"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
The primary site for this blog mirror is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archive index of this site
21 May, 2015
Purdue commits to free speech
Interesting to see if they really do
On a weekend overshadowed by graduation ceremonies and tuition freezes, Purdue University adopted a new free speech code modeled on the “Chicago principles” of free speech.
The “Commitment to Freedom of Expression,” a policy adopted Friday by the Purdue University Board of Trustees, permits speech that’s “unwelcome, disagreeable or even deeply offensive” — language that’s identical to a measure first approved by the University of Chicago in January.
“Our commitment to open inquiry is not new, but adopting these principles provides a clear signal of our pledge to live by this commitment and these standards,” chairman Tom Spurgeon said in a university news release.
“As we’ve said before, a university violates its special mission if it fails to protect free and open debate. No one can expect his views to be free from vigorous challenge, but all must feel completely safe in speaking out.”
Muslim hate in a London university
Incitement to violence is not generally protected speech
The university equality officer at the centre of a racism and sexism row could lose her job after she allegedly tweeted a hashtag 'kill all white men'.
Bahar Mustafa, 27, student union Welfare and Diversity Officer at Goldsmiths University in London, was accused of discrimination after she told white people and men 'not to come' to a meeting she was organising to discuss 'diversifying the curriculum'.
Now students have launched a petition calling for her to be removed from the post, saying she has 'made students feel intimidated', been 'unprofessional in her public conduct' and 'encouraged or expressed hatred based on an individual’s race, gender, or social position'.
A similar petition on the public change.org site, which says she should be expelled has more than 2,700 online signatures, although another one backing her has been signed by nearly 1,300 people.
The students union petition, which closes on May 26, calls for a vote of no confidence in Ms Mustafa and claims she used hashtags including #killallwhitemen, as well as calling someone 'white trash' on Twitter.
Ms Mustafa's ban on white people and men from the meeting was made public last month.
20 May, 2015
With apologies to Orwell
YouTube and Google win lawsuit in free speech battle over anti-Muslim film
YouTube should not have been forced to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to actors, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a victory for free speech advocates.
The ninth US circuit court of appeal sided with Google, which owns YouTube, after free speech advocates urged the court to overturn a 2-1 decision by three of its judges. The three judges had ordered YouTube to take down the video.
Actress Cindy Lee Garcia wanted Innocence of Muslims removed from the site after receiving death threats. Her lawyer argued she had a copyright claim to the low-budget film because she believed she was acting in a different production.
Google argued Garcia had no claim to the film because the film-maker wrote the dialogue, managed the production and dubbed over her lines.
It wasn’t immediately clear if or when the video would be reposted on YouTube. A Google spokesman did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
The film inspired rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the prophet Muhammad, and President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down.
Google, which said those requests amounted to censorship, was joined by an unusual alliance of filmmakers, other internet companies and prominent news media organizations that didn’t want the court to alter copyright law or infringe on first amendment rights.
19 May, 2015
UK: Must not portray elderly people as infirm
Even though the signs are placed where the infirm elderly are likely to be
Since it was introduced in 1981, the ‘Elderly People’ road sign has got on people’s nerves. The winner of a children’s competition, it shows an aged couple hobbling across the road.
Last year, the Government’s tsar for the elderly, Dr Ros Altmann, said the sign should be banned altogether because it puts off employers from hiring people over 50.
Now a series of designers has been commissioned to produce a cheerier series of options.
Margaret Calvert, responsible for many of our road signs — including ‘Men at Work’ and ‘Children Crossing’ but not the elderly people — has come up with a sprightlier couple, jauntily crossing the road, hand in hand.
Calvert, born in 1936, says the ‘Children Crossing’ sign was inspired by herself as a girl. Her new elderly people sign is based on her as a pensioner.
Another offering, based on Morecambe and Wise, comes from creative consultant David Worthington, while graphic designer Jason Godfrey suggested a sign based on pills and tablets.
‘The old road sign shows a silhouette of two extremely decrepit old people crossing a road. But older people aren’t like that any more.
'Mick Jagger is 71, Billy Connolly’s 72, Judi Dench is 80 and Dame Helen Mirren is the face of L’Oréal at 69. People are living longer and older age needs rebranding, ideally using wit and humour.’
Mural of beaver getting fed is incorrect
Two artists have sparked outrage after painting a mural of a young woman feeding a beaver on the side of an adult bookstore - with some fearing the drawing will 'attract children and pedophiles'.
Jesse Smith and Miguel Del Cuadro started working on the bright, cartoon-style artwork at the request of Alison Barber - the owner of Taboo bookstore in Richmond, Virginia - last Friday.
Eight days on, they have used up 20 gallons of paint and 75 cans of spray-paint on the unfinished mural, which features a female dressed in a top and a short skirt feeding a purple beaver an apple.
However, both they and Ms Barber have recently come under fire from locals, some of whom claim the painting could attract children to the store, especially because the woman 'looks like a little girl'.
'It is beautifully done, but I believe it will attract children to an area that may have pedophiles or the like. I believe [it] sets a dangerous precedent, and I wonder if others are uncomfortable by it.'
Some social media users also expressed concern over the artwork - which is a reference to either the act of sexual intercourse or female masturbation - with one writing on Reddit: 'So frightening.'
