The Diversity File: That Will Teach the Little Bugger -- Indian Mothers Beats Son to

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 08 January 2013 06:06

*The Diversity File: That Will Teach the Little Bugger -- Indian Mothers Beats Son to Death for Failure to Memorize Koran Verses* Updated: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:01:37 GMT | By The Associated Press, thecanadianpress.com UK jails mom for killing son over Qur’an study ------------------------------ - <http://news.ca.msn.com/world/uk-jails-mom-for-killing-son-over-qur%e2%80%99an-study#> ------------------------------ [image: UK jails mom for killing son over Qur’an study] *This is an undated image released by South Wales Police via the PA shows of Sara Ege. * -A British judge has sentenced Sara Ege a "devoted and loving mother" to at least 17 years in prison for beating her son to death after he failed to memorize passages from the Quran. Sara Ege was convicted last month of murdering 7-year-old Yaseen and burning his body to destroy the evidence. (AP Photo/South Wales Police, PA) UNITED KINGDOM OUT NO SALES NO ARCHIVE LONDON - A British judge on Monday sentenced a woman he called a "devoted and loving mother" to at least 17 years in prison for beating her son to death after he failed to memorize passages from the Qur’an. A jury at Cardiff Crown Court in Wales convicted 33-year-old Sara Ege last month of murdering 7-year-old Yaseen and burning his body to destroy the evidence. Judge Wyn Williams said Ege beat Yaseen repeatedly with a stick over several months, causing internal injuries. He said that, on the day he died in 2010, Yaseen had been kept home from school to memorize verses from the Muslim holy book, and that his failure "was the trigger for the beating" that killed him. The judge agreed with defence arguments about India-born Ege's state of mind, saying she was "a devoted and loving mother" who suffered from depression and had been a victim of domestic violence. Still, he said, she subjected her son to "prolonged cruelty." Ege admitted killing her son in a confession taped by police, but later retracted it and blamed her husband, Yousef. He was tried and acquitted on a charge of failing to prevent his son's death. Ege sobbed as the judge passed sentence. Williams said the 2 1/2 years she had spent in secure psychiatric units since her arrest would count toward her 17-year minimum sentence.

 

The Complaining Nigerian Albino & Niqabs in Court: Time To Select Immigrants for Cult

Written by Paul Fromm

Sunday, 06 January 2013 09:06

The Complaining Nigerian Albino & Niqabs in Court: Time To Select Immigrants for Cultural Compatibility Hardly a week goes by without another bizarre reminder of the folly of Canada's "diversity" doctrine, so beloved of our political and media class and the collapsing credibility of our attachment to the absurdity of multiculturalism Exhibit One reads like the script of one of those zany 1970s comedies directed by John Cleese. It is the case of the Nig9erian albino complaining to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission and demanding that the restaurant chain Earls drop the name "Albino Rhino", beer it markets as the name is offensive to albinos. Apparently, the rhinos don't have a spokesman to state whether the name bothers them. Perhaps, they are more thick skinned.d media class and the collapsing credibility of our attachment to the absurdity of multiculturalism Exhibit One reads like the script of one of those zany 1970s comedies directed by John Cleese. It is the case of the Nig9erian albino complaining to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission and demanding that the restaurant chain Earls drop the name "Albino Rhino", beer it markets as the name is offensive to albinos. Apparently, the rhinos don't have a spokesman to state whether the name bothers them. Perhaps, they are more thick skinned. Toronto Star (Dec 19, 2012) reports: "A British Columbia woman who suffers from albinism wants the name Albino Rhino beer removed from 24 Earls Restaurants in B.C. And the province’s Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear her case. The complaint was filed by Ikponwosa Ero, a 31-year-old immigrant from Nigeria, who argues it is offensive to brand a product after a disability or medical condition. Ero was born with albinism. ... Ero is a researcher with Under the Same Sun, a charity dedicated to helping those with the condition. The basis for the complaint is that albinos are persecuted in Africa and albinos are stigmatized in other parts of the world. In some African countries, there have been reports that albinos are murdered and their body parts used in potions sold by witch doctors. Ero told the Star that she first saw the Albino Rhino beer when she was served water at an Earls with the name of the beer on the glass. She hid the glass from her university friends out of embarrassment. ''I did not want them to notice it,' she explained. 'I knew that they would associate the brand with me because I have albinism.' The human rights complaint was launched a few months after Earls introduced a promotion for chicken wings which was marked as Albino Wing Wednesdays on April 27, 2011. ... Ero is not seeking a penny in compensation. The human rights case is only about changing a brand that is considered offensive. Mark Barry, vice-president of human resources at Earls, released a statement on Monday, defending the use of the name Albino Rhino, which is marketed using a white rhinoceros. They have been selling this pale ale brand of beer for 25 years. 'It did not occur to us that the name would be associated with Albinism, nor did it occur to us it would offend, and in the 25 years we have been serving this beer we have never had a complaint about the name, until now,' Barry said. Earls also stated that the name was made in fun only." Where to begin? Well, first of all, just what is it the hyper-sensitive Ikponwosa Ero brings to Canada. What skill does she possess that no Canadian does? Apparently, she works for an albino lobby group. Does Canada have no albinos to do this job? One throws up one's hands at the frivolousness of this complaint, which, will nonetheless cost Earls a bundle to defend. Albino Rhino is not mocking human albinos. If anyone has a beef, it's rhinos. Canada and Earls do not discriminate against albinos. Earls didn't deny the high maintenance Ero service. In fact, Canada protects the unusual, apparently, a reality Ero admits when she indicates that, in some African countries, albinos are feared and killed and their body parts used in witchcraft mumbo jumbo. So, how does Ero thank Canada for its tolerance? By trying to dictate what products a restaurant no one forces her to patronize may market. EXHIBIT TWO: This is the case of thee witness in a niqab who refuses to show her face. Some nameless Moslem woman -- of course, in secrecy obsessed Canada her identity is hidden --has filed a sexual assault complaint against a cousin and uncle for activities that date back to her childhood. [The case already reeks of a culture foreign to us. In