Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

Gender Pronouns Now a Police Matter in the UK By Jim Treacher

https://pjmedia.com/trending/gender-pronouns-now-a-police-matter-in-the-uk/

Thank goodness they’ve solved all the other crimes in Britain.

I realize I’m just another dumb white cishet male and therefore the source of all the problems in the world, but I am utterly baffled by the growing insistence that gender pronouns are a matter of opinion.

Back in the old days, when “science” wasn’t just a word you threw at a political opponent to make him shut up about the weather, you had boys and girls. Men and women. He and she, him and her, his and hers. Easy to remember, and backed up by an ancient system of arcane witchcraft called “biology.” Sure, you had people who weren’t so easily categorized, like Prince and Rosie O’Donnell, but they were the exception. Most people were at peace with the fate dictated by their chromosomes. It was all good, man.

In 2019, now that we’ve apparently run out of absolutely anything else to worry about, more and more men and women are insisting they’re neither men nor women. They’re “nonbinary.” And if you address them by the same pronouns you used as recently as a year ago? They’ll call the cops.*

Now we’re supposed to use “they” as a gender pronoun. Not “he” or “she,” but “they.” As in: “There goes Dale, they work in my office. I’m their colleague. Pretty nice individual, once you get to know them.” Imagine being so confused about yourself that you insist on being identified as a plural.

The religious violence they don’t report: Srjda Trifkovic

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/the-religious-violence-they-dont-report/

In his latest interview for Serbia’s top-rated Pink TV morning program (Tuesday, March 19) Srdja Trifkovic analyzes Western media coverage of last Friday’s mass shooting in Christchurch. [You can watch the video here.]

ST: What is truly striking about Western reactions to the shootings in New Zealand is, first of all, the level of self-hatred, of civilizational and racial self-loathing. So much self-recrimination over an isolated act by a single deranged person defies belief. On the other hand, whenever some Islamists carry out an attack on non-Muslims—which happens on average once a week, most recently in the Dutch city of Utrecht yesterday [March 18, killing three persons on a tram]—three features are invariably present in Western media reports.

First, the attacker is probably insane. This was initially claimed about the Tunisian who killed 86 French people with a truck in Nice on Bastille Day 2016; they claimed exactly the same about Major Nidal Hasan who murdered 13 soldiers [at Ft. Hood] in the United States; and so on.
Second, if the attacker screams “Allahu akbar!” the commentariat nevertheless will wonder what could have possibly motivated him to carry out the attack. We need to look for the “true causes”: Islamic fundamentalism per se cannot be the reason since Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, so there must be some dissonance here. Aha, it’s probably all our fault, because we have not provided sufficient employment opportunities, sufficient level of integration, so the poor attacker was feeling marginalized and discriminated against.

HIS SAY: VICTOR DAVIS HANSON “SUPPORT FOR TRUMP IS STILL THERE” Q & A

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03/18/author-historian-hanson-

Author and historian Victor Davis Hanson recently joined Boston Herald Radio’s “Morning Meeting” program to talk about his latest book, “The Case for Trump.”

Q: This is one of those books where, considering how divisive and contentious this president is, you potentially would expect the reviews to involve people losing their minds. And just looking, people who probably don’t like President Trump all that much have read this book and feel as though it is really great look at what exactly is going on with the movement that got Trump elected. What are you finding in terms of response to this work?

A: You know, it’s a very interesting phenomenon because I traveled last week, and people who have read it, their only criticism is the title, and that was my publisher. They say, ‘Well, this is an analysis. It’s not that Trump is a saint or it’s not that he’s a sinner.’ You’re just dispassionately trying to analyze why people voted for him, why he won the nomination, what was the key to his red interior strategy, why he’s effective as a president so far and why people hate him, and what’s the prognosis.

I try to explain why in the book, this effort to provoke impeachment or the emoluments clause and the 25th Amendment or sue on the voting machines, to have this nonending Mueller investigation or McCabe and Rosenstein try to remove him somehow, or all of this assassination from celebrities — blow him up, decapitate him, shoot him, stab him — I don’t think we’ve ever seen that level of vitriol or anger.

There has to be a reason for it. In the book I suggest why he shouldn’t have won, and that he interrupted an invasion 16 years ago — Obama and Hilary’s transformation, in fundamental ways, of the country. There was something about him, without this political or military experience. If he were to succeed, what does that really tell us about the elite, this idea of credentialing and normal traditional experience and qualification that kind of says, ‘How did this guy get annualized 3 percent GDP growth and these other geniuses didn’t?’ and that’s a very revolutionary thing to think.

It’s kind of like looking at these admission scandals at all of these 20 universities and saying, ‘Wow, these people were always virtue signaling how wonderful they were in Hollywood and how great the universities are and they’re both corrupt.’ So I think Trump sort of reopened the floodgates and we’re examining from our attitude toward China to what a Ph.D. or a J.D. means or even a B.A. from Stanford. I think that’s good, I really do.

Will Saudi Arabia Leave the Seventh Century? by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13930/saudi-arabia-seventh-century

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammad Bin Salman (known as MBS), has sought to project an image of himself as a keen reformer and modernizer, a moderate who respects women’s rights and the guarantor of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 plan, which aims to bring the country into the 21st century, at least economically, by, among other ventures, becoming less dependent on oil revenues.

The recent charges against the eleven women’s rights activists presents an opportunity for the Saudi regime to prove that its talk of modernization and reform is not just limited to bringing the Saudi economy up to date with the 21st century by reducing the dependence on oil exports or by opening the first cinema.

The regime now has a magnificent opportunity to prove that it genuinely wants to move from 7th century jurisprudence and into a more 21st century understanding of concepts such as the rule of law — especially a law, a women’s right to drive, that it has already permitted.

It could also do so by providing a general amnesty, not only to the 11 women activists recently charged, but to the many others sentenced, some of whom have been mentioned above. Such an initiative would help present the country in a refreshing new light to the West, and might even help Saudi Arabia attract the significant financial investments it so needs and desires.

Eleven women are on trial in Saudi Arabia this week, charged with lobbying for women’s right to drive and for abolishing the system of male guardianship over women[1]. Under the male guardianship system, Saudi women are still treated as legal minors. They are assigned a male guardian, who has to approve their applying for a passport, travelling outside the country, studying abroad on a government scholarship, getting married, leaving prison, or even exiting a shelter for abuse victims, according to the BBC.

The male guardianship system drew renewed international attention in January, when a young Saudi woman, Rahaf Mohammed, barricaded herself in a hotel room in Bangkok, and said that her family would have her imprisoned if she returned to Saudi Arabia. She eventually found asylum in Canada.

Turkey: Tens of Thousands Prosecuted for “Insulting” Erdoğan by Uzay Bulut

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13863/turkey-insulting-erdogan

Since Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s 2014 election, there have been 66,691 “insult investigations” launched, resulting in 12,305 trials thus far, and the “numbers are increasing.” — Yaman Akdeniz, professor of law, Istanbul Bilgi University.

Ahmet Sever, a spokesperson for Turkey’s former president, Abdullah Gül, authored a book in which he wrote: “We [are] faced with a government or, more precisely, with one man, who considers books to be more dangerous than bombs.”

Meanwhile, as Erdoğan continues playing a double game with the West, as part of his decades-long bid to become a member of the European Union. That plan may well be why his justice minister announced in December that he would be unveiling a new strategy for judicial reform. The EU should not fall for this transparent ploy. Instead, it should be demanding that the Turkish government cease prosecuting innocent people — including those whose only “crime” is criticizing Erdoğan.

The criminalization in Turkey of “insulting the president” reached a new low in early March, when a father and daughter in Ankara accused one another of engaging in the punishable offense, as part of an internal family feud.

According to Istanbul Bilgi University professor of law, Yaman Akdeniz, since Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s 2014 election, there have been 66,691 “insult investigations” launched, resulting in 12,305 trials thus far, and the “numbers are increasing.”

Özgür Aktütün, chairman of the Sociology Alumni Association, told the independent Turkish daily BirGün that although Turkey has been “a society of informants” since the Ottoman Empire, “what is striking in recent times is the [rampant] use of [whistleblowing] on every issue.”

“Insulting the president” is a crime according to Article 299 of the Turkish Penal Code, adopted in 1926. If convicted, violators face up to four years in prison — and longer, when the insult is public.

Yet Again, Germany Horrified By Migrant Murder of Young Woman Pakistani Muslim yells “Allahu Akbar” in church chancel at victim’s memorial service. Stephen Brown

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273186/yet-again-germany-horrified-migrant-murder-young-stephen-brown

In modern-day Germany, it is an all-too-common, and tragic, love story. Girl meets migrant. Girl dates migrant. Girl argues with migrant. Migrant kills girl.

The victim this time was Cynthia, 21, a beautiful young woman and native of the cathedral city of Worms, who worked as a nurse and whose dream was to become a midwife.

“She lived for her work,” said Cynthia’s uncle after her murder in early March. “She wanted to become a mid-wife. She was happy, loved parties, cheerful.”

But Cynthia, whose last name can’t be revealed due to German law, won’t be realizing her life dream of delivering babies due to her boyfriend Ahmed, 22, a Tunisian.

Ahmed had arrived in Germany in October, 2017, and applied for asylum. He had met Cynthia only four months before he murdered her. Cynthia lived in the upper story of the family home, which she had to herself. Occasionally, Ahmed stayed overnight. Police say Cynthia was murdered in her room.

One night in early March, Cynthia and Ahmed got into an argument. The Tunisian then took a knife and stabbed Cynthia, apparently while she was lying on her bed, numerous times. She suffered 10-15 stab and cut wounds to her back, neck, hands and lung.

Ahmed gave himself up to police the next morning, confessing his guilt without providing a motive. The police then went to Cynthia’s home and indeed found her body there.

Judge Jeanine and The Paradoxes of the Post-9/11 World Our surreal march down a suicidal road. Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273214/judge-jeanine-and-paradoxes-post-911-world-bruce-bawer

Last Saturday night, one of the guests on Greg Gutfeld’s evening show on Fox News was a former Marine staff sergeant, bomb technician Johnny “Joey” Jones, who lost his legs when he stepped on an IED in Afghanistan in 2010. He brought to mind a young Jimmy Stewart: winsome, modest, good-spirited, and even able to crack jokes about his missing limbs. Watching him, I thought: here is a young man who was handicapped for life because, in the wake of 9/11, he was one of those courageous Americans who agreed to risk their lives in foreign lands fighting their nation’s enemy.

But what is that enemy? The unofficial name given to the struggle by the White House under George W. Bush – the War on Terror – avoided answering that question. So, for that matter, did the official name, Operation Enduring Freedom. From the very beginning, in fact, the exact nature of the whole enterprise was swathed in a fog of euphemism and evasion. The men who flew those planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon were devout Muslims, obeying their religion’s holy book by slaughtering infidels en masse. The Taliban leaders in Afghanistan were also devout Muslims, ruling that nation in strict accordance with sharia law. And yet days after 9/11, even as Bush was planning the Afghanistan campaign, he told the American people that “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”

In the eighteen years since, the Western political and media establishment have continued to echo that lie. Jihadists have struck Bali, Madrid, Beslan, London, Mumbai, Fort Hood, Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Orlando, Nice, Manchester, Barcelona, and New York again – just to name a few of the deadlier and more high-profile incidents. Yet, perversely, the lie about Islam is stronger than ever. Throughout the West, schoolchildren and college students alike have been fed a picture of Islam that’s pure propaganda. Yes, one has the impression that many people are more aware of the reality of Islam than they used to be – but one also has the impression that they feel more cowed than ever into keeping quiet about it.

Targeting the Electoral College Democrats tee up another constitutional norm for a rewrite.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-the-electoral-college-11553036512

Like the Supreme Court, the Electoral College sometimes frustrates the will of political majorities. That makes it an easy target in this populist age. But while “majority rules” has always been an appealing slogan, it’s an insufficient principle for structuring an electoral system in the U.S.

Presidential elections often do not produce popular majorities. In 2016 neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump won 50%. “Plurality rules” doesn’t have the same ring to it. In the absence of the Electoral College, the winner’s vote share would likely be significantly smaller than is common today. Third-party candidates who can’t realistically win a majority in any state would have a greater incentive to enter the race.

Like the Supreme Court, the Electoral College sometimes frustrates the will of political majorities. That makes it an easy target in this populist age. But while “majority rules” has always been an appealing slogan, it’s an insufficient principle for structuring an electoral system in the U.S.

Presidential elections often do not produce popular majorities. In 2016 neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump won 50%. “Plurality rules” doesn’t have the same ring to it. In the absence of the Electoral College, the winner’s vote share would likely be significantly smaller than is common today. Third-party candidates who can’t realistically win a majority in any state would have a greater incentive to enter the race.

New York prosecutors throw out Constitution to charge Manafort By Jonathan Turley,

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/434711-new-york-prosecutors-throw-out-constitution-to-charge-manafort

This month, the greatest off Broadway production should be titled “The Prosecutors,” starring Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and New York Attorney General Letitia James. As in another dramatic comedy, “The Producers,” the state case against former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort seems designed to fail, leaving its prosecutors with the convenient windfall of public support and none of the burden.

The New York state charges that Vance filed against Manafort appear to run afoul of state and federal protections against double jeopardy, or being prosecuted twice for the same underlying conduct. The timing of the charges alone seemed right out of the playbook of “The Producers” character Max Bialystock, the corrupt Broadway figure who insisted that in New York the rule is “if you got it, flaunt it, flaunt it.” Accordingly, Vance waited just minutes after the Manafort sentencing to hit him with state charges, guaranteeing the maximum exposure and credit for his effort.

The problem is that the case appears not only constitutionally flawed but ethically challenged, coming right out of the Max Bialystock School of Prosecution. I have long been one of the longest and loudest critics of Manafort. He is a corrupt and despicable person who deserves the two sentences that could keep him in jail for the rest of his life. However, it is not his crimes but his association with President Trump that has driven the manic effort to charge him in New York. In this current age of rage over Trump, Manafort is a readily available surrogate for selective prosecution.

New Zealand: the barbarism of identity politics The relentless reduction of people to cultural beings is unleashing terrible conflict. Brendan O’Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/15/new-zealand-the-barbarism-of-identity-politics/
EXCERPT

As we offer our solidarity, we also want to try to understand why things like this happen. Understandably, there has been a rush to locate this barbaric act within a broader political framework. Sadly, this has given rise to a speedy and ghoulish exploitation of the atrocity to make political mileage. Already observers are pinning the blame on certain right-wing commentators, or on the Western media more broadly, claiming that criticism of Muslim immigration or of Islam generates this kind of violent hatred. Already some are calling for clampdowns on Islamophobia and for the expunging from the internet of certain hard-right voices. It will strike many of us, especially those of us who are humanists, as perverse and disturbing that people would so swiftly use a bloody act to further their own narrow agendas of social control and censorship; that they would use a massacre almost as an exclamation point to their already existing demands for the demonisation and punishment of particular opinions. It is cynical and inhuman.

Furthermore, it feels wrong. To fold this barbarism into a narrative about a surging threat of white supremacy or even Islamophobia overlooks what feels terrifyingly mainstream about the ideas that appear to have energised and inspired this racist mass murderer – namely, the politics of identity. To read the killer’s alleged manifesto, as currently being covered by CNN, the New York Times and others, is to gain a horrible glimpse into the cultural fragmentation and racial paranoia unleashed by the relentless rise of identitarianism.

Increasingly, it feels like the New Zealand atrocity is what happens when the politics of identity, the reduction of everyone to cultural or racial creatures whose relationship with other cultural and racial cultures must be monitored and managed, comes to be the only game in public life.