Taboo bookstore, one of three high-end adult bookstores owned by Ms Barber, is situated at 5100 Midlothian Turnpike. Its location is less than a 15-minute walk from George Wythe High School.
Ms Barber told the network that she had wanted something 'bright, friendly and happy' painting on the side of her store - and 'ironically, something that was not going to cause a stir or a fuss at all'. But he joked: 'There's no such thing as bad publicity I guess haha.'
And although some residents' and social media users' have voiced concern over the painting - which is expected to be completed in the next couple of days - others have spoken out in defense of it.
One wrote on Fark the artwork was 'provocative without being sleazy'. Another joked: 'This mural is ridiculous. From my years of research, I know beavers prefer cucumbers, carrots, or zucchini.'
18 May, 2015
'I Can't Bake That Cake Because It Would Offend Muslims'
Last week, Rush Limbaugh wondered rhetorically, “Where do we draw the line?” when it comes to offending Muslims. Is it drawing cartoons or is it advocating same-sex marriage? Expanding on that idea Monday, Limbaugh proposed something for American bakers facing gay fascists: “My idea for you is quite simple. …
Let’s say that you own the ABC wedding cake bakery. The only thing you do is you bake wedding cakes. And as such, militant gay activists target your bakery. They’re gonna take you out, they’re gonna take you down, they’re gonna walk in there, they’re gonna tell you they’re gonna get married, and of all the bakeries in the world, yours has been recommended to them because that’s all you do, therefore you must be better than anybody else at baking wedding cakes.
Instead of telling the gay couple that you refuse to bake the cake for their wedding because you disapprove of homosexuality, you should now say you are not going to bake a cake for the gay wedding because you fear Muslim backlash. Or, due to your respect of Islam, you cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding. See how that flies.”
Indeed, it would at least be entertaining to watch the Left contort in knots trying to get around the results of their own “logic.”
Should speech critical of Islam be banned on campus?
Muslims say it should but law professor Volokh says that would violate the 1st Amendment
Huffington Post (Alexandra Svokos) reports that conservative firebrand David Horowitz spoke at the University of North Carolina, and said (among other things) that “the Muslim Students Association and Students for Justice in Palestine are associated with terrorist organizations” and “intend to ‘kill the Jews, to push them into the sea.'”
Muslim students spoke out against those statements, and “began an online campaign called #NotSafeUNC to show how they have felt discriminated against on and around campus.”
What I found noteworthy, though, was the statement from Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations:
"[Anti-Muslim speakers] create a hostile learning environment for Muslim and Arab-American students, and that’s what they’re designed to do. … They’re designed to demonize Muslim and Arab students"
“Hostile learning environment,” of course, isn’t just a general term of condemnation — it’s not just calling something “offensive” or “insulting” or even “hate speech.” Rather, a “hostile learning environment” (also known as a “hostile educational environment”) is a legal term of art, referring to something that violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act or other bans on discrimination in education. Many campus speech and conduct codes, including UNC’s, ban speech or conduct that creates a “hostile environment.” The federal government has stated that speech that creates a hostile environment based on national origin is barred by Title VI. Indeed, CAIR has in the past called for the federal government to investigate allegations of a hostile learning environment.
So the statement is suggesting that, in CAIR’s view, “anti-Muslim speakers” may already violate campus speech codes, and that universities may be under a legal obligation (under Title VI) to exclude such speakers.
Now I think that a public university’s exclusion of anti-Muslim speakers — or, more broadly, speakers that are harshly critical of Islam generally or certain strands in particular — would violate the First Amendment, and Title VI cannot constitutionally be interpreted to require universities (public or private) to exclude such speakers. There is no “hostile learning environment” exception to the First Amendment, and I think cases striking down campus speech codes support that position.
But I thought that it was worth noting that CAIR’s view is different: CAIR seems to think that the force of law — and of campus speech codes — should indeed be used to exclude anti-Muslim speakers from university campuses.
17 May, 2015
Must not mention Muslims
A headteacher who racially abused staff and said 'If we have any more Muslims in here it's going to start looking like Al Jazeera' while checking CVs has been sacked by a school.
Anupe Hanch, 49, who was in charge of Gearies Junior School, in Ilford, Essex, for seven years, also asked a pupil 'Do you want to become a paedophile?' and said she wanted to 'chop off' the head of one of her colleagues, a hearing was told.
In July 2010 she locked the assistant headteacher in her office for three hours and a year later got another staff member to place the jobs section of the Times Education Supplement on the assistant head's desk every Friday.
Ms Hanch denied the allegations but a National College for Teaching and Leadership panel found them to be proven.
She was found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct after the panel spent two weeks hearing evidence from witnesses.
A report published after the inquiry said Ms Hanch made racist remarks over Muslim colleagues taking the religious holiday of Eid off in September 2010.
The teacher said she was trying to encourage staff and children not to take religious holidays.
The panel determined on the basis of probabilities the allegation was proven saying it 'did not find the racist nature of the alleged comment to be completely contrary to the nature of Ms Hanch, as she had suggested'.
She also insulted a Polish colleague and said she would like to 'chop off' the head of another staff member and 'see her walking around headless', the hearing was told.
When reviewing CVs for a job, Ms Hanch said: 'If we have any more Muslims in here it's going to start looking like Al Jazeera', according to the report.
