Category Archives: thought crime

Democrats kill amendment to bill which would prevent credit discrimination based on politics or religion

Frances Martel reports for Breitbart, that on Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2020, Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against an amendment to a proposed bill that would prevent the powerful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from forcing private credit scoring companies to evaluate Americans based on political opinions or religious beliefs — to “make use of information related to political opinions, religious expression, or other expression protected by the First Amendment, whether obtained from a social media account of a consumer or other sources.”

The amendment would have been tacked onto Rep. Ayanna Pressley’s (D-MA) Student Borrower Credit Improvement Act, or Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020.

House Democrats rejected the amendment with 208 votes. Only 15 Democrats voted in favor of the free speech protections. Some, like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), took the pusillanimous non-committal way by abstaining.

Republicans warn that without such an amendment, the powerful CFPB would have the legal authority to make nearly any criteria mandatory for a private credit evaluation company to take into consideration, paving the way for a system in which the federal government has the power to assign numerical scores to individuals like Communist China’s social credit system, based on their loyalty to a certain political party, membership in civil society groups that the government approves or disapproves of, or other private behaviors.

In a statement following the House vote, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) warned that if the Senate also passes the bill (Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020) without the amendment, the CFPB would now have the power to use any aspect of a person’s life to change their credit score, with significant potential for abuse. McCarthy said:

“In keeping with their theme of handing over more control to the government, Democrats now support giving the CFPB unchecked authority on credit score modeling, without any built-in measure to stop potential abuse of power or violation of our Constitutional rights. There is a terrifying parallel to the practices of China’s communist regime, which seeks to control the actions of their population with a social credit score. This kind of oppressive practice is antithetical to American freedoms and ideals.”

China’s new “social credit system” bans citizens from key social services like public transportation if they lose too many points behaving in a way disapproved by the Communist Party. China has begun exporting this system, along with its surveillance technology, to countries in the Western Hemisphere like Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

See “Totalitarianism: China will keep ‘social credit’ score on each citizen for reward/punishment

Democratic 2020 presidential candidates have posited a point system like China’s “social credit” for evaluating good citizenship. Andrew Yang calls his “modern time banking”. He said on his website: “Volunteer activity and community engagement would be tracked by an app and seeded, initially, by the government. After that, local administrators would oversee the program.”

Created in 2011 to protect Americans from economic malfeasance in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) supposedly is responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. Designed by Sen. Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren (D-MA), CFPB’s jurisdiction is vast in scope, including banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors and other financial companies.

Though an agency of the executive branch of the federal government, CFPB does not answer to the President, making it unaccountable to anyone but its director, 45-year-old Kathy Kraninger — a Republican and a Trump administration appointee. The President of the United States has only limited oversight over CFPB through a narrow list of reasons to remove a director.

CFPB has faced repeated accusations of abuse of power, particularly under its founding director Richard Cordray, an Obama appointee. In perhaps the most absurd example of overreach, the CFPB attempted in 2015 to punish a land development company for not maintaining roads in Tennessee at the standard the Bureau deemed appropriate.

The constitutionality of giving an unelected body such as the CFPB the power to impose its demands on private individuals and corporations has been the subject of extensive debate and unsuccessful lawsuits. Last October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the CFPB.

On the same day as the House Democrats’ defeat of the free speech-protecting amendment, Elizabeth Warren launched a campaign against “disinformation,” a word the Chinese Communist Party often uses to censor speech. She tweeted:

Anyone who seeks to challenge and defeat Donald Trump must be prepared to take on the full array of disinformation that foreign actors and people in and around his campaign will use to divide Democrats, suppress Democratic votes, and erode the standing of the Democratic nominee. Campaigns and tech companies can take a number of steps to slow the spread of misinformation right now. And as president, I’ll take a series of actions to further address the spread of disinformation.

Warren also vowed that “when” elected President, she would not only overturn everything President Trump has achieved, she would hunt down and punish Trump administration officials and functionaries.

~Eowyn

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

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

New Rasmussen Poll Predicts Violence Regardless of Trump Impeachment Outcome

 

The Daily Wire Sunday (Nov. 24) reported the results of a new Rasmussen poll that found a majority of likely voters believe violence will erupt regardless of how the impeachment of Present Trump plays out. A striking percentage of those polled believed that members the other political party “lack the traits to be considered fully human—they behave like animals.”  A smaller percentage thought members of the other political party were “downright evil.”

There is an old Chinese curse that goes something like this: 願你生活在有趣的時代 May you live in interesting times.

From DailyWire.com

By  Frank Camp

On Thursday, Rasmussen Reports released a survey showing that a majority of “likely voters” believe that removing the president from office via impeachment would “lead to violence.” Perhaps more shocking, a larger majority believe that anti-Trump individuals will “resort to violence.” The survey was conducted between November 18-19 on 1,000 “likely voters.”

Specifically, the survey asked respondents: “How concerned are you that President Trump’s impeachment and removal from office will lead to violence?” Rasmussen reports that 53% of respondents indicated that they are concerned. 24% are “very concerned.”

The survey also asked: “How concerned are you that those opposed to President Trump’s policies will resort to violence?” 59% of respondents indicated that they are concerned. 34% are “very concerned.”

Democrats don’t appear nearly as worried about opposition violence.

“While 40% of Democrats are very concerned that those opposed to Trump’s policies will resort to violence, just 18% feel that way about his supporters if the president is removed from office,” according to Rasmussen. When asked about the likelihood of a new “civil war” occurring within “the next five years,” 31% of respondents said that such a scenario is likely. 9% said it was “very likely.”

Awareness of political aggression and politically-motivated violence seems to have moved to the forefront of America’s collective consciousness.

According to a Pew Research survey conducted in April and May, 85% of respondents believe that the “nature of political debate … has become more negative in recent years.”

An October 2018 survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on “800 full-time undergraduates” found that a significant number of students believe that violence is justified as a preventative measure against “hate speech.”

According to The Wall Street Journal, the survey asked students if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.” 33% said that they “agree” with the statement.

In early-October, Nathan Kalmoe, assistant professor of political communication at Louisiana State University, tweeted out some troubling information from a YouGov survey:

“In a 2019 YouGov survey w/ @LilyMasonPhD, 70% of Reps & 56% of Dems saw the other party as “a serious threat to the United States & its people.”

55% of Reps & 44% of Dems said the other party is “not just worse for politics—they are downright evil.” 34% of Reps & 27% of Dems said the other party “lack the traits to be considered fully human—they behave like animals.”

A small but disturbing percentage of respondents indicated favorability toward “political violence,” according to Kalmoe. 55% of Reps & 44% of Dems said the other party is “not just worse for politics—they are downright evil.”

34% of Reps & 27% of Dems said the other party “lack the traits to be considered fully human—they behave like animals.”

We also asked several questions about attitudes toward political violence. Here’s one. Other items asked about threatening leaders & citizens, & support for violence if your party loses in 2020. You can see most (but not all) people rejected partisan violence today.

The survey asked: “How much do you feel it is justified for [own party] to use violence in advancing their political goals these days?”

While a strong 87.3% of respondents said “not at all,” 5.2% said “a moderate amount,” 4.7% said “a little,” 1.5% said “a great deal,” and 1.3% said “a lot.”

That means that out of all respondents, approximately 12.7% were at least a little bit comfortable with the idea of using violence as a tool of political power.

The Rasmussen survey report can be viewed here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2019/voters_fear_violence_from_trump_s_foes_more_than_his_supporters

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Triggered: Oregon high school stages walk out due to offensive language & Chick-fil-A food truck

If you are a Christian and don’t believe in homosexual marriage you WILL be punished. Punished for hurting the feelings of those who don’t feel safe with your beliefs.

In West Linn, Oregon (just south of Portland), students staged a walkout because of what they believe is damaging actions/beliefs and they just want to feel safe. They claim there’s been a rise in “transphobic” language, bullying and that a transgender student had his/her/it (I’m unsure of their preferred pronoun) car vandalized.

Then there’s another HORROR: There’s been a Chick-fil-A food cart at home football games. That will soon come to an end because yummy chicken sandwiches are triggering.

Read the whole story here or watch below.

Kids today are so fragile. Better grow up fast young ones because the REAL WORLD doesn’t offer safe spaces for your precious feelings.

DCG

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

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Twitter to ban all political advertising

Jack Dorsey, CEO of  Twitter and self-appointed censor of free political speech, announced on the eve of Satan’s holiday that ALL political advertising  on Twitter is now banned.

In addition, the ban extends t0 election advertising and political issues. Think anti-abortion, pro second amendment, and global climate change skeptics. In addition, it does not take an Einstein to figure out that this policy is aimed directly at President Trump, who uses Twitter to inform citizens of important issues that Twitter and the rest of the left wing, libtard, socialist/communist media cabal ignore.

From: The Guardian-US Edition

by Julia Carrie Wong in San Francisco

Wed 30 Oct 2019 18.19 EDT

First published on Wed 30 Oct 2019 16.05 EDT

 

Twitter will ban all political advertising, the company’s CEO has announced, in a move that will increase pressure on Facebook over its controversial stance to allow politicians to advertise false statements.

The new policy, announced via Jack Dorsey’s Twitter account on Wednesday, will come into effect on 22 November and will apply globally to all electioneering ads, as well as ads related to political issues. The timing means the ban will be in place in time for the UK snap election.

jack 🌍🌏🌎

@jack

We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…🧵

384K

4:05 PM – Oct 30, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

111K people are talking about this

Twitter had previously implemented rules and restrictions for political advertising.

The announcement comes as Facebook is embroiled in a controversy over its decision to exempt ads by politicians from third-party fact checking and from a policy that bans false statements from paid advertisements. Dorsey explained the motivations behind the change in a lengthy Twitter thread that appeared to include several references and responses to the convoluted arguments that Facebook has put forward in recent weeks.

The organic spread of political messages online “should not be compromised by money”, he wrote. The advanced state of digital advertising technology, including “machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting” and deepfakes – fake or manipulated videos that appear real – combined with the pollution of the online information ecosystem with misinformation, “present entirely new challenges to civic discourse”.

“This isn’t about free expression,” he added, in a seeming riposte to the Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent defense of online political advertising in a speech billed as a “stand for voice and free expression”. “This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.”

Dorsey tweeted another counter-argument to Facebook with an accompanying winking emoji, writing: “It’s not credible for us to say: ‘We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, but if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well…they can say whatever they want!’”

jack 🌍🌏🌎

@jack

Replying to @jack

For instance, it‘s not credible for us to say: “We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well…they can say whatever they want! 😉”

 48.6K

4:05 PM – Oct 30, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

7,398 people are talking about this

That argument appears to mock Facebook’s recent attempts to justify its decisions to exempt posts by politicians from its third-party factchecking program, and ads by politicians from a policy that bans false statements from paid advertisements.

Together, the policies have created a situation in which Facebook is simultaneously asserting its commitment to reducing misinformation while allowing incumbent politicians and political candidates to lie in paid campaign ads.

Dorsey called for “forward-looking political ad regulation”, noting that transparency requirements that have been proposed by US lawmakers are “progress but not enough.”

“The internet provides entirely new capabilities, and regulators need to think past the present day to ensure a level playing field,” he said.

Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, called Twitter’s decision “another attempt by the left to silence Trump and conservatives” while Hillary Clinton called it “the right thing to do for democracy in America and all over the world” and the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez deemed it “a good call”.

Daniel Kreiss, an associate professor of journalism and media at the University of North Carolina, argued that companies should focus on restricting the use of personal data in ad targeting rather than banning all political ads, which he said “favors incumbents and media appointed elites vis-a-vis challengers”.

J Nathan Matias, an assistant professor of communication at Cornell University, said that the ban could have a number of unintended consequences, including pushing campaigns to use more bots and “hybrid human-software coordination on Twitter”.

“It’s very hard to define ‘political’ things from non-political discourse,” he added. “If their policies are too loose or their enforcement too clumsy, Twitter could do real damage to public health, the uptake of government services and civic life.”

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

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:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

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:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

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:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

“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:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

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:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

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:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0