Reality 2019

Recommended Posts

OK to be Racist if:

The priceless racism of the Duke of Edinburgh

Prince Philip has done the world an extraordinary service by exposing the racist hypocrisy of "Western civilisation".

Hamid Dabashiby Hamid Dabashi
13 Aug 2017
The kind of racism Prince Philip exudes is reminiscent of the very spirit of British and other European imperialism at its height, writes Dabashi [Reuters]
The kind of racism Prince Philip exudes is reminiscent of the very spirit of British and other European imperialism at its height, writes Dabashi [Reuters]

"Prince Philip carries out final official engagement," the BBC informed the world on August 2, 2017. "The Duke of Edinburgh met Royal Marines in his final solo public engagement before he retires from royal duties." 

There is an air of historic solemnity in the tone of the BBC. "The 96-year-old announced his retirement in May, after decades of supporting the Queen as well as attending events for his own charities and organisations. Prince Philip has completed 22,219 solo engagements since 1952." In 1952 I was one year old. The year after that, the MI6, the military intelligence outfit of the Duke of Edinburgh's government, helped the CIA to stage a coup in my homeland. The BBC would not say which one of those 22,219 royal duties coincided with that occasion.


On this occasion, instead, the BBC did what it does best: pointed to a truth but camouflaged it with a number of choice euphemisms that completely distort what it seems to mark. Prince Philip - how shall we put it gently here - is a rank racist. His racism is a public secret. Everyone knows it. The Prince himself habitually stages it. So the BBC needs to report it, though in a typically BBC kind of a way - by making it frivolous and innocuous.  

"Prince Philip's gaffes from decades on royal duty," the BBC headlines it. So the good Prince's astonishing utterances are not what they are, symptomatic of a deeply racist mind. They are just "gaffes" - unintentional and unfortunate remarks causing embarrassment, things he should not have said, and did not really mean, but unfortunately did say. That's why they are "gaffes".  

'Still throwing spears?'

The BBC then moves to colour these vintage racist utterances with even thicker brushes as "memorable one-liners that can make some people chuckle and others cringe". That is meant to cancel the "cringe" with a "chuckle" and come up with a neutralising cough. The rest is entirely standard BBC lore chiselling at brutish facts with etymological gymnastics: "Prince Philip is renowned for speaking his mind - often explained as his attempt to lighten the mood - and that outspoken nature has at times led to controversy with some of those remarks teetering on the edge of being offensive." 

Such vintage BBC phrases ought to be studied at Columbia School of Journalism and other such reputable places as exercise in sheer charlatanism. "Speaking his mind" is lovely, isn't it? "Lightening the mood" he does - doesn't he? Fabulous indeed! "Outspoken" is our lovely Prince - isn't that courageous! Every turn of phrase is brushed thickly to sugar-coat a bitter truth.

Prince Philip's racism is actually quite priceless because it comes so naturally to him, writes Dabashi [Reuters]

Now let's look at some of these "attempts to lighten the mood":

"British women can't cook"

"Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed" (during the 1981 recession).

"You are a woman, aren't you?" (in Kenya after accepting a small gift from a local woman).

"If you stay here much longer you'll all be slitty-eyed" (to a group of British students during a royal visit to China).

"You can't have been here that long, you haven't got pot belly" (to a Briton he met in Hungary).

"Aren't most of you descended from pirates?" (to a wealthy islander in the Cayman Islands).

"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test" (to a Scottish driving instructor).

"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian" (referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh).

"Still throwing spears?" (question put to an Aboriginal Australian during a visit).

"There's a lot of your family in tonight" (after looking at the name badge of businessman Atul Patel at a Palace reception for British Indians).

"The Philippines must be half-empty as you're all here running the NHS" (on meeting a Filipino nurse at Luton and Dunstable Hospital). 