Other allegations the panel found proven were that Ms Hanch referred to one pupil as 'a devil' and said 'I'm going to have to break down 5,000 years of Islam to get through to her' when a staff member asked for time off to volunteer at the 2012 London Olympics.
No free speech in Muslim Bangladesh
A MASKED gang wielding machetes hacked a blogger to death in Bangladesh on Tuesday — the third deadly attack since February.
Ananta Bijoy Das was murdered in broad daylight as he headed to work at a local bank in the city of Sylhet, police said.
A group of four masked men attacked him with machetes around 8:30am on a busy street in the country’s fifth biggest city, before melting back into the crowd.
Police would not comment on a motive for the brutal attack. However fellow writers say he was on a ‘hit list’ drawn up by militants behind a spate of killings including fellow blogger Avijit Roy — a Bangladeshi-born US citizen who was hacked to death in the capital Dhaka in February.
Head of a Bangladeshi bloggers’ association, Imran Sarker said Das was an atheist who regularly blogged for Mukto-Mona, a website that used to be run by Roy.
“We condemn this heinous killing. It once again confirms our fear that there is a culture of impunity in Bangladesh. Anyone can now get away with killing a progressive free thinker,” Mr Sarker said.
Police chief Hasan said they are investigating an announcement by an unknown group called Ansar Al-Islam who said on Twitter that al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent was responsible for Das’s murder and warned of more to come.
The group has already claimed responsibility for the deadly attack on Roy on February 26 in which his wife was badly injured. An Islamic extremist has been arrested over his murder.
Debasish Debu, a friend of recently killed blogger Das, said the 33-year-old banker was an editor of a quarterly magazine called Jukti (Logic) and headed the Sylhet-based Science and Rationalist Council.
According to the Mukto-Mona site, Das won the publication’s annual Rationalist Award in 2006 for his “deep and courageous interest in spreading secular and humanist ideals and messages”.
15 May, 2015
Must not call someone fat
Pink wore a pretty but voluminous gown for the 2015 BMI Music Awards that covered her from neck to toe - but the singer insists she isn't 'covering up' because she doesn't like the way her body looks.
The Try hitmaker, 35, says she refuses to be bullied about her weight. 'I think people have gotten it wrong. They think their opinion matters and holds weight, and I don't know where or why they're giving themselves so much credit, you know? So I thought it was important for me to remind them that I don't care,' she told Entertainment Tonight.
Pink was responding to a question about why she came down hard on her Twitter followers who suggested she's put on weight after she wore a black dress with a plunging neckline to the John Wayne 30th Annual Odyssey Ball last month.
'I don't take well to bullying. I never have. I'm not a person that will be bullied. I'm not a person that will stand by watching other people bullied,' she said. 'I'm raising a girl. I am a girl. I have feelings. People think I take no s**t and I'm tough, tougher than nails, but I'm a human being.'
Her sweeping criticisms of George Bush are fine, though. Leftists can dish it out but can't take it.
No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment
By UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh
I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.
To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight.
But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)
The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend.
The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception.
14 May, 2015
Is "special needs" now a bad expression?
Police launched a 'disability hate crime' investigation after a headteacher said one of her pupils had 'special needs'.
Janet Felkin, who runs Blatchington Mill School in Hove, East Sussex, had to fight the discrimination claims after a parent complained that the autistic student would find the term offensive.
After six months of having the probe hanging over her, while the local council and the Department of Education got involved, she has now been found to have no case to answer.
The term 'special needs' is believed to have been used at a governors' meeting and in the meeting's minutes, which were later taken down from the school's website.
A parent-governor complained that the 'highly intelligent' student, who falls under the autistic spectrum, would be offended by the description.
But after no action was taken against her this week, Mrs Felkin branded the complaints 'vexatious'.
UK: Must not notice women's bodies
Nightclub bosses have been forced to apologise after advertising for waitresses with 'athletic physiques' and asking applicants to include a 'full body shots' with their CV.
The job advert, which also called for potential candidates to provide service with a smile, was posted by Pryzm nightclub in Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey.
The notice, which was uploaded on Monday to the club's Facebook page and removed after less than 24 hours, stated: 'We are looking for VIP Hostess / Waitresses to join our team.
'The applicant must have great customers (sic) service skills, provide service with a smile, be hard working & be of athletic physique. 'In return you will receive great basic pay plus commission payments.
Accompanying the advert is a video - now deleted - shows a hostess bringing bottles of champagne - complete with burning candles either side - to a VIP table at the club.
Local job-hunter Samantha Cooke, 21, said she saw the ad and was 'disgusted'. She said: 'I've been to Pryzm a few times clubbing and thought it might be a nice place to work, but when I saw the advert I was disgusted - they just want someone with a body the lads can ogle.
'I'm not just a body and nightclubs should have got rid of their meat market mentality in this day and age.'
Another local, Graham Livingstone, 41, said: 'It's pretty obvious they want a young woman with a nice body - it's just it's not very PC to say that these days.'
Another, calling themselves Smithy456 and writing online before the ad was removed on Facebook, wrote: 'How disgusting - what a bunch of creeps at Pryzm!!!'
