Tag Archives: Diversity

No terrorism charges for Somali refugee who stabbed policeman, ran down pedestrians

Canada Election 2015: Socialists in red, Communists in Orange, Conservatives in blue
Canada Election 2015: Socialists in red, Communists in Orange, Conservatives in blue

Canada is a country that likes to show the world how generous and compassionate they are by letting in thousands and thousands of refugees, many of whom cannot speak English and do not accept the values of Western Civilization, such as human rights and the rule of law.

The radically-leftist former newspaper New York Times reports:

The Canadian police arrested a refugee from Somalia on suspicion of terrorist acts early Sunday after a police officer in Edmonton was struck with a car and stabbed outside a football game. Four other people were later deliberately hit by a U-Haul truck driven by the same suspect, the authorities said.

[…]The police did not identify the suspect beyond saying he was Somali. CBC News, quoting unidentified sources, said his name was Abdulahi Hasan Sharif.

Rod Knecht, chief of the Edmonton Police Service, said that officers had found an Islamic State flag in the car that hit the police officer. “Currently, we believe this is an individual who acted alone,” Chief Knecht said in a statement released on Sunday morning.

An article from the far-left, government-run CBC reported:

A former co-worker of the Somali refugee CBC News has identified as the man arrested in a weekend attack in Edmonton says Abdulahi Hasan Sharif was an ISIS sympathizer years before Saturday’s violent events, and that he had reported him to police.

[…]”He had major issues with polytheists. He said they need to die. That sort of thing. I only had a handful of conversations with him about it; those only occurred when there were just two of us in the work room.”

Muslims often refer to Christians as polytheists because of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. But these anti-Christian threats of genocide were no concern for the Edmonton police. Police in Canada are carefully trained in political correctness and promoting diversity. They are warned that they will lose their jobs if they have any bias against Canada’s favored Liberal Party voting blocs. When the co-worker warned the police about the refugee, they had to decide whether to take the threat seriously or side with political correctness and diversity. There is even a criminal law against “Islamophobia” in Canada that punishes people who disagree with radical Islam. The politically correct police would not want to lose their jobs and their fat pensions by running afoul of that. So they ignored the red flags raised by the Canadian taxpayer.

This was not the only time he was investigated, though, as the far-left CBC reports:

In 2015, after a complaint was made to the Edmonton Police Service that the man was displaying signs of extremism, members of the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET) launched an investigation, Degrand said.

The suspect was interviewed by members of INSET, but there was “insufficient evidence” to make an arrest and the suspect was deemed “not a threat,” Degrand said.

Again, there is a law against Islamophobia, and all the police are carefully trained not to do anything that could get them into trouble with their politically correct bosses. This is not the first time that Canadian police have turned their backs on victims because of the “diversity” of the criminals. At other times, citizens called the police to protect their property and their safety from First Nations criminals, and the police just turned their backs as the vehicles of the taxpayers were burned. Because of political correctness. Taxpayers are good enough to pay the salaries of the politically correct policemen. But taxpayers are not good enough to have their property and safety protected by policemen.

No charges of terrorism

Now, you might think that all this violence against police and civilians would be prosecuted as an instance of terrorism. But you don’t know Canada.

The radically-leftist, government-owned CBC reports that the government says that they did nothing wrong, and that no government procedures will be changing:

The man accused of stabbing an Edmonton police constable on the weekend and running down four pedestrians on Jasper Avenue has not been charged with terrorism-related offences.

[…]Sharif came to Canada in 2012, and at the time raised no red flags for immigration officials, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Monday.

Speaking to reporters in Ottawa, Goodale said Sharif arrived through a “regular port of entry” and obtained refugee status at the time.

The minister said events in Edmonton over the weekend in no way indicate that Canada’s screening process needs to be enhanced, or that the system failed.

“The procedures that are in place, that I have had the opportunity to observe and that Minister [Ahmed] Hussen is vigorously administering, are procedures that place a very high premium on public safety and security,” Goodale said.

Ahmed Hussen is the Liberal Party’s Ministry of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

I’m all for ethnic diversity, but not when it means letting some people have exemptions if they break the law. The law should apply equally to everyone, and the police should take all reports equally, regardless of political correctness.

Free Speech bus vandalized by LGBT activists

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

Is the tolerance and diversity crowd really as tolerant and diverse as they claim?

Consider this story from the Washington Free Beacon about the Free Speech bus created by the National Organization for Marriage.

Excerpt:

A bus with social conservative slogans denouncing transgenderism was vandalized Thursday in New York City by trans activists.

[…][T]he bus never left New York. The National Organization for Marriage announced Thursday that the bus had been defaced by angry activists wielding hammers.

Oh, such hate speech! Much offended. Only hammers could fix this problem of other people having different opinions than the secular left extremists.

They even attacked the driver:

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown told USA Today that the driver of the bus tried to stop the vandals, but was tackled by one of the activists.

Newsbusters also reported on the mainstream media’s coverage of the attack:

If you’re not convinced the media is on board with the LGBT agenda, think again.

On the evening of March 23, NYC vandals damaged a bus displaying a conservative message about gender, and even tackled the vehicle’s driver. Although liberal media outlets condemned the bus’s message prior to the incident, few reported on the vandalism and its ironic assault on free speech. And if they did, biased headlines labelled the vehicle “transphobic” or “anti-transgender.”

However, the #FreeSpeechBus doesn’t promote hate; it promotes science. A joint effort between the National Organization for Marriage, the International Organization for the Family and conservative activist group Citizen Go, the bus and its activists are holding rallies and press conferences in key East Coast cities. Their message — and the words emblazoned on the bright orange vehicle — are simple: “It’s biology: Boys are boys … and always will be. Girls are girls … and always will be. You can’t change sex. Respect all.”

Nevertheless, USA Today writer Melanie Eversley headlined her piece: “Bus with anti-transgender message is vandalized in NYC.” Fusion reporter Rafi Schwartz took the same track, writing: “A transphobic ‘free speech’ bus hit the streets of New York — and was immediately vandalized.”

Huffington Post Trends Reporter Elyse Wanshel reported on the bus before it was defaced, condemning its “transphobic message of hate.” So far, Huff Post has not published any stories about the vandalism.

Now might be a good time to remind everyone about the attack on the Family Research Council building.

The attacker in that case, a gay rights activist, was later convicted of domestic terrorism.

LeadPages shuts down #anywhereButTarget web site to promote “diversity”

One sexual assault lawsuit should finish off Target for good
One sexual assault lawsuit should finish off Target for good

This story is from the The Stream.

Excerpt:

A conservative corporate watchdog group’s effort to galvanize conservatives against Target’s restroom and changing-room policies was shut down on Thanksgiving Day by the server company hosting its website, because the campaign allegedly violated the company’s effort to “create an inclusive workplace” respectful of “diversity.”

In an e-mail, Leadpages Director of Operations Doug Storbeck ordered 2nd Vote to take down its #AnywhereButTARGET website. According to Storbeck, “at Leadpages, we strive to create an inclusive workplace that upholds the dignity of all people. We value, respect, and celebrate everyone’s individualities and honor their unique strengths from all different walks of life.”

2nd Vote’s campaign encouraged conservatives to shop #AnywhereButTARGET because of the company’s policy that allows males who identify as females to use the restroom and changing room of their choice. Conservatives have boycotted the retail giant, though Target executives said in August that a stock drop and an investment in single-sex restrooms was unrelated to the backlash.

Storbeck continued:

We believe that embracing diversity of thought and perspective encourages collaboration that leads to product innovation, diverse products and a successful business. Staying true to our core values is something we take very seriously and we feel this is reinforced in our Terms of Service. Specifically, and according to our Acceptable Use and Conduct policy (to which you have agreed), we prohibit any content which: “(g) is hateful or discriminatory based on race, color, sex, religion, nationality, ethnic or national origin, marital status, disability, sexual orientation or age or is otherwise objectionable, as reasonably determined by Ave. 81;”

For the reasons stated above, I am respectfully requesting that you to take down your #AnywhereButTarget landing page upon receipt of this notice, but no later than 8:00am CST on Thursday November 24, 2016.

Storbeck’s LinkedIn page says that he lives in the Minneapolis area, which is also where Target’s headquarters are located. The Stream was unable to determine whether this played a role in Leadpages’ decision.

The actual-email is linked in the Stream article, so you can see for yourself how someone can invoke diversity and inclusion to shut down a viewpoint that they disagree with. You need a college education in the liberal arts to call acts of censorship “diversity and inclusion”.

Fox 10 News reports on some of the diversity and inclusion that the Target CEO and Doug Storbeck celebrate:

An O’Fallon, Missouri man was arrested on April 23, 2015 after allegedly secretly filming women in a Target dressing room.

Matthew Foerstel, 26, faces felony charges for invasion of privacy in the second degree and unlawful possession of a firearm.

Foerstel has a plea hearing on Monday, May 2, 2016.

The Brentwood Police Department arrested Foerstel on April 23 after he allegedly held a camera phone under a dressing room door while a female shopper tried on swim suits at the Target store in Brentwood.

An officer went to Ranken Technical College to place Foerstel under arrest and reportedly found him in possession of a loaded handgun.

In 2013, Foerstel was convicted of invasion of privacy in St. Charles County for “knowingly and intentionally” filming an 11-year-old girl while she was partially nude inside a department store dressing room.

In case you are wondering, the CEO of Target, Brian Cornell, still thinks that men dressed as women should be allowed to use women’s bathrooms.

NewsMax explains:

Target CEO Brian Cornell defended the company’s transgender bathroom policy decision to shareholders while also denying that the $10 billion in losses suffered since had anything to do with the controversial decision, Breitbart reported.

The new policy, instituted seven weeks ago, allows transgender men and women to use the bathrooms and changing rooms of the gender they identify with at all Target stores.

That decision has been the impetus behind a boycott of Target by about 1 million Americans.

“We’re a company that believes strongly in diversity and inclusion,” LifeSiteNews quoted Cornell at Wednesday’s shareholder meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif. “We’re a company that is very guest-centered.”

All these people on the corporate left like to throw around words like “diversity”, “tolerance” and “inclusion”. But they don’t know what those words even mean.

The New York Times discovers that universities discriminate against conservatives

Academic diversity: ratio of liberals to conservatives is 36 to 1
Academic diversity: ratio of liberals to conservatives is 36 to 1

Wow! And from that radical leftist Nicholas Kristof, of all people.

Here is the New York Times:

We progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

[…]Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).

In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.

[…]The scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate.

Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas,conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.

The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.

“Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses,” notes Jonathan L. Walton, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard. Walton, a black evangelical, adds that the condescension toward evangelicals echoes the patronizing attitude toward racial minorities: “The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.”

A study published in The American Journal of Political Science underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among (fictitious) finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club, while varying the credentials and race of each. Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race.

“I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying in “Passing on the Right,” a new book about right-wing faculty members by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. That’s a metaphor that conservative scholars often use, with talk of remaining in the closet early in one’s career and then “coming out” after receiving tenure.

I often get asked by people why I push your Christians and conservatives so hard towards STEM fields, especially math and engineering and technology. The answer is simple. For Christians, this is the safest way to get a degree that will pay for itself. The risk you take when you borrow money to go into a non-STEM field is that you will face discrimination, be graded down, and be denied your degree. Every other minority gets affirmative action on the university campus except for evangelical Christians and Constitutional conservatives. And the worst thing that you can be is what I am, a black conservative male evangelical.

I was talking to one of my mentorees who is an graduate program in computer science the other day. I said to her that I find it more difficult to get motivated to keep up with the latest programming technologies than to keep up with apologetics and politics. She asked me why I chose computer science, then. And I said “because I was good at it, and I needed a way to be able to support a wife and four children”. I was interested in English and criminal law when I was younger, but I saw that those departments were among the most liberal by taking night classes at the local universities while I was still in high school. I actually got into trouble with the law professors because I always wanted the stiffest sentences for criminals.

So this is why I push young people to STEM, or more accurately, TEM. It’s because to come out of university as a Ted Cruz, you have to be the best by far. You have to be ten times as smart as the typical pot-smoking, drunken, promiscuous leftist college student. They get As just for parroting what the professors indoctrinate them with. It really is much safer to stick with quantitative fields, especially engineering.

New survey: ratio of liberal to conservative sociologists is 314 to 1

A new survey was reported at Heterodox Academy.

Excerpt:

Bill von Hippel and David Buss surveyed the membership of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology. That’s a professional society composed of the most active researchers in the field who are at least five years post-PhD. It’s very selective – you must be nominated by a current member and approved by a committee before you can join. Von Hippel and Buss sent a web survey to the 900 members of SESP and got a response rate of 37% (335 responses). So this is a good sample of the mid-level and senior people (average age 51) who produce most of the research in social psychology.

[…]At the end of the survey, they happened to include a very good set of measures of political identity. Not just self-descriptions, but also whom the person voted for in the 2012 US Presidential election. And they asked nine questions about politically valenced policy questions, such as “Do you support gun control?” “Do you support gay marriage?” and “Do you support a woman’s right to get an abortion?”

The results are interesting, here’s the part I wanted to highlight:

A third way of graphing the viewpoint diversity of these senior social psychologists is by computing an average score across all 9 of the politically valenced policy items. For each one, the 11 point response scale was labeled “strongly oppose” on the left-most point and “strongly support” on the right-most point. I converted all responses to the same 11 point scale used in figure 1 so that “strongly supporting” the progressive position (e.g., pro-choice) was scored as -5 and “strongly supporting” the conservative position (e.g., prayer in school) was scored as +5. That puts the leftists on the left and the rightists on the right of the graph. Here’s the graph:

Diversity of opinion in academia
Diversity of opinion in academia

I counted anyone whose average score fell between -1.0 and +1.0 (inclusive) as a centrist. The graph shows that 314 of the 327 participants (96.0%) had an average score below -1.0 (i.e., left of center), one had an average score above +1.0 (i.e., right of center), and 12 were centrists. That gives us a Left to Right ratio of 314 to one.

The one right of center guy is not even that far right of center!

So what should we say about this? Well, I’ll say this. Secular leftists in academia are the most narrow-minded, intolerant, bigoted people on the planet. They have all kids of hateful prejudices, and they are completely unable to consider any opinion that is different from their own. They only read material that they agree with, never anything they disagree with, because that causes them discomfort. They have no awareness of arguments and evidence from conservative or Christian viewpoints. All of this hateful bigotry does lead to active discrimination against Christians and conservatives in areas like hiring decisions, promotions, and so on. And what’s more, this secular leftism is not the result of any honest investigation of arguments and evidence. It’s just feelings-based nonsense.

Consider this post by moderate sociologist George Yancey.

He writes:

It is well established that academics tend to be more politically progressive and secular than the general population. It is obvious that they are highly educated. So academia theoretically should be a place where we would find a higher than normal level of Christianophobia. This Christianophobia may manifest in discrimination against conservative Christians. A few years ago I conducted research suggesting that this is the case. I found that academics were willing to discriminate against a prospective candidate for an academic position if they found out that the candidate is a conservative Protestant. In fact, they were more willing to discriminate against conservative Protestants than against any other social group included in my survey. Their willingness to discriminate against those Protestants was even more powerful than their willingness to discriminate against political conservatives. Religious intolerance trumps potential political intolerance among academics.

Of course simply because academics state that they are open to discriminating against conservative Protestants does not mean that they actually engage in such discrimination. A survey is not sufficient evidence. However, Rothman and Lichter conducted research documenting that academics with socially conservative beliefs tend to be located in lower status occupational positions even after controlling for demographic variables and their level of productivity. If conservative Protestants are more likely to have socially conservative beliefs than other academics, a reasonable belief, then this research suggests systematic evidence that there are occupational disadvantages in academia to having conservative Christian beliefs. Since academics have a willingness to discriminate against those Christians, this disadvantage cannot merely be due to their inability to do science, as the common stereotype of Christians seems to imply, but discrimination from academics who may be motivated by Christianophobia is likely an important factor.

So, do you still think it makes sense to take out loans to study subjects that are dominated by the secular left? They will literally deny you a degree that you earned, if you dissent from their radically leftist dogma at any point.

Should you borrow tens of thousands of dollars to be brainwashed by ivory-tower leftists? I think a better plan is to study something that pays – petroleum engineering, computer science, etc. It seems to me that it’s not really an education to spend four years learning the catechism of secular leftists. A real education should involve learning the arguments for both sides, in an environment that is open and truth-focused. The non-STEM departments of the university are not the place for learning. It’s just a secular leftist seminary.