many Moslem lands marriage to first cousins in endemic.] Anyway,the complainant refused to take off her niqab when called to testify. Defence counsel objected saying that facial expressions and demeanour were key to assessing the credibility of the witness. The challenge -- the actual charge has not yet been heard -- went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a December ruling, the Court provided a blueprint for confusion. The National Post (December 22, 2012) commented: "If it’s your job to clean the room, you shouldn’t leave a bigger mess than you started with. But that alas is exactly what the Supreme Court of Canada has done with its decision in the niqab case, more formally known as R. v. N.S. The reason to have a Supreme Court is to lay down rules of law that lower courts can follow. When the high court answers a yes-or-no question as, “you go figure it out,” it abdicates its responsibility and wastes everybody’s time. In the niqab case, the Supreme Court faced a painful problem. How should courts reconcile the following three conflicting principles? 1.The Canadian legal tradition requires an accuser to face the accused in open court. The word “face” is literal. Courts are often called upon to assess credibility. Human beings determine the credibility, not only by the words said, but the body language and facial expressions that accompany those words. 2.Canada also accords wide leeway to religious belief. Some versions of Islam prescribe that women are required to cover their faces in public places, including court rooms. While other Islamic authorities dispute this belief, it is not the business of the courts of Canada to decide what is and what is not appropriately Islamic. 3.Canadians are generally mistrustful of rules that subordinate or demean women. Most of us would agree that veiling does just that. Veiling takes for granted that women are sexual objects first and foremost, and assigns to women all the onus and burden of preventing sexual misconduct. Tough problems. So what’s the answer? The answer from the court amounts to an order to lower courts to … keep guessing. The high court will tell them when they are getting warmer, and when they are getting colder. Sometimes niqab in court will be OK. Sometimes niqab will not be OK. Which is which will depend on the answers to a series of intricate and even unanswerable questions: 1.Is the witness who is requesting to be niqabbed sincere in her religious belief? 2.Will the niqab create a serious risk to trial fairness? 3.Might the conflict between trial fairness and religious belief be resolved some other way than by niqab removal? And then — my favourite — Question 4: “Do the salutary effects of requiring the witness to remove the niqab outweigh the deleterious effects of doing so?” When the high court answers a yes-or-no question as, “you go figure it out,” it abdicates its responsibility and wastes everybody’s time I like question 4 because it turns out to contain within itself an additional series of a half-dozen questions, each of them as murky and ultimately unknowable as the first three listed above." So nutty was the Supreme Court decision that in niqab cases, the trial judge must decide the sincerity of the woman's religious beliefs. In this case, where the woman makes practical exceptions to wearing the complete veil, that is not enough to decide the beliefs are insincere: "The pretrial judge in the original case said that the woman’s belief in the original case was not sufficiently strong, because she was willing to remove it in other circumstances (e.g., driver’s license photo, security screening). Chief Justice McLauchlin found that the strength of a belief was not the relevant test, but rather judges should consider the sincerity of the belief." But aren't strength and sincerity the same thing? The Globe and Mail (December 20, 2012) noted editorially of the very divided court decision 4-2-1: "The Supreme Court of Canada should have said unequivocally that, when a fair trial is at serious risk and no accommodation is possible, a Muslim witness may not wear a niqab (face veil) in the courtroom." Only two judges argued for upholding our legal tradition of requiring a witness to testify opening, without a veil, mask or bag over the face: "In separate reasons, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel and Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein took the ... position that witnesses should never be allowed to wear the niqab in the witness box.They said that the rights of an accused person to fully cross-examine a witness - including assessing her facial expressions during questioning - is paramount. 'Since cross-examination is a necessary tool for the exercise of the right to make full answer and defence, the consequences of restrictions on that right weigh more heavily on the accused, and the balancing process must work in his or her favour,' they said. " (Globe and Mail, December 20, 2012) A Globe and Mail poll taken in the wake of the decision found Canadians overwhelmingly opposed to special privileges for unusual foreigners. Asked "Do you think a woman should be allowed to wear a niqab while testifying in court?" a resounding 89$ said no! Grassroots common sense suggests that, in screening potential immigrants, a key question ought to be cultural compatibility. Right now with 7.3% unemployment -- the real figures are far higher -- we don't need any immigrants at all. However, should we again need immigrants, we must ask just what a potential newcomer offers Canada. Yes, of course, a needed skill in an area where there are jobs is important. However, cultural compatibility is also important. The potential immigrant should be questioned and the answers recorded and kept. They should be quizzed as to whether their beliefs will cause them to make disruptive demands of our system. Will they insist on packing a dagger (kirpan) even in areas where weapons are not allowed? Will they insist on wearing veils or niqabs in courts or in public places? Will they insist that their female children not attend mixed swimming or music classes (as some Moslems have). They should be held to their answers and backsliding on these assurances should be grounds for revoking their admission. Canada is twisting itself into a pretzel trying to accommodate the weird, zany and unassimilable from the four corners of the globe. We should be screening people who can comfortably fit in, not be a never ending source of demands for us to change our society. They hail from failed cultures. Why should we permit them to tamper will a successful culture they chose to come to? Paul Fromm Director CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEESee More <http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=126859120813670&set=pcb.126859640813618&type=1&relevant_count=2> [image: Photo: The Complaining Nigerian Albino & Niqabs in Court: Time To Select Immigrants for Cultural Compatibility Hardly a week goes by without another bizarre reminder of the folly of Canada's "diversity" doctrine, so beloved of our political and media class and the