A spokeswoman for Luminar, which owns Pryzm - which has clubs in Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff and Leeds as well as Kingston-upon-Thames, said: 'We are an equal opportunities employer and apologise unreservedly for any offence this post may have caused.
13 May, 2015
I used to think that prudery went out with the '60s but we now seem to live in an era when people moan about everything and anything
A bus company has prompted outrage by using an advert which shows topless models holding up signs saying 'Ride me all day for £3'.
New Adventure Travel Ltd (NAT), based in Cardiff, excitedly took to Twitter this morning to promote the new provocative adverts which have been emblazoned across the back of ten new buses.
One advert shows a dark-haired woman posing in a sultry manner with the suggestive sign, while another shows the same sign being held by a topless male model.
But the campaign backfired when passengers condemned the company for being 'unacceptable' and 'insulting'. Others accused the company of 'promoting sexism and rape culture'.
Singer Charlotte Church even waded into the debate, saying the signs were 'atrocious'.
Federal Agency to Regulate Christmas Lights
On a hot day in Washington, D.C., a federal agency issued 11 pages of new regulations on Christmas lights and other holiday decorations, calling certain products “a substantial product hazard.”
“The Consumer Product Safety Commission … is issuing a final rule to specify that seasonal and decorative lighting products that do not contain any one of three readily observable characteristics (minimum wire size, sufficient strain relief or overcurrent protection), as addressed in a voluntary standard, are deemed a substantial product hazard under the Consumer Product Safety Act,” the Consumer Product Safety Commission said on Monday in its new rule.
A voluntary standard, which created safety guidelines for companies that manufacture Christmas lights, was created by Underwriters Laboratories in the 1990s. Underwriters Laboratories is a non-governmental party that provides safety-related guidance to a wide range of industries.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has now taken those standards and imposed them as official, enforceable regulations.
Products found in violation of any of the imposed safety characteristics can now be stopped at ports or otherwise prevented from distribution without testing.
If Christmas lights are not made in accordance with these standards, the agency said consumers can be “seriously injured or killed by electrical shocks or fires.”
In its justification, the Consumer Product Safety Commission cited 258 deaths that have occurred as a result of dangerous holiday lights since 1980.
The vast majority of those deaths occurred before 1994, prior to when Underwriters Laboratories issued its voluntary standard for the industry.
Since the voluntary standard was put into place, that number has sharply declined.
In 2014, no deaths were attributed to being caused by Christmas lights. In 2015, the agency cited one death caused by holiday decorations.
Critics argued the rule “represents government waste, government overreach, or would result in a ‘waste of money,’” but the commission disagreed, citing its mission to protect consumers from “unreasonable” risks of injury or death.
Diane Katz, a research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, disagrees. “This is regulating for the convenience and power of regulators—not for public safety.”
The rule takes effect on June 3.
12 May, 2015
Member of British anti-imigrant party banned from teaching for Muslim jibe
A teacher who told a class of teenage girls that he was ‘allergic’ to Muslims and they ‘worshipped the devil’ will be banned from the profession for life this week.
Self-styled cleric the Rev Robert West, who stood for the British National Party in the General Election, made the comments during a discussion on the use of cavalry in the Crusades.
When a pupil said she was allergic to horses, Mr West replied: ‘I’m allergic to Mohammedans.’
And he told another class at Walton Girls High School in Grantham, Lincolnshire: ‘Muslims worship the devil.’
Andrew Colman of the National College for Teaching and Leadership said his remarks were ‘unacceptable’.
West will be banned by the Department for Education this week.
I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.
Satirical owner of BBQ restaurant in trouble over mention of race
The owner of a Colorado barbecue joint has spoken out, after the restaurant was harshly criticized online for its scheduled 'White Appreciation Day' next month.
Rubbin' Buttz BBQ and Country Cafe is going to give white patrons on June 11th ten percent off.
Commenters on the Milliken restaurant's Facebook page have claimed that Rubbin' Buttz is offering a racist deal. Its Yelp page has also received a heap of negative one-star reviews, ever since the scheduled event was first revealed in a KUSA report last week.
Restaurant co-owner Edgar Antillon told Daily Mail Online that Rubbin' Buttz was evacuated on Friday after a bomb threat had been called in.
Addressing critics, Antillon said 'I think they should actually know what the day is really about.'
Co-owner: Edgar Antillon, who co-owns Rubbin' Buttz BBQ, is also a concealed carry activist. He has said 'We wanted to emphasize white appreciation because there's a lack of that'
The discount, he explained, was 'making a joke about the need of us having Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month, and understanding what we want to accomplish is eliminate the need for that.'
'We're all Americans,' he said. 'We're all from one country whether we were born here or not.'
11 May, 2015
Not allowed to teach monogamy in some Australian schools?
ANGLICAN church leaders have slammed an “unprecedented” interference by the Department of Education after it banned three books used by the church’s scripture teachers on the basis they promoted only monogamous heterosexual relationships.
Scripture teachers were told this week they were not allowed to use books called Teen Sex By The Book by Patricia Weerakoon, You: An Introduction by Michael Jensen, and A Sneaking Suspicion by John Dickson because the texts violated departmental policy.
The texts were used in Special Religious Education (SRE) classes at state schools — classes parents choose to send their children to.
Castle Hill Liberal MP Ray Williams, whose electorate covers much of Sydney’s “bible belt”, said he was requesting an urgent explanation on the book ban from Education Minister Adrian Piccoli.
