Category Archives: thought crime

California demorat calls for expansion of red flag laws: Employers, co-workers & teachers can petition to take away your guns

California Assemblymember Phil Ting tweeted about his excitement to remove due process for law-abiding citizens, all in the name of “gun safety.”

From his tweet: “My bill, #AB61, which improves gun safety by expanding CA’s #RedFlagLaw, heads to the Gov! If signed, more people can access a court process that temporarily takes away someone’s firearms if they pose a danger. I called for better gun laws at an SF rally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ18vDie_70 …”

What #AB61 allows is for employers, co-workers and teachers to petition judges to take away guns from people who are deemed a danger to themselves or others. The bill Ting has proposed had cleared the California Senate.

More details from 13NewsNow.com:

“California enacted a so-called “red flag law” that took effect in 2016. But it only allows law enforcement and immediate family members to ask judges for gun restraining orders. Assembly Bill 61 by Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco would expand that law.

Ting introduced the bill in response to a November 2018 mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, California, where 12 people were killed. The gunman, Ian David Long, had shown signs of instability to family and friends.

Groups advocating gun rights and civil liberties oppose the bill, which still must be approved by the state Assembly.”

The Thousand Oaks shooter legally obtained his firearm yet had various “interactions” with police and possibly PTSD. In April, a mental health specialist with the crisis team met with the shooter during a previous incident and felt he might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. But after speaking with him, they decided not to detain him under laws that allow for the temporary detention of people with psychiatric issues. So law enforcement had the means to remove his guns but they chose not to.

The summary of the bill states the following:

“Expands the category of persons that may file a petition requesting a court to issue an ex parte temporary gun violence restraining order (GVRO), a one year GVRO, or a renewal of a GVRO, to include an employer, a coworker who has substantial and regular interactions with the subject of the petition for at least one year and has obtained the approval of the employer, and an employee or teacher of a secondary school, or postsecondary school the subject has attended in the last six months and has the approval of the school administration staff.”

Read the whole bill here.

Photo from YAF

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Survey finds 3-of-10 managers won’t hire pro-Trump workers

In the United States, we have federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, harassment, and unfair treatment in the workplace by anyone because of race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, transgender status, and sexual orientation), pregnancy, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, and genetic information.

Absent from the above protected categories, however, is political party identification or orientation, which means it is still legal to discriminate against a job applicant because of his/her politics.

Airtasker is an online platform that “connects people who need to outsource tasks and find local services, with people who are looking to earn money and ready to work.” Tasks can range from simple to complicated, such as home cleaning, handyman jobs, admin work, photography, graphic design or build a website.

Airtasker recently surveyed more than 1,000 people in the United States about the hiring process, layoffs, co-worker gossip, and workplace discussions to find out “what’s really going on inside offices across the country regarding discrimination”. Those surveyed include:

  • 204 “people with hiring responsibilities”
  • 805 employees

51% of respondents identified with slightly left, left, and very left political views; 32% identified with slightly right, right, and very right political views; and 16% identified with neither left nor right political views.

The survey has a 3% margin of error for employee statistics, and a 7% margin of error for individuals with hiring responsibilities.

The survey found that:

  • 38% of hiring managers said it was important to know a job applicant’s stance on immigration — which is a political issue.
  • 32% of hiring managers said it was important to know a job applicant’s stance on politics.
  • 18% of hiring managers reported not hiring someone because of their politics.
  • 16% of hiring managers reported not hiring someone because of their stance on immigration.

Since immigration is a political issue, that means more than one out of three (34%) hiring managers said they had not hired someone solely because of the applicant’s politics.

Airtasker points out:

Even if those people had been hired instead of passed over, it’s important to understand that a U.S.-based company can still terminate you for your political opinions.

The survey also found that more than two-thirds (69%) of hiring managers said they combed a potential employee’s social media before making a final decision. Facebook was the most frequently consulted site (91%), followed by Instagram (62%) and a near tie between Twitter and LinkedIn (56% and 55%, respectively).

51% of hiring managers who leaned left and another 57% who leaned right said they would not hire a qualified candidate if they expressed a strong opinion on social media about a controversial political issue.

Moreover, the survey found that even if hiring managers did not discriminate against an applicant because of his/her political beliefs, the employee nevertheless may experience discrimination by other workers:

  • 42% of employees in the survey said they had discussed their co-workers’ “political views”; 25% said they had discussed their co-workers’ stances on immigration.
  • Since immigration is a political issue, that means a whopping 67% of employees said they had discussed their co-workers’ politics.
  • It is no wonder then that some employees feel they’re treated negatively by their co-workers because of their politics:
  • 14% said they’re treated negatively because of their “political views”; 7% said they’re treated negatively because of their stances on immigration.
  • Since immigration is a political issue, that means 21% of employees in the survey reported they’re treated negatively by their co-workers because of their politics.

The Airtasker survey then narrowed down politics specifically to being pro-Trump, and found that:

  • 3-of-10 (29%) of hiring managers said they would not hire a job candidate who supports President Trump. Of these hiring managers:
    • 20% of managers who identify as “left” said they wouldn’t hire a person who supports Trump.
    • 9% of managers who identify as “right” said they wouldn’t hire a person who supports Trump.
  • Even if they were hired, pro-Trump employees experienced the following from their co-workers:
    • 28% experienced “joking about them”.
    • 23% felt their co-workers are “overly critical of them”.
    • 23% said their co-workers “make assumptions about their character”.
    • 21% said their co-workers are “dismissive of them”.
    • 14% said their co-workers gossip/spread rumors about them.
    • 13% said they are socially ostracized — “excluding them from social situations”.
    • 11% said they experienced “name-calling”.

H/t Washington Examiner

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

NeoMcCarthyism: University of California has a new ‘diversity’ political test for faculty hires and promotion

In 1950, the California Legislature created a McCarthyite Committee on Un-American Activities and enacted the Levering Act, requiring all state employees to sign “loyalty oaths” but specifically aimed at the University of California’s faculty. 31 tenured professors were fired for refusing to sign it.

In 1967, California’s Supreme Court voted 6-1 declaring the Levering Act to be unconstitutional.

Fast forward 52 years.

Now it is the Left who are engaged in the same McCarthyism that they decry. The unconstitutional Levering Act has returned in a new University of California (UC) policy requiring new faculty hires as well as applicants for promotion to pass a political test of the Left.

Dan Walters writes in CalMatters.org, July 30, 2019, that although UC’s Board of Regents officially declares that “No political test shall ever be considered in the appointment and promotion of any faculty member or employee,” a new UC policy is doing exactly that.

As part of its “commitment to diversity and excellence,” UC’s administrators are telling recruiters for faculty positions to take “pro-active steps to seek out candidates committed to diversity, equity and inclusion.” Applicants for new faculty employment and promotions must submit “diversity statements” that will be scored “with rubrics provided by Academic Affairs”. Only applicants who achieve a scoring cutoff will be be considered.

To illustrate, the academic affairs department at UC-Davis says that diversity statements from tenure-track faculty applicants should have “an accomplished track record…of teaching, research or service activities addressing the needs of African-American, Latino, Chicano, Hispanic and Native American students or communities.” Their statements must “indicate awareness” of those communities and “the negative consequences of underutilization” and “provide a clearly articulated vision” of how their work at UC-Davis would advance diversity policies.

Jeffrey Flier, former director of the Harvard Medical School, is among the respected academics who see the inherent contradictions and perils in UC’s new political litmus test. Flier wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

As a supporter of the original goals of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, my skepticism toward this policy surprised a number of friends and colleagues. But it is entirely inappropriate to require diversity statements in the process of appointment and promotion. Such requirements risk introducing a political litmus test into faculty hiring and reviews.

It’s not unreasonable to be concerned that politically influenced attestations might begin to re-emerge in the current hyperpartisan political environment, either in response to politically driven demands for faculty to support populist or nationalist ideas, or from within the increasingly polarized academy itself. Since progressive/left identifications are dominant in the academy, especially in the humanities and social sciences (as well as in administration), politically influenced litmus tests could easily arise in that sphere.

Ironically, given its already overwhelmingly liberal faculty, University of California’s new “diversity” litmus test would only make the faculty even less ideologically diverse and more totalitarian.

H/t California Political Review

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

“Manholes” out at Berkeley; must now be called “maintenance holes”

From SF Gate: At a Tuesday night city council meeting, Berkeley became the first city in America to ban the use of natural gas piping in new construction. But that was not the only utility-related issue they saw fit to attend to. No, there was another matter on deck: Eliminating the gendered connotations of words like “manhole” in the city municipal code.

No longer will the streets of fair Berkeley be dotted with manholes, nary a womanhole or nonbinaryhole in sight. With Tuesday night’s vote, they have all been transmuted into “maintenance holes,” that highest, hardest glass manhole-cover finally shattered.

The item, originally on the council agenda for March 12, was sponsored by councilmembers Rigel Robinson, Cheryl Davila, Ben Bartlett and Lori Droste, reports Berkeleyside. The ordinance eliminates all gendered pronouns from the city code, replacing “she” and “he” with “they.”

“Manpower” will be referred to as “human effort,” and “man-made” objects will be described with terms like “human-made,” “artificial,” “manufactured,” “machine made” or “synthetic.”

Gendered professional terms like “fireman,” “firewoman” and “craftsman” will be swapped out for gender-neutral substitutes like “firefighter” and “craftspeople.” “Heirs” will become “beneficiaries,” a “sportsman” is now a “hunter,” and an “ombudsman” is now just an “ombuds.” The estimated cost of the revisions is a modest $600.

It was approved Tuesday night as a consent item without council discussion or public comment, Berkeleyside’s Emilie Raguso reported.

When King County, Wash. enacted a similar measure last year, some on Twitter were left wistful for the halcyon days when manholes were manholes; Many others were indifferent. “I gotta say as a female engineer in Seattle,” one woman wrote, “I really don’t give a crap what you call a utility access point.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

UK Christian doctor lost his job after refusing to identify a six-foot-tall bearded man as “madam”

The good doctor fired for his religious beliefs

From The Telegraph: A Christian doctor lost his job in a government department after he refused to refer to “a six-foot-tall bearded man” as ‘madam’, a tribunal heard.

Dr. David Mackereth, 56, claims he was sacked as a disability benefits assessor by the Department of Work and Pensions over his religious beliefs.

The father-of-four alleges he was asked in a conversation with a line manager: “If you have a man six foot tall with a beard who says he wants to be addressed as ‘she’ and ‘Mrs.’, would you do that?”

Dr. Mackereth, an evangelist who now works as an emergency doctor in Shropshire, claims his contract was then terminated over his refusal to use transgendered pronouns.

He argues that he was dismissed “not because of any realistic concerns over the rights and sensitivities of transgender individuals, but because of my refusal to make an abstract ideological pledge”.

The doctor is now suing the government at an employment tribunal for discrimination on the grounds of his religious belief.

A hearing in Birmingham was told how Dr. Mackereth believes transgenderism is a “delusional belief” and an ideology “which I disbelieve and detest”.

In a statement admitted into evidence, he told the court: “If you believe in gender fluidity, gender is no more than one’s own fantasy about oneself.”

The trained theologian and “unashamed” Christian, who has 30 years’ medical experience, secured a job as a Health and Disability Assessor at Birmingham’s Fiveways assessment centre in May 2018.

He told the tribunal he was suspended the following month after being “interrogated” by his boss, James Owen, for refusing to “call any six-foot-tall bearded man ‘madam’ on his whim”. The medic claims he was told he was “overwhelmingly likely” to lose his job unless he agreed.

Dr. Mackereth left his role on June 25, 2018, after an email exchange with Mr. Owen in which he was instructed to follow the “process as discussed in your training”.

The email read: “If however you do not want to do this, we will respect your decision and your right to leave your contract.” Dr Mackereth replied: “I am a Christian and in good conscience cannot do what the DWP is requiring of me.”

He insists he did not resign his position and is the victim of direct discrimination and harassment.

Dr. Mackereth told the hearing: “The very fact a doctor can be pulled of the shop floor for an urgent interrogation about his beliefs on gender fluidity is both absurd and very sinister, even more so if it results in a dismissal.

“If something like that happened in a church setting – people being pulled out of a pew, questioned, and then excommunicated – that would be seen as an outrageous example of religious intolerance and bigotry.”

The DWP argues that Dr. Mackereth’s views are in breach of the 2010 Equality Act. APM, the recruitment company who hired the medic, is also being sued for religious discrimination.

The company claims that the doctor’s beliefs “are not compatible with human dignity”.

In a statement put before the court, Dr. Mackereth said: “I appreciate that in the present political climate, some people, including some of those who believe they are transgender, may find my beliefs to be offensive.

“However, in a free society, this is not a good enough reason to censor my beliefs and coerce me to act contrary to my conscience. Moreover, as a doctor, my responsibility is always to act in good conscience in the best interest of the patients – not to adopt various fancies, prejudices, or delusions, to avoid offence at all cost.”

Dr. Mackereth added that his inherent belief is that transgenderism is a “rebellion against God, which is both pointless and sinful”.

He said: “I am, of course, aware that there are men or women who believe they have been trapped in a wrong body, and I do not question the sincerity of their convictions. “A small number of such people have always existed. Up until recently, such a belief was considered by medics to be delusional and a symptom of a medical disorder.

“It is only recently that transgenderism has been recognised as normal and such delusional beliefs accepted at face value. What is responsible for that change is political pressure, not scientific evidence.

The legal case, which is listed until next week, is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre.
Chief executive Andrea Williams described Dr. Mackereth as “a Christian hero who chose to sacrifice his distinguished professional career rather than compromise on the Bible and his conscience”.

The hearing continues.

h/t Moonbattery

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Alleged anti-Semitism: Cartoonist Ben Garrison disinvited from White House Social Media Summit; high school principal fired for refusing to state Holocaust really happened

Holocaust denial, the denial of the genocidal killing of approximately six million Jews in Europe by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, is illegal in Israel and 16 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain).

Here in the United States, notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, “anti-Semitism” is not just politically incorrect and verboten, the trend is towards banning and criminalizing “anti-Semitism” and Holocaust denial altogether:

  • A bill (HR 1697) in Congress seeks to make it a felony to support any anti-Israel boycott.
  • On May 29, 2019, in Jerusalem, Israel, Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill, HB 741, into law banning “anti-Semitism” in Florida’s public schools — the first bill in Florida history signed on foreign soil.

Below are two recent cases of alleged “anti-Semitism”.

(1) Political cartoonist Ben Garrison

Tomorrow, July 11, the Trump administration will host a Social Media Summit  on the “opportunities and challenges of today’s online environment,” in the words of White House spokesperson Judd Deere.

Deere made the announcement on June 26, the same day President Trump said the federal government should file lawsuits against some of the tech giants. Trump has accused Google, Facebook and Twitter of being biased against him and other conservatives. (Politico)

Brilliant political cartoonist Ben Garrison was first invited to the Social Media Summit, then the invitation was rescinded because of complaints from the Anti-Defamation League that Garrison is “anti-Semitic”.

This is his statement:

(2) Florida high school principal William Latson

Meanwhile, a high school principal in Florida was fired for refusing to state that the Holocaust of six million Jews in WWII was a factual, historical event.

Sarah Mervosh reports for the New York Times that in April 2018, William Latson, the principal of Spanish River Community High School in Boca Raton, Fla., wrote in an email exchange with an unidentified parent that “Not everyone believes the Holocaust happened,” amd that he had to stay “politically neutral”. He said that the school offered an assembly and courses on the Holocaust, but that they were optional and could not be “forced upon” all students.

Making a distinction between his personal beliefs about the Holocaust and his role as the principal of a public school, Latson wrote: “I can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee. I do allow information about the Holocaust to be presented and allow students and parents to make decisions about it accordingly. I do the same with information about slavery.”

The emails were recently obtained and published by The Palm Beach Post, which led to an intense backlash in South Florida — an area with a third of the population being Jewish.

Thousands signed an online petition calling for Latson’s resignation. On July 1, the Palm Beach County school district announced that he would be stripped of his position as principal and reassigned to another job in the district.

In its statement, the school district said Latson had made “a grave error in judgment” in refusing to state the Holocaust as fact. Latson was counseled by district officials in a series of meetings, and spent several days at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to increase his awareness. Latson apologized in a statement to The Palm Beach Post: “I regret that the verbiage that I used when responding to an email message from a parent, one year ago, did not accurately reflect my professional and personal commitment to educating all students about the atrocities of the Holocaust.”

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Teacher kicks student from class for saying there are only two genders

“O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended. ‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’ ‘And if the party says that it is not four but five — then how many?'” – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

On June 14, 2019, someone on Reddit posted a link, since deleted, to a video on YouTube, with this claim: “My teacher kicked me out of class for saying there are only 2 genders“. Fortunately, I’d saved the link to the video before the Reddit poster deleted it.

The video appears to have been taken by the student of his private meeting with the teacher after the teacher had kicked the student out of the class for insisting that there are only two genders, male and female.

The video shows a visual of the teacher looming over the seated student. You can hear the back-and-forth argument between the two.

The video begins with the teacher responding to the student: “You’re entitled to your opinion…. It’s not very inclusive…. I’m sorry, but what you were saying was not very inclusive and this is an inclusive school.”

The student apparently had defended himself by saying he got it from a website.

Teacher: “I’m saying that website has an agenda.”

Student: “Well, that’s your opinion.”

Teacher: “That is my opinion and that is an opinion which is acceptable in the school….”

Student: “There are just two genders.”

Teacher: “You are choosing to make an issue of this…. Keep quiet! …You were clearly given an opportunity not to pursue it. You choose to do so.”

Student: “Yeah, because I think it’s –”

Teacher: “You choose to do so.”

Student: “I think it’s silly to have anything other than two genders –”

Teacher, raising his voice: “Please keep that opinion to your own house, thank you.”

Student: “So you get to put your opinion out in the classroom….”

Teacher: “I’m not putting my opinion out. I am stating what is national school authority policy. Okay?”

Student: “Of course it’s not scientic whatsoever.”

Teacher: “Not every policy is scientific, sorry. Not every policy is scientific, buddy.” The teacher again points out that the student wasn’t being “inclusive”.

Student: “You can’t come out here and say that I’m not being inclusive.”

Teacher: “I said what you just said [was not inclusive]….”

Student says, as the teacher turns away: “If you want to have a discussion about it, we could have done it — had a discussion. You don’t have to kick me out of class…. I state something I believe in and you kicked me out of class. For 30 minutes I’m waiting….”

Teacher: “You can make an official complaint.”

Student: “I’m not gonna make an official complaint….”

Teacher: “I know what you think and I know what the authority thinks, the authority’s point of view. I know very clear that we make no discrimination on the grounds of gender….”

Student: “I wasn’t making a discrimination, I’m simply saying there are two genders, male and female. Anything else is a personal identification.”

Teacher: “I’m sorry, but you chose to make an issue of making a point which is contrary to policy.”

Student: “You made the issue when you complained about the website, sir. And I responded by saying there are only two genders.”

Teacher: “Yeah, you can choose, but you’re making bad choices.”

Student says, as the teacher walks out of the room: “I’m making bad choices. Okay. Well, can I take my bag and go to the…. Okay, I’ll stay here. Thanks for wasting my time.”

The teacher turns back to say: “Buddy, I am not wasting my time, you are.”


No one knows where the video was taken. The teacher has a strong Scottish accent; the student also has one, though much less pronounced.

Assuming the school is in Scotland, when the teacher refers to “national school authority policy,” he probably means this — on May 8, 2019, the Scottish government issued the letter, “LGBT inclusive education: guidance to education authorities May 2019“. The letter says:

On 8 November 2018, Scottish Ministers accepted in full the recommendations of the LGBTI Inclusive Education Working Group. The 33 recommendations cover the professional learning of teachers, practice and guidance, school inspections and anti-bullying….

The Scottish Government, in partnership with COSLA, is committed, through the delivery of the recommendations, to a fully inclusive education for Scotland’s children and young people. Many of you will already be taking steps to achieve this aim. We are issuing this intermediate guidance note to help you build upon existing good practice, make clear that education should be LGBT inclusive and encourage you to work collegiately and in partnership with your learners to enhance LGBT inclusivity….

Signed:

John Swinney, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills
Stephen McCabe, COSLA Children and Young People spokesperson

WTF does “education should be LGBT inclusive” mean? Does it mean acceding to every lunatic idea of the Left?

Someone on Twitter says the school in the video is Mearns Academy, a 6-year secondary (high) school in Laurencekirk, Aberdeenshire, Scotland. On its website is an emblem certifying the school as a “rights respecting school”:

By “rights” is meant the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child  (UNCRC). Among the “rights” stipulated in the UNCRC are the “right” of non-discrimination on the basis of gender, but also the “rights” of freedom of expression, and freedom of thought and belief.

Clearly, the school in the video and all schools in Scotland do not include a respect for students’ right to freedom of thought, belief and expression among its “national school authority policy”.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Smash the Church and the Gospel spreads quicker

The demons that empowered the Bolsheviks still have one objective: Hurt the Lord by hurting His people


Newsweek: CHINA DEMOLISHES ANOTHER CHURCH, SPARKING FEARS OF CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHRISTIANITY

by Christina Zhao – 01/11/2018

“The Golden Lampstand, a well-known Evangelical megachurch in the city of Linfen, Shanxi province, was dramatically demolished with explosives on Tuesday…”

“Last December, the only Catholic Church in Zhifang, a village near Shaanxi, was destroyed for no apparent reason, 20 years after it opened…”

Read article at https://www.newsweek.com/china-demolishes-another-church-sparking-fears-campaign-against-christianity-777931


As cunning as the devil’s minions are, they are too self deceived to learn that this tactic fails every time

  • Jesus crucified – Result: a new and better Covenant
  • Jerusalem Church crushed – Result: gospel spreads through all Judea and Samaria
  • Jews oppress Paul –  Result: Paul spreads gospel to Rome

Moving forward we see the same principle

China strikes the church, thinking this will break them. Real result, Christians meet quietly in very small numbers, and many more are converted. Why? Because the message spreads much better in quiet earnest conversations and prayers than in big meetings. People aren’t dazzled into the kingdom by massive meetings, they are loved into the family God one at a time.

We see the same devils attempting to move into position the crush the church in America

The LGBT movement is trying to make it a crime to use the wrong gender pronoun. They are still trying to set up bakers in positions where they end up crossing the law when their conscience forbids working for gay weddings.

And the satanic principalities of the Bolsheviks 100 years ago are plainly at work in AOC and Bernie Sanders today, with the same genocidal intent.

And let’s not even waste time on the subject of Fake News.

Last night my dreams troubled me 

As I searched my thoughts for help I remembered a scripture that has brought me peace on many dark nights during the past 40+ years of my christian walk, and it worked for me this morning.

Romans 8:35-38 answers these threats with comfort and encouragement: 

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:

‘For your sake we face death all day long; 
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ 

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,  neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

PEACE

~ TD

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Coming to America: Canadian man fined $55,000 for misgendering a ‘transgender’

Yesterday, our Grif published an important post, “Democrats file legislation to force all Americans to accept the LGBTQ agenda,” on a bill in the House, H.R. 5: Equality Act, introduced by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes under federal civil rights law.

If the so-called Equality Act becomes law, it would impact essentially every part of American life. Everyday Americans, especially Christians, would be penalized for not conforming to the Left’s LGBT dicta and agenda, including:

  • Employers and workers must conform to new sexual norms or else lose their businesses and jobs.
  • Hospitals and insurers must provide and pay for “transgender”  therapies and surgeries against their moral or medical objections.
  • Parents would be forced to provide sexual reassignment treatments for their children who are confused about their sexual identity.
  • Religious (read: Christian) institutions would be forced to provide adoptions to permit same sex couples to adopt children.

Canada is already doing that — penalizing anyone who doesn’t conform to the LGBT dicta.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is a quasi-judicial human rights body in British Columbia (BC), Canada. It was established under the British Columbia Human Rights Code and is responsible for “accepting, screening, mediating and adjudicating human rights complaints.”

The Tribunal is comprised of three members: Diana Juricevic, Norman Trerise and Devyn Cousineau.

On March 27, 2019, the BC Human Rights Tribunal fined Christian activist William Whatcott $55,000 CAD (US $41,298) for violating Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code by misgendering Morgane Oger (birth name Ronan Oger), a male-to-female “transgender” and a 2017 New Democratic Party candidate, calling Oger a biological male (which is what he is) in street flyers and on the Internet.

In the Tribunal’s 105-page ruling, authored by Devyn Cousineau, Oger — a biological male — is referred to as “Ms.,” “she” and “her”.

The Tribunal says:

Mr. Whatcott created a flyer entitled “Transgenderism vs. Truth in Vancouver‐False Creek” [Flyer]. In it, he called Ms. Oger a “biological male who has renamed himself… after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle”. He expressed a concern “about the promotion and growth of homosexuality and transvestitism in British Columbia and how it is obscuring the immutable truth about our God given gender”. He described being transgender as an “impossibility”, which exposes people to harm and constitutes a sin….

When Ms. Oger and her team learned of the Flyer, they had to formulate a response during their election campaign. Ms. Oger went to the police, who advised her of safety protocols. She warned her children to be wary of strangers. She describes the effect of the Flyer as destabilizing, terrifying, and searing. Ultimately, Ms. Oger was not elected in her [False Creek] riding [or electoral district].

After the election was over, Ms. Oger filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal [Tribunal], alleging that the Flyer violated ss. 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Human Rights Code [Code]. Those sections prohibit publication of any statement that “indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate” (s. 7(1)(a)), or “is likely to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt” (s. 7(1)(b)). In response, Mr. Whatcott denies that the Flyer violates s. 7 and says that in any event his rights to freedom of speech and religion guarantee his right to distribute it. He says those freedoms are especially important during an election campaign….

In his constitutional argument, Mr. Whatcott argues that the “effect of the BC Human Rights Commission’s decision to proceed to the hearing stage in this case amounts to oppressive government action that violates the respondent’s s. 2, 15 and s.27 of the charter rights….

I can find no merit in Mr. Whatcott’s argument. The Tribunal is a creature of statute. It is bound to enforce and implement the Code, and the means by which it does this is to accept and adjudicate human rights complaints. In this decision, I have found that Ms. Oger has established a violation of s. 7 of the Code. A significant part of my analysis has entailed balancing Mr. Whatcott’s religious rights under the Charter and thus accounting for his religious freedoms. In Saguenay, the Court recognized that the application of human rights legislation may impose reasonable and justifiable limits on freedom of religion: paras. 89‐90….

Mr. Whatcott’s argument, if accepted, would require the Tribunal to reject any complaint for filing if it could impact on a person’s religious beliefs. Not only would this amount to an improper abdication of jurisdiction, but it would itself be an act of preferring one religious belief over another. “True neutrality” requires the Tribunal to abstain from such positions and rather adjudicate each complaint on its merits, weighing religious rights where appropriate: Sageunay at para. 134. That is precisely what it has done in this case.

This argument is dismissed.

I have found that Mr. Whatcott violated s. 7 of the Code. I declare that his conduct in publishing the Flyers was discrimination contrary to the Code and order him to cease the contravention and refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention: Code, s. 37(2)(a) and (b).

Ms. Oger seeks an award to compensate her for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self‐respect: Code, s. 37(2)(d)(iii). She argues that, given the nature of the discrimination in this case, the fact that it is ongoing, and that it had a serious impact on a vulnerable person, an award of $35,000 is appropriate. Mr. Whatcott opposes the award and argues it is unduly punitive….

I accept that the impact on Ms. Oger was serious….

More importantly, though, the Flyer and its potential ramifications terrified Ms. Oger….

Given the high levels of violence and hatred that are still perpetrated against transwomen in our society, it was not unreasonable for Ms. Oger to fear a violent outcome from this Flyer, even though – as Mr. Whatcott, JCCF, and CAFE repeatedly argued – there was no express call to violence within the Flyer itself. As Ms. Oger explained, it was not necessarily Mr. Whatcott she had to worry about, but the person who might be emboldened by the Flyer to act on their own hatred for transwomen….

By using her birth name, Ronan, Mr. Whatcott further caused Ms. Oger to feel hurt and angry….

I accept that the injury to Ms. Oger’s feelings, dignity and self‐respect was severe, and that the effects are ongoing. The circumstances warrant a higher award than in previous cases arising out of s. 7….

I find that an award of $35,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self‐respect [plus $20,000 in costs incurred by Oger] is appropriate….

In my view, the severity of Mr. Whatcott’s conduct, the fact that it was intentional and flagrant and persisted for the entire duration of the complaint, and the possible deterrent effect it could have on other transgender complainants seeking recourse at this Tribunal, mean that a high award is warranted in this case….

H/t FOTM reader-commenter William and Mass Resistance

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

MAGA hate crime: California woman abuses elderly man for MAGA hat; is fired

On Monday, April 1, 2019, at a Starbucks coffee shop on California Ave. in Palo Alto, California — home to Stanford University — a woman with Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) went berserk at a 74-year-old man because he was wearing a MAGA (Make America Great Again) hat.

The woman, Rebecca Mankey, repeatedly screamed at and publicly shamed the elderly man.

The victim, Victor, who wants his last name withheld, tells KTVU Fox2:

“This woman came over and not only started screaming at me, she turned to the Starbucks audience and said, ‘Hey everybody come here! This guy’s a racist! This guy hates brown people!’”

The Daily Mail reports that Victor said the woman also called him a Nazi, which is ironic because Victor is Jewish and was wearing a yarmulke under his MAGA hat.

The woman, Rebecca Mankey, took a picture of Victor inside Starbucks and posted it to her Facebook page (which is now deactivated), with a tirade, calling on others to confront Victor if they see him.

Mankey was employed as an office manager at Gryphon Strings, a guitar sales and repair shop.

Store owner Richard Johnson, who has been a friend of Mankey since grade school, saw Mankey’s Facebook post and promptly fired her. In a statement, Johnson said:

Gryphon does not believe anyone should be harassed or subject to hate speech no matter their beliefs. Music has historically been something that has brought people of diverse socio-political backgrounds together. We would like to make it clear that the opinions expressed and actions taken by the employee are not indicative of how we conduct ourselves at the shop and we hope we can continue to serve our customers across the country respectfully and universally as we have done for nearly 50 years. We’ve always felt that Gryphon was the equivalent of kind of a musical town square for the community. And we welcome people of all views.

According to KTVU, Mankey’s defenders blamed Victor’s MAGA hat as the ignition source for the conflict. Palo Alto police say Victor has not contacted them about what happened and therefore, they don’t have proof of a crime. Mankey did contact the police department, alleging she’s received threats because of her social media posts.

Mankey should be charged with hate crime and elder abuse.

Rebecca Anahid Mankey, aka Rebecca Parker and Parker Mankey, 46, lives in Palo Alto (as she herself said). She has a B.S. degree from San Jose State University, and some graduate training in accounting. Although she is a public bully, she has taken down all her social media accounts (Facebook, LinkedIn, Flickr).

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0