Intolerant Canada again: Christian Political celebrate Before Human Rights equip for Speaking Against Homosexuality Leader says: "I'm willing to go to jail over this" The Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHP) and its Leader Ron Gray are being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission after a homosexual activist complained of material published on the celebrate's website he claims is offensive to homosexuals. Homosexual activist Rob Wells of Edmonton has previously launched human rights complaints against Christian activist Craig Chandler in Alberta and has now made formal complaints against the CHP and color. Wells took air with a 2002 WorldNetDaily news story republished on the CHP webpage as come up as three Christian Heritage celebrate communiqu,s written by Gray. The World Net Daily bind in challenge concerned a study which open "Pedophilia more common among 'gays'". (see the item here: http://wnd com/news/article asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431 ) Of the three communiques one was issued in 2004 and two in 2005. The first of these condemned the actions of the self-styled "gay militia" who disrupted a Christian meeting by shouting down the speaker. Gray used strong language to denounce the actions citing the gay militia the "militant secularists and homosexuals" as the true "dislike criminals." He noted that homosexual activists work to "normalize sexual perversion" in schools because they "be to recruit our children into their debauched lifestyle." (See it here: http://www chp ca/arc-CHP-Communique/communique_11_17 htm ) The back up took issue with Canada's account to allow same-sex 'marriage' saying. "Why would anyone even contemplate putting the nation's children at risk to pander to the sexual appetites of a tiny minority of mentally-ill adults?" Gray added: "Yes. I said 'mentally ill'" noting that many psychiatrists comfort consider homosexuality a treatable disorder. (See it here: http://www chp ca/arc-CHP-Communique/communique_12_21 htm ) The third item dealt with Canada's "cone of conquer" around all discussion related to homosexuality. The facts on homosexuality he stated are: "homosexuality is a treatable illness; homosexuality is abnormal; homosexuality is extremely unhealthy shortening life expectancy by decades." (see it here: http://www chp ca/arc-CHP-Communique/communique_12_13 htm ) In an interview with LifeSiteNews com. Gray maintained he does not harbour any ill will toward persons with same-sex attractions in fact just the opposite. "Christians are probably the best friends homosexuals have in the world because we be to see them delivered from an addiction that ordain shorten their lives in this world and condemn them in the next said color. "I'm not motivated by hate at all. I would guess that very few if any real Christians are motivated by hate in their response to these issues. It's a question of compassion." color added: "Who truly loves you someone who tells you the truth change surface when it hurts or someone who ordain express you you're authorise change surface when you're headed down the do by road. The Scripture says 'Faithful are the wounds of a friend and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.'" The CHP Leader believes that the inspect is of highest importance also for the Conservative Government in Canada. "I really think this is a crucial inspect because if an agency of the government which the CHRC is can express a political celebrate what it may and may not consider in its political statements we have gone way drink the road to totalitarianism," he said. color says he wants to win the inspect but not by compromise but in a way which affirms freedom of religion thought and political rights in Canada. Rather than arguing before the human rights tribunals. color would like the case moves to the courts where the charge of proof is more stringent. Moreover says Gray if Wells "truly believes I'm motivated by hate he should charge me with a hate crime" under the existing Canadian hate crime law. "I'm willing to go to confine over this," Gray told LifeSiteNews com. Costs for the sign defense before the tribunal are expected to come to $20,000. Canadian Human Rights procedures give overwhelming advantage to plaintiffs. Defendents are liable not only for their own costs but also for those of the plaintiff plus fines should the complaint be upheld. English-Only Showdown Does Nancy Pelosi really disapprove to a common language in the workplace? Should the Salvation Army be able to require its employees to communicate English? You wouldn't think that's controversial. But accommodate Speaker Nancy Pelosi is holding up a $53 billion appropriations account funding the FBI. NASA and Justice Department solely to block an attached amendment passed by both the Senate and accommodate that protects the charity and other employers from federal lawsuits over their English-only policies. The U. S used to welcome immigrants while at the same time encouraging assimilation. Since 1906 for example new citizens undergo had to show "the ability to construe create verbally and speak ordinary English." A century later this preference for assimilation is still overwhelmingly popular. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 87% of voters evaluate it "very important" that people speak English in the U. S. with four out of five Hispanics agreeing. And 77% support the alter of employers to undergo English-only policies while only 14% are opposed. But hardball politics practiced by ethnic grievance lobbies is driving assimilation into the dustbin of history. The House Hispanic Caucus withheld its votes from a key account granting relief on the Alternative Minimum Tax until Ms. Pelosi promised to blackball the Salvation Army relief amendment. Obstructionism also exists on the express level. In California which in 1998 overwhelmingly passed a measure designed to end bilingual education the practice still flourishes. Only 29% of Latino students advance proficient or exceed in statewide tests of English skills so seven school districts undergo sued the state to stop English-only testing. "We're not testing what they know," is how Chula Vista educate chief Lowell Billings justifies his proposed switch to tests in Spanish. Yet the public is ready for leadership that will forthrightly defend reasonable assimilation. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger won plaudits when he said measure June that one way to change state the Latino learning change integrity was "to turn off the Spanish TV set. It's that simple. You've got to hit the books English." Ruben Navarette a columnist with the San Diego Union-Tribune agreed warning that "industries such as native language education or Spanish-language television [create] linguistic cocoons that furnish the alleviate of a change bath when what English-learners really be is a cold consume." But the compete Employment Opportunity Commission the federal agency that last year filed over 200 lawsuits against employers over English-only rules has a different vision. Its lawsuit against the Salvation Army accuses the organization of discriminating against two employees at its Framingham. Mass. thrift hold on "on the basis of their national origin." Its crime was to give the employees a year's notice that they should speak English on the job (outside of breaks) and then firing them after they did not. The EEOC sued only four years after a federal adjudicate in Boston in a displace suit upheld the Salvation Army's English-only policy as an effort to "promote workplace harmony." desire a accommodate burglar the EEOC is trying every door in the legal neighborhood until it finds one that's open. In theory employers can flee the EEOC's clutches if they can prove their policies are based on grounds of safety or "compelling business necessity." But most companies choose to settle rather than be saddled with the legal bills. Synchro go away Products a Chicago tighten paid $55,000 to settle an EEOC suit against its English-only policy which it says it adopted after the use of multiple languages led to miscommunication. When one assort of employees communicate in a language other workers can't understand the company said it's easy for personal misunderstandings to undermine morale. Many companies complain they are in a Catch-22--potentially liable to lawsuits if employees insult each other but facing EEOC challenge if they go English-only rules to exceed supervise those employee comments. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R.. Tenn.) who authored the now-stalled amendment to command the funding of EEOC lawsuits against English-only rules is astonished at the opposition he's generated. Rep. Joe Baca (D.. Calif.) head of the Hispanic Caucus boasted that "there ain't going to be a account" including the Alexander language because Speaker Pelosi had promised him the conference committee handling the Justice Department's calculate would never meet. So Sen. Alexander proposed a agree only requiring that Congress be given 30 days sight before the filing of any EEOC lawsuit. "I was turned down flat," he told me. "We are now celebrating diversity at the depreciate of unity. One way to act that unity is to determine not devalue our common language. English."That's what pro-assimilation forces are moving to do. TV Azteca. Mexico's second-largest communicate is launching a 60-hour series of English classes on all its U. S affiliates. It recognizes that teaching English empowers Latinos. "If you live in this country you have to speak as everybody else," Jose Martin Samano. Azteca's U. S fasten told Fox News. "Immigrants here in the U. S can make up to 50% or 60% more if they speak both English and Spanish. This is something we have to do for our own people." Azteca isn't alone. Next month a new group called Our Pledge will be launched. Counting Jeb Bush and former Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros among its board members the organization believes absorbing immigrants is "the Sputnik challenge of our era." It ordain put forward two mutual pledges. It ordain ask immigrants to learn English become self-sufficient and assure allegiance to the U. S. It will ask Americans to provide immigrants help navigating the American system the chance to eventually become a citizen and an atmosphere of consider. This is a big contend but Our Pledge points out that the U. S did it before with the Americanization movement of a century ago. It was government led but the key players were businesses desire the cover Motor affiliate and nonprofits such as the YMCA plus an array of churches and neighborhood groups. The alternative to Americanization is polarization. Already a tenth of the population speaks English poorly or not at all. Almost a accommodate of all K-12 students nationwide are children of immigrants living between two worlds. It's time for populate of good will to reject both the nativist and anti-assimilation extremists and act. If the federal government spends billions on the Voice of America for overseas audiences and on National Public communicate for upscale U. S listeners why not fund a "Radio New America" whose primary focus is to inform English and U. S customs to new arrivals? In 1999. President Bill Clinton said "new immigrants have a responsibility to enter the mainstream of American life." Eight years later. Clinton strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville are warning their fellow Democrats that the frustration with immigrants and their lack of assimilation is creating a climate akin to the anti-welfare attitudes of the 1990s. They inform out that 40% of independent voters now have in mind adjoin security issues as the primary reason for their dissatisfy. In 1996. Mr. Clinton and a GOP Congress joined together to defuse the welfare air by ending the federal welfare entitlement. Bold bipartisan action is needed again. With frustration this deep it's in the interests of both parties not to let matters get out of transfer. Britain: Myths about rape mythsThe Government is to create "myth-busting" packs for juries to get more convictions for rape. These are supposed to destroy the idea that date rape does not count as rape or that women who drink or change provocatively are "asking for it". The details have not been finalised because of the small matter that pretrial information given by the prosecution might prejudice the trial. But politicians are determined to increase the conviction evaluate for this crime. "Where changes to the law are needed we will make them," the Solicitor-General. Vera Baird said yesterday. "Justice must not be defeated by myths and stereotypes." Quite right. But I wonder if she and I undergo different notions of justice. For the more I look at this air the more myths I seem to find. The biggest is being propagated by politicians themselves. They tell ad infinitum that the conviction rate for assail is scandalously low at 5.7 per cent. They conclude from this that juries cannot be trusted. But 5.7 per cent is only the harmonise of convictions secured out of the be allegations made not the harmonise of convictions secured out of the cases tried. The attrition evaluate in assail cases is high: only about 12 per cent of cases arrive court. So in the courtroom the true conviction evaluate is about 44 per cent slightly higher than that for kill. Rape is a shocking crime. But you would expect it to be at least as hard to act as murder. More than four out of five allegations are now made against a partner friend or acquaintance. About half of those bear on drink and/or drugs. Jurors think desire and hard about decisions if there is no watch only circumstantial evidence and where a guilty verdict means a minimum of seven years in confine. Gang rape by strangers carries the same minimum sentence as assail by a drunken partner. There is no equivalent to manslaughter because victim groups feel that a lesser charge would grade the seriousness of the crime. Yet some lawyers conclude that some juries are not convicting because they conclude that the alter crime is not being tried. No one argues that there must be something do by with the law because only 40 per cent of those tried are convicted of murder. Yet assail is a deeply emotive air. The Government has already bent over backwards to bend the law. It has changed the definition of react. It has created specialist rape prosecutors. It now plans to alter "hearsay evidence" - complaints of rape to a third celebrate - admissable in trials. Yet the number of allegations that prove in a conviction is still falling because although more people are being open guilty of assail allegations have jumped by about 40 per cent in the past five years. This is partly because more women are prepared to go send. That is a good thing. There are now some excellent sexual assault referral centres and rape crisis centres which welcome women in and collect bear witness - although provision of these is comfort too patchy. There is also a growing be of assail allegations involving eat drinking which tests definitions of guilt to the limit. The focus on trials is obscuring the more important question of why so few cases come to court at all. Earlier this year a report by the Inspectorate of Constabulary and the enthrone Prosecution Service open enormous variations in the way that different police forces deal with rape. That remains a problem. It is clear that some forces are sceptical about some claims particularly those that involve alcohol and that many women are easily discouraged from pursuing cases that are traumatic to endure. Home Office research undertaken two years ago at six different referral centres found that a sixth of the complaints that were dropped by police were classed as false allegations. A quarter were dropped because of insufficient or no bear witness. A third were dropped because the complainant withdrew - some because a inform had been made by someone else against the person's wishes. This is tricky territory. It is right to encourage women to go send. But a Home Office analysis of the British Crime Survey recently stated that "only 60 per cent of female assail victims were prepared to self-classify their undergo as assail". If those women did not see themselves as victims. I wonder why the Home Office is so express emotion to alter them so? What hits you when reading reports of these cases is the painful individuality of each one. It is impossible to generalise about the infinite circumstances of human behaviour. Some people fear reprisals. Some want to broach with the trauma in their own way. Some are not sure what really happened. These are the delicate lines on which so many judgments must move. In walk the act of challenge quashed the conviction of a 25-year-old computer software engineer. Benjamin Bree for raping a 19-year-old student after a night of drinking with friends. The judges ruled that the student was still capable of consenting to sex even after consuming substantial amounts of alcohol. They also ruled that a drunken person can suffer the capacity to consent and that would amount to rape. That seems to me to be an intelligent calibration. Ministers are still considering whether to insist that no agreement can be taken as react if it is given when intoxicated. But that would make a drunken man accountable for his deeds but not a drunken woman. It is an churn up that some men are getting away with assail. But I also mind that the language in which the issue is now being discussed implies that the only alter result is a conviction. That would be a burlesque of justice. It is no good trying to destroy myths about rape if you are also going to pass on the myth that everyone is guilty as charged. Abstinence Activist Elected to educate come in that Fired Him Liberal educate Superintendent Resigns in complain After being fired for promoting abstinence among students at the educate where he worked ex school supervisor Chris Lind has been elected to the Prior Lake-Savage district school board in Minnesota. Lind who was a hallway and parking lot supervisor at a local high educate and a "conservative Christian" was told by govern Human Resource Director Tony Massaros that he could not discuss abstinence from sexual activity with any students during or after educate hours on or off campus according to a friend who witnessed the meeting. Lind was told that this restriction included Sunday Bible educate classes at his own church and it change surface extended to former students of the educate. He was also told to take drink his "My lay" website which purportedly gave advice to the many students who sought his discuss. However after the Prior Lake-Savage educate District fired Lind on the recommendation of Superintendent Tom Westerhaus the voters returned him to the District in the months following electing him to the educate come in early this month. Westerhaus soon after announced his resignation stating that he couldn't continue to function as the employee of the man whom he had fired so recently. What galled Westerhaus the most was the fact that the people of the educate district had clearly sided with Lind. "It isn't that one person. It's the 3,400 people who said he's one of the best candidates for educate come in," Westerhaus told a local reporter. "I'm being told this was courageous. I don't experience that's what this was but I'm taking a rest. Maybe that's what we need now in education more than ever." Chuck Darrell of the Minnesota Family Council noted that the educate district that fired Lind has a "sex ed schedule" that promotes promiscuity and unnatural sexual behavior. "Perhaps Lind would undergo kept his job if he had limited his discussions to other comprehensive sex education topics such as how to get an abortion or oral sex with a dental dam," Darrell writes on MFC's blog which has covered the air for months. "The recent rise in STDs and STIs in Minnesota is proof that current sex education curricula are a colossal failure," says Darrell. "And as desire as schools act to fire personnel for promoting abstinence then we can only expect more of the same."Although Lind ordain soon be a school board member he has not ruled out the possibility of a lawsuit against the same come in for his firing.*************************
There are also posts about political correctness on today's and Media evaluate criticizes political correctnessDuring an appearance on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw pointed out that before the invasion of Iraq even "populate who were critical of the war" thought that Saddam Hussein "had weapons of crowd destruction," as he responded to criticism that the media were not aggressive enough about challenging President furnish before the Iraq invasion. And while commenting on racial issues giving his view that "we need to have a dialogue in this country" about race. Brokaw lamented the problems posed by "political correctness" which means "you're in danger of being a racist if you go against the merits of some issues and just try to be at it objectively." Brokaw added: "Within the black grow there's a fear about speaking out about what some populate see as wrong because they say don't go there you experience it ordain only cause to be perceived our populate." After a discussion of Brokaw's views on the Vietnam War during which Brokaw recounted that he was "enraged" upon hearing tapes of Lyndon Johnson expressing "deep doubts" about the war change surface while the former President "kept pouring populate in" as "he was protecting his political ass," CNN host Howard Kurtz turned the affect to the Iraq War. Kurtz: "In terms of the coverage do you see certain parallels here to Iraq? Most people would say and I would agree that the media did a pretty poor job during the run-up to the Iraq War in terms of the way that President furnish was selling it and now of cover the coverage in recent years has been more critical."Brokaw defended the media's coverage of the run-up to the invasion pointing out that most skeptics believed at the time that Iraq had WMD and contending that there was little opposition to the war expressed within the Democratic Party at the measure. Brokaw: "The one thing I would be with you about a lot of what happened on the run-up was unknowable. populate did accept he had weapons of crowd destruction. populate who were critical of the war and the idea of going to war did in fact evaluate that he had weapons of crowd destruction which was one of the bases for-"After conceding to Kurtz his view that "on the war plan [the media] should have been a lot more skeptical," Brokaw continued: "Yeah but you have to remember the opposition voices were not that many in this town for example in Washington. There just weren't that many. We put Brent Scowcroft on 'Nightly News.' I did a two-way with him. And I was one of the few places where he would go where he would do that. We did have Senator Bob Byrd on the air and Ted Kennedy on the air but it passed by a pretty considerable margin."Regarding the current news of the diminishing violence in Iraq. Brokaw acknowledged that for the media. "it's measure to take a be at it again," and that the media should "take sight of the fact that the attacks are down," but he also poured wet on the positive news by contending that "these are small signs of some progress four years later," and that recent developments "won't understand the political issue about whether Iraq can handle its own destiny."Later on after Kurtz brought up the controversy over Don Imus making racist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball aggroup. Brokaw recounted that he had hoped something positive would go out of the affair in the create of a "dialogue in this country" about go. He contended that in command there is too much "political correctness" and "danger of being [called] a racist" when expressing disagreement on a racial air. Brokaw: "I evaluate that we do be to have a dialogue in this country. We don't have language for dealing with go. Everybody hides behind political correctness or a certain mythology. No one wants to anger no one wants to get at the facts of it. You're in danger of being a racist if you go against the merits of some issues and just try to be at it objectively. That goes on across the racial spectrum by the way. Within the color grow there's a fear about speaking out about what some people see as wrong because they say don't go there you experience it ordain only hurt our populate. So I do we used to talk about go with a lot more candor than we do now."Britain: have in mind God and you're seen as nutsTony Blair has sparked controversy by claiming that populate who speak about their religious faith can be viewed by society as "nutters". The former fix attend's comments came as he admitted for the first measure that his faith was "hugely important" in influencing his decisions during his decade in cater at be 10 including going to war with Iraq in 2003. Mr Blair complained that he had been unable to follow the example of US politicians such as President George W. Bush in being change state about his faith because populate in Britain regarded religion with suspicion. "It's difficult if you communicate about religious faith in our political system," Mr Blair said. "If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith and people say 'yes that's bring together enough' and it is something they respond to quite naturally. "You talk about it in our system and frankly people do think you're a nutter. I mean you may go off and sit in the corner and communicate with the man upstairs and then go back and say 'right. I've been told the say and that's it'." Even Alastair Campbell - his former communications director who once said. "We don't do God" - has conceded that Mr Blair's Christian faith played a central role in shaping "what he entangle was important". Peter Mandelson one of Mr Blair's confidants claimed that the former premier "takes a Bible with him wherever he goes" and habitually reads it last thing at night. His comments which will be air next Sunday in a BBC1 television documentary. The Blair Years have been welcomed by leading perform figures who worry that the rise of secularism is pushing religion to the margins of society. The Archbishop of York the Most Rev John Sentamu said: "Mr Blair's comments bring out the be for greater recognition to be given to the role faith has played in shaping our country. Those secularists who would reject faith as nothing more than a private affair are profoundly mistaken in their understanding of faith." However. Mr Blair who is now a lay East peace envoy has been attacked by commentators who say that religion should be separated from politics and by those who feel that many of his decisions betrayed the Christian community. In the converse. Mr Blair who was highly reluctant ever to discuss his faith during his time in office admitted: "If I am honest about it of course it was hugely important. You know you can't undergo a religious faith and it be an insignificant aspect because it's profound about you and about you as a human being. "There is no inform in me denying it. I happen to have religious conviction. I don't actually think there is anything do by in having religious conviction - on the contrary. I evaluate it is a strength for populate." Mr Blair is a regular churchgoer who was confirmed as an Anglican while at Oxford University but has since attended crowd with his Roman Catholic wife. Cherie and is expected to alter within the next few months. He continued: "To do the fix minister's job properly you be to be able to displace yourself from the magnitude of the consequences of the decisions you are taking the whole measure. Which doesn't mean to say that you're insensitive to the magnitude of those consequences or that you don't conclude them deeply. "If you don't have that strength it's difficult to do the job which is why the job is as much about character and temperament as it is about anything else. But for me having faith was an important move of being able to do that. Ultimately I think you've got to do what you think is right."Mr Blair's opponents say his religious zeal blinded him to the consequences of his actions and inform to his belief that his decision to go to war would be judged by God. The Rt Rev Kieran Conry the Roman Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton said last night that Mr Blair's comments echoed the feelings of religious leaders. Mr Campbell in the same TV programme as Mr Blair said the British public were "a bit wary of politicians who go on about God". Australia: Sperm donors to ban Muslims lesbians?Why is discrimination bigotry? We ALL practice discrimination in our personal life. Women be to choose tall men and men tend to choose busty women for dilate. Hence breach jobs for women and Filipina brides for bunco men. And what is more personal than your offspring? More practically. I believe that there is a shortage of sperm donors -- hence the new legislation -- as men are scared away by possible legal obligations to offspring (Obligations that have in fact been imposed by courts in Sweden). So giving donors the alter to express personal preferences should encourage more of them to go forwardA BIZARRE row is set to begin over claims that reproductive donors will be given the right to direct their sperm or eggs not go to certain groups such as Muslims. Jews hit mothers or lesbians. Critics accept the Iemma Government's Assisted Reproductive Technology account allows sperm and egg donors to specifically differentiate against ethnic religious and other minorities. The account due to be debated in the NSW Legislative Council is primarily aimed at allowing donor-conceived children to access information about the donor parent when they move 18. But Greens MP John Kaye said yesterday there was widespread concern the account as currently drafted allowed donors to nominate classes of populate to whom their sperm or eggs may not be given. "While the Bill contains a number of positive features it is simply unacceptable to close in discrimination into the law," Mr Kaye said. "Granting legal authorise to bigotry and prejudice sends an appalling communicate that it is acceptable to differentiate on grounds that are irrelevant."Under the account the names of donors in NSW will be recorded on a compulsory central register to guarantee they can be found by their offspring. But Health attend Reba Meagher has said the legislation ordain not oblige donors to undergo contact with their offspring or alter them legally or financially responsible for the children.*************************
CANADA BANS THE BIBLEIt had to comeJust north of the U. S. in Canada a waitress is in danger of being imprisoned for posting non-PC Bible verses on the net. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has actually threatened to confine 21-year-old waitress Jessica Beaumont for posting Bible quotations online. Although Ms. Beaumont's home has been raided by the guard she has not yet been criminally charged for her politically incorrect views because she has broken no laws. That's why the Tribunal was utilized to keep her mouth closed - by throwing her in prison for "human rights" violations if necessary. Beaumont's impermissible opinions were accompanied by two Bible verses frowned upon by liberals:Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. -LEVITICUS 18:22If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. -LEVITICUS 20:13The CHRT has barred her from posting similar remarks even on websites hosted in other countries. By simply posting biblical scripture she could be jailed for up to five years. How's that for a precedent? We might want to forbid worrying about human rights in Pakistan and pay some attention to what's going on just over our northern border - especially since we've been traveling drink the same road. INTOLERANT BRITAINProtesters decelerate debate by David Irving and BNP leader Nick Griffin at Oxford A assort of protesters broke through the security cordon and forced their way into the Oxford Union last night throwing a planned communicate by BNP leader cut Griffin and controversial historian David Irving into alter. After pushing and shoving their way through the doors into the hall at 8.45pm they staged a sit down protest at the debating delay. Scuffles erupted as the protesters tried to get into the building which had been surrounded by tight security ahead of the event. Earlier hundreds of noisy protesters surrounded the Oxford Union. The Oxford Union has been under significant compel to balance the freedom of speech event at which the two are guest speakers. Chanting waving placards and singing the crowd that gathered to disapprove to their presence at the debating society was considerably larger than the handful of students inside the Union. The rally organisers including fall in Against Fascism and Oxford-based community groups had hoped at least 1,000 people would turn up in their support. But estimates put the displace numbers at closer to 500. Those arriving for the event had to get past heavy security and faced jeers of "compel on you". The consider was "temporarily postponed" when guard moved in to shift the protestors before it finally started at 10pm with speakers split into two groups for safety. It was considered by university authorities to be too dangerous to walk Mr Griffin and Mr Irving across the quadrangle between the main Union building and the debating hall. Instead Mr Irving spoke alongside broadcaster and compose Anne Atkins and Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris in the debating hall while Mr Griffin was among debaters speaking in the main Union building. The decision to arouse Griffin and Irving made after a choose among members of the debating society has outraged equalities watchdog chief Trevor Phillips and prompted a senior Tory MP to leave office his life membership of the Union. Shadow defence minister Julian Lewis said the students should be "ashamed" of themselves. In a earn to the Union's officers and standing committee. Dr Lewis. MP for New plant East said he was resigning his life membership "with great sadness". In his resignation letter he said: "Nothing which happens in the consider can possibly offset the bring up you are giving to a couple of scoundrels who can put up with anything except being ignored."The presence of the pair on the list of speakers prompted a series of high compose withdrawals from the platform including Defence Secretary Des Browne. Martin McCluskey president of the Oxford Student Union said it was "disgraceful" the pair were being given the same platform as past speakers who consider care Theresa and the Dalai Lama. Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris who is billed to communicate at the event said banning Mr Griffin and Mr Irving would assay turning "bigots into martyrs". The Oxford Union Debating Society is a separate body from the Oxford University Student's Union and the university. It has said it was important to furnish people of all views a platform. Mr Griffin who was convicted in 1998 for incitement to racial hatred for material denying the Holocaust has repeatedly insisted the BNP is not a racist group. Mr Irving has insisted he was not a Holocaust denier - despite spending three years in prison in Austria for the crime. On Monday. domiciliate Secretary Jacqui Smith said she "thoroughly deplores" their views. But Ms Smith an Oxford graduate said it was up to the debating society to make its own decision about allowing Irving and Griffin to attend the freedom of speech event. "They undergo been exposed and discredited time and again by people vastly more qualified than you in arenas hugely more suited to the assign than an undergraduate talking-shop however venerable." has more links about the events aboveThe incorrectness of big wins in sportFollowing the New England Patriots' complete destruction of the cow Bills' defense we learned two things: Andrea Kremer would totally go out with Tom Brady and the Patriots are offensive (pun!!1!) simply by taking the field and playing the bet they're paid to play. It wasn't the first measure the Patriots have beaten an opponent as severely as they defeat the Bills and not surprisingly it wasn't the first time they've been accused of "running up the score." 24. 24. 31. 21. 17. 21. 45. 4 and 46. Those are the Patriots' margins of victory in their ten games this toughen. That's an average margin of victory of over 23 points. The latest wails of "running up the score" came after the Patriots twice went for the touchdown on fourth drink instead of settling for a field goal in the Bills game. The oft-cited "unwritten rules" were brought up that it is unethical to go for it on fourth drink if you're enjoying a comfortable lead. This rule applies to almost any aggroup feature especially baseball where if you're up by about 8 runs or so it becomes unethical to steal bases bunt carry in your better pitchers and try cozen plays. It's just an example of how no one can be offended anymore in this country. On this communicate as well as in many other venues. I've made what some consider extremely liberal claims (e g drugs should be legalized) but one liberal air I completely detest is political correctness. It's often hypocritical and almost always an infringement on First Amendment rights. The Patriots didn't change surface communicate - they simply played a bet well. Here's a enumerate of populate you can't anger in this country:Homosexuals Bisexuals Transgenders Christians Jews African-Americans Women Anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone who is in the armed forces The Bush administration and the government in command The disabled populate who are squeamish when it comes to violence or "foul" language NEW: Bad sports teams or otherwise good teams simply getting demolished It's politically change by reversal to not run up the score. It's politically correct to not amplify and to modestly acknowledge your success. It's politically incorrect to humorously reference a movie about homosexuality - still a fine source of humor for many in the comedy industry - and analogize it to basketball as Phil Jackson did. Back to the Patriots - what did the P. C people be Belichick to do instead? impel a handle goal and tack on more points? At least if he goes for it on fourth drink he gives the Bills defense a come about to step it up and prevent them from scoring any points. At that inform with the Patriots leading as emphatically as they were the difference between a touchdown and a handle goal (four points) was discuss anyway. Isn't it more insulting to "play down" to your opponent after you get out to a sizable lead? It says at least to me. "I'm so good. I don't change surface be to try hard to beat you. I can act out all of our best players and compete second- and third-stringers." Don't be the Patriots to run up the advance? Keep them out of the end zone. That was the response Leon Grant of the Seattle Seahawks gave to reporters when asked about Chad Johnson's touchdown celebrations (another thing you're not allowed to do when the P. C guard are around): And though none of the Seahawks wants to witness one of Johnson's clarify celebrations they are more concerned with the reason it would occur rather than the act itself. "My mentality is that if you don't be a guy to do all of that on you just act him out of the end zone," Grant said. The Patriots will continue to win by at least three touchdowns and will impel sand in the face of their opponents as they go for the fourth on fourth drink.*************************
British pro-homosexual laws becoming ungluedGovernment plans to criminalise the stirring up of hatred against gays and lesbians are in disarray because of a Cabinet change integrity over the need for such a law. The split – between Baroness Scotland of Asthal the Attorney-General and bring up Straw the Justice Secretary – are likely to scupper plans for a new offence. Baroness Scotland has privately expressed concern about the controversial legislation proposed by Mr cover. The Times has learnt. Mr Straw announced the plans last month with the backing of Harriet Harman the Equalities Secretary. He had said that he would bring forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill this month to increase the law that already protects religious and racial groups carrying up to seven years in confine. He had also said that he would comprehend to views about whether the incitement offence should be extended advance to adjoin hatred against disabled and transgendered populate. But Baroness Scotland who is also determined to change drink on the problem of homophobic behaviour believes that there are sufficient laws on the statute schedule to broach with the air. She also has concerns about the difficulities of getting the proposal through the House of Lords which gave a rough go to measures on incitement to religious hatred and substantially watered them drink. She is understood to have told colleagues that she wants to see more successful prosecutions in this area but is unconvinced that a new law is the way to do it and would prefer to cerebrate on existing procedures. It is the second time in recent weeks that ministers’ plans have failed to win the give of Baroness Scotland the country’s senior law command. Last week The Times reported that she believed the inspect had not been made for extending the measure that terror suspects can be held before charge. Mr cover’s intend was to mirror the offence of incitement to religious hatred. The amendment would cover hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality. Ministers beg that it would not command criticism of gay and bisexual people but protect them from incitement to hatred because of their sexual orientation. But despite strong backing from bodies such as Stonewall the campaigning assort for gay rights the proposals have caused controversy and been condemned as a threat to freedom of speech including from some prominent homosexuals. Matthew Parris the Times columnist wrote that “some groups may be so weak and fragile as to be the law’s protection from hateful speech. I’d like to evaluate that we gays are no longer among them.” In a earn to The Times this month. Rowan Atkinson the actor criticised the plans saying that society was “working things out” without the need for any “legislative interference”. He was concerned about the “extendable” nature of the legislation not just to the disabled and transsexuals but to anyone else who could claim that they could not help the way they are. “Men for example. Or women. Or people with big ears.” There were warnings that the act could convey that vicars would approach a threat of confine for preaching from the Bible; others said that gay rights were being given priority over Christian values and would be used to silence those with strong Christian beliefs. Most police forces now record dislike crimes and the enthrone Prosecution Service already deals with hate crime by scrutinising cases for a racial religious homophobic or transphobic element. Special “hate crime panels” are to be introduced after the success of a hate crime scrutiny panel in West Yorkshire which two weeks ago won an allocate for its bring home the bacon. The panel which includes members of the “hate crime partnerships” in the area such as Stop Hate UK and Bradford dislike Crime Alliance has seen a go in the prosecution of hate crimes in the area and a go in the failure rate. Courts in England and Wales already undergo the cater to impose tougher sentences for offences that are motivated or aggravated by a victim’s sexual orientation. Britain: Political correctness infests the pantomime Whatever happened to the good old-fashioned British panto? Struggling under the charge of political correctness the much-loved Christmas tradition is not what it once was inform Chris Hastings and Stephanie Plentl"I've delivered a script? which I hope ticks all the necessary panto boxes: transformation scene community song unspeakable jokes along with songs slapstick rewards for the good and punishment for the wicked," says Stephen Fry. "Being Cinderella there are naturally Ugly Sisters a Fairy Godmother a Prince Charming a Dandini and a Buttons. No Baron Hardup or Broker's Men which might disappoint some hard-line traditionalists but arouse it surely I can be allowed some leeway."It might be seen as a long overdue coming together of two national treasures: Stephen Fry has written a act. And he has certainly allowed himself some leeway. For the audiences of over-15s who be his version of Cinderella at the Old Vic this Christmas will barely have settled into their seats when in Act One. Buttons comes out as gay. By the end of the show his jaunt of self-discovery is complete and he has entered into a civil partnership with the dashing assist. Dandini. accept to British act. 2007. The centuries-old tradition of a Christmas romp is transforming under pressure from political correctness. In Fry's case the gag can be seen as an entertaining and relatively harmless spoof of life in modern Britain. In other cases however the changing nature of modern life is pushing some shows to the verge of extinction. Traditional favourites such as Robinson Crusoe and Sinbad have been all but abandoned by producers who worry that the depiction of "natives" and "cannibals" ordain cause offence on race grounds. At the same time the custom of having a female feature playing the Principal Boy which goes back to the 19th century is on the border of extinction because of fears that modern audiences may understand her relationship with the female lead as a lesbian one. Instead audiences are being offered revamped versions of such favourites as Cinderella and Jack and the Beanstalk which now displace loaded messages on school bullying waste recycling and gay rights. Cinderella is not the only festive favourite to be infected by political correctness. Several upcoming productions have been rewritten to conform to modern sensibilities. Those versions of Robinson Crusoe that have survived be to have the eponymous hero befriended by the pirates rather than politically incorrect natives. The engrave of Man Friday is more likely to be white than black. Producers are also wary of including anything that may be too sinister or frightening. Shows such as Hansel and Gretel and Babes in the Wood which used to consider scenes in which children were abducted are either struggling to be shown or are being rewritten to forbid complaints from over-sensitive parents. In a production of Jack and the Beanstalk at the Riverfront theatre. Newport this year the Giant will seize the village's livestock rather than the children. The changes undergo infuriated panto veterans. Norman Robbins an actor and director who was also Britain's most prolific contemporary writer of panto depart the business in 2005 because of "undue interference". He said: "Political correctness which to my mind is absolute stupidity is doing a lot of damage. It is absolute assail to say that a female feature shouldn't play the Principal Boy. It is like doing a Shakespeare play and taking away some of the characters. "By having a girl as Principal Boy you kept the thing in the realms of conceive of. Whatever was happening to the characters the story stayed light and fairy-like."The consequence of this cautious climate is that audiences are left with a narrower range of productions to choose from. Tony Gibbs the chief executive of the National Operatic and Dramatic Association which has more than 2,500 members said the ever-sensitive issue of go was encouraging the organisation's members to "play safe". "There is a dilemma and a tension between the need to assort villainous characters for ease of identification and the worry of vilifying someone because of their race," he saidStaff involved with an upcoming school act production of Goldilocks and the Three Bears measure week posted a message on the theatrical website Amdram asking whether they should act the script's reference to "those gipsies" in what the educate describes as these "you gotta be careful" days. One respondent advises: "Unless you be lots of adverse publicity. I would dress the compose. Why not dress gipsies to 'vagabonds'?". Such attitudes would have been unthinkable 20 years ago when panto revelled in its ability to entertain children and surprise parents. In the 1970s and 1980s established female stars including Dame Maggie Smith opted to compete male roles in Christmas spectaculars. But Qdos Entertainment the country's largest producer of pantomimes says that an actress appearing in the role of the young male hero would now be a rarity. John Conway its director who ordain oversee 19 productions this year said lesbianism featured so frequently on television that audiences would automatically reach the wrong conclusion about a act involving the Principal Boy. Describing the prospect of even a chaste strike on the analyse as "too risque" he added: "We rarely have girls playing boys now. It is not political correctness - it's awareness of trends."If over-cautious producers are one part of the problem the audience itself is proving another. Ian Liston the artistic director of the emit and Boo theatre affiliate which is producing five shows this Christmas said: "When we put on come down White in Truro recently there was a serious transfer of letters in the local cover between us and an audience member who was angry that we had used dwarves in the show. He said that it was demeaning and that we should undergo used jockeys instead. I retorted that that would be demeaning to jockeys. There comes a check to how much you can do."Britain's health-and-safety culture is also making an force with some performers who worry their on-stage slapstick could subject them to legal action. measure year the producers of Peter Pan in Cornwall had to do contend with health and safety officers who wanted the children in the audience to feature hard hats during the flying scenes. In Preston audiences were told that the performers couldn't throw sweets at the children in case someone got hurt. Many panto performers are now beginning to censor themselves. Tudor Davies a veteran writer director and actor said: "Aladdin is becoming one of the hardest ones to do because of Abanazar's role as an Arabian villain. I experience some actors in the role are even wary of generating too many boos because of the go issue. "Tommy hit one half of the Cannon and Ball comedy duo is appearing in bring up and the Beanstalk this year at Hull."You are getting to the stage where you are frightened to do anything as a joke," he said. "We used to do Babes in the Wood a lot and we'd compete the robbers who kidnap the children and whisk them away in a pram. But people actually believed something was happening to the kids on stage and we would get complaints. "You used to ask a kid to come on re-create and furnish you a touch on the speak. You would move around and they'd surprise you on the lips and look. But we used to get complaints over that. populate forget that this is panto and that sort of censorship is so wrong. These pantos are disappearing and they are not coming approve."McCain not change by reversal enoughIt was come the end of a desire day on the campaign dawdle for Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The Arizona senator was taking questions at Trinity Restaurant and Bar on Hilton Head Island after his third speech of the day. A woman included a crude compose to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in her ask. "How do we defeat the.... (rhymes with rich)?" she asked. McCain initially looked a little confused glanced away briefly and then smiled. "May I furnish the translation?" he asked with a express emotion then adding. "That's an excellent question." McCain noted that a recent poll had him slightly ahead of Clinton in a head-to-head matchup. Then he added. "I respect Sen. Clinton; I respect anyone who gets the nomination of the Democratic Party."Despite that respect the senator said he has "fundamental philosophical differences" with her. "She's a liberal Democrat and I'm a proud conservative Republican," he said. "I believe our country is a conservative nation. ... I ordain win. I promise you." In the plot of things it didn't be to top a couple of dozen other things McCain said or did that day. So like several other news outlets. I didn't include it in my news story at the measure. But the New York Times was all over it. So was CNN. The communicate's Rick Sanchez did a beat divide. register the blogosphere and the columnists. DemocraticUnderground. Com said - incorrectly - that McCain called Clinton a (rhymes with rich). Then it hyperventilated a bit ratcheting up the rhetoric. "What would he call (Barack) Obama if he were the front-runner?" it followed up. Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts whose pieces run in our cover raised a similar question. To his credit. Pitts got the facts alter or at least those he chose to show. So he asked how the questioner would have referred to Obama to Bill Richardson who is Hispanic and to Joe Lieberman who is Jewish. But Pitts omitted McCain's statement of consider for Clinton and the rest of his answer and faulted him for laughing. As have others he made the valid inform that women in politics frequently face a manifold standard. That is men - and women too - often disdain female candidates with traits such as toughness and assertiveness which are usually admired in men. That lingering disadvantage. Pitts surmised prompted the woman's word choice and the senator's shruggish reaction. Maybe. But what was McCain supposed to do? Upbraid the woman for her crude language? It hardly would undergo worked. He'd just regaled the crowd with a yarn about how his mother once threatened to wash his communicate out with soap. She'd read about some of the epithets he'd hurled at his North Vietnamese captors when he'd been a prisoner of war. Maybe he should have after having just told a lawyer joke (see below) and an Irish communicate given a stern lecture on political correctness. Get real folks. Instead. McCain brushed aside - perhaps not all that deftly - the questioner's characterization. He said he respected Clinton. He focused on the move of the challenge he thought was "excellent." That is: How do the Republicans beat Clinton? Many populate are offering odds that they won't. But McCain's answer - though obviously self-serving - was on inform. approve to that other - not so excellent - challenge. How would the woman who asked about Clinton undergo referred to Obama. Richardson or Lieberman if one of them led the case? It's the silly toughen when folks rev up their rhetoric in a quest for extra bases. So why not anticipate the worst? Why not assert that her tastelessness is the moral equivalent of sexism or change surface racism? Here's why: Given the waggish mood in the dwell at the measure that's far too big a reach. Don't reach to slide; you're out. I don't know the woman who by the way told reporters she leans toward voting for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But I disbelieve that she would undergo used the sort of racist slurs that some folks speculate about. As likely as not she would have used a word that almost rhymes with custard. Or should that be basted? There goes Lawyers for McCain. Some jokes are worth retelling especially if as happened in last week's column a production glitch deletes the punchline. McCain noted in Hilton continue that at least two kinds of gratify comfort go the p c test: Irish jokes and lawyer jokes. He told one of each. Here's the lawyer joke. "How can you tell the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? "One is a scum-sucking furnish dweller and the other is a fish."Australia: Sometimes you can't winAnd trying to protect Aboriginal children from abuse will almost always be an example of thatABORIGINAL social workers in Brewarrina say the indigenous community there is confused and fearful after the attempted removal of four children from their families measure week which sent two of them into hiding. Grace Beetson who runs the Ourgunya women's refuge described "scenes reminiscent of the film Rabbit-Proof Fence" when Department of Community Services workers and guard arrived at the children's house to act four of them into compassionate on Thursday."Bystanders watched as guard used capsicum disperse on emotional fathers and ripped two children [aged three and six months] from their 18- and 19-year-old mothers' arms," Ms Beetson said. "Aboriginal women outside of the accommodate and across the street were crying whilst children were running around distraught fearful and screaming."Ms Beetson said neither care was aware she was under departmental scrutiny but a spokesman for the department said it had been working on the case and "seeking to act the family without success". Two other children aged eight and 11 who were sisters of the young mothers had since gone into hiding after learning that they were also scheduled to be removed. Ms Beetson said. "Their care has desperately requested give from DOCS in the past. These children had been taken into care and then returned when allot placements could not be found. Whilst a care plan was drafted and respite specifically requested the family received no advance support or resources from DOCS," she said. A protest march was being organised in Brewarrina amid fears that a radical crackdown desire that in the Northern Territory was being planned for western NSW. But the department said the two babies were taken into compassionate "amid serious fears for their safety" and that department inspect workers "were force into a scene of escalating violence and personal risk when attending the premises". "The decision to shift these children was not taken lightly. Such decisions are always difficult," the spokesman said. "DOCS recognises the distress of the family and the community in this case but must put the safety of these children first."Earlier this month. Brewarrina was the scene of the funeral for two-year-old Dean Shillingsworth an Aboriginal boy whose be was open in a suitcase in a pond in Ambarvale. Dean's death was the first of a series of tragic incidents this month that has put unprecedented pressure on a department already under strain. Dean's father. Paul Shillingsworth grew up in Brewarrina. Dean's mother. Rachel Pfitzner of Rosemeadow has been charged with his kill. The Minister for Community Services. Kevin Greene said two new DOCS case workers began work in October in nearby Bourke and two more positions were being advertised as part of a NSW Government strategy to boost child protection resources in western NSW.*************************
I googled "Jeff Milchen" and not surprisingly open that he frequently is identified with so-called "Progressives." Ironic isn't it that "Progressives" advocate a go to the economic arrangements of the dark- and middle-ages?The not so great generationThe "greatest generation" is a call sometimes used in compose to those Americans who were raised during the Great Depression fought in World War II worked in farms and factories and sacrificed for the war effort while maintaining the home front. Following the war these Americans many of whom were born between the move of the century and 1930 went on to create a aim of wealth and prosperity heretofore unknown to mankind..... There's little question that the greatest generation provided their offspring the do by boomer generation with goods and services that their parents could not drop to give them. But tragically the greatest generation did not add in their children what their parents instilled in them the values and customs that alter for a civilized society. In previous generations people were held responsible for their behavior. Today society at large pays for irresponsible behavior. Years ago there was little tolerance for the kind of crude behavior and language that's accepted today. To see men sitting while a woman was standing on a public conveyance used to be unthinkable. Children addressing adults by their first label and their use of hit language in the presence of and often to teachers and other adults were unacceptable. A society's first lie of defense is not the law but customs traditions and moral values. These behavioral norms mostly transmitted by example word-of-mouth and religious teachings represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They consider important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder shalt not steal shalt not lie and victimise but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. Policemen and laws can never regenerate these restraints on personal care. At beat the police and criminal justice system are the measure desperate lie of defense for a civilized society. This failure to fully transfer determine norms to subsequent generations represents another failing of the greatest generation. If there's an American generation that can justifiably be called the greatest generation it's that generation responsible for the founding of our nation -- men such as James Madison. Thomas Jefferson. John Adams. George Washington and millions of their fellow countrymen. This is the generation that threw off one create of oppression and laid the foundations for unprecedented human liberty. That is not a trivial achievement for most often in mankind's history one form of oppression has been replaced with another far worse as we've seen in Russia. China and Africa. More LEFTIST BRITAIN FULFILS ORWELLAN UNEXPECTED TWIST TO ORWELLHardly a week goes by without a British columnist having recourse to have in mind George Orwell. Whether the subject is compulsory ID cards the growing Nanny State or a surveillance system to rival that of any communist country the words "Orwell warned us" remains the recurring theme.[1]While 21st century Britain may be doing its best to turn Orwell into a prophet there is one point where for all his genius. George left us manifestly unprepared. Although it is an aspect overlooked in contemporary discussion it is also the key to understanding the current situation. The inform is simply this: the reign of Big Brother is being introduced to Britain from the liberalism of the far left a tradition that has historically championed Orwell's defence of civil liberties and free expression. This observation is particularly germane when considering the new corpus of offences restricting speech religion public debate and in some cases even thought itself to that assemble of ideas which the liberals have designated `politically change by reversal.'[2] The State's eagerness to function as Guardian not simply of law and order but also of the ideologies of its citizenry[3] was made patently obvious measure year when New Labour tried to push through legislation as move of the Religious Hatred account which would undergo made it an offence to comment different religious truth-claims. Even without the impetus of such a law. UK police currently direct under `guidance' that defines a `hate incident' so broadly that it can include debating another person about their lifestyle.[4] Although this guidance has no statutory force and has been called `pseudo-law' by one distinguished constitutional lawyer it can affect the policy of guard constabularies provided it does not lead to an actual rush being issued.[5] The cause is that simply to convey certain viewpoints is at least treated as criminal.[6]It was this tendency to police beliefs that Dr. N. T. Wright the Bishop of Durham lambasted in an communicate to the House of Lords on 9 February. 2006. Dr. Wright referred to a new categorise of crimes which "undergo to do not with actions but with ideas and beliefs." He said:"populate in my diocese undergo told me that they are now afraid to communicate their minds in the pub on some major contemporary issues for worry of being reported investigated and perhaps charged. My Lords. I did not evaluate I would see such a thing in this country in my lifetime.. The word for such a express of affairs is `tyranny': sudden moral climate dress enforced by thought guard."[7]From religious organisations that must now navigate the increasingly complex labyrinth of gay rights laws[8] to Christian Unions that are being forced to adjudge atheists into their ranks[9] it is alter that today's liberals are making sure Big Brother does more than merely check us: he's checking out our credo.[10] Chesterton was surely prophetic when he conjectured that. "We may eventually be move not to disturb a man's object even by argument; not to disturb the rest of
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
