Blackface row over Australian TV show



Must not use black faces to portray Michael Jackson's backing singers apparently. I kinda thought they WERE black. Shows how much I know!

"An embarrassing row has erupted during the second Hey Hey Its Saturday reunion special, after a a Red Faces skit featuring singers in blackface performing a Michael Jackson tribute.

American singer Harry Connick Jr, who was appearing on the segment as a guest judge, led a chorus of criticism over the Jackson Jive skit, prompting an apology from red-faced host Daryl Somers, the Herald Sun reports.

The singer gave the troupe a score of zero and said the act would not have gone down well in the US. He said he needed to "speak up as an American" to say the skit was in bad taste.

But the man who dressed as Jackson in the segment, which was an encore of the skit first performed on Red Faces 20 years ago, said the group had checked with the show's producers on whether it should go ahead. Dr Anand Deva said the act was meant to be a tribute to Michael Jackson and if Hey Hey staff had expressed concern, it would have been axed. "It certainly was not meant to be racist in any way at all," Dr Deva said. "I think he (Connick Jr) is taking it the wrong way."

Dr Deva, whose face was painted white in the skit to portray Jackson, said he and his friends came from ethnic backgrounds and were all too aware of racism. "Two of us come from India and one of us comes from Lebanon so we can't afford to be racist to be honest," he said. "If we did offend him (Connick Jr) we truly didn't mean to."

Source (See also the video there)

Conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG is not much impressed by the role of Harry Connick Jr, in the matter.

The un-American Obama administration backs Muslim speech restrictions at the U.N.

We read:

"The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.

The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."

Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.

Source

Must not call a white person a Pakistani?



So who exactly is being racist here if it is an insult to call someone a Pakistani? What is wrong with being a Pakistani? Nobody seems to be answering that. I certainly wouldn't say that some of my best friends are Pakistani but I have eaten in many Pakistani restaurants and have always found the people perfectly pleasant and competent. Muslim fundamentalist Pakistanis are however a different kettle of fish, of course. But as a TV dancer the lady above is obviously no fundamentalist

"The BBC are holding crisis talks to discuss the future of shamed Strictly Come Dancing professional Anton Du Beke after complaints to the BBC over his 'Paki' remark quadrupled today.

Du Beke's future on the show is said to be in the balance after the 43 year-old called his dance partner a 'Paki' during an exchange witnessed by 15 other people on the show.

Today complaints to the BBC rose to 261 and pressure is now mounting on the corporation to axe the dancer for his racist comments to Footballer's Wives star Laila Rouass, 38, with one BBC source claiming Du Beke is a 'dead man dancing'.

Laila, whose mother is Indian and father Moroccan is said to have been left distraught after the 43-year-old dancer said: 'Oh my God, you look like a Paki!'. Du Beke made the offensive remark after seeing the celebrity contestant emerge after a spray tan in preparation for her first appearance on the BBC1 show.

It is understood the BBC is not intending to take any action against Du Beke and wants to 'draw a line' under the incident.

Source

I think the Beeb are for once being smart about this. As you can see from the photo above, the lady is in fact white. The "offensive" remark was uttered after a spray tan had made her look darker. As far as I can see, it was just a way of saying that the spray tan was overdone.

PA: First Amendment victory

We read:

"After months of national media attention, a student threatened with punishment for attempting to form a gun-rights group at Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) is finally allowed to distribute pamphlets about the group on campus. The college has also rescinded its unconstitutional policy demanding ‘prior written approval’ for ‘personal contact with individuals or groups related to non-sponsored college material or events.’

After Christine Brashier, who wanted to form a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), was told that her pamphlets were unacceptable ’solicitation’ and that any further efforts would be considered ‘academic misconduct,’ she turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.”

Source

"Breakfast at Tiffany's" is racist?

These comments by a lady of apparent Indian origin appeared in "The Times" of London:

"Decades after its release, Breakfast at Tiffany’s is still adored, being celebrated in fashion magazine spreads, inspiring songs (Deep Blue Something had a No 1 hit with Breakfast at Tiffany’s in 1995), and receiving mentions on telly and being revived this month as a play in the West End. I don’t think I’ve ever known a woman who hasn’t at some stage named it as one of her favourite films.

Having watched the film three times now, I still can’t buy the idea that her Holly is a native Texan, and I was not in the least bit surprised to read that Truman Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe in the role, and that Hepburn herself didn’t rate the performance, remarking after its release that “I should have been a little more outrageous”.

Then again Hepburn’s efforts were positively Oscar-worthy compared with George Peppard’s feeble turn opposite her in the role of a struggling author. He doesn’t so much act as just stand around shuffling, and it says everything about his talents that after Breakfast at Tiffany’s Peppard’s most famous role was playing Hannibal in The A-Team. Frankly, Mr T would have done a better job in Breakfast at Tiffany’s.

Then again, in turn, his performance doesn’t seem quite so bad when compared with Mickey Rooney in the role of Mr Yunioshi, Holly’s bucktoothed, yellowface Japanese neighbour. Though the problem here is less with the acting than with the stereotypical nature of the role. “O me so sorry! Me love you long time!” It makes The Black and White Minstrel Show look like a government ethnic minority recruitment campaign. Apparently, director Blake Edwards subsequently expressed regret, saying “looking back, I wish I had never done it”, but this doesn’t change the fact that one of the most acclaimed films of our times, which gets shown more than some new releases, and has become a byword for romance viewing, is racist.

Source

FTC to Regulate Blogging‏

This sounds very much like the thin end of the wedge. What will they try to regulate next?

"The Federal Trade Commission will try to regulate blogging for the first time, requiring writers on the Web to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products. The FTC said Monday its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final Web guidelines, which had been expected. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.

The commission stopped short of specifying how bloggers must disclose conflicts of interest. Rich Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's advertising practices division, said the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous," no matter what form it will take...

The FTC's proposal made many bloggers anxious. They said the scrutiny would make them nervous about posting even innocent comments. To placate such fears, Cleland said the FTC will more likely go after an advertiser instead of a blogger for violations. The exception would be a blogger who runs a "substantial" operation that violates FTC rules and already received a warning, he said.

Source

Once again: It's OK for blacks to be racist

We read:

"Can you imagine the uproar if a Republican uttered a racial slur such as this? All hell would break loose, the offender would be drummed out of office and left for dead in a smoldering pile, quivering and trembling, begging the NAACP and any other outraged group for forgiveness. But in this case, the offender is a vile, nasty NAACP honcho, a woman with a long track record of bigoted, incendiary comments, so it's OK, I guess.

A top civil rights leader called Democratic controller nominee John Liu "the little Asian boy" who's been "running around" with the NAACP for years, as Liu poked a bit of fun at his own heritage on Saturday.

Speaking before the Rev. Al Sharpton's birthday party, Hazel Dukes noted that Liu - elected the city's first Asian-American councilman in 2001 - was on hand for the festivities.

"I see John Liu here - he's been the little Asian boy running around with us a long time [in] the NAACP," Dukes, president of the NAACP New York State Conference, warmly said to laughter during Sharpton's weekly radio broadcast. "But Rev. [Sharpton], he was a good guy, so we said, 'Come on, come on, come on - we can make you what you want to be,'" Dukes continued to more chuckles and applause as Liu, 42, sat on the stage with a bemused smile.

The Taiwan-born, Queens-bred Liu, who came to the United States with his family at age 5, won the Sept. 15 primary and later defeated rival Councilman David Yassky (D-Brooklyn) in the Sept. 29 runoff. Liu enjoyed strong support from the Asian-American community and other ethnic minority voters.

Source

FBI says: Shut your mouth

We read:

"A federal appeals court may have slapped the Federal Bureau of Investigation last year for its misuse of gag orders to prevent discussion of government investigations conducted under the authority of National Security Letters, but that hasn't slowed the feds very much. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, despite a court's finding that such gag orders are constitutionally suspect and should be subject to judicial review, the FBI continues to muzzle recipients of the controversial letters, preventing them from participating in public debate over the Patriot Act and the security state.

National Security Letters are powerful tools that allow federal agents to obtain information about investigation targets from third parties, such as telephone companies, financial institutions, Internet service providers, and consumer credit agencies on their own say-so, without judicial review. Some 47,000 such letters were issued in 2005 alone, according to the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (PDF). The letters don't receive much public discussion, probably because many of the recipients are also issued gag orders, forbidding them to discuss the experience.

Those gag orders were found to be constitutionally suspect exercises of "prior restraint" in a decision issued last year by the Second District U.S. Court of Appeals.

But, says the ACLU, the FBI is "continuing to unconstitutionally enforce its five-year-old gag order on a John Doe NSL recipient and his ACLU attorneys."

Worse, the ACLU maintains that the gag order on its John Doe client is being used to suppress the revelation that an NSL was used in a search for records it was not legally entitled to obtain.

Source

Secrecy is often used to cover up government abuses of power and, given the many low-lifes Obama has appointed, that is a real concern. And it seems here that the FBI is behaving illegally by breaching a court order. This is an attack on the law by those who are supposed to be enforcing it. When governments start ignoring court orders, the rule of law is dead.

Free speech under attack in "progressive" California

Must not say anything bad about illegals

"While the state continues to flounder in an economic quagmire, unemployment creeps deeper into double digits and residents continue to pay some of the highest taxes in the country; Sacramento lawmakers think it’s time to move on to shutting up the voters in a clear attack on freedom of speech.

The mentality of the overwhelming Democratic elitists in Sacramento should be ashamed of themselves. The state Senate passed along party line SCR 58 a resolution that would hinder free speech, in particular, my free speech. Under the guise of ‘hate speech’ this resolution would implement new government tactics to draw up guide lines as to what journalists, talk radio, media and Internet content is deemed appropriate.

The resolution states, “Hate speech has been defined as speech which threatens imminent unlawful action,” this seems amiable enough, however the resolution doesn’t stop there; “but also, as speech which creates a climate of hate and prejudice, which in turn MAY foster the commission of hate crimes.”

Here in lies the problem. What will be deemed hate speech and who will decide whether a word is taken out of context or not? ...

SCR 58 was the brainchild of Gil Cedillo-D. The one page resolution targets negative speech in regard to Latinos who remain undocumented in California. Rather than leave this Constitutional Amendment to the Supreme Court, Cedillo undermines Californians to further his withering political clout.

Source

On all precedents, SCOTUS would knock this one over but it could be very expensive for anyone targeted so lots of plea deals could be expected before it got to court.

British motoring authority forced to pull 'anti-gay' private numberplates from auction

We read:

"The controversial Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has been forced to withdraw personalised numberplates from an auction after complaints they were offensive to the gay community.

The two registrations – F4 GOT and D1 KES – were to have been among 1,600 auctioned at a sale this week.

But Stonewall, the gay rights charity, objected to the DVLA profiting from the sale of the insulting numberplates and they were dropped from the auction, which is expected to raise £3.5million.

Source

Missouri: Sedalia's Latest Religious Controversy

We read:

"Smith-Cotton High School is stirring up controversy over the separation of church and state once again.

This time, it's not about what they won't allow, but what they will allow. A school alumnus donated a bronze tiger statue to the high school that displays the Jewish Star of David.

You might remember just last month when the school caused national and even overseas controversy when it decided to ban a T-shirt designed for the school's band. The shirt used Darwin's famous drawings of the evolution of man to show the evolution of brass instruments over the years. Now, many critics are accusing school officials of being hypocrites and of using separation of church and state to keep science out of classrooms while prominently displaying religious symbols.

Sedalia's superintendent of schools, Harriet Wolfe, says the two situations are completely different. She says officials banned the shirt because it was a group shirt and could have been forcing evolution on a student who didn't support the theory. But she says the statue doesn't force a belief on anyone and that the Star of David on its plaque is like the signature of the donating group.

The man responsible for donating the statue for Sedalians of Jewish Faith, Jack Isgur, says that the statue's plaque is being taken entirely out of context and isn't displayed for religious reasons at all, but actually for historic ones.

Underneath the Star of David, the statue's plaque reads, "Sedalians of Jewish Faith (1860-2009.)" Earlier this year, Sedalia's Jewish organization relocated to Columbia. Isgur says the plaque is simply a remembrance of part of the community that had existed since the 1800s and is now gone.

Source

Democrat hate speech OK

Referring to a claim made in the House by Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says anyone using harsh rhetoric to raise fears about health care reform should apologize and get on with writing policy, but said there's no reason to single out a Florida Democrat who said Republicans want sick Americans to "die quickly."

Source

And this from the people who demanded an apology from Joe Wilson when he said that Obama lied. Joe Wilson, of course, had the class to apologize. The Left are big on demanding apologies from others but it takes enormous pressure to get even a half-hearted apology from them.

Nazi slur from Britain's desperate Labour party government

Top British government member accuses the Conservatives of Nazi sympathies.

"David Miliband was under fire last night for aiming a Nazi slur at the Conservatives. The Foreign Secretary attacked Tory chairman Eric Pickles for failing to condemn his party's links with the Latvian Fatherland and Freedom Party. He claimed the party celebrated the Latvian arm of Hitler's armed SS with a march-past of wartime veterans....

