Tuesday, May 03, 2016
Watch Precious Snowflake Go Berserk At UMass Event On Political Correctness
On April 25, The American Enterprise Institute’s Christina Hoff Sommers, Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos, and comedian/commentator Steven Crowder were part of a free speech event at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. Of course, the topic of the discussion was political correctness on campus, which sent the cupcake brigade into a conniption fit.
All I can say is God bless Campus Reform for capturing one of these precious snowflakes going absolutely berserk at the event. The clip is embedded for your enjoyment below (via Campus Reform) [Warning: some strong language]:
One of the protesters took it upon herself to pass out literature expressing her concern for the “triggering” event, claiming the speakers “all demonstrate either that you don’t give a shit about people’s trauma and pain and think it’s funny to thrust people into states of panic and distress OR that you fundamentally do not understand what a trigger is, what it means to be triggered, and what a trigger warning is meant to prevent.”
When Campus Reform asked the activist to elaborate on the flyers, she refused to provide her name or comment because, as she put it, “Campus Reform causes death and death threats due to its extreme language.”
As the speakers walked onto the stage they were greeted with boos and middle fingers from many audience members, to which Steven Crowder graciously responded with a middle finger of his own.
The speakers were constantly interrupted throughout the event by shouts from the audience to “go home” or that “we don’t want you here,” with some of the most enthusiastic hollering coming from the very protester Campus Reform had attempted to speak with before the event.
When the protester attempts to interrupt Yiannopoulos at the beginning of the video, Hoff Sommers tells her to “calm down, young lady.” Paying no heed, the protester responds with an impassioned “Fuck you! Fuck you!”
Later on, the young lady begins loudly asserting that “hate speech is not welcome here” and demanding that the speakers “keep your hate speech off this campus,” all while insisting that she is the true embodiment of free speech.
“Stop talking to us like children!” she demands at another point.
“Then stop acting like a child,” Hoff Sommers responds coolly.
First, the notion that Campus Reform causes death by using “extreme language” is just absurd in itself. Second, you’re just asking to be mocked when you have to dole out pamphlets saying that the people on stage, or any speaker invited to a college campus that leans to the right, doesn’t understand what a trigger warning is—as if to suggest it’s a real thing.
It’s a figment of the progressive imagination to censor views that don’t like because they lack the maturity to deal with the fact that in a world of over six billion people—some might have differing opinions on certain subjects. Oh, the horror! The horror!
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg torched the political correctness ethos being injected into college campuses in his commencement address at the University of Michigan yesterday, calling “safe spaces” a “most dangerous” place since it fools young minds into thinking that they can cordon off a space where no differing opinions can enter. He labeled such activity counterproductive in our politics, both at home and abroad, aptly noting that an open mind is what makes American society, and others that embrace freedom of speech and expression, unique.
You are either for freedom of speech or against it. There’s no such thing as being a part-time free speech supporter. Reality is going to pummel these precious flowers. It’s going to be nasty—that realization that your feelings don’t trump our constitutional right to free speech. And yes, that includes getting your feelings hurt.
UK: Head teachers argue parents should be stripped of right to take children out of religious education
Parents do not always know what is best for their children, head teachers have said as they call on the Government to strip parents of their right to take their children out of religious education lessons.
The call came as senior teachers warned groomers and radicalisers "exploit the 'us and them syndrome'", making it crucial for pupils to attend RE classes to expose them to other faiths and teach them about tolerance.
Parents currently have the right to pull their children out of the lessons, but teachers have warned the rule is undermining their work.
The promotion of British values has been a core part of the Government strategy to tackle radicalisation, with the Prime Minister himself saying no school should be excluded from teaching them.
However, heads are now demanding that the Government scrap the parental right to take children out of RE as they see it in stark contrast with the Prime Minister's ambitions.
On Sunday teachers passed a motion almost unanimously that calls on the executive of the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) "to negotiate with the Department for Education to revoke the existing legal framework which entitles parents to be able to withdraw their children from Religious Education".
Speaking in favour of the motion, Hilary Alcock, head teacher of Buntingsdale Primary School and Nursery in Shropshire, said schools needed to show they “respect what is important to pupils and make RE and entitlement for all”.
“Parents may know their children best, but they may not always know what is best for them,” she said.
“What is best for them is they grow up in modern Britain maybe outside of their own experience and their child’s primary socialisation.”
Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson, head of Anderton Park School in Birmingham who seconded of the motion, said RE was key to shield children from potential "groomers and radicalisers" who exploit differences.
She told the conference: "If it's laughable that we would withdraw our children from English or science why is it ok to withdraw from RE?
"We share many beliefs as human beings and are usually very different in a few. This is diversity and a good thing. Allowing withdrawal is not inclusive, it's divisive.
"Groomers and radicalisers exploit the ‘us and them’ syndrome, they exploit ignorance and narrow views of life. Radicalisation specifically encourages only feel and do.
"Learning about the teaching of love, not hate, has to be a good thing. Designing a Christmas card does not make you a Christian, visiting a Sikh temple does not make you a Sikh, being interested in Ramadan does not make a Muslim. They make you a participant in life."
Tony Hegarty, an NAHT member from Liverpool, said some parents used the rules to get their children out of certain aspects of religious education.
He said: “It saddens me to say that sometimes parents only exercise the right to withdraw children from RE when the topics being studied are Hinduism, Judaism or Islam, and that I think is an extremely divisive mechanism."
Group of Australian university students demand apology from Human Rights Commission in race case
A female administrator barred some students from a university facility on racial grounds but she now whines about the students calling her a racist. So the students are being sued!
Two students accused the Human Rights Commission yesterday of “recklessly” breaching their human rights in a row stemming from a $250,000 damages claim brought by a worker who barred white students from a room at the Queensland University of Technology.
Jackson Powell and Calum Thwaites, who lodged separate complaints with the commission, are seeking a formal apology and compensation for their costs in defending racial hatred claims.
They say the commission has treated them with “flagrant indifference” because they are “white Anglo-Saxon heterosexual citizens who maintain a male gender identity”, have no criminal record, no outspoken political opinions and no record of participation in trade unions or religious sects.
Their lawyer, Tony Morris QC, said the commission’s conduct in managing the case had been “illogical, irrational and patently bizarre”, leading to gross unfairness to Mr Powell, Mr Thwaites and other students.
The Brisbane men, who strenuously deny being racist, have appealed to politicians to revisit section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, which has been used to restrict freedom of speech.
Commission president Gillian Triggs is expected to personally investigate the formal complaints from the students as the legislative framework prohibits her from delegating to another member.
The students say their rights were infringed because the commission failed for at least 14 months to notify them they were being accused of racial vilification under section 18c.
The delay meant that while QUT, its staff and its lawyers had 14 months to prepare a defence to the claims by QUT staffer Cindy Prior, Mr Thwaites was told of the serious complaint days before he was told to go to a conciliation conference ordered and run by the commission. He had no funds and little time to get legal advice or achieve a resolution before the case escalated to the Federal Circuit Court.
The racial vilification case was lodged in the commission in late May 2014 by Ms Prior, who alleges she was severely traumatised by Facebook posts from students responding to her action in preventing the men using QUT’s Oodgeroo Unit in May 2013.
The unit has been described as a “culturally safe space” for indigenous students, but there was no sign suggesting it was off-limits to white students who wanted to access computers that were not in use.
Ms Prior has been unable to work for 2½ years and wants $250,000 from QUT and the students. The students have insisted their posts were innocuous, harmless and a legitimate expression of their freedom of speech.
The FOI documents show that Mr Thwaites and other students were not told they were accused of racial vilification in the commission until late last July.
A file note by commission officer Ting Lim on July 28 states she advised the university’s solicitor that QUT “has known about this complaint for over year … it’s not the fault of the commission that the QUT has waited a week before the (conciliation conference) to notify the students.
“If a student is notified and wants to attend next week, they will have to make time”.
Federal Circuit Court judge Michael Jarrett has reserved his decision since a March 11 hearing in which the students sought to have Ms Prior’s racial vilification case dismissed.
Posted by jonjayray at 12:55 AM