Tag Archives: Nanny State

News

UK woman warned for brandishing kitchen knife at trespassers

5 Comments

These are both from ECM.

Self-defense and justified violence

Consider this story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Miss Klass, a model for Marks & Spencer and a former singer with the pop group Hear’Say, was in her kitchen in the early hours of Friday when she saw two teenagers behaving suspiciously in her garden.

The youths approached the kitchen window, before attempting to break into her garden shed, prompting Miss Klass to wave a kitchen knife to scare them away.

Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Herts, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an “offensive weapon” – even in her own home – was illegal.

Jonathan Shalit, Miss Klass’s agent, said that had been “shaken and utterly terrified” by the incident and was stepping up security at the house she shares with her fiancé, Graham Quinn, who was away on business at the time.

He said: “Myleene was aghast when she was told that the law did not allow her to defend herself in her own home. All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off.

This happens all the time in the feminized UK. They think that violence is never justified, and that criminals are actually the victims of social inequalities. And since criminals aren’t responsible, it’s wrong for home-owners to stop them from committing crimes. This is just another example of the secular left’s view that there is no objective right and wrong, and that morality is relative. It’s not wrong to steal, they say – what’s wrong is to think that you have a right to own your own private property. Permitting the theft of your property is like – sharing.

A previous post I wrote explains how weapon ownership by law-abiding citizens deters crime.

Liberty and personal responsibility

Consider this story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Heavy snow, low temperatures and a lack of gritting mean pavements throughout the country are too slippery to walk on safely. Hospitals have been struggling to cope with rising numbers of patients who have broken bones after falling on icy paths.

Yet the professional body that represents health and safety experts has issued a warning to businesses not to grit public paths – despite the fact that Britain is in the grip of its coldest winter for nearly half a century.

Under current legislation, householders and companies open themselves up to legal action if they try to clear a public pavement outside their property. If they leave the path in a treacherous condition, they cannot be sued.

It’s like people in the UK think that British citizens are all young children to be controlled, so that they won’t hurt themselves or anyone else. I wonder where that attitude comes from? It certainly wasn’t there 50 years ago. What changed?

News

Focus on the Family Canada edits radio show to adapt to hate crime law

1 Comment

In case you hadn’t heard, Obama signed a hate crime bill into law.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council responds in this Christian Post article.

Opponents of the bill, dubbed by some as the “thought crimes” legislation, argue that it is unnecessary because gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are already protected under existing state laws. They also say the bill could be used to prosecute Christian broadcasters and pastors who preach homosexuality as sin because they could be accused of inciting violence.

“This hates crimes provision is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality,” said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, following the bill’s passage.

I thought that I would remind my readers where these laws lead by looking north to Canada. In Canada, Dr. Laura was effectively banned from radio stations for being critical of homosexuality, and Focus on the Family has to edit programs in order to comply with federal hate crime laws.

Consider this post from LifeSiteNews.

Excerpt:

A statement from a director at Focus on the Family confirms that the major Christian organization has been editing its radio programs in order to accord with Canadian “hate crime” laws.

“In particular, our content producers are careful not to make generalized statements nor comments that may be perceived as ascribing malicious intent to a ‘group’ of people and are always careful to treat even those who might disagree with us with respect,” Gary Booker, director of global content creation for Focus, told WorldNetDaily.com.

“Occasionally, albeit very rarely, some content is identified that, while acceptable for airing in the U.S. would not be acceptable under Canadian law and is therefore edited or omitted in Canada.”

A representative from Focus told LifeSiteNews.com that the organization is not prepared at this time to expand upon the statement sent to WorldNetDaily.com.

In April 2004, Canada enacted Bill C-250, a bill that added “sexual orientation” to “identifiable groups” protected from communication that would incite hatred towards them. In the months leading up to its passage, many conservative thinkers and activists prophesied that adding “sexual orientation” to the hate crime laws would give homosexual activists the leverage needed to persecute those opposed to their lifestyle for nothing more than expressing disagreement.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada, a person is not to be convicted of a hate crime if “he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.”

Despite the nod to religious conviction, however, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has already investigated and punished numerous individuals for promoting opposition to homosexual practices based on traditional Christian teaching.

In November of 2007, the CHRC threatened the Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHPC) with legal penalties for material on their website. Printer Scott Brockie has also been found guilty by the Commission and fined for refusing to print pro-homosexual materials, as was Christian pastor Steve Boissoin, who wrote a letter to the editor outlining Christian teachings on homosexuality. Bishop Fred Henry was hauled before the Commission for speaking out against homosexuality, and recently a complaint was made against the Catholic magazine, Catholic Insight for similar reasons.

Advocating for the traditional family is a criminal activity in Canada, because it may incite violence and then you would be charged with a hate crime.

You can hear more about Obama’s hate crime bill in this current events podcast from William Lane Craig.

The silencing of Christians in the public square is now quite common in Canada and the UK.

Here are some stories from the UK:

Here are some stories from Canada:

And bad things are already happening the United States.

Something to think about, especially since a lot of “Christians” voted Obama because they supported wealth redistribution and the appeasement of terrorists abroad. I am sure that in time those same “Christians” will learn to redefine Christianity so that it complies with Obama’s hate crime bill, and then they will turn to demonizing authentic Christians who still think the Bible is authoritative on moral questions.

News

How feminism destroyed free speech and free inquiry on university campuses

Leave a comment

Story from David Thompson. (H/T ECM)

The post on David Thompson’s blog contains some foul language.

Let me first give you the facts from the FIRE article David is writing about.

Professor Thomas Thibeault made the mistake of pointing out – at a sexual harassment training seminar – that the school’s sexual harassment policy contained no protection for the falsely accused. Two days later, in a Kafkaesque irony, Thibeault was fired by the college president for sexual harassment without notice, without knowing his accuser or the charges against him, and without a hearing. […]

Thibeault’s ordeal started shortly after August 5, 2009 when, during a faculty training session regarding the college’s sexual harassment policy, he presented a scenario regarding a different professor and asked, “What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect the accused against complaints which are malicious or, in this case, ridiculous?” Vice President for Legal Affairs Mary Smith, who was conducting the session, replied that there was no such provision to protect the accused, so Thibeault responded that “the policy itself is flawed.”

And then some of Thibeault’s testimony:

[…]Mary Smith was explaining the sexual harassment policy and was emphasising that faculty had to report suspicions of sexual harassment by any faculty member to the college administration. She was stating that the feelings of the offended were proof of the offensive nature of the behaviour.

[…]There is no provision in the policy. I must emphasise that if the person feels offended then the incident must be reported to the college authorities. Even if you hear such a statement about a faculty member, you are to report it. If you don’t, you yourself are party to the harassment and harassment is dismissible.

[…]Two days later, Thibeault was summoned to [college] President John Bryant Black’s office. According to Thibeault’s written account of the meeting – which was sent to Black and which Black has not disputed – Thibeault met with Black and Smith. Black told Thibeault that he “was a divisive force in the college at a time when the college needed unity” and that Thibeault must resign by 11:30 a.m. or be fired and have his “long history of sexual harassment… made public.” This unsubstantiated allegation took Thibeault by surprise. Black added that Thibeault would be escorted off campus by Police Chief Drew Durden and that Black had notified the local police that he was prepared to have Thibeault arrested for trespassing if he returned to campus. At no point was Thibeault presented with the charges against him or given any chance to present a defence.

ECM send me this article from Canadian writer David Warren on political correctness and fascism.

Excerpt:

The purpose of political correction is to delegitimate opposition; to make the most basic facts of life undiscussable, and thereby eliminate debate. It is a device for seizing power.

In my view, the ideological Left advances ruthlessly, by turning the meanings of words upside down, by stating bald lies that we must not dare to challenge, by introducing “reforms” in the dark of the night, often through courts to subvert Parliament.

My concern is that these feminist suppressions of speech using false accusations will spread, until every interplay between men and women becomes a kind of Duke University lacrosse scandal where facts don’t matter so long as the media can bash the right people for being sexist, racist homophobes.

UPDATE: I just noticed a nice post from Suzanne (Big Blue Wave), who dissents from feminism.