Month: October 2013

Canada’s Universities repress discussion of Men’s Rights issues

 

The Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) is the largest student organization in Canada, and the national coordinating body that oversees most of the Canadian student unions. There is no U.S. equivalent. In 2013, the CFS passed a resolution that prohibited either men’s issues or men’s rights groups or clubs on their affiliated Canadian campuses.  

Discussing false rape [2] accusations, academic research about female domestic violence, suicide, shorter male life span, family court injustice, all that is illegal on Canadian Campuses

University campuses are in the service of feminist indoctrination. There are un- and antiscientific women studies courses, with absolutely nothing about men’s problems.

The real-life consequences? First, this Fall, your son or daughter is unlikely to even discover the option of these clubs—and therefore their ideas–because they will not be able to recruit students by setting up a recruiting table on campus. (Such clubs exist in only one major U.S. university—Montana State at Bozeman.) Second, if he or she does find one, it is likely to be ineffective because it cannot receive student activities fees to help fund its activities; and third, their club would receive no support in the promotion of its activities (e.g., creating posters). The cumulative effect? Your son would experience the group’s lack of legitimacy. Especially in your son or daughter’s first year, lack of legitimacy can be a potent force. [Universities’ Love-Hate Relationship with Men]

Lack of legitimacy, and total lack of funding and support are a serious problem.  Much worse is the legal terror of fines and imprisonment for non-violent speech of truth.

Hate speech laws have become instruments of terror to silence legitimate non-violent discussion. We are back to the medieval times of Galileo Galilee: doubting political correctness or opposing feminist drivel is a punishable offense.

While men must not even speak, women, and feminists can aggress with impunity.

Even extreme violence, like Lorena Bobbitt is usually excused with battered woman syndrome.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Canada’s Universities repress discussion of Men’s Rights issues” »
Canada’s Universities repress discussion of Men’s Righ…
» continues here »

Intelligence, Race, Criminality: Taboo Poll in Nature Magazine

Shocking questions. Should scientists refrain from studying topics for fear of PC (political correctness)? Is political correctness more important then finding the scientific truth about important issues of our modern life (crime, intelligence, scientific and economic progress, etc.).

Though we disagree with the idea of censorship, we thank Nature Magazine for bringing out the issue into the open.

This is much better then Canadian law, where even the discussion of censorship is censored by hate speech laws. See Canada

 

NATURE Magazine Has A Poll (That You Can Vote In!) On "Taboo Genetics"

Ethics: Taboo genetics

Probing the biological basis of certain traits ignites controversy. But some scientists choose to cross the red line anyway.

Erika Check Hayden

02 October 2013

Scientists cited or quoted include Steve Hsu, Geoffrey Miller, Christopher Chabris, Francis Galton, Robert Plomin, and Bruce Lahn.

And here is Nature’s tut-tutting editorial:

Dangerous work

Behavioural geneticists must tread carefully to prevent their research being misinterpreted.

Here are the four questions in Nature’s poll.

  • Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of intelligence?

  • Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of race?

  • Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of violence?

  • Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of sexuality?

Human-Stupidity has described politically correct censorship in academic research about Domestic violence, Race and IQ, childhood sexuality (Rind study, child sex trauma myth).

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Intelligence, Race, Criminality: Taboo Poll in Nature Magazine” »
Intelligence, Race, Criminality: Taboo Poll in Nature Magazine
» continues here »

Consensual sex with the elderly, a felony

Now elderly people have to be protected against consensual sex. And a comatose woman needs protection from sex with her husband.  A maximum age of consent for elderly, on top of the minimum age for 17 year old children?

 

Elder (in)justice: a critique of the criminalization of elder abuse.

Similarly, in the name of combating sexual abuse of older adults, some states have criminalized consensual sexual conduct that would otherwise be legally permissible. (72) For example, in the state of Washington, it is a crime for a disabled person age sixty or older to engage in consensual sexual activity with someone who provides that person with paid transportation. (73) In Vermont, it is a crime for anyone who works or volunteers at a caregiving facility or program to engage in sexual acts with any person whose ability to care for him or herself is impaired due to "infirmities of aging." (74)

With the effect that elders have no chance for sexual gratification. Be it because they are great pickup artist, be it for promises and money, or just for the good heartedness of the care giver.

Likewise, the Wisconsin Individual-at-Risk Restraining Order makes it possible to obtain a restraining order over someone–and hold them criminally liable for violating that restraining order–even where the "victim" neither lacks capacity nor objects to contact with the third party. (75) The fact that an older adult is competent is not a basis for dismissal of the petition. (76) Moreover, an order can be granted even if the respondent does not pose a risk to the older adult, but merely poses a threat to an investigation of alleged mistreatment, interferes with an offer of services to the older adult (regardless of whether the older adult wishes to obtain such services and regardless of whether those services have been found to be in the older adult’s best interest), or threatens to mistreat or mistreats an animal owned by or in service to the older adult. (77)

Even a caretaker of the same age group as the patient must not engage in any relationship. Or a husband, as seen in the example further down.

If people really were concerned with manipulation of elders (or minors), they could perfectly legalize the behavior after a notarized consent form, or a psychological counseling session.

But, these laws interfere in personal lives with no exception, no way out.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Consensual sex with the elderly, a felony” »
Consensual sex with the elderly, a felony
» continues here »

Millions of children watch child porn daily

Millions of children watch child porn daily when they look into their bath room mirror. If they do so while posing sexy, or masturbating, it is even higher on the copine scale of child porn, for "children" as old as 17.

Practically every single person under 18 sees LIVE child porn on a daily basis. What they see in the mirror would qualify as child pornography, if photographed or filmed.

This is not the only example where live pictures are legal, but pictures of legal behavior are not

And no, publication and distribution of the illegal pictures are not necessary for it to be a crime

If a teen makes a sexy pose in front of the mirror, what s/he sees is a live version of level 4 child pornography, according to the copine scale "Deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount,context and organisation suggests sexual interest)."

If they look  straight at their genitals, they see  a live version of copine level 6 CP: "Pictures emphasizing genital areas, where the child is either naked, partially clothed or fully clothed."

They see level 7 , If they touch themselves, with their eyes open,: "Pictures that depict touching, mutual and self-masturbation, oral sex and intercourse by a child, not involving an adult."

 

This is why it is so hard to explain children why sexting is such a huge crime. But possessing one’s own photo in the privacy of one’s own cell phone is production and possession of child pornography. According to the voodoo theory of CP, it victimizes the child who took its own photo.

We ought to outlaw bathroom mirrors. Because what these children see in the bathroom mirror is a live version of what would be child porn, if photographed or filmed.

 

 

  1. Watching depictions of a child being beheaded by Muslim terrorists, or stoned to death for extramarital sex,  a child being clubbed to death by US inner city gang bangers is totally legal. Distribution of such movies by for-profit web sites or TV networks is legal too.  Now if there is nudity, if in the movie the kid is not clubbed to death but makes love, or masturbates, then a child is being victimized.  We fail to understand this logic.

  2. Committing actual physical violence against children carries lower penalties then possession of photos: Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years. Man possesses photos: priceless (40 years)

  3. Why would children or adolescents get victimized by mere watching? “Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws

  4. Should some kind of child pornography (that does not victimize children) be encouraged, for reducing real crimes against children? Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

See also

"They fight like girls" is prohibited by BBC speech code

 

On Saturday the BBC made its football commentator and former Liverpool striker Robbie Fowler apologise on air for describing two footballers as "fighting like girls". It made for uncomfortable viewing. It was obvious to any viewer with more than one brain cell that Fowler’s comment, made about a tussle between Fernando Torres and Jan Vertonghen during the Tottenham-Chelsea game, was entirely innocent, intended only to condemn Torres and Vertonghen’s childish antics and not to slander the female sex. Yet minutes later, having clearly had a word in his ear from PC producers, a red-faced Robbie was making an embarrassing climbdown and telling the nation he was "deeply sorry" for apparently offending womankind. It was an ugly and humiliating spectacle.

It is not just football. Harassment laws have poisoned the work place for male expression and freedom of thought. Street harassment will soon be a crime too. Speech codes protect every conceivable minority, and even the majority (women are over 50% of the population).  Racial jokes, ethnic jokes, even academic research on taboo topics are censored (Rind study, race and iq)

In Scotland, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act makes it a crime for Celtic and Rangers fans to sing “sectarian” or even political songs. Last month it was announced that every single footballer in the Premier League will have to attend lessons about the use of homophobic and racist language, presumably to cleanse their dumb, working-class brains of their foul prejudices. The Football Association has declared war on the use of homophobic language at football grounds, which includes obliterating not only offensive words like “queer” but also, once again, jokey phrases about “girls” and “manning up”. The FA is also trying to stop Tottenham Hotspur fans from referring to themselves as Yids and the Yid Army, something they’ve done for years. The Crown Prosecution Service itself has warned football clubs not to allow their fans to “cross the line [into] inappropriate crowd behaviour and chanting”. But who decides what is appropriate and inappropriate chanting? Surely it should be fans themselves rather than the snobby, censorious suits and PC phrase-police who have become an ugly blot on the beautiful game in recent years?

Source: The BBC’s humiliation of Robbie Fowler shows that football is fair game for censorship

Thanks to the antifeminist for the above link.

God praise the US constitution, with its freedom of speech clauses. Freedom of speech is less curtailed in the US then elsewhere. See

Behavior in general gets over criminalized. Children in the US get expelled for carrying a half inch micro replica of a gun, or for shooting pellet guns in the privacy of their back yard. And of course, anything sexual, teenage sexuality or child porn which often is neither porn (see copine scale) nor a child (17).

Political correctness slowly but surely curtails our freedom and instates a reign of harassment and terror.