New English Review Press author Eric Rozenman took aim at the Jewish Voice for Peace’s report entitled “Dangerous Exchange,” which is aimed at stopping Israeli training of US police in counter-terrorism strategies.
“Targeting Israeli-American police cooperation that strengthens U.S. law enforcement programs to keep all Americans safer is just the latest in JVP’s decades-long use of bogus charges,” said Eric Rozenman, author of Jews Make the Best Demons:'Palestine' and the Jewish Question. “These have included allegations of Israeli massacres and starvation of Palestinian Arabs while ignoring Palestinian violations of Palestinian as well as Israeli human rights. As I note in Jews Make the Best Demons, ‘delusions that American Jewish organizations conspire with Israeli police to teach U.S. law enforcement how to suppress blacks … agitate the susceptible.’ Agitating those susceptible to anti-Zionist antisemitism is Jewish Voice for Peace’s raison d’etre.”
“It is our understanding that American-Israeli partnerships of this kind help our security teams to know what signs to look for when searching crowds for potential terrorists,” added NER Press publisher Rebecca Bynum. “In this era of increasingly intrusive searches for everything from airports to parades and marathon races to Christmas celebrations, we need smart searches that can pull people aside who are acting suspiciously before they enter crowded areas. This is what the Israelis are teaching our police – how to spot suspicious behavior before someone detonates a bomb, or commits a mass shooting or wild stabbing. Why would anyone want to prevent common sense counter-terror measures? Some organizations will use any excuse to demonize Israel.”
“JVP continues peddling anti-Zionist antisemitism,” continued Rozenman, “No one should be fooled.”
The Supreme Court on Wednesday acquitted Asia Bibi, a Christian woman condemned to death on blasphemy charges after accepting her 2015 appeal against her sentence.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel had reserved its ruling on Asia Bibi's final legal appeal against execution (Asia Bibi v. The State, etc) on October 8.
The appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s October 2014 verdict upholding a trial court’s November 2010 decision sentencing Bibi to death for committing blasphemy in 2009.
"The appeal is allowed. She has been acquitted. The judgement of high court as well as trial court is reversed. Her conviction is set aside," said Justice Nisar in the ruling. "Her conviction is set aside and she is to be relieved forthwith if not required in other charges," he added.
The 56-page detailed judgement has been authored by CJP Nisar, with a separate concurrent opinion note from Justice Khosa.
"It is a well settled principle of law that one who makes an assertion has to prove it. Thus, the onus rests on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt throughout the trial," noted the top judge in the order. "Presumption of innocence remains throughout the case until such time the prosecution on the evidence satisfies the court beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged against him. . . principles which seeks to ensure that no innocent person is convicted.
"Keeping in mind the evidence produced by the prosecution against the alleged blasphemy committed by the appellant, the prosecution has categorically failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,"
The CJP ended the judgement with a hadith of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) on the rights of minorities. (is his life now going to be in danger from the mob? Or is he more powerful than the politicians who were killed after expressing support for her? The riots have already started - see below)
"I can't believe what I am hearing, will I go out now? Will they let me out, really?" Bibi told AFP by phone from prison after the ruling. "I just don't know what to say, I am very happy, I can't believe it."
Bibi's husband also hailed the verdict. "I am very happy. My children are very happy. We are grateful to God. We are grateful to the judges for giving us justice. We knew that she is innocent,"
Shortly after the ruling, hundreds blocked a key road linking Rawalpindi with Islamabad. People are also gathering for protests in Karachi and Peshawar. Similar rallies are being held elsewhere as police urge demonstrators to disperse peacefully.
Christians and Christian institutions have been warned with alerts to be careful due to the high risk of revenge attacks. Christians have been bracing themselves for expected violence following the verdict.
The head of Tehreek Labaik has released a special video in which he is telling his party faithful to get ready for anything if the decision is favour of Asia Bibi. In a previous rally following the delay of judgement he uttered death threats against the authorities and directed his followers to revolt by staging protests without direction from the central party.
Asia Bibi was convicted for blasphemy under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code for allegedly defaming Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). The offence carries the mandatory death penalty under Pakistani law.
The allegations against Bibi were that she made three “defamatory and sarcastic” statements about the Holy Prophet on June 14, 2009 during an argument with three Muslim women while the four of them were picking fruit in a field in Sheikhupura. She was asked to fetch water, but the Muslim women objected, saying that as a non-Muslim she was unfit to touch the water bowl. The women later went to a local cleric and accused Bibi of blasphemy against the Holy Prophet, a charge punishable by death under legislation that rights groups say is routinely abused to settle personal vendettas.
Reports of protests breaking out as of 9:41am outside the Punjab Assembly after the verdict was announced. Workers of right wing political party began gathering outside the assembly.
Islamabad’s hospitals have been put on high alert and the leaves of all paramedical staff have been cancelled. The metro bus service has been suspended in Lahore. Several schools have announced early closure and are sending children home. . . reports of minor unrest emerged from Karachi’s Numaish.
Traffic at Merewether Tower in Karachi has been blocked, as have roads in Baldia Town. The protest in Baldia is being led by MPA Qasim Fakhri. Protesters have begun burning tyres at Tower. A protest has begun outside the Sukkur Press Club against the Supreme Court verdict. Both sides of the road outside the club were blocked. The police are on high alert at entry and exit points to the city. Protests have also sprung up at Farooq Azam Chowk in Charsadda. The police are on standby in the city.
In Islamabad, the Abapara and Faizabad roads have been blocked due to protests.
The Faizabad-Islamabad Expressway has been blocked. Shops in Sargodha were forcibly closed as protesters began protesting at 12 Block Chowk. Fatima Jinnah Road has also been blocked due to protests.
Supporters of right wing political parties blocked both tracks of GT Road in Gujjar Khan, near Rawalpindi.
University agrees to postponement --Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak in Professor Michael Rectenwald's class | 30 Oct 2018 | Dean of Liberal Studies Julie Mostov notified Clinical Professor [CLG Founder] Michael Rectenwald of the university's decision.
Statement by Michael Rectenwald: I would like to point out that while Milo Yiannopolous is blamed for the threat to public safety, leftist protesters are the ones who pose the actual danger, with their proclivity for violence. I was merely trying to arrange a cultural exchange between my class and a harmless person from the center-right.
As Milo put it, "The entire city of New York is terrified of one gay man stepping out of line and calling out the Left as the intolerant, censorious crybabies they are. And they just proved it--by censoring me again. I couldn't ask for more conclusive proof."
The problem with all the advice to the president urging him to change his demeanor is that it is given for the wrong reason and at the wrong time.
As I have often recounted, since Donald Trump attacks the entire political system and almost everyone in or near it in both parties (including former presidents), it was never going to be possible for him to lower the ferocity of his barrages until it was clear how successful his effort to dislodge or reorient the entire political establishment had been.
Obviously, if he had not won the nomination, or lost the election, he would be, in political terms, a trivia question like Michael Dukakis (Democratic presidential nominee in 1988). He has expelled the NeverTrumpers from the Republican congressional delegations with Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and others headed for the exits. But if he loses control of the Congress next week, gridlock will reimpose itself, and we will have trench warfare until the next presidential election. In those circumstances, Trump might likely be disposed to be more placatory, and behave more like a contestant in a great national debate, with little realistic hope of changing the system he has attacked much more than he already has.
A Truly Transformative Presidency
This was the lot of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who put in their tax increase and health care, respectively, in their first two years, and then were severely defeated at their first mid-terms and never moved more than a Christmas card through Congress thereafter. Republican congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole frustrated Clinton, and John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell drove Obama to attempt government by questionable executive regulation, leading to the extreme politicization of Supreme Court nominations.
Trump has revoked almost all Obama’s executive orders, gutted the coercive part of Obamacare, and got his two conservative nominations onto the Supreme Court. Obama’s lasting effect—apart from having admirably smashed the color bar on eligibility for the presidency—has been minimal, as has been Clinton’s. So much for the loudly proclaimed ambitions of both of them to be “transformative” presidents. At transformation, they were a bust. Trump is already ahead of them. America and the world are waiting to see if this president can hold the momentum past the midterms.
The polls consistently have underestimated him, and I don’t believe the polling organizations are unbiased. Nor have they adjusted their echelon of opinion-sampling to allow for the phenomenon of tens of millions of fervent Trump voters largely from demographic groups not in the habit of voting in such large numbers, at least not since the Reagan years. There is also the widely noted phenomenon of the resistance of Trump voters to reveal their preferences, so called “shy Trump voters”—they mistrust anyone who telephones them at home, especially on a robo-call, asking their voting opinion.
Given the polling experiences of the 2016 election, I believe that the 30 toss-up House of Representatives elections and the five toss-up Senate seats are really at least 20 Republican congressmen and four Republican senators, and that Trump gets to hurl himself at the throat of the political class he set out to dispossess for another two years. The Republican gain in the Senate will balance the reduction of the Republican majority in the House, and there will be no remaining credibility for the monstrous fraudulent confection of the Trump-Russian collusion canard that distracted the country for more than a year.
Beyond the Harsh Discourse
But whatever happens in the election, the claim that the harsh political discourse, and especially that the president by his forceful words and acts, has incited and encouraged public violence, is bunk. A number of very reputable and fine commentators have bewailed the nasty and belligerent tenor of public discourse and many estimable people have said and written that it is up to the president as the chief of state and government and in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s phrase, “the head of the American people,” to lead the way to greater civility, and that this would have a halcyon effect on the country, including those elements of American society with any disposition to violence.
It is true that President Trump is a much higher and more important officeholder than anyone else in the country, but he has never said anything remotely as conducive to sociopathic behavior as Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and others have regularly spewed out. But they haven’t influenced the public much either, and the media and the elected officials should understand that they have almost no influence on the great American people’s behavior.
Americans and their commentators are going to have to realize that in a country of 325 million people with practically unlimited access to sophisticated firearms and a generally proud national ethos of self-reliance and resistance to an overbearing state, the vagaries of public mental health in so spontaneous and fluid a society as America will assure a good deal of violence. If the country wants an end to violence, it will have to gather in the guns held by the public, and triple the police presence throughout the urban part of the country. These are completely unacceptable measures, legislatively and constitutionally.
No extent of even sincere hand-wringing about the lack of gentility in public discourse had anything to do with the near assassination of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the ineffective and easily intercepted pipe bombs to prominent Democrats, or the massacre of worshipers in a Pittsburgh synagogue. The expertise of the police response in each case was very high and professional.
Such a huge and comparatively free society has no shortage of well-armed violent criminals and lunatics. They have nothing to do with Donald Trump, Maxine Waters, or Cory Booker. As the economic life of the whole country continues to improve, violence will decline, and, as the president has said, the National Rifle Association can be rolled back a little. Republicans need not fear the NRA—as Trump has also said, they have nowhere else to go politically, and as they stand on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, they can’t be pushed very far.
The fact is, scores of millions of Americans kit themselves out every week in battle fatigues, go to the firing ranges and paintball parks, and get ready if need be to kill the IRS on their front lawn. Their individualist determination should not be despised and will sustain the country long after the Quislings of Hollywood and the poseurs of Silicon Valley and Wall Street have been put back in their places.
America will not be a civil society any time soon, and almost no Democrat calling for it will take a step to make it happen. But the chances for better government are promising.
The Spanish have even made things easier for these migrants. In mid-June, the Spanish Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, announced that he would remove the barbed wire on top of the security fences around Ceuta and Melilla, because — he said — it was too dangerous for those who were trying to breach the fence. He also promised to lower the height of the fence itself. After all, why should a security fence be too…too secure? In the brave new Spain of the Socialists, it’s cruel to keep people out, people who have as much right to live in Spain as the Spanish do.
Not all of these migrants are from sub-Saharan Africa. Some Arabs come overland to Morocco from Algeria, hoping to make it to Ceuta. Some Moroccans, too, have chosen to take the royal road to riches that, they think, lies through Ceuta.
The Moroccans themselves have used sub-Saharan migrants as a bargaining chip in their relations with the countries of the E.U., just as Qaddafi did. They can make it harder, or easier, for the sub-Saharan migrants to make it to Ceuta. Under the previous ruler, King Hassan II, famous for his torture forts, the Moroccans would often round up sub-Saharan migrants and send them home, or even drop them unceremoniously in the desert, not caring whether they lived or died. His son has ended that last practice. But the Moroccan government can help keep the sub-Saharan migrants in Morocco well away from Ceuta, or even push them out of Morocco altogether, sending them to the countries they came from, and acting as the first line of defense blocking such migration, in exchange for economic benefits from the countries of Europe — favorable trade deals, access to new markets, subsidies, foreign aid.
The pressure on Europe from sub-Saharan Africa is immense. In 1945, there were 250 million people in all of Africa; now there are 1.2 billion, and by 2050 that population will have doubled, to 2.4 billion. They are now coming to the Maghreb in order to get to Europe. The countries of North Africa, and especially, at this point, Morocco, are the first line of defense for Europe against this human wave. Many of those migrants will remain in Morocco, waiting for a chance to make it to Ceuta, and meanwhile, their presence creates ethnic tensions in the country.
Meanwhile, Ceuta remains the latest gateway of choice to Europe. Since the Spanish Socialists have made the security fence less effective, both by lowering its height and by removing the barbed wire, Ceuta has become even more inviting.
What should the Spanish do? They should reconsider their misplaced pride in still possessing two enclaves in Africa, and come to realize that Ceuta and Melilla are far more of a menace to Spain if they remain Spanish territory. Since the Spanish Socialists are clearly unwilling to take the stern measures that would be necessary to protect Ceuta from those regularly assaulting the security fence, they should transfer these enclaves to Morocco. It is the kind of thing the Socialist government should welcome ideologically, ridding Spain of its last colonial outposts. But it is, in essence, a transfer of territory that should also be welcomed by the Spanish right.
For the Moroccans, the transfer to them of Ceuta and Melilla would discourage sub-Saharan migrants from coming to Morocco in the first place. For these migrants would no longer be able to “step into Europe” by climbing over a fence into Ceuta. Ceuta would no longer need a fence; it would be just another unprepossessing part of Morocco. The Moroccans have suffered from these sub-Saharan migrants arriving, and setting in, while they wait to assault the fence at Ceuta. There have been ethnic tensions, erupting into violence, between the Moroccans and these sub-Saharan Africans. They thus have a vested interest in making Ceuta (and Melilla) of no interest to sub-Saharan or Arab, especially Algerian, migrants.
At the same time, the transfer of Ceuta and Melilla could be presented by Morocco to the world as a great “victory,” closing down the last colonial outposts in North Africa, and presented by Spain, at the same time, as a selfless act of “friendship” toward Morocco.
Everyone — well, almost everyone — ends up happier. Spain, Morocco, the rest of Europe will all be better off. As for those sub-Saharan migrants, the kind who gain entry by throwing feces, blood, acid and quicklime on Spanish guards protecting Ceuta, who cares what they think? They have disturbed all of us long enough. Let them stew in their own…..well, you know.
In a class sure to spook liberals, NYU’s controversial anti-PC Professor Michael Rectenwald has enlisted conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos to speak Wednesday about “the politics of Halloween.”
The talk will explore how the holiday “connects to broader issues in our culture concerning free expression.”
Two years ago, NYU scrapped Yiannopoulos’ scheduled talk at the college, citing safety concerns over altercations that erupted on other campuses over his controversial alt-right viewpoints.
Neither NYU nor Rectenwald’s students have been informed of his “special” Halloween guest. The talk to the 14 students in his “academic writing, real world topics” class will also be live-streamed on the professor’s YouTube channel.
“This is a way to get Milo a platform to speak on campus without the problems of protest,” Rectenwald said. “We’ve been working on this for a while but we decided Halloween was the best time because it raises so many issues that he and I are both concerned with.”
“This is not a publicity stunt,” he said.
Rectenwald, 59, railed at the NYU administration and other universities who advise students on politically correct costumes.
“It’s ridiculous! Halloween used to be a night for the inappropriate or raising hell. For tricking and treating — rather harmlessly. But now, the issue is for what’s appropriate. They are talking about giving safe spaces so that people are not offended by Halloween costumes.”
He said the talk comes at a time when “the PC left is all about gender non-conformity and ever-increasing menus of identities” but those same people place “severe limits” on who someone wants to be for Halloween.
More than 420 suspected offenders are under investigation in a £100 million criminal inquiry triggered by the Rotherham sex grooming scandal, it has been revealed. The figure was released by the National Crime Agency (NCA) as seven men were convicted of multiple past offences against five teenage girls, one of them aged 13, in the South Yorkshire town.
One victim told jurors she had sex with “at least 100 Asian men” by the age of 16. Another described a gang-rape by men who threatened to abandon her in a forest unless she complied with their demands.
The trial that ended today at Sheffield crown court was one of 22 current Stovewood sub-operations.
The NCA file on another sub-operation, with 36 suspects, is expected to be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service within the next two months. Paul Williamson, the head of the inquiry, said its scale was daunting. His team is actively engaged with more than 290 of 1,523 potential victims they have now identified.
Some 90 per cent of them were white British girls aged 11 to 18, while 80 per cent of the designated NCA suspects are of Pakistani origin, including six of the seven men convicted today. The seventh was of Yemeni heritage. (something links them ...)
Mohammed Imran Akhtar (37), of Godstone Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of three counts of indecent assault, one count of rape, procuring a girl to have unlawful sex with another, aiding and abetting Tanweer Ali to commit rape, and sexual assault.
Nabeel Kurshid (35), of Weetwood Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of rape and one of indecent assault.
Asif Ali (33), of Clough Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of indecent assault and was acquitted of one count of indecent assault.
Iqlak Yousaf (34), of Tooker Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault.
Salah El-Hakam (39), of Tudor Close, Sheffield, was found guilty of one count of rape.
Tanweer Ali (37), of Godstone Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of indecent assault, two counts of rape, and one count of false imprisonment.
Another man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found guilty of two counts of rape and aquitted of abducting a child and rape.
Ajmal Rafiq (39), of Warwick Street, Rotherham, was acquitted of all charges which were one count of indecent assault and one count of false imprisonment.
L-R TOP: Iqlak Yousaf , Asif Ali, Tanweer Ali: BOTTOM L-R; Salah El-Hakam, Nabeel Kurshid, Mohammed Imran Akhtar
The seven guilty men were remanded into custody and are due to be sentenced on November 16.
From Morocco, thousands of undocumented migrants from sub-Saharan Africa have been flooding into Spain: some twenty-three thousand in the first six months of this year. And they have done it without leaving the continent of Africa. Their preferred point of entry into Europe is Ceuta, one of two Spanish enclaves — the other is Melilla — where, if they manage merely to set foot, they are considered to have made it “to Europe” and cannot be repatriated. They are home free, by the laws — crazed laws — of the E.U. Take one step on the African soil of Ceuta, and you have made it to Europe. Tens of thousands of them arrive in Morocco, hoping for a chance to try (and re-try) their luck at the security fence around Ceuta. They settle in Moroccan cities — Tetouan, Fez, Meknes — where they live among the poorer Moroccan Arabs, who regard the black Africans with evident contempt, and with whom there are often street battles. And the migrants wait.
Why has Ceuta suddenly become such an important point of entry? Until recently, sub-Saharan and North African migrants would leave for Europe from Libyan ports, with Italy as their destination. Often they would set sail in unseaworthy boats — the Arabs smuggling them in didn’t care, once they had been paid, whether their passengers lived or died, in some cases setting the boats adrift on the high seas. In case of trouble, they could count on being rescued by European ships and brought to Italian ports, where they were allowed to disembark. But that route is no longer possible. Under Minister of the Interior Mario Salvini, Italy no longer allows these boats to land, does not engage in rescue operations, and makes surer to turn away these economic migrants.
If Italy has become unwelcoming to such migrants, the new Socialist government of Pedro Sanchez, that took over in Spain at the beginning of this year, has become far more welcoming. When the Italians turned away the Aquarius, with more than 600 migrants aboard, a ship that had rescued sub-Saharan, and some Arab, economic migrants, from the six unseaworthy boats they had originally set off in from Libya for Italy, Spain stepped in and allowed the Aquarius and two Italian navy vessels to unload their human cargo this past June in Valencia. Now that it is clear that Salvini will not relent, all those sub-Saharan migrants trying to make it to Europe see their best hope lies in first getting to Morocco, then scaling the fence in Ceuta, which means they are in Spain itself, and cannot be turned back.
Recently there have been waves of these migrants attempting to scale the Ceuta fence by the hundreds — in one case, 600 made it over. Their modus operandi is always the same: they throw containers of feces, blood, quick lime, and battery acid at the Spanish guards. They come armed with wire cutters. And there’s no more barbed wire. Welcome to Europe! After all, they are migrants; they are poor; they want, and therefore they deserve, more than has so far been their lot in life; we have to understand their plight. We dare not turn them away; it would be un-Christian. Pope Francis has said so. Once they are in Ceuta, they ululate and scream and caterwaul in delight, kissing the ground, convinced that they have made it to the promised land, where they will be taken care of, and in a sense, they have. They cannot be repatriated, and once in Ceuta, and then in mainland Spain, they can take advantage of the largesse that the socialist government has ready for them — free housing, free medical care, free education and vocational training (not that many have shown an interest in becoming employed). And if they manage to get married or have a wife or wives follow them, they can receive family allowances — all the bounty that Europeans, for reasons I do not understand, seem to think they owe these people who throw feces, blood, acid, and quicklime on Spanish guards as their first act of fealty to Spain. Furthermore, once they are in Spain, some will find a way to move on to richer countries — Germany, Sweden — where they can obtain even more by way of welfare benefits of every conceivable kind. Manna from heaven. You need not do anything to deserve it. You need simply be.
We concluded that practically all of western Canada, and the sizeable conservative minority in eastern Canada, were practically unrepresented in the national media
by Conrad Black
The reasons my associates at the time and I founded the National Post 20 years ago were a combination of commercial and public-spirited motives. By then, we had bought the Southam, Sifton, Unimedia and many of the smaller Thomson newspapers, and owned 58 of the 105 daily newspapers in Canada. These holdings included all the daily newspapers in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan, and both daily newspapers in Vancouver, the principal daily newspapers in Calgary, Edmonton, Quebec City, Windsor, Victoria, the daily English language newspaper in Montreal, the leading English newspaper in Ottawa as well as the French newspaper in that city, and the second newspaper in Halifax.
This position naturally led to a widespread imputation to us, and to me personally, of trying to mould public opinion in Canada and push and bully office-holders into policies we favoured, or that could be of particular material benefit to us. That was not, in fact, how we managed our business, but as I discovered in other spheres, public perceptions as created by the media, and facts are frequently completely disconnected. My late, distinguished senior partner, John A. McDougald, used to say that critics, especially media critics, mistakenly assume that people in positions of some wealth or influence behave as they themselves would in those positions.
Our practice was to invest in product quality, and build circulation and advertising on the back of that. We transferred to the principal Canadian titles the policies we had implemented in the resurrection of the London Daily Telegraph from insolvency. It had an aging readership and was a newspaper that carried only news and sports, and little finance, features, or interesting comment. We turned it into the most respected and profitable general newspaper in Europe with a daily circulation exceeding one million and an enviable demographic.
Readers in Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver, in particular, will, I think, recall the sharp improvement in the quality of the principal newspapers in those cities, starting in 1996. The late Neil Reynolds as editor, and Russell Mills as publisher, carried out their mandate from us to transform the Ottawa Citizen into a “newspaper worthy of the capital of a G-7 country.” They made it a newspaper for all of us, and all Ottawans, to be proud of, and its circulation, advertising revenue and profit rose.
The old Southam management had developed the practice of complete non-interference in the editorial process, with the general result that the editors were simply chairpersons of the editorial department and everyone did pretty much as they wished, with the observation of reasonable guidelines against defamation. The result was that initiative lagged, and comment and reporting became generally blurred and the soft-left biases of most members of what was rather self-flatteringly called the working press permeated the content of the newspapers, and alienated the local business communities that provided the advertising revenues, and also disappointed the discerning readers who knew the differences between a crisp, well-written product, and the almost unedited self-indulgence of indolent leftist journalists. It was approximately parallel to the difference between a place of education and a daycare centre.
We went over budgets with publishers, and agreed on reasonable efficiencies in the non-editorial areas. In the editorial departments, we asked for more enterprise and better writing and the absolute enforcement of the distinction between reporting and comment. Reporters who wanted to write signed comment pieces were welcome to do it, but not in the guise of objective reporting. In Britain, the leader of the Labour Party, Neil Kinnock, told me a number of times that he read the Daily Telegraph first because it was the fairest and most perceptive in its parliamentary coverage, even though in editorial matters we were an unwavering and stentorian supporter of the three-term Conservative prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. In the process, we sponsored a rescue plan for the Canadian Press, because my then-associate David Radler and I believed that Canada had to have a co-operative press association. We also made available the contents of the Telegraph newspapers, the London Spectator, Jerusalem Post, and the Chicago Sun-Times, all of which we also owned, and imported their relevant content to the Canadian titles as the local editors might wish. Thus did Mark Steyn, in particular, make his debut in his native country.
These techniques worked generally and the profits of the Southam chain almost tripled in three years. But even as we were accused of seeking to exercise a Mephistophelean influence in this country, we had in fact, almost no influence on national affairs. Canadian public policy was almost exclusively aligned with the soft-left consensus endlessly imparted by the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star and the French and English CBC, with the occasional contribution of Maclean’s trotting along beside them. Canada was essentially governed always somewhat to the left of the United States and took a corresponding position in international affairs, and conceded practically anything short of outright independence to the Quebec nationalists. That had been the unchanging line since The Globe and Mail ceased to be a conservative-leaning newspaper in about 1980. There were no other appreciable pressures on federal affairs other than from farther left, especially from the NDP and its activists in organized labour and the academic and media communities.
My associates and I concluded that practically all of western Canada, and the sizeable conservative (whether traditionalist or libertarian) minority in eastern Canada, were practically unrepresented in the national media. Coincidentally, our company, although it owned most of the daily newspapers in Canada, was not represented in its largest city, Toronto. We were pilloried for trying to exercise undue influence on federal affairs, when we in fact had no influence at all (and in any case were not trying to exercise any). There was also a discernible discount to our stock price due to our absence from Canada’s principal market. The solution to these gaps was obvious. We began by buying the Financial Post, which I had co-founded as a daily newspaper with the publisher of the Sun, Doug Creighton, and with the Financial Times of the U.K. in the early Eighties. After a careful canvass, Ken Whyte, the editor of Saturday Night, which we also owned, was recruited by me as editor of the new national newspaper, whose name was suggested by our distinguished colleague on our board of directors, Gen. Richard Rohmer.
The Globe and Mail was more vulnerable than it appeared; it was the third newspaper in Toronto circulation, and its status as a national newspaper was due to a few add-on bits in local editions across the country, in cities where, except for Winnipeg, we had the principal local newspaper. Ken did an astonishingly effective, if costly, job of recruiting. And although it was understood that he would not poach anyone from our British titles unless there was a distinct Canadian connection, he developed what my wife Barbara Amiel, former editor of the Toronto Sun and our editorial vice president, called “The Ken Whyte broad-jump.” If a Daily Telegraph journalist’s grandmother had gone to a summer camp in Quebec before the First World War, he held that the journalist was eligible for poaching.
As readers will recall, Ken built a splendid newspaper, and it distinctly changed and broadened political coverage and opinion throughout the country. It also worked commercially. Though competing newspaper companies claimed we squandered mountains of money on the start-up, it was within budget and the subsequent sale of the business to CanWest, after I became concerned about the commercial future of newspapers generally, fully justified the investment.
Besides that, apart from the very greatest days in Fleet Street, it was the most fun most of us ever had in newspapers. For all of us who had a hand in it, the National Post was and will always remain a subject of pride.
Truth will be a little late this year, a little late arriving in the Harvard University campus. No doubt it will emerge at the end of the Federal court hearing a case on discrimination in the admissions process for students. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts Allison Burroughs, Boston born though a grad of University of Pennslyvania Law School, is presiding without jury over the trial, civil proceedings, based on charges of discrimination against Asian-American applicants who are held to a different, more demanding standard than other applicants.
In Roman mythology Veritas, the goddess of truth is sometimes depicted as hidden in the bottom of a holy well. In the current trial process, Veritas, the motto of Harvard University, if not completely concealed has been displayed in mercurial fashion as new guidelines for admissions were issued a few days before the trial started to meet criticisms of its usual policy. Harvard has shown that it's not always true to applicants in its fashion.
The issue raised in the trial has many dimensions, not only for Harvard but also for the national educational process. The wider general question is whether American elite colleges are culturally biased in decisions on admissions. What criteria are or should be most considered for admission? Harvard has no written guidelines on the use of race for consideration, and indeed race and ethnicity seem prohibited, but they are considered if they contribute to the benefits of diversity.
The question of race in college admissions is a key issue, still hotly disputed, and the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to issue a complete decisive prounouncement on the issue. At the core, and underlying the issue at the Harvard trial, is the controversial question of affirmative action programs and the quality of diversity that the Court considers is vital to universities. Harvard has been accused of "racial balancing," and of intentionally discriminating against Asian-Americans, using a criteria of "personal ratings," as well as other usual metrics, test scores, recommendations of teachers, extracurricular activities, leadership qualities, social background, and charitable work.
Was selection at Harvard balanced? For the 2022 class, there was a record application of 42,749 , of whom 8,000 domestic students had perfect grade averages, 3,400 had highest SAT math, and 2,700 had highest verbal scores. Yet, in this particular case, Asian-Americans who compose 6% of the U.S. population account for 22% of recently admitted applicants, while African-Americans account for 15% and Hispanics 12%. Nonwhites are a majority of the current class.
The basic issue is that since the U.S. is becoming an increasingly diverse country should colleges reflect this and create campuses that illustrate this? Diversity is held to be the key to the Harvard mission, and by Supreme Court decisions, to universities generally, which is not possible without affirmative action, and therefore race must be considered to get racial diversity. The case made for diversity is that its benefits bring enlargement of understanding, career preparation, preparation for citizenship in today's multicultural democratic U.S. as well as for personal develpment. Diversity, it is argued, can lead to positive outcomes in school and in life, useful in communities.
Yet two factors can be considered. One is that diversity is associated with other, sometimes competitive factors, race, class, gender, sexual orientation. The other is that mere contact through desegregation in itself may not be enough to produce educational benefits to all students. In addition what is needed are racially integrated learning experiences that go beyond putting diverse students together in the same classroom.
The specific Harvard issue in the case is the "higher standard" for Asian-Americans based on personal factors. More of them would be admitted if evaluations were made only on academic factors. The specific case rests on the argument that Harvard has given lower personal ratings to them in a stereotypical and discriminatory fashion than to other applicants. This brings up the question of the "right" personality required. Personality may be defined as the totality of individual behavior and emotional characteristics, a set of traits which account for consistency.
There are various models of personality traits offered by psychologists and sociologists. A useful one that can be surveyed is in College Quarterly Summer 2006. It suggests a number of patterns of behavior. Extroversion (introversion), neuroticism (stability), agreableness (antagonism), conscientiousness ( un- directness), openness (non-openness).
These are explained as follows. Extraverts are usually sociable, friendly, active, assertive, stimulating .Introverts tend to be reserved, independents.
Neuroticics, tend to experience fear, disgust , anger. Stables are usually calm, even tempered, relaxed. Agreeable are good natured, cooperative, tolerant, generous, kind, fair.
Conscientious people are organized, disciplined, diligent, good organizers, have a positive attitude, linked to educational achievemnt and will to achieve. Openness indicates imagination, and initiative.
Asian-Americans are held by Harvard to register low on these positive personal ratings. Positive factors vary, but Harvard is said to consider qualities such as likeability, courage, optimistism, kindness, widely respected, unpretentious, unselfish, diligent, accomodating. But this appears biased. Analysis of the relationship between the models of personality and academic achievement vary in different studies, In some, extraversion is said to be negatively correlated with success in higher education. But there is no clear cut reltionship between neuroticism and achievement. Other studies indicate there are significant positive correlations between grade point average and conscientiousness and openness.
The conclusions are twofold. One is that the supposed traits of groups may not be good predictors of behavior. The second is that the behavior of individuals in a particular group may not be the same in every situation. The different personality traits can be looked at in different ways. They may dominate whole life; they can be some basic traits for individuals; they can be relevant in certain situations.
Moreover, two issues are relevant. One is that personality group differences are based on average, and there are considerable variations within a group, A second is whether personality differences are not innate and pre-existing but are the result of the socialization process.
No one can dispute the fact that many factors, individual, social, and national, have to be considered in decisions for admission to elite college institutions. It is fitting that Harvard has belatedly recognized this by issuing new guidelines on what personalities it wants for its freshman class. Changes that seem favorable for Asian-Americans, and for gifted students, seem to include those individuals who are reflective, insightful, quiet and studious. The qualities of diversity and inclusion may be desirable, but equally or more so are character and merit.
I had little doubt that law enforcement would quickly identify the person who was sending bombs through the mail addressed to prominent liberal figures. I did have some question as to which extreme the suspect would belong to ideologically. I thought there might be a possibility that it was some Antifa type trying to discredit the Trump administration and Republicans in general in the run-up to the midterm elections. I was wrong. By all accounts, the suspect, Cesar Sayoc, is a right-wing kook.
First and foremost, we should all be grateful that law enforcement has quickly brought an end to this scare. As a conservative, I have strong, negative feelings about all of the people who were targeted. Sending them bombs or targeting them for violence never entered my mind, nor would 99.9% of other conservatives ever entertain such thoughts. The actions of this person are despicable and deserving of the harshest punishment.
Of course, we are already seeing the crowing from the media and the left. President Trump is being blamed 24-7 for fostering an attitude of violence. Already, the despicable Maxine Waters, who has actively and with specificity encouraged her followers to get in the faces of Republicans and administration officials-with positive results, is hypocritically saying that Trump has to accept responsibility for the actions of Sayoc. We need no lectures in civility from the likes of Maxine Waters.
Cesar Sayoc will have his day in court where his guilt nor innocence will ultimately be established. What is important to note is that these acts will find little to no sympathy among Republicans or conservatives. We all applaud the prompt resolution of this case.
The last time Peter McLoughlin spoke to Sputnik, the British public were reeling from the exposure of a historic paedophile ring in Telford, Shropshire, through which as many as 1,000 young local girls were groomed for sex by a 200-strong syndicate of British-Asian men over a period spanning decades.
The scandal, which erupted in March, hardly came as a shock to Peter, and he was similarly unsurprised to learn local authorities — including the council and police — were well aware of the issue in the early 1990s but failed to act for fear of being labelled racist.
After all, four years earlier he'd authored Easy Meat, which delved into the issue of Islamic grooming gangs in forensic detail. His conclusions were stark — they're a nationwide epidemic, operating in almost every major town, and have been consciously covered up for decades. Perhaps predictably, his work was almost totally ignored by the mainstream — and while there's growing recognition of the phenomenon today, he believes the book will still be "years ahead" of public debate in decades to come.
Nonetheless, Peter's own views on the subject have evolved since its publication. While previously he believed officials' blind eye to grooming gangs was simply motivated by stringent political correctness, now he concludes politicians, supported by the media, law enforcement and other state organs, have forged a conspiracy of silence obscuring all negative aspects of Islam, in support of the long-term goal of "total Islamisation" of the West.
"Political elites are deliberately importing Muslims to the West, so that by the end of the 21st century Europe will be Islamic. The best way to end democracy — the limited oligarchical facade of democracy we have now — is to ensure populations are prepared to sacrifice rights and freedoms in return for Sharia law. Globalists need a global culture, and Islam is the one culture that does not give in. If elites were honest about this objective, and the reality of Islam, it'd never happen — so there's a constant need for immense duplicity," Peter told Sputnik.
The case of Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary palpably demonstrates "the extent to which this deception is constructed", Peter believes.
Jailed for five and a half years in March 2016 for inviting public support of Daesh*, a proscribed organization, in the 15 years prior the London-born Choudary had frequently made headlines for his extremist statements and activities. An avowed supporter of the global implementation of Sharia law, he helped recruit British-born Muslims to Osama Bin Laden's International Islamic Front in Chechnya, praised the perpetrators of the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks in the US and the July 7 2005 London underground bombings, called for the execution of the Pope in 2006, and co-founded Salafi Wahabi organization al-Muhajiroun — and much, much more.
Throughout his time in the media spotlight, journalists and politicians alike repeatedly and vociferously denounced him as an aberrant "hate preacher", whose extreme interpretation of the Quran was anomalous, having little or no support among the UK's Muslim population. His release from prison on October 19 produced a flurry of similar statements — but Peter's take is rather different.
"Choudary is not a maverick or an outlier. People who live in his adopted home of Walthamstow have told me whenever they see him on the street, he's mobbed by local Muslims, queuing up to shake his hand. Before his imprisonment, a production company made a documentary comparing Choudary and Tommy Robinson — Islamic extremists and anti-Islam activists being mirror images of one another is a common media trope — which featured footage of him receiving standing ovations in mosques, even ones he was supposedly banned from. Channel 4 purchased the documentary but it never aired, interestingly," Peter tells Sputnik.
If true, it wouldn't be the first time the broadcaster helped suppress uncomfortable truths about Islam in Britain. In May 2004, the network produced a 'Dispatches' documentary — Edge of the City — dealing with Muslim grooming gangs in Bradford, northern England.
The project was the culmination of an almost decade-long inquiry by director Anna Hall — she'd been contacted by the city's Barnardo's branch in October 1996, with a view to producing a film warning children and parents about a pattern of child sexual exploitation in the area, in which local Asian men were targeting girls aged-11 and up, giving them phones, and showering them with attention and affection — when they eventually had sex, the men would introduce their friends to the girls, and the girls would be coerced into sleeping with them too.
"Everybody wanted to pretend it wasn't happening. All anyone seemed concerned about was the risk of a race riot if we mentioned it, Hall has said.
However, on the eve of broadcast, Bradford council pressured Channel 4 into cancelling the program, on the basis it could impact the result of the impending local elections in Bradford, and potentially produce skirmishes between local youths, split along racial lines, which had engulfed the city three years prior.
"That a national broadcaster crumpled so easily to political pressure, and allowed a very important factual program to go unshown because it could've influenced the outcome of an election beggars belief. It's a clear demonstration the UK political establishment do not want citizens' voting behavior to be influenced by facts and evidence — and the determination of the authorities to obscure facts from public view," Peter told Sputnik.