collapsing credibility of our attachment to the absurdity of multiculturalism Exhibit One reads like the script of one of those zany 1970s comedies directed by John Cleese. It is the case of the Nig9erian albino complaining to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission and demanding that the restaurant chain Earls drop the name "Albino Rhino", beer it markets as the name is offensive to albinos. Apparently, the rhinos don't have a spokesman to state whether the name bothers them. Perhaps, they are more thick skinned. Toronto Star (Dec 19, 2012) reports: "A British Columbia woman who suffers from albinism wants the name Albino Rhino beer removed from 24 Earls Restaurants in B.C. And the province’s Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear her case. The complaint was filed by Ikponwosa Ero, a 31-year-old immigrant from Nigeria, who argues it is offensive to brand a product after a disability or medical condition. Ero was born with albinism. ... Ero is a researcher with Under the Same Sun, a charity dedicated to helping those with the condition. The basis for the complaint is that albinos are persecuted in Africa and albinos are stigmatized in other parts of the world. In some African countries, there have been reports that albinos are murdered and their body parts used in potions sold by witch doctors. Ero told the Star that she first saw the Albino Rhino beer when she was served water at an Earls with the name of the beer on the glass. She hid the glass from her university friends out of embarrassment. ''I did not want them to notice it,' she explained. 'I knew that they would associate the brand with me because I have albinism.' The human rights complaint was launched a few months after Earls introduced a promotion for chicken wings which was marked as Albino Wing Wednesdays on April 27, 2011. ... Ero is not seeking a penny in compensation. The human rights case is only about changing a brand that is considered offensive. Mark Barry, vice-president of human resources at Earls, released a statement on Monday, defending the use of the name Albino Rhino, which is marketed using a white rhinoceros. They have been selling this pale ale brand of beer for 25 years. 'It did not occur to us that the name would be associated with Albinism, nor did it occur to us it would offend, and in the 25 years we have been serving this beer we have never had a complaint about the name, until now,' Barry said. Earls also stated that the name was made in fun only." Where to begin? Well, first of all, just what is it the hyper-sensitive Ikponwosa Ero brings to Canada. What skill does she possess that no Canadian does? Apparently, she works for an albino lobby group. Does Canada have no albinos to do this job? One throws up one's hands at the frivolousness of this complaint, which, will nonetheless cost Earls a bundle to defend. Albino Rhino is not mocking human albinos. If anyone has a beef, it's rhinos. Canada and Earls do not discriminate against albinos. Earls didn't deny the high maintenance Ero service. In fact, Canada protects the unusual, apparently, a reality Ero admits when she indicates that, in some African countries, albinos are feared and killed and their body parts used in witchcraft mumbo jumbo. So, how does Ero thank Canada for its tolerance? By trying to dictate what products a restaurant no one forces her to patronize may market. EXHIBIT TWO: This is the case of thee witness in a niqab who refuses to show her face. Some nameless Moslem woman -- of course, in secrecy obsessed Canada her identity is hidden --has filed a sexual assault complaint against a cousin and uncle for activities that date back to her childhood. [The case already reeks of a culture foreign to us. In many Moslem lands marriage to first cousins in endemic.] Anyway,the complainant refused to take off her niqab when called to testify. Defence counsel objected saying that facial expressions and demeanour were key to assessing the credibility of the witness. The challenge -- the actual charge has not yet been heard -- went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a December ruling, the Court provided a blueprint for confusion. The National Post (December 22, 2012) commented: "If it’s your job to clean the room, you shouldn’t leave a bigger mess than you started with. But that alas is exactly what the Supreme Court of Canada has done with its decision in the niqab case, more formally known as R. v. N.S. The reason to have a Supreme Court is to lay down rules of law that lower courts can follow. When the high court answers a yes-or-no question as, “you go figure it out,” it abdicates its responsibility and wastes everybody’s time. In the niqab case, the Supreme Court faced a painful problem. How should courts reconcile the following three conflicting principles? 1.The Canadian legal tradition requires an accuser to face the accused in open court. The word “face” is literal. Courts are often called upon to assess credibility. Human beings determine the credibility, not only by the words said, but the body language and facial expressions that accompany those words. 2.Canada also accords wide leeway to religious belief. Some versions of Islam prescribe that women are required to cover their faces in public places, including court rooms. While other Islamic authorities dispute this belief, it is not the business of the courts of Canada to decide what is and what is not appropriately Islamic. 3.Canadians are generally mistrustful of rules that subordinate or demean women. Most of us would agree that veiling does just that. Veiling takes for granted that women are sexual objects first and foremost, and assigns to women all the onus and burden of preventing sexual misconduct. Tough problems. So what’s the answer? The answer from the court amounts to an order to lower courts to … keep guessing. The high court will tell them when they are getting warmer, and when they are getting colder. Sometimes niqab in court will be OK. Sometimes niqab will not be OK. Which is which will depend on the answers to a series of intricate and even unanswerable questions: 1.Is the witness who is requesting to be niqabbed sincere in her religious belief? 2.Will the niqab create a serious risk to trial fairness? 3.Might the conflict between trial fairness and religious belief be resolved some other way than by niqab removal? And then — my favourite — Question 4: “Do the salutary effects of requiring the witness to remove the niqab outweigh the deleterious effects of doing so?” When the high court answers a yes-or-no question as, “you go figure it out,” it abdicates its responsibility and wastes everybody’s time I like question 4 because it turns out to contain within itself an additional series of a half-dozen questions, each of them as murky and ultimately unknowable as the first three listed above." So nutty was the Supreme Court decision that in niqab cases, the trial judge must decide the sincerity of the woman's religious beliefs. In this case, where the woman makes practical exceptions to wearing the complete veil, that is not enough to decide the beliefs are insincere: "The pretrial judge in the original case said that the woman’s belief in the original case was not sufficiently strong, because she was willing to remove it in other circumstances (e.g., driver’s license photo, security screening). Chief Justice McLauchlin found that the strength of a belief was not the relevant test, but rather judges should consider the sincerity of the belief." But aren't strength and sincerity the same thing? The Globe and Mail (December 20, 2012) noted editorially of the very divided court decision 4-2-1: "The Supreme Court of Canada should have said unequivocally that, when a fair trial is at serious risk and no accommodation is possible, a Muslim witness may not wear a niqab (face veil) in the courtroom." Only two judges argued for upholding our legal tradition of requiring a witness to testify opening, without a veil, mask or bag over the face: "In separate reasons, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel and Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein took the ... position that witnesses should never be allowed to wear the niqab in the witness box.They said that the rights of an accused person to fully cross-examine a witness - including assessing her facial expressions during questioning - is paramount. 'Since cross-examination is a necessary tool for the exercise of the right to make full answer and defence, the consequences of restrictions on that right weigh more heavily on the accused, and the balancing process must work in his or her favour,' they said. " (Globe and Mail, December 20, 2012) A Globe and Mail poll taken in the wake of the decision found Canadians overwhelmingly opposed to special privileges for unusual foreigners. Asked "Do you think a woman should be allowed to wear a niqab while testifying in court?" a resounding 89$ said no! Grassroots common sense suggests that, in screening potential immigrants, a key question ought to be cultural compatibility. Right now with 7.3% unemployment -- the real figures are far higher -- we don't need any immigrants at all. However, should we again need immigrants, we must ask just what a potential newcomer offers Canada. Yes, of course, a needed skill in an area where there are jobs is important. However, cultural compatibility is also important. The potential immigrant should be questioned and the answers recorded and kept. They should be quizzed as to whether their beliefs will cause them to make disruptive demands of our system. Will they insist on packing a dagger (kirpan) even in areas where weapons are not allowed? Will they insist on wearing veils or niqabs in courts or in public places? Will they insist that their female children not attend mixed swimming or music classes (as some Moslems have). They should be held to their answers and backsliding on these assurances should be grounds for revoking their admission. Canada is twisting itself into a pretzel trying to accommodate the weird, zany and unassimilable from the four corners of the globe. We should be screening people who can comfortably fit in, not be a never ending source of demands for us to change our society. They hail from failed cultures. Why should we permit them to tamper will a successful culture they chose to come to? Paul Fromm Director CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE] <http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=126859530813629&set=pcb.126859640813618&type=1&relevant_count=1> Like <http://www.facebook.com/frederick.fromm.3?ref=tn_tnmn&__req=k#> · · Share<http://www.facebook.com/ajax/sharer/?s=22&appid=25554907596&p%5B0%5D=100004687473766&p%5B1%5D=126859640813618> *Toronto Star* (Dec 19, 2012) reports: "A British Columbia woman who suffers from albinism wants the name Albino Rhino beer removed from 24 Earls Restaurants in B.C. And the province’s Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear her case. The complaint was filed by Ikponwosa Ero, a 31-year-old immigrant from Nigeria, who argues it is offensive to brand a product after a disability or medical condition. Ero was born with albinism. ... Ero is a researcher with Under the Same Sun <http://www.underthesamesun.com/>, a charity dedicated to helping those with the condition. The basis for the complaint is that albinos are persecuted *in Africa* and albinos are stigmatized in other parts of the world. In some African countries, there have been reports that albinos are murdered and their body parts used in potions sold by witch doctors. Ero told the Star that she first saw the Albino Rhino beer when she was served water at an Earls with the name of the beer on the glass. She hid the glass from her university friends out of embarrassment. ''I did not want them to notice it,' she explained. 'I knew that they would associate the brand with me because I have albinism.' The human rights complaint was launched a few months after Earls introduced a promotion for chicken wings which was marked as Albino Wing Wednesdays on April 27, 2011. ... Ero is not seeking a penny in compensation. The human rights case is only about changing a brand that is considered offensive. Mark Barry, vice-president of human resources at Earls, released a statement on Monday, defending the use of the name Albino Rhino, which is marketed using a white rhinoceros. They have been selling this pale ale brand of beer for 25 years. 'It did not occur to us that the name would be associated with Albinism, nor did it occur to us it would offend, and in the 25 years we have been serving this beer we have never had a complaint about the name, until now,' Barry said. Earls also stated that the name was made in fun only." Where to begin? Well, first of all, just what is it the hyper-sensitive Ikponwosa Ero brings to Canada. What skill does she possess that no Canadian does? Apparently, she works for an albino lobby group. Does Canada have no albinos to do this job? One throws up one's hands at the frivolousness of this complaint, which, will nonetheless cost Earls a bundle to defend. Albino Rhino is not mocking human albinos. If anyone has a beef, it's rhinos. Canada and Earls do not discriminate against albinos. Earls didn't deny the high maintenance Ero service. In fact, Canada protects the unusual, apparently, a reality Ero admits when she indicates that, in some African countries, albinos are feared and killed and their body parts used in witchcraft mumbo jumbo. So, how does Ero thank Canada for its tolerance? By trying to dictate what products a restaurant no one forces her to patronize may market. *EXHIBIT TWO:* This is the case of thee witness in a niqab who refuses to show her face. Some nameless Moslem woman -- of course, in secrecy obsessed Canada her identity is hidden --has filed a sexual assault complaint against a cousin and uncle for activities that date back to her childhood. [The case already reeks of a culture foreign to us. In many Moslem lands marriage to first cousins in endemic.] Anyway,the complainant refused to take off her niqab when called to testify. Defence counsel objected saying that facial expressions and demeanour were key to assessing the credibility of the witness. The challenge -- the actual charge has not yet been heard -- went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a December ruling, the Court provided a blueprint for confusion. *The National Post* (December 22, 2012) commented: "If it’s your job to clean the room, you shouldn’t leave a bigger mess than you started with. But that alas is exactly what the Supreme Court of Canada has done with its decision in the niqab case, more formally known as *R. v. N.S.[image: Photo: The Complaining Nigerian Albino & Niqabs in Court: Time To Select Immigrants for Cultural Compatibility Hardly a week goes by without another bizarre reminder of the folly of Canada's "diversity" doctrine, so beloved of our political and media class and the collapsing credibility of our attachment to the absurdity of multiculturalism Exhibit One reads like the script of one of those zany 1970s comedies directed by John Cleese. It is the case of the Nig9erian albino complaining to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission and demanding that the restaurant chain Earls drop the name "Albino Rhino", beer it markets as the name is offensive to albinos. Apparently, the rhinos don't have a spokesman to state whether the name bothers them. Perhaps, they are more thick skinned. Toronto Star (Dec 19, 2012) reports: "A British Columbia woman who suffers from albinism wants the name Albino Rhino beer removed from 24 Earls Restaurants in B.C. And the province’s Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear her case. The complaint was filed by Ikponwosa Ero, a 31-year-old immigrant from Nigeria, who argues it is offensive to brand a product after a disability or medical condition. Ero was born with albinism. ... Ero is a researcher with Under the Same Sun, a charity dedicated to helping those with the condition. The basis for the complaint is that albinos are persecuted in Africa and albinos are stigmatized in other parts of the world. In some African countries, there have been reports that albinos are murdered and their body parts used in potions sold by witch doctors. Ero told the Star that she first saw the Albino Rhino beer when she was served water at an Earls with the name of the beer on the glass. She hid the glass from her university friends out of embarrassment. ''I did not want them to notice it,' she explained. 'I knew that they would associate the brand with me because I have albinism.' The human rights complaint was launched a few months after Earls introduced a promotion for chicken wings which was marked as Albino Wing Wednesdays on April 27, 2011. ... Ero is not seeking a penny in compensation. The human rights case is only about changing a brand that is considered offensive. Mark Barry, vice-president of human resources at Earls, released a statement on Monday, defending the use of the name Albino Rhino, which is marketed using a white rhinoceros. They have been selling this pale ale brand of beer for 25 years. 'It did not occur to us that the name would be associated with Albinism, nor did it occur to us it would offend, and in the 25 years we have been serving this beer we have never had a complaint about the name, until now,' Barry said. Earls also stated that the name was made in fun only." Where to begin? Well, first of all, just what is it the hyper-sensitive Ikponwosa Ero brings to Canada. What skill does she possess that no Canadian does? Apparently, she works for an albino lobby group. Does Canada have no albinos to do this job? One throws up one's hands at the frivolousness of this complaint, which, will nonetheless cost Earls a bundle to defend. Albino Rhino is not mocking human albinos. If anyone has a beef, it's rhinos. Canada and Earls do not discriminate against albinos. Earls didn't deny the high maintenance Ero service. In fact, Canada protects the unusual, apparently, a reality Ero admits when she indicates that, in some African countries, albinos are feared and killed and their body parts used in witchcraft mumbo jumbo. So, how does Ero thank Canada for its tolerance? By trying to dictate what products a restaurant no one forces her to patronize may market. EXHIBIT TWO: This is the case of thee witness in a niqab who refuses to show her face. Some nameless Moslem woman -- of course, in secrecy obsessed Canada her identity is hidden --has filed a sexual assault complaint against a cousin and uncle for activities that date back to her childhood. [The case already reeks of a culture foreign to us. In many Moslem lands marriage to first cousins in endemic.] Anyway,the complainant refused to take off her niqab when called to testify. Defence counsel objected saying that facial expressions and demeanour were key to assessing the credibility of the witness. The challenge -- the actual charge has not yet been heard -- went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a December ruling, the Court provided a blueprint for confusion. The National Post (December 22, 2012) commented: "If it’s your job to clean the room, you shouldn’t leave a bigger mess than you started with. But that alas is exactly what the Supreme Court of Canada has done with its decision in the niqab case, more formally known as R. v. N.S. The reason to have a Supreme Court is to lay down rules of law that lower courts can follow. When the high court answers a yes-or-no question as, “you go figure it out,” it abdicates its responsibility and wastes everybody’s time. In the niqab case, the Supreme Court faced a painful problem. How should courts reconcile the following three conflicting principles? 1.The Canadian legal tradition requires an accuser to face the accused in open court. The word “face” is literal. Courts are often called upon to assess credibility. Human beings determine the credibility, not only by the words said, but the body language and facial expressions that accompany those words. 2.Canada also accords wide leeway to religious belief. Some versions of Islam prescribe that women are required to cover their faces in public places, including court rooms. While other Islamic authorities dispute this belief, it is not the business of the courts of Canada to decide what is and what is not appropriately Islamic. 3.Canadians are generally mistrustful of rules that subordinate or demean women. Most of us would agree that veiling does just that. Veiling takes for granted that women are sexual objects first and foremost, and assigns to women all the onus and burden of preventing sexual misconduct. Tough problems. So what’s the answer? The answer from the court amounts to an order to lower courts to … keep guessing. The high court will tell them when they are getting warmer, and when they are getting colder. Sometimes niqab in court will be OK. Sometimes niqab will not be OK. Which is which will depend on the answers to a series of intricate and even unanswerable questions: 1.Is the witness who is requesting to be niqabbed sincere in her religious belief? 2.Will the niqab create a serious risk to trial fairness? 3.Might the conflict between trial fairness and religious belief be resolved some other way than by niqab removal? And then — my favourite — Question 4: “Do the salutary effects of requiring the witness to remove the niqab outweigh the deleterious effects of doing so?” When the high court answers a yes-or-no question as, “you go figure it out,” it abdicates its responsibility and wastes everybody’s time I like question 4 because it turns out to contain within itself an additional series of a half-dozen questions, each of them as murky and ultimately unknowable as the first three listed above." So nutty was the Supreme Court decision that in niqab cases, the trial judge must decide the sincerity of the woman's religious beliefs. In this case, where the woman makes practical exceptions to wearing the complete veil, that is not enough to decide the beliefs are insincere: "The pretrial judge in the original case said that the woman’s belief in the original case was not sufficiently strong, because she was willing to remove it in other circumstances (e.g., driver’s license photo, security screening). Chief Justice McLauchlin found that the strength of a belief was not the relevant test, but rather judges should consider the sincerity of the belief." But aren't strength and sincerity the same thing? The Globe and Mail (December 20, 2012) noted editorially of the very divided court decision 4-2-1: "The Supreme Court of Canada should have said unequivocally that, when a fair trial is at serious risk and no accommodation is possible, a Muslim witness may not wear a niqab (face veil) in the courtroom." Only two judges argued for upholding our legal tradition of requiring a witness to testify opening, without a veil, mask or bag over the face: "In separate reasons, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel and Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein took the ... position that witnesses should never be allowed to wear the niqab in the witness box.They said that the rights of an accused person to fully cross-examine a witness - including assessing her facial expressions during questioning - is paramount. 'Since cross-examination is a necessary tool for the exercise of the right to make full answer and defence, the consequences of restrictions on that right weigh more heavily on the accused, and the balancing process must work in his or her favour,' they said. " (Globe and Mail, December 20, 2012) A Globe and Mail poll taken in the wake of the decision found Canadians overwhelmingly opposed to special privileges for unusual foreigners. Asked "Do you think a woman should be allowed to wear a niqab while testifying in court?" a resounding 89$ said no! Grassroots common sense suggests that, in screening potential immigrants, a key question ought to be cultural compatibility. Right now with 7.3% unemployment -- the real figures are far higher -- we don't need any immigrants at all. However, should we again need immigrants, we must ask just what a potential newcomer offers Canada. Yes, of course, a needed skill in an area where there are jobs is important. However, cultural compatibility is also important. The potential immigrant should be questioned and the answers recorded and kept. They should be quizzed as to whether their beliefs will cause them to make disruptive demands of our system. Will they insist on packing a dagger (kirpan) even in areas where weapons are not allowed? Will they insist on wearing veils or niqabs in courts or in public places? Will they insist that their female children not attend mixed swimming or music classes (as some Moslems have). They should be held to their answers and backsliding on these assurances should be grounds for revoking their admission. Canada is twisting itself into a pretzel trying to accommodate the weird, zany and unassimilable from the four corners of the globe. We should be screening people who can comfortably fit in, not be a never ending source of demands for us to change our society. They hail from failed cultures. Why should we permit them to tamper will a successful culture they chose to come to? Paul Fromm Director CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE]* The reason to have a Supreme Court is to lay down rules of law that lower courts can follow. When the high court answers a yes-or-no question as, “you go figure it out,” it abdicates its responsibility and wastes everybody’s time. In the niqab case, the Supreme Court faced a painful problem. How should courts reconcile the following three conflicting principles? 1. The Canadian legal tradition requires an accuser to face the accused in open court. The word “face” is literal. Courts are often called upon to assess credibility. Human beings determine the credibility, not only by the words said, but the body language and facial expressions that accompany those words. 2. Canada also accords wide leeway to religious belief. Some versions of Islam prescribe that women are required to cover their faces in public places, including court rooms. While other Islamic authorities dispute this belief, it is not the business of the courts of Canada to decide what is and what is not appropriately Islamic. 3. Canadians are generally mistrustful of rules that subordinate or demean women. Most of us would agree that veiling does just that. Veiling takes for granted that women are sexual objects first and foremost, and assigns to women all the onus and burden of preventing sexual misconduct. Tough problems. So what’s the answer? The answer from the court amounts to an order to lower courts to … keep guessing. The high court will tell them when they are getting warmer, and when they are getting colder. Sometimes niqab in court will be OK. Sometimes niqab will not be OK. Which is which will depend on the answers to a series of intricate and even unanswerable questions: 1. Is the witness who is requesting to be niqabbed sincere in her religious belief? 2. Will the niqab create a serious risk to trial fairness? 3. Might the conflict between trial fairness and religious belief be resolved some other way than by niqab removal? And then — my favourite — Question 4: “Do the salutary effects of requiring the witness to remove the niqab outweigh the deleterious effects of doing so?” When the high court answers a yes-or-no question as, “you go figure it out,” it abdicates its responsibility and wastes everybody’s time I like question 4 because it turns out to contain within itself an additional series of a half-dozen questions, each of them as murky and ultimately unknowable as the first three listed above." So nutty was the Supreme Court decision that in niqab cases, the trial judge must decide the sincerity of the woman's religious beliefs. In this case, where the woman makes practical exceptions to wearing the complete veil, that is not enough to decide the beliefs are insincere: "The pretrial judge in the original case said that the woman’s belief in the original case was not sufficiently strong, because she was willing to remove it in other circumstances (e.g., driver’s license photo, security screening). Chief Justice McLauchlin found that the *strength* of a belief was not the relevant test, but rather judges should consider the *sincerity* of the belief." But aren't strength and sincerity the same thing? The *Globe and Mail* (December 20, 2012) noted editorially of the very divided court decision 4-2-1: "The Supreme Court of Canada should have said unequivocally that, when a fair trial is at serious risk and no accommodation is possible, a Muslim witness may not wear a niqab (face veil) in the courtroom." Only two judges argued for upholding our legal tradition of requiring a witness to testify opening, without a veil, mask or bag over the face: "In separate reasons, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel and Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein took the ... position that witnesses should never be allowed to wear the niqab in the witness box.They said that the rights of an accused person to fully cross-examine a witness - including assessing her facial expressions during questioning - is paramount. 'Since cross-examination is a necessary tool for the exercise of the right to make full answer and defence, the consequences of restrictions on that right weigh more heavily on the accused, and the balancing process must work in his or her favour,' they said. " (*Globe and Mail*, December 20, 2012) A *Globe and Mail* poll taken in the wake of the decision found Canadians overwhelmingly opposed to special privileges for unusual foreigners. Asked "Do you think a woman should be allowed to wear a niqab while testifying in court?" a resounding 89$ said no! Grassroots common sense suggests that, in screening potential immigrants, a key question ought to be cultural compatibility. Right now with 7.3% unemployment -- the real figures are far higher -- we don't need any immigrants at all. However, should we again need immigrants, we must ask just what a potential newcomer offers Canada. Yes, of course, a needed skill in an area where there are jobs is important. However, cultural compatibility is also important. The potential immigrant should be questioned and the answers recorded and kept. They should be quizzed as to whether their beliefs will cause them to make disruptive demands of our system. Will they insist on packing a dagger (*kirpan*) even in areas where weapons are not allowed? Will they insist on wearing veils or *niqabs* in courts or in public places? Will they insist that their female children not attend mixed swimming or music classes (as some Moslems have). They should be held to their answers and backsliding on these assurances should be grounds for revoking their admission. Canada is twisting itself into a pretzel trying to accommodate the weird, zany and unassimilable from the four corners of the globe. We should be screening people who can comfortably fit in, not be a never ending source of demands for us to change our society. They hail from failed cultures. Why should we permit them to tamper will a successful culture they chose to come to? *Paul Fromm* *Director* *CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE*

 

THE SPARTANS’ MOST HEROIC COUPLE -- John de Nugent

Written by Paul Fromm

Sunday, 06 January 2013 07:17

* THE SPARTANS’ MOST HEROIC COUPLE* . Among the greatest White heroes ever were an ancient royal couple, King Leonidas of Sparta, and his wife, Queen Gorgo. *The ancient Greeks looked like modern Americans of British-Isles descent, with long, narrow faces, and some blond, others with light brown hair, and others dark in hair and eye. The bones structure was British. The ancient Greek people were a mix of invading blond Aryans, the “xanthoi,” who were aristocrats, and brunet Mediterraneans, just as with the Romans and other peoples. * <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/hoplite_grave_relief> *Plato noted once: “The dark-haired men we call manly, and the golden-haired the children of the gods.” Here is the actual appearance of the Scottish-born actor (of Irish-Catholic ancestry) Gerard Butler, who played King Leonidas in the renowned 2007 movie “300.”* <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/gerard-butler-king-leonidas> *British actress Lena Heady played Queen Gorgo very well, seen here at the Los Angeles premiere of “300″* <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/lena-headey-300-los-angeles-premiere> Leonidas was of course the hero of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC in ancient Greece. *About 100,000 multiracial Persians came around the Malian Gulf from Phalara in the north, and the Spartans arrived from Scarphea in the southeast. They met at Thermopylae, at a spot between the water (to the north) an the Trachinian Cliffs (on the south) where only one wagon could pass, and the Persian numbers were of less effect.* <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/thermopylae_480_bc-map> * Underneath the word Malis is a road marked “Path followed by Persians.” A traitor named Ephialtes of Malis showed the Persians this mountain road. The Persians could not defeat the Spartans in two days of combat, but thanks to this despicable creature they were able to come around the mountain,. descend to the road, and attack the Spartans from the rear as well. At that point, escape was impossible. King Leonidas dismissed the other Greeks, and the Spartans and Thespians resolved to fight to the death1) to inspire the whole nation and 2) slow the Persians down while the other Greeks got ready for war. No other Greek was willing to let the Spartans call them cowards…. To this day, in modern Greek,the word “ephialtes” means “traitor” and also “nightmare.”* This was certainly the most famous* battle to the death* in western history. *Spartans against Persians in “300,” with spears for thrusting and with shields for protection- All ancient Greeks were in effect bodybuilders, and thus had indeed the proverbial “sixpacks.” Numerous sculptures show men with musculature right out of a modern bodybuilding magazine (,minus the exaggerated steroids effect). The Greeks wore 50 pounds of armor and carried 30 pounds of weapons..* <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/300-fight-scene> *Greek (and Roman) chest armor, called a cuirass, often depicted muscle-rippling chests and stomachs. ( http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/bodyarmour.htm) All combat was face-to-face, and you had to kill your enemy personally, not via a sniper rifle from hundreds of yards away or by firing a rocket from a helicopter. You had to be ready to kill another human up close.* <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/cuirass-leonidas> –All 300 Spartans, with their king Leonidas (said to be descended from Hercules), –plus 900 of their slaves, called the helots, who were also willing to fight, –and 700 Thespians, who were other brave Greeks, ….battled to the very death, right down to the last and defiant man, rather than submit to 100,000 Persians. They slaughtered the minions of that multiracial Persian empire that was invading Greece ….by a ratio of 5 to 1. The reason why Europe is white today is the multiracial Persian empire lost that day, and it lost only because* one man,* Leonidas, with the total emotional backing of his brave wife and queen, Gorgo, made up his mind to stop, or at least slow down, the Persian army, and he did so at the pass called Hot Baths, or in Greek, Thermopylae. And they did give a hot bath to the Persians ….in their own blood. *A Spartan with Pegasus on his shield hacks down with his* kopis* on a Persian.* <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/greek-with-kophis-persian_duel> For $50 you can have your own rather terrifying Spartan *kopis: (* http://budk.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=159456<http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/V> ) [image: spartan-kopis]<http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/the-spartan-couple-that-saved-all-whites-english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-persian-aryans-chess-and-peaches-we-want-that-loving-feeling-whittakers-the-mantra/attachment/spartan-kopis> After the Spartans’ heroic last stand, all Greece then felt bound by their honor to match the Spartan role model, the Spartan fight to the death, to take up arms as well, and the inspired Greeks crushed the Persian hordes on both land and sea. The pure-blooded, courageous white Greeks sent the multiracial Persians retreating in humiliation BACK to their vast Asian empire. A century later another Greek, blond king Alexander the Great, who was so fair of skin that when he blushed his whole chest turned visibly red, would go on the attack against the Persian threat, and annihilate their empire forever. *Alexander the Great; like many Greek generals and prominent citizens, he fought in the first row, “leading” his soldiers LITERALLY.* *All Greek citizens were also soldiers, almost all had slaves, and engaged heavily in political life.* <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/alexander-the-great> The famous 2007 movie “300,” shot in Montreal, Québec, Canada, which took in $480 million, is based on a comic book of the same name, and thus is full of the same imagery in sepia and black. It is a very jewish version of those heroic events, with two Jewish producers, Canton and Goldmann, and I suspect the director, Zack Snyder, may also be Jewish, but still, “300” contains many good scenes, so I recommend the movie. Rosemary Rickey, the assistant to Dr. William Pierce, founder of the old National Alliance (and I worked for three years for Dr. Pierce as a young man), once said to me that Jews c*ould *do good movies. She explained that the wholesome movies Hollywood used to make in the 1930s were done under extreme pressure from Christian clergymen, especially in the OLD Catholic church, and under sharp scrutiny by Congress. Speaking for the white American public of back then, their demand was to knock off the 1920s-style promoting of fornication….that is, sex outside of marriage, family and children…. and cut out the glorifying of gangsters and their admittedly exciting, action-packed, and very wealthy lives. Rosemary said: “The Jews do know how to make a movie that will appeal to Aryans, even promoting Aryan values — but they always put in a Jewish twist in terms of who the good guys and the bad guys are.” What is crazy in the movie “300” is that the ancient Greeks, who back then looked very white in reality, with many blonds, like their blond god Apollo and the *gray-eyed* goddess Athena, were depicted as virtual latinos…. The Irish-Scottish actor Gerard Butler, who played Leonidas, of Norman descent like myself, was made to die his hair jet-black, to wear dark makeup, and put in black contact lenses to hide his bright, blue-green eyes! <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/butler-leonidas-300-kopis> And the ancient Persians, who had at least white, blue-eyed men as rulers, were depicted ridiculously as negroes, or as swarthy middle easterners. King Xerxes himself was turned into a tall, hispanic, sulky, psychopathic, bitchy, lethal, sort-of gay hair dresser! *Xerxes was played by a white actor from Brazil, Rodrigo Santoro…. * <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/rodrigo-santoro-xerxes> *……but even he had to get darker!* *Get ready for Tanworld! * [image: ;-)] <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/xerxes-300> This is the jewish goal: everyone is tan or black, and/or a pouting, resentful gay. However, on the other hand, the actions scenes in “300” are truly superb, many in powerful battlefield slow-motion, and what is striking there also is how *King Leonidas’s wife,* the Spartan Queen Gorgo, is* totally supportive of her warrior husband, of his decision to sacrifice himself and all his men …for the freedom and honor of Hellas, of ancient Greece.* *Queen Gorgo, by a nod, understanding that total war will result, gives her husband Leonidas the go-ahead to kill the arrogant Persian ambassador, who had just threatened her people with annihilation. She herself was the daughter, wife and mother of Spartan kings. Here her eyes say to her husband “Just do it. It is worth whatever consequences will ensue.”* * <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/gorgo-to-leonidas-nod-do-it> * Gorgo is correctly portrayed in “300” as wise, clear-sighted, responsible and loyal, anything but a ditz, yes, a true and regal queen, just as the ancient Greek historian Hereodotus said she was. Spartan men had great respect for their women, and the Greek historian Plutarch quotes Queen Gorgo as follows: *“A foreign lady told her that the women of Lakedaimon, that is, Sparta, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacedaemon>were the only women in the world who could rule their men. ‘With good reason,” Gorgo, replied, ‘for we are the only women who bring forth real men.”* As an aside, a French woman who, to survive during WWII, became the mistress of German officers and then, after D-Day, of British and American officers as her lovers, once wrote: “The English and Americans were boys. The Germans were men.” I found this quote fascinating because a French Waffen-SS general named Leon Degrelle once asked the German leader Adolf Hitler if he considered himself a German first, or a European first. Hitler replied: “ Neither. I am a *Hellene*,” that is, I am an *ancient Greek. * And so, going back to the Spartans, when they were pushed by their Spartan mothers and wives to be brave, in the movie “300” as in the reality of the ancient, white Greek race of yesteryear, when a Persian general arrogantly threatened a high Spartan officer with a skyful of arrows, this is what happens, first with the Persian threatening, and then the Spartan officer replying, as taken from the movie “300”: (play 0:57 to end) I salute the great white heroes King Leonidas ….his Queen Gorgo…and our white blood relatives, the ancient Spartans. As they died for us, we must fulfill our obligation too to our race. . . <http://www.democratic-republicans.us/english/english-leonidas-of-sparta-and-his-queen-whittakers-the-mantra-whitebook-to-compete-with-zuckerbergs-facebook-freemasonry-book-says-jerusalem-should-run-the-world/attachment/jdn-brick-wall> *John de Nugent* .