Tuesday, March 15, 2016

794 Gay Traffic Lights. Judge rules that Catholic school must hire Gay married to another man

Gay Traffic Lights. Judge rules that Catholic school must hire Gay
married to another man

Newsletter published on 17 January 2016

(1) Gay Traffic Lights
(2) Judge rules that Catholic school must hire Gay married to another man
(3) Transgender girl awarded $75,000 in lawsuit over school bathroom access
(4) Fined 250,000 Dollars if you  call a Transgender woman "him"
(5) Teachers Union says teachers must promote gay lifestyle to tackle
prejudice in schools
(6) Gay Rugby: $20,000 Fine for Homophobic slurs
(7) CEO of Australia's SBS TV is a Gay Egyptian
(8) Australian Broadcasting Corporation accused of bias in favour of Gay
(9) Feminists want to ban children's books & fairy tales that depict the
traditional family
(10) Parents lose custody of toddler over smoky home
(11) Recovered Memories fuelled the Pedophile panic; but they aren’t
reliable - barrister
(12) State Dept LGBT Speaker: We Don’t Want Gay Marriage; We Want No
(13) Why get married when you could be happy?
(14) Women may have to register for Army Draft
(15) Women will likely have to Register for the Draft, Army Secretary says

(1) Gay Traffic Lights

Linz scraps gay-themed traffic signals

Published: 07 Dec 2015 12:03 GMT+01:00

Gay-themed traffic signals in Linz aimed at promoting greater tolerance
have been removed, the Austrian city's new far-right traffic official
said on Monday.

"Traffic lights are for traffic and should not be misused to impart
advice on how to live your life," said Markus Hein from the far-right
Freedom Party (FPÖ).

Instead of the usual stick man, the special lights at pedestrian
crossings show two figures: either a man or a woman, two men or two
women, holding hands, together with a little heart symbol.

They were first installed temporarily in Vienna for the Eurovision Song
Contest earlier this year but proved so popular that they were made
permanent and spread to Salzburg and to Linz.

Hein, whose populist party is topping opinion polls in Austria, said
that the lights were "completely unnecessary" and did nothing to promote
rights for gay people, which he said were already well advanced.

His party lodged a criminal complaint in May against the Vienna
councillor who organized the lights.

(2) Judge rules that Catholic school must hire Gay married to another man


Judge rules against Catholic prep school Fontbonne Academy in gay hiring

By Associated Press

December 17, 2015

BOSTON — An all-girls Catholic prep school in Massachusetts violated
state anti-discrimination law by rescinding a job offer to a man in a
same-sex marriage, a judge ruled.

Matthew Barrett was offered a job as Fontbonne Academy’s food services
director in 2013, but the offer was withdrawn days later after he listed
his husband as his emergency contact.

Barrett sued, alleging that the Milton school discriminated against him
based on sexual orientation and gender. Norfolk Superior Court Judge
Douglas Wilkins agreed, rejecting Fontbonne’s claim that hiring Barrett
would infringe on its constitutional rights because it views his
marriage to a man as incompatible with its religious mission.

The judge said Barrett’s duties as a food services director did not
include presenting the teachings of the Catholic Church.

"As an educational institution, Fontbonne retains control over its
mission and message. It is not forced to allow Barrett to dilute that
message, where he will not be a teacher, minister or spokesman for
Fontbonne and has not engaged in public advocacy of same-sex marriage,"
Wilkins wrote in a ruling issued Wednesday.

The judge also found that a religious exemption to the state
anti-discrimination law applies only if a religious organization limits
admission to people of a certain religion. Fontbonne is open to students
and employees of all faiths, with the exception of its administration
and theology faculty.

It was not immediately clear if Fontbonne plans to appeal the ruling.
Fontbonne’s attorney, John Bagley, did not immediately respond to a
phone message and email seeking comment. A message was also left at the

Barrett’s attorney, Ben Klein of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders,
said the judge has found that Fontbonne is liable to pay damages to
Barrett for lost wages and compensatory damages for discrimination. A
hearing has not yet been scheduled.

"Marriage equality has been the law of Massachusetts for over a decade,
and it is now the law of the land. But you can’t have equality if you
can get married on Saturday and fired on Monday," Klein said.

(3) Transgender girl awarded $75,000 in lawsuit over school bathroom access



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 02:20 PM  ? ?

So I don't know I have mixed feelings about this. given this person's
situation I think they should have gotten access to the girls bathroom
It wasn't as if the person was switching sides multiple times, so to
say. But I also don't want what was said in the article to be true I
don't want this to set precedent. We cannot keep catering to everybody.
I am sure maybe that's what the school was thinking that we can't cater
to this one person's issue out of the whole school body.

A transgender girl who won a precedent-setting state Supreme Judicial
Court decision in January after school administrators in Orono made her
use a staff bathroom was awarded $75,000 in a lower court settlement
last week with the school district.?

And this also smacks of the recent South park episode where Cartman had
to use the mens room but all the stalls were full so decided to use the
girls bathroom, and then found out the girls bathroom was better so
decided to become "transginger" as he called it.

But is this what we want for society now I mean do we cater and
accommodate the 3% ? I mean being different should be celebrated it
should be worn as a badge of honor that your different then the rest you
don't care what people say that your resilient and you don't need or
want special treatment.

(4) Fined 250,000 Dollars if you  call a Transgender woman "him"

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 23:30:24 +0000 Subject: You Could Be Fined
250,000 Dollars If You Offend A Transgender Woman In New York City


You Could Be Fined 250,000 Dollars If You Offend A Transgender Woman In
New York City

Posted: 28 Dec 2015 03:20 PM PST

Political correctness is officially out of control in New York City.
According to brand new rules that were just issued by the New York City
Commission on Human Rights, you could potentially be fined $250,000 if
you purposely offend someone that is transgender. This includes such
offenses as calling a transgender woman "him" when she wants to be
called "her", or not allowing a transgender woman to use the women’s
bathroom. These guidelines are particularly focused on the behavior of
landlords, employers and businesses, but they will undoubtedly create a
chilling effect on speech all throughout New York City.

Needless to say, these new regulations will result in a flood of
litigation as transgender individuals exercise their new "rights".
According to the New York City Commission on Human Rights, employers
must now use "an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title" when
referring to that person. And some of the pronouns that were given as
examples by the Commission were only recently introduced to the English
language and many people don’t even know how to pronounce them. The
comes directly from the new "guidelines"…

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an
individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.)
regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender,
medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s
identification. Most individuals and many transgender people use female
or male pronouns and titles.

Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns
other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir.

All facilities in New York City will now also be required to allow
transgender individuals to use whatever bathrooms and locker rooms they
prefer. Here is more
from the new "guidelines"…

The NYCHRL requires that individuals be permitted to use single-sex
facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in
single-sex programs, consistent with their gender, regardless of their
sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, appearance, or the sex
indicated on their identification. The law does not require entities to
make existing bathrooms all-gender or construct additional restrooms.
Covered entities that have single-occupancy restrooms should make clear
that they can be used by people of all genders.

So what would stop some sick pervert from pretending to be transgender
just so that he can go into the women’s locker room at the gym?

Presumably nothing.

You would think that New York City would have far bigger priorities to
deal with than this. Right now, almost 60,000 people are sleeping in
homeless shelters in New York City every night, and the homeless crisis
there has gotten so bad that it is being called an "epidemic".

This is just another example of our society’s growing obsession with
political correctness. And if you think that it is bad now, just wait
until the next generation takes over.

Our colleges and universities have become political correctness
indoctrination centers. One survey found that
62 percent of our colleges and universities have implemented "speech
codes" that "severely departed from First Amendment standards", and
students are going to ridiculous extremes to try to insulate themselves
from any language that could possibly be considered "racist", "sexist"
or threatening. Just check out the following excerpt from a recent
article about political correctness at U.S. colleges that was published
by the Telegraph…

The lexicon of college has changed: students now speak about
"micro-aggressions", "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces".

The notion of the "safe space" first emerged to describe a place of
refuge for people exposed to racial prejudice or sexism. But the phrase
has changed meaning to the point where now it often implies protection
from "exposure to ideas that make one uncomfortable", according to
Nadine Strossen, a prominent law professor and former head of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

At Brown University – like Harvard, one of the eight elite Ivy League
universities – the
New York Times reported students set up a "safe space" that offered
calming music, cookies, Play-Doh and a video of frolicking puppies to
help students cope with a discussion on how colleges should handle
sexual assault.

And all over America, colleges and universities are seemingly obsessed
with getting our young people to use the right words. For example, just
check out what is happening <http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/21174/>
at the University of Michigan…

Dozens of posters plastered across the University of Michigan caution
students not to say things that might hurt others’ feelings, part of a
new "Inclusive Language Campaign" at the state’s flagship public
university that cost $16,000 to implement.

Words declared unacceptable through the campaign include "crazy,"
"insane," "retarded," "gay," "tranny," "gypped," "illegal alien," "fag,"
"ghetto" and "raghead." Phrases such as "I want to die" and "that test
raped me" are also verboten.

Meanwhile, the quality of the education being served at these
institutions has plummeted and millions of students are graduating each
year without any real marketable skills. Most parents assume that their
children are being prepared for "the real world" when they attend
college, but in many cases that simply is not happening.

I attended public universities here in the United States for eight
years, so I know what I am talking about. Instead of learning skills and
abilities that apply to the marketplace of tomorrow, our young adults
are being taught all sorts of gobbledygook. The following are
some real courses that have been taught at U.S. colleges in recent years…

-"<http://firstyearseminar.appstate.edu/what-if-harry-potter-real> What
If Harry Potter Is Real?"

Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame" [...]

(5) Teachers Union says teachers must promote gay lifestyle to tackle
prejudice in schools


Faith school fears as union says teachers must promote gay lifestyle:
Leaders call for 'positive portrayal of same sex relationships' to be
made 'compulsory'

National Union of Teachers said MPs had a duty to tackle 'homophobia'
Critics said proposals risked 'oversexualising' children at a young age
Christian groups warned some teachers would have to act against beliefs
But union said changes were needed to tackle 'prejudice in our schools'


PUBLISHED: 08:06 EST, 6 April 2015 | UPDATED: 09:35 EST, 6 April 2015

Schools should be forced to promote gay relationships in sex education
lessons, union leaders say. The National Union of Teachers has called
for a ‘positive portrayal of same sex relationships’ in lessons to be
made ‘compulsory’ under the next government.

It said MPs had a duty to tackle ‘homophobia, biphobia and transphobia’
in schools and create a ‘positive climate of understanding about sexuality’.

But critics accused the NUT of ‘thought control’ and said the
‘intolerant’ proposals risked ‘oversexualising’ children at a young age.

Meanwhile, Christian groups warned it would compel teachers at faith
schools to act against their beliefs. However, the union said the
changes were needed to tackle prejudice which was ‘still strongly
prevalent in our schools’.

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: ‘This motion is itself an
act of intolerance towards mainstream Christians and their beliefs. It
would force Christian teachers to have to choose between their faith and
their job.

‘I wonder whether Christian members of the NUT who have paid their dues
can expect any help from the NUT when their jobs are on the line.’

He added that Church schools already teach ‘love and tolerance’ of
others without having to explicitly approve of same sex relationships.

The proposal was contained in a motion on lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT) rights passed by the NUT at its annual conference in
Harrogate yesterday.

It stated: ‘Conference instructs the executive to call upon the present
and future government to … make it compulsory that all schools’ sex
education policies include a positive portrayal of same sex relationships.’

The NUT said only 10 per cent of LGBT teachers felt confident to be
‘out’ to students.

(6) Gay Rugby: $20,000 Fine for Homophobic slurs


NSW Waratahs forward Jacques Potgieter fined $20,000 for homophobic
slurs against ACT Brumbies

March 24, 2015 - 6:50AM

Rupert Guinness

Sports Reporter

The Waratahs' marquee international, Jacques Potgieter, has been fined
$20,000 - with $10,000 suspended - for using homophobic slurs during his
side's Super Rugby derby against the Brumbies at Allianz Stadium in
Sydney on Sunday afternoon.

The South African back-rower, in his second year at NSW, was the subject
of allegations by Brumbies flanker David Pocock to referee Craig Joubert
in the second half that homophobic slurs were used by a Waratahs forward
during their 28-13 win.

Potgieter expressed remorse over the incident, and apologised for any
harm caused by his remarks. "I'm very sorry for any offence caused by
what I said on the field during a heated encounter," Potgieter said. "It
was an offhand remark made without thought for the hurt it could cause
to those around me."

A SANZAR preliminary investigation into the case was first held and
referred it to the Australian Rugby Union for consideration under the
SANZAR disciplinary rules. The ARU, a signatory of the Anti-Homophobia
and Inclusion Framework signed last August by Australia's major sporting
codes, handed the case to its integrity unit.

The ARU then released a statement on Monday evening confirming
Porgieter's fate. It did not reveal what homophobic slur was heard
during Sunday's blockbuster game before a 27,000-plus crowd, but it is
understood to be "faggot."

But the ARU said Potgieter admitted making comments contrary to the
ARU's inclusion policy, and that on top of the fine he will be required
to undergo additional and awareness training.  The sanction was also
determined in consultation with the Rugby Union Players' Association and
the NSW Waratahs, the ARU said.

His penalty relates to a breach of the ARU code of conduct, which
prohibits homophobic or racist comments. "We take the issue of
homophobia in sport seriously and want to provide a positive environment
for everyone involved in Rugby," ARU chief executive Bill Pulver said.
"Comments of this nature cannot be tolerated. Our Inclusion Policy
reinforces Australian Rugby's commitment to ensure every individual,
whether they're players, supporters, coaches or administrators, feel
safe, welcome and included regardless of race, gender or sexuality.

  "I'd like to stress again that there is absolutely no place for
homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and
words on and off the field must reflect that."

Meanwhile, the position taken by Pocock in Sunday's game, "speaks
volumes about the guy," says leading Australian gay rugby union and
anti-homophobia in sports campaigner Andrew Purchas who was president of
last year's Bingham Cup international gay rugby tournament in Sydney of
which Pocock was an ambassador.

Purchas, who was also instrumental in the Anti-Homophobia and Inclusion
Framework being signed, labelled as "unfortunate" the criticism Pocock

"It's unfortunate, some of the social media commentary ... where
[Pocock] has been told to shut up and play football," Purchas said,
adding that what gets lost is "the potential damage these type of
comments make" as well as "the influence that players have more broadly
and the role they can play in making society a better place."

Purchas was in contact with Pocock on Monday morning by text message. He
said he did not broach the specifics of Pocock's allegation, but just
wanted to offer support. Purchas said his message was "congratulating
him obviously for taking that stand and expressing disappointment that
he needed to do it. It is great that he is walking the talk. One of the
very strong messages we were trying to get through by talking to each of
the football codes around the inclusion and anti homophobic policy is
that this type of language is kind of the cutting face in terms of some
of the issues that are faced."

While most parties remained mute on the issue Monday, Purchas said
Pocock's stand: "Speaks volumes about the guy. I don't think it affected
the way he was playing.

"He obviously has a very strong moral compass and a very strong idea of
what is right and what is wrong. I dare say he really thought he only
had one course of action."

As Purchas spoke, the positions of SANZAR and the ARU were still
unclear, but as Purchas said: "What is important is to see how the
Waratahs react, SANZAR reacts. "The response needs to be relatively
quick, but it needs to be measured. I don't think that there needs to be
a witch hunt. We need to be focused on getting the right result."

Purchas is confident that homophobia is not throughout rugby union, and
recognises the support that the ARU, Brumbies and the Waratahs have
shows to oppose it. He said: "Generally it is not a systemic issue.
We've been very happy with the support."

(7) CEO of Australia's SBS TV is a Gay Egyptian


The importance of gay business leaders being out and proud

May 6, 20159:37am

SBS managing director Michael Ebeid thought he couldn’t be successful if
he was out and proud.

"WHEN I was in my early twenties I was absolutely terrified at work that
people would find out I was gay. I used up so much energy worrying about
that and hiding it and making up stories and all that sort of stuff."

It’s a startling statement from one of Australia’s corporate leaders
Michael Ebeid CEO and Managing Director of public broadcaster SBS. But
for the Egyptian born, Australian raised executive who spent most of his
early career in the closet the road to corporate success wasn’t always easy.

"When I graduated from uni I couldn’t have dreamt of seeing CEOs who are
out and proud and saying I’m a gay CEO and I think that’s really
important that there is that visibility for people so they don’t think
that there is no hope."

Speaking at the Australian Marriage Equality CEO Breakfast Mr Ebeid said
that being a CEO comes with the responsibility of being a role model and
showing young people that you can be openly gay and be a business leader.

"So many times young people do grow up having it beaten into them that
they will never get far in life. I was certainly told that when I
confided in somebody, (they said) ‘Oh, well don’t expect to go far in
your career.’"

 >From a personal point of view when Mr Ebeid had a supportive work
environment it gave him the freedom to be himself and it meant he could
put the majority of his energy into work. "It allows you to just focus
on your job and not worry about what others are going to think, because
what others think matters when you are starting off in a new career
because it can affect your promotional levels."

Mr Ebeid’s success also shows that acceptance and diversity are two keys
to making it in business. It’s about having the freedom to be authentic
in all aspects of your life, including marriage equality and this in
turn is a good thing for business, productivity and the economy.

Mr Ebeid said employees need to feel comfortable in bringing their
"whole self " to work so they can be confident in putting their ideas
forward and not be concerned about being the target of prejudice or
discrimination. This why the issue of marriage equality and reform is so
important on a business level. "I’ve seen over and over throughout my
career that people who do bring their whole self to work are far more
productive. They’re not worried about whether they can or can’t bring
their partner to a work function," he said.

Boosting productivity has been a difficult issue for corporate
Australia, but Mr Ebeid believes that passing same-sex marriage would
have a huge impact on raising productivity levels in all areas of
business because it would lessen the human cost. He said that because
the law doesn’t accept same-sex marriage there is a subconscious bias
that means sometimes people see a same-sex relationship as less valuable
than a couple who is married. It is this which weighs heavily on those
who want to have their relationship formally recognised but can’t.

"That’s why marriage equality is very important for corporations, so
that people don’t feel that they are a second-class citizen. At the
moment the law allows that to happen. Society is saying to these people
your partnership with your life partner is second rate, we are
discriminating against them," he said.

Marriage equality and its importance to business is something echoed by
Mr Ebeid’s counterpart, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce who is also openly gay.

Speaking at the breakfast Mr Joyce said Australia is losing talent
because it hasn’t progressed same-sex marriage. He said people who are
in long term relationships move overseas to where their union is
recognised. He also pointed out that it has been difficult at times to
lure overseas talent who were in same-sex relationships to Australia
because the law here had not been changed.

(8) Australian Broadcasting Corporation accused of bias in favour of Gay


"Media Watchdog" Gnaws ABC for Ignawing our side on Marriage

Remember this remarkable episode of ABC Media Watch from August 17 -
which bookended an incredible week that started with our full page ad in
The Australian, saw the Coalition strongly reaffirm their policy on
natural marriage, welcomed Katy Faust (who was brilliant on Lateline),
and witnessed the deluging of Parliament with flowers as well as the
magnificent Bark Petition from the Aboriginal Elders...

If so, please enjoy this recent post from The Australian's "Media
Watchdog" (MWD) blog (4/12) by Gerard Henderson, rubbing Mark Scott's
nose in the ABC marriage bias: MARK SCOTT’S DENIAL OF ABC’S LACK OF

Shortly after he was appointed managing director and editor-in-chief of
the ABC in 2006, Mark Scott requested a platform at The Sydney
Institute. The Institute was happy to oblige. In what was an important
address, Mark Scott promised to bring about a situation whereby a
greater diversity of views would be heard on the ABC during his time as
managing director.

As avid MWD readers will be aware, it did not work out this way. After
almost a decade as ABC managing director and (so-called)
editor-in-chief, Mark Scott prevails over a taxpayer funded public
broadcaster which is a Conservative Free Zone. The ABC does not have one
conservative presenter, producer or editor for any of its prominent
television, radio or online outlets. Senior ABC executives who deny this
— like Michael Mason (see Issue 298) — should name the names that
disprove the claim. So far, no one has attempted to do so.

On Monday, Mark Scott appeared before the Senate Estimates committee.
The Hansard transcript is yet to be released but Mr Scott’s appearance
was reported in The Australian on 1 December.

Senator Eric Abetz asked Mark Scott what action the ABC has taken in
response to the ABC 1 Media Watch program on 17 August 2015 which
concluded that both sides of the marriage equality debate did not get
equal billing in the media — including the ABC. Media Watch presenter
Paul Barry and executive producer Tim Latham found that the ABC favoured
gay marriage advocates over opponents of same sex marriage. In response
to Senator Abetz’s query, Mark Scott said:

     "We appreciate that on this matter, as with other matters, we need
to bring a plurality of views and perspectives. I can assure you that on
this matter a plurality of views and perspectives have been aired across
a range of ABC programs."

So what are the facts? Media Watch is certainly not an ABC program with
a social conservative agenda. Paul Barry is on the record as declaring
his support for "marriage equality" — or same sex marriage — and the
program invariably runs a fashionable leftist line across a range of
national and international matters. However on 17 August, Media Watch
presenter Paul Barry asked this question — and provided his own answer.
Let’s go to the transcript:

     Paul Barry:

     "... Are opponents of marriage equality getting an equal run in the
media? Or at least a fair hearing. We don’t think they are.

     "When Canberra Airport lit up in rainbow lights last Sunday to
support same sex marriage, it was front page in The Age and The Canberra
Times next morning and also big news in the Sydney Morning Herald. And
it scored almost fifty mentions on radio and TV. But on Monday, when
opponents of gay marriage piled flowers on the lawn at Parliament House
it got just 14 mentions on radio and TV, one story on News.com.au and
this brief report on page 6 of the Adelaide Advertiser.

     "Sure, the airport was a better story. But the overall media
coverage of the debate has also been skewed. For example, none of the
commercial TV stations covered the launch of the Marriage Alliance
campaign. And major one-to-one interviews on radio and TV have also been
out of kilter. With two key spokespeople for marriage equality, Rodney
Croome and Christine Forster, scoring 31 interviews between them in the
first 12 days of August. And by our count, two key speakers against —
Sophie York and David van Gend — scoring a grand total of only 12.

     "Amazingly, the ABC has not interviewed Sophie York from the
Marriage Alliance even once — despite 16 interviews from Forster and Croome.

     "As the Australian Marriage Forum’s van Gend told Media Watch: "No
one ever rings us. We send endless media releases … I don’t want to
pester anyone, but we’re here." (David van Gend, Australian Marriage
Forum, 12 August, 2015)

     "We think those figures speak for themselves and we can only agree
with the Christian Federation’s Peter Kentley, who told us: "The media
has a bias. There’s no question it is pro same-sex marriage. (Peter
Kentley, Christian Federation, 12 August, 2015)

     "And just before you pile into me on Twitter, if you’re not already
doing so. I am a supporter of marriage equality. But, as we’re
constantly reminded, this is a conscience issue and an important change
that’s being proposed — and surely both sides of the debate have an
equal right to be heard."***

Here are ABC Media Watch’s figures up to 17 August 2015.

o The ABC interviewed same-sex marriage advocates Rodney Croome and
Christine Forster on 16 occasions.

o The ABC did not interview Marriage Alliances’ Sophie York, who is
opposed to same sex marriage, on any occasion.

This is how The Australian reported Mark Scott’s response to the
evidence at the Senate Estimates:

Mr Scott said that the ABC was not obliged under its charter to provide
equal time to both sides of a "contentious" debate, only to present
divergent views.

"There is nothing in the editorial policies that say a stopwatch needs
to be out on this matter, or climate change, or a range of contentious
issues in the community," he said, adding that the ABC had "robust"
processes to ensure its editorial coverage was balanced.

This response demonstrates the extent of denial that Mark Scott is
prepared to exhibit — rather than concede that, on the same sex marriage
debate at least, the ABC has not presented a diversity of views.

Mark Scott reckons that it’s quite okay for the ABC to interview Mr
Croome and Ms Forster a total of 16 occasions while totally ignoring the
views of Ms York and David van Gend. And Mark Scott claims that such
evident imbalance is really balance.

Even the leftists who run the ABC Media Watch program understand that
there is a lack of diversity — they called it "bias" — here. But Mr
Scott reckons everything is okay since balance is not gauged by running
a stopwatch. This overlooks the fact that there would be no point in
putting a stopwatch on Sophie York since she has never got off the ABC’s
starting blocks — due to the fact that she has not been invited to
participate in the event.


(9) Feminists want to ban children's books & fairy tales that depict the
traditional family


European feminists gang up on children's fairytales

December 12, 2012

Svetlana Smetanina

European kindergartens and schools may ban children's books and fairy
tales that depict the traditional family. This is a request of the
European Parliament Committee on Women's Rights. According to the
committee, fairy tales should talk about sexual diversity. Norwegian
experts believe that children benefit from watching porn.

The European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender
Equality prepared a report that calls for a ban of all books that show
the traditional family where the father is the breadwinner and the
mother takes care of the children in schools and day care centers of
Europe. According to the authors, these books are bad for the future
life of children, especially girls, and promote wrong behavioral
patterns. In the future, it may prevent them from building a career.

Feminists are concerned that children from an early age are constantly
faced with "negative gender stereotypes" in television shows and
commercials. The word "negative" in the report is synonymous with the
word "traditional". Over time, the ban would be extended to television
and advertising. So far it was decided to start with books.

The authors of the report strongly recommend urgent legislative measures
in the field of children's literature. In particular, they suggest
introducing a policy of "equality of all social sectors." An example of
alternative children's literature is a book "King and King" with kissing
men on the cover. According to the report, this would help children to
learn about the "true sexual diversity of society."

In fact, such measures have already been taken in some countries,
particularly in Scandinavian ones that consider themselves the vanguard
of Western democracy. "Pravda.Ru" once reported about a Swedish toy
manufacturer that issued a catalog before Christmas where girls were
pictured shooting imaginary enemies with laser guns, and boys were
depicted playing with dolls.

This was a requirement of the Swedish advertising regulator who accused
the toy manufacturer of sexism and imposition of negative gender
stereotypes. Norwegian kindergartens in 2010 introduced a program of
compulsory sex education focusing on sexual minorities.

The report of the European Parliament also insisted that "homosexuality
should be taught in kindergarten as a form of experience and knowledge."
According to them, this will expand the concept of "gender identity" for
children. "Sexual diversity should be obvious to children. Children need
to know that this is normal when your parents are gay or lesbian."

For some reason, not all parents are willing to believe that this is
"normal." In Norway Muslim community strongly opposed such education in
kindergartens. They threatened to withdraw their children from such
institutions or create an alternative.

For the "dark" parents who are not aware of the latest trends in sex
education in modern society, Norway's largest newspaper VG Nett recently
published an opinion of psychologists and sex therapists who said that
it was beneficial for children to watch porn on the internet.

"Parents should not be afraid of their children's sexuality. Conversely,
from a health perspective it is beneficial to watch porn at a time when
parents and children talk openly about these issues," said psychologist
and sex researcher Andres Lindskog.

He was commenting on a statement recently issued by an expert from the
organization Save the Children, who expressed concern about the fact
that increasingly more children and teenagers were addicted to watching
pornographic sites on the Internet.

Anders Lindskog is convinced that there is no addiction or harm from
this. "It's important for parents to understand that children are born
with sexuality and follow their biology. Children have the same feelings
as adults," said the expert.

After that, should we be surprised that the number of cases of
pedophilia is growing in Norway? They mostly occur within the family. A
few days ago, newspapers wrote about another such case. A couple, a
husband and wife, subjected their three children under 10 years of age
to violence and sexual perversions for years.

The children confirmed the violence to the police. But that does not
mean that the punishment will be sufficiently severe. In Norway,
pedophilia is considered a disease and is listed in the Medical
Register. For this reason, pedophiles are given short sentences - from
several months to several years. In some cases punishment could be
limited to penalty only. In the end, parents can always say that they
practiced "diversity of sexual relations."

(10) Parents lose custody of toddler over smoky home


Tuesday, June 02, 2015

Brian Farmer

A two-year-old boy has been taken from his parents’ care in the UK after
a health visitor highlighted concerns about the level of cigarette smoke
at his home.

Health visitor Julie Allen told a family court judge she had not come
across such a "smoky house" in her 10-year career. She described the boy
and his father being surrounded by a "visible cloud of smoke" and said
she had difficulty breathing.

Judge Louise Pemberton, who was also told of other concerns about the
way the youngster was being cared for, concluded that he should be
placed for adoption.

Detail of the case has emerged in a written ruling by the judge
following a family court hearing in Hull.

Judge Pemberton said the boy had breathing problems and needed an
inhaler, and she said Allen had "graphically highlighted" concerns about

Health and social services staff had also raised other concerns about
the boy’s care. The judge was told that the boy’s father had mental
health problems, that there had been a "decline" in his parents’
"engagement with agencies", that the boy’s home was "dirty, smelly, and

She also heard "potential drug paraphernalia" had been spotted at the
boy’s home and she said the boy’s father had tested positive for cocaine.

Judge Pemberton said she was "afraid" the boy had suffered harm. She
said his parents’ care of him had fallen well below "good enough". "I am
afraid all of these matters lead me to an unavoidable and difficult
conclusion that the risks in being placed with his parents are far too
high," said the judge.

"The parents have given me no confidence that they have sufficient
understanding and awareness in relation to the professionals’ concerns
to ensure that such concerns would not arise again in the future."

(11) Recovered Memories fuelled the Pedophile panic; but they aren’t
reliable - barrister


How 'recovered memories' fuelled the paedo panic

Barbara Hewson


The UK justice system needs to face facts: 'recovered memories' simply
aren't credible.

8 April 2015

Last month, the psychology department of Goldsmiths College in London
hosted a lecture by Professor Elizabeth Loftus on memory research, and
what it tells us about the value of human recollection, entitled 'The
memory factory'. Loftus is an American cognitive psychologist at the
University of California, Irvine. She has spent the past 40 years
conducting trials on how memory works (or doesn't work), as well as
presenting expert witness testimony in several high-profile court cases.

It is a tribute to Loftus' exceptional determination and expertise that
she was not derailed in her work by the bitter 'memory wars' of the
1990s, which arose as a result of US feminist campaigners and trauma
therapists insisting on the veracity of 'recovered memories' of abuse.
This notion of recovered memory remains hotly contested. As recently as
2012, Loftus convinced a court that the theory of recovered memory is
outwith medical orthodoxy (1). Nevertheless, Loftus has been the subject
of professional complaints and has received death threats.

Dangerous work

As one commentator notes, to work in this field you need 'skin as thick
as permafrost and caller ID on the phone'. Loftus is not the only
academic to be pilloried for her work in this field. Susan Clancy, a
young cognitive psychologist working at Harvard in the mid-1990s, was
viciously attacked after she began laboratory research into how people
might be prone to false memories. Part of the cohort of subjects who
presented at Harvard's Memory Laboratory claimed to have been the victim
of childhood abuse, even though they had no actual memory of being
abused! This was intriguing research terrain (2).

But Clancy received bags of hate mail, was shunned by her graduate
students, and even found herself giving guest lectures to empty halls.
Harvard encouraged her and her mentor, Professor Richard J McNally, to
switch the focus of their research on to people who believed they were
abducted by aliens: a less politically sensitive class of victim. Clancy
accepted a visiting professorship in Nicaragua, where she still works in
the field of consumer behaviour, though she did succeed in publishing
her own original work in the field of recovered memory: Abducted (2005)
and The Trauma Myth (2010).

Loftus, by contrast, was not run out of town so outrageously: as an
older woman, she had been involved in research going back to the 1970s,
and had thus built up a solid string of publications by the time things
turned ugly in the 1990s. One of her earliest studies of memory
paradigms examined how misinformation, provided after an event is
witnessed, can cause the witness to recall the event differently. Memory
is reconstructive, and people can all-too-easily process new information
after the fact, and then re-attribute this new information to their
original experience. Memory, her research shows, can be rewritten.

Tell 'em what to say

Similar findings have been replicated in studies up to the present. In
her talk, Loftus cited a 2013 study by psychiatrist Dr Charles Morgan
from the Yale Medical School of a crack troop of US soldiers undergoing
survival-school training. This entailed a real-life, high-stress
exercise of being hunted, captured and then aggressively interrogated by
'enemy' combatants, after which they were 'rescued' by friendly
survival-school staff.

In the debrief interviews, some soldiers were given false information
about their interrogator's appearance; were asked leading questions such
as 'describe the weapon/uniform worn by your interrogator', and were
shown a doctored video which (incorrectly) showed the survival-school
staff, whom the soldiers knew, as carrying automatic weapons when, in
fact, they did not. The results were dramatic. In the cohort which was
given the misinformation:

- 84 per cent misidentified their interrogator; - 27 per cent wrongly
said their interrogator had a weapon; - 85 per cent wrongly stated their
interrogator wore uniform; - Over 50 per cent wrongly stated that school
staff carried automatic weapons.

Another memory paradigm, which Loftus discussed in her lecture, is one
where people claim to remember events that are wholly imaginary. In her
classic 'Lost in the Mall' study, in which people were given a
description of a child lost in a mall, about a quarter of participants
came to believe that this experience had happened to them. And at
(arguably) a more harmless level, she and her team have successfully
planted false memories in people relating to food. Some people have been
persuaded to avoid strawberry ice cream, believing it once made them
sick as a child; others have been impelled to avoid imbibing vodka.
Potentially, this kind of research may provide a way to cure addictions
and obesity.

Memory and law

But memory is far more problematic, when deployed in a forensic context.
Who is more believable, and who decides? A person's liberty, or a
child's future, may depend on this. According to Loftus, there is no way
to distinguish a false memory from a true one. A false memory can be
detailed, it can be recounted convincingly, and it can carry the same
emotional charge as an accurate depiction of real experience. Loftus'
take-home message is that human memory is unreliable, unless supported
by independent corroborating evidence. This message is diametrically
opposed to the increasingly victim-centric approach of the UK justice
system, currently in thrall to the politically correct 'I believe her' camp.

Wisely, Loftus steered clear of volunteering any observations about the
implications of her work for the UK's mounting obsession with historic
abuse allegations. However, it is disturbing that the numerous authors
of the growing piles of reports into Savile et al, abjectly fail to
confront the problems of memory, or the lessons of memory research. This
is a serious flaw in their approach. The unprecedented media frenzy over
Savile, succeeded by wild accusations about VIP paedo-murder 'rings',
should have flagged up to any intelligent person the obvious dangers of
accepting tales of woe from long ago, uncritically. But this has not

Instead, most journalists have shown an almost willful ignorance of
modern memory science, in their stampede to propagate sensational
stories that sell. Even more reprehensibly, Britain's courts have been
remiss in their refusal to face up to this problem, while simultaneously
refusing to subject the constant special pleading from the victim lobby,
which now includes the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS),
to proper analytical scrutiny. The outcome has been a serious
unbalancing of the UK's justice system towards a presumption of guilt,
and a cynical willingness to risk innocent people's liberty.

Barbara Hewson is a barrister. Her views here are personal.


(1) John Doe vs Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and Diocese of
Winona, State of Minnesota Supreme Court, A10-1951, 25 July 2012, pp12-13.
  (2) 'False memories of past lives and space alien abduction', by
Richard J McNally, Karolinska Institute, 29 January 2014.

(12) State Dept LGBT Speaker: We Don’t Want Gay Marriage; We Want No


By Ian Tuttle

June 24, 2014 5:16 PM

Since it is no longer attending to America’s foreign policy, the State
Department has a great deal of time on its hands — part of which it
filled, last week, with its now-annual Gays and Lesbians in Foreign
Affairs Agencies Pride Day. Among the event’s speakers was noted LGBT
activist Masha Gessen, who rose to prominence as a fierce critic of
Russia’s treatment of LGBT issues, particularly under Vladimir Putin.

However, Gessen has more in mind than simply "expanding" marriage rights
in the United States to include homosexual couples. At a panel
discussion for the Sydney Writers Festival in 2012, Gessen noted:

I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally
that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not
exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about
what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie
that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a
lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should
change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

Gessen is well on her way to achieving that goal, at least personally.
Later in the discussions, she describes her unorthodox family structure:
"We have three kids and five parents . . . more or less, and I don’t see
why they shouldn’t have five parents legally."

The full audio is available here
The relevant segment begins at 6:30.

Via Breitbart.

(13) Why get married when you could be happy?

Life Matters

Monday 11 June 2012 9:05AM


The same-sex marriage question has provoked a lively debate of late and
it's an issue that's far from settled. There's a wide diversity of
opinion about the importance of marriage equality within the gay and
lesbian community. And this diversity was evident at a recent panel
discussion for the Sydney Writers Festival. The forum asked the
provocative question: Why get married when you could be happy?

(14) Women may have to register for Army Draft


John McHugh, Army secretary: Women will likely have to register for the

By Kellan Howell - The Washington Times - Tuesday, October 13, 2015

As female soldiers are becoming more integrated into combat roles in the
Army, Congress will eventually have to decide whether women will have to
register for the draft, Army Secretary John McHugh said Monday.

Mr. McHugh argued that if "true and pure equality" is the goal in the
U.S. military, then the possibility of women registering for the draft,
is likely.

(15) Women will likely have to Register for the Draft, Army Secretary says


Women Will Likely Have to Register for the Draft, Army Secretary Says

Army equipment officials say engineers are adapting body armor so it
provides a more comfortable fit for female soldiers.

Military.com Oct 12, 2015 | by Richard Sisk

Women will eventually have to register for the draft if "true and pure
equality" is to be realized in the U.S. military, Army Secretary John
McHugh said Monday.

"If your objective is true and pure equality then you have to look at
all aspects" of the roles of women in the military, McHugh said, and
registration for the draft "will be one of those things. That will have
to be considered."

McHugh said draft registration was not a subject to be decided by the
services or the Department of Defense, and will ultimately have to be
dealt with by Congress. He expected a "pretty emotional debate and

However, as more military occupational specialties are opened to women,
the debate on Selective Service System registration was inevitable,
McHugh said. "If we find ourselves as a military writ large where men
and women have equal opportunity, as I believe we should," he said.

The question on women and the draft was posed to McHugh and Gen. Mark
Milley, the new Army chief of staff, at the annual three-day meeting and
exposition of the Association of the U.S. Army at the Walter E.
Washington convention center in Washington, D.C. Milley deferred the
question to McHugh, saying he could not comment on policy.

The subject of women registering for the draft was a topic of debate at
an Aspen National Security forum in Colorado this summer.

In one panel discussion, retired Navy Adm. Eric Olson, former commander
of the SEALs and the Special Operations Command, said that women should
have to register for the draft if they also can serve in combat.

On a separate panel, Air Force Secretary Deborah James said that she
would have no problem with women registering for the draft.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was to decide in January on whether
combat roles, mostly in the infantry, armor, artillery and Special
Operations, should be opened to women.

Proposals to abolish the Selective Service System as a relic of the era
before the all-volunteer force of the early 1970s occasionally come
before Congress, but the proposals have never gained traction.

Nearly 17 million male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens
between the ages of 18 and 25 currently are registered for conscription
with the Selective Service System, an independent government agency.

The 18-25 males are required by law to have registered within 30 days of
their 18th birthdays and must notify Selective Service within 10 days of
any changes to information they provided on their registration cards,
such as a change of address. Violations can be considered felonies.

No comments:

Post a Comment