Prince Philip to European aristocracy is what Donald Trump is to American liberal democracy: an embarrassment - the men who flaunt the ugly truth from under the thin veneer of their bourgeois etiquette.

There are other even more remarkable gems that the BBC has of course not listed but others have. But these should suffice.

Priceless racism

BBC's transparent attempt at whitewashing notwithstanding, Prince Philip's racism is actually quite priceless because it comes so naturally to him. He is not faking it. He is not trying to offend anyone. He is offensive. This is he. This is who he is - and the long panoply of his racist, sexist, elitist, misogynistic, class-privileged and unhinged prejudices is a mobile museum of European bigotry on display.

The Duke of Edinburgh has done the world an extraordinary service by being who he is, by staging generous servings of his bigoted disposition and he is retiring happily with having catalogued all or at least most of his priceless inventory for posterity to read and learn.

Our dearly beloved Duke of Edinburgh is blissfully old. He has lived a long, rich, and fulfilling life - and may he live the rest of his racist days with the dignity and poise that he has denied others. His xenophobic bigotry is pure, his sense of class entitlement undiluted, unencumbered, uncensored, liberated from any inkling of bourgeois inhibitions. He does not mean to be offensive. He just is. He is a walking embodiment of every layered lava of European racism summed up inside one royal head.

Today people of the privileged class have learned how to camouflage their racism in varied codes and convoluted bourgeois euphemism. The kind of bigotry that Prince Philip exudes and stages is now considered rude and vulgar, old-fashioned and outmoded, presumed classed and pointed at the lower social strata. The precious advantage of Prince Philip is that he is a royal from the heart of British (and European) aristocracy. He tells it as he sees it fit. 

Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh arrives at Cambridge University for an honorary doctorates ceremony in 1994 [Reuters]

The Prince is the repository of all the colonial past and all the class privileges of the present. His racist remarks should not be whitewashed or camouflaged. They need to be properly, accurately, and verbatim catalogued in the British Library and made available to future generations of scholars and critical thinkers, anthropologists of the racist foregrounding of European imperialism for careful and close analysis. They are the insignia of an entire semiology of colonial racism in full-blown aristocratic diction. From the rampant racism now dominant in Israel to pernicious xenophobia evident in Trump's America, it's all there: rooted in these unhinged expletives in polite, aristocratic British English.

Expressions of Prince Philip's racism are not "gaffes" as the BBC and other British outlets embarrassed by their vulgarity brand them - though one can see why the BBC is rushing to term them as such and brush them quickly under the proverbial carpet. For the world at large, however, at the receiving end of British and European racist colonialism, these "gaffes" are in fact priceless relics of an age now deeply camouflaged under lovely-looking and liberal euphemisms. We as a result need to treat them as archaeologists treat any other relic and fragment they find. Based on such remains, they reconstruct bygone ages and the forgotten truths they reveal and conceal at one and the same time.

The guilty conscience of a fallen empire

The kind of racism Prince Philip exudes is reminiscent of the very spirit of British and other European imperialism at its height. This is the way the British thought when they ruled India, the French when they ruled Algeria, the Italians when they conquered Libya, the Belgians when they owned Congo. 

Prince Philip is a museum piece - a living, breathing, mobile, jolly good fellow, smiling, handsome, charming great-grandpa who happily walks about, utters obscenities while his entourage try to cover up for his "indiscretions". But these are not "indiscretions" or "gaffes." He means what he says and he says what he means. He is the living memory of an entire history of imperial hubris now being actively repressed to offer a more liberal, tolerant, cosmopolitan character for the British and, by extension, "the European". 



Prince Philip to European aristocracy is what Donald Trump is to American liberal democracy: an embarrassment - the men who flaunt the ugly truth from under the thin veneer of their bourgeois etiquette. The racist provincialism of both Prince Philip and Donald Trump is irresistibly charming to their admirers and embarrassing to their detractors, but identically revelatory to the world at large. Their racism is so against the grain of recently manufactured liberal "tolerance" that they don't know where to hide it. 