“Several Anglican leaders in my community have contacted me today saying they are completely shocked at the heavy-handed, reactionary response of the department by demanding these books be removed,” he said.
“I believe the principle of a ‘one partner’ relationship is a fundamental value upheld by society, regardless of whether people are religious or not.”
Mr Piccoli said he had asked the department to review the decision to ban the books: “Department officials will meet with SRE providers to discuss the issue.’’
Must not offend pigs
Is there no end to this nonsense?
They are supposed to be at the forefront of fighting disease and saving lives all over the world.
But in an astonishing example of political correctness, World Health Organisation officials have called for terms such as swine flu, bird flu and monkey pox to be banned – in order to protect animals from needless slaughter.
Other conditions – including German measles and Spanish flu – will also be outlawed because they might upset people from those countries.
Last night experts said the proposal would turn the Geneva-based WHO into an international laughing stock. The organisation was recently criticised for its failure to react quickly to the ebola outbreak in West Africa.
WHO – a UN body to which Britain contributes £35 million a year – says the aim of the new guidelines is to minimise the ‘negative impact’ of such terms as German measles or Lyme disease on travel, tourism or animal welfare.
It also wants to avoid offending ‘cultural, social, national, regional, professional or ethnic groups’.
But bacteriologist Professor Hugh Pennington, who chaired inquiries into E.coli outbreaks in Scotland and South Wales, said: ‘This won’t save lives. It comes under the heading of political correctness and I am very sceptical it will have any permanent benefit. As for avoiding upsetting animals, that is a load of rubbish.
10 May, 2015
Colors in politics
For a very long time, red has been the color of the Left. But in America today it is the color of Republicans. How come? It was a bit of Leftist "cleverness" by some media types in (I think) the year 2000, when they put up TV projections of the vote on election night that reversed what was customary and displayed GOP-leaning States in red -- part of the unending quest for change that characterizes Leftists.
In the graphic below, an election-night projection from the recent British election, you will note that party colors follow tradition in Britain. Conservatives are true blue. The only dubious bit about British practice below is showing the Scottish Nationalists in yellow. Why? The only reason I can think of is that it is more polite than showing them in their true colors -- Fascist brown.
Given the love of change for the sake of change that we often seem to see on the Left, I wonder if some bright spark will in due course revert to the original colors for TV displays?
Being a male, blue is of course my favorite color so I am rather pleased to see in operetta that blue eyes are often described as treu, variously translatable as loyal, faithful, reliable, honorable, trustworthy. I say more about that here.
Operettas all date from before WWII, however, so they could say things that would not be allowed today. Just mentioning blue eyes is probably "racist" these days. I seem to have gotten away with talking about iris pigmentation, however -- which is the same thing.
And we all know of course that blacks are no longer "colored" -- the NAACP excepted.
False racism accusation acknowledged
An actress who accused Los Angeles police of racially profiling her in a lewd conduct case has agreed to apologize to the three officers who detained her months after the incident took place. Daniele Watts, who acted in the movie “Django Unchained,” pleaded no contest on Monday to disturbing peace with loudness after police responded to reports that she was having sex with her boyfriend in a parked car in September, NBC News reported.
The three officers had briefly detained Watts and her boyfriend, Brian Lucas, before releasing them later in the day. Watts condemned the officers’ decision in a Facebook post, claiming they had both been fully clothed. She wrote: "The tears I cry for a country that calls itself 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' and yet detains people for claiming that very right."
Watts and Lucas were sentenced to 40 hours of community service and a year of "formal diversion" that usually entails counseling. The two were also reportedly ordered to write apology letters to the three officers and occupants of the nearby building where they were detained. Charges of lewd conduct were removed from their records.
8 May, 2015
Air Force general resigns command after ‘drunker than 10,000 Indians’ remark
Caught out by a bit of military slang
An Air Force general resigned his command last week after making insulting remarks about Native Americans.
Maj. Gen. Michael Keltz, commander of the 19th Air Force at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, made the comments during a disciplinary hearing last month for a lower-ranking officer accused of being intoxicated, reported the Express-News.
Keltz told the officer he appeared to be “drunker than 10,000 Indians” in a photo entered as evidence in the hearing.
The other officer had accepted a finding of wrongdoing in a previous hearing, and Keltz berated him after the officer had asked for a reduced punishment during the April 9 hearing.
Keltz is a decorated combat pilot who led task forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Greenpeace fracking advert that claimed drilling for shale gas 'won't cut energy bills' is banned by watchdog
Lies are not protected speech. Shale has already slashed American oil and gas prices dramatically
A Greenpeace advert claiming that allowing fracking in UK ‘won’t cut energy bills’ has been banned in a victory for David Cameron and other supporters of the technology.
The campaigning group argued fracking for gas under Britain would threaten the climate, the countryside and the water supply.
Significantly, it attempted to appeal to the nation’s purses and wallets by stressing: ‘Experts agree – it won’t cut our energy bills.’
However, a complaint from the pro-fracking Labour peer Lord Lipsey said it was wrong and misleading to state that access to a new source of gas from shale rocks will not cut prices.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has agreed and banned Greenpeace from making the claim in its anti-fracking advertising campaigns.
