Politically Correct Language Thoughts

If a prostitute is a sex worker, is a thief an expropriation worker? And a hitman a dispatch worker?

If a homosexual is gay, is a necrophiliac happy?

If Before Christ is Before the Common Era and Anno Domini is Common Era, is Jesus Christ a common good?

If a person who criticises Islam is suffering from Islamophobia, is a person who criticises him suffering from Islamophobiaphobia?

If someone opposed to Third World immigration to the West is a racist, is someone in favour of it a Westist?

If believing that a woman should cook is misogynist, is believing that a man should do the dishes misandrist?

If someone who researches evidence on the subject of the Holocaust is a Holocaust denier, is someone who is engaged in research on any historical subject a history denier?

If a person who doubts anthropogenic global warming theory is a climate change denier, is a person who doubts flat earth theory a flat earth denier?

YouTube without PC Censorship

I want to tell you about a free-speech answer to YouTube: it's called LivingScoop.

The people behind it have contacted me asking me to spread the news of its existence and its need of promotion and financial support.

LivingScoop declares to be "the first and only video sharing site with unlimited free speech and freedom of all expressions".

The problem with YouTube is that it is relatively easy to violate its terms of service. How many times have we clicked on a link to a YouTube video and found that it had been taken down? Counterjihad and other politically-incorrect clips are particularly vulnerable to this fate.

It seems that many videos violating YouTube's guidelines can remain on the website without any trouble, as long as no-one complaints. But, if there is a sufficient number of complaints about a video, it will be removed until it's reviewed by YouTube's staff. And we know how good Muslims and Leftists are at acting in concert to get what they want (just look at the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in the United Nations).

Besides, YouTube is owned by Google, which is itself an ideologically Left-of-centre company, a fact that shouldn't inspire total trust.

LivingScoop is different. The LivingScoop management has sent me this message, which I reproduce faithfully:

Livingscoop is one of the key front line Websites in the fight against Islamization of Western countries. Very big blogs like PI-News in Germany use Livingscoop to host their videos safely, and Livingscoop was also notably used to host video interviews with Robert Spencer or with Wafa Sultan.

Meanwhile, these days Livingscoop needs support over the short term in order to face costs, and provide support for necessary technical improvements on the mid-term.

Please, donate to Livingscoop to help us develop and add technical improvements, such as a new own video player, a general HTML5 video format working better with iOS devices, and an upgraded great version of our â "Live Reporter" real time streaming app, etc.

>>> Use the Paypal "Donate" button visible on all pages of Livingscoop. <<<

Feel free to pass on this message to your friends, relatives, networks.

The more support Livingscoop gets, the more sustainable and efficient it is to provide everyone's daily freedom of expression and to offer a strong, safe and reliable platform for anti-jihad videos.

Thanks!

www.livingscoop.com

No Free Speech in English Schools?

New, dangerously anti-free-speech regulations have come into force in English schools on the 29th September 2014. They are contained in the new Independent School Standards regulations, which change the legal framework for academies, free schools and private schools. Ofsted has been asked to enforce the same minimum standards for all other schools.

Among them are the requirements that schools actively promote:

(v) further tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions by enabling pupils to acquire an appreciation of and respect for their own and other cultures;

(vi) encourage respect for other people, paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010.

The former is very good in theory, if we didn't know that the "tolerance" and "respect" are not mutual but one-directional, at the expense of British culture.

As for the latter, the new standards will only be met if a school in England "actively promotes" the rights enshrined in the Equality Act.

Colin Hart, Campaign Director of the Coalition for Marriage, explains what this innocent-sounding regulation means in practice:

As a result, schools will undoubtedly be put under pressure to promote same-sex marriage. Advice from a senior QC confirms this.

Indeed, the Government Consultation Documents are specific about what these "protected characteristics" are. A clue: think of words that are often used in conjunction with the suffix "phobia".

a. Para 3.2.2
b. “The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristic (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example… failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school”.

The protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010 are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation (s4 Equality Act 2010).

Hart elaborates:

This all conflicts directly with previous good guidance issued by the Government. But earlier reassurances can’t disguise the fact that schools will now have to comply with the new minimum standards...

If schools were required to promote respect for people as people there would be no problem. But the additional requirement of “paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010” transforms the duty in an alarming way.

One of the ‘protected characteristics’ in the Equality Act is sexual orientation. It could easily be alleged that a teacher who says “I believe same-sex marriage is not real marriage” has shown a lack of respect for people of a same-sex sexual orientation.

Schools will come under immense pressure to endorse same-sex marriage in order to comply with these regulations. Since the equality rights must be “actively promoted”, they will undoubtedly change what is taught in schools.

Under existing equality law, schools cannot discriminate against pupils but governments have carefully excluded the school curriculum from the Equality Act. The regulations break the seal around the curriculum for the first time. Now activists could launch a discrimination claim over the content of lessons.

This is why the Association of School and College Leaders has warned about the harmful implications for freedom of expression in schools.

The Government keeps talking about “British values” but seems to think this means promoting political correctness.

In its alarming consultation document, the Government lets slip some of its thinking.

3.2.2
PART 2 – Spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of students

… Schools will be expected to focus on, and be able to show how their work with pupils is effective in embedding fundamental British values. ‘Actively promote’ also means challenging pupils, staff or parents expressing opinions contrary to fundamental British values.

It’s astonishing that the Government thinks schools should challenge the personal beliefs of parents for being contrary to political correctness. This could lead a head teacher to reprimand a parent who tells their child that marriage is for a man and a woman.

The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristics (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example where girls are disadvantaged on the grounds of their gender; failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school.

As we know from recent history, reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage is routinely described as ‘homophobia’. Does the new equality requirement mean a school must discipline or dismiss a teacher who voices support for traditional marriage? Will parents of prospective pupils be interrogated about their beliefs before their child is granted a place at school?

The plans also slip in another attack on parents by demanding that in future private schools must conform to ‘national norms’ rather than the expectations of parents.

Any school with a religious ethos which upholds traditional marriage will now have to defend itself against the new rules. Schools could be harassed by inspectors or even have their governors removed by the Secretary of State.

The regulations are a fundamental change of approach in our education system, which have been slipped out under the radar. It is vital that these dangerous plans are opposed and exposed. [All emphases added]

In short, the new regulations are written in such ambiguous terms that any opinion about an institution - like same-sex marriage - may be taken as a lack of respect for some people - homosexuals.

As John Bowers Q.C. explains:

The Regulations are not framed as a duty to promote the protected characteristics but instead as a duty to promote respect of people, having particular regard to those protected characteristics. It adopts much of its language from the human rights case law (tolerance, respect etc). It is however a small step as a matter of interpretation to elide the respect for a person to respecting the beliefs and practices of the group to which that person belongs and this is especially so given the reference to active promotion, a concept to which I refer below in more detail. It may also be said that the words “paying particular regard” shift the duty beyond that of merely respecting people since otherwise it could have been framed simply as a duty to respect persons. [Emphasis added]

Mr Bowers also remarks that the curriculum is in danger of becoming politicised,

because respect for some protected characteristics (or more correctly respect of those with different protected characteristics including faiths and beliefs) may be highly contentious. The law has thus far stayed steadfastly outside the classroom door (and indeed from promoting respect in the classroom) and this has been the policy of governments of each political colour. [Emphasis added]

It's been an article of faith of successive governments that the curriculum should not be a political football and that teachers should not even potentially be the subject of litigation. But all this could be an unintended consequence of the amendments.

Mr Bowers provides examples of situations in which teachers may fall foul of the standards because what they say may be perceived as a lack of respect for people who hold the corresponding beliefs: portraying jihad negatively, dismissing the concept of man-made climate change, making jokes about veganism. He concludes:

The danger of litigation is exacerbated by the vagueness in the proposals arising from the concept of active promotion.

41. The inevitable result is to open teachers up to increased scrutiny, pressures and complaints. There is a real risk of major litigation over what happens in the classroom. Further the contents may undermine their academic freedom.

I find the concept of "protected characteristics" entitling the persons who possess them to "particular respect" a bit politically-correctly sinister, implying that some groups of people are more equal than others. We already know that Muslims are more equal than non-Muslims and homosexuals are more equal than Christians - we've seen it repeatedly demonstrated -, but now it could be enshrined in government's school regulations.

In the end, all this means one thing: much more power to the government and less freedom of expression to people. We are on a slippery slope to totalitarianism, and plenty of progress on that route has already been made.

First USA-Developed Ebola Case, UK Has Third Highest Risk Globally

Bushmeat eaten in West Africa can be a source of Ebola

This news is from America, but the threat is present in Britain too.

There has been a first case of Ebola diagnosed within the United States, and it's a man from Liberia who should not have been in the US, named Thomas Eric Duncan. He is now being treated in a Dallas hospital, in Texas, isolated and in critical conditions.

His is the first case of someone developing Ebola outside the tropics. Mr Duncan was infected in Liberia and became ill after flying to Dallas.

The UK magazine New Scientist claims:

Epidemiologists have been warning that this could happen since early in the Ebola outbreak, which is concentrated in three countries in western Africa, and say the risk will only increase as cases start to skyrocket.

Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) in the USA explains why the man's visa should have never been issued:

Duncan is a 40-something, single, unemployed Liberian who applied sometime in the last year for a visa to visit his sister in the United States.

That is five strikes against his application:

1.Single
2.Unemployed
3.Liberian (5th highest overstay rate of any country in the world)
4.Has recently resided outside of his country of citizenship, displaying weak ties there
5.Sister living in the United States.

Together, all these factors should have weighed very heavily against the issuance of a visitor's visa to Duncan. He clearly appears unqualified.

In 2013, more than 3,500 non-immigrant visas were issued to Liberians. This number has grown steadily since 2009, when just over 1,300 were issued. Most are issued to tourists and business travelers. A relatively high percentage do not return, but settle here illegally to join a well-established Liberian community (many of whom have won green cards in the visa lottery). [Emphasis added]

In addition to the high risk that Mr Duncan presented of overstaying his visa due to his weak ties outside the USA, his coming from Liberia, one of the countries most afflicted by the current Ebola outbreak - the worst in history -, should have dictated extra precaution.

Reportedly, travelers to the United States are simply being questioned about their contact with infected people and are checked for a fever. In contrast, three African countries (Namibia, Kenya, and Zambia) have banned travelers from the countries that are experiencing the outbreak (Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea).

But, despite a letter from congressman Alan Grayson suggesting that for the duration of the outbreak the US should bar from entry citizens of the Ebola-stricken countries and any foreign national who visited one of them within 90 days before seeking entry to the United States, Obama doesn't seem interested in controlling immigration in the face of any danger to homeland security, be it terrorism, foreign criminal cartels, or a deadly epidemic.

A comment to the article on the CIS site quoted above showed no hope in the Obama administration:

Our government is failing us. Nothing new though. It has been going on for 6 years now.

The UK is in an even worse situation:

Alessandro Vespignani of Northeastern University in Boston and his colleagues have rated the risk of different countries around the world importing cases of Ebola. After Ghana and Gambia, the UK has the third highest risk globally because of the large number of people and flights from the epidemic region to London.

In September, the risk for importing a case to the UK was around 25 per cent, and slightly less for the US.

On the lookout

Doctors and hospitals in the UK have been told to be on the lookout for possible cases, says Peter Piot of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. [Emphasis added]

But so far, efforts in Britain seem to be focused on helping the countries of West Africa and discussing what the global community can do to provide an effective international response, and not on barring from entry to the UK people from the Ebola-stricken countries.

Black Gangs: Memphis Police Giving Up on Public Safety

What's happening in America? A race war fought only on one side seems to erupt in its cities every so often, maybe more frequently than we hear about.

"Another Teenage Mob Terrorizes Southern Town: ‘Memphis Is Going to Burn if They Don’t Control These Children’" headlines The Blaze, echoing a similar episode of a few weeks ago.

As in the UK when paedophiles are Muslim and their victims white, so in the US the mainstream media try to underplay the fact that the gangs and the attackers are black and the victims they choose for their knock-out game, in a city like Memphis whose population is 62.6% African American, are predominantly white.

Hence WREG-TV reported:

Three people were attacked by a large group of teenagers Saturday night.

Can we be more specific?

“Hold on, they got a white dude,” exclaims the woman capturing the cellphone video.

Memphis' black youth gangs are so terrifying and crime levels are so high that last year the Memphis Police Association installed billboards saying “Danger: Enter At Your Own Risk – This City Does NOT Support PUBLIC SAFETY.”

What Islam Is and What To Do about It

The following only reflects my position and not necessarily that of my party Liberty GB.

Islam has been distorted by Western politicians and media to such an extreme point that this doctrine is almost completely the opposite of what is being described as.

It is not a “religion of peace”: it is a non-religion of war.

It is not a religion in the sense that we in the West understand, through the experience of our own religion: Christianity. It doesn’t make human beings better, but worse.

Whereas Christianity establishes a separation of powers between church and state, Islam is a political ideology. Men’s laws are imperfect and should be rejected. Only God-given law, Sharia, should rule the state. Notice that “law” here doesn’t mean “moral law”, but the country’s legislation. Sharia has to be enforced with all available means, peaceful or violent, democratic or totalitarian.

Islam’s holy scriptures say - and real Muslims believe - that the world will be a much better place for human beings to live in if Islam and its law govern the whole planet. Under Islam’s domination, there will be justice, equality and all the good things that communists have also promised humanity. And in both cases (Islam and communism), followers are prepared to cause mayhem and slaughter to attain this utopian “paradise on earth”.

Peace will be achieved when Islam reigns supreme, having fought many bloody wars and conquered the world: there will be peace only when there are no more enemies of Islam. Hence the profound misnomer “religion of peace”. This is what Muslims actually mean when they use that description for their religion, knowing fully well that the overwhelming majority of Westerners will understand it in a very different sense. Islam's "peace" is similar to the pax romana, the peace existing in the Roman Empire when all populations had been conquered.

That this is the reality of Islam is confirmed by the Quran, the various reports of Islam’s prophet Muhammad’s teachings, deeds and sayings called “hadith”, and Islamic jurisprudence - the interpretation (ijtihad) of the Quran and sunna by Islamic jurists (Ulema) and implemented by the rulings (Fatwa) of jurists on questions presented to them.

It is also confirmed by the exceptionally violent history of Islam in its 1,400 years of existence, as well as today’s breaking news both in Britain and worldwide.

In these circumstances, it is suicidal for Western countries, including Britain, to ignore what Islam is and to do nothing about its spread.

The British political class is (or pretends to be) ignorant of Islam and has no idea of (or is too afraid of losing votes to put into practice) what needs to be done.

A good approach would be a strategy based on the “zero tolerance” policy of Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in New York, which in a few years achieved such an astonishing reduction in crime in delinquency-ridden New York as to be called “one of the most remarkable stories in the history of urban crime” by University of California law professor Franklin Zimring.

No offence, however insignificant, was tolerated any more, starting from graffiti and broken windows, as doing so would give the offenders the wrong signal - a weak reaction from the authorities - and therefore encourage them to go on to more serious offences.

The “zero tolerance” policy, in addition to its effectiveness, has also the advantage of allowing graduality, by starting from small infractions against current British laws and thus giving us the possibility of warning Muslims that further and more serious offences will not be tolerated. At the moment, Muslims are allowed to break the British law in innumerable ways. All we need to do, at the beginning, is just to enforce the established law.

We should combine severity with graduality. At first we have to introduce measures that simply require the application of laws already existing.

Examples of these are the law prohibiting polygamy, at present widely disregarded, with the UK authorities turning a blind eye to its violations among the Muslim population. More than that: polygamy is now de facto part of British legislation due to a change in the inheritance law which lets multiple wives inherit from their husband.

Another way of creating a parallel legal world for the benefit of Muslims-only was a loophole introduced by the previous Labour government to allow Muslims to take out a sharia-compliant property mortgage without paying interest or stamp duty, which makes it cheaper for them and has been exploited by non-Muslims who discovered it, causing a minor uproar.

Again, female genital mutilation is an Islamic practice against British jurisprudence that only very recently has started being prosecuted.

A further good example is halal meat. This is meat from animals slaughtered according to the Islamic ritual which, like the Jewish one, does not permit the proper stunning of animals before slaughter. British legislation imposes pre-stunning to make animals unconscious and prevent (or at least minimise) their suffering.

But both Muslims and Jews are exempt from legal requirements to stun animals prior to slaughter.

In this case too we should send a clear signal that existing British laws must be respected and no exceptions will be admitted. We should close those loopholes.

Just upholding present regulations will go a long way to contain the Islamic problem.

The measures that only demand the application of current laws should be chronologically followed by more advanced measures, requiring the introduction of new legislation to deal with any issues specifically caused by the vast immigration of Muslims, as they increase in number, vociferousness and intolerance.

An Islamic Symbol on the Australian Flag?

I've found the above picture on Facebook, posted by an Australian FB page called "Preserving Islamic Rights on the Gold Coast - PIRGC", self-described as "the righteous and proud voice of the Islamic community within the Gold Coast [a coastal city in southeastern Queensland on the east coast of Australia] and surrounding areas".

The message in the graphic is so preposterous that it's hard to judge if it's genuine or fake. The least credible part is:

We do not ask that Christmas be cancelled as we are not one to ruin peoples fun, however the word "Christ" must be removed from all shopping centres and Christmas icons, we hereby declare that from this day the Christmas tree shall be known as the Wintertree.

A website claims that PIRGC is a hoax, which has posted other outrageous demands:

[PIRGC] has demanded that the Gold Coast mayor incorporate Islamic prayers into the Anzac Day Dawn service to 'honour fallen Islamic diggers'. It also proposes that an Islamic symbol be included on a newly designed Australian flag. It even suggests that an entire Islamic suburb to be called 'New Palestine' and complete with a 'Refugee Ferry Port and Processing Facility is to be built in the area.

According to the Gold Coast Bulletin, the PIRGC page may be part of a campaign to stop the building of a local mosque at Currumbin Waters, on the southern Gold Coast.

This is the real good news of the story: the Gold Coast City Council has received about 2,200 objections to the plans for the mosque, a record number. Over 4,000 people have also signed a petition ­opposing the mosque. Opponents have campaigned against it on social media and built a fighting fund.

Area city councillor Chris Robbins said that the PIRGC page is bogus and not set up by the Islamic community, adding that she contacted Facebook to have remarks ­attributed to her removed from it, which was done.

The truth, though, is that we can't be sure one way or the other. Reading the posts on the Preserving Islamic Rights on the Gold Coast Facebook page, it does have all the appearance of a fake, a creation by non-Muslims to ridicule Islamic demands on Western societies.

But, at the same time, similarly ludicrous requests have been made by Muslim groups and individuals living in the West. So, it's really difficult to make one's mind up. It could be the case of art imitating reality - a politically-motivated joke - or reality imitating art - Western Muslims reaching surreal and unbelievable levels of arrogance encouraged by the appeasingly weak response of the indigenous infidels.

For instance, the Hoax-Slayer site that claims to have "debunked" this page gives reasons that are far from conclusive, as they could as well apply to an authentic page established by Muslims.

For example: "The claims in the Page's posts are nonsense.", "Its ridiculous claims clearly indicate that it is a troll page", "The false and inflammatory material published by the page". All these are activities that real Muslims are perfectly capable of.

This site clearly doesn't know if we are in the presence of a troll page. It may be the case, but it may not. Hoax-Slayer just tries to protect the followers of Muhammad from "anti-Muslim hysteria" and to prevent "inciting hatred and bigotry and damaging relationships between Muslim groups and the wider Gold Coast community".

Is calling Christmas tree "Wintertree" absurd? Yes, it is, but eerily similar things have already been done. When we can't tell fact from fiction to this extent, it says a lot about the degree of multicultural drivel and Islamisation we have reached.