Think of the word, the concept, the very idea, of "tolerance" of which liberal democracy is so proud. What does it mean to be "tolerant?"  


From John Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) to Voltaire's Treatise on Tolerance (1763), two towering European philosophers have argued against religious or political bigotry and fanaticism. But today liberal "tolerance" amounts to a fanatical conviction about one's own beliefs thinly disguised under the veneer of "tolerating", meaning putting up with, other people's misguided beliefs and practices.

To be tolerant today means we are convinced by the superiority of our own beliefs but out of the generosity of our spirit and goodness of our heart and the superiority of our civilisation we put up with you, for we have no choice. Both the superiority of belief and the virtue of tolerance are thus attributed to the tolerant culture rather than denied to the barbarity thus tolerated. 

Until such time that we reach a point when we do not "tolerate" each other but in fact see the truth and the beauty of the world from each other's perspective, Prince Philip, bless his splendidly racist soul, exposes the hypocrisy of liberal "tolerance". I love him for it. He screams out loud what other racists like him have learned how to conceal and camouflage in what they think and project as civilised demeanour - as they load their fighter jets with bombs to drop on brown and black people to send them "back to the Stone Age". 

There is a beautiful barbarity of truth to Prince Philip's racism, exposing the ugly hypocrisy at the very foundation of "Western civilisation".

Hamid Dabashi is Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 374
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Four members of my immediate family have black belts; do we give them back and apologize? Three of us partake in traditional archery; is that OK? My wife does yoga; should she stop? I know an asian ma

Assman strikes back: Denied licence plate, Saskatchewan man emblazons 'offensive' last name on tailgate The Melville man had an oversized decal designed to replicate the plate in question. 'Well

Those under threat from communist influences (as you put it) should shoulder their share of the's been a long time coming. IMO, we have enough to worry about right here with the rise of so

Posted Images

My voting standards have decreased by orders of magnitude. I no longer expect (or care) if conservatives exercise fiscal restraint or conform to the normal parameters of nominal conservatism. All you have to do is not be crazy. It’s that simple, DON’T BE CRAZY!

How is it that the Democratic party in the US doesn’t see that it’s headed over a cliff? There isn’t a discussion or even the hint of seeking reasonable solutions. California is now so far off the rails it’s no longer even on my list of potential destinations…. it’s a place to be avoided.

The “war of links” (here and elsewhere) offering up an endless buffet of Doug Ford this and Trump that are meaningless and irrelevant. Suggesting that Andrew Schear is a white supremacist  because he puts ketchup on his fries and all white supremacists put ketchup on their fries is the sort of silliness that loses elections.

I never used to do telephone polls, now I do them all the time and give wildly left wing answers to all of the questions. A number of people I’ve talked to at the gym do exactly the same thing now… a few others thought it was a good idea and plan to do the same. So, I’m guessing the polls will get it all wrong again.

So, when people say there, you got what you voted for, I think yes, thank you Lord, crazy has been held at bay for the time being. Perhaps in the future, people will be willing to discuss the issues of the day in a calm, rational manner with an eye toward seeking solutions from the big free market of ideas. Until then, the simple absence of crazy will suffice.



  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was part of Trumps plan in his recent statement re: the four lefties....the dems know these congresswomen are extreme., but Trumps statement forced the rest of the dems come out and defend them. Look at the publicity this has generated....and has only given Oca and Omar a bigger platform....much to the chagrin of the dems. In the meantime, trump has appealed to his core and he sits back and enjoys the controversy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last Saturday morning the weather was too bad to go outside.

I was bored with nothing to do.


Suddenly there was a knock on the door.

I opened it to find a young, well dressed man standing there who said:

"Hello sir, I'm a Jehovah's Witness."


So I said, "Come in and sit down."

I offered him a fresh cup of coffee and asked, "What do you want to talk about?"


He said, "Beats the **bleep** out of me. Nobody's ever let me in before."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"For its wider implications, but also for its looniness, our history books will marvel—if and when cultural sanity returns—at the singular 'human rights' case of alleged transwoman Jessica Yaniv—sometimes self-presenting as Jonathan Yaniv—vs the waxologists."

For its wider implications, but also for its looniness, our history books will marvel—if and when cultural sanity returns—at the singular “human rights” case of alleged transwoman Jessica Yaniv—sometimes self-presenting as Jonathan Yaniv—vs the waxologists. 

Yaniv retains his male genitalia. But, thanks to the recently invented, but imprecisely defined right of “gender expression” having been enshrined in legislation, Yaniv has been permitted to wreak havoc in the lives of 16 B.C. waxologists. These women, many of them immigrants, earn a modest living by performing intimate hair-removal services for other women. They refused to wax Yaniv’s balls, and here their troubles began. Some, under the strain of the pressure Yaniv has brought to bear on them, have abandoned their livelihood.

The story has been widely disseminated. The crux of it is that innocent women have been martyred so that an unhinged biological male, who has demonstrated on social media what any reasonable person would call a sick frame of mindcan, with the state’s blessing and collusion, target and abuse culturally and economically vulnerable women to satisfy “her” kinky drives. I say collusion, because even when such victims “win,” the process is often the punishment in human rights cases. There has certainly been mental and economic punishment for these women throughout this process, but Yaniv seems to enjoy persecuting them. 

This story is important because if human rights tribunals were guided by reason and objectivity, none of Yaniv’s complaints would have passed their smell test. The licence afforded Yaniv cements the fictitious notion that when it comes to rights, gender identity may be held by ideologues and their legislative surrogates to trump biology, even in an area that is so simply and fundamentally anatomically based, there is no wiggle room for interpretation. 

As the targeted waxologists explained, a woman’s genitals require one kind of treatment, with one kind of wax, a man’s genitals another. The women were trained to wax female genitals only, and were not competent to wax male genitals without risk of harm to the scrotum. 

Some of the women worked alone at home, with children present, and some had religious scruples against touching male bodies, but let us set these considerations aside for the moment, because even if a woman has no religious scruples about touching male bodies and even if she works in a salon, she would still have the same basic case for refusal as the more modest women.

The bottom line is, when an individual is getting his or her genitals waxed, there is no “gender” involved. And that is easy to prove. Imagine that Jessica Yaniv is now a corpse, and has left instructions for burial with waxed genitals. Who would do the job? Someone practiced in the waxing of female genitals or someone practised in the waxing of male genitals? At this point Yaniv’s “gender” would not even be moot; it would have vanished entirely, so it would be ludicrous to call for a woman-centric waxologist. But don’t you see that the fact that Yaniv is alive makes no material difference in the realm of waxology? Whether Yaniv thinks he is a woman is as irrelevant to genital waxing as if he were dead, since Yaniv’s anatomy remains ruthlessly male.


Yaniv says if the case is lost, it sets a dangerous precedent for trans people. The HRC claims the hearings revolve around the question of whether a business should be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity. But as Brendan O’Neil noted in a recent Spiked! column, the real question is more like “‘Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?’—that’s a franker, more honest way of putting it, though it’s obvious why people don’t put it like that, given it would expose the fundamental misogyny at play in this demented case.” If Yaniv or any other mischief-maker of his sort were to win such a case, it would open the door to similar attacks on actual professions, also 100% anatomy-based, that cater exclusively to females.

Who can see to the bottom of this precipitous slope? Women in track and field and other sports based in speed or power, demonstrably related to physiology, are now sliding down it to full erasure, while their enabling sports associations look on with self-righteous complacency, and nobody in authority reaches out a hand to save them. 

What other fields are in peril? The Yanivs of the world are obsessive and unfiltered. They have no moral compass. They are ruled by passions that are unfathomable to normal people. Give an inch to the waxology Yaniv—Yaniv 1.0—and Yaniv 2.0 will find encouragement to up the ante. 

Ten years ago I would have found inconceivable, but now readily imagine that one fine day a gynecologist will be held to be transphobic if she refuses to accept a transwoman as a patient. She may find herself explaining ever so nicely to Yaniv 2.0 that she is not competent to deal with male bodies and find herself up against the stone wall of “I am a woman. You treat women. The law agrees I am a woman if I say I am a woman. The law says you must treat me.” 

She may then politely ask Yaniv 2.0 to seek examination and medical advice elsewhere, and Yaniv 2.0 may leave with a curse, after which the gynecologist will think the matter closed. A week later she will be shocked to learn that Yaniv 2.0 has filed a complaint against her with her professional association. The association will be baffled and at first rally to her side. Then the association—and the doctor—will find themselves deluged with denunciations of transphobia on social media. 

One of their members who identifies as trans will make an impassioned public plea for inclusivity, and pray that the claimant does not commit suicide as a result of being turned away (something Yaniv 2.0 may well threaten to do). LGBTQ activists will call for a legislated solution to this injustice in the universal-healthcare system. Politicians, tumbling over themselves for pride of place in the virtue-signalling pecking order, will promise a solution. One of them will propose a bill to end gender “privilege” in medicine.


Consternation will rage at the various medical schools. University administrations will find themselves in the hot seat. How can they be harbouring in their midst an entire medical discipline that caters only to cis-women? Committees will be struck to study the matter. A recommendation will be made that the discipline of Gynecology add a year to its curriculum for the study of male anatomy and its pathologies. Those students already in the program can be “grandmothered,” but incoming students must commit to the additional year, and must further commit to a statement of gender inclusivity in their practice.

A few shocked practitioners of high standing will speak up publicly, ridiculing the idea that gynecologists must treat biological males as absurd. They will not find the ensuing mobbing comfortable and they will soon shut up. Those that refuse to shut up may find themselves isolated and shunned, the kind of shunning that has already happened in the fields of endocrinology and psychiatry. 

For a good example of what is happening in the latter field, I suggest you consult the case of Dr. Allan Josephson, a distinguished psychiatrist who, since 2003, has transformed the division of child and adolescent psychiatry and psychology at the University of Louisville from a struggling department to a nationally acclaimed program. He was demoted and effectively fired for appearing on a panel (on his own time, and not as a representative of his university), run by a conservative think tank in order to express his concerns about wholesale affirmation and medical alteration of children.

The trouble with democracy—one trouble anyway—is our complacency. We are too trusting. We think our liberties are well protected in law. We have no sense of how easily and perniciously laws can be amended when ideologues infiltrate the law schools and populate the benches, the bar associations and the law societies. The whole idea of human rights is being transmogrified before our eyes, and we sit there watching, superannuated classical-liberal deer in the progressive headlights.

I wish my imaginary scenario with the gynecology discipline were a satirical proposition. It is for the moment. But I have no faith that it will remain imaginary. The following words have—in format—become a cliché, but only because the insight the original words represent is so often the most fitting commentary on a democracy’s demise, which always begins with the sacrifice of individual freedoms on the altar of irrational dogmas: “First they came for the waxologists, but I did not speak up because I was not a waxologist …”


Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight attendants, airport staff join Hong Kong airport protest

More rallies are expected in the city state over the weekend following an attack on protesters that left 45 in hospital.

3 hours ago
Protesters filled Hong Kong airport's arrivals hall [Anthony Wallace/AFP]
Protesters filled Hong Kong airport's arrivals hall [Anthony Wallace/AFP]

Thousands of protesters, dressed mostly in black, have held a rally at Hong Kong's international airport to "educate" visitors about the demonstrations currently gripping the semi-autonomous city-state as it braces for another weekend of protests.

Flight attendants and airport staff joined protesters on Friday, with many sitting on the ground in the airport's main arrivals hall. Some held protest banners, chanted anti-government slogans and handed out leaflets as travellers looked on. 

One group used a television to show a satirical version of an airline safety announcement video detailing the protesters' demands and warning of demonstrations in the city.

"Kindly put on your masks and black t-shirts ... when attending the assemblies," the video said, in reference to the colour widely adopted by anti-government protesters. 

Others held "Tourist Warning" signs detailing how police have fired tear gas at protesters and how a suspected pro-government gang attacked demonstrators last Sunday, putting 45 people in hospital. 

There were no reports of unrest or disruption to flights during Friday's protest, which was the latest bid to keep up pressure on Hong Kong's pro-Beijing leaders after seven weeks of largely peaceful mass demonstrations followed by violent clashes. 

An unprecedented challenge to Beijing's authority since Hong Kong's 1997 handover from the United Kingdom, the protests were triggered by a controversial bill which would have allowed extraditions to mainland China, but have evolved into a call for wider democratic reforms and a halt to sliding freedoms.

Organisers billed the rally at the airport - one of the world's busiest - as an opportunity to brief arrivals on the political unrest, particularly visitors from mainland China where state-controlled news has portrayed the protests as a violent, foreign-funded plot to destabilise China.

Hong Kong airport protests
Some protesters handed flyers out to visitors as they arrived at the airport [Anthony Wallace/AFP]

More protests expected

Meryl Yeung, a 29-year-old flight attendant, had just gotten off a plane and joined the protest.

"It's important to come to the airport and tell foreigners what's happening in Hong Kong," she told AFP news agency, saying it was especially vital to make sure people in China are made aware of the protests.

"They have no idea at all, they only get information from one side. They think everyone coming to a protest, to a rally, are all rioters or promoting Hong Kong independence," she said.

Yoko Tsang, 29, said the more she travelled around the world as a flight attendant, the more she has come to cherish Hong Kong's freedoms, which she feels are increasingly under threat.

"No matter where we go, Hong Kong is always our home and our roots," she said. "Whether it's before or after work, we have to fight for time to show support in rallies".

Hong Kong airline Cathay Pacific's Flight Attendants Union said it supported the rally and encouraged members to join, a stance that earned it a rebuke in China's state media. 

Hong Kong airport protest
Demonstrators said the rally was intended to 'educate' tourists - particularly from mainland China - about the ongoing protests [Anthony Wallace/AFP]

The hours-long protest was greeted with mixed reactions from tourists. 

Margarita Duco, a 24-year-old from Chile, said the demonstrations reminded her of her own country where police brutality has also been a flashpoint.

"The excessive use of violence when there are peaceful manifestations, it's very common in my country so I can relate to what they are going through," she told AFP.

Several mainland Chinese visitors declined to comment when approached by the news agency.

The airport protest came ahead of more demonstrations planned for Saturday despite a government ban.

Saturday's protest is set to start in the Yuen Long district, where protesters were attacked while on the way home from demonstrations last weekend.

Protesters say paid gangs from the locality were responsible for the attacks and accuse the police of not protecting them

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOVE LOVE LOVE the ingenuity !!


ATTENTION All young males !! There is a way !!!

Alberta man changes gender on government IDs for cheaper car insurance

He wanted a brand new car — a Chevrolet Cruze with all the trimmings.

As a man in his early 20s, he knew his insurance costs would be high.

So he became a woman, though only on p aper.

"I have taken advantage of a loophole," said the man — we're calling him David — who spoke on the condition that his identity be kept confidential because of the potential repercussions.

'Getting screwed'

David, who lives in Alberta, says he identifies as a male. But his government-issued identification tells a different story.

It started when an insurance company gave David a quote — roughly $4,500 a year, if he bought the Chevy. He had a collision and a ticket or two on his record, which helