by simply saying there is a trial?

The specific allegations against him don't hold water, insists Robinson, particularly concerning his questioning of defendants as they entered the courtroom for sentencing:

[The] charge is that I caused anxiety to the convicted Muslim child pedophiles by asking them the question, "how do you feel about your verdict?" I was calm. I was polite. They said that that caused them anxiety that could have impeded the course of justice because they might have felt worried about coming to court. They don't worry about coming to court because they have been raping children. They shouldn't have had bail anyway and been walking the streets. They have all been convicted.

Robinson alleges that this selective prosecution has more to do with his growing influence than the details of his case:

Now I have become the most watched journalist in the UK very quickly. I had 9 million people watch my videos in a 4 week period. 172 million read my tweets in a 4 week period. So I have become very strong as a journalist and I am the most famous journalist in the UK. And now they are not in control of the narrative anymore or the stories that are going out and now I am going straight to the truth, straight to the facts.

A 2014 UK Law Commission report concluded that "the current [reporting restrictions] notification system is unreliable and inconsistently applied."

Robinson notes that he took great pains to operate within the letter of the law.

He scoured the Leeds Crown Court website and found no reporting restrictions for the case, then visited the court itself and "was told they don't know."

Finally, he adopted what he assumed to be a fail-safe method of respecting any restrictions that might be in place:

[I]t states on the judiciary's own website that a judge has no power under section 4.2 of the reporting restriction guidelines to put a reporting restriction on any information that is already in the public domain. ... Even though I couldn't find any evidence of reporting restrictions I wanted to err on the side of caution. So I literally stood outside and read a BBC news article. But what they said in court is, "No, that's not right. What it says on the website, that's not right, that's not the law."

"They are lying saying I jeopardized the trial," insists Robinson, emphasizing that in both this case and in a similar grooming gang case for which he was convicted of similar charges in 2017, judges ruled that his broadcasts did not compromise the proceedings.

It has been proven in two courts that nothing I have done could have prejudiced the jury. I have not been convicted of nearly collapsing the trial. I have not been convicted of prejudicing the jury. I have been convicted of causing anxiety to child rapists by asking them a simple question.

The "corporate globalist media" has willfully ignored all of this, instead spreading the lie that his broadcasts nearly caused both trials to collapse. He finds it curious that this assault comes as major social media have de-platformed him:

They will lie to everyone and now that that I have been completely removed from all social media. I had the biggest reach of any political Facebook page in Britain. I have been deleted from all of them – Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook – so my reach to tell people actually to look at the facts is gone. They now completely control the narrative.

Robinson said his freedom of speech shouldn't depend on whether one agrees with his controversial views on Islam and immigration:

The fight for freedom of speech shouldn't come to politics on who thinks what and who disagrees with whom. This is a fundamental right. And the fight now is the left is celebrating the fact that our free speech and our rights are disappearing in the UK. The media are celebrating, Journalists are celebrating on about me being in prison for journalism.


We’re told that too much screen time hurts our kids. Where’s the evidence?

If you had attended the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ international congress in London last week you could have been forgiven for coming away with the following thoughts. Addiction to Fortnite, the online game, is a real disorder; social media is depleting “our neurotransmitter deposits”; and “excess screen time has reduced our attention span to eight seconds, one less than that of a goldfish”.

Scary stuff! Only problem is, none of these claims is supported by facts or a drop of scientific evidence.

Fears that the digital world is harmful have proliferated for years. Narratives about smartphones, social media or video games causing mental health problems are especially popular. Rarely a month goes by without former tech luminaries turning on their creation, or the launch of a book cataloguing the negative or addictive impacts of digital technologies.

There are subtle variations, but the core idea peddled by these moral entrepreneurs and gurus follows a well-worn script. It includes headline-grabbing ideas – smartphones are destroying a generation, say, or Silicon Valley founders are pushing digital heroin while sending their own children to tech-free schools, or apps are driving teens to self-harm or even suicide.

However, in a world witnessing ecological destruction, political polarisation and growing social divides, should fears about technology really occupy the limited space in the forefront of our minds? Concerns about smartphones might fade away in the coming decade, just as anxieties about video arcades, Dungeons & Dragons and Elvis’s hips did in previous generations.

Unfortunately, the accelerating and highly lucrative hyperbole – of course, there are books to sell, detox clinics to market, speaking tours to book – has left us no closer to an answer to the key questions. Essentially, do digital technologies actually harm our children? And should we, as a society, act rapidly to stop this? The basic idea underlying these genuine concerns – one of us writes also as a parent – is that time spent on digital devices negatively affects young people; kids forgo “organic” opportunities for face-to-face socialising, opting instead for lower quality experiences such as app-based Snapstreaks or TikTok reactions.

As the story goes, a steady digital diet of this social “junk food” isn’t psychologically nutritious and it crowds out wholesome analogue experiences. Consequently, young people are falling prey to the innovative technological and psychological tricks of the all-powerful puppet masters of Silicon Valley.

While it is true that some research suggests that young people who report higher social media use show slightly lower levels of wellbeing, most of these findings are unreliable and their conclusions might amount to little more than statistical noise.

These problems are well known to scientists working on the topic, but many commentators don’t know – or don’t care – that they are cherry-picking from an evidence base riddled with errors. What’s more, sitting in on the psychiatry conference in London, you’d have had no way of knowing this is shoddy science. Instead of speculating about technology effects, we need to test how social media and life satisfaction influence each other and to do so over time. To that end, for our work (published recently in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), we focused on a sample of more than 10,000 preteens and teens, analysing nearly a decade of longitudinal data collected from British adolescents.

Each year, teens and preteens rated their social media use and told us how satisfied they were with aspects of their life. We were interested in testing both whether changes in social media use over time actually preceded shifts in life satisfaction and whether such changes influenced subsequent social media use. In simple terms, are you more likely to “use” if you’re happy or sad?

What did we find? Well, mostly nothing! In more than half of the thousands of statistical models we tested, we found nothing more than random statistical noise. In the remainder, we did find some small trends over time – these were mostly clustered in data provided by teenage girls. Decreases in satisfaction with school, family, appearance and friends presaged increased social media use, and increases in social media use preceded decreases in satisfaction with school, family, and friends. You can see then how, if you were determined to extract a story, you could cook up one about teenage girls and unhappiness.

But – and this is key – it’s not an exaggeration to say that these effects were minuscule by the standards of science and trivial if you want to inform personal parenting decisions. Our results indicated that 99.6% of the variability in adolescent girls’ satisfaction with life had nothing to do with how much they used social media.

But instead of seeing these results as disappointing – as they might be in a journalistic story sense – in science the lack of an expected finding is inherently valuable, making us reconsider, challenge and update our notion of how social media is affecting us.

Where do we go from here? Well, it’s probably best to retire the idea that the amount of time teens spend on social media is a meaningful metric influencing their wellbeing. There are many good reasons to be sceptical of the role of Facebook, Snapchat and TikTok in our society but it would be a mistake to assume science supports fears that every minute online compromises mental health. In fact, this idea risks trivialising and stigmatising those who struggle with mental health on a daily basis.

Moving beyond screen time to explain the interplay between technology and the wellbeing of our adolescent population requires us to face some tough questions. It’s all well and good to remember “neurotransmitter deposits” aren’t a thing, and this goldfish nonsense has been repeatedly debunked. But it remains the case that we don’t understand fully the impact of big tech on our society.

The fact is that much of the data that would enable scientists to uncover the nuanced and complex effects of technology is locked behind closed doors in Silicon Valley. Until Google, Facebook and the large gaming companies share the data being saved on to their servers with every click, tap or swipe on their products, we will be in the dark about the effects of these products on mental health. Until then, we’ll all be dancing to the steady drumbeat of monetised fear sold by the moral entrepreneurs.


'Tell them to make their own breakfast

Famous children's author John Marsden slams Aussie helicopter parents for doing 'irreparable damage' to their kids by telling them they're perfect

One of Australia's most prolific authors has spoken out against what he perceives as the 'disempowerment' and' impotence' of today's youth through damaging parenting.

John Marsden, most known for his Tomorrow When the War Began series, has written a non-fiction book entitled The Art of Growing Up where he shares some of the insight he from 30 years of writing for young adults.

Mr Marsden said the country is in the midst of an 'epidemic of damaging parenting' which will likely have long term ramifications.

He wrote the number of parents who don't just love their children but are 'in love with them' had reached 'critical levels'.

As a result Mr Marsden believes parents could be passing on their own narcissism.

'They minimise their child's transgressions, have no regard for those hurt by their child's narcissism … and blame others for their child's aberrant behaviour. They are doing irreparable damage to their kids,' Mr Marsden wrote. 

Mr Marsden, who has six stepsons of his own, told The Australian elaborated on his viewpoint and said he was keenly aware many parents would balk at his suggestion.

'I do think there's a need to be more direct in the way we talk to parents ­because parenthood has become this great untouchable area, this sacred topic, which you dare not criticise except in the most insincere ways,' he said. 

The major theme of Mr Marsden's argument was giving children more freedom and refraining from putting too much undue pressure on them from a young age.

He encourages parents to allow their children to explore their physical and intellectual world with more freedom and to allow them to make mistakes.

Mr Marsden wrote in his book saying no to children at least once a day could go a long way towards this goal.

His advice to parents early in the book is to be brutally honest and aware of the parenting techniques they use which are unhelpful to adolescents.  

To rethink their 'prejudices' and realise their children do not have to be perfect because no one alive is perfect.

A key piece of advice given to parents in the book is to simply set out the goal of helping their children live their lives to the fullest, including the joys and sorrows. 


1) 'The first principle of good parenting is to be aware of the unhealthy ways we construct childhood and adolescence. Parents may need to rethink their prejudices. Their children may not be as perfect as they pretend to be, and their teenagers might be better than is generally acknowledged.'

2) 'We must give our children fear. It is a rich and immensely valuable experience to know fear. The only myths many modern parents want to offer children are Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. We are scared to give them the Bogeyman as well, not realising how nourishing the Bogeyman can be.’

3) 'We can reasonably assume that a parent who does not say ‘no’ at least once a day to their child is failing as a parent.'

4) 'Parents should strongly — even forcefully! — encourage teenagers to get paid jobs. They are, after all, members of a family, not business class passengers on a plane.'

5) 'People who feel angry or upset when they get a glimpse of children’s hatred or greed or sexuality or rage or dishonesty are overlooking the fact that the child is acting in the same way as every other human being in the history of the world.'

6) 'The only important academic skill needed by children is literacy. We must ensure that children have access to books with realistic characters, credible situations, authentic language and we must not shrink from showing life in all its many forms.'

7) 'It is worth teaching your children how to be interesting conversationalists. Face it, some kids, like some adults, are boring. Some are excruciatingly boring.’

8) 'Parenting means teaching children to get their own Weet-Bix.'

9) 'Every parent should wish for their child nothing more than ‘I want him or her to experience life to the fullest’. Every child should be able to exult in the 10,000 joys that life brings, and feel with full force the sadness of the 10,000 sorrows.'



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


Friday, July 19, 2019

Planned Parenthood Ousts Insufficiently 'Woke' CEO

Leana Wen apparently wasn't nearly zealous enough in advocating abortion on demand

Just eight months into her tenure, Leana Wen was fired as Planned Parenthood’s president Tuesday. She succeeded Cecile Richards last November, but Wen, a woman of color and a committed leftist, wasn’t radical enough for the nation’s largest abortion mill. Given that Planned Parenthood rakes in more than $500 million every year from American taxpayers, many of whom view abortion as a tragedy to be ended, this is significant news.

The specifics are even more galling. Wen last year insisted, “People aren’t coming to Planned Parenthood to make a political statement. They’re coming because they need their vaccinations. They need their well-woman exams. They’re getting HIV tests.” (Definitely not mammograms, though.) She also said in her departure statement, “I believe the best way to protect abortion care is to be clear that it is not a political issue but a health care one.”

Planned Parenthood’s board members, however, clearly view abortion as their mission (PP averages 320,000 abortions each year), and Wen was not sufficiently on message. (That mission was always clear to most Americans, but the board explicitly declared it by removing Wen.) Board members also see abortion as primarily a political issue and wanted a social-justice warrior, not a physician like Wen, to lead the charge, especially when so many states are directly challenging Roe v. Wade with restrictions on abortion and the Trump administration implemented a new rule cutting $60 million in funding from Planned Parenthood.

In a sense, the board is right. The Hippocratic Oath historically taken by physicians says, “I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm.” (The phrase “first, to do no harm,” is a later development along the same lines.) An abortion by definition harms (i.e., terminates the life of) a preborn human. Ergo, abortion is arguably better understood as a political and cultural issue.

Furthermore, there was the whole issue of Wen not submitting to the transgender movement’s increasing power. She reportedly refused to use “trans-inclusive” language and would not agree that men can have babies. Apparently, in today’s “woke” radical-leftist climate, Planned Parenthood couldn’t be effectively led by someone who believes in that science.

Wen will be replaced temporarily by board member Alexis McGill Johnson during the search for a permanent replacement. Of course, no leader of this massive taxpayer-funded abortion mill is going to be palatable to those who value the sanctity of life, and as long as Planned Parenthood is violating the very right to life given each human by his or her Creator, there will continue to be a political and cultural fight.


Defund Lutherans for Open Borders Now!
If you were shocked by the images of the Mexican flag flying over an Aurora, Colorado, immigration detention center this weekend, you’ll be appalled at an even more disgusting spectacle:

One of the top promoters of the so-called Lights for Liberty nationwide protests by Trump-hating, ICE-bashing radicals was a nonprofit religious organization known as the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. As a designated “host,” LIRS played a key role in publicizing, organizing and participating in demonstrations against President Donald Trump’s deportation enforcement actions targeting some 2,000 illegal immigrants and their families who have ignored removal orders or skipped out on court hearings.

Brazen hatred of cops, Border Patrol and ICE agents were on full display at the open borders protests fronted by LIRS and other left-wing groups, including Code Pink, CASA and CAIR. Marchers echoed the “Close the Concentration Camps” rhetoric of Congressional Brat Pack Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). They carried signs declaring “ICE=Gestapo” and “Free the People, Burn the Camps.” It’s not just idle rhetoric. Antifa thug Willem Van Spronsen, armed with a rifle and incendiary devices, attempted to set a Tacoma ICE facility on fire on Saturday before being shot dead. He has been hailed as a “hero” and a “martyr” by fellow “progressive” travelers, while sympathetic mainstream reporters and activists look the other way.

The president and CEO of LIRS, Krishanti Vignarajah, is a Sri Lankan refugee and former Michelle Obama policy director who led the Lights for Liberty event in Washington, D.C. She argues that Americans are obligated to open the floodgates at the southern border (since she turned out so great) and vehemently opposes what she calls “militant border enforcement.” To these border-sabotaging radicals, of course, any border enforcement is “militant.”

LIRS sounds like just the kind of extremist group you’d expect to be kept afloat by billionaire George Soros’ big bucks. But hold on to your wallets and your American flags, folks: In 2016, LIRS relied on $64.7 million in government subsidies from taxpayers — that’s you and me — to fund a whopping 96.2% of its budget.

LIRS is one of nine agencies that receives tens of millions of dollars to resettle refugees from around the world. The organization brags that it is “a vital arm of the United States refugee admissions program” that has worked with the State Department to import “over 500,000 refugees” to our country. One of LIRS’ most famous clients? Somalian-born Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, whose immigration, marriage and tax fraud problems I reported on in my column last month.

If only a fraction of LIRS clients share Omar’s contempt for our security and self-governance, you can see the trouble we’re in. And that’s just the caseload of one of the nine resettlement giants that together rake in an estimated $1 billion a year.

In addition, the Lutheran nonprofit is one of two specially designated groups (the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is the other) that is contracted by the government to provide social services and benefits (including “psycho-educational support” and “low-cost or pro bono immigration legal assistance”) to sponsor families hosting illegal immigrant children.

Disguised as compassion and Christian morality, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service’s activism is a profit-seeking machine — even as the agency has been plagued by allegations of mismanagement that prompted an external probe two years ago. Last week, the group unveiled yet another initiative: “United Sanctuaries of America.” You should know, especially if you are a citizen of faith who believes in the sovereignty of our country, that the following organizations are partnering with LIRS, possibly to erase our borders:

–New Sanctuary Coalition

–Hispanic Heritage Foundation

–League of United Latin American Citizens

–Washington Office on Latin America

–Mary’s Center and Hispanic Federation

–Gethsemane Lutheran Church

–Good Shepherd Lutheran

–Church of the Reformation

–Christ Lutheran

–Christ the Servant Lutheran

–Our Savior Lutheran

Bottom line: Open borders equals cash flow: more aliens, more grants, bigger paychecks.

Exit question: Will a single American elected official please stand up and challenge the continued public funding of this subversive religious racket bent on hoisting foreign flags and alien interests above our own?


Parents are encouraging children as young as three to change gender without consulting specialists, experts warn

Parents are pushing children as young as three to change gender without consulting a specialist first, experts have warned.

Some children are starting school with a new name and gender identity after 'socially transitioning' – without teachers having been told.

The NHS's top psychologist for transgender children warned yesterday of a major increase in the trend, saying parents are researching the subject online and taking advice from internet forums and transgender lobby groups.

The warning comes as the latest figures show the number of referrals to England's only specialist clinic for children has almost doubled in four years.

Bernadette Wren, head of clinical psychology at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust which runs the service in London, said parents are researching the subject online and taking advice from internet forums and transgender lobby groups    +1
Bernadette Wren, head of clinical psychology at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust which runs the service in London, said parents are researching the subject online and taking advice from internet forums and transgender lobby groups

Last year 2,590 children were referred to the Gender Identity Development Service. Ten were aged three and four, and dozens more were of primary school age.

Bernadette Wren, head of clinical psychology at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust which runs the service in London, said: 'We have had some children who have gone to school and nobody in the school knows.'

Dr Wren cited the example of a five-year-old whose name was changed from Billy to Ellie by his parents because 'he was always at his happiest when he could wear a dress'.

Billy insisted his body was wrong wanted it 'fixed'. Dr Wren said: 'He was deeply unhappy and asked his mother to take him to the doctors to cut his willy off.'

The clinic proposed a 'watchful waiting process' during which the parents were encouraged to help Ellie 'tolerate the reality of the body'.

But the parents acted 'more affirmatively' and the child is formally known as Ellie at school and in other settings and is now 'unequivocally related to as a girl'.

The parents are now waiting for Ellie to turn 12 when they expect the clinic to provide hormone blockers, believing that anything less would be 'unthinkable and cruel'.

Children can be given puberty blockers on the NHS from the age of 12 and sex-change hormones from the age of 16.

Many 'socially transition' at a younger age – but Dr Wren warned that doing so prior to puberty can lead to problems when the child is hit by a 'wall of reality' as their body starts to change.

She said: 'We think that is setting up problems for later. There is no magic solution.

'Some families think the social transition means it is all going to be fine, but it is much more complicated.

'We are anxious that there's some magical thinking that they won't really go through puberty. I'm not condemning these parents, but I think there's much more to learn.'

Dr Polly Carmichael, director of the Gender Identity Development Service, added: 'There are some families where they will talk about it being a hate crime if you get the pronoun wrong with a very young child who has made a social transition.

'There are internet forums where parents talk and, if a parent has a good experience of something, other parents will follow. Parents do want the best for their kids.'

Youngsters sent to the London clinic, or its outreach centres in Leeds and Bristol, are given counselling and around 45 per cent of initial referrals lead to physical treatment such as hormone injections.

The clinic, which has a two-year waiting list, has come under fire for 'rushing' children into potentially irreversible medical treatment.

In April five specialist clinicians resigned over concerns some children had been wrongly diagnosed and sent for life-changing medical intervention without a thorough assessment of the other options.


The sinister suppression of the Freedom of Speech in China is  not too dissimilar to the restrictions of freedoms in Australia and New Zealand

Ron Owen

While Israel Folau explores legal avenues, the broader fight for freedom of religion and belief continues.

Supposedly, the new federal parliament is now in session and the government is promising religious freedom legislation. I will only believe that their intentions are honourable when not just 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act is removed, but when all of this Act is removed, plus the all inclusive State Anti Discrimination Acts are removed.

These Acts do not just suppress the freedom of speech, they create public funded witch hunt inquisitions that use the power of the State to create legal precedents that nullify any safeguards that were put in these Acts to sell them to the dumbed down majority.

Just recently, a man described as the “UK’s Israel Folau” recently won a similar case, the British Justice system must not be as polluted as ours in Australia.

Christian student Felix Ngole was expelled from his social work course at Sheffield University for posting comments critical of homosexuality on Facebook.

After fighting a four-year legal battle, the UK Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of Ngole.

The decision, which overturned an earlier High Court ruling in the university’s favour, found that “the University adopted a position from the outset… which was untenable” and that the university “wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination.”

The presiding judges pointed out that “The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.”

Ngole’s comments were made in the course of a debate on Facebook over the jailing of US marriage registrar Kim Davis. Davis, you might recall, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky and was jailed briefly for contempt of court in 2015.

Our Australian courts have always taken the opposite view ‘that if any person could be offended, no matter how slightly then there is breach of the Act which has to be prosectured.

Senator Eric Abetz describes this sort of  discrimination correctly:

“In an exercise of Orwellian proportions, these sports stars were targeted for exclusion in the name of inclusion and discriminated against in the name of tolerance. You don’t have to agree with Izzy to agree with his right to express his religious views, or his wife’s right to back him.”

The Senator then outlined why the Folau precedent is a threat to our freedom.

“Today it’s Izzy’s religious views and his wife’s loyal support. Yesterday it was the Professor Ridd’s scientific views. Tomorrow it might be somebody’s political view. The next might be someone’s environmental view. This is a fight for freedom of speech which impacts us all. The government must, and I am confident will, respond to the expressions of the quiet Australians on 18 May and ensure our freedoms, which were bought with the highest of prices, are not sacrificed and squandered on the altar of political correctness.”

Any normal Australian who does not have the financial backing or profile of Andrew Bolt or Israel Folau stands no chance before government selected Tribunals, composed of one person.

Their selection is not based on their knowledge but on their opinion and in most of the Tribunals the Rule of law and the Rules of evidence do not apply. One Tribunal member in my case bragged from the bench that he could take his opinion on evidence presented from what he read in the morning papers and ignore whatever I presented in my defence.

We do not have a Constitutional Monarchy, or a Constitutional democracy when we cannot comment or we are prevented from reading comments from others, without the freedom ot interchange information we are no better off than the Chinese people, or the Hong Kong people, the difference in the degrees of suppression we are in is just academic debate.

One Law For All

We are either one nation with equal justice for all, or no justice for those without government support. Government now will support Muslins, homosexuals, and people with a darker skin colour, but won’t support Christians, firearm owners, and white skinned people. That is Discrimination in itself.

If we had a correct justice system we are all at liberty to take any offence of Libel or Defamation to the civil courts, if the government wanted to do something right for once they could easily make the Justice system more affordable. Instead, they increase court fees and work to keep the legal profession exclusive.

Without Justice we have nothing to fight for, we are just slaves and unfortunately very soon we are going to have to fight to exist in our troubled world.



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


Thursday, July 18, 2019

Dutch airline panders to puritanical religious beliefs

Anglicans, presumably.  I doubt that I need to name more likely religions.  I would have thought that this was contrary to Dutch law.  Most Western countries these days have laws supporting public breastfeeding

A mother issued a warning to any nursing mothers who are considering travelling with KLM Royal Dutch Airlines: don't.

In a Facebook post to the airline's page, Shelby Angel detailed an incident on a flight from San Francisco to Amsterdam where she said the attendant told her to cover up while breastfeeding her 1-year-old daughter.

Angel said she nurses her child to calm her during the flight and make her comfortable.

"I do my best to be discreet, but sometimes some skin shows. Before we even took off, I was approached by a flight attendant carrying a blanket. She told me (and I quote) 'if you want to continue doing the breastfeeding, you need to cover yourself,'" the mom wrote. "I told her no, my daughter doesn't like to be covered up. That would upset her almost as much as not breastfeeding her at all."

According to Angel, the flight attendant told her that if anyone on the flight complained then it would be the attendant's issue to deal with. While no one protested her breastfeeding in public, Angel said she felt disrespected by the flight attendant.

The mom said she filed a complaint with the airline when she got home, to which they told her their employee was acting in accordance with their policy and she needs to be respectful of other people's culture.

"So instead of standing up for and protecting breastfeeding mothers and our children, already under the duress faced by flying with our young children, KLM would rather hold up antiquated values that shame women's bodies," Angel wrote.

KLM confirms breastfeeding policy

A spokesperson for the airline Manel Vrijenhoek, said that although breastfeeding is allowed on their flights, not everyone is comfortable with it, which results in complaints to cabin staff. "To keep the peace on board, in such cases we will try to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone and that shows respect for everyone's comfort and personal space," the statement read. "This may involve a request to a mother to cover her breast."

Angel's post received an overwhelming amount of comments from fellow travellers saying they would boycott the airline for their behaviour.

"Thanks for the heads up, will (definitely) not book with KLM," wrote one commenter.

But a few backed the airline's decision. "I wouldn't have any problem covering up," wrote another. "I breast fed both my children on planes under a light scarf or something similar. I understand that there are people in the world who object for religion reasons or otherwise. I am happy to go about my life doing what I want ( breastfeeding my child) but being considerate of others beliefs and cultures."


Business owner who says he offered a Florida panhandler a job but was told 'absolutely not!' joins him on intersection with his OWN sign

A Florida resident is taking a stand against panhandlers in his town after a homeless man allegedly rejected his offer of a $15 per-hour job by unceremoniously kicking his car and swearing at him, demanding instant cash instead.

Ryan Bray was travelling back to his home in Bradenton on Sunday when he encountered a panhandler, one of five or six encounters he has each week, on the corner of Manatee Avenue West and 75th Street.

Determined to offer the man in need a more permanent solution to finally get off the streets rather than just handing over cash, Bray offered a proposition for the man instead.

Bray, who works for his family's remodeling business, says he offered the man a $15 per-hour job doing yard work with the firm, as well as offering guidance to help find the man a permanent place to stay.

But instead of being grateful, the panhandler reportedly lashed out. 'He reached his arms inside my vehicle, resting them and said 'Hey, do you have any money?' Bray recalled for FOX35. 'I said, 'No I have one better for you.'

According to Bray, the panhandler responded, 'Absolutely not!', before becoming physically aggressive and cursing at him. He then kicked the tire of Bray's Jeep and told him to leave.

But Bray was determined for that not to be the end of the interaction, and instead returned home to make up his own sign begging for change – urging passing motorists to start ignoring the beggars and stop handing money over in a bid to drive them out of town.

The sign reads: 'I offered him $15 an hour to do yard work for me and he refused. If we as a community stop paying them, they will leave our neighborhood!'

Bray explained: 'I can't have my 13-year-old daughter and my wife driving with their windows up and being berated the entire time if they don't get money. 'Every time anyone comes down 75th they are there. None of us want them in our neighborhood. They get irate and curse at you if you don't give them any money. 'One guy was yelling, 'I'll rape your mother and kill your wife,' Bray claimed.

Bray returned to the corner with the sign, standing next to the same culprit who apparently kicked his car, telling passing motorists the man begging for their hard-earned cash wasn't willing to work for it himself.

During the three-hours, Bray said the man 'didn't receive a dime' but said more needed to be done among neighbors to end the issue once and for all.

'It's not the way I wanted to spend my Sunday,' Bray added. 'I care about our homeless veterans and such but these people yell profanities at you if don't give them money. So the only way to get them to leave is people need to stop giving them money. We're tired of it.'

Speaking to Fox, the homeless man, who didn't want to be identified, insisted he wasn't doing anything wrong for asking for passing drivers' help. 'You can't shut me down brother,' the man insisted.

Her later told ABC News that Bray was the aggressor and never offered him a job.

'He's a rich preppy f***ing, piece of s*** who thinks I'm supposed to take his f***ing job because he's got money and he lives down here. I don't care what you got brother,' Alabama said. 'I never had no trouble until this dude shows up. Just because he's got money, don't mean as homeless people, we don't have rights.'

Bray is urging the local council to take a harder stance against aggressive panhandling in Bradenton.

'I understand the plight of homelessness,' Bray said. 'I feel bad for him. But, this isn't homelessness. They are making more money sitting here on this corner than they would doing an honest living.

'Enough is enough. It's out of control. It's getting worse and worse and worse now they are coming into northwest Bradenton.'

He said the intersection has been worked by a group of homeless people for the past year, each taking it in turn to work the corner.


Exodus Movement Launches State Chapters to Battle LEFT-Wing Anti-Semitism

The Exodus Movement, a group of self-described “proud Jewish Americans who reject the hypocrisy, anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism of the rising far-left” announced today that they are launching a nationwide chapter program “to educate Jewish Americans – and all Americans more broadly – about the dangerous creep of anti-Semitism emanating from far-left extremists.”

“These chapters, which are located in diverse, strategic locales, will serve as a means for supporters of The Exodus Movement to gather and push a platform of opposition to liberal anti-Semitism and will enable Jewish Americans to unite in support of issues that reflect their Jewish values,” states the organization on its website.

The chapters will be located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas. Of these states, five have a higher-than-average Jewish population.

“As an American-Jewish elected official in New Jersey, I’ve found that college campuses and local communities are often the front lines of combating anti-Semitism, including for example the appalling BDS movement,” said Mark Schwartz, the deputy mayor of Teaneck County, New Jersey, as reported in the Daily Wire.

“Unfortunately, too often our voices in opposition are not adequately heard. Organizations like The Exodus Movement are urgently needed right now in our political discourse to encourage active participation and engagement to confront the very real issues of concern for the Jewish community, such as rising anti-Semitism and security,” said Schwartz.

David Ludwig, president of the Maricopa County chapter in Arizona, said, “I’m honored to be working with the Exodus Movement as president of the Maricopa County Chapter here in Arizona. Given the current political climate where supporting Israel and recognizing critical Jewish concerns seems to be taboo among the far-Left, an organization like the Exodus Movement is needed now more than ever.”

“With such a strong, diverse Jewish community in our county and across Arizona, I’m very excited to be involved, helping to highlight the issues that are truly relevant to our people, and encourage broad participation across the spectrum,” said Ludwig.

The goal of The Exodus Movement is to speak out against anti-Jewish and anti-Israel forces on the liberal/left side of the political aisle.

“Progressives, Democrats, and far too many Jewish organizations have taken our support for granted for far too long,” states the organization.  “We are now determined and unafraid to speak for ourselves.  We’re done standing with allegedly supportive liberals who consistently side with our enemies, and disregard our values and beliefs.”

The founder and president of The Exodus Movement is Elizabeth Pipko, a model, athlete, and writer from New York City. A Millennial Jew, Pipko is the “daughter of immigrants and granddaughter of world-renowned Jewish artist Marc Klionsky, known for his work with Elie Wiesel,” states the organization.


Australia: The Federal Court has dismissed action by Aborigines against a nuclear waste dump in South Australia

The Federal Court has dismissed a bid by a group of native title holders to influence and potentially block the construction of a nuclear waste dump on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula.

The Barngarla people had argued that a poll of residents planned by the Kimba District Council, to gauge local support for the dump, was unlawful because it excluded native title holders.

Two sites near the town have been short-listed as potential locations for a low-level radioactive waste storage facility, while a third is near the Flinders Ranges town of Hawker.

The federal government is yet to reveal its preferred location but following the court ruling said it was mindful of the need to reach a decision.

It has also vowed to continue to consult with all stakeholders as it thanked local communities for their patience.

The Barngarla had claimed their exclusion from the Kimba ballot was based on their Aboriginality and would impair their human rights or fundamental freedoms as native title owners.

But on Friday, Justice Richard White ruled that the council's actions did not contravene racial discrimination laws.

Justice White found the council had not excluded the Barngarla because of their Aboriginality but had reasonably restricted the ballot to members of the Kimba community who had the right to elect council members.

"An enlargement of the franchise for the purpose of the ballot would have required a number of subjective judgments about the extent of the enlargement and raised issues concerning the proper identification of those within the expanded franchise," the judge said.

The federal Department of Industry, Innovation and Science said it would study the judgment in detail before advising communities on the next steps in the selection process.

Jeff Baldock, who has nominated his Kimba farming property as one of the possible sites, welcomed the ruling and urged the government to move forward.

He said the project had good support in the local community and was a "once in a lifetime opportunity to secure Kimba's future."

Mr Baldock said the waste facility would potentially provide jobs and much-needed revenue for the region, which was beginning to lose businesses and services, for hundreds of years.

But the Greens said the court decision had sidelined traditional owners and called for an independent expert panel to take over selection of the waste site.

"The entire process has been badly botched from the start, with community concerns ignored and the Adnyamathanha and Barngarla people sidelined," South Australian Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said.

"South Australia is not going to just roll over and be the country's dumping ground. This plan would lock generations of South Australians to nuclear waste."

The Kimba council had been about to distribute ballot papers for a vote on the dump when the ballot was halted by a South Australian Supreme Court injunction last year.

The council said on Friday it would make a comprehensive statement on the court judgment in the coming days and would continue to liaise with the federal government on the conduct of the ballot.



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


Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Acceptance of gay sex in decline in UK for first time since Aids crisis

Homosexuals have given intolerance in return for tolerance.  As soon as they got general tolerance, they proceeded to harass in any way they could people who accept the Bible teaching  that God condemns them.  Many of them have revealed themselves as vicious bigots. No wonder acceptance of them has declined. It is all their own work

Number of people believing there is nothing wrong with gay sex has fallen, survey finds

Thirty years of increasingly liberal attitudes towards gay sex may be coming to an end after the number of people who said they considered it wrong rose for the first time since the Aids crisis.

In 1987 when every household received sombre leaflets warning “don’t die of ignorance”, nine out of 10 people thought there was something wrong with sexual relations between two adults of the same sex.

Every year since, tolerance had increased, but now the British Social Attitudes Survey has found the number of people believing there is nothing wrong with gay sex has fallen, leaving a third of the population in some way opposed.

The finding, based on a survey of 2,884 people, coincided with the first dip in more than a decade in people saying they think sex before marriage is not at all wrong, with people from non-Christian religious groups the most likely to disapprove.

“Liberalisation of attitudes does seem to be slowing down,” said the independent social research agency NatCen, which carried out the research. “While social norms have changed, there is a significant minority of the population who remain uncomfortable with same-sex relationships and as such we may have reached a point of plateau.”

The gay rights activist Peter Tatchell said it was “a worrying trend”, while the Christian Institute, an educational charity that believes sex should only happen in a marriage between a man and a woman, said signs of a reversal may be a result of pushback against a “new orthodoxy that not to celebrate same-sex relations is homophobic”.

The survey also found that a third of people consider that prejudice against transgender people is only “mostly” or “sometimes” wrong, while 6% said it was rarely or never wrong.

The authors of the study cautioned it would require future polling to confirm whether the small rise in people who consider gay sex to be in some way wrong was statistically significant. But they predicted that the minority of opponents to same-sex relations, including religious groups, would become increasingly determined to make their socially conservative views heard in public discussions on gender and relationships.

Religious and politically conservative groups have been increasingly vocal in their resistance to social liberalism. This week, parents at Parkfield community school in Saltley, Birmingham, restarted protests over the teaching of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in schools, arguing the lessons are inconsistent with their understanding of Islam.

They had previously won support from senior Conservative politicians including Andrea Leadsom and Esther McVey, who said parents should have the right to choose what their children were taught.

Tatchell said Ukip, the Brexit party and the European Research Group (ERG) of Conservative MPs had all attracted politicians who were vocally opposed to gay rights.

The former Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge quit the party last year saying it was seen as “a vehicle of hate towards Muslims and the gay community”, while the Brexit party MEP Ann Widdecombe last month said science could one day “produce an answer” to being gay. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the ERG, has said he is opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds.


Theatre company are forced to rewrite play on eve of its world premiere after Manchester festival banned them from having an able-bodied actor playing a disabled character – so they made him badly injured instead

A theatre company has been forced to rewrite a play on the eve of its premiere after a Manchester festival banned them from having an able-bodied actor playing a disabled character.

Studio Orka, a Belgian theatre company, chose to change the character in their show Tuesday to someone recovering from a serious injury - prior to it's premiere at the Manchester International Festival.

Festival boss John McGrath said its policy was to ensure disabled actors were given priority for disabled roles and create 'authentic representation.'

He told The Stage: 'As co-commissioners, when we became aware in a run-through in Belgium that a disabled character in Tuesday would be played by a non-disabled actor, we asked for the part to be recast as it is against MIF's policies for a non-disabled actor to play the role of a disabled person.

'Studio Orka, whose work is devised with its actors, felt this would not be possible and suggested the character be changed to someone who has a serious injury and makes a full recovery over time.

'While we felt this wasn't ideal, we agreed to this change to ensure that the show, of which we are in general very proud and which has many wonderful elements – including the involvement of a large community cast – could go ahead.'

Artistic director of Studio Orka, Martine Decroos, said the compromise had been made 'in the right way.'


Anti-LGBTQ group calls for boycott of Toy Story 4 over scene showing lesbian couple dropping toddler off at Kindergarten as they accuse Disney of 'pushing an agenda of normalisation'

An anti-LGBTQ group has called for a boycott of Toy Story 4 over a scene which shows as same-sex couple drop their child off at Kindergarten.

One scene at the start of the movie, shows Woody's new owner Bonnie attend her first day of pre-school, in the background a lesbian couple are seen with their child.

Later, they are pictured again picking up their son. They have no lines.

The Christian fundamentalist group claim Disney deliberately kept the scene quiet in order to expose as many people as possible.

Monica Cole, spokesperson for One Million Moms, said in the campaign statement, 'The scene is subtle in order to to desensitise children. But it is obvious that the child has two mothers, and they are parenting together.' 

'It was a noticeably small scene with the sole purpose of attempting to normalise this lifestyle'

'Not to mention there was a brief comment made about not hiding in a closet also in the movie. Some children may not catch this reference, but it was extremely unnecessary as with the lesbian couple.'

The movie has been a Box Office smash hit, grossing $118 million for its opening weekend in the US alone, and $237 million overseas. It took at further $57.9 million in its second weekend.

The Disney and Pixar film raked in £13.3 million ($16.67 million)  for its opening weekend in the UK and Ireland, pushing it to take the record for the biggest ever three day opening weekend for an animation.

It's also been a highly acclaimed by critics, scoring 98 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes.

The film again features the unmistakable voices of Tom Hanks as Woody, the ever-eager but empty-holstered cowboy doll, and Tim Allen as the impulsive Buzz Lightyear. 

The third film left Woody, Buzz and the rest of the toys in the care of a new owner, Bonnie, as Andy has gone off to college.

Toy Story 4 picks up with toys two years after settling with Bonnie and follows their adventures getting back to her after getting separated on the family's RV trip.


China separates thousands of Muslim boys and girls from their parents before brainwashing them in 'children's education camps', reports claim

This is wrong in many ways but it may be good for humanity.  It's a heck of a lot better than putting up with incessant terrorism

China is keeping thousands of Uighur children away from their Muslim parents before indoctrinating them in camps posing as schools and orphanages, new evidence has shown.

Boys and girls as young as three are taught to speak Mandarin, forsake their religion and love the Communist Party of China in a systematic effort described by one expert as 'cultural genocide' in Xinjiang, reported BBC.

Many of the children's parents are believed to be both detained in the so-called internment camps across the vast region in far-west China, which has been home to ethnic Muslim minorities such as the Uighurs and Kazakhs for centuries.

Up to one million Uighurs and other Muslim minorities are believed to be held in extra-legal detention in Xinjiang, according to previous UN estimates, prompting an international outcry.

Human rights experts claim that these controversial centres are run like 'wartime concentration camps' and former detainees revealed they had been forced to eat pork and drink alcohol in the camps. Evidence of forced labour has also been found there.

BBC's investigation suggests that the Chinese authorities are now systematically controlling and influencing the children of the Muslim detainees and dissidents.

Many Uighurs living in exile in Turkey told BBC that their children had been kept in Xinjiang by the authorities and they did not know their whereabouts.

The reporter visited one kindergarten in Xinjiang where the authorities keep Muslim children with detained parents, and found the facility to be surrounded by barbed wire and security cameras.

Adrian Zenz, a German researcher specialising in China's minority policies, accused Beijing of conducting 'state-sponsored cultural genocide' towards the Uighurs. He told MailOnline: 'Because parents and children are separated, so that the state can be like the parent, raising children without their traditional language, religion and culture.

'[The Uighur children] are being raised like the Han Chinese, and with [Communist] Party ideology and atheism rather than their religious beliefs.'

Mr Zenz said the Beijing's policies allow the Xinjiang authorities to put certain Uighur children in centralised boarding schools, or in full-time kindergartens.

'These children are not in "camps", but the schools and kindergartens are highly secured compounds, with high walls, barbwire, at times electric fences, security cameras, and students are there often full time.'

He added: 'In some way, these schools perform a similar function as internment camps, and the students are in a sense effectively interned there, since they cannot leave without permission.'

BBC's findings are echoed by another investigation from Vice News Tonight.

A video report from reporter Isobel Yeung, who visited Xinjiang posing as a tourist, found mounting evidence to suggest that Xinjiang children with detainee parents were held in state-run institutions described as 'children's education camps'.

Vice News Tonight found one such 'free, full-time kindergarten' in the city of Hotan for children whose 'parents cannot care for them for a variety of reasons'.

Ms Yeung told MailOnline that during her undercover visit to Xinjiang 'one 7 year-old Uighur girl told us that her sister was in a re-education camp, and 13 of her classmates had parents who were locked away'.

'In Hotan, a Han Chinese businessman told us that Uighur children whose parents had been taken away were now living inside state-run kindergartens,' she added.

Former inmates have told of the horror after being detained in the controvercial indoctrination camps for Muslims

Amnesty International's research has also shown that children in Xinjiang are sent to 'some kind of orphanages' where they are required to have Chinese lessons with content that praises the Chinese leaders and the Chinese Communist Party.

'And in some cases the children are only occasionally allowed to meet their relatives, for the luckier ones,' Patrick Poon, a researcher at Amnesty International told MailOnline.

'We also learned from some people that their children stay at home in Xinjiang but are under tight surveillance together with their grandparents.

'It's definitely all about controlling the ethnic groups with a strong tendency to erase their cultural identity.

Chinese government has been building a large number of new kindergartens in Xinjiang after ramping up efforts three years ago in the indoctrination of Muslims in adult re-education camps - facilities that China initially denied and later branded as 'vocational training centres'.

According to data released by the Bureau of Statistics of Hotan Prefecture, the region saw a surge in the number of kindergartens and kindergarten pupils between 2016 and 2017.

The former more than doubled from 481 to 1,265 and the latter increased by 98.3 per cent to 251,900. The authority said there were also two 'special education schools' in the region with 320 students without giving more details on them.

Research conducted by Mr Zenz showed that Xinjiang's pre-school enrollment in three southern prefectures with Uighur majority populations increased by a staggering 148 per cent from 2015 and 2018; while the equivalent national figure was only eight per cent.

In March, China's vice foreign minister defended what Beijing calls its vocational training centres for Muslims and said its 'campuses' would be closed down gradually as extremist ideology is vanquished in the region.

Officials from Xinjiang Propaganda Department denied to BBC that separation of Uighur detainees and their children would cause lasting-psychological damage.

Beijing has also claimed that it had arrested nearly 13,000 people it describes as terrorists and broken up hundreds of 'terrorist gangs' in Xinjiang since 2014.



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.