The group cited comments from the Lib-Dem energy secretary, Ed Davey, who in March described the idea that fracking would massively reduce prices and transform the economy as ‘ridiculous’.
However, the ASA rules today that given the disagreements, Greenpeace was wrong to state as fact that the introduction of fracking in this country will not cut energy bills.
The watchdog pointed to the comments made by Mr Cameron as evidence there is no consensus on the impact on bills.
It said: ‘While we acknowledged that Greenpeace had provided quotes from 22 people, groups or organisations, demonstrating support for the view that fracking would not reduce energy prices, we understood that there was a significant division of informed opinion on the issue.
‘While we understood the claim was made in the context of a public debate on fracking, we considered the claim was absolute in nature and, therefore, implied the statement was accepted among informed opinion, which we understood was not the case. Because of that, we concluded that the ad was misleading.’
Greenpeace dismissed the decision and questioned the impartiality of the ASA.
7 May, 2015
Must not count Muslims
A French mayor has been accused of acting like a Nazi today after looking at children's names to establish how many were Muslims. Far right politician Robert Menard counted up first names such as Mohamed to compile illegal statistics, in tactics which evoked memories of the Holocaust.
He claims to have established that almost 65 per cent of youngsters in Beziers, in the south of France, were Muslim, while also complaining that 'the majority of mothers don't speak French.'
Mr Menard told France 2 television station: 'Sorry to say this, but the town hall has, class by class, the names of the children.
'I know I don't have the right to do it. Sorry to say it, but the first names tell us their religion. To say otherwise is to deny the evidence.'
As a secular republic, France does not officially compile any statistics at all about people's religions, instead treating everybody as citizens equal under the law.
But Mr Menard's tactics caused outrage, with Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve saying counting children by religion 'takes us back to the darkest hours of our history'.
Mr Cazeneuve was referring to the Second World War Holocaust when the occupying German, with the help of French collaborators, 'rounded up' anyone suspected of being Jewish.
A single complaint gets an expensive advertisement banned
An advertisement for luxury fashion brand Prada featuring a young Hollywood actress has been banned for appearing to sexualise a child. In the image, British-born Mia Goth is seen lying on a bed through an open doorway, as if she is being spied on.
Although she was 21 when the pictures were taken, the Advertising Standards Authority said the styling meant she looked under 16.
The watchdog acted following a single complaint over the advert for the Italian label’s diffusion line Miu Miu, which appeared over a double-page spread in Vogue earlier this year.
Prada defended the image saying it was part of a campaign featuring three different models and actresses, including Imogen Poots and Marine Vacth, in a series of cinematic tableaux, denying there was a sexual tone.
The company said it ‘showed [Miss Goth] on crisp white bed sheets, wearing a sophisticated outfit, without a low neck-line, and nude make-up’.
6 May, 2015
Must not mention that Hillary Clinton is female
ONE is the former CEO of Hewlett Packard. The other is the former US Secretary of State. They are powerful women with eyes on the most powerful position in the free world.
Yet somehow the run for presidency of newly-announced Republican candidate Carly Fiorina and Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton has been reduced to a “weird girl fight”.
Those are the poorly-chosen words of CNN host Carol Costello overnight whose foot in mouth moment when announcing the pair’s White House bids added, sadly, to a long list of sexist remarks aimed at female politicians.
After Fiorina’s announcement that she was running, Costello said the Republican candidate had positioned herself as an ”attack dog” to take down Clinton. “She’s sort of setting herself up to be Hillary Clinton’s chief attack dog,” she said. “And Republicans are embracing her. So, it’s turning into this weird girl fight almost.”
NBC Declines to Label Gunmen in TX Terror Shooting ‘Islamic Extremists’ or 'Terrorists'
In covering the failed terrorist attack at a Prophet Mohammad cartoon event in Texas, NBC neglected to describe the two gunmen on Monday evening as “Islamic extremists” or “terrorists” while all three English networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) prominently touted the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) description of AFDI as an “anti-Muslim” or “anti-Islamic” “hate group.”
NBC Nightly News interim anchor Lester Holt declared in a tease that “gunmen” had “opened fire at an anti-Islamist event in Texas” and later before correspondent Jacob Rascone’s report that “[i]t happened at a Dallas suburb where a group the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled an anti-Islamic hate group was holding a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest.”
On the subject of whether it was a work of terrorism, Holt only went as far as to note that “authorities are investigating it as a possible terror attack.” As for Rascon, the NBC News correspondent continually referred to the terrorists as only “gunmen” or “suspects” and parroted the SPLC’s label from Garland, Texas:
While the CBS Evening News also promoted the SPLC’s labeling of AFDI, the CBS newscast stood out in how it described those behind the shooting. Anchor Scott Pelley made the immediate connection to Islam in one of the show’s opening teases: “Islamic extremists open fire in a terror attack near Dallas. We now know who the suspects were.”
5 May, 2015
Typical Leftist doublespeak from a Leftist Rabbi
He starts out saying, "I am a strong supporter of the right to free speech" and then goes on immediately to applaud its banning. He clearly likes Stalin's definition of free speech: "Freedom to agree with me"
I am a strong supporter of the right to free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a principle which is at the very heart of the liberties we enjoy in America.
