"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

22 November, 2015

The FDA Wants to Tell Us What Words Mean

The FDA is proposing a new regulation to define, and potentially ban, the use of the word “natural” in food packaging.

Historically, there has been no official definition of the term, meaning that food companies can include the word on anything they like. It’s a marketing tool, rather than a genuine description of nutritional content.

This may seem problematic to people concerned about what they eat, but the fact is that the word “natural” is inherently vague and ambiguous, making it more well-suited to go alongside other marketing words like “fun” or “tasty” than to attempt to convey specific nutritional information. Regulation of these types of terms falls outside of the purview of the FDA, and should be left for individual companies and consumers to decide.

What does “natural” actually mean? It could be anything. From one point of view, humans are creatures of nature, and therefore anything we make is by extension natural. Just as honey made by bees is natural, preservatives made by humans is too. From the other extreme, you could argue that it’s unnatural to cook food, since that requires human intervention, and this would rule out any cooked products from being labeled as natural. Some may argue that this vagueness illustrates the need for definition, but allowing a centralized authority to make that decision comes with its own set of problems.

Any definition the FDA comes up with will be necessarily arbitrary. Rather than informing consumers, what you will see is a government agency effectively picking winners and losers in the food industry. The FDA knows that consumers respond well to the “natural” label, so it would be giving a de facto sanction to some foods while forbidding others from using effective marketing.


Harvard Students Decry ‘Hate Crime’ After Tape Found On Black Profs’ Portraits

Another provocation, most likely from the Left

Students at Harvard University are denouncing an alleged hate crime at the school after strips of black tape were found over portraits of Harvard Law School (HLS)’s black professors Thursday morning. But there are several aspects of the supposed “hate crime” that suggest it could be a big hoax.

HLS’s Wasserstein Hall includes a small portrait of every single tenured faculty member at the school, but Thursday morning small black strips of tape were found covering the faces of every black professor’s portrait. The vandalism was discovered sometime before 8:30 a.m., when the first notices of the vandalism began appearing on Facebook and Twitter:

The strips of tape are already being actively denounced as a savage hate crime by Harvard students.

HLS dean Martha Minow immediately called a meeting of the school’s students and staff to discuss the incident, and announced it is under police investigation.

While activists on Facebook and Twitter are quickly denouncing the tape as a sign of the hate that lurks beneath the surface at Harvard, the possibility must be considered that the hate crime is a hoax or false flag. Bogus hate crimes have occurred with some frequency on college campuses.

One particularly noteworthy red flag is that the black tape used to deface the portraits appears to be identical to tape that was recently used by activists affiliated with the Royall Must Fall group protesting against HLS’s current seal (which is taken from the coat of arms of the slaveholding family that endowed HLS’s first professorship).


20 November, 2015

More hate-speech hokum

Most episodes like this have in the past ended up being traced to Leftist attention-seekers so that has to be the default conclusion on this occasion

 Valdosta State University’s interim president has issued a statement condemning what he referred to as "hate speech" graffiti.

The graffiti was reportedly found Tuesday on a campus bathroom stall and the university has announced an investigation of the incident and the creation of a diversity task force.

A photo of the graffiti scrawled in red marker ink circulated on social media. Posters claimed the message, that included a swastika, was found in the school’s Nevins Hall.

The hastags “#mizzoustudentsarecrybabies” and “#whitelivesmatter” were written on the bathroom stall in what is being viewed as apparent opposition to recent protests at the University of Missouri that resulted in the resignation of the school’s president.

“This morning an act of intolerance occurred on our campus. The nature of this incident is an inappropriate example of speech that does not reflect the code to which we hold ourselves – The Blazer Creed,” said Cecil P. Staton, VSU interim president, in a released statement.

The university is conducting two separate investigations as the result of the incident. The school will not be issuing any further statements about the incident until those investigations are completed, Staton said Wednesday.


Duke U hastening slowly on "hate speech"

Brodhead is being a lot more cautious now than he was in the Lacrosse team episode.  That cost Duke millions.  Brodhead  was really a d*ckhead in that episode

After recent events involving hate speech both on campus and nationally, administrators and students are debating how to balance freedom of speech with an inclusive, safe campus climate.

Although a hate crime is punishable by law because it perpetrates violence or harm, hate speech is more difficult to eliminate because it is often protected by the First Amendment. Long-standing traditions of free speech on campus have also established a precedent of protecting extreme and even hateful speech. After the defacement of the Black Lives Matter poster with a racial slur along with other racially charged incidents, students have protested and called for administrative action to create policies against hate speech on campus. According to Duke Student Affairs' website, University student conduct policy currently does not specifically mention racial harassment or hate speech.

"We [will] be revisiting and reconsidering the question of whether our disciplinary rules should have specific mention of bias and hate and specific weighting of penalties for those things," President Richard Brodhead said during an interview Friday.

Brodhead added, however, that introducing policies against bias and hate speech runs the risk of inhibiting free expression on campus. As a result, designing such policies can be complicated, and few universities have managed to do so successfully.

"If the great majority of universities in America don’t have that kind of regulation, it isn’t because they don’t care about these things," he explained. "It’s because there are complications in administering that have to be worked through."


19 November, 2015

Strange American feminist says New Zealanders are 'hateful' and mocks their accent

She seems surprised that they don't like her

Cassidy Boon has criticised New Zealanders for their grammar and pronunciation only days after comparing the All Blacks' traditional haka to 'domestic violence and rape'.

The American blogger received a backlash on social media for her thoughts on the All Blacks' haka, but she responded by pointing out the spelling errors in their copy and describing them as 'hateful'.  

‘Just wanna say how hateful you guys are – I had no idea. I thought hobbits were supposed to be nice and gentle,' she said in a YouTube post.

‘Anyway it’s no surprise to see how sexist you guys are towards strong, independent feminists with an opinion. Seriously if you guys are going to attempt to insult me you should at least attempt to do it properly.

‘I mean the differences between your and you’re, and they and they’re. Spelling errors, grammar and all that s***. By the way, it’s definitely “fish and chips” not “fush and chops”. Bye, bye.’


BBC radio presenter is sacked after calling Christian campaigner 'bigoted' for saying homosexuality is a sin

Good to see a Leftist bigot get the shaft

A BBC radio presenter has been sacked after calling a Christian campaigner 'bigoted' for saying homosexuality is a sin.

Iain Lee labelled Bible verses ‘homophobic’ during a heated debate with Libby Powell from campaign group Christian Concern on BBC Three Counties Radio - and described her as a ‘bigot’.

They were discussing the case of Christian minister Barry Trayhorn who was disciplined by prison authorities for quoting verses from the Bible during a service that were deemed to be homophobic.

But Mr Lee, 42, has since apologised for causing offence, and the BBC said the language and tone of his interview were ‘at several points inappropriate’. It has now been confirmed he has left his job.

And a BBC spokesman told MailOnline: 'Iain Lee will no longer be presenting his shows on the station but we want to take this opportunity to thank him and wish him well for the future.'

It comes after the corporation said in a complaint ruling last week: ‘Iain Lee described comments by Rev Trayhorn as “obnoxious” and “poisonous” and called Ms Powell “bigoted”.


18 November, 2015

Must not criticize official response to Muslim crimes

Former Big Brother winner Josie Gibson has been accused of racism after endorsing a controversial speech made by the former EDL leader.

The reality star posted a video of Tommy Robinson's address to the Oxford Union in which he claimed authorities were 'afraid' of standing up to extremism out of fears of being accused of racism.

Ms Gibson posted the video just one day after the Paris attacks, in which 132 people were killed and dozens more were injured. Posting the footage, she wrote: 'Before you're quick to shout "racist" watch this video'.

She then went on to say that the video was 'highlighting extremism' and 'coming up with a potential solution'.

When several people criticised her for giving credence to his views, she insisted the speech was 'not about targetting Muslims', adding: 'I live next door to a mosque, and have many Muslim friends it's about Islam extremists.'

The hour-long video shows the former far-right boss's controversial appearance at the union in 2014. 

During the speech, Mr Robinson told students about the roots of the EDL and claimed it was a response to the 'religious intolerance' of some Muslims in his home town of Luton, Bedfordshire.

He also accused the authorities of a 'two-tier system' in which Muslims with extreme views were allowed to 'get away' with crimes for which a white British man would be reprimanded.


Missouri U. Police: Call us about ‘harmful’ or ‘hurtful speech’

Prof. Thom Lambert (Truth on the Market) passes along the following Missouri-University-wide e-mail:

    From: MU POLICE
    Date: November 10, 2015 at 9:52:16 AM CST
    Subject: Reporting Hateful and/or Hurtful Speech

    To continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe, the MU Police Department (MUPD) is asking individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions to:

        Call the police immediately at 573-882-7201. (If you are in an emergency situation, dial 911.)

        Give the communications operator a summary of the incident, including location.

        Provide a detailed description of the individual(s) involved.

        Provide a license plate and vehicle descriptions (if appropriate).

        If possible and if it can be done safely, take a photo of the individual(s) with your cell phone.

    Delays, including posting information to social media, can often reduce the chances of identifying the responsible parties. While cases of hateful and hurtful speech are not crimes, if the individual(s) identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.

Wow. Note the pattern, so familiar now — things start with extremely offensive speech that might actually be punishable (e.g., racial epithets addressed in person to a Missouri student, which apparently is part of what triggered the protests). Add other speech that seems similar but is potentially much broader, and vaguely defined, such as “hateful” speech. Then add other speech that’s even broader, such as “hurtful” speech. Now you’ve covered a vast range of speech on controversial topics.

And of course note the veneer of generality with which this is covered, a veneer that strikes me as especially out of place in universities, which are supposed to be devoted to truth as well as to debate. Is the police department really going to take seriously all your complaints of “hurtful” speech? If you think that people’s sharp criticisms of Republicans or conservatives or “privileged” white males are “hurtful” to you, and you call the police immediately about this, what do you think the police — or “MU’s Office of Student Conduct” — is likely to do?

Now I agree that the police can reasonably ask people to call about things that are less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime. If the government wants you to let it know about suspicious behavior that is evidence of, say, a possible planned bombing or shooting (or even theft), it can well cast the net wide, so the police get lots of information and then figure out if a crime (including the conspiracy to commit a crime) has indeed happened. And if the university wants information about speech simply in order to know what’s up and to express its own views about such speech, there is room for that, too (though at some point such reactions by the university might themselves start to unduly deter public debate).

But here there’s not even any claim that they’re just trying to find evidence of crimes, or trying to answer speech with more speech. Here a university is urging students to call the police whenever they hear “hurtful speech,” precisely so the university “can take disciplinary action” against the speakers. This is the new face of the modern university.


17 November, 2015

Yale Students Protest, Disrupt, Pro-Free Speech Event

No respect for free speech where Leftists dominate

Students at Yale on Saturday protested—and in one case disrupted—an event held by the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program that was designed to highlight the importance of freedom of speech.

According to a report in the Yale Daily News “several attendees were spat on” by the protestors.

The targets of the protest and disruption were participating in the Buckley Program’s “Fifth Annual Conference on the Future of Free Speech: Threats in Higher Education and Beyond.”

The conference is held in keeping with the program’s mission “to expand political discourse on campus and to expose students to often-unvoiced views.”

One of the attendees—James Panero, executive editor of The New Criterion--tweeted out two videoclips of the proceedings. One shows students in a hallway chanting in unison “genocide is not a joke” as conference attendees file quietly by so they can leave the lecture hall.

The other shows a student shouting at one of the speakers at the conference and physically resisting the efforts of a security officer to remove him from the room.

The Yale Daily News, citing Buckley Fellows (Yale students who participate in the program), reported that protestors spat on conference attendees as they departed.


Nutty female says word 'too' is SEXIST

A young female student has written a powerful essay explaining why the word 'too' is often used as a way to belittle women - and should therefore be seen as a sexist term.

Cameron Schaeffer, a Philadelphia native and a freshman at The University of Vermont was consulting a friend about a new haircut when she had her 'epiphany'.

'There is no proper way for a woman to cut her hair, let alone do anything right in this world,' she wrote in an essay for Huffington Post.

'There seems to be an unobtainable one-millimeter-wide mark of perfection, and none of us can reach it. Everything is too this or too that.'

She added that she suddenly recognized how the word is seen all over tabloids in reference to women, in all kinds of extremes. It's also, she says, uttered frequently in reference to men. 

'I hear women and men alike each day describing women as too something. But what does it really mean when you call a woman too? I asked myself, "too what?"' she said.

'I have determined that too means you're calling a woman too far away from your idyllic vision of what a woman should be,' she added. 'Something as small as calling a woman's dress too long or her muscles too built has a much larger social construct.'


16 November, 2015

UK: Free speech for all – even neo-Nazis

In a move that insults the intelligence of the British public, the UK Home Office recently decided to prevent US neo-Nazi Matthew Heimbach from entering the UK. Heimbach, a barely known anti-Semite and president of a white nationalist organisation called the Traditionalist Youth Network, was banned on the basis that his presence would not be ‘conducive to the public good’.

While at university in Maryland, Heimbach founded the White Student Union, a group which hosted events with white supremacists and carried out night patrols to target ‘black predators’. On Twitter, Heimbach frequently quotes Goebbels, says ‘international Jewish propaganda’ is promoting a ‘lifestyle’ of homosexuality, and bemoans the fact that the White House isn’t run like the Third Reich.

Heimbach may well be a moronic racist, but UK home secretary Theresa May clearly has too much time on her hands if she bothers worrying about people like him. Banning white supremacists from entering the country certainly won’t eradicate white-supremacist views. Aside from being a token gesture to please the PC crowd, this kind of policing is futile, only provoking the kind of people it tries to censor and encouraging their vitriol.

But the Home Office’s stance isn’t just illogical; it’s patronising. It treats citizens like weak and unintelligent children who need protection from ‘offence’, and are incapable of passing judgement on ideas for themselves. What does May expect to happen if Heimbach arrives in the UK? Will a few words from Heimbach about Lebensraum being a great idea suddenly prompt thousands to start goose-stepping through the streets of Chipping Norton? May is clearly grossly out of touch if she thinks that the overwhelming reaction to Heimbach would be anything other than ridicule.

The issue at stake here is free speech. In the same year prime minister David Cameron publicly declared ‘Je suis Charlie’, his government is now banning one very sad man from entering the country because he holds controversial views. Discriminating against those, like Heimbach, with certain ‘offensive’ or unpopular ideas, while apparently championing freedom of speech, reeks of hypocrisy.

The government seems to have forgotten that free speech is a universal principle. Its universalism demands that we defend the right of those with unpopular beliefs to speak their minds, and not just those we agree with. Otherwise, we are not defending free speech, but privileged speech. So, we must dismiss the thought police, tolerate other viewpoints, allow our own viewpoints to be challenged and allow ourselves to be offended – even by the likes of Heimbach. Only then can we clarify our own values and begin forging a truly open, progressive society founded on the free exchange of ideas.


Must not mention it if elderly people slow others down

Another bit of reality that may not be mentioned

An elderly woman was reduced to tears when she was blamed for delaying a flight.

Alicia Staveley was travelling back from Wellington after treatment for ovarian cancer when she was blamed for delaying an Air New Zealand flight because a passenger lift she required, had not turned up as planned.

Ms Staveley waited 15 to 20 minutes while the lift was brought which inadvertently delayed the plane's departure.

Once she was boarded the already fragile Ms Staveley was shocked and hurt to hear the plane’s captain announcing: ‘Sorry for the delay folks. We were waiting for the forklift so the disabled person can get on the plane’.

Ms Staveley’s daughter Kylie Rush who was travelling with her was ‘angry’ that the captain had made her mother feel so ‘awful.’ Ms Rush told Stuff that Ms Staveley had cried and that it had been a ‘big thing for her because she wants to be independent.’

Airline Pilots' Association president Mark Rammell told Stuff: ‘I don't think it's a mistake – it's factual.’

Mr Rammel said ‘It was the first complaint of its type he knew of in his seven years as president, and he did not see a need for a change in how announcements were made.’

Air New Zealand had been apologetic to Ms Staveley and Ms Rush and told Stuff it had ‘let its customers down.’


The old lady was weeping over her own decline, nothing more.

14 November, 2015

Big boots disrespected

"Slag" is British slang for a promiscuous or disreputable woman.  "Wellies" are gum-boots

A coffee shop in East London has provoked outrage after banning Ugg boots and referring to them as "slag wellies".

Brick Lane Coffee in Shoreditch, East London, slated the popular Australian brand on a chalkboard outside its shop earlier this week, with the message: 'Sorry no Uggs (slag wellies)'.

The chalk board, which stated that people in Ugg boots were banned from the coffee shop, caught the eye of pedestrians who accused the café of sexism

Passers-by who spotted the sign took to social media to vent their outrage. Lily Potkin took the coffee shop to task over their sign on Twitter, asking why they felt the need to refer to women as slags

Meanwhile, another Twitter user Morwenna Jones announced that she would be boycotting the shop.

'Genuinely one of my favourite coffee shops. Until this,' she posted. 'Refuse to explain AGAIN why it's not OK to call women slags.'

The independent retailer was unapologetic about the latest row.  In a statement, a spokeswoman said: 'Our sign does not mention women; Uggs are unisex.  'Making a "sexist" issue out of it is over the top when there are much more important things to be outraged about.

'This criticism is a lot less than the support we get. Our shop is full of happy customers. 'All this kind of faux outrage does is give us further publicity.'


German grandmother, 87, is sentenced to ten months in jail for denying the Holocaust and saying Auschwitz was 'just a labour camp'

Punishing holocaust denial just creates the impression that something is being covered up

A German grandmother aged 87 has been sentenced to ten months in jail for denying the Holocaust and saying Auschwitz was 'just a labour camp'. 

Ursula Haverbeck, who is a friend of Gudrun Burwitz - elderly daughter of Nazi S.S. chief Heinrich Himmler - was sentenced in a court in Hamburg for sedition over an interview she gave to a TV station denying that Jews were murdered in extermination camps.

In the interview with the ARD network she claimed the death camp of Auschwitz in Nazi occupied Poland, where at least 1.1 million people were murdered, was 'nothing more than a labour camp.'

Haverbeck has been sentenced several times in the past for her trenchant views supporting the Nazis.

During her defence she said that the Holocaust of six million Jews 'was the greatest and longest lived lie in history.'

Judge Björn Jönsson struggled to maintain his temper with the elderly Nazi after she said she shouldn't be punished for the crime again as she had already been fined twice and given a suspended sentence for previous Holocaust denials.

He said: 'I do not have to prove the Holocaust to you, same as I do not have to prove that the earth is round.

'It is futile to discuss facts with people like you. A thief who steals the same thing again and again is punished again and again.'

The prosecutor in the case stormed: 'It is regrettable that a woman who is still so vivid in her old age wastes her energy trying to spread such a hair-raising bullshit.'


13 November, 2015

Must not criticize Israel's critics

Muslims get in a huff if you do

Security fears today forced Boris Johnson to cancel a planned visit to Palestine after a joke about Israeli boycotts backfired.

Mr Johnson has spent three days in Israel, where he claims to be drumming up business interest in London.

But he landed himself in hot water after criticising the Israeli boycott. While his opposition is in line with British Government policy, his choice of words and approach is said to have prompted the backlash.

Speaking in Tel Aviv, Mr Johnson said a 'completely crazy' trade boycott against Israel lacks support and used a lecture to hit out at some 'corduroy, jacketed, snaggletoothed, lefty academics in the UK' who are pursuing the cause.

Today, shortly after he entered the Palestinian city of Ramallah, news emerged that his appearances at three scheduled events had been binned.

The office of Palestinian Authority prime minister Rami Hamdallah warned security would be 'perhaps at risk' if he went ahead with the visits in the West Bank. It was indicated protests were feared should he turn up.

Two of the groups due to host events insisted they refused to welcome Mr Johnson.


Australia: Apple apologises after allegations of racism by blacks

If I had a gang of 6 Africans in my shop, I'd be nervous too -- not because of racism but becoause of the high crime rate among blacks

Apple has apologised to six schoolboys asked to leave one of their shops in Australia, in what the students described as a racist incident.

Footage of the incident at Melbourne's Highpoint shopping centre emerged on Tuesday sparking a social media outcry. A staff member can be heard saying security are concerned that the boys will shoplift.

Apple said the store manager apologised to the boys, who are all black, and their school principal.

The video of the incident has been viewed more than 39,000 times on Facebook.  In it, a staff member can be heard saying: "These guys are … just a bit worried you might steal something".

When the boys protest, the staff member tells them: "End of discussion - I need to ask you to leave our store."

All of the students in the video are in Year 10 and attend Maribyrnong College in Melbourne.


12 November, 2015

British social worker uses n-word, loses job

A social worker who asked for her coffee to be made 'n***** brown' escaped with a caution after a panel accepted she was only referring to the strength of her hot drink.

Nichola Taylor was working for Stoke Council when she made the racist remark in a communal kitchen.

A colleague was so concerned she made a note of it and raised the matter with bosses who launched an investigation, prompting Taylor's dismissal last year.

Taylor had worked for Stoke Council since September 2007 and was appointed to the position of operational lead within the authority's Learning Disabilities Team in May 2011.

She was in a communal kitchen when the colleague asked how she liked her coffee on December 11, 2013, the Health and Care Professions Council heard.

'Ms Taylor told her colleague that she would like her coffee 'n*****-brown',' said Tom Orpin-Massey for the HCPC.

'The HCPC say this statement was racist and that it constitutes misconduct and as a result of that misconduct her fitness to practise is impaired.

Taylor denied the comment it was racist - citing Guy Gibson's dog in 1955 movie classic The Dam Busters as an example.

The social worker also highlighted the use of the word in certain music genres and pointed to its historic use in the textile industry which she was previously employed in.

Taylor was sacked by the council for gross misconduct after an investigation last June and was handed a caution order following a hearing at the HCPC.

'The panel has accepted that this racist phrase was used in relation to the strength of a cup of coffee,' said HCPC panel chair Claire Bonnet.

'It was not used as a descriptor of an individual nor directed at an individual.

Taylor, who was present and represented at the hearing, will have her HCPC registration marked with a caution order for a period of one year. 


‘You can’t sit with us’ T-shirts promote bullying, says  psychologist

You can't choose your friends?

A CLOTHING chain is under fire for marketing a teen girl T-shirt that encourages children to exclude their peers. Opponents say Jay Jays’ new range of new T-shirts that read “You can’t sit with us” is promoting bullying. Child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg has called for a nationwide boycott of the stores until Jay Jays pulls the “disgraceful” clothing from its shelves.

He was contacted by outraged parents who had become concerned after noticing the T-shirt in a Jay Jays store. “I talked to a mother of one 12-year-old who said if you had any idea what life is like in the playground for my 12-year-old old you would know this is obscene,” Dr Carr-Gregg said.

The quote “You can’t sit with us” was made popular by the 2004 hit comedy Mean Girls, which was a film about a clique of nasty high school girls.

The chain was forced to pull the range and apologise after a barrage of customer complaints.


11 November, 2015

Charlie Hebdo attacked by Russians after French magazine publishes 'blasphemous' cartoons mocking the Egypt air disaster

Charlie Hebdo sure are gluttons for punishment.  Do they want Russian operatives to get the staff that the Muslims missed? Russians are not the meek and mild people of the West.  A bit of Polonium or ricin in the coffee at Charlie Hebdo would seem a distinct possibility

Russians hit out at Charlie Hebdo after it published cartoons mocking the Egypt air disaster.  The French magazine featured two cartoons relating to the Metrojet plane, going from Sharm El Sheikh to St Petersburg, which crashed in Sinai on October 31, killing all 224 people on board.

The first drawing showed a passenger's skull, with the caption: 'The dangers of Russian low cost flights'.

The second showed the plane's debris falling on an Islamist militant, with the legend: 'The Russian air force is intensifying its air strikes.'

It emerged last night that investigators are now 90 per cent sure the aircraft was downed by a bomb. 

VK, one of Russia's largest social media networks, said on Sunday the magazine's cartoons had been the most discussed topic by its more than 100 million active users over the weekend.

But Russians also took to Twitter to express their anger and disgust too.

Anna Isayeva said: 'Insane cynicism and a mockery of the memory of the victims of this terrible tragedy.'

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he thought the cartoons were 'pure blasphemy' and had nothing to do with democracy or freedom of expression.

Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's foreign ministry, posted on Facebook: 'Is anyone still Charlie?'

It was a reference to the catchphrase 'Je Suis Charlie', used to express sympathy with the French magazine after Islamist gunmen killed 11 people at its Paris headquarters in January.

Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin-backed leader of Chechnya, also weighed in, saying he thought the cartoonists responsible for the two images were not humans.


Who’s really being silenced in the gender debate?

A Feminist tries to squash debate of men's issues in the British parliament. 

Feminists have no perspective.  They cannot see that men have hardships too.  They think their own hardships are unique.  They are narcissists.  There are some women who think that being a stay-at-home wife and mother is a great racket and that men have the harder time. A hormonally deranged feminist would be totally unable to comprehend that. 

The truth is that "men" and "women" are mostly inadequate generalizations when it comes to privilege or lack of it.  It all depends on individual likes and dislikes.  As the old saying goes:  "One Man's Meat is Another Man's Poison".  Feminists are basically misfits lashing out mindlessly -- seeing in others faults that are really their own

The past week has seen a perfect case study in the casuistry that underpins much of the public discourse around gender politics.

On Tuesday last week, Tory MP Philip Davies went before the Backbench Business Committee, which is tasked with considering proposals for debates in parliament, to call for a debate on International Men’s Day to match the International Women’s Day debate that has been held in parliament for the past decade.

Davies said he hoped it would be an opportunity to discuss a raft of inequalities that disproportionately affect men and boys, from educational underachievement and fathers’ post-separation contact with their children to men’s healthcare and the crisis of male suicide (now the UK’s biggest killer of men aged under 45).

As Davies was making his pitch, committee member and Labour MP Jess Phillips was caught on camera rocking backwards and forwards on her chair with derision while clamping her hand over her mouth to suppress snorts of laughter. She listened to Davies outline issues, such as male suicide and male-specific cancers, and then said: ‘You’ll have to excuse me for laughing, but the idea that men don’t have an opportunity to ask questions in this place is a frankly laughable thing… as the only woman on this committee it seems like every day to me is International Men’s Day.’ She added: ‘When I’ve got parity, when women in these buildings have parity, you can have your debate. And that will take an awfully long time.’

Phillips’ comments prompted a handful of intelligent articles criticising her response; but the footage also prompted vile threats and abuse on social media. In no time at all, editors, who’d collectively shrugged their shoulders at a female MP sniggering at male suicide, were falling over themselves to run stories framing Phillips as the latest victim of online misogyny; while ranks of fellow MPs who’d also responded with a collective ‘meh’ to the contempt she’d shown her male constituents, suddenly sprang into action behind the hashtag #IStandWithJessPhillips.

By Sunday, Phillips was presented across the media as the latest embattled female politician bravely fighting to be heard against a culture overwhelmingly hostile to outspoken women. Most of these reports barely even mentioned the sneering veto she’d imposed on men’s voices, which had caused the uproar in the first place.

At the centre of this dismal mini-saga is a single, poisonous casuistry: that because there are more men in positions of power, men’s needs are given unfair prominence and women’s voices are silenced. Therefore, so the argument goes, only women should be allowed a special platform to voice their concerns. But, although there are indeed more male MPs than female MPs, when it comes to talking about gender, neither side shows much interest in addressing issues that affect men. In fact, Davies aside, when was the last time you heard any MP, male or female, call for urgent action on, say, the crisis in boys’ education, or in support of fathers’ post-separation relationship with their children? As Davies succinctly put it: ‘There’s a very big difference between men raising issues and the raising of men’s issues.’

By contrast, from prime minister David Cameron’s pre-election audience with Mumsnet to Harriet Harman’s Pink Bus to Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg’s feminist t-shirts to Samantha Cameron’s girls’ summit with Michelle Obama, both male and female politicians consistently engage in high-profile discussion of issues that affect women.

But this isn’t just about the dead hand of political correctness stifling discussion. Rather, a bias in favour of women’s issues is now built into the mechanisms that address gender across government departments and embedded in the quangos and third-sector organisations that are instrumental to delivering policy.


10 November, 2015

Locksmith must pay out £7,500 for worker's 'discriminatory gestures' at homosexual customer following ten-month dispute over refund

"Discriminatory gestures"??

A locksmith's firm has been told to pay a gay man compensation after a court decided he had been a victim of a staff member’s ‘discriminatory’ gestures.

The customer, who has been named only as Tim, had gone to the business several times over a period of ten months to resolve a dispute over a refund.

Southend County Court heard that locksmith Peter Edwards – whose mother Angela owns the firm – blew a ‘sarcastic kiss’ at the disgruntled customer when he walked out.

This was apparently followed up with more than 20 ‘homophobic’ gestures over the next few months, ranging from winking to ‘vile and vulgar gesturing’.

Tim decided to take the firm to civil court, where he was awarded £7,500 in compensation from Taylor Edwards Ltd of Southend, Essex, under the Equality Act 2010 – which prevents anyone supplying goods or services from discriminating against customers on grounds including race, religion, disability and sexual orientation.

Although several of the alleged incidents took place while Mr Edwards was taking a cigarette break outside the locksmith’s shop, he was still considered to have been acting in the course of his employment.

A judge ruled that Tim’s distress had ‘not been minor’ and awarded him compensation at a hearing last month. The case is believed to be the first time a business has been ordered to pay damages for discrimination that was entirely non-verbal.

However last night the firm’s owner claimed none of the gestures had actually taken place, and insisted she lost the case because she missed a deadline to present her side of the story.