Tuesday, July 16, 2019

The book that dares to take on transgender myths told to children: Experts reveal psychologists scared to question transgender ideology, GPs afraid of being branded transphobic and teens being wrongly diagnosed

The rocketing number of children seeking to change sex has become a national scandal, a powerful coalition of whistleblowers, academics and medical experts warns today.

In a dramatic intervention marking a watershed in the transgender debate, they have come together to express fears about the dire consequences faced by thousands of youngsters changing gender – including infertility and long-term health problems.

A whistleblower from Britain's only NHS gender clinic for children said: 'I'm really angry at what's happening to these children. What I've witnessed feels incredibly distressing and disturbing and like something that should be stopped.'

The experts' concerns are laid bare in a forthcoming book of essays entitled Inventing Transgender Children And Young People. It challenges what it calls the 'dangerous' transgender ideology promoted in schools, universities, the NHS and other public institutions.

Heather Brunskell-Evans, a former research fellow at King's College London, who co-edited the book, said that 30 years ago the thought of a child being born in the wrong body would have made no sense to the public.

She added: 'Now the idea, which was invented by specialists in gender medicine and transgender activists, has become universally accepted.

'But we are collectively arguing that this unquestioning acceptance poses a serious threat to children's well-being and safety. We hope through this book to bring the world's attention to the public scandal of transgendering children.'

The book warns:

Doctors are failing to tell young people they are 'sacrificing' their chance to have children by taking powerful sex-change drugs;

Psychologists are scared to question transgender ideology;
Clinicians who resist diagnosing children as transgender face accusations of transphobia;

Britain's only NHS child gender service is failing to acknowledge other reasons for youngsters wanting to change sex, such as autism;

Teenagers who have 'normal feelings' of discomfort with their bodies are being classified as transgender.

Another contributor to the book, due to be published later this year, is Dr David Bell, consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in North London, where the NHS child Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) is based.

Other authors include Professor of Sociology at Oxford University Michael Biggs; psychotherapist Bob Withers, a former senior lecturer at Westminster University; and Dianna Kenny, Professor of Psychology at the University of Sydney, Australia.

Dr Bell, who wrote the book's foreword, called for an 'urgent investigation' into the reasons for the huge rise in the number of gender identity referrals. The latest figures from GIDS show 2,590 children – three quarters of whom were girls – were referred last year. In 2009, the figure was below 100.

More recently there has been a trend of mainly teenage girls declaring, seemingly out of the blue, that they want to change sex, a phenomenon dubbed rapid onset gender dysphoria.

The Tavistock clinic is the only NHS service for under-18s diagnosed with gender dysphoria, an individual's belief they are trapped in the wrong body.

Dr Bell, a former governor of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, said: 'The rapid escalation of referrals, the large increase in natal [born] females seeking to change gender and the sudden appearance of so-called rapid onset gender dysphoria, cannot be explained by individual factors alone. Nor is it likely to be caused by a large number of individuals feeling free to 'come out' in this new liberal atmosphere.'

The psychiatrist, who last year produced a critical internal report on GIDS which branded the service 'not fit for purpose', further warned: 'Many services have championed the use of medical and surgical intervention with nowhere near sufficient attention to the serious, irreversible damage this can cause and with very disturbingly superficial attitudes to the issue of consent in young children.'

The Mail on Sunday has also seen interviews with whistleblowers who work at the Tavistock clinic, and whose accounts are due to be included in the book. They have chosen to remain anonymous.

One of the NHS gender specialists said: 'I keep thinking about all of the children, adolescents and families who are being harmed by the one-dimensional discussion and the attack on truth and on thinking and on what we know about adolescent well-being.'

Another added: 'I'm angry with all the grown-ups, all the clever people, all the thoughtful people, who are letting this happen.' One of the issues causing 'turmoil' at the clinic is the prospect that children are being rendered infertile by the medication prescribed for them.

This newspaper has previously reported that the service has prescribed controversial puberty- blocking drugs to hundreds of children in England, many of whom have been under 14.

The clinicians' damning verdict:

Heather Brunskell-Evans, former research fellow at King's College London: 'The idea of a child born in the wrong body, invented by specialists in gender medicine and activists, has become universally accepted. This unquestioning acceptance poses a serious threat to children's well-being.'

Anonymous NHS child gender clinician: 'There's something really dishonest about the effort going into getting children to preserve their fertility. It would be more honest to say, 'You are almost certainly sacrificing having children.'

Dr David Bell, consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust: 'Many services have championed medical and surgical intervention with nowhere near sufficient attention to the serious, irreversible damage this can cause.'
The powerful monthly hormone injections stop the development of sex organs, breasts and body hair.

Young people are advised by GIDS that the treatment is reversible and that if they stop having it, their adult reproductive functions will continue to develop as normal.

But the whistleblowing staff at the service say the drugs – which can permanently weaken bones and stunt growth – put children on an inexorable path to further treatment which is irreversible.

Research has shown the vast majority of those who take puberty blockers go on to start 'cross-sex hormone therapy' at 16, which involves doses of oestrogen for males and testosterone for females. This strong hormone medication begins the physical process of changing individuals from one sex to another and is likely to lead to a loss in fertility.

Yet the concerned clinicians claim the fact puberty blockers are putting youngsters on a pathway to infertility is 'completely swept under the carpet' at the Tavistock. Instead, they say children and teens are being given false hope that they will be able to conceive in the future by being offered the chance by the clinic to freeze their sperm or eggs. In actual fact, it is unlikely they will ever have babies – with boys facing the minefield of finding a surrogate mother to have a baby using their sperm and the relatively low chances of frozen eggs producing a child, the clinicians say.

One GIDS staff member said: 'There's something really dishonest about the effort going into getting children to preserve their fertility. What are we setting them up for? We aren't talking enough about the reality of any blocker or hormone treatment massively reducing the chances of them being able to preserve sperm or eggs. It would be more honest to say, 'you are almost certainly sacrificing having children.' '

At the same time, the gender specialists interviewed for the book raised concerns about children being exposed to physical and psychological harm because Tavistock clinic staff bow to pressure from transgender lobbyists.

They also described how many young people referred to GIDS have suffered homophobic or misogynistic bullying, while some have been victims of sexual abuse.

And as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last year, a third of the young people being referred have clear signs of autism.

The Tavistock clinic was last night involved in a furious war of words with an Oxford academic who questioned why its medics gave teenagers puberty-blocking drugs in a 'flawed trial'.

Writing in the book, Inventing Transgender Children And Young People, Professor Michael Biggs alleges that a Tavistock trial in which 50 children were given the controversial drugs was a 'pretext' for widening access. But the clinic hit back saying the sociologist was not properly qualified to comment, adding: 'We refute these claims, which we consider to be serious, unfair and inaccurate.'

Puberty blockers like triptorelin halt physical development by suppressing the release of sex hormones. They are medically licensed to treat 'precocious puberty', where children start developing before the age of 10.

However, they have never been licensed in the UK to stop puberty in otherwise healthy, but gender-questioning children. Doctors can prescribe them to such youngsters if they think they will benefit, but 'off-licence' prescribing is usually considered a stop-gap until solid trial-based evidence is available.

To that end, in 2010 the clinic started putting teenage patients on the blockers on a trial basis. But Prof Biggs claims, based on examining publicly available data, that medics ignored best scientific practice designed to ensure a fair trial, and then selectively publicised 'positive' results – showing improvements in mental states following blocker treatment – while ignoring 'negative' ones.

He also claims an information sheet given to children and parents contained 'incomplete and misleading information' which 'minimised or concealed the risks'.

A copy of the sheet obtained by Prof Biggs under Freedom of Information rules claimed children would return to normal sexual development if they came off puberty blockers. It also claimed the drugs 'will not harm your physical or psychological development'.

Dr Biggs claims this was an 'astonishing statement' and concludes the trial was 'flawed from the outset'.


Starbucks brilliance

Kicking cops out of your shop has got to have consequences


Atheism and Islam on the rise in the UK as Christianity suffers 'dramatic decline'

Christian belief has halved in Britain in 35 years with just one in three people now identifying as Christian - while atheism and Islam continue to rise.

Figures published by the British Social Attitudes Survey reveal the widest ever margin between staunch atheists and believers who are certain that God exists.

Of almost 4,000 people polled by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), 38 per cent described themselves as Christian - a fall from 50 per cent in 2008 and 66 per cent in 1983.

Those identifying as Muslim increased from 1 per cent in 1983 to 3 per cent in 2008, and 6 per cent in 2018.

The survey shows that the biggest change is in the number of people who define themselves as "confident atheists", which rose from 10 per cent in 1998 to 18 per cent in 2008 and its record high of 26 per cent in 2018.

In contrast, researchers found that an overall 55 per cent of the population express some sort of belief in some kind of God.

Nancy Kelley, deputy chief executive at NatCen, said that the steady decline in religion and belief among the British public is "one of the most important trends in post-war history".

"As our society has become more secular, the role of religious institutions and religious identities in determining our moral and social norms has weakened. Other world views, such as scientific rationalism and liberal individual-ism, now play a more significant part in British society."

The report's authors said the survey suggests Britain is becoming more secular "not because adults are losing their religion" but because older people with an attachment to Christian denominations are "gradually being replaced in the population by unaffiliated younger people".

They added that religious decline in Britain is "generational" as people tend to be less religious than their parents.

Dave Male, the Church of England's director of evangelism and discipleship, said: "For many people ticking a box marked 'Church of England' or 'Anglican' is now an active choice and no longer an automatic response. In spite of this, the Church of England remains at the heart of communities."

Andrew Copson, the chief executive of the non-religion charity Humanists UK, said: "With these trends set to continue, policymakers in every field, from education to constitutional law, to health and social care, need to wake up to such dramatic social changes."


"Humanitarian" campaigners criticise Prince Harry's Invictus Games for being sponsored by Britain's biggest arms dealer

It's British armaments that saved Britain from Hitler.  Does that matter?  Would a Nazi Britain be better?  It might not be too good for "humanitarians"

Injured British troops competing in Prince Harry’s Invictus Games are to wear the logo of the UK’s biggest arms exporter in an ‘immoral’ sponsorship deal condemned by veterans and humanitarian campaigners.

Members of the Invictus UK team will wear shirts with the logo of BAE Systems for the first time when they compete at trials in Sheffield later this month after the company paid a six-figure sum.

The arms manufacturer has sold billions of pounds of weaponry around the world, including to Saudi Arabia for its war in Yemen, which began in 2015. Since then, many thousands of civilians have been killed or maimed amid allegations of war crimes.

Last night, Amnesty International accused BAE Systems of attempting to ‘sportswash’ its reputation.

Former Special Forces soldier Ben Griffin, who served with the SAS in Iraq, said: ‘It seems deeply inappropriate for BAE to sponsor a team of disabled war veterans at a sporting contest when arms sold by this company to Saudi Arabia have wounded so many people, leaving them disabled.’

Prince Harry – who counts many Invictus UK members as friends – is patron of the Invictus Foundation, which is responsible for the Games. Around 350 Invictus UK competitors will wear the BAE Systems’ logo, with 65 of them then travelling to Holland for the 2020 Games.

A BAE Systems spokesman said: ‘We are proud to be the presenting partner of Invictus UK and of the opportunity it presents to support the competitors who have made significant personal sacrifices in service to our nation.’

An Invictus UK spokesman said: ‘BAE Systems’ long-standing commitment to our veterans and personnel at home and abroad makes them well-placed to support Invictus UK.’


San Francisco School Board Votes to Paint Over George Washington Mural

The San Francisco Board of Education unanimously voted last month in favor of painting over a George Washington mural series on a school wall depicting Washington standing over a Native American’s corpse and another in the company of slaves on his Mount Vernon estate.

“This is reparations,” Education Board Commissioner Mark Sanchez said in a KQED report when asked about the estimated $600,000 price tag for its removal. It could reportedly take a year to complete. 

The 1,600-square-foot mural series titled “Life of Washington” was painted on San Francisco’s George Washington High School in 1936 by a Russian-American artist and Stanford University art professor Victor Arnautoff.

It was funded by the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration and shows a variety of scenes from Washington’s life.

School district spokeswoman Laura Dudnick confirmed that although only two mural pieces stand out as offensive to members of the community, the board’s decision would apply to all 13 panels of the mural.

School board members had to decide whether to cover and preserve the painting using panels or textile, or completely erase it by painting over it. Buckling under pressure from those who find the images offensive to certain members of the school community, the board decided to paint over it.

Advocates for removing the mural included local high school students, George Washington High School graduates, and Native Americans.

During a public comment portion of the June 25 meeting, Paloma Flores, program coordinator for the district’s Indian Education Program, said, per KQED, “It’s not a matter of offense, it’s a matter of the right to learn without a hostile environment.”

“Intent does not negate lived experience,” she added.

According to KQED, mural critics in the community “believe the artist’s intentions are irrelevant in light of the harm to young people of color daily confronted by images of their ancestors debased.”

Native American Barbara Mumby-Huerta, who staffs the San Francisco Art Commission, challenged statements on historical accuracy, saying that the mural is ignorant of indigenous people.

“To portray a Native person face down, dead, you are trapping their soul so that they can not move on,” she said, per KQED.

One mural supporter says he plans to legally challenge the move to paint over the mural. Lope Yap Jr., vice president of the school’s alumni group, vowed to “use every tactic available” for litigation, according to KQED.

Before the school board meeting, the San Francisco Chronicle polled art leaders in the Bay Area about the controversy.

“I am deeply sensitive to the pain that this situation is causing the student body and Washington High School community,” said Neal Benezra, director of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

“A decision to paint over the mural is irreversible,” he added. “The option to cover the artwork with panels to allow future educational research keeps open that opportunity.”

Jarrett Stepman of The Daily Signal wrote about the removal of the mural, citing a historian’s account of Arnautoff, “a man of the left in his own time,” and his intention of making Washington “less glamorized” by painting images of the slaves he owned or the price paid with Native Americans’ blood during westward expansion.

In his interview with historian Fergus M. Bordewich, Bordewich explains:

[Arnautoff] included those images not to glorify Washington, but rather to provoke a nuanced evaluation of his legacy. The scene with the dead Native American, for instance, calls attention to the price of ‘manifest destiny.’ Arnautoff’s murals also portray the slaves with humanity and the several live Indians as vigorous and manly.

Those who condemn the murals have misunderstood it, seeing only what they sought to find. They’ve also got their history seriously wrong. Washington did own slaves—124 men, women, and children—and oversaw many more who belonged to his wife’s family. But by his later years he had evolved into a proto-abolitionist, a remarkable ethical journey for a man of his time, place, and class.

The removal of the mural is expected to take at least a year, according to district staff. Before proceeding with painting over the mural, its historical significance requires an environmental review.

In the case that the painting takes more time than expected, the district could cover it with panels. Three years, Sanchez said, would be considered “undue delay.”



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