Nevertheless, I applaud the April 28 decision by the Board of the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to ban all political advertising on its buses and subways, rather than accede to a U.S. District judge's irresponsible ruling that the MTA must allow an inflammatory ad that defames Muslims
Allow me to briefly run through the chain of events that led us to this pass. The 9-2 decision by the MTA Board to ban all political advertising came several days after U.S. District Judge John Koeltl ruled that the MTA must run an ad by Pamela Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative on New York City subways and buses featuring a photo of a sinister-looking man in a checkered keffiyah and the words, "Killing Jews is worship that draws us closer to Allah." The ad, which cites Hamas MTV as the source of its quote, closes with the noxious tagline, "That's his jihad. What's yours?"
UK: Black lawyers taking outspoken TV personality to an international court
This is pretty dumb. The ICC lacks jurisdiction in such matters as far as I can see. It has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes only
A UK law society has stepped up its pursuit of the Sun and its ‘Nazi propaganda’ spouting columnist Katie Hopkins over alleged anti-migrant hate speech, referring both to a powerful international court usually reserved for war criminals.
The Society of Black Lawyers, which originally reported the column written by Hopkins and published by the Sun just hours before 800 migrants drowned in the Mediterranean, has referred the case to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The SBL’s efforts come after UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said the column – in which Hopkins referred to migrants as “cockroaches” – recalled Europe’s darkest days of fascist hate speech and “Nazi propaganda.”
4 May, 2015
US Immigration Exam Replaces ‘Freedom of Religion’ With ‘Freedom of Worship’
Another Leftist attempt to change words in an attempt to change reality
A Republican senator from Oklahoma pressed Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson at a hearing Wednesday about why the U.S. is “misrepresenting” Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion to immigrants who are applying to become U.S. citizens.
“We in the United States actually have freedom of religion, not freedom of worship,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Johnson yesterday during a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing.
Lankford was referring to the department’s decision to include “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion” as a basic American right listed in the civics test that all immigrants must take to become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Sarah Torre, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation who focuses on issues related to religious liberty, argued the difference between “freedom of worship” and “freedom of religion” is significant.
“This incorrect view of religious liberty argues that faith should remain a private affair—relegated to personal activities or weekend worship services,” she said. “Step outside the four walls of a home or house of worship and robust protection of religious freedom ends.”
Is "whiteness" a problem?
A course at Arizona State U identified whiteness as a problem. Is that OK? How about identifying blackness as a problem? What would be the response to that? So did ASU can the course? No. They did and said nothing. But when people began firing back, they found a voice:
After months of silence, Arizona State University is condemning recent activity by White nationalists and "hate preachers" who were responding, in part, to a new class on the "Problem of Whiteness."
James Rund, an ASU administrator who oversees student services at all four ASU campuses, issued a statement with Jake Bennett, director of the Anti-Defamation League in Arizona, and well as representatives from ASU Undergraduate Student Government, ASU Police, Hillel ASU, Tempe Interfaith and almost 20 other co-signers.
"There have been a series of hate speech incidents over recent weeks in Tempe and Mesa, orchestrated by Neo-Nazi groups and hate preachers," the statement begins. "Some of the incidents included anti-Black, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT and anti-Muslim speech and intimidation. This behavior and these sentiments do not reflect the values of our community."
ASU President Michael Crow defended the class and its teacher, assistant professor Lee Bebout, in an interview published last week in the State Press, ASU's student newspaper, but the joint statement marks the first time the university has responded to the recent hate speech and its perpetrators, as a whole.
How do they know their critics were Nazis? It's just a casual slur. They have submitted no evidence of it. But Leftists don't need evidence, of course. Their anger is sufficient.
3 May, 2015
A Thug by Any Other Name
For most Americans, including President Barack Obama, the term “thug” seemed an appropriate appellation for the rioters who destroyed businesses, homes and other property in Baltimore this week.
Now liberals are crying foul. The Baltimore Sun has editorialized, “Having city leaders apply it to the high school students and others who rioted throughout Baltimore tells the offenders that they weren’t just wrong in what they did, but that they’re also worthless because of it — something too many people already believe.”
Baltimore’s mayor, after initially using the term, apologized on Twitter: “That night we saw misguided young people who need to be held accountable, but who also need support. And my comments then didn’t convey that.” Several commentators have likened the use of the term to the N-word.
But a thug by any other name remains just that. What does one call the people running into a Baltimore CVS and stripping its contents before setting it afire? Somehow “misguided young people” doesn’t quite convey the behavior or the participants.
The world watched while parts of Baltimore burned. Not just stores owned by big corporations who can rebuild — though most likely somewhere else — but mom and pop storefronts blazed throughout the night, as did a brand-new senior housing center and modest row houses that had been owned by some families for generations. To try to understand the perpetrators' motivation or to excuse their actions is a great disservice to the victims of the violence.
UK: Watch that joke!
OK. I am going to say what is probably behind the joke: There are some masochistic women. Being assaulted during a sexual encounter turns them on. I once had an encounter with such a woman. I recoiled and refused point blank to do what she wanted but there is no doubt that others had given her what she wanted. I was however curious about her wishes and asked her about it. She attributed it to her having had an abusive father. So the joker below was probably just acknowledging reality
An Oxford university newspaper has sparked outrage after printing a joke about punching women during sex. The quote 'No I haven't punched a girl during sex. But never say never' is highlighted at the top of a page in The Newt, a publication distributed around the University of Oxford's New College.
A women's charity has hit out at the 'inappropriate' and 'offensive' use of the line, which appeared at the top of page eight above a separate sports article.
Chris Green, director of anti-violence against women charity, the White Ribbon Campaign, said: 'The inappropriate page header of the "news" paper which is delivered to every pigeonhole in New College reinforces sexist and controlling disrespectful attitudes which students are already excessively exposed to.
'Only a foolhardy publisher would put such an offensive quote into a newspaper. The publishers would do well to offer a page to an anti-violence organisation to explain the issues as a minimum response.'
A spokesman for New College Oxford, whose former students include Hollywood actress Kate Beckinsale and comedian Sally Phillips, said: 'The College does not condone remarks of this kind, and is looking into the circumstances.'
1 May, 2015
Model wades into Protein World row... as she credits brand for her own 'healthy' weightloss
A few days ago, I noted the adverse reaction to an advertisement in Britain that featured a shapely woman in a bikini. The advertisement was for a product that allegedly aids in slimming. The uproar has not died down. It has escalated. Below is the latest:
It's the campaign that has seemingly struck a raw nerve across the nation, prompting petitions, planned protests and even bomb threats.
But one person who is baffled by the Protein World outrage is reality star Holly Hagan, who puts her dramatic weightloss down in part to the brand's products.
Speaking about the response to that advert, which features a lithe bikini model alongside the slogan 'Are you beach body ready?', the Geordie Shore beauty admits she's baffled at the huge outpouring of anger.
Speaking exclusively to MailOnline, she says: 'I think the whole thing has been taken way too seriously. If people want to put their time to something worthwhile then they should be donating to the disaster in Nepal, woman rights in Africa.
'This is a healthy woman who is posing for a fitness brand, one who exports around the world and supports the economy.
'It's not saying that you have to look like the model on the poster, it's just an illustration of a healthy, fit and toned model who we can admire, not suggesting we all have to look like that. I think she looks fantastic.'
Holly, who has shed three stone [42 lb] over the last year after completely overhauling her health and fitness, signed up as an ambassador for the company last year as the effects of her new lifestyle began to show.
The campaign has seen many of its posters defaced with feminist slogans, more than 50,000 people have signed a petition to have them removed and a demonstration is planned for this weekend in protest.
However, the company’s marketing boss, Richard Staveley, insists the ad has been a hit with their target audience: ‘It’s been a brilliant campaign for us and I don’t see us changing anything dramatically any time soon.’
I'm guessing that it is feminists and less attractive women (do I repeat myself?) who are behind the uproar.
Must not suggest that men and women may have different food preferences
A cafe has come under fire for offering a breakfast menu with separate food suggestions for male and female diners.
Caffe Be On, in Clare Street, Bristol, has been accused of sexism on Twitter after a photo of its 'his' and 'her' breakfast went viral.
The restaurant's £7.95 meal deal offers a full English for men, while women get to enjoy a muffin, poached egg, and smoked salmon for the same price.
The menu has come under attack after a picture of it was posted by Charlotte Murray. The charity administrator from St Werburgh's also tweeted the picture to Everyday Sexism, an organisation that addresses the discrimination women face on a daily basis.
On the menu, men are offered tortilla, bacon, sausage, tomato, mushroom, cheese, ham, bread and butter as part of the 'For Him' deal. Female diners on the other hand can breakfast on an English muffin, smoked salmon, poached egg, salad leaves, cherry tomatoes, avocado, red onion, blueberry yoghurt and pumpkin seeds.
In her initial post, Ms Murray had said: 'Not impressed with these gendered menu choices in a Bristol Café. WTF.'
Speaking to FEMAIL, Ms Murray said: 'The positive responses have been great. 'I'm glad that people are recognising that it is lazy stereotyping and that there's no need for it.'
'This plays into lazy stereotypes about masculinity and femininity - that women are very diet and health conscious, men are grease-loving slobs. It feels patronising and old-fashioned,' she said to Bristol Post.
A spokesman for the cafe told FEMAIL: 'This menu has been up for over two months. 'We never thought that this is going to be offensive to anyone. 'When we were creating the menu we chose these names because it was designed for couples and based on customer feedback from men and women, but we never thought it could be read as sexist.
'There were no complaints before this, nobody has spoken about this. The menu is now down.'
This is Tongue-Tied 2
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Posts by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
HOME (Index page)
Alternative (monthly) archives for this blog are here
Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."
Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"
One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson
"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn
A prophetic comment on Norwegian hate speech laws: As Justice Brandeis once noted, repressive censorship “breeds hate” and “that hate menaces stable government,” rather than promoting safety; “the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies.”
Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.
The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.
The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it
A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.
Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.
Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human
Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?
If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862
Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?
The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand
Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out
Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.
It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."
"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response
Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech
"Negro" is a forbidden word -- unless a Democrat uses it
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper
Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts
Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt
When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.
The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.
Email me here (Hotmail address).
Index page for this site
DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:
"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
To be continued ....
Coral reef compendium. (Updated as news items come in).
Queensland Police -- A barrel with lots of bad apples
Australian Police News
BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED
"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Bank of Queensland blues
There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)
Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)
Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: