Sunday, February 18, 2018

A US radio host has been fired after calling teenage Olympic gold medalist Chloe Kim a 'little hot piece of a**'

Patrick Connor made the sexual remarks on Tuesday after the 17-year-old won the gold medal in the women's halfpipe in Pyeongchang, South Korea.

Connor, who is co-host of Barstool's new Sirius XM talk show Dialed-In with Dallas Braden, was speaking with ex-baseball pitcher Dallas Braden and comedian Brody Stevens.

He called Kim 'fine as hell' along with more vulgar sexual comments, then said 'the countdown is on' until Kim's 18th birthday.

Connor apologized on Twitter, calling his comments 'inappropriate.'

And on Wednesday, program director Jeremiah Crowe of KNBR-AM said in a statement that he has been fired.


Australian TV commentator and former world champion Jacqui Cooper is blasted for 'racist' comments about Chinese skiers

Seven's Olympic coverage has attracted further criticism after a commentator was accused of being 'racist' for saying 'all Chinese competitors look the same'.

Former Australian Olympian Jacqui Cooper was commentating the first stages of the women's aerials at the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics on Thursday evening when she was speaking about the Chinese skiiers.

'Very Chinese,' Cooper said of Yan Ting's first jump. 'They all look the same, they're very hard to tell who's who.'

Cooper's comments were immediately slammed on social media, with many stunned by what they had heard.

'Did Jacqui Cooper really just say that all the Chinese athletes look the same? #7Olympics' one shocked viewer asked.

'Jacqui Cooper with the casual racism whilst commentating on #7Olympics,' another person tweeted.

Channel Seven issued a statement through their social media accounts on Thursday night explaining Cooper was specifically discussing the Chinese style of aerials and not their physical appearance.

'During tonight's cover of the women's aerials, commentator Jacqui Cooper a former Olympian and World Champion - noted than an aerial manouevre was in a technical and style sense, very Chinese,' Seven said.

'Meaning that the whole of the Chinese aerial team are trained in the same way - and the manouevre referenced was a classic technically perfect, trademark of that team's style.

'At no time was the commentary racist, intended to be racist or offensive.'


Friday, February 16, 2018

Wikipedia Earns Censor of the Year Tag for Botching Evolution, Intelligent Design

Today is the birthday of Charles Darwin, aka Darwin Day, which Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture recognizes each year as the occasion for naming a Censor of the Year, or COTY. As Darwin himself said, in a scientific context, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” But through intimidation and silencing of views counter to evolutionary orthodoxy, such a “fair result” is just what our Censor seeks to undermine.

For 2018, we’ve chosen what is I think our best, or rather worst, COTY yet: the omnipresent online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Let’s review the facts briefly.

Intelligent design poses an ultimate question: Does nature offer evidence of purpose and design, or not? All thoughtful people must ask themselves that. Today, the natural first recourse for the questioning individual is to turn to Google. Looking up ID online will bring you immediately, the first entry, to the Wikipedia article. It commences with a lie:

“Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", [sic] though it has been discredited as pseudoscience.”

Actually, there are three lies. Here’s the truth: ID is a scientific, not a religious argument. It is a theory of evolution, of why the forms of life originated and changed over the past 3.9 billion years. An alternative to the increasingly shaky neo-Darwinian theory of blind churning, it argues exclusively in scientific terms, never from religious authority. It’s an argument for design in biology and cosmology, not for the “existence of God.” Compatible with methodological naturalism, it candidly professes that science sheds no light on the source of the design in life, other than to say that source operates with purpose and forethought. And while it has certainly been attacked in scabrous terms, it hasn’t been “discredited.” Far from it. Even an atheist philosopher like Thomas Nagel concedes that ID poses a “fiendishly difficult” challenge.

Yet anyone looking up ID on the Internet, or asking Amazon’s Alexa, which simply regurgitates Wikipedia, will be instantly turned off and likely give up investigating. That is, unless you already know how Wikipedia works, about the pseudonymous volunteer editors who run the place, with their axes to grind, standing ever ready, on a moment’s notice, to erase changes to pages they care about. The number of innocent people who have been misled by this article alone is beyond calculation.

We’ve been aware of the problem, of course, for years. But the erasure of notable paleontologist Günter Bechly, after he came for ID, was the occasion of much discussion of censorship on the part of this ubiquitous source of information and disinformation, both here and among Darwinists and ID critics too. Another ID scholar, Walter Bradley, similarly saw his entry disemboweled.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, who personally rejects intelligent design, has blasted the editors for the “appallingly biased” article on ID. He adds, “I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways. I’m just officially registering my protest.”

On the subject of Bechly, our view is echoed by ID critics including Alex Berezow, a founding editor of the popular news aggregator site Real Clear Science, by the Darwinist group blog Panda’s Thumb, and as far afield as the liberal, secular Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Berezow writes:

“If a respected scientist endorses a controversial view, should he or she be erased from history? The editors at Wikipedia think so, but only if the controversial opinion is one they personally dislike.

“That's precisely what happened to a respected German paleontologist, Günter Bechly. His biography on Wikipedia has been deleted. Poof. Gone. It's like he never existed. …

“Dr. Bechly … is guilty of committing a thought-crime, and his sentence is to be purged from the Internet. This is deeply troubling, and any true free speech and free thought advocates should be alarmed.”

You go, Alex Berezow! This year’s COTY, compared to past winners (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017), stands out for being widely recognized as a censor, not only by us. Wiki editors, behind their masks, also depart from the ways of past Censors in how frank they are, on their User pages, in admitting their biases.

We struggled with whether to name Jimmy Wales, the encyclopedia’s other co-founder, as Censor. But the clowns, the masked mob, who do the actual “editing” win out for their tireless, frequently spiteful dedication to misleading the public. To solve the problem would require a massive rethinking of the entire concept behind Wikipedia. But like Larry Sanger, we despair of that.

Fortunately, the public is increasingly sensitized both to fakery on the Internet (“fake news”) and agenda-driven behind-the-scenes shenanigans at online behemoths like Twitter and Facebook. And as we’ve pointed out, it’s not only ID that is misrepresented on Wikipedia. It can only be hoped that skepticism will spread, and drive Internet users to examine other sources and, yes, to think and read for themselves, without being led by the nose.


Princeton Professor Cancels ‘Hate Speech’ Class After Backlash from Offended Students

Remember the Princeton University professor whose students walked out of class after he used the N-word in order to make an important point about hate speech? The class, "Cultural Freedoms: Hate Speech, Blasphemy, and Pornography," is now cancelled for the rest of the semester.

"I have reluctantly decided to cancel this year's offering of Anthropology 212," Professor Lawrence Rosen wrote in an email to students, according to The Weekly Standard. "This is a time to reach out to all those who came into the course, and beyond—to do what we do: to listen, to converse, to grapple with the categories by which we create our own experience. I wish you all the best."

Rosen did not respond to a request for comment as to why he decided to cancel the class. A Princeton spokesperson told The Weekly Standard that the administration had put no pressure on the professor to do so. But a student in the class had more information:

One student in the class tells TWS that he believes the course's cancelling may have had something to do with an interaction that happened "about halfway through the first seminar." A male student of color stood up, inches from professor Rosen's face and shouted "FUCK YOU," this witness claimed. Just before that, a female student of color had shouted at Rosen, as the first was approaching, "do you feel safe right now." "There was no physical contact," this witness claims, though at the time the student feared there might be. During that class, "nobody except Rosen defended Rosen," the student told me. Another student in the class confirmed this account to TWS.

What was that about students having very little real power?


Thursday, February 15, 2018

AG Jeff Sessions used the phrase ‘anglo-American’ in a speech and left is freaking out

Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke to the National Association of Sheriff’s Monday and made a comment about the “anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.” He was referring specifically to the history of the office of sheriff.

I want to thank every sheriff in America. Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been the people’s protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elective process. The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement. We must never erode this historic office.

Despite the fact that Sessions was clearly talking about the history of the office his listeners hold, his remarks prompted articles like this one at Splinter headlined, “Jeff Sessions Let His Racism Peek Through a Little More Than He May Have Intended To.”

“Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement”? Hmm, what could that possibly mean?

This comment does not appear in Sessions’ prepared remarks. As Vice News’ Tess Owen points out, Sessions could have been referring to the Anglo-Saxon origins of the role of the sheriff (the sheriff of Nottingham, etc.)

Still, considering every single god-given thing we know about Jeff Sessions, that is a very generous interpretation of his remarks. When you are Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, and are viewed as a racist by a wide variety of people, one would think you might consider the optics of praising “Anglo-American heritage” in front of a largely white crowd of cops.

Ian Prior, a spokesperson for the DOJ, said in a statement that the term “Anglo-American law” is common parlance among lawyers and legal scholars, pointing to a number of opinions from the US Supreme Court.

“As most law students learn in the first week of their first year, Anglo-American law — also known as the common law — is a shared legal heritage between England and America. The sheriff is unique to that shared legal heritage. Before reporters sloppily imply nefarious meaning behind the term, we would suggest that they read any number of the Supreme Court opinions that use the term. Or they could simply put ‘Anglo-American law’ into Google,” Prior said.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer used the term in a speech in 2016.

In other words, lawyers use this phrase occasionally when talking about the history of law. That’s clearly how Sessions intended it, but the left freaked out over it anyway.


UK: The words midwives are BANNED from using because they are disrespectful to pregnant women

An 'alternative' language guide has been created for midwives to use in the hope of instilling a 'culture of respect' for pregnant women.

Three experts devised the list of suggested phrases for common terms, in the hope it will ensure women are 'empowered to make decisions'.

Medics have been asked to say, 'you're doing really well', to women pushing a baby out - instead of the old-fashioned term, 'good girl'.

It also stresses that midwives and obstetricians should never address the pregnant woman as a 'she' when they are discussing the situation at hand.

Instead, they should constantly refer to her first name, according to the guide that was published in the British Medical Journal. 

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has announced it will 'abide by these principles' in its own guidelines issued to its members.

The authors accepted that some may think the new recommendations, which are only a suggestion and aren't from the NHS, are 'political correctness gone mad'.

And the authors pointed to evidence that shows positive communication can alter the course of pregnancy for the better.

'Good communication during the birthing process is critical to good maternity care, but achieving a shift in deeply ingrained language, and the thinking it reflects, is difficult.

'There is a fine line between changing terminology to integrate language which is more respectful, inclusive, and less intimidating for the mother, and substituting vague, verbose language which hinders the original message.'

The guide also asks midwives to avoid discouraging or insensitive language, such as the phrase 'terminate pregnancy'.

Should this distressing situation arise, women should be told it is a 'compassionate induction' to ease their feelings.

And if a medical procedure doesn't work, midwives should describe the attempt as 'unsuccessful', rather than 'failed'.

In another move, it asked for coded language, frequently used by medics to describe certain situations, to be replaced in plain English.

According to the guide that was published in the British Medical Journal, midwives and obstetricians should avoid certain terms when dealing with pregnant women. The list included:

    Painful contractions
    High risk
    Terminate pregnancy
    Failure to progress
    Poor maternal effort
    Codified language
    Patient refused
    You must/have/need
    Fetal distress
    Trial of forceps
    Labour ward
    Big baby
    My woman
    Good girl
    The primigravida in room 12

Anxiety-provoking phrases have also been slashed in the guide, asking medics to avoid the use of 'fetal distress' or 'big baby'.

Instead, they should announce the two common problems as 'changes in the baby's heart rate pattern' and describe a larger infant as 'healthy'.


Wednesday, February 14, 2018

The Obama portraits

Even the usual sycophants had trouble saying anything positive about the "official" Mr and Mrs Obama portraits. The one of Mr Obama looks frankly childish and the one of Mrs Obama is a poor likeness. 

The paintings were done by black artists so that is the first straw in the wind.  Might not there have been some white artists who could have done a better job?  No way!  In the great spirit of Leftist racial bigotry, the artists had to be black

But that's not the end of the racism.  Why was Mrs Obama shown with much lighter skin than normal?  Above is a copy of the image shown at the time of the unveiling, where her skin is a mottled white. The NYT appears to have got photoshop to work, however and show her arms as uniformly light grey.  But neither is anywhere near true to life.

So even the Obamas would rather be white? Is that how they would like to be seen?  I believe it but it's pretty sad. Are we allowed to say "cultural appropriation"?

Europe’s War on Freedom of Expression

I think very highly of the heroic Polish people.  But all the Poles I have met seem to have a little broken bit in their brains that makes them compulsive Jew haters. And it is a matter of record that many Poles enthusiastically helped the Nazis round up Jews.  So that is what the Polish government is touchy about.  They too want to erase history

Any American who ever questions whether the First Amendment is vital to protect free speech should just cast a glance across the Atlantic. Europeans share the same values we do—indeed, our concept of rights derives from European philosophers—and yet they often adopt misguided laws that circumscribe freedom of expression.

The latest blunder comes courtesy of Poland, which is in the midst of passing one of the silliest laws ever devised. President Andrzej Duda signed a law Tuesday that makes it illegal to accuse Poland of complicity in Nazi crimes, including the Holocaust.

The law would also make it punishable with a fine to use terms such as “Polish death camps” when referring to concentration camps like Auschwitz and Treblinka, which were located within Nazi-occupied Poland. Former President Barack Obama deeply offended Poland when he used the term in 2012, and later apologized.

Like all these other laws, the intention is undoubtedly honorable. Poland takes extreme umbrage at being associated with the terror that was the Holocaust.

But Poland must understand that the way to fight misleading information is not to ban it, but to counter it with good information.

It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate to query the extent to which non-Germans collaborated with Nazi crimes in Poland, France, the rest of Europe, and in fact, the world. To attempt to chill that debate is ill-advised.

Poland is but the latest European country to ban freedom of expression it finds uncomfortable. Many of these speech codes and laws have to do with the trauma of the Nazi legacy, but others extend far beyond.

In the United Kingdom, for example, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits the “expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group’s colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.”

People have been fined and jailed both for expressing religious objections to the gay lifestyle or, at the other end, for displaying anti-religious bigotry.

In Germany, Holocaust denial is punishable by law. New hate speech rules, known locally as NetzDG and which came into full force last month, demand that social media giants promptly remove potentially illegal material, some of it within 24 hours of being notified, or face fines.

And France in 1990 passed a law that also made it a crime to deny the Holocaust.


Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Scout master is forced to quit after comparing a Muslim leader wearing a niqab to Darth Vader

A Scout master who compared a Muslim leader wearing a niqab, a veil covering the face, to Darth Vader has been forced to quit.

The woman featured in a Scouting magazine article where it stated she wore a veil 'when she took the girls out canoeing'.

Outraged Brian Walker, 63 emailed the magazine saying: 'Canoeists don't dress like this; they need all-round unobstructed vision, they protect the group.

'They will most likely drown wearing that Darth Vader tent', reports the Sunday Times

However the woman Mr Walker was blasting, known only as Zainab, has hit back saying that it's not about being Muslim, it's about being human.

She insists her niqab does not hinder her in any way and often receives positive comments while out hiking.

In his email Mr Walker also suggested that Zainab would scare children and animals while wearing her veil.

Mr Walker, from Bristol, was fired from his role as assistant Scout leader last March as he breached some of the key values including integrity, respect, care and co-operation.

He later insisted that as the father of a child with Asperger's he understood the need for inclusion and stated that he would work in a group with Muslim or LGBT children.

Although he suggested he didn't want to offended anyone, during his review hearing, Mr Walker said: 'Scouting should stick to its Christian traditions.'

He has since attempted to sue the Scout organisation for breach of contract and hurting his feelings which they plan to contest.


Olympic analyst fired for insensitive remarks about Korea

Incredible that he would be unaware of how much Koreans hate the Japanese

AMERICAN TV network NBC was forced to fire one of its Olympic analysts after he inexplicably said Koreans are grateful for Japan’s role in their economic development — while ignoring the one-time imperial power’s brutalisation of the peninsula.

The network was left red-faced by the comments of former journalist Joshua Cooper Ramo, who worked as a commentator during coverage of the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in PyeongChang.

Japan ruled Korea with an iron fist from 1910 to 1945 in a bloody occupation that still strikes a raw nerve. Koreans around the world criticised Ramo’s remarks on social media and a petition soon circulated online.

“Every Korean will tell you that Japan is a cultural, technological and economic example that has been so important to their own transformation,” said Ramo, who sits on the board of Starbucks and FedEx while working as co-CEO of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s consulting firm.


Monday, February 12, 2018

Jordan Peterson Reacts to Justin Trudeau’s Telling a Woman to Say ‘Peoplekind’

Some in the crowd cheered when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau corrected a woman’s usage of the word “mankind” to “peoplekind” — a word more politically correct, but not found in either the Merriam-Webster Dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary.

Had he been there, Dr. Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist, would not have been one of those cheering.

“We like to say ‘peoplekind,’ not necessarily ‘mankind,’ because it’s more inclusive,” Trudeau said at a town hall meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, on Feb. 2, interrupting the woman, who had asked him about Canadian laws on volunteering with religious organizations.

Peterson weighed in on TV’s “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday on the prime minister’s interjection. Besides being a psychologist, he is a professor at the University of Toronto and a best-selling author.

Peterson has been an outspoken critic of the government compelling individuals to refer to others by their “preferred” pronouns and making it illegal to “misgender” someone.

An example of “misgendering” someone is the act of referring to a man who “identifies” as a woman as “him” or even calling a man “him” when he uses the artificial pronoun “ze.”

“It’s completely inappropriate of the government to decide which language the citizenry should speak,” Peterson said.

He described Trudeau as someone only capable of “running his ideas on a few, very narrow ideological tracks.”

The “most egregious example,” Peterson said, occurred when Trudeau assembled his Cabinet in 2015 and mandated that it be made up of 50 percent women and 50 percent men, despite the fact that only “about 22 percent” of the elected members of the Canadian Parliament are women.

“It was easier for him to do that than it was for him to screen people for the sort of competence that would actually be necessary to be Cabinet members,” he said.

When Trudeau, who took office in November 2015, was asked why he chose to make his Cabinet 50 percent women and 50 percent men, he replied, “because it’s 2015.”

“It’s quite the performance,” Peterson said. “I think we’re really going to pay for it in Canada in ways that we can’t yet imagine.”


KFC is hit with a storm of complaints after releasing an  advert about a child drawing a picture of their parents 'naked wrestling'

Very strange.  I guess they are relying on the adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity

A controversial KFC ad featuring two parents 'naked wrestling' has prompted an investigation by the advertising watchdog.

KFC Australia's summer ad campaign sparked 30 complaints over its sexual content being inappropriate for children.

It featured a child's drawing of a mum and dad wrestling nude held up by a teacher and presented to them at a consultation evening.

Among the complaints about the wrestling ad were adults concerned that children would be subjected to material in the ad which was overly sexual and suggestive.

Bosses have been forced to defend the ad as they await the final outcome of an investigation by the Advertising Standards Bureau

KFC said the series was attempting to represent real-life moments that the public could relate to.

The fast food chain's chief marketing officer Angela Richards said: 'KFC has strict review and approval processes in place to ensure all creative work adhere to relevant codes and standards.

'In this case the Advertising Standards Bureau has decided that the advertisement and associated posts in question do not breach the AANA's (Australian Association of National Advertisers) code of ethics'.

The ASB states the relevant section of the Australian Association of National Advertisers relates to 'sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience'.

The final report from the ASB board is due to published in the next week


Sunday, February 11, 2018

Must not associate blacks with bananas

A photo of two women in a sorority at George Washington University holding a banana peel posted on Snapchat with the caption of 'I'm 1/16 black' is being called 'distinctly racist' by their own chapter.

The photo, which was shared on January 31, showed two members of Alpha Phi and appears to have been taken on the sorority's on-campus townhouse. The two women in the photo were not the ones that posted the image to Snapchat.

George Washington University Provost Forrest Maltzman said in a statement that the incident was 'disturbing, hurtful and not reflective of who I know we are as a community.'

The three members in question are in the process of having their membership terminated.


Minnesota school district REMOVES To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the English curriculum because they repeatedly use the n-word

The new puritanism.  "To Kill a Mockingbird " was once used to preach the evils of racism but even that is not enough to save it these days.  And it is total nonsense to say that blacks are offended by the n-word.  They use it among themselves all the time

A Minnesota school district has removed To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because it fears it could leave students feeling 'humiliated or marginalized'.

Duluth School District officials cited Harper Lee and Mark Twain's repeated use of the racial slur in the classic American novels as the reason for the decision.

'We felt that we could still teach the same standards and expectations through other novels that didn't require students to feel humiliated or marginalized by the use of racial slurs,' director of curriculum and instruction Michael Cary told the Duluth News Tribune.

Cary added the move comes after years of complaints by parents and students, who said the books made them feel 'uncomfortable'.

Although the novels will no longer be required reading, they are not banned and will still be available at the school libraries for any student who wants to read them.

The local chapter of the NAACP welcomed the school district's decision, which they called 'long overdue.'

This isn't the first time Harper Lee's novel is considered too controversial for schools: last year, Mississippi's Biloxi School District also removed the book from their required reading list.

School districts in Virginia and Pennsylvania have also dropped the book after receiving complaints from students and parents.

Both Lee's 1960 novel about a little girl navigating the segregated South, and Mark Twain's 1884 novel about a poor white boy and a slave running way down the Mississippi river are required readings in high school literature classes.

Still, the novels have always been controversial, and their use in English classes has long been debated; both works have been featured on the American Library Association's Frequently Challenged Books list.

The National Coalition Against Censorship opposed the Duluth School District decision.

'While it is understandable that a novel that repeatedly uses a highly offensive racial slur would generate discomfort among some parents and students, the problems of living in a society where racial tensions persist will not be resolved by banishing literary classics from the classroom,' the group said in a statement.

'On the contrary, the classroom is where the history, use and destructiveness of this language should be examined and discussed.'


Friday, February 09, 2018

Doritos For Women Trigger SJWs And Feminists

The CEO of PepsiCo (the company that owns Doritos) was doing an interview with the podcast “Freakonomics Radio” when she dropped a potential future product: “Doritos for Women”. The logic behind this potential new type of Dorito was that their research showed that many women don’t enjoy the loud crunch that the crisps make in public places.

Seems straightforward enough, but the SJW crowd has a different opinion. Many of these schizophrenic baboons took to their social media to say that even the suggestion of making a product that women could choose to buy or not was actually a sexist attack, meant to silence women and promote an outdated standard of femininity.

This outrage has led to the hashtag: #CrunchLouder, meaning women should instead try to make as much noise as possible when eating chips, a trait that is irritating across cultures, ethnicities, and gender.

And many other outraged lefties voiced their opinion over an irrelevant potential product that would offend nobody who doesn’t have a trigger-happy temper or a severe mental disorder


The Golliwog horror rumbles on

Dolls that tend to foster love of blacks are deeply incorrect, apparently

The sale of 'racist' golliwog dolls online and in Australian shopping centres has sparked outrage among tourists and indigenous advocates.

Hundreds of thousands of the controversial toys are sold each year by manufacturer Elka, which ships them across Australia.

Indigenous advocate Henrietta Marrie said the sale of the toys was 'a huge problem'. 'It's laughable this is happening in the 21st century,' she told the ABC.

'It's the look, the connotation and the naming which sends a negative measure. Years ago it was an insult and it's still insulting to us. It gives a negative image about who we are and what we can do.'

Ms Marrie said the golliwogs should be taken off the shelves, and people should be educated as to why they are inappropriate toys.

Soyla Echeverria confronted management at a souvenir store in a shopping centre in far north Queensland while on a working holiday from Melbourne after seeing golliwog toys for sale.

Elka national sales manager Jan Johnco defended marketing the toy, saying they had no racist connotations.

'Traditionally, in my childhood and most certainly my mother's, everyone had a golly and it was a beloved doll, it was so wholesome and lovely,' she said.

'People need to get a grip, it's a doll. We're talking about an innocent, benevolent, beautiful black doll.'


Thursday, February 08, 2018

‘Hate speech’ is no reason to ban Bannon

In the past week, we’ve seen fervent objections to the news that University of Chicago professor Luigi Zingales has invited former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon to take part in a debate at the university over globalization and immigration. Many students and faculty are calling for the invitation to be withdrawn and for Bannon to be banned from campus, since he “traffics in hate speech and white supremacist ideologies."

This is the familiar “hate speech isn’t free speech” argument being used to de-platform or censor campus speakers, usually on the right. But the argument is feeble.

For one thing, it violates the spirit of our First Amendment, which the courts have interpreted to mean that there should be no restrictions on public speech unless it incites clear and present danger. The argument also violates the University of Chicago’s liberal speech code, which states that the proper response to ideas deemed offensive is “robust counterspeech that challenges the merits of those ideas and exposes them for what they are.” Properly, the university has refused to ban Bannon.

The Constitution and the university protect nearly all forms of speech because the free exchange of ideas — the bulwark of education, democracy and the quest for justice — requires that speech be allowed, even when it strongly counters our own beliefs, nearly everyone’s beliefs or, indeed, advocates censorship itself.

Why? Because one person’s hate speech is another person’s free speech. Not so long ago we saw left-wing speakers banned for what was considered “hate speech” — speech in favor of Israel, against abortion or promoting evolution. Banned speakers have included Michael Moore, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Tony Kushner, Richard Dawkins, Julian Bond and even Archbishop Desmond Tutu. This shows that one generation’s “hate speech” can be another generation’s norms.

Further, who gets to decide what “hate speech” is? Whom would you trust to censor speakers? And how would you feel if your own views were censored? That’s why the founders wisely chose to make nobody a censor. Censorship may make you feel vindicated, but it doesn’t eliminate offensive ideas; it only drives them underground. The best disinfectant, and surest path to the truth, is open airing of all views.


Heavy pressure on critic of Islam

Tom Kawczynski was voted out of his job as a town manager of a small community in Maine because of what many viewed as racist ideas promoted by a group he started.

And then he got shunned from crowdfunding sites too.

"After my firing without cause from the position as town manager in Jackman, I have gone out to seek help to sustain myself and my wife," Kawczynski told ABC News.

"The challenge that we've run in to is that many fundraising sites, because of the inaccurate characterization of my views, have deemed that what I'm trying to promote is a violation of my terms of service," he said.

His group, called New Albion, focuses on "defending the people and culture of New England," according to their site, and he told the Portland Press Herald that he opposes Islam because it is "not compatible with Western culture."

Though he denies being a racist or bigot, a spokesperson for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, told ABC News that his opinions qualify as "white nationalist views."

Kawczynski told ABC he launched a GoFundMe page following his dismissal but "the same day I posted it up it was taken down."

While not directly addressing Kawczynski and his fundraiser, GoFundMe spokesperson Bobby Whithorne told ABC News in a statement that "White nationalists and neo-Nazis cannot use GoFundMe to promote hatred, racism, or intolerance, and if a campaign violates GoFundMe’s terms of service, we’ll remove it from the platform."

In Kawczynski's case, he turned to a different site called FreeStartr, which bills itself as "Free speech crowdfunding."

The site, which did not respond to ABC News' requests for comment, is run by CEO Charles C. Johnson, a controversial figure who describes himself as an "investigative journalist" who touts his ban from Twitter.

In Freestartr's community guidelines, in a section labeled "Hate Speech" it reads: "Do not hate on individuals or groups, including on account of their sex, height, race, religion, lack of religion, sexual preferences or—wait, of course we’re kidding. There is no such thing as prohibited hate speech. It’s a term that censorship advocates have invented to justify their censorship."

Gene Policinski, the president of the Newseum Institute which includes the First Amendment Center, concurred that "hate speech is not a particular legal term." "One person's hate speech is another person's patriotic language," Policinski told ABC News.


Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Feel the hate

Despite their constant claims that conservatives are guilty of hate speech, the Left are the real haters.  Below a self-report from a participant in the "women's march" in Washington, D.C.

I had spent the morning sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with my 16-year-old daughter, Katherine, whose silent tears on election night in 2016 had marked the beginning of this national nightmare for me. She had insisted we drive from Charlotte to D.C. this year so that we could "protest in front of the president’s house." We heard all of the inspiring speakers; we relished the creativity of the posters and slogans. Being among so many like-minded people was comforting. I heard one woman say, "I love being here today. It makes me feel less alone."

I wanted to be with people who shared my anger. Because I have been so angry about Donald Trump this past year. I have been angry at my country for electing this man, angry at my neighbors who support him, angry at the wealthy who sacrificed our country and its goodness for tax breaks, angry at the coal miners who believed his promises.

My fury has been bottomless. I drink my morning coffee from a cup that says, "I hate to wake up when Donald Trump is President." The constancy of my outrage has been exhausting, yet I have not yet found a way to quell it — nearly each day has brought a new reason to stoke the fire. But a day with my daughter, communing with the angry and the aggrieved, seemed a good way to try.


Critic of coral reef alarmism Raised $99K To Defend Freedom Of Speech In Just 48 Hours

Last week Professor Peter Ridd launched a GoFundMe to fundraise for his legal costs against James Cook University in the Federal Court.

Amazingly, after a public appeal, he has reached the required $95,000 to cover his defence in just 48 hours.

Institute of Public Affairs Executive Director, John Roskam, spoke to Alan Jones on 2GB this morning about Professor Ridd’s case.

In August last year Professor Ridd was interviewed by Alan Jones on Sky News about his chapter in a book Climate Change: The Facts 2017 published by the Institute of Public Affairs.  In his chapter, The Extraordinary Resilience of Great Barrier Reef Corals, and Problems with Policy Science, Professor Ridd wrote:

"Policy science concerning the Great Barrier Reef is almost never checked. Over the next few years, Australian government will spend more than a billion dollars on the Great Barrier Reef; the costs to industry could far exceed this. Yet the keystone research papers have not been subject to proper scrutiny. Instead, there is a total reliance on the demonstrably inadequate peer review process."

Professor Ridd said on Sky News:

"The basic problem is that we can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies – a lot of this is stuff is coming out, the science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated and this is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions and the fact is I do not think we can any more…

…I think that most of the scientists who are pushing out this stuff they genuinely believe that there are problems with the reef, I just don’t think they’re very objective about the science they do, I think they’re emotionally attached to their subject and you know you can’t blame them, the reef is a beautiful thing."

JCU claimed that Professor Ridd’s comments denigrated the university and the university directed him to make no future such comments.

Thanks to the contributions of many IPA members and supporters of Professor Ridd, he is able to defend scientific integrity and academic freedom in the Federal Court.

You can now read the Professor Ridd’s full chapter. The extraordinary resilience of Great Barrier Reef corals, and the problems with policy science, here


Tuesday, February 06, 2018

Don't forget first principles in rushing to #MeToo

Should a high profile Australian lawyer, Charles Waterstreet, be denied a voice in commenting publicly on sexual harassment of women?

"Castrate him!" came the call on Facebook. "Castrate them all." It wasn't serious, presumably, or at least not literal. But the comment captured the spirit of the backlash against the ABC's invitation to Charles Waterstreet for the #metoo Valentines Day Q&A special, and that was serious. It's also seriously dangerous, and can in the end only enfeeble the values and individuals it seeks to uphold.

Did I say backlash? Honestly, the argument became so vituperative so quickly it was hard to know what was backlash, and what simply lash.

I posted Nina Funnell's piece arguing that the Waterstreet inclusion was a terrible mistake. Not because I agreed with it. Quite the reverse. I put it up because – although of course sexual harassment is both systemic and appalling and I'm scarcely a Waterstreet devotee – I profoundly disagree with the urge to silence dissent. The response was immediate and fascinating.

It's not all about Waterstreet. He's just the lightning rod (and quite likely, in truth, this suits his inner narcissist, as well as the ABC ratings geeks.) But I digress. The principles at stake far outweigh even the male ego.

The anti-Waterstreet argument is essentially that it's "inappropriate" for the national broadcaster to give voice on the harassment issue someone who is himself so accused. This view has immediate appeal, both emotionally and to our sense of rough justice.

But wait. Do you know how many fundamental principles it violates?

First, the presumption of innocence. Waterstreet is accused of showing naked images of himself to young female assistants on two different occasions. I say nothing of the gravity or truth of the allegations, or the images' likely appeal, but these are unproved claims against Waterstreet and we must treat him as innocent.

He may be the model for the ABC's fictional anti-hero lawyer Rake. He may be vain, self-obsessed and relentlessly absorbed in trying to prove his sexuality in a way that seems adolescent. He may, as many note, have a weird or unattractive hairstyle. These are not crimes.

Second, even if they were crimes, even if he were charged and convicted, he'd still be entitled to a voice. We listen to thieves, fraudsters, murderers. They may be barred from profiting by their crimes, but they're not barred from speaking.

A landmark US Supreme Court decision in 1977 ensured – although at 5-4 it was admittedly close – that even Nazis have First Amendment rights to speak freely.



MILLIONS of Brits have been scampering to supermarkets and local shops, buying armfuls of Cadbury Creme Eggs in the hope of winning a cool £1,000.

Special edition white chocolate eggs have been produced and anyone who finds one is in the running to win a cash prize – of up to two grand!

But now the popular promo has run into trouble – for being RACIST! Meadow Sugarsweet, boss of the Melting Pot Community Foundation raged: “Why should a WHITE product be seen as inherently more valuable than a BROWN one?

“This is just the sort of unconscious racism that runs through Britain from top to bottom.

“We are calling on Cadbury’s to end this so- called promotion and demand that any prize money already paid out is diverted to inclusivity and diversity community projects. “We also want a full apology for this terrible slur on the minority ethnic community.”

Last night an insider at makers Cadbury’s said: “Oh f** k! Here we go. There’s always some daft c** t, isn’t there?!”


Monday, February 05, 2018

Yoga is cultural appropriation and racism?

Some seriously nutty claims below.  It's all just hate

Michigan State University religious studies professor Shreena Gandhi and self-described "anti-racist white Jewish organiser, facilitator and healer" Lillie Wolff co-authored the piece titled Yoga And The Roots Of Cultural Appropriation.

The pair argued "the explosion of yoga studios, yoga video, apps, yoga pants and other yoga swag over the last two decades is evidence" of the "(mis)appropriation of yoga" that "is part of systemic racism" built on "the labour of black people and people of the global south".

"We would argue one of the goals of white supremacy is to buffer white people from the pain that comes from the process of exchanging cultural grounding for the unearned power and privilege of whiteness," they wrote.

"This modern-day trend of cultural appropriation of yoga is a continuation of white supremacy and colonialism, maintaining the pattern of white people consuming the stuff of culture that is convenient and portable, while ignoring the wellbeing and liberation of Indian people."

According to Ms Gandhi, white people should learn yoga’s history, acknowledge the cultural appropriation they engage in and possibly reduce the cost of classes for poor people — a group that often includes people of colour and "recent immigrants, such as Indian women to whom this practice rightfully belongs".


Staff at a Melbourne council were BANNED from saying 'Australia Day' and told to call it the 'January 26 public holiday' - but the 1000 employees still enjoyed the day off instead of a planned boycott

Australia day is roughly the equivalent of Columbus day in the USA.  The Left hate both as being about white invaders dispossessing peaceful native people.  The fact that the native people were always fighting with one-another is ignored

Staff at Melbourne's Yarra City Council were given extraordinary orders not to utter the words 'Australia Day' when discussing the public holiday.

The 1000 employees - which included childcare workers, librarians and even gardeners - were forbidden to refer to it as 'Australia Day' and instead instructed to call it 'January 26 public holiday' when with customers and clients.

A bulletin posted by council chief executive Vijaya Vaidyanath gave explicit instructions to staff about how they should describe the controversial public holiday, the Herald Sun reports.

'Council made a resolution to change the way we mark our national day on January 26,' the bulletin read. 'This includes no longer referring to this date as Australia Day.'

'All staff are asked to use the words 'January 26 public holiday' rather than 'Australia Day public holiday' when notifying clients or customers of the opening hours of their service or centre on this day.'

The decision was slammed by Liberal MP Tim Smith who called council members hypocritical for choosing to enjoy the day off despite advocating so hard against Australia Day.

'This is utter hypocrisy from Yarra council, who spent so much time objecting to Australia Day only to take the day off,' Mr Smith said.

'Their thought police shouldn't be going around telling people what to think about our national day.'

The Yarra City Council offices were indeed closed on Australia Day, a revelation made public after 3AW Drive host Tom Elliott paid a visit to the building.

Mr Elliott knocked on the office door repeatedly, calling out and even attempting to ring an old door bell.

He tried to call the council but got an automated message explaining the council was closed.

Matthew Guy, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria, announced he would move to sack all councils which threatened the national holiday if the Coalition is elected in November.

'It's time to stop bagging it. Australia Day is our national holiday and it's an opportunity for us all to come together,' Mr Guy said.

'That's why, if I'm elected, the state government will be able to sack councils that try to divide Australians by banning Australia Day.'

In August, the council voted unanimously to stop celebrating Australia Day on January 26 - with the controversial stand aimed at reducing 'distress' it causes to Indigenous people.

In its place Yarra City's nine councillors - of which four are Greens members - instead chose to hold a number of Indigenous-themed events, with the decision made in the wake of a recent survey of just 300 people which 'showed strong support' locally


Sunday, February 04, 2018

Parroting Trump: Ill. GOP official resigns after calling East St. Louis a certain vulgar name
The chairman of the Lottery Control Board in Illinois and a member of the state’s Republican Central Committee resigned both positions after taking heavy criticism for describing East St. Louis, Ill., as the "shithole of the universe!"

Blair Garber deployed the term on Twitter in response to a tweet by country singer Charlie Daniels, who was defending President Trump’s reference to Haiti and African countries with a vulgar term and criticizing Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, for taking offense.

"Mr. Durbin," Daniels tweeted, "I’m so sorry that your virgin ears were blistered by the absolutely horrible language president Trump used in front of you. The president actually thought he was addressing a meeting of members of congress, not a kindergarten class . . ."

Daniels’s tweet provoked a swell of approving comments, one of them from Garber, according to the State Journal-Register.

"Charlie," Garber wrote, Durbin’s home town is (get this) east St. Louis Illinois! The shithole of the universe! Just do a google search."


Australia: Greenies trying to gag honest scientist

Marine scientist commented on their "unvalidated" public pronouncements about catastrophic damage to the Great Barrier Reef.  The reef is now back to normal so he was proved right.

Marine scientist Peter Ridd has refused to accept a formal censure and gag order from James Cook University and expanded his Federal Court action to defend academic freedoms and free speech.

A revised statement of claim alleges JCU trawled through private email conversations in a bid to bolster its misconduct case against him.

JCU had found Professor Ridd guilty of “serious misconduct”, ­including denigrating a co-worker, denigrating the university, breaching confidentiality, publishing information outside of the university and disregarding his obligations as an employee. [i.e. telling the truth]

Professor Ridd has asked the Federal Court to overturn the university ruling and confirm his right not to be silenced.

In the revised statement of claim, Professor Ridd has dropped an earlier claim of conflict of interest against JCU vice-chancellor Sandra Harding, but has alleged other senior staff had been biased and had not acted fairly or in good faith.

Professor Ridd’s Federal Court action is seen as a test of academic freedom and free speech, and has been supported by the Institute of Public Affairs.

Professor Ridd has subsequently published his concerns about the quality of reef science in a peer-reviewed journal. He said he was determined to speak freely about his treatment “even though it will go against explicit directions by JCU not to”.

“This is as much a case about free speech as it is about quality of science,” he said.


Friday, February 02, 2018

Privacy not allowed?

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Gov. Eric Greitens' attorneys say ordering the governor and his staff to stop using an app that erases text messages would violate free speech rights.

The Kansas City Star has reported that Greitens and some of his staff use a Confide app that deletes text messages and prevents them from being saved.

Two St. Louis County attorneys sued, contending use of the app violates Missouri's open records law by making it impossible to know if the governor and his staff use their personal phones for state business. They are seeking a temporary injunction to stop the governor and his staff from using the app.

Greitens' attorneys argue in a brief that an injunction would violate free speech rights by preventing Greitens and his staff from using Confide to send personal messages.


"Safety" as a sick pretext for denying free speech

At that rate street thugs can deny any free spech they wish to.  It's how Hitler's brownshirts shut up anti-Nazis

White nationalist Richard Spencer's visit to the Texas A&M campus in December 2016 drew overwhelming opposition from protesters and required a large police presence to manage the ordeal. When Spencer was invited back last year for a "White Lives Matter" rally, the university barred the event from campus, citing safety concerns.

Ray Bonilla, general counsel for the Texas A&M University System, stood by that decision Wednesday while speaking at the Senate State Affairs Committee's hearing on free speech issues and First Amendment rights on college campuses hosted by Texas State University.

Even unpopular, "repugnant" speech requires protection, Bonilla said, and the Texas A&M University System stands "ready to fulfill that duty." But its first duty, he said, will always be to ensure the safety of its campuses. "We didn't think that we could ensure the safety of our students, faculty, staff and visitors," Bonilla said. "We were convinced it was the right decision."

Bonilla and representatives from five other university systems spoke to the panel Wednesday about free speech zones, costs for providing security, registration requirements for student organizations and other topics related to First Amendment issues on campus. State and student political groups and representatives from the Anti-Defamation League and other organizations also spoke at the event.


Thursday, February 01, 2018

H & M caught up in fresh racism row over offensive ‘Allah’ children’s sock range

SWEDISH fast-fashion giant H & M has apologised and pulled a range of children’s socks from its shelves in response to complaints made by members of the Muslim community.

The offending socks bore an image of a Lego figurine holding a jackhammer — but Muslim shoppers claimed when turned upside down, the image appeared to resemble the word “Allah” in Arabic, prompting outrage.

According to The Independent, a company spokesperson said the resemblance was “entirely coincidental” and that no offence or hidden meaning was intended by the design.

The multinational retailer sells budget-friendly shoes, clothing and accessories for men, women, teenagers and children as well as homewares.

It is the second-largest global clothing retailer, behind Zara’s parent company Inditex, with more than 4500 stores across 62 countries and a workforce of more than 132,000 people.


Cleveland Indians Scalped by Social Justice Warriors  

Yesterday, Major League Baseball’s Cleveland Indians acquiesced to the demands of the PC police with the pronouncement by MLB Commissioner Robert D. Manfred that the Indians franchise would be scrubbing its “Chief Wahoo” uniform logo next year.

Commissioner Manfred stated: "Over the past year, we encouraged dialogue with the Indians organization about the Club’s use of the Chief Wahoo logo. During our constructive conversations, [team owner] Paul Dolan made clear that there are fans who have a longstanding attachment to the logo and its place in the history of the team. Nonetheless, the club ultimately agreed with my position that the logo is no longer appropriate for on-field use in Major League Baseball, and I appreciate Mr. Dolan’s acknowledgement that removing it from the on-field uniform by the start of the 2019 season is the right course.

The brouhaha over team mascots across myriad sports has festered for a while now, but the timing of the Cleveland Indians’ jettisoning its logo isn’t surprising. The city will host the All-Star Game next year, which coincides with the formal changes. This is hardly serendipitous.


Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Kim Kardashian Slammed For Calling Her Cornrows 'Bo Derek Braids'

It’s Monday, the sun is shining (somewhere) and Kim Kardashian is under fire for cultural appropriation yet again.

The 37-year-old reality star recently posted a video on Snapchat that shows her hair in bead-adorned braids that resemble Fulani-style braids, which are inspired by the Fulani women of East and West Africa.

But Kardashian credited actress Bo Derek, who is white, for the traditionally black hairstyle.

“So guys I got Bo Derek braids, and I’m really into it,” she says in the video, referencing the actresses’ look from the 1979 movie, “10.”


Marijuana: is it time to stop using a word with racist roots?

As marijuana arrests disproportionately affect minorities, controversy grows over a term prohibitionists hoped would appeal to xenophobia

It’s been known as dope, grass, herb, gage, tea, reefer, chronic. But the most familiar name for the dried buds of the cannabis plant, and one of the few older terms still in use today, is “marijuana”.

For the prohibitionists of nearly a century ago, the exotic-sounding word emphasized the drug’s foreignness to white Americans and appealed to the xenophobia of the time. As with other racist memes, a common refrain was that marijuana would lead to miscegenation.

Today “cannabis” and “marijuana” are terms used more or less interchangeably in the industry, but a vocal contingent prefers the less historically fraught “cannabis”. At a time of intense interest in past injustices, some say “marijuana” is a racist word that should fall out of use.

Harborside, which is among the oldest and largest dispensaries in California, says on its website: “‘Marijuana’ has come to be associated with the idea that cannabis is a dangerous and addictive intoxicant, not a holistic, herbal medicine ... This stigma has played a big part in stymying cannabis legalization efforts throughout the US.”

The word “marijuana” comes from Mexico, but its exact origins remain unknown. According to the book Cannabis: A History by Martin Booth, it may derive from an Aztec language or soldiers’ slang for “brothel” – Maria y Juana.

The practice of smoking it arrived in the US from the south during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Mexican laborers and soldiers carried it into the American south-west. Sailors brought it from Brazil and the Caribbean when they docked in New Orleans, where black jazz musicians adopted it.


Tuesday, January 30, 2018

UVA tries to criminalize free speech

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, which is located in Charlottesville and is dedicated to “the defense of free expression in all its forms,” gives out annual awards called the “Jefferson Muzzles” to individuals and organizations responsible for “especially egregious or ridiculous affronts to free expression.”

The center’s first such award this year should go to the Jefferson-founded University of Virginia (which has close ties to the center) and Patrick D. Hogan, the university’s executive vice president and chief operating officer.

Hogan might also benefit from sitting in as an observer at one of the University of Virginia School of Law’s classes explaining the basic tenets of the First Amendment.

On Jan. 19, Hogan sent out a “community advisory” in an email to all students, faculty, and staff, warning them that the university was “aware of reports of solicitations by national organizations to encourage distribution of offensive flyers and memes at colleges and universities across the country during the upcoming weekend.”

Apparently, in Hogan’s mind, saying something “offensive” is the same as committing a heinous criminal act. How do we know that? Because his email tells students to call 911 if they see someone “posting offensive flyers or other material.”

No, really. Posting such material violates the university’s “posting and chalking” policy and is included in Hogan’s definition of “suspicious activity.”

Hogan was particularly concerned over any “offensive” material that might be distributed at “buildings and centers for under-represented groups, particularly Women’s Studies.”

In other words, if you decide to exercise your First Amendment right to speak at UVA by, perhaps, calling the “Women’s Study” program a faux social science curriculum, or by pointing out that its graduates may have a very tough time finding a job in which they can actually support themselves, then law enforcement officers will be called to come after you—a total abuse of the 911 emergency response system.


US Department of Justice supports free speech lawsuit against UC Berkeley

The lawsuit filed against UC Berkeley by The Young America’s Foundation, or YAF, and the Berkeley College Republicans, or BCR, now has the official support of the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, as of Thursday.

While the lawsuit was dismissed in October 2017, YAF and BCR amended their claims and resubmitted it in November. The lawsuit alleges that campus officials violated conservative students’ 1st Amendment right to free speech on campus.

“Plaintiffs’ amended complaint adequately pleads that the University’s speech restrictions violate the First Amendment, and therefore, at least to that extent, the Court should deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss,” the DOJ Statement of Interest said.

In the original lawsuit, the alleged 1st Amendment violation was concerning the high-profile speaker policy due to the cancellation of Ann Coulter’s speech in April 2017.

The lawsuit was later amended to include alleged violations of the 1st Amendment and the campus’ major event policy in regards to Ben Shapiro’s event in September 2017, according to YAF spokesperson Spencer Brown.


Monday, January 29, 2018

Europe Comes Up With Perfectly Orwellian Responses to ‘Fake News’

In their zeal to stamp out “fake news,” European governments are turning toward Orwellian solutions that are worse than the disease.

The European Commission recently created a 39-member panel to explore avenues to eliminate fake news. On Twitter, it announced that it seeks to find a “balanced approach” to protecting free speech and making sure citizens get “reliable information.”

This follows in the footsteps of individual governments in Europe that have decided that the way to defeat fake news is to have the government decide what the truth is.

Germany recently enacted a law that allows the government to censor social media and fine related companies that won’t take down what government officials deem fake news or hate speech.

France isn’t far behind. French President Emmanuel Macron proposed a ban on fake news, especially around election time, “in order to protect democracy.”

And on Tuesday, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May announced the creation of a commission to respond to fake news called the National Security Communications Unit.

A spokesperson for the May government said: “Digital communications is constantly evolving and we are looking at ways to meet the challenging media landscape by harnessing the power of new technology for good.”

The key problem with these proposals is obvious, as the Washington Examiner highlighted in an editorial.

“One must ask who will decide which news is real and respectable, on the one hand, and which, on the other, is fake and must be censored?” the Examiner asked, before referring to George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984”:

Will it be bureaucrats in a censor’s office in a bigger agency? Or, will their work be so extensive and important that they will need a new agency of their own? Will they go the full Orwell and name it the Ministry of Truth?

Though Trump has proposed strengthening libel laws, a more traditional way of curbing intentional media falsehoods, his administration has made no widespread legal attack on the ability of Americans to disseminate news and views.

Saying mean things on Twitter isn’t an attack on free speech, but censorship by an unaccountable government board certainly is.

For all the hyperbole and hysteria following the coverage of the president, it has ultimately been our celebrated friends across the pond who’ve decided to take an ax to free speech, cloaked in the soothing rhetoric of protecting democracy.


Hate speech isn't a crime — on Facebook or anywhere else

In 2016 Mark Feigin posted five anti-Muslim statements on the Facebook page of the Islamic Center of Southern California. They included the Trumpian sentiment, "The more Muslims we allow into America, the more terror we will see," and the claim that "practicing Islam can slow or even reverse the process of human evolution."

Feigin was engaging in disgusting bigotry, which is why the center understandably blocked him from making further comments on its page. But was he also committing a crime?

Not if the 1st Amendment means anything. As the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly, "the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Yet the California attorney general's office charged Feigin with violating a state law against making repeated contact electronically "with intent to annoy or harass." (In addition to this misdemeanor charge, Feigin is also charged with the felony of making a threatening phone call to the center, an accusation he denies. Threats aren't protected by the 1st Amendment, no matter how they're delivered.) Feigin's prosecutors focus on the opinions he uttered on Facebook, arguing that the "mere content and nature of the posts" establish that they "are meant to annoy and harass."

But speech is often viewed as annoying or harassing by those who disagree with it. Eugene Volokh, a 1st Amendment expert at UCLA Law School, has suggested that the attorney general's theory in this case is so broad that it could be used to criminalize critical comments posted on the Facebook pages of the National Rifle Assn. or a group supporting President Trump.

It's hard to imagine a more obnoxious group than the Westboro Baptist Church, the sect that holds demonstrations outside the funerals of U.S. service members who, in the church's demented worldview, have been punished by God for America's tolerance of homosexuality. Yet in setting aside a civil judgment against the church in 2011, the Supreme Court held that the protests were protected by the 1st Amendment because the church was expressing opinions on matters of "public concern." So, in his undeniably bigoted way, was Mark Feigin.

On Wednesday a judge is expected to decide whether to dismiss the charge arising from Feigin's Facebook posts. Those comments were hateful and repellent, but they were also protected by the 1st Amendment.


Sunday, January 28, 2018

Man Wears ‘CNN Is Fake News’ Shirt Inside CNN Building. Guess What Happens Next…

CNN has become synonymous with fake news among Trump supporters

So much so that some wear t-shirts with the slogan popularized by President Donald Trump. This weekend, one man decided to wear a “CNN IS FAKE NEWS” shirt to an Atlanta boat show. For lunch, the man and his friends went to the CNN building.

What happened? He was kicked out of the building.

According to a video posted by Kari Leadingham on Facebook that has since gone viral:

Well we were enjoying the Atlanta Boat Show and went for a dinner break at the CNN building. Got kicked out for a T-shirt our friend wore. #scaredofthefirstamendment #freedomofspeech


Jewish Gold Medalist Confronts Her Muslim Abuser, Dr. Larry Nassar in Court

Notice something above?  The M word.  The above is the only news report I have seen that mentioned that word.  I knew that Nassar was an Arab name so decided to do a little digging.  Unlike its usual practice, Wikipedia glides over his origins.  So I dug some more. It was only in the article below -- from what is apparently an Israeli publication -- that I found that naughty word.  Muslims are heavily over-represented in sex crimes in Britain, Germany and Sweden so we must not be allowed to think  that Muslims in America have similar proclivities, must we?

If there were Olympic medals for court testimony, Aly Raisman might have just won gold.

The Olympian gymnast testified in court today against Larry Nassar, the former U.S.A. gymnastics national team physician who’s been accused of sexual abuse by more than 140 women, including some of the star gymnasts from the past few Olympic Games. Nassar has pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault, and Raisman was delivering a victim impact statement in court.
Raisman also called out USA gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic Committee for turning a blind eye to the many allegations of abuse over the years. She said “talk is cheap” and called for an independent investigation of Nassar’s abuse and how it was allowed to continue for so long.

“If over these many years, just one adult listened and had the courage and character to act, this tragedy could have been avoided,” she said. “I and so many others would have never, ever met you, Larry. You should have been locked up a long, long time ago.”

Raisman said that she and her teammates would no longer be silent.


Friday, January 26, 2018

First hijab-wearing model to appear in a L'Oreal haircare campaign STEPS DOWN over a series of anti-Israel tweets in 2014 in which she compared the country to a 'child murderer'

Hate is intrinsic to Islam.  Read the Koran if you doubt it.  Start at Sura 9

The first hijab-wearing model to appear in a L'Oreal haircare campaign has been forced to step down over a series of anti-Israel tweets.

Amena Khan, from Leicester, said she 'deeply regrets' her remarks from 2014, and apologised for the 'upset and hurt that they have caused'.

She had been criticised for a series of posts, including one that described Israel as an 'illegal state' and another branding the country as a 'child murderer'.

The backdated tweets, which have now been deleted, came to light after Amena was cherry picked by L'Oreal to appear in the promo alongside the likes of pop star Cheryl.

The blogger said that with 'deep regret' she would be stepping down from the L'Oreal campaign, as the conversations surrounding her tweets were 'detracting' from the 'positive and inclusive sentiment' the campaign aimed to send out.


Must not mention the handicapped in comedy

Comedian Tom Segura's controversial joke has been criticised by organisations including the Canadian Down Syndrome Society

Netflix is facing calls to censor a new comedy special which features alleged “hate speech” against people with Down Syndrome.

In his Netflix special Disgraceful, US comedian Tom Segura delivers a riff on the use of the word “retarded”.

After maligning the fact that it’s no longer socially acceptable to use the word “retarded” as a substitute for something stupid or foolish, Segura adds: “Now you’ve gotta be like, ‘That’s not… smart. Your idea has an extra 21st chromosome, if you ask me.’ It’s not the same.”

Segura’s punchline mocks the fact that Down Syndrome often arises when a person is born with a partial or full third copy of their 21st chromosome.

The controversial riff has been criticised by organisations including the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, who branded Segura’s language “offensive and disrespectful”. Meanwhile, petition called “Take it down, Netflix” has been launched.


Comedy is dangerous these days

Thursday, January 25, 2018

The Left find all sorts of things offensive so how come they are allowed to be very offensive themselves?

We see an offensive young woman and a Royal airforce veteran remembering  his comrades who did not come back from the fight against Nazism

Jordan Peterson is the man of the moment

He is a professor at a Canadian university and is well-known as a critic of political correctness.  There was a recent interview with him on British TV which has attracted a lot of attention for the dishonest way the interview was conducted.  He has a lot of troubles with censorship, as we see below

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Must not dress as a disabled prerson
An Oxford University student has been disciplined for attending a college party dressed as Professor Stephen Hawking. The student completed his outfit with an office chair with wheels attached to mimic the world-famous physicist.

He wore the costume for the 'Dress as your degree' themed party at Lady Margaret Hall (LMH) on Saturday.

But he was reported to the college dean after angry responses from fellow students following the stunt.

Junior Common Room president Lana Purcell said: 'This behaviour breaches our clearly expressed expectations for bop costumes.We are angry and disappointed that this has happened and have referred the person to the dean.'

Oxford Students' Disability Community also criticised the student for their costume.


US nurse takes legal action after claiming she was sacked for supporting Donald Trump

A NURSE in the United States has launched legal action after claiming she was sacked for being a Trump supporter.

Earlier this month Lizzy Mathews, of Colorado, filed a civil suit in the US District Court against Denver Health Medical Centre nursing manager Kelly Torres and director of acute nursing Marc Fedo.

The 65-year-old alleges she was fired after a patient asked her who she thought would win the election during the throes of the 2016 presidential campaign.

According to Fox News, during the short conversation Ms Mathews said she wanted Donald Trump to win, adding she was “praying for him”. The patient then replied, “Oh no, I don’t want him.”

Ms Mathews claims her manager informed her a formal complaint had been made about the conversation several days later.

Ms Torres then fired Ms Mathews on the basis she did not work enough hours, and Mr Fedo approved the decision and ruled the nurse ineligible for rehiring.

Ms Mathews made a complaint to the Equal Employment Occupation Commission and also claimed to have been discriminated against based on her Asian-Indian background.

She is demanding her job back along with back pay and damages for emotional distress caused by losing her job, which she had held for 27 years.

“The Defendants’ act of terminating Ms Mathews from her employment without eligibility for rehire was motivated by Ms Mathews’ exercise of constitutionally protected conduct of association with her political views,” the claim said.

“[These] actions caused Ms Mathews to suffer injuries that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected activity.

“[Mathews’ supervisors] treated non-Asian/Indian employees more favourably, including but not limited to disparate discipline and with less scrutiny then that applied to Ms Mathews that led to termination of her employment without eligibility for rehire based on race and national origin.”