Angela Edwards, whose 30-year-old son was accused of making the gestures, said the claims were a ‘fabrication’ which followed her refusal to issue Tim a £40 refund for four patio locks when they were brought back three months after purchase, despite there being nothing wrong with them.

She claimed that her business, which has been open since 2002, will now struggle to survive – as her total bill including both sides’ legal costs and the compensation would come to more than £40,000.

The company could not afford to appeal against the decision, she said, adding: ‘We’ve been victimised and held to ransom. We don’t deserve this. I believe it’s a miscarriage of justice.’ Her son Peter went on to say: ‘The events he [Tim] described never occurred.’


Must not imply that fat people are fat

Schoolgirl, 12, who suffered years of bullying over her size is left in tears after being given the part of Augustus Gloop in school production of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

A 12-year-old girl who suffered years of bullying over her size was left in floods of tears after her school gave her the part of Augustus Gloop in the Christmas play.

Lexi Shaw, from Chaddesden, Derbyshire, was devastated when she got the script through the post with her initials next to the name of the fat young boy from Charlie And The Chocolate Factory.

Looking down the script, she feared she would be further humiliated after years of abuse, invited to read lines such as 'Chocolate, chocolate, chocolate, I love the chocolate, I must eat all the time, Ummmmm!'

Her parents were 'fuming' with Lees Brook Community School after numerous meetings with teachers about bullying problems since she put on weight a few years ago due to health issues.

In the children’s classic, written by Roald Dahl, Augustus Gloop is fat boy hooked on chocolate who wins the chance to visit Willy Wonka’s factory.

He is eventually forced to leave after falling into a chocolate river - which Wonka told him not to drink from - and being sucked up through the chocolate pipe..

The schoolgirl is extremely conscious of her weight and feared that being forced to perform as the fat and greedy character would lead totally humiliate her in front of her peers.


9 November, 2015

Must not mention homosexuality and pedophilia in the same breath

Boxer Tyson Fury was accused of being 'offensive and deranged' last night after he made vile comments equating homosexuality and abortion with paedophilia.

In an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, Fury unleashed a quasi-religious diatribe which is likely to outrage even the most loyal fans of the leading British heavyweight.

'There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home,' he said.

'One of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other is paedophilia. Who would have thought in the 50s and 60s that those first two would be legalised?

'When I say paedophiles could be made legal, it sounds crazy. But if I had said to you about the first two being made legal in the 50s, I would have been looked upon as a crazy man.

'People can say, 'You are against abortions, you are against paedophilia, you are against homosexuality', but my faith and my culture is based on the Bible.'

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell condemned Fury, saying: 'Tyson is a brilliant boxer but a very bigoted and confused Christian. To equate same-sex love with abortion and paedophilia is deranged and offensive.'


He did NOT equate anything with anything. He mentioned three separate issues that he disagreed with on Christian grounds. And his prediction that pedophila would one day be legalized now that homosexuality and abortion have been legalized may well come true.  As he points out, the legalization of all three was once unthinkable.  He may be a boxer but it was a perfectly intelligent comment -- IF you note what he actually said.

Jokey song about boomerangs banned by Australian public broadcaster

We read:

"A 936 ABC Hobart listener complained that an offensive song was played on the Weekends program.

Complaint Finding Status: Upheld against 7.1 ABC Editorial Policies (11 April 2011)

Audience and Consumer Affairs response:

The broadcast of the song ‘My Boomerang Won’t Come Back’ was not in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards for harm and offence; there was no editorial justification for playing it.  The song was not on a regular ABC playlist but was aired because it was requested by a listener.  This error was due to staff not being familiar with the track’s lyrics.  The ABC apologised to the complainant, removed the track completely from the system and took steps to ensure that this would not happen again."

The song was actually written by an Englishman and there is virtually nothing authentically Aboriginal in it.  It is just a bit of imagination.  Listen to the song below:

The full words are here:

An excerpt:

"My boomerang won't come back
My boomerang won't come back
I've waved the thing all over the place
Practiced till I was black in the face
I'm a big disgrace to the aborigine race
My boomerang won't come back"

8 November, 2015

Property developer says billboard showing a 'deeply offensive' image was just 'a bit of a laugh'

A storm of controversy has blown after a company placed a billboard on a busy highway that shows the shadows of a man and a woman merged in a suggestive image.

New Zealand property developers Gillman Wheelans erected the advertisement on a highway in West Melton in Christchurch.

With the accompanying caption 'getting the job done, ' the billboard shows a female construction worker kneeling in front of a male co-worker. When combined, their shadow casts a suggestive image.

But some found the advertisement hard to swallow, with one woman lodging an official complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Gillman Wheelans director Hamish Wheelans told Daily Mail Australia they made no apologies for using humour in their advertisements.

'I think you choose to be offended or not. I think the complaint probably took it a bit far - it was about humour.'

The complaint, lodged by Christchurch artist C. Logan, claimed the billboard was 'deeply offensive' and undermined the role of women in the construction industry.

'It implies that women are sexual objects to be used for men's sexual gratification,' the complaint read.

'As a woman who has worked in construction in the past, the already entrenched sexism faced daily is only worsened by the proliferation of this kind of advertising message in public spaces.'

Wheelans said he believed it was 'ironic' that an artist had complained as they are 'supposed to look at things with open eyes.'

The complaint was not upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority, who voted in a majority decision that the ad did not meet the criteria for causing serious or widespread offence.


Outrage after man posts ad looking for flatmates but says 'no Indians or Asians' because he does not want to live with curry smells

My wife and I once had an Indian friend living with us who used to cook his own meals.  He had difficulty hanging on to his dinners as they smelt so good that were always demanding a taste of them.  But "De gustibus non disputandum est", as the Romans used to say.  Tastes differ and people are entitled to their preferences

A man who posted a 'flatmates wanted' advertisement online saying 'no Indians or Asians' is unapologetic despite causing outrage - although he has removed the ad.

The Christchurch, New Zealand man identified only as Alistair created an ad on the online trading website Trademe.co.nz that that said he did not want to live with anyone who cooked curry or could not speak English.

Speaking to the New Zealand Herald, he denied being racist but admitted to having a problem with some Indian people.

His ad, published on the TradeMe website about a week ago and now removed, attracted 'hundreds' of views and widespread criticism, the newspaper reported.

It was condemned by New Zealand Central Indian Association president Harshadbhai Patel, who called the ad 'shocking' and potentially harmful to race relations.


6 November, 2015

Wrong to call killer illegals 'Banditos'?

Seems an apt word to me

In emotional testimony before a House joint panel this week, a Virginia man recalled the death of his teenage daughter in 2007 – a death caused by an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and who had been arrested twice before the crime, but was not deported.

“Two years ago this week, my 16-year-old daughter, Tessa, and her best friend Allison were killed as they were sitting at in intersection waiting for a red light to change,” Ray Tranchant said, as friends placed a photograph of Tessa Tranchant on an easel behind him.

Since his daughter’s death, Tranchant, a professor from VIrginia Beach, has become an advocate for the enforcement of immigration law.

On Thursday, as Tranchant applauded local law enforcement in Virginia for its increased efforts to work with federal immigration authorities since his daughter’s death, he referred to individuals listed on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s database of illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds as “banditos.”

That comment drew a rebuff from Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.).

“Mr. Tranchant, can I share with you as the father of two daughters, I thank you for bringing your testimony here, but I suggest to you that if we refer to people as banditos, as you referred to them in your testimony, it does not help to solve the problem,” Gutierrez said.


Native American offended by "Redskins" wore blackface

Do as I say, not as I do?

A Native American leader at the forefront of efforts to ban the “racist” Washington Redskins team name dressed up in blackface for Halloween, according to a report.

Terry Rambler, chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona, posted a Facebook picture of himself as reggae legend Bob Marley, according to the Independent Journal.

“I had fun tonight at the Bylas Halloween Carnival,” he wrote of a picture of himself flashing a peace sign and wearing a dreadlocks wig with blackface makeup.

Several of Rambler’s Facebook friends chimed in and chastised him about the get-up. He hasn’t immediately responded.


5 November, 2015

British TV talker will NOT face charges over allegations that she incited racial hatred

Katie Hopkins will not face charges over allegations that she incited racial hatred in a newspaper article calling migrants 'cockroaches' and 'feral humans', it can be revealed today.

The 40-year-old MailOnline columnist caused a storm after writing a controversial article in April entitled 'Rescue boats? I'd use gunships to stop migrants'.

And three days later she was reported to the Metropolitan Police by Society of Black Lawyers (SBL) chairman Peter Herbert, who complained that her words were ‘offensive’ and ‘xenophobic’.

But Detective Inspector Howard Hold from the force’s homicide and major crime command unit has now written to Miss Hopkins to confirm she will not be charged following the article and her subsequent comments on LBC radio.

And the mother-of-three told MailOnline today: ‘I will not and will never apologise for standing up for what I believe in. People are not really sorry. They are sorry to be disliked.

‘I find it surprising that at a time when police are so undermanned they can't afford to turn up to burglaries or find cars after a crash, they think a woman with an opinion is their highest priority.

‘I am grateful Scotland Yard enjoys my writing but I would encourage them to focus their energies on those who present a real threat to this country which I love.’

She added that the officers who interviewed her under caution appeared to make it clear there was no case to answer, but that she would be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service because it was the SBL making the complaint.


Gin And Tonic flavoured crisps 'totally irresponsible'?

A police officer who works in an alcohol harm reduction unit has been ridiculed online after branding a packet of gin and tonic-flavoured crisps 'totally irresponsible'.

PC Claire McNaney, of Durham Constabulary, came under fire on Twitter after she shared a picture of Aldi's Gin and Tonic crisps and showed her disapproval by claiming they 'give out the wrong message'.

She posted on Twitter today: 'Totally irresponsible product @AldiUK, what message does this give out to people, especially children?'

The crisps are currently available to buy in Aldi supermarkets, which also sell a Red Wine & Thyme flavour.

However, instead of supporting the officer's views, dozens of Twitter users responded with outrage – telling her to 'get a grip' and pointing out numerous other alcohol-related flavours such as steak and ale.

One Twitter follower, writing under the name OObnoxio The Nutter, replied to her message by saying: 'Get a grip woman, people who binge drink aren't doing it on crisps'

Another Twitter user, called Mylo, added: 'While we're at it can we also ban.. steak & ale pies, shandy, beer batter and f*** it.. wine gums!'

John Duncan said: 'Presumably you are against wine gums too....'

Aldi also took to Twitter to respond to the message, writing: 'We're very sorry to hear you feel this way, and we'll be sure to pass your feedback onto the relevant department.'

A spokesman later told MailOnline: 'Our delicious gin and tonic flavoured crisps are part of our exciting and extensive Christmas range. We’re confident that our customers will really like their unique flavour.'


4 November, 2015

Fury after mobile phone shop puts up job advert stating ‘only male staff’ should apply ‘because they needed to be able to fix phones’

The advertisement is realistic but not cautious about current hysteria.  Men are indeed by far the ones most likely to enjoy  tinkering but a less overt advertisement that simply said "Must like tinkering" or some such would have achieved the desired results without firing up the grievance-mongers

A mobile phone shop has provoked fury after it put up a job advert for staff insisting that males should only apply and explained this was because only men could fix phones.

The handwritten poster was put up on a wall outside the Phone Workshop in Windsor, Berkshire and said that potential employees could 'apply today, join tomorrow' - but only if they were men.

It read: 'Job vacancy. Only male staff. Apply today, join tomorrow. Full time, 5 days a week. Contact inside store with CV.'

And when an outraged shopper asked why the vacancy was only for men, a member of staff told them it was because the potential new employee would need to learn how to fit screens to mobile phones.

The angry customer, who did not wish to be named, believes the response implied it would be beyond the capabilities of women.

He said: 'When I asked in store why the vacancy was only open to men, I was told it was because they would need to learn to fit the screens to mobile phones; the implication being this would be beyond the capabilities of women.'

The controversial poster has now been taken down but several staff members defended the advert and denied claims of sexism.

Marius Bordean, who works at the shop, said women had worked there before and 'they didn't have the skills to learn how to fix the phone.'


Why did Kanzlerin Merkel disrespect her country's flag?

Americans are well used to flag controversies.  Various obnoxious people do from time to time trample or burn Old Glory.  Although this is deeply offensive to most Americans, America's erratic Supreme Court has upheld such actions as protected "speech".

So the recent actions of the German leader in literally tossing out a German flag will seem puzzling, if not disgraceful, to many.  In his inimitable way, Ezra Levant does a good takedown of the  incident.

So why did she do it?  Is she a Leftist?  Leftists, by their very nature, have large resentments against their country so, in extreme cases, Leftists will disrespect their country's flag.  Wet-behind-the-ears Leftist students do it from time to time and tend to be rather surprised to find that the major effect of doing so is to cause themselves to be disrespected.

But Dr. Merkel is no Leftist.  She is the leader of Germany's ruling conservative party and a committed Christian to boot.

The reason she acted as she did is that the national flag in most countries tends to be much used by patriotic conservatives and opponents of immigration in particular.  And immigration is THE issue in Germany today, with a huge army of Middle-Easterners and Africans marching into Germany right at this moment.

And Merkel has a battle on her hands.  Her Christian principles tell her that she must help this army of frauds, only a few of whom are actually refugee Syrians.  But ordinary Germans don't like it.  They are not these days a very patriotic people but everything has its limits and the prospects of playing host to an army of hostile and parasitic Muslims does not appeal.  So the situation in Germany at the moment is a delicate one.  Mrs Merkel is trying to hold the line against what her own people want.

So it is in that context that Mrs Merkel tossed out a German flag. In the present crisis it was seen as a patriotic and nationalist symbol that represented the rebellion that she was trying to hold down.  In the present political context she saw it quite accurately as an anti-immigration symbol, and a symbol of people who stand in the way of her doing her Christian duty.  So it was her political opponents, including members of her own party, that she was throwing out when she threw out the flag.  The flag had come to symbolize them

One hopes that she will in time  realize that most of the influx deserve contempt rather than pity.

Ezra Levant is not, however, wholly wrong in attributing her actions to a sense of lost moral authority.  Leftists have been preaching moral relativism throughout the world for a long time now.  So Muslims are seen as no more to be condemned than Christians are.  Muslim barbarity is held to be equal to Christian compassion. And conservatives have not been very effective opponents of that philosophical perversion.

So why do Leftists preach such a foul gospel?  Mainly because it helps them to destroy the values and traditions they despise.  It is an incoherent position because Leftists readily rush to condemn (say) "racism" as wrong.  But if all values are to be equally esteemed, how can it be wrong?  But Leftists don't bother about consistency of course.

The underlying philosophical difficulty is that there are no absolutes in philosophy.  No argument can be finally refuted.  The traditional philosophical answer to some argument is to show that it leads to absurd conclusions.  But what is absurd?  The absurd often happens.  You can even at times get a President who despises his own country and all that it stands for.

So from the impossibility of absolute evaluations, Leftist philosophers infer that there can logically be no relative evaluations either.  But that just shows the inadequacy and irrelevance of philosophy.  We all make relative judgments every day.  Philosophy is an interesting intellectual exercise, no more.  It does not remotely engage people's actual choices and dilemmas.

I have written at some length on problems in moral philosophy if anybody is interested in such arcana

3 November, 2015

Must not mock foreign accents

Another joke is squashed

A BBC sports expert has been accused of casual racism for faking a crude Chinese accent while commentating the country's performance in the World Gymnastics Championship.

Mitch Fenner, 69, who has helped the Corporation cover the sport for years, appeared to mock fans of the national team in a display of 'Chinglish' - often ungrammatical English spoken in a heavy accent.

When BBC cameramen zoomed in on two young female fans waving the national flag on Wednesday night, Fenner imagined what they might have to say.

Speaking on BBC Two, he said: 'Oh wow, they say, look at that, we from China.' The Corporation estimates that 1.4million people were tuned in at the time.

Fenner, who coaches the Dutch national team, came in for a tide of criticism, and was also reprimanded by Corporation bosses, who re-edited the iPlayer version of the programme to exclude the comments.

Twitter user @Ryan_S_1993 said: 'Good to see casual racism on the BBC. You may as well have filmed Mitch Fenner making a derogatory face.'

Disbelieving viewer Paul Reynolds asked: 'Did you see a sports commentator did a Mícheál Martin "chinaman voice"? like it's 1953.'


    Latest Headlines
    Health Directory
    Health Boards


Saturday, Nov 7th 2015 1PM  32°C 4PM  27°C 5-Day Forecast

Fat or too heavy? How words used by doctors can offend overweight patient

    80% believed a doctor's words significantly affected their relationship
    'Weight', 'overweight' and 'weight problem' were voted most appropriate
    'Fat', 'obesity' and 'obese' were ranked as the most inappropriate terms
    Women, the lifelong obese, and the educated were the most sensitive

By Kate Pickles For Mailonline

Published: 06:05 EST, 7 November 2015 | Updated: 09:22 EST, 7 November 2015



View comments

Most people can be a bit touchy when it comes to talking about their weight.

But whether excess weight is termed 'fat' or a 'weight problem' can have a real impact when it comes to going to the doctors.

Researchers in Norway have found that how healthcare professionals speak to people about their weight can affect their doctor-patient relationship.
How doctors and healthcare professionals speak to patients about weight was found to impact on their relationship, a study by Norwegian researchers found

How doctors and healthcare professionals speak to patients about weight was found to impact on their relationship, a study by Norwegian researchers found

They examined how a sample of patients responded to various expressions used to describe obesity before ranking them in terms of appropriateness.

Eight out of ten patients said they were affected when it came to the choice of words used, Science Nordic reports.


    It's official, drunk people DO trip up the stairs! New...
    Boy, 4, who swallowed a HAIR PIN: Incredible X-ray image...
    Woman is left anaemic after infestation of HEAD LICE suck...
    HALF of all US mothers gain too much weight during pregnancy...

Share this article

But sensitivity varied with women, people who had been obese since childhood and the best educated, found to be the most delicate.

The study asked patients how they would react to various words used to describe weight in a hypothetical situation at the doctor's office if they were talking about obesity for the first time.

Nearly everyone out of the 157 people surveyed said doctors should take the initiative to talk about weight problems.

The participants in the study ranked the following words from appropriate (1) to highly inappropriate (13):

    Weight problem
    BMI (body mass index)
    Too heavy
    High BMI
    Too stout
    Excess weight
    Morbid overweight
    Too big

 Source: Science Nordic

But only one in three claimed to have had this happen - despite everyone being treated for morbid obesity.

Researchers found the word 'obese', typically used to describe anyone with a BMI of more than 30, was considered offensive by most.

But they admitted there was no clear answers as to which words doctors should use when discussing weight with patients.

The latest study comes as the world is in the midst of an obesity crisis with experts warning parts of Europe are facing soaring numbers of the morbidly overweight.

About a quarter of adults in Britain are obese, with the World Health Organisation predicting this will rise to a third by 2030. 

With obesity knocking up to nine years off a person’s life and raising the risk of diseases including cancer, millions face an early grave or ill health. 

The Norwegian scientists questioned whether a patients' dislike of certain words should control the language health professionals use, stating previous studies have show more confrontational phrases are more likely to motivate change.

Telling a patient they are 'fat' would encourage some patients to realise the seriousness of the situation while it may be counter-productive to others, they wrote.


Israeli army uniform incorrect

No doubt it reminds people that the IDF shoots rampaging Arab fanatics before they can kill more people.  We can't have that, can we?

 Walmart has discontinued the sale of controversial Halloween costumes after they sparked outrage. The costumes depicted an Israeli solder and a large-nosed Arab man.

The outfits sparked a backlash on social media ahead of Halloween on Saturday and came at a time of spiralling violence between Israel and the Palestinians.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) called the "Sheikh Fagin nose" "racist anti-Arab costumes". The latex prosthetic nose is described on the website as being "perfect for an Arab Sheik".

"Selling merchandise which mocks Arabs, or any other race or ethnicity, must not be tolerated," said Samer Khalaf President of ADC.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) costume was also heavily criticised by many on Twitter.


Arabs routinely publish depictions of Jews with big noses so why is it incorrect to do the same back?

Some famous Royal incorrectness analysed

By Harry Mount, a former Bullingdonian, a prolific non-fiction author, still in his 40s and arguably the most well-connected journalist in Britain.  So he is well-qualified to do the analysis below

I’ve just been on the receiving end of a Prince Philip gaffe, of sorts, and I loved it. It was at a lunch last week at the Cavalry and Guards Club for the Gallipoli Association — the charity that commemorates victims and veterans of that tragic, doomed campaign.

For 40 years, the Duke of Edinburgh has been the association’s patron. And so, in Gallipoli’s centenary year, he came to the association’s lunch. Before lunch, he roamed at will around the cavernous drawing room, chatting to association members.

As he approached me, he held his drink in his right hand, meaning I couldn’t shake it, and launched straight into conversation. It meant I had little opportunity to bow and call him ‘Your Royal Highness’ — as I would have done in an instant. I got the distinct impression he didn’t want much bowing and scraping.

‘Who roped you into this?’ the prince said. It was the first intimation of his supposedly brusque manner. In fact, it was conspiratorial, teasing and jokey. He knew I hadn’t been roped into lunch; I knew he knew. That faint blast of humour made it much easier to explain how I had in fact roped myself into the Gallipoli Association.

I told him how my great-grandfather, Thomas Longford, had been killed at Gallipoli on 21 August 1915. His last words to his second-in-command, crouching down to avoid the hail of shells overhead, were, ‘Please don’t duck, Fred. It won’t help you and it’s no good for the men’s morale.’

Moments later, marching at the head of his Yeomanry Brigade troops, with a map in one hand and his walking stick in the other, Longford was cut down by heavy rifle fire. ‘Fred’ — Fred Cripps, brother of Sir Stafford, the future chancellor — lived on for 60 years.

I fear I’ve told the story many times before. And I went on to tell Prince Philip how I’d also told the story to Prince Harry in April — when we were both at Gallipoli for the centenary commemorations of the allied landings.

I had asked Prince Harry, ‘What’s the protocol on ducking these days in the army?’

‘You’re allowed to duck,’ he had replied, smiling. ‘But there’s a strict protocol against running away.’

Still not tiring of my theme, I asked Prince Philip if he was allowed to duck in the navy during the war.

‘What a silly thing to do!’ he said. ‘Not much point in ducking on a ship.’

And with that, he was off, in search of Gallipoli Association members with less idiotic questions to ask.

Afterwards, I could easily have presented the whole thing as a classic Prince Philip gaffe: the aggressive prince ticking off the descendant of a first world war soldier. But he was right — it was a silly question. And his answer wasn’t just honest; it was very funny. I cracked up; he kept a straight face. But he certainly meant to get a laugh. Prince Philip is the Paul Merton of the royal family — the straight man with the funny lines.

I suddenly realised what all those supposed Prince Philip gaffes over the years were. Gaffe is the wrong word. They are in fact jokes — jokes that follow almost precisely the same formula: a mixture of conspiratorial banter, mock teasing and stage rudeness. They are that much funnier because of who he is — a 94-year-old Greek prince, war hero and husband of the most famous woman in the world. You’re prepared for seriousness and diplomatic discretion from that sort of man; when you get the reverse, it’s that much funnier.

When he was asked in 1967 whether he’d like to visit the Soviet Union, he said, ‘I would like to go to Russia very much, although the bastards murdered half my family.’ That’s funny because the first half of the sentence is in opposition to the second. It’s also funny because you don’t expect uncomfortable truths from the great and the good.

Except with Prince Philip. As well as playing against type, he is also playing along with type. He knows his reputation and he knows his one-liners are likely to be reported by scoundrels like me. And yet he goes on delivering the material, knowing the punters lap it up.

Prince Philip shares with Boris Johnson what my friend Stephen Robinson, former comment editor of the Telegraph, identified as ‘a presumption of hilarity’. As Prince Philip approached me, I longed for him to be outspoken and funny. What a delight when the expectation was satisfied.

It’s striking that most people on the receiving end of a Prince Philip gaffe also find it funny. This July, he visited Chadwell Heath Community Centre in Romford, and asked a charity trustee, ‘Who do you sponge off?’ The trustee fell about laughing and later said Prince Philip had just been teasing her.

There’s a world of difference between affectionate teasing and malicious teasing. Having seen the Prince Philip act in the flesh, I can see it’s always affectionate teasing — even if it looks more direct, or even rude, on the page. Like most gags, his are better if you are there at the time.

I wasn’t in Cardiff in 1999, when he told children from the British Deaf Association, standing next to a Caribbean steel band, ‘If you’re near that music, it’s no wonder you’re deaf.’ But I bet it was aimed at making them laugh, not at humiliating them.

The same goes for the most celebrated gaffe of all — his comment in 1986 to British students in Xian, China: ‘If you stay here much longer, you’ll all be slitty-eyed.’ OK — that sort of language is no longer acceptable. But the point wasn’t that he was trying to offend the British students; he was trying to make them laugh.

On 20 November, Prince Philip will have been married to the Queen for 68 years. That’s 68 years of dealing with thousands — no, millions — of nervy, sycophantic strangers like me. Gaffes are a brilliant way to make those meetings easier for both sides. They aren’t just funny; they don’t just put people at their ease. They also magically choke off the soul-destroying small talk that must be the bane of every royal’s life. The Prince Philip gaffe is the quickfire shortcut to a proper conversation — to talking on the same level. It is the ultimate royal icebreaker.


2 November, 2015

Why are these people called the "All blacks", when they are almost all white?

Is it some weird form of racism?  Some people are in fact uncomfortable with the name but it's unlikely ever to be changed.  It is of course the New Zealand rugby team, current world champions. "Black" refers to the color of their customary uniforms.  Rugby tends to be a middle to upper class game, though in NZ it is the national sport.  American football developed from Rugby origins.  The players in the picture are performing a Maori Haka.  Maori culture is treated with respect in NZ and the Haka has been widely adopted. It is basically a war dance.

The 2015 trophy was presented to the winners by Prince Harry, who is himself a keen sportsman.  The Royal presence at the game elevated the occasion and undoubtedly helped the Prince's already high esteem in British Commonwealth countries.

Story of the 2015 match here

Name of FBI founder now "incorrect"

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement praising U.S. Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) for noting the hypocrisy of renaming the J. Edgar Hoover FBI building while failing to rename other federal institutions named after Democrat Party racists such the Richard Russell Senate Office Building, the Robert Byrd correctional facility, and others:

“Ken Buck’s challenge to the politically correct police who would smash every statue in their revolution against history is refreshing. It sets a bold example on how to deal with these bullies. Renaming the J. Edgar Hoover FBI building while failing to rename other federal institutions named after Democrat Party racists such the Richard Russell Senate Office Building, the Robert Byrd correctional facility, and many more is a testament to the Left’s hypocrisy and selective revisionism. Considering such legislation is beneath Congress, and it is time to follow Ken Buck’s lead in confronting this divisive gotcha censorship.”


1 November, 2015

Retired Australian Leftist  politician uses the words 'darkie' and 'n****r' on TV

Biffo has never pulled his punches (sometimes literally) and he clearly does not like censored speech in others. Surprisingly for a Leftist, he sometimes gets things right.  Note that The High Court of Australia ruled in 2002 that the word "n*gger" is not offensive in Australia so there is little doubt that "negro" is also not generally offensive in Australia.  It was clearly seen by the media personalities as incorrect, however

Former Labor leader and controversial columnist Mark Latham has repeatedly used racial expletives including the N-word in a televised discussion about political correctness.

Mr Latham used the highly offensive terms ‘n****r’ and ‘d**kie’ on Channel Nine's recently launched The Verdict on Thursday night, leaving host Karl Stefanovic stunned at the rant.

The terms were used during a debate around the question of whether 'political correctness is killing Australia', which quickly resulted in a heated discussion of Eric Abetz's recent use of 'n***o'.

The terms were used during a debate around the question of whether 'political correctness is killing Australia', which quickly resulted in a heated discussion of Eric Abetz's recent use of 'n***o'

The Senator had called U.S. Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas a ‘n***o’ during a radio interview about the push for marriage equality on 2UE.

But panellists Mr Latham and News Corp columnist Miranda Devine, rejected that ‘n***o’ was offensive.

Mr Latham appeared to use the term to intentionally offend, and the audience sounded shocked at his statements.

‘I am happy to make my weekly donation to Australia’s outrage industry by saying: “N***o, n***o, n***o",’ he said.

‘Back in the ‘70s and ‘80s, n***o was actually a respected, dignified alternative to really racist terms like n****r and d**kie.’

Social media was awash with disgust following his comments, with Twitter users widely criticising Mr Latham.


"Hard worker" now a bad term

MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry objected to use of the term "hard worker" on a recent show, telling a guest it demeans the experience of slaves.

Harris-Perry was interviewing guest Alfonso Aguilar, Executive Director of the American Principles Project's Latino Partnership, about Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and his fitness for the role of Speaker of the House.

“If there’s somebody who is a hard worker when he goes to Washington, it’s Paul Ryan,” Aguilar said.

While Harris-Perry agreed Ryan could make a good House Speaker, she had a problem with Aguilar’s word choice.

“[I] want us to be super careful when we use the language ‘hard worker,’” she cautioned. “Because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like.”


Harris-Perry was born to a white mother and black father so frequently takes an interest in what she sees as black issues.  So she apparently sees work as a black issue.  I could say something about that but I won't.

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).


"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral reef compendium.
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia


"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Vodafrauds (vodafone)
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)

Mirror for this blog

Mirror for "Dissecting Leftism"
Alt archives
Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2
My alternative Wikipedia

Selected reading



Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism

Van Hiel

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: