Crime

UN hit with yet another scandal

Kết quả hình ảnh cho Michel Sidibé

Independent experts have concluded that UN AIDS Executive Director, Michel Sidibé,  has been responsible for creating a toxic environment that promoted “favoritism, preferment and ethical blindness.” Sidibé accepted no reponsibility for any sexual harassment, bullying or abuse of power that occured under his watch.

The investigation started after Sidibé’s deputy was accused of  forcibly kissing, groping and trying to drag a colleague into his Bangkok hotel room in 2015.

In a survey of the 670 staff members at the UN agency conducted by the independent investigators, 18 admitted they had experienced some form of sexual harassment in the previous year and a further 201 said they were on the wrong end of workplace abuse.

One staff member went on the record saying, “U.N.AIDS is like a predators’ prey ground…You have access to all sorts of people, especially the vulnerable: You can use promises of jobs, contracts and all sorts of opportunities and abuse your power to get whatever you want, especially in terms of sexual favors. I have seen senior colleagues dating local young interns or using U.N.AIDS resources to access sex workers.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who made it clear he had a zero tolerance policy with regards to sexual harassment when he took office,  has refused to fire him. Despite his term ending in January 2020, Sidibé has offered to quit in June 2019 in order to ensure a stable transition period! In what world does a person outed for turning a blind eye to such a poisonous culture get to leave on his own terms? Sacred cows.

Sidibe admitted in an email after the investigation was published, “not all of our staff, in all their diversity, are experiencing the inclusive work culture to which we aspire.” Choice words.

Why do governments continue to fund the UN when it shows time and time again that it operates without any form of governance or ethical code? Remember it wasn’t that long ago that certain people at the UN thought former Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe would make a sensible ambassador for the World Health Organization (WHO). Why would any country seriously want to sign over sovereign powers to the UN with respect to the compact on migration? The UN isn’t fit to run anything of substance.

Why after all the scandals with the IPCC do people put faith in their ability to manage climate change summits? The Delinquent Teenager, written by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise chronicles how the IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” You can read some of the ridiculous selection processes for lead authors here.

Note the UN promised to streamline. As CM noted 15 months ago,

“The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations. Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74% of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”

Hard Brexit in a Tweet

Sometimes perspective on a No Deal Brexit is this simple. Nary a Leave voter wanted to have any political ties or rules set in Brussels. That’s kind of what “Leave the EU” on a ballot means. There were no other interpretations.

Despite PM May’s warning that changing Conservative leaders would “put our country’s future at risk and create uncertainty when we can least afford it given the deal she has managed to achieve many Brits would welcome it all the same. CM has been a huge seller of May since she called an early election.

Time to put a leader in charge that will throw it back at Brussels. No Deal for the EU is a disastrous outcome for the continent. It is the deal they least want because it would reveal how impotent Juncker and Tusk are. Time to find a spine and tell the hostage takers their ransom demands won’t be met.

Brexit – Jonathan Pie does it again

Whether you’re a Remainer or Leaver, Jonathan Pie explains in his trademark profanity-laced way why the Brexit deal of UK PM Theresa May is such a dud. What is the point of having a referendum which garners the highest ever voter turn out only to throw it back in the faces of both sides? In what world would a collective constituency want their parliamentarians to vote for a deal that makes everyone worse off? Why did May fold to every EU demand? She should have channeled the leader across the pond as to how to negotiate with Brussels.

Last week the Bank of England (BoE) ditched its independence charter to aid-and-abet the PM by producing a document stating a “No Deal” Brexit would hit UK economic growth by 8%.  What a joke. Would the EU seriously try to stitch up the economy of the second largest car market for German auto makers? It is preposterous in the extreme. Obama threatened in 2016 that the 5th largest economy would be at the back the queue when it came to trade deals. Trump would happily move it to the front. Canada and Australia too…can the BoE honestly come up with credible reasons why the ROW would spurn the UK in unison to get to an 8% slump?

Why only now has the BoE discovered this potential economic apocalypse? After all, the scare stories leading into the referendum about how the UK would plunge into the abyss should “Leave” succeed have simply not manifested. None of it. Why believe it now when its forecasts have been so off reservation? After all it did not advise the HM Treasury not to dump all of its gold at the very bottom.

Yet the Brits aren’t so stupid to see the deal being offered is the only one going. They have heard Minister for European Parliament (MEP) Guy Verhofstadt demand that member states hand over more sovereign powers to the EU. They saw EC President Juncker stagger blind drunk across a NATO stage BEFORE the dinner. There was little doubt in their minds when they checked the ballot square as to what was at stake. A No Deal Brexit is the one that should be pursued. The EU has so many disaffected member states that it is the one that needs to play nice with the UK, not the other way around.

 

EUMP.png

Take this chart, which shows the level of apathy member states have to show up and vote at European Parliamentary elections. Were the Brits so gung-ho to stay in the EU, why have only one-third of Brits ever shown up to express their love and affection for federalism? Is it any surprise that Italy, Spain, France & Greece have shown similar disdain over time as the EU fails to deliver for them? Surely the trend since 1979 has shown the underlying mood of member state constituents about how they value EU membership.

Perhaps Verhofstadt put the Brexit discussion into perspective (from 6:20) – after member states ratified the May plan in 38 minutes (a sure sign it is a great deal for the EU) – when he stated the hope that in the not too distant future, “a new generation of British…decide to come back into the great political European family

Tells us all we need to know. This week will show beyond a doubt about whether the island nation will have the very democracy it has shed so much blood to defend will be protected.

As Baroness Margaret Thatcher said of Europe,

 “During my lifetime most of the problems the world has faced have come, in one fashion or other, from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it.”

Save James

As Tasmania looks to remove gender from birth certificates, take note of a 6yo boy named James who is facing chemical castration when he hits 8yo in America.

The father claims his son has always identified as a boy when with him and has testimony from others that proves his stance. He always chooses to dress as a boy when with his father.

Yet his mother has dressed him as a girl since the age of 3, calls him Luna, enrolled him as a girl at his local school and takes him to social transitioning therapy which the courts are requiring his father to pay. The bills will be extended to transgender surgery and sterilization drugs when he is of age.

The mother is seeking to remove custody from the father – who challenges her assertion – for child abuse in her divorce proceedings.

Walt Heyer, author of Trans Life Survivors and former transgender female, warned a misdiagnosis could ruin the boy’s life. Heyer claims he was secretly cross-dressed by this grandmother as a young boy. He went on to say

The diagnosis is critical, because labeling a child with gender dysphoria can trigger a series of physical and mental consequences for the child and has legal ramifications in the ongoing custody case. Get it wrong and the boy’s life is irrevocably harmed…[and] hinges purely on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria by a therapist who wraps herself in rainbow colors, affirms the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and dismisses evidence to the contrary,”

Putting an acrimonious divorce to one side, should courts be determining the life of a 6yo kid based on a therapist’s diagnosis? Has the therapist got decades of scientifically backed research and proof to back her assertions? Or is this a case of confirmation bias? If we think about it, a therapist’s repeat business thrives more from confirmation than rejection of gender dysphoria. This is also a question of ethics.

Coming out as transgender is one thing. If the child reaches an age when they are biologically fully formed and can decide for themselves then they should be free to choose. There is no question everyone should have equal rights under the law but allowing parents the right to chemically castrate kids at age 8 before they can possibly understand the ramifications of those actions is criminal.

There is no 100% guarantee every child won’t switch back to identifying as their birth gender, but once the hormone sterilization begins the child has been permanently damaged. What will James’ mother say if she is wrong about him? “Mommy’s sorry”? Legally she bears no risk.

Let’s pray the right thing happens for James’ sake.

Why are the 99.6% required to opt in for gender on birth certificates?

7D3A8E2F-A916-4B8E-B9EF-3CA73B95674D.jpeg

So Tasmania’s lower house has passed the motion to remove gender from birth certificates allowing people to choose what they identify with from age 16. Apart from the biological and genetic implications, one question is why must the majority opt in as opposed to the minority opting out? It can only be viewed as a form of constructed  re-education.

According to the ABS Census of 2016, only 0.4% identify as other than male or female. 10,000 out of 24 million. Therefore 99.6% are comfortable with traditional biologal gender.

What are the risks? At what point will legislation be tied to the use of puberty blockers? We can’t rule out some parents might try to encourage their young child to associate with the opposite gender?  It has already happened in the US. Parents will know that it is not hard to manipulate a 10yo. It is not to rule out completely that a child may truly identify as the opposite of biological gender but statistically it would be improbable to suggest it is a majority or all. So to dispense puberty blockers under false pretenses is a dangerous risk. Assuming a 10yo is of sound peace of mind to take such drugs, why not give them the ability to vote?! Effectively that is the decision making process being put forth. It is ludicrous.

Assume a child is coerced by guardians/parents (even if a small subset) into believing they are the opposite sex than biological gender and get government permission to take puberty blockers. We do not have enough empirical evidence to know if terminating these drugs will automatically lead to a natural resumption of puberty.

Scientific research has noted that side effects of puberty suppression hormones can lead to arrested bone growth, decreased bone accretion, can prevent full organization and maturation of the brain, cause sterility, coronary/cardiovascular disease, elevated blood pressure and lead to breast cancer. Hey, it is worth it for inclusion, right?

That’s a horrible set of risks to put on a child who might potentially grow out of gender dysphoria. That child’s life could be irrevocably ruined for the sake of ideology determined by those who shouldn’t be in a position to enforce such directives.

The Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom saw a 2,000% increase in referrals over seven years—from 94 children in 2009/2010 to 1,986 in 2016/2017. Is this a case of creating a market to allow people to file for  gender dysphoria? Note this is not to cast aspersions on those who may properly suffer from the condition.

Hruz, Mayer, and McHugh wrote in a Supreme Court brief filed in the Gavin Grimm case that most-cited studies conclude most children with gender dysphoria come to embrace their birth sex but caution hormone therapy often solidifies a child’s gender dysphoria.

800 children in the UK aged as young as 10 are taking puberty blockers. Are we buying time or merely arresting development? The risks seem more like a concerted  push for institutionalized child abuse.

Ultimately who is the arbiter to determine between whether a child might be confused or properly gender dysphoric? Get it wrong and that life might be irreparably damaged. But hey, as long as it was done for the sake of progressive goals, such sacrifices are all in the name of diversity, no?

Carlos Ghosn facing arrest

The Asahi Shimbun says Nissan group President Carlos Ghosn is expected to face arrest by prosecutors for underreporting salary. Noone should be above the law but to think of the number of jobs at Nissan he saved plus the return to record profitability makes CM think the tax man is well ahead on the trade.

Liar, liar bush on fire?

As the old adage goes, there are lies, more lies and then there are statistics. Never a dull moment when a natural disaster and tragedy can be tied to Trump. While CM thought his comments the other week were highly inappropriate, it seems that the press now want to throw a ‘climate change’ angle as the main cause of the bushfires.

A study in the journal Science determined the global burnt area from fires, rather than growing, had declined by roughly 25% from 1999 to 2017. California wildfire data reviewed by the USFS  shows a trend that since the peak in 1980, there have been fewer and fewer wildfires in California. So no smoking gun (no pun intended) with climate change.

As pointed out last week, the budget of the US Department of Agriculture Forestry Service shows monies directed at wildland fire “preparedness” and “suppression” have risen 32% since he took office.

firefire.png

So how are these fires being caused?

The Australian Institute for Criminology (AIC) noted over a 5 year study period that half of fires were deemed suspicious or deliberately lit. Another 35% were accidentally lit. So 85% were down to human factors, not climate. The statistics were based on data comprising on average 54,000 bush fires per annum. The US Department of the Interior (DOI) notes that 90% of wildland fires are caused by humans, 49% of that being deliberate.  So there is consistency in bushfire data across nations.

If CNN and others in the mainstream media did their homework they could have taken their other favourite form of social justice by pointing out the following facts. The AIC sees that while the data is somewhat sketchy that the most common profile of arsonists was “white male, mid-20s, patchy employment record, often above average intelligence, but poor academic achievement and poor social development skills…56% of convicted structural arsonists and 37% of bushfire arsonists in NSW had a prior conviction for a previous offence.

Had the simplest of research been done, rather than tie bogus claims that contradict pet activist causes, they could switch to identity politics instead.

Above all the political wrangling, spare a thought for those that have died, lost property and those  first responders dealing with the problem.