Labour would outlaw Islamophobia

England doesn't have a constitutionally protected freedom of speech (sic) so this kind of bullshit is easier to do there.

A future Labour Government is committed to outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia by changing the law and making it an aggravated crime, according to the Party’s Leader Ed Miliband.

“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview.

Something like this should make a person permanently ineligible for any government office. But that he thinks that it's OK to say this means there are enough people in England who support such an idea. That is a scary thought. I wouls go further and say that for Labour to not immediately oust this fellow, means that they too are unsuited for leadership of any kind.

And don't believe that such nonsense can't be done in the US. There are simply more legal hurdles to get over. But don't think there is not a long game to criminalize and felonize (aggravated) speech that certain people dislike.

Labour Party Manifesto pledged to take a “zero-tolerance approach to hate crime” regarding the growth of Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism. “We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime,” it said.

Translation: We will tell you what to think. We will tell you what to like and if you don't comply we will jail you.

Personally, I think this is something to riot about.

Perhaps the Dumbest Huff Post Video Ever

If you think that what happens to "minorities" is because they are numerically outnumbered, please do look at South Africa. But what that video shows is the complete head in the sand attitude that afflicts too many on the left.

X and Y Chromosomes Say Otherwise

So the title reads: Bruce Jenner declares 'I am a woman' during Diane Sawyer interview

It is a very sick society where such a thing is broadcast as if it is an accomplishment and not an admission of serious mental health issues.

Black Lives Matter

Waiting on the protest.

How That Neck Got Snapped

Having done my due diligence and waited for more info to come out of Philly before commenting, I'm going to link to this piece from Counterpunch (they can post decent stuff when they want to) by Dave Lindorff:

Here in Philadelphia, Police have long enjoyed giving arrested men who mouth off to them during arrests what is known fondly in the department as a “nickel ride.” That’s where they put the prisoner in the back of the van, hands bound behind their backs so they cannot hold on to anything or protect themselves, and otherwise unrestrained. Then the driver of the vehicle accelerates repeatedly, whips around corners and periodically slams on the breaks, causing the helpless captive in the back to slam against various parts of the vehicle, often with his head

Prior to reading this I was under the impression that we had a situation where a knee was put to the back of Grey in a fashion similar to what was done to Eric Garner. The above suggests strongly that it was that van ride.

Speaking of Children...

FOX13 News, WHBQ FOX 13

Are Black People Children?

If you look at the old reasoning for slavery and later segregation, a big reason that was given for the status of blacks was that they were like children. They were childish with a attendant characteristics of low impulse control, lack of industriousness, prone to misbehavior and a need for "adult" supervision.

When I looked back at pictures of the Civil Rights Movement I was always struck by grown men walking around with placards declaring that they were men. I thought that it was pretty much self-evident that they were in fact men but I came to understand that in many cases these grown men would be referred to as "boy" by many white people or any age. However now, particularly in the recent cases of police shootings, there has been a rise in rhetoric, particularly from the left that infantilizes black people (men in particular) in ways that are reminiscent of the arguments made by those supporting Jim Crow.

The first part is the quick rise of the "No agency" argument. This argument that is seen in much mainstream press (and pointed out here in many posts) is that whatever negative things black people do are caused by white people. Crime is not an individual decision to fuck up. It is because at some point in the past or present, some white person or persons created an environment that left this black person (and people) no other choice than to commit the crime. Embedded in such arguments is the old white "super man" vs, the black "child". Children have little agency. They often act on impulse and instinct. Many of their mistakes can be laid at the feet of their parents who determine the environment those children live in. Indeed if a parent leaves a loaded gun out on a table and a child picks it up and kills themselves or someone else with it, we do not blame the child. We understand that a child does not understand how dangerous a gun is, but that the parent does. Thus the parent with the power of knowledge and ability to determine environments are held responsible.

But black people, who commit gun crimes 7x the levels of whites nationally and in some locations are responsible for upwards of 90% of homicides are not children. They know full well what a gun does. They know full well the consequences for killing. Yet for various reasons they continue to kill one another at alarming rates. Liberals want to tell us the problem is the Gun and the NRA. Guns are inanimate objects and most gun owners in America do not commit crimes with them. But just like when dealing with children, liberals will not see black people as adults and lay the blame for the excessively high gun crime rates on their own decisions. Rather they seek an "adult" to blame.

Are black people children?

The latest example of the infantilization of black people came in a Counterpunch article which had this:

In such a petty, oppressive climate, Scott’s ultimately fatal decision to flee a white officer who had stopped him for a busted taillight was understandable.

understandable?

What exactly is understandable about running away from a police officer who has instructed you to remain in your vehicle?

Does John Grant run away (or drive away)from police who stop him for a traffic infraction? I'd like to know. Because if he doesn't then he is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Let me tell you what would be understandable> Scott, after being pulled over tells the officer the truth about the vehicle he was in (whatever that may be). Scott having his ID with him and handing that off to the officer. Scott being a grown ass man sitting in the vehicle until Slager came back to him and asked him to step out because Scott KNEW he had outstanding warrants because Scott KNEW he hadn't been paying his child support.

Side note: Though I object to the weaponizing of child support, that is not an excuse for making children you cannot support or falling behind on child support and not taking preventative steps to deal with the courts so that you don't get a warrant out for your arrest. That's the ADULT thing to do.

Back to the story. So, then Scott would have gotten arrested and if he felt like doing some civil disobedience (which I would support) refuse to pay the court, make a declaration on record that he objects to his treatment and that incarcerating him does NOTHING to help get him up to date on child support.

Even when Scott ran, once he was caught he could have been a man about it, admitted he was caught, laid down and took the cuffs. Scott didn't do that. Instead he decided to assault the officer. I suppose John Grant thinks that was understandable to. After all, THese talking heads (writing heads in this case) never stopped to condemn the fact that Mike Brown assaulted a police officer who was responding to Mike Brown's earlier crime. None of these folks condemned the attitude as noted by Brown's buddy, that assaulting the store owner after an attempted theft was "no big deal". Matter of fact none of these talking heads have even bothered to discuss how WRONG it was for the robbery to happen in the first place! No, they were mad because the tape was made public! And none of these folks condemned specifically the trashing of the store during the protests.

Of course all of that is "understandable".

But this is the new left. It has resurrected old slave era arguments to prop up their critiques of police. Black people should be seen as children and you need to be careful around the children lest they get hurt. The children cannot help themselves with guns and fighting so we have to put more responsibility on YOU, Mr. Super White Man to take care around them.

Take the "accidental" shooting of the gun buy suspect by a retired police officer. Lets contrast. The retired police officer was out trying to help get illegal guns off the street. The suspect was trying to get illegal guns onto the streets. The retired cop immediately admitted his "mistake" (I still think he acted wrongly because once the suspect was down, there was no need to have a gun on him, similar to the Oscar Grant case). The suspect, once caught, tried to run away (duck responsibility and consequences).

Immediately after the news media made this about the guy getting shot. Nowhere was there commentary that the guy who was shot was supplying illegal guns that have probably taken the lives of many people. In other words, the white people are the adults and the black person was a treated like a child who had a fatal boo boo while running around like children do.

Many decades ago black men marched with signs declaring their manhood. How about we treat them like men.

Walter Scott shooting: Officer Slager refused to speak to investigators on scene

In what apparently comes to a shock to the LA Times (and others):

According to South Carolina Law Enforcement Division spokesman Thom Berry, investigators from the agency arrived at the shooting scene around 10:30 a.m. on April 4, less than an hour after Slager fatally shot 50-year-old Walter Scott.

When investigators attempted to speak to Slager, he told them he had retained an attorney, Berry said.

"We ceased any questioning and we then contacted his attorney," Berry told The Times on Tuesday. David Aylor, who at the time was representing Slager, told law enforcement officials that he would make Slager available to investigators on April 7 at his office.

Because apparently people at the LA Times (and perhaps elsewhere) are shocked to learn that police officers are citizens as well and have the right to remain silent.

I'm sure it also comes as a shock to the people at the LA Times (and elsewhere) that a person has a constitutional right to not be compelled to incriminate themselves. So for us who know the law, Slager's refusal to speak without the presence of his attorney is evidence of nothing and not striking in the least bit. And after the fiasco that was Ferguson, ANY officer involved in a shooting ought to remain silent and retain a lawyer quickly.

The San Bernardino Beating Is WORSE Than Eric Garner

For those not paying attention, there was a police beating captured by heli-cam in California:

In video captured by cameras aboard a helicopter for KNBC, deputies gather around the man after he falls from a horse he was riding to flee from them. The video shows deputies using a stun gun on him and then repeatedly kicking and hitting him...

KNBC reported that the man -- identified by authorities as Francis Pusok -- appeared to be kicked 17 times, punched 37 times and hit with a baton four times. Pusok was later hospitalized, KNBC reported, citing authorities.

Left unsaid in this report is what I consider to be the most significant part of the story: The victim was laying face down, hands spread out and then behind his back as ordered.

This is unlike the case with Eric Garner who though he wasn't threatening the cops, was in fact resisting arrest. That doesn't mean Eric Garner deserved what he got, but the difference in behavior is important. It is also unlike the rapidly unfolding narrative in North Charleston, where the video evidence may show that Scott shot Slager with the latter's taser. That very action would upend the assumption that Wilson was not threatened with bodily harm by Scott and that Slager had reason to believe that next time Scott may grab his gun and attempt to kill him with it.

That's all speculation, but the important part is that the other cases and this case are differentiated by the California suspect doing what he was told. If we are going to argue that citizens have an obligation to obey lawful orders given by police then we cannot allow for police to get away with this kind of beating when a citizen IS following orders. That erodes more public trust than ten Eric Garners.

Double Standards

Recently there was a large amount of belly aching over Indiana's RFRA, because it was alleged that it allowed discrimination against gay people, who in Indiana are not a protected class. The argument went that a private business had to serve all customers regardless of their personal positions of what services that customer is requesting.

Now we have the shooting in South Carolina and some people decided to use GoGFundMe and IndieGoGo to financially support the officer. Regardless of how one feels about the situation, we live in the United States where supposedly a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by either a jury of one's peers or a judge. With that in mind I find the following from CNET to be quite disturbing:

Popular crowdfunding site Indiegogo on Friday removed a page to help pay for legal and other costs for a white former South Carolina police officer who has been charged with murdering an unarmed black man during a traffic stop.

Indiegogo said in a statement it took down the page supporting North Charleston police officer Michael Slager because "our Trust & Safety team regularly conducts verifications and checks and this campaign did not meet their standards."

What standards? The intrepid reporter did not ask what standard they have? If a person is charged with murder and is presumed innocent and cannot afford to pay for his or her defense they are not allowed to solicit? Is that the standard?

Indiegogo's removal of Slager's page comes two days after another site, GoFundMe, rejected a similar fundraising campaign. GoFundMe said it took down its page after Slager was fired Wednesday.

Because being fired from your job is proof of criminal activity. And I suppose that being employed is a "standard" required by GoFundMe?

This isn't the first time a crowdfunding campaign in defense of a white police officer involved in the fatal shooting of a black man was taken down. GoFundMe removed a page supporting Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson, who was identified as shooting Michael Brown in August.

Wilson's campaign raised nearly $235,000 before it was taken down after five days due to legal concerns, the company said. The shooting triggered a series of violent protests nationwide.

What legal concerns? What exactly in the law makes it legally risky to host a fund raising page for a presumed innocent person? Someone explain that to me. Apparently the reporter doesn't have a clue because he didn't ASK. Besides Wilson maintained his innocence so how does that make GoFundMe look?

In a properly run government, GoFundMe and IndieGoGO would find themselves on the receiving end of a DOJ and EOC investigation with fines up the wazooo

ORRRRR

We'd leave IndieGoGO and GoFundMe alone, along with the bakers, photographers and caterers who don't care to associate with gay weddings. The fact that the actions of IndieGoGo and GoFundMe have gone largely unnoticed and not condemned in the same fashion that Indiana shows the actual level of contempt for equal application of the law by liberals and the cowardice of those so called "law and order" conservatives.

Dash Cam Video

You can watch the dash cam video here: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/us/south-carolina-police-shooting/ I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this video actually helps the officer. While he may be legally wrong for shooting Walter in the back, this video opens up a lot about the totality of the situation:

1) Walter was stopped for an out tail light.

2) Michael approaches the car while not even covering his weapon. This indicates that at that point he did not consider Walter to be a threat.

3) We then hear Walter say that he has no insurance, no license and no paperwork. He also seems to be saying that he planned on registering the car on Monday. Now any cop who pulls over a car for out tail lights and the driver says that the they don't have any paperwork, is going to think that the car is in fact stolen.

4) I speculated yesterday that the officer asked Walter whether he had warrants. We do NOT hear any such question.

5) Walter exits the vehicle in anticipation of there being an arrest. I don't hear or see where Michael finds there is an open warrant, but the totality of the circumstances would lead him to believe that he has a possible car theft suspect.

This series of events makes for a very different narrative than "shot for child support" that is currently being pushed.

The fact that a witness saw a scuffle also plays into the officer's favor in terms of a murder charge.

So again, based on the information I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this officer is not found guilty of murder. I'll go further and predict that if there is a conviction it will be for criminally negligent homicide. I know that won't make me popular but that's how it goes.

A Shooting In The Shadow Of Vessey

I've visited Charleston twice. Once to make a documentary and another while passing through to Miami. I saw a lot of poor black people and a lot of rich ones. There are , imo a lot of ghosts of slavery past running around that place. That said, we have the recent shooting of which a video has surfaced that showed a police officer shooting a black male who was running away from him in the back.

The officer has been charged with murder, no doubt in large part due to the mess that is Ferguson and a desire to not be put under the same spotlight by the DOJ. I'll say from the outset that this case is different from the Mike Brown affair in many key aspects:

1) The deceased was not a suspect in a violent crime.
2) The deceased was actually shot in the back.

The former leads us to ask if this is in part a replay of the Eric Garner incident, where the police were acting in a heavy handed way for something that really shouldn't involve police at all. We do know that child support has been weaponized to the point where men are put in jail for being in arrears which does NOTHING positive for their future ability to pay. Not to mention that the courts are usually quite slow to enforce things like visitation, etc. when the recipient of child support decides to act a fool.

Now lets get into the actual incident as reported. Walter Scott was allegedly driving his car with a broken tail light. Not a big deal really. At worst you get a ticket, usually you get a little jabbering about how the cop is going to do you a favor and not ticket you but you need to get the light fixed....blah blah blah. So how did this routine stop end up with a person dead?

Well dude had a warrant out for his arrest for being in arrears for his child support. Well whatever we think about the weaponizing of child support, I find it seriously doubtful that he didn't KNOW that he had a warrant out for non payment. I mean how do you NOT know you HAVE NOT paid your child support?

So no doubt he was ASKED if he had warrants because police ask these things. I'm going to guess that Walter said "no". I suppose that the officer then looked up his records by running his license and saw there was an outstanding warrant. We do realize that if there is a warrant out for your arrest and you're stopped by a police officer they have the right to arrest you right? Did Walter not know this?

So it is clear that at some point Walter was out of his vehicle, most likely asked to get out after the warrant was found. Walter decided to make a run for it. This is called resisting arrest. Cop did not shoot him. At some point the officer catches Walter (who from what I saw on the video isn't exactly Usain Bolt). A taser is deployed that fails to stop Walter. We see that after Walter is tased he proceeds to run away from the officer, taser wires still attached to his body. We also note that a black object flies onto the ground (looks like it went into the grass). At this point the officer fires and Walter is soon dead.

The officer goes back to where the black object fell, retrieves it and drops it by Walter's body. I assume this to be the taser that was mentioned. Here are stills from the event:

Object hits the ground

Object still moving

Object still moving

Object coming to a stop

Notice the taser wire here. There are actually two of them at about 100 degree angle. This along with the trajectory of the object is the taser and that it was used prior to the pistol. So a weapon was not planted on Walter but was the object he had reportedly grabbed

Now while the officer clearly broke the law by firing at a fleeing suspect who posed no threat to him or anyone else (as required by the Supreme Court) and should be given a fair trial, I really have to ask why Walter thought running away and fighting with a police officer was a good idea.

Secondly, as I've pointed out in previous cases, let's not let emotions get in the way of the law. I strongly doubt a murder conviction will be had here. A manslaughter charge is definitely doable given the Supreme Court's last decision in regards to fleeing suspects.

Remember Training Day. It's not what you know. It's what you can prove in court.

Answer Wrong On Diversity Question Get Denied A Job

From Mashable:

Under Pao's leadership, Reddit has also begun asking candidates to talk about their thoughts on diversity. Pao told The Journal that Reddit "did weed people out" based on their answers.

Mind you this is totally legal. But lets be real, a candidate's opinion on diversity at a tech firm trying to do tech work is irrelevant to his or her qualifications to work. What is actually happening here is a blacklist of sorts, where if you don't hold the politically correct view on diversity you can't be hired. Then what's going to happen is you get fired if it is discovered you don't hold the "proper" views.

And don't think it's going to stop there.

As for the rest of the article it's a pretty sad country where when a person loses a case on all counts folks treat the person as a hero and winner. You'd think the people being given the kudos would be the ones who prevailed. Of course this is like the whole UVA case of NOT rape, where everyone who matters is afraid to simply call the chick a liar.

She told a reporter a story that she knew could not be true therefore defaming an organization. The reporter ran with the story with flagrant disregard for journalistic integrity. The publication published the piece without any regard for journalistic integrity and no one is being fired.

The fraternity in question has plans on suing and I hope those plans include the president of UVA who took sides in the case and applied collective punishment on the greek letter organizations on that campus (every one of them should sue UVA). The fraternity where the non event didn't happen had it's property vandalized due to a incitement by Rolling Stone and UVA and they should be sued into poverty for that.

It is high time for women and group who promote false stories to be held to severe account. Pao should not be seen as a hero of any kind. She should be seen as someone who made a false accusation that is damaging to women everywhere. Kleiner-Perkins and whoever else should double down and make it clear they will do NOTHING different, because they did NOTHING WRONG.

But anyway, that quote above shouldn't read "under Pao's leadership..." It should read "under Pao's witch hunt...." because that's what it is.

Mimi Ni Garissa

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/03/africa/kenya-garissa-university-attack/

I have said it before: Islam was a large reason for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade in West Africa and Islam will continue to be a threat to Africa and Africans. It is silly for us to make harsh, if correct, critiques of Christianity and act as if Islam is not an issue as well.

Who Dun It?

As we know, a poorly constructed Noose was found on the Duke campus. There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about it. Black folks saying they don't feel safe at Duke, but who have given 0 thought or effort to apply to a "safe" HBCU like Howard, Tuskegee, Morehouse or Spelman (to name the top HBCU's). So of course we've been waiting to know WHO dun it. And we get this bullshit:

DURHAM, N.C. (AP) - An undergraduate student at Duke University has admitted to hanging a noose in a tree and is no longer on campus, university officials said Thursday.

Look, we ALL want to know the race and gender of the person. If we are going to say this is a bonafide racial incident then the race and gender of the perpetrator should be made public. It can be done without violating any privacy laws.

The student was identified with information provided by other students and will be subject to Duke's student conduct process and that an investigation is continuing to find out if others were involved, Schoenfeld said.

Schoenfeld said the school believes federal education laws protecting information about students and their grades prevent the school from describing his or her gender, race or whether the student had been in trouble in the past.

I say total bullshit. They should have sited said law. No, we cannot release their grades but we for damn sure can know the race and gender of the person. If a crime is committed on a campus we are told the race and gender of the perps or suspect. If hanging a noose on campus is considered a crime then the public has a right to know the bare minimum about the perp.

This smells BADLY. It has hoax perpetrated in order to get attention. This is not unknown. We have had feminists who have made up "Republican misogynists" making rape threats who turned out the be the so called "victim" having posted from her OWN computer.

We have had the UVA rape TOTAL lie involving entirely made up love interests, parties that never happened, Glass tables that did not exist.

We have the "whites only" stickers that showed up in Austin Texas that turned out to be the work of some white liberal seeking to bring attention to gentrification.

We concerned citizens call on Duke to release the race and gender of the alleged perpetrator so we can know if this a bonafide case of white intimidation of black students and not a outrageous attempt at getting attention by a member of a perpetually aggrieved class of people seeking "activism" points.

What Is Freedom of Association or FROM Association

I was all set to write a linked up piece on the STUPID uproar about the Indiana (and 18 other state) law re-enforcing religious freedom but this dude went and did a video that says what I was going to write. SOOO here you go:

Credit to Countenance Blog. Yeah, deal with it.

Update: I want to point out ONE minor issue I have with the video. When he comments on the idea that those against the law think you have no right to have a business. I think he understates the issue. I believe that evidence shows that the actual line is that you have no right to LIVE.

Think about it. They want to tell you what to think and say when you are employed by some private company. People who have spoken in ways not approved of by certain people, have had their employers contacted and have been fired. Say now that person goes and opens their own business to do business with whomever they want to (within legal limits not discussed now). Now they want to tell them how to operate their business. So if you cant be employed because of your views and you can't be self employed due to your views, then essentially they want you to drop dead.