headerphoto


CNN - A Quality Network



Hat Tip: Knuckledraggin my life away

Tags: CNN, fake news, very fake news To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Breaking News: Surveillance on Trump




Tags: Trump, surveillance To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Research on freedom of speech - pt2

United Nations General Assembly, sixty-seventh session, 13th August 2012, document ref. A/67/303

The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution 66/168.

======

15. Countless reports of grave violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief relate to converts and those who try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion. This has become a human rights problem of great concern which occurs in various parts of the world and seems to stem from different motives. For instance, abuses are perpetrated in the name of religious or ideological truth claims, in the interest of promoting national identity or protecting societal homogeneity, or under other pretexts such as maintaining political and national security. While some undue restrictions on the rights of converts or those trying non-coercively to convert others are undertaken by State agencies, other abuses, including acts of violence, stem from widespread societal prejudices. Violations in this sensitive area also include forced conversions or reconversions, again perpetrated either by the State or by non-State actors. In addition, the rights of converts or those trying non-coercively to convert others are sometimes questioned in principle. The Special Rapporteur has therefore decided to put a thematic focus on this issue in the present report in order to contribute to a clarification of the rights of converts and those trying non-coercively to convert others as inextricable dimensions of freedom of religion or belief.

16. The right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief has manifold facets. In the area of conversion, at least four subcategories warrant systematic attention: (a) the right to conversion (in the sense of changing one's own religion or belief; (b) the right not to be forced to convert; (c) the right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion; and (d) the rights of the child and of his or her parents in this regard. [...]

17. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly guarantees the "freedom to change" one's religion or belief  as an inextricable component of the human right to freedom of religion or belief. While subsequent United Nations instruments use slightly different wording, the right to conversion remains fully protected. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that freedom of thought, conscience and religion includes "freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice". Article 18 (2) was included partly to reinforce the protection of the right to conversion, stating that "[n]o one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice". Article 1 of the 1981 Declaration refers to everyone's "freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice".

======

19. It is generally agreed that within the ambit of freedom of religion or belief, the forum internum, namely, the internal dimension of a person's religious or belief-related conviction, enjoys absolute protection. In this regard, the forum internum differs from external manifestation of religion or belief, which can be restricted under certain conditions and in accordance with certain criteria. As pointed out by the Human Rights Committee, the forum internum also covers everyone's freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice and this freedom is protected unconditionally. Consequently, the right to conversion has the rank of an absolutely protected right within freedom of religion or belief and does not permit any limitations or restrictions for any reason.

======

21. States therefore have a number of obligations vis-a-vis the right to conversion. First, States should respect everyone's right to conversion as a forum internum component within freedom of religion or belief, for example, by abolishing punishments against converts and removing administrative obstacles. Moreover, States are obliged to protect the right to conversion against possible third-party infringements, such as violence or harassment against converts by their previous communities or their social environment. In addition, States should promote a societal climate in which converts can generally live without fear and free from discrimination.

======

3. Right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion.

26. Freedom of religion or belief is not confined to the dimension of a person's forum internum but also includes the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief in external acts, such as "worship, observance, practice and teaching". Such forum externum manifestations can be undertaken "either individually or in community with others and in public or private". It cannot be denied that this covers non-coercive attempts to persuade others, sometimes also called "missionary work". Communicative outreach activities aimed at persuading others, including religious discourse, can be further based on article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provide s that the right to freedom of expression shall include "freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

27. Similar to freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief has a strong communicative dimension which includes, inter alia, the freedom to communicate within one's own religious or belief group, share one's conviction with others, broaden one's horizons by communicating with people of different convictions, cherish and develop contacts across State boundaries, receive and disseminate information about religious or belief issues and try to persuade others in a non-coercive manner. Indeed, freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression are two mutually reinforcing human rights. In this spirit, article 6 of the 1981 Declaration confirms that the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief includes the freedoms "(d) to write, issue and disseminate relevant publications in these areas", "(e) to teach a religion or belief in places suitable for these purposes", and "(i) to establish and maintain communications with individuals and communities in matters of religion or belief at the national and international levels".