Mr Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: 'David Miliband's smears are disgraceful and represent a failure of his duty to promote Britain's interests. 'He has failed to check his facts. He has just insulted the Latvian Government, most of whose member-parties have attended the commemoration of Latvia's war dead.

Source

Since it was a British Conservative leader, Winston Churchill, who was the most unrelenting foe of Hitler, this was characteristically dishonest. But the Labour Party is so far behind in the polls that they are getting desperate. The tiny shred of fact involved is that the British Conservatives in the EU parliament sit with a conservative Latvian political party who honour Latvia's war dead in WWII.

From 1939 on Latvia was taken over by the Soviet Russians so when Hitler invaded the Soviet empire, most Latvians greeted the Germans as liberators -- and some Latvians enlisted in the German armed forces as a way of striking back at the hated Russians. They followed the old doctrine that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Some Latvians were also conscripted by the Germans. So the fact that many of Latvia's war dead were part of German forces is being used to slur people who were usually just Latvian patriots or unwilling conscripts.

TN: Facebook posts draw $2 million lawsuit

More danger from what you say on the net:

"A Knoxville marketing firm has filed a $2 million libel lawsuit against a former client claiming comments posted on social media sites Facebook and Twitter have hurt its reputation. Low & Tritt filed suit in Knox County Circuit Court Sept. 1 against The Pizza Kitchen, an 11-year-old restaurant at 9411 S. Northshore Drive, and its owner Travis Redmon.

According to the suit, Redmon defamed the marketing firm in two Aug. 17 Facebook entries that said, "Do not EVER use Lowandtritt mktg. firm!" and "CROOKS! - Stolen email list, and have tried to pressure me by threat of lawsuit to sign a 'license agreement' to use their mktg materials."

The following day on Twitter Redmon posted, "Lowentritt mktg firm has done it again..." and "Can you believe that they have not only stolen my email list, but have now hacked Pizza Kitchen's facebook page taking it offline?"

Source

This sounds to me like a big firm is trying to shut up a whistleblower. But truth is a defence so time will tell.

Who’s afraid of political speech?

Leftist distortions in aid of censorship. They will say anything.

"The end of democracy is nigh! So say liberal pundits and progressive advocacy groups. The impetus is the Supreme Court's order for reargument in the Citizens United case. At issue, according to reform advocates like columnist E.J. Dionne, is whether corporations will be permitted to donate to the campaigns of federal candidates. This is false.

Corporate contributions to federal candidates have been prohibited for more than 100 years; union contributions have been outlawed for more than 60 years. These prohibitions are not at issue and never have been. The propensity of reformers to exaggerate betrays the weakness of their position.

The question before the court is whether corporations are permitted to engage in speech that might influence public opinion about a candidate. The type of activity being considered is an "independent expenditure"; a category of spending created in recognition of the fact that people have legitimate reasons to weigh in on political issues, quite apart from making direct contributions to candidates. For example, a homemade protest sign might be a kind of independent expenditure, as might a blog in which you express political opinions.

The courts permit restrictions on direct contributions to candidates; the rationale is that unlimited contributions may lead to the appearance of corruption, if not actual corruption. In contrast, independent expenditures, which are made without the cooperation or consent of any candidate, do not raise these same concerns.

Source

Free speech loses out in Kahre case

Prosecutors try to intimidate commenters on a newspaper site.

"A federal judge has ruled against the ACLU’s motion to quash a subpoena that federal prosecutors had issued against the Las Vegas Review Journal in the Robert Kahre legal-tender/tax resistance case in Las Vegas....

Yesterday, September 29, the presiding judge, Kent Dawson, ruled against the ACLU, stating that its motion was now moot given that the jury in the Kahre case had already returned a verdict.

The judge’s ruling strikes me as extremely strange and highly dubious, given the timeline of events: The ACLU’s motion and request for recusal was filed in mid-June, 2009. The Kahre verdict was reached two months later, in mid-August 2009. Therefore, the judge obviously had two months to rule on the matter while the Kahre case was taking place. Yet, for some unknown reason he sat on the matter without ruling on it, letting the Kahre case come to a conclusion. Then, after waiting for the trial to end, he issues a ruling declaring the entire matter moot.

The judge’s action — or actually inaction — gives renewed vigor to the old dictum “Justice delayed is justice denied.” The fact that the judge himself was apparently responsible for the delay in ruling makes the matter even more egregious.

Moreover, the ACLU continues to maintain — quite correctly in my opinion — that the matter isn’t moot at all since the Kahre case is still pending, given that his sentencing is in November and given that he might appeal the conviction.

Thus, I think the judge misses the point — which is that the prosecutors’ subpoenas chill criticism of the government, regardless of whether a verdict has already been reached or not.

Source

TN: Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire



We read:

"Community members are rallying around Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School cheerleaders after they were banned from displaying signs with Bible verses urging fans and players to ‘commit to the Lord’ and ‘take courage and do it.’

The banners — the paper ones that football players crash through at the beginning of games — have been common sights in the school’s football stadium since 2003, local officials say. …

Catoosa County Schools spokeswoman Marissa Brower said a Fort Oglethorpe resident lodged a verbal complaint to Superintendent Denia Reese last week, saying that the display of a Bible verse on the football field is a violation of federal law.”

“The cheerleaders are not trying to push a religious cause, to shove religion down someone’s throat,” said local youth minister Brad Scott, who was LFO High’s class president in 2004. “The cheerleaders are just using Scripture to show motivation and inspiration to the players and the fans.”

The mayor said football coach John Allen made the signs a tradition around 2003 and it has continued ever since. “If it’s offensive to anyone, let them go watch another football game,” he said. “Nobody’s forced to come there and nobody’s forced to read the signs.”

Local resident and 1992 LFO alum Jeremy Jones called the decision “premature.” “To act on the complaint of one person ... seems premature,” Mr. Jones said. “The cheerleaders have raised their own money for this project and have worked hard to make these signs.”

Source

Must not discuss whether politicians should be murdered?

This was a discussion, not a threat, so is entitled to free speech protections

"The US Secret Service is trying to identify the creator of a Facebook poll asking whether US President Barack Obama should be assassinated.

Facebook this week shot down the user-generated poll, which was titled "Should Obama be killed?" and offered answer choices of yes, no, maybe, and "if he cuts my health care".

"Once we found out about it, we worked with Facebook to have it removed," said secret service spokesman Malcolm Wiley. "We are certainly investigating, just like we would with any threat case."

More than 750 Facebook users had reportedly cast votes by the time the poll was yanked from the wildly popular social networking site.

However not everyone wanted to take part. "This is sick and sad," said one Facebook user as the poll fuelled passionate exchanges. "All of this anti-Obama rage is pure racism."

Source. Another account of the matter here.

It specifically targeted a policy -- healthcare policy -- and not Obama's origins -- but it is still "racism", apparently. I think that false accusations of racism should be made a criminal libel.

Churches defend their right to make political comments

We read:

"Dozens of pastors around the nation are challenging an Internal Revenue Service rule that anti-Christian activists often invoke when they want to silence the message of churches, according to the Alliance Defense Fund.

The organization has announced that more than 80 preachers are taking part in its second annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday this weekend. The pastors will preach Sunday sermons related to biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates or current government officials, exercising their constitutional right to free religious expression, the ADF said.

They will do so despite a "problematic" IRS rule that activists use when they want to silence the message of Christians, the ADF said. "Pastors have a right to speak about biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights," ADF senior legal counsel Erik Stanley explained.

"ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit. On the contrary, the whole point is that churches should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to talk about. The IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church's tax-exempt status. We need the government to get out of the pulpit," he said.

The censorship for church pastors has been in place since the Johnson Amendment was added to the Federal Tax Code in 1954. However, enforcement has been spotty and the results have been vague, even though critics of Christian churches contend it limits what they can say from the pulpit.

The IRS has repeatedly launched investigations of churches based on allegations from organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, whose officials have taken advantage of the vagueness to report church "offenses."

Source

Another perversion of the meaning of establishing a church

The constitutional prohibition was written to forbid the government endorsing one particular denomination as the true faith -- which was the status of the "established" Church of England in Britain at the time. Nothing like that has ever been contemplated in America

"It would be easy to miss among the yucca and Joshua trees of this vast place -- a small plywood box, set back from a gentle curve in a lonesome desert road. It looks like nothing so much as a miniature billboard without a message.

But inside the box is a 6 1/2 -foot white cross, built to honor the war dead of World War I. And because its perch on a prominent outcropping of rock is on federal land, it has been judged to be an unconstitutional display of government favoritism of one religion over another.

Whether the Mojave cross is ever unveiled again -- or taken down for good -- is up to the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Next week, it will get its first major chance to divine the meaning of the First Amendment command that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

If the court reaches the constitutional issues at hand, all sides agree it could provide clarity to the court's blurry rules on church-and-state separations. It could also carry important implications for the fate of war memorials around the country that feature religious imagery -- the Argonne Cross in Arlington National Cemetery, for instance, or the Memorial Peace Cross in Bladensburg.

The Mojave cross's protectors, which include veterans groups and the federal government, say the symbol is a historic, secular tribute; its original plaque from the 1930s said it was erected to honor "the dead of all wars." They argue that Congress has taken the steps to distance itself from any appearance of endorsing a religious display.

But the American Civil Liberties Union, Jewish and Muslim veterans, and others say government actions have only deepened the problem. In an effort to avoid the lower courts' rulings that it must come down, Congress has designated the site the country's only official national memorial to the dead of World War I, elevating it to an exclusive group of national treasures that includes the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore.

Source

Fred Phelps wins one

We read:

"A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that a fundamentalist Kansas church's protest outside the funeral of a Westminster Marine killed in Iraq is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing a lower court's $5 million award.

The ruling from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., held that the signs and writings of the Westboro Baptist Church, which included anti-gay and anti-military messages, are protected by the First Amendment. The Topeka-based congregation has protested at military funerals across the country

"Notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words being challenged in these proceedings, we are constrained to conclude that the defendants' signs and [what it has on its Web sites] are constitutionally protected," Circuit Court Judge Robert B. King wrote in the majority opinion.

Source

Like most people, I think Phelps is a nutcase but I am heartened to see that America's free speech protections are strong enough to protect even his crazy talk. I think it is only weak and fragile socities that have to fear speech. He would have been locked up years ago in Britain or Europe. One British guy got 4 and a half years in jail for denying the holocaust recently. Only Muslims are allowed to do that in Britain.

Silvio does it again

Politically-correct criticisms are like water off a duck's back to him. This latest lot of "gaffes" cracked me up but maybe that's just me. He's certainly very popular in Italy but the Italian Left hate him, of course.

"Premier Silvio Berlusconi is still talking about President Barack Obama's "tan", and this time the gaffe-prone Italian leader has made a wisecrack about Michelle Obama's skin colour as well.

Berlusconi told a Milan rally of conservative supporters on Sunday he was bringing greetings from the United States from "What's his name? Some tanned guy. Ah, Barack Obama!"

Shortly after Obama's election in November 2008, Berlusconi raised eyebrows by saying the victor was "young, handsome, and even has a good tan". This time, Berlusconi, a billionaire media mogul who began his career as a cruise ship entertainer, also took a jab at the First Lady. "You won't believe it," he said, "but two of them went to the beach because the wife is also tanned." ...

At Sunday's rally, Berlusconi delivered a kind of backhanded compliment to the US president. The premier, commenting on Obama's use of a teleprompter in public speeches, cracked: "He's not reckless like those of us who say what comes to mind." "We all asked ourselves, 'Does he know what he's doing, or is he just someone who knows how to read well?"'

Berlusconi's centre-right coalition has continued Italy's stance as a staunch US ally.

Source

U. Wisconsin papers refuse Pro-Life ads

To say that the information does not provide a service is bizarre. That is exactly what it does provide. It's a very weak and transparent excuse for leftist bias

"Two University of Wisconsin System school newspapers are under fire for rejecting an advertisement offer from Pro-Life Wisconsin on the basis of avoiding controversy. Both the Advance-Titan of UW-Oshkosh and The Pointer of UW-Stevens Point decided not to run a 12-page insert created by the Human Life Alliance because both papers believed the insert would cause an unnecessary controversy while not providing a direct service.

“(The decision) actually had nothing to do with the content that was in there; I sat down with my advisor and advertising manager and we discussed it,” Andrew Munger, editor in chief of the Advance-Titan, said. “They don’t provide a service of any sort, just an ideology.” According to Munger, to call this decision censorship is ludicrous since the newspaper makes public their right to print and advertise as they see fit.

The Pointer also chose not to run the advertisement. Editor in Chief Jacob Mathias likewise said they did not run the advertisement because the content did not provide a service, yet the decision was also made to avoid controversy, he added.

Peggy Hamill, director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said she believes by not placing the advertisement, the two schools are showing a bias. “They obviously have that right to do so; however, if they consider themselves a non-biased newspaper of integrity, then common sense would tell them they should be accepting an advertising piece of such researched information,” Hamill said.

The insert contains information regarding topics such as abortion and its relation to breast cancer, types of abortions and how to cope with an unwanted pregnancy. “The main service we provide to the students and general public is information on the sanctity of human life, healthy choices for people, health risks and scientific facts surrounding humanity of the preborn,” Hamill said.

Source

Bodies receiving government funding are bound by the 1st Amendment and the newspapers above presumably are funded by the taxpayer via the university so a 1st Amendment lawsuit could well be successful

An orgy of Leftist hate-speech

A man, Bill Sparkman, who was apparently a part-time census worker, was found tied to a tree and dead from asphyxiation. One source alleges that he had the word "fed" scrawled on his chest.

That has been enough to ignite a huge outpouring of hate speech directed at conservatives from the Left. They have built huge castles in the air over that one word "fed". Apparently every conservative radio host in America is directly responsible for the death and all other conservatives are guilty for listening to such hosts. Never mind that the police investigation is in its early stages and that even suicide has not been ruled out. Michelle Malkin has the details.

But when their little bubble pops, the Left will move on with no sign of guilt or contrition for their outpouring of unjustified hate. They will act as if nothing had happened. If conservatives had done anything similar, you would never stop hearing about it.

There are no doubt some murderers with conservative views but the Left is INHERENTLY murderous. The American Left has to pretend that conservatives are murderous in order to deflect attention from the direct involvement in mass murder by socialists worldwide from the French revolution on, including self-described socialists in Soviet Russia and Mao's China. And the American Left supported, condoned and excused the murderous Soviet regime right up until the end of that regime. They used to say that Communists "are just liberals in a hurry". The obvious corollary -- that "liberals" are slowed-down Communists -- never seemed to bother them. All the great mass murders of the 20th century were the work of "socialist" regimes under men like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. And to this day, see if you can find a single American Leftist who will condemn the "socialist" tyranny in Cuba. When "Fidel" dies there will be mourning throughout the USA. That he came to power over the blood of tens of thousands of Cubans will be ignored. Killing doesn't bother Leftists at all -- for all that they pretend it does when it suits them.

Charming attitudes at NBC



(Larger image here)

Leftist hate speech at work again:

"Americans for Limited Government is appalled that an employee of the NBC news network apparently felt it was appropriate to send an email to an ALG employee, in response to a standard news release, saying, “Bite me, Jew Boy.”

According to ALG records, the email came from the Blackberry and email address of Jane Stone, a producer for NBC’s Dateline. The email was sent to Alex Rosenwald, the ALG Director of Media Outreach. The news release to which Ms Stone apparently responded was one in which ALG called upon Congress to defund ACORN.

Americans for Limited Government does not contend that NBC or its parent company GE, are anti-Semitic. What is highly disturbing, however, is that there clearly is a culture at NBC that has allowed this person who clearly has issues to go unchecked.

Source

British councillor cleared of witchcraft allegation

We read:

"A Liberal Democrat has been cleared of insulting a Conservative colleague by calling her a witch - after a taxpayer-funded investigation. Pat McCloud, who represents a ward in Forest Heath district in Suffolk, was initially found guilty of accusing Cllr Lisa Chambers, 39, of witchcraft by the council’s standards committee. But the decision was overturned on appeal by the Adjudication Panel for England after an investigative process costing more than £3,000.

The controversy centred on comments that Cllr McCloud, 77, made in an email to council staff following a dispute involving the pair in a council meeting. Cllr McCloud, who felt he had been prematurely interrupted at the meeting, wrote: "How could [Cllr Chambers] possibly know what I was about to say, how could anyone know until I finished, you know they used to burn witches at the stake for having such abilities.”

Chris Hughes, chairman of the Adjudication Panel for England, said that although the comments were inadvisable, they did not constitute personal abuse.

Source

The local Wiccans also think it's no insult to call someone a witch, funnily enough.

The term "illegal immigrant" is hate speech?

Sounds like straight description to me but not to the loony Latina below. According to her, even Obama uses hate speech

"Knowing that words matter, and some more than others, it was disappointing to hear President Obama repeatedly use the term "illegal immigrant" in his recent healthcare speech to the joint session of Congress.

In the past, he has referred to this population by its more accurate description of "undocumented immigrants" and so the prevailing thought among immigrant advocates is that the President's use of the term was a subtle political olive branch to those like "Joe the Congressional Heckler" Wilson.

Yet, as we now know, the usage of the term didn't appease anyone but merely added to the antagonism already felt by some in the room -- not to mention that it elevated a term regarded by many as hate speech as now having White House approval.

Source

The claim that "undocumented immigrants" is more accurate is a laugh. It's not documents they lack but permission to be in the country. And as CIS points out, about half of them do have documents anyway, just not legitimate ones.

Australia: Must not satirize blacks

The usual slang term for Aborigines in Australia is "boong" (with "oo" pronounced as in "look") but I gather that "noonga" must be a variant used in Western Australia. "Boong" is just as derogatory as "n*gger" in the USA but does not evoke the sort of hysteria often seen in the USA. Somebody seems to have pushed it a bit too far, however.

"A website set up by a Perth student about a fictional Aboriginal character has been shut down and is being investigated by police amid racism claims.

The website, which Radio 6PR reports was created by a 19-year-old Curtin University student, features audio excerpts of a character called "Nigel the crazy Noonga", who prank calls businesses and fast-food outlets with a fake Aboriginal accent.

The portrayal of negative Aboriginal stereotypes has sparked outrage from the Aboriginal community. Craig Somerville, lecturer at the Curtin University Centre for Aboriginal Studies, told 6PR he believed the material on the website had crossed the line between humour and racism.

Despite the website being shut down, the fictional Aboriginal character can still found on the internet with a dedicated YouTube channel and profiles on MySpace and Facebook.

The Facebook "Just for fun" group set up for "Nigel the crazy Noonga" has 317 members and describes "Nigel" as "your friendly neighbourhood Noonga". It also pokes fun at the character's fictional solvent abuse, describing it as his own personal "dreamtime".

Sergeant Greg Lambert said police were aware of the website and were investigating.

Source

I doubt that any law was broken. The State of Victoria is the one with draconian speech laws.

No free speech for lawyers?

We read:

"According to a recent article in the New York Times, a private attorney has been reprimanded by the Florida Bar Association for describing a local judge as an “evil, unfair witch” on his blog. The lawyer was angry over the judge’s practice of giving criminal-defense lawyers only a week to prepare for trial rather than the customary month or more. According to the lawyer, Sean Conway, the judge’s motive was to pressure defense lawyers into seeking a delay, thereby waiving their client’s right to a speedy trial.

What about a principle called freedom of speech? After all, it’s not as if the lawyer was in the courtroom when he described the judge in such nasty terms. He was outside the courthouse, like at his private office or his home.

The rationale for punishing the lawyer arises from one of the most pernicious — and false — doctrines ever promulgated in the legal profession, one that most lawyers unfortunately have come to meekly accept. It’s a doctrine that claims that private lawyers are “officers of the court,” thereby subjecting their conduct, even outside the courtroom, to the control of the state.

Private lawyers are no more “officers of the court” than their clients or, for that matter, spectators in the courtroom. The “officers of the court” are those people who are on the court payroll — those who receive a paycheck from the government (i.e., the taxpayers). Court bailiffs are officers of the court. So are judges and prosecutors. These people work for the state as court personnel. That’s what makes them “officers of the court.”

Too bad Sean Conway decided not to fight the state’s punishment for his blog post about that judge all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It would have given the Court the opportunity to clarify that the Constitution guarantees the fundamental rights of private attorneys as much as those of everyone else.

Source

American Indians look to high court

We read:

"A group of American Indians who find the Washington Redskins' name offensive wants the Supreme Court to take up the matter. The group late Monday asked the justices to review a lower court decision that favored the NFL team on a legal technicality.

The seven Native Americans have been working through the court system since 1992 to have the Redskins trademarks declared invalid. A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel ruled in their favor in 1999, but they've since suffered a series of defeats from judges who ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long to bring their suit in the first place.

A lawyer for the group says he'd like to see the court decide once and for all whether the Redskins name defames Native Americans.

Source

The "technicality" is that they should have complained many years before if they really found use of the name offensive. One could very easily see use of the name as complimentary

Rev. Stephen Boissoin In Court Challenging "Hate Speech" Conviction

The report below is from 16th. I have been waiting for a verdict before I commented on it but there has been a deathly silence ever since. Courts do proceed at a very leisurely pace so who knows when we will hear more? Anyway, we are likely to end up seeing here another defeat for the Canadian speech police. They seem to have cracked every time that they have been forcefully challenged so far. On this occasion they are not even defending themselves!

The Court of the Queen's Bench is a fairly senior court in the Canadian system so all the protections of due process that are so spectacularly absent in the "Human Rights" tribunals will be available there.

"Last year Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin was ordered by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum, and to pay complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund $7,000 in damages.

Today, however, he is in Alberta Court of the Queen's Bench, appealing the conviction of hate speech that resulted in the above penalties. That conviction was based upon a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, in which Boissoin expressed his opinion that homosexuality is immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curricula permeating the province's educational system.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) allied attorney Gerald Chipeur has submitted a full legal brief in the precedent-setting appeal. In that appeal Chipeur is seeking a full dismissal of the complaint and conviction on behalf of Boissoin, and the granting of costs incurred by Boissoin in his defense as well as repayment of the indemnity he paid to Lund.

"People of faith should not be fined or jailed for expressing their political or religious beliefs," said Chipeur in an ADF press release. "The ability to express one's conscience is a fundamental human right protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This pastor cannot be muzzled simply because someone else does not share his viewpoint, and a recent decision from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in a national case confirms this."

On Sept. 2, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) ruled in a separate case that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Canada's human rights legislation against hate messages, unreasonably limits the Charter right to freedom of expression. Member Athanasios D. Hadjis issued the ruling in the case of Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Marc Lemire, operator of the website FreedomSite.org, who was the subject of a complaint brought by serial complainant and former CHRC employee Richard Warman in November 2003.

The Calgary Herald reports that the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which sanctioned and fined Mr. Boissoin, has declined to participate in the Court of Queen's Bench trial at which the constitutionality of its ruling will be debated, and that both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation will appear as interveners on Boissoin's behalf.

Source

Racist speech from an Obama "Czar"

And he doesn't like free speech either:

"President Obama's diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to "step down" in favor of minorities, prescribed policies to make liberal talk radio more successful, and described Hugo Chavez's rise to power in Venezuela "an incredible revolution."

Mark Lloyd's provocative comments - most made during a tenure at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank - are giving fodder to critics who say Mr. Obama has appointed too many "czars" to government positions that don't require congressional approval. They are also worrying to some conservatives who fear the FCC might use its powers to remove their competitive advantage on talk radio and television.

Mr. Lloyd spoke about the need to remove white people from powerful positions in the media to give minorities a fairer chance. "There's nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions," he said. "And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."

Other bloggers are questioning Mr. Lloyd's commitment to free speech based on a line in his 2006 book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America": "At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies," Mr. Lloyd wrote. "The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

Source

How would it go down if we said that there are too many blacks making a fortune in some sports so we need to get rid of a lot of them to give whites a chance at getting all that money?

Health insurer not entitled to free political speech??

The Obama healthcare proposals are clearly a hot political issue so why should ANYONE be prevented from giving their opinion of what is proposed? It sounds to me like the insurer was warning of an attack on a program that IS under attack. Saying that the criticism is "misleading" is standard Democrat boilerplate at the moment. They call ALL criticism misleading. And if all misleading political speech were banned, a lot of Democrats would be struck dumb. It would not be worthwhile for Joe Biden even to get out of bed. Joe assured us that FDR went on TV to make his case -- even though there was no TV for him to go on in that early era! And who the heck is Joe Biden? He's only the Vice President of the United States.

"The government is investigating a major insurance company for allegedly trying to scare seniors with a mailer warning they could lose important benefits under health care legislation in Congress. The Health and Human Services Department launched its investigation of Humana after getting a complaint from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a senior lawmaker usually viewed as a reliable ally of the insurance industry.

"It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject — particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health care reform," Baucus said Monday, disclosing the HHS investigation.

Humana Inc., headquartered in Louisville, Ky., is cooperating with the investigation and stopped the mailer earlier this month, company spokesman Tom Noland said Monday.

Humana is one of the largest private carriers serving seniors under a program called Medicare Advantage. About one-fourth of the elderly and disabled people covered under Medicare participate in the Advantage program, which offers a choice of private plans that usually deliver added benefits. Humana has about 1.4 million Medicare Advantage enrollees, and the program accounts for about half the company's revenue, Noland said.

Government experts say the private plans are being paid too much — about 14 percent more than it costs to care for seniors in traditional Medicare. The Baucus plan — and other proposals — would reduce payments to the plans, and the health insurance industry is fighting back. The Humana mailer focused squarely on the Medicare Advantage program.

Source

An Australian baby can be named Metallica, but not Ned Kelly

Both Ned and Kelly are common Irish names. So why is the name suspect to Australian authorities? Ned Kelly was a 19th century highway robber, who defied the police with some success -- something that is rather admired in Australia

"You can call your kid Metallica, Fully Hektik Sik or God Bless, but don't even think about giving him the name Ned Kelly - that would be offensive.

Christian names deemed acceptable and unacceptable by the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages provide interesting reading. The Registry can reject a name for a number of reasons under the Registration Act 1995. Reasons include that the name might be obscene or offensive, is too long or includes "symbols without phonetic significance."

The Act also bans official titles, ranks or names "contrary to the public interest for some other reason". Nor can names be a sentence.

Ned Kelly was rejected for public interest reasons, as was Jesus Christ. Post Master General and Chief Maximus were rejected because they are titles.

Other names knocked back included a blank space, the child's Medicare number and the number seven, a name suggested in the sitcom Seinfeld. Titles including Prince, Princess, Dame, Duke, King, Queens and Lady have all been rejected, but Prince, Queen, Lady and Sir are eligible used on their own.

Sweden recently ruled Metallica an acceptable name, along with Budweiser. France and Denmark give citizens a list of names to choose from

In 1980, prior to the Registry being tightened up in 1995, an Australian couple successfully registered their child with the name Monkey. [Now THAT'S a sensitive one. I hope the kid isn't dark-skinned!]

Source

Boss not allowed to fire employee who called him 'Son of a whore'

Left-run Spain at work:

"Calling your boss "son of a whore" - once the ultimate insult in Spain - is no longer a sacking offence because the term is so common. El Mundo newspaper said a Catalan employment tribunal ordered that an employee who was dismissed for insulting his manager should not only get his job back but also receive €6500 ($10,000) in compensation.

The panel also criticised the company for failing to take into account the charged workplace atmosphere and the changing trend in language which meant that such a phrase - traditionally regarded as the ultimate insult in Spanish - was now "common usage in conversations".

Source

Must not call a Malay a monkey?

Retired footballer and Australian TV commentator in trouble over "monkey" comparison

"Sam Newman is embroiled in another race controversy after saying a Malaysian man was a "monkey" who's "not long out of the forest" on The Footy Show.

Newman made the remarks during his Sam's Mailbag segment, which featured an item about a 107-year-old Malaysian woman, Wook Kundor, marrying for the 23rd time. He held up a photo of Kundor and her husband Muhammad Noor Che Musa, 37, and described him as a "monkey".

Newman's comments clearly shocked Carlton forward Brendan Fevola, a panelist on Thursday night's show, who said, "you can't call him a monkey". Newman later said, "This isn't going to Malaysia, is it?"

Source

Malays are East Asians with somewhat darker skin than more Northerly East Asians but I have never heard of them being referred to as monkeys. I think Newman was just referring to the appearance of that one particular Malay. I have known some monkey-like whites in my time. But the speech police have obviously made all references to monkeys risky -- though you can call GWB a "chimp", of course.

FEC restrictions on U.S. political speech nullified

You can now spend your money to fund any political speech you want

"A federal appeals court on Friday dramatically expanded the ability of politically oriented groups such as Emily's List or the National Rifle Association to raise and spend money to help candidates get elected to federal office. The opinion, issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, nullifies the $5,000 annual cap on individual giving to nonprofits. The Federal Election Commission enacted the rule after the 2004 presidential election that saw a flood of money from independent groups including Swift Boats Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.Org.

"The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protects the right of individual citizens to spend unlimited amounts to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office," the court ruling said. The First Amendment also "safeguards the right of citizens to band together and pool their resources as an unincorporated group or nonprofit organization in order to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office."

Emily's List, which advocates for women candidates who support the legal right to an abortion, brought the case against the FEC. The group objected to the restrictions on "hard money" contributions for political activities....

The prospects for the FEC launching an appeal are bleak, Mr. Toner added.

Source

Are you allowed to be rude to a cop?

Yes:

"David Hackbart was mad, and he wanted to show it, but he didn't think he would end up in federal court protecting his right to a rude gesture and demanding that the city of Pittsburgh stop violating the First Amendment rights of its residents.

Hackbart, 34, was looking for a parking space on busy Murray Avenue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood on April 10, 2006. Spotting one, he attempted to back into it, but the driver of the car behind him refused to back up and give him sufficient room. Hackbart responded in the classic way. "I stuck my hand out the window and gave him the finger to say 'Hey, jerk, thanks,' " says Hackbart. "That's all I was trying to say — 'Thanks, thanks a lot.' "

At that moment, a voice rang out telling Hackbart not to make the rude gesture in public. "So I was like, How dare that person tell me? They obviously didn't see what happened. Who are they to tell me what to say?" he says. "So I flipped that person off. And then I looked, and it was a city of Pittsburgh cop in his car right next to me."

That turned out to be police sergeant Brian Elledge, who happened to be passing in the other direction in his cruiser. Elledge whipped around and pulled Hackbart over, citing him under the state's disorderly-conduct law, which bans obscene language and gestures. And here's where the problem lies, says state American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) legal director Witold (Vic) Walczak: the middle finger and equivalent swear words are not legally obscene. In fact, courts have consistently ruled that foul language is a constitutionally protected form of expression. A famous 1971 Supreme Court case upheld the right of a young man to enter the Los Angeles County Court House wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "F___ the Draft." (Read about how disorderly conduct is often a cop's call.)

"The law is clear that people have the constitutional right to use profanity, especially when it comes to government officials, because that is a form of political speech," Walczak says. "But despite that, we have police officers regularly misapplying the law to punish people who offend them — that's really what it comes down to."

U.S. District Judge David Cercone ruled in March that the citation, along with the $119.75 court costs imposed by a city court, was clearly unconstitutional.

Source

NPR Hate speech

In trying to defend the crooked ACORN, they say minorities can't help being criminals; It's just the way those people are

"It's also important to keep in mind that ACORN's workers are coming from the same low-income neighborhoods the organization serves, with all that entails -- poor schools, high crime and the sorts of social problems that have been documented for decades.

So the flaws conservatives are pointing out about ACORN are not so much problems associated with that organization per se but more about the problems of being poor and minority in urban America.

Source

If it's not hate speech it sure is bigotry and "stereotyping".

Danish tourism bosses lose the plot

We read:

"Danish tourism bosses have been forced to apologise over a campaign to lure men to the country with the promise that its women are easy. Marketing bosses posted a video on YouTube in which a beautiful blonde said she was looking for her child's father.

The fake yummy mummy claimed her little boy August was the result of boozy one-night stand with a stranger in the capital Copenhagen after she introduced him to the Danish custom of "cosiness". She then pleads with the mystery man whose name she can't remember to get in touch, with photos of the mum and her son also put up on the site.

The clip, which appeared to be shot on a video camera in the woman's living room, attracted more than a million hits. But it sparked nationwide fury after it emerged that it was all a set-up and was designed to attract more male tourists to Denmark.

The revelation the clip was a hoax caused outrage across the country, with one newspaper labelling the stunt "grotesque".

Visit Denmark tried to defend its actions, saying it was a "good and sweet story about a mature, responsible woman who lives in a free society and shoulders the responsibility of her actions". But the clip of actor Ditte Arnth Jorgensen was pulled.

"We deeply apologise that the film has offended a lot of people, that certainly wasn't the idea," CEO Dorte Kiilerich said.

Source

Misleading advertising? I suspect so.

Facebook Five want right to bag the boss online

We read:

"The right of Australian workers to slag off their boss could become enshrined in law if a landmark case by a group of outspoken prison officers - dubbed the Facebook Five - is successful.

The officers were threatened with the sack after they posted disparaging comments about New South Wales Corrective Services Commissioner Ron Woodham and other top brass on a Facebook group called "Suggestions to help Big RON save a few clams".

In response, the Public Service Association filed an application asking the Industrial Relations Commission to hear an unfair dismissal application for the workers before they were formally fired, The Daily Telegraph reports.

The PSA also indicated to the IRC that it intends to seek a change in the award which will make workers exempt from dismissal for things they said or did in out-of-work hours.

"An employee shall not be the subject of any disciplinary action by reason of conduct that occurs outside working hours and which is intended by the employee to be private in nature," the claim stated.

Source

British council bans Christian group from putting up notices about its meetings

And they are not backing down.

"A Christian campaign group has been banned from pinning up notices about its meetings in libraries or community centres. The activists were told their posters advertising talks about climate change could not be shown in public because they mentioned Christianity and God.

Officials declared that the flyers for a talk on 'climate change is a Christian issue' and and another by a spokesman for the Christian Ecology Link were in conflict with town hall policy against the promotion of religious ideas.

The ban in Camden in North London bemused campaigners from the Roman Catholic Our Lady Help of Christians parish church - not least because they were told they could display posters advertising green rallies so long as they did not refer to God.

There was also confusion among the greens that while borough officials insist they cannot lend a hand to a Christian group, it provides for inquirers details of no fewer than 13 mosques, Muslim study groups, and Islamic social groups.

Miss Siedlecka said she asked her local library to use its distribution service to put up flyers throughout the borough giving notice of the talks. 'A lady in a yashmak, a Muslim lady, told me that they could not advocate religions and that they could not promote religious ideas.

'Then I spoke to officials at the town hall who told me again that they could not promote a religion. They said they would be very happy if it was green, but it could not be Christian.'

Mike Judge of the Christian Institute said: 'This is another case of Christians being told to go to the back of the class. 'It is prejudice against Christianily. Christians run huge numbers of community projects and they pay council taxes. 'They are not promoting their religion at the expense of anyone else and they are entitled to put their posters up. It is time Camden got a grip.'

Source

Top British official accused of saying: "Blow Israel off the face of the Earth"

What he said would probably not be illegal in America but it shows appalling judgement for someone in his position. He should lose his job for that reason, not because he was racist. Arab-lovers are however something of a tradition in the Foreign Office. Empathy with the secretive but widespread homosexuality among Arabs is alleged to be the cause.

The British establishment generally is very antisemitic (See here and here and here), so he will probably escape any serious penalty.

"A Foreign and Commonwealth Office civil servant told a Jew that the Israelis should be “blown off the face of the Earth” during an altercation at a gymnasium, a court was told yesterday. Gideon Falter claimed that Rowan Laxton, 48, was also heard to shout “f***ing Israelis, f***ing Jews” while watching a television news report about Israel bombing Gaza as he worked out on an exercise bicycle.

Giving evidence at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Mr Falter said he arrived at the London Business School gym shortly after 8am in January and overheard the outburst. “I started to work out,” he said. “I heard someone shout, ‘F***ing Israelis, f***ing Jews’.

“I could hear that it came from above me. I wanted to see who shouted. I couldn’t see anyone who was particularly aggravated. Mr Laxton came downstairs to the lower part of the mezzanine and I spoke to him.”

Mr Falter claimed that Mr Laxton, head of the South Asia desk in the Foreign Office, admitted that it was him who had launched the tirade before allegedly adding: “It’s not racist. If I had my way, the international community would be sent in and if the Israelis got in the way, they would be blown off the face of the f***ing Earth.”...

The court was told that Mr Laxton had settled a “difficult” divorce with his Muslim wife on the same morning as the incident....

When interviewed by police after his arrest, Mr Laxton said: “I was horrified by what I saw and I said, ‘I’m sorry I said it’. I said ’f***ing Israelis’.”

Mr Laxton, who answers to David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has been suspended from his £70,000-a-year job and could be dismissed if found guilty.

Source

Soviet-style history in Britain

Margaret Thatcher omitted from British government history of women in politics while all sorts of nonentities get a mention:

"Harriet Harman has been accused of airbrushing Baroness Thatcher from an official government document saluting the role of women in politics in the last 100 years.

The paper, Women in Power: Milestones, listed 28 of the most significant events between 1907 and 2008 involving women on the political stage.

The milestones included the election of the first female Head of Government – Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka in 1960 and Britain's first woman councillor Reina Emily Lawrence in 1907.

The document, produced by the Equality Office which is run by Miss Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, highlights the role of Nancy Astor who was the first woman to take her seat in parliament in 1919, the election of Dianne Abbott the first black woman MP in 1987, and victory in 1999 of Neena Gill the UK’s first Asian female MEP.

But there is no mention of Lady Thatcher becoming the first female leader of a British political party when she replaced Edward Heath in 1975, or the fact that she was the longest serving prime minister in the 20th century, and won three general election victories. The only reference to her is: “1979: UK’s first woman Prime Minister.” But her name is pointedly omitted. By contrast Shreela Flather is mentioned twice as the first Asian woman councillor and first Asian woman peer. Britain’s first black woman mayor Lydia Simmons is also given a name check.

Lady Thatcher’s office declined to comment but a friend of the former Prime Minister said: “Miss Harman cannot bear the fact it was the Conservatives who elected the first woman leader back in 1975 long before anyone had even heard of positive discrimination and all women shortlists. "Margaret got there on ability and went on to become one of the great Prime Ministers because of what she stood for not because she wore skirts. We also elected the first Jewish leader in Michael Howard but I imagine that will be airbrushed too when Harman's Equality Office does an ethnic history of political parties.”

Source