28. Unlike the forum internum dimension as discussed above (namely, the right to conversion and the right not to be forced to convert), manifestations of one's religion or belief in the forum externum do not enjoy absolute protection. However, the decisive point in international human rights law is that the burden of proof always falls on those who argue on behalf of restrictions, not on those who defend a right to freedom. The relationship between freedom and its possible limitation is a relationship between rule and exception. In case of doubt, the rule prevails and exceptions always imply an extra burden of argumentation, including clear empirical evidence of their necessity and appropriateness. Moreover, any restrictions imposed must meet all the critera set out in article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to which "[f]reedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others". Thus, limitations imposed on the right to try to convert others require a legal basis; they must pursue one of the legitimate aims exhaustively listed in article 18 (3); they should be clearly and narrowly defined; they must be proportionate; and they should not be implemented in a discriminatory manner. By contrast, general provisions against "proselytism", a term that often remains undefined or merely vaguely circumscribed while typically carrying negative connotations would not suffice to meet the criteria prescribed in article 18 (3).

======

45. In addition to criminal and administrative sanctions imposed by States or other restrictive State measures, individuals or groups trying to persuade others are often confronted with societal prejudices that sometimes escalate into fully fledged paranoia and concomitant acts of violence. This can even affect persons or communities who merely offer peaceful invitations. Members of religious communities that have a reputation  of being generally committed to missionary work may suffer from harassment, hostility and violence, regardless of whether or not they are personally engaged in any such activities.

======

D. Widespread misunderstandings

51. Freedom of religion or belief in the broad field of conversion is not only violated in practice; it is sometimes also questioned in principle. In discussions with representatives of Governments, members of various religious or belief communities and other stakeholders in society and academia, the Special Rapporteur has come across perceptions and conceptualizations that may lend intellectual support to undue infringements, in particular of the rights of converts and those trying to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion. He therefore briefly addresses some typical misunderstandings.

1. Disruption of peace and harmony

52. The most widespread objection against the right to try non-coercively to convert others concerns the fear that this may lead to a disruption of societal peace and interreligious harmony. A number of Governments have taken up such objections and turned them into a general argument of "public order" which they use to restrict the right to try to convert others even if such attempts are undertaken by means of strictly non-coercive persuasion. [...]

53. With regard to this issue, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes that he obviously shares an interest in promoting peaceful relations among people of different religions or beliefs. He further notes that freedom of religion or belief itself should be seen as conducive to peace. This is reflected, for example, in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims in its preamble that respect for human rights constitutes "the foundation [...] of freedom, justice and peace in the world".

54. The peace facilitated by human rights in general and freedom of religion or belief in particular is built on due recognition of people's most diverse convictions and concomitant practices. This includes respect for the right of individuals to communicate on questions of religion or belief, reach out across communities and State boundaries, broaden their own horizons or try to persuade others in a non-coercive manner. Thus, a society respectful of freedom of religion or belief for everyone, as guaranteed in international human rights law, will likely be a religiously pluralistic society, with open boundaries among different communities and subcommunities, and will also be open to peaceful competition and intellectual controversies on religious and belief related questions.

55. The specific concept of peace underlying international human rights clearly differs from the authoritarian control agendas that are sometimes also put forward in the name of "peace" or "harmony". However, a peace based on respect for the dignity and freedom of all human beings goes deeper and has a better chance of sustainability than any societal order organized around such ideas as hegemony, customs or mere authority. Respect for human dignity, in turn, is not conceivable without recognition of every human being's freedom to communicate about issues of religion or belief, including the right to try to persuade others in a non-coercive manner.

======

63. In his daily work, however, the Special Rapporteur receives numerous reports of grave violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief in the broad area of conversion. In the present report, he has discussed this topic, distinguishing four subcategories that deserve systematic attention: (a) the right to conversion (in the sense of changing one's own religion or belief); (b) the right not to be forced to convert; (c) the right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion; and (d) the rights of the child and of his or her parents in this context.

======

C. Right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion

66. In addition, many States impose tight legislative or administrative restrictions on communicative outreach activities. This may unduly limit the right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion, which itself constitutes an inextricable part of freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, many such restrictions are conceptualized and implemented in a flagrantly discriminatory manner, for instance, in the interest of further strengthening the position of the official religion or dominant religion of the country while further marginalizing the situation of minorities. Members of religious communities that have a reputation of being generally engaged in missionariy activities may also face societal prejudices that can escalate into paranoia, sometimes even leading to acts of mob violence and killings.

======

E. Recommendations to various actors

68. In general, the Special Rapporteur calls upon States to consistently respect, protect and promote the human right to freedom of religion or belief in the area of conversion. He reiterates that the right of conversion and its correlate, the right not to be forced to convert or reconvert, belong to the forum internum dimension of freedom of religion or belief, which has the status of unconditional protection under international human rights law. Furthermore, freedom of religion or belief includes the right to try to persuade others in a non-coercive manner. Any restrictions on missionary activities deemed necessary by States must therefore meet all the criteria set out in article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [...]

69. With regard to domestic legal provisions, including constitutions, legal statutes, by-laws and official interpretations of laws, the Special Rapporteur recommends that:

(a) States should clarify that the human right to freedom of religion or belief includes the right to convert and the right not to be forced to convert, both of which are unconditionally protected [...]

(f) States should further clarify that freedom of religion or belief includes the right to try to convert others by non-coercive means of communication and persuasion. This includes, inter alia, the dissemination of literature and other material relating to religion or belief [...]

70. With regard to different areas of administration, the Special Rapporteur recommends that: [...]

(d) States should give clear direction and training to law enforcement and similar agencies to ensure that they refrain from unduly infringing on the right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion; [...]

72. With regard to non-State actors, the Special Rapporteur recommends that: [...]

(c) Religious leaders and opinion formers should become aware and acknowledge that not only is conversion to their own religion or belief protected, but that any decision to replace one's current religion or belief with a different one or to adopt atheistic views is equally protected;

(d) Religious communities, interfaith groups and civil society and developmental aid organizations are encouraged to address issues of conversion and missionary activities in voluntary codes of conduct. They should use this as an opporunity to also promote more respectful attitudes towards converts and persons engaged in non-coercive missionary activities.

 ======


Document available here:   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/GA67session.aspx




Tags: freedom of speech, freedom of religion To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Is Sharia Law Compatible With US Law?




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


This article first appeared in New English Review.


Currently, many states are attempting to pass-or have passed- legislation which would preclude other forms of law being incorporated into state law. To be specific, the particular law they are trying to avoid is Islamic law-sharia (though they must avoid specifically targeting Islamic law as opposed to those of other religions). Correspondingly, Islamic leaders in the US are trying to combat this trend and prevent said laws from being passed. On one front, Muslim leaders in the US are involved in a public relations drive to convince non-Muslims that sharia law is perfectly compatible with the US Constitution and US law. It is not, and it is very easy to prove it.

Sharia in Arabic means, "straight path". In the early time of Islam it referred to the straight path to water, life's necessity. Since Islam is designed to guide virtually every aspect of the believer's life, sharia is quite detailed. Its two main sources are the Qu'ran and the Sunnah (sayings, actions and approvals of the Prophet Mohammad). Its interpretation through the centuries has come from the learned Islamic scholars.

Much of sharia is benign and related to principles of how one worships, marriage, divorce, financial rights etc. There are also civil and criminal aspects and punishments for criminal violations. Aside from the obvious discriminatory details regarding women and non-Muslims, it is in the area of criminal punishments that sharia is most problematic.

This past weekend, I attended a day-long seminar presented by the (Islamic) Institute of Knowledge in Diamond Bar, California on the topic of sharia. This was the third such event I have attended. While the very capable presenters explained sharia well and defended it, they  included an explanation of the most problematical part of sharia, that is hudud sharia, which covers fixed punishments for "crimes against God". According to what was presented, there are 5 "crimes" included in hudud. (Hudud is plural of hadd, which means "boundary" in Arabic.)

1 Unlawful sex-which may be adultery involving married people having sex outside of marriage or fornication involving unmarried people. According to the Qu'ran, the latter is punishable by 100 lashes, and the former by stoning.

2 Accusing someone falsely of unlawful sex, which is punishable by 80 lashes.

3 Theft, which is punishable by cutting off the hand.

4 Drinking alcohol- 80 lashes.

5 Highway robbery, which is considered a more serious form of theft especially if it involves death. This form of robbery is punishable by death.

What the presenters attempted to do was quickly point out that the standards of proof for these crimes are extremely high to the point of making conviction and administering the above punishments almost impossible. For example, the adultery charge requires confession and 4 male witnesses (emphasis mine).

I could stop right here with my thesis that sharia is not compatible with US laws, but there is so much more. We have not even gotten to the "crimes" of apostasy and blasphemy yet. We were told Saturday that apostasy and blasphemy are not covered under hudud.  Well and good, but they are still out there. The subject of apostasy really only came up due to audience questions (mine), which had to be written on note cards and passed to the front hopefully to be selected. We were told that in a non-Muslim country, the decision to leave Islam is between that person and God. In a Muslim country, it was explained that the apostate would be given 4 chances to repent and return to Islam before any sentence could be carried out. It was also explained that even in Muslim lands, if a person left Islam quietly, they would be left alone, but if they "undermine the state or stir up trouble", they would be guilty of treason and the death penalty would apply. (I was told once by a Saudi lawyer that in his country, an accused apostate gets 3 chances to repent before being executed.)

So as not to engage in overkill, let's cut to the chase. It is irrelevant whether or not the standards of proof are ridiculously high. It is irrelevant whether or not a person gets the chance to repent. What is relevant is that in our country, we don't even have laws against drinking (adults), adultery or fornication. Nor do we have laws against apostasy or blasphemy. Yet under sharia law, these are considered crimes and merit either the death penalty or lashing. We must also reject any law that discriminates against women or against those who do not belong to a particular faith-in this case Islam. Furthermore, in modern (nation-state) times, treason is considered betraying one's nation-not one's religion.

These aspects of sharia are clearly not compatible with our values and our laws. Every person living in the US-Muslim or non-Muslim- is entitled to enjoy every single protection that our constitution offers. Properly drafted, laws that preclude any outside law (including sharia) from being considered or recognized in our own laws should be passed.

Research on freedom of speech - pt1

United Nations General Assembly.  Sixtieth Session.  30th September 2005.  Document Reference: A/60/399

Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance

Note by the Secretary-General

The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir, submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution 55/199.


2. Applicable standards

46. The Special Rapporteur notes that, according to universally accepted international standards, the right to freedom of religion or belief includes the right to adopt a religion of one's own choice, the right to change religion and the right to maintain a religion. She also notes that these aspects of the right to freedom of religion or belief have an absolute character and are not subject to any limitation whatsoever.

47. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion "includes freedom to change [one's] religion or belief". Article 1 of the 1981 Declaration states that "[t]his right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of [one's] choice" and that "[n]o one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice".

48. The content of article 18, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is the result of a lengthy process of discussion in the Human Rights Commission and the third Committee of the General Assembly. The wording initially proposed was "Everyone should have the freedom to maintain or to change his religion", but, following opposition by some countries which feared that the formulation would lend encouragement to proselytism and anti-religious propaganda, it was changed to "have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice", a wording that was adopted without dissent. This final version of the provision was undoubtedly intended to include the right to convert from one religion or belief to another. The Human Rights Committee, in paragraph 5 of its general comment No. 22 (1993) on article 18, observed that "the freedom to 'have or adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief."

49. The fact that article 18, paragraph 3, of the Covenant to be imposed only on the manifestation of religion or belief clearly assigns the freedom to "have or to adopt a religion or belief" to the first part of paragraph 1, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, also called forum internum, which cannot be interfered with in any way. In its general comment No. 22 the Human Rights Committee states clearly that article 18 "does not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom of thought and conscience or on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice" (para. 3).

50. This prohibition of limitation is reinforced by paragraph 2 of the same article, which provides that "[n]o one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice." The fact that the prohibition of coercion was made explicit shows that the drafters of the Covenant found the freedom provided by paragraph 1 to be so significant that any form of coercion by the State was impermissible, independently of whether the coercion was physical or in the form of State-sponsored incentives. According to the Human Rights Committee:

"Article 18.2 bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert. Policies or practices having the same intention or effect, such as, for example, those restricting access to education, medical care, employment or the rights guaranteed by article 25 and other provisions of the Covenant, are similarly inconsistent with article 18.2" (general comment No. 22, para. 5).

======

58. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur would mainly refer to the arguments made earlier in this report. The right to change religion is absolute and is not subject to any limitation whatsoever. Any legislation that would prohibit or limit the right to change one's religion would be contrary to international human rights standards and the provisions mentioned above.

======

61. Also, while not explicitly including religious rights, article 19 of ICCPR, which protects freedom of expression, is formulated in a way that also covers missionary activities: "[T]his right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of [one's] choice". The Human Rights Committee's constant jurisprudence has deemed the protection afforded by article 19 extremely strong.

62. Whereas the scope of freedom afforded to persons for the practice of their religion or belief by producing and distributing information about their religion or belief is wide, certain limitations can be imposed in accordance with article 18, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. However, it should be noted that this article allows for restrictions only in very exceptional cases. In particular the fact that it mentions the protection of "fundamental rights and freedoms" (emphasis added) of others as a ground for restriction indicates a stronger protection than for some other rights whose limitation clauses refer simply to the "rights and freedoms of others" (e.g. article 12, 21 and 22). It could indeed be argued that the freedom of religion and belief of adults basically is a question of individual choice, so any generalized State limitation (e.g. by law) conceived to protect "others'" freedom of religion and belief by limiting the right of individuals to conduct missionary activities should be avoided.

63. The test for legality of a prohibition of any act motivated by belief or religion is therefore extremely strict. In practice, the European Court of Human Rights has given some guidance concerning the distinction between permissible religious persuasion, on the one hand, and coercion on the other. In Larissis v. Greece, the court decided that an officer of the Greek army had exploited his position of authority over his subordinates in trying to convert them. However, in Kokkinakis v. Greece, the Court did not find any violation when Jehovah's Witnesses called on their neighbour to discuss religious issues with her since that act, in the Court's view, fell under "bearing Christian witness" and was therefore protected by article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Judge Pettiti, in his partly concurring opinion, made this particularly clear: "Freedom of religion and conscience certainly entails accepting proselytism, even where it is not respectable. Believers and agnostic philosophers have a right to expound their beliefs, to try to get other people to share them and even to try to convert those whom they are addressing."

======

88. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that, as a principle, no one should be imprisoned because of his or her religious beliefs or the exercise of his or her right to freedom of religion or belief.

======

96. The right to adopt a religion of one's own choice, to change or maintain a religion is a core element of the right to freedom of religion or belief and may not be limited in any way by the State. When it is challenged by non-State actors, States have a positive obligation to ensure the enjoyment of this right.

97. Missionary activities and other forms of propagation of religion are part of the right to manifest one's religion or belief. They may be limited only under restrictive conditions, and the Special Rapporteur disapproves of the criminalization of certain acts specific to the propagation of one's religion.


http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/docs/A_60_399.pdf

Available at:  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/Annual.aspx



Tags: freedom of speech, freedom of religion To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

communism / socialism



Hat tip: NInety Miles from Tyranny

Tags: tyranny, communism, socialism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Red River Bible Conference - Live Now

Red River Bible Conference - Live Streaming NOW

(Paul McGuire, Mike Hoggard, Roger Oakland, Chris Pinto.)




Tags: Paul McGuire, Roger Oakland, End Times To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

The Face of Angela Merkel's Insane Immigration Policy




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Vlad Tepes




https://vladtepesblog.com/2017/03/10/mothers-facebook-post-to-her-son-victim-of-muslim-jihad-attack-in-dusseldorf/

This is the Face of Angela Merkel's insane immigration policy. His name is Domenico, and he is one of the victims of yesterday's axe attack by a Kosovar asylum seeker at the main train station in Duesseldorf.

Below is the translation of what his mother has put on social media:

This is my son Domenico in the intensive care of the University Clinic…
Amok at the Düsseldorf Main Train Station
He was hit in the head with an axe, from behind… Surgery took Long
The media is downplaying it all
It is terrible and incomprehensible
You are welcome to share this….
I Love You my Son

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As usual, the mother is correct. The media is downplaying it all. The attacker is described as mentally ill. The police have reported that they have given him his medicine which he had neglected to take. What's next-his release? It seems every time an attack happens, the attacker is described as mentally disturbed. Perhaps, that is the case here, but aside from any mental imbalance, what was the motive for this attack?

Domenico is just another victim not only of Merkel's policy, but the policy of most all the Western Europe governments, as well as the policy of the EU. I guess the Europeans just have to get used to the new multi-culturalism and "cultural enrichment" that the left celebrates.

Academic Crybabies




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Campus Watch




In the world of academia, academic freedom is a concept that professors only apply to themselves and their particular beliefs not to the beliefs of those with whom they disagree. In the world of academia, to disagree with a professor and criticize what they "profess" is an attack, a threat, something that puts their jobs and their very lives in danger. As an example, we now have what I will call the "Gang of 63". When they learned recently that there was a group compiling a list of names of professors students should avoid (if they don't want to be exposed to what PW calls "a radical agenda in lecture halls"), they cried foul-then publicly requested their names be added as some sort of badge of honor. They are accusing Campus Watch of slandering them and threatening them with violence.

http://www.campus-watch.org/correction/115

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not an employee of Campus Watch though some of my articles have been cross-posted there on occasion. Nor am I affiliated with Professor Watch. Nor did I have any part in putting that list together. Having said that, I am familiar with several of the professors whose names appear on the list and have interacted with some of them. Hell, Mark LeVine even accused me of being "slanderous" when I called him an anti-Israel activist to his face in front of an audience. Talk about trying to have it both ways!

The reason you see the image above with the Palestinian flag attached to the crybaby's face is that virtually all of the names I recognize are anti-Israel activists. Here is an example of these "scholars" hysterical language:

"The newly inaugurated U.S. administration has created an atmosphere of violence, racism, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism. A less discussed aspect of these attacks is on academic freedom. The 2016 election has taken to new extremes the threats to academic freedom. We can see a preview of what this administration intends in their response to the recent cancellations of "talks" by professional provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, who engages in public, cruel harassment of students who are critical of his extremist views, from the lectern through trigger cameras that project students' images without their consent. He then proceeds to taunt them and incite actions against them on the basis of their physical appearance, race, sexuality, and gender. Instead of condemning this kind of incitement, President Trump has threatened to withhold federal funding from UC Berkeley after Yiannopoulos' "talk" was cancelled at UC Berkeley and other UC campuses."

In the interest of full disclosure, they might have said that Yiannopoulos' "talk" at Berkeley was cancelled due to a riot.

Then there is this scholarly gem:

"This watchlist echoes Horowitz's project, Campus Watch."

As pointed out very effectively by CW, they are not affiliated with David Horowitz or his Freedom Center. If they can't get that right, what does that say about their scholarship in the classroom?

But I am going to put this "California Scholars for Academic Freedom" on my own list. In fact, I am going to give them their own link  at Fousesquawk. Henceforth, you will find them under the heading: Fiction Section.


Carnival in Germany




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Vlad Tepes


A German took the below-linked video in Duesseldorf during Rosenmontag (Rose Monday). The police are everywhere. The narration is in German with English sub-titles.

https://vladtepesblog.com/2017/02/28/german-parade-more-cops-than-participants/

And why so many police? Ask Angela Merkel. It is to protect the Germans from the hundreds of thousands of low-lifes, criminals, rapists, and possible terrorists that she let into the country.

"Wir schaffen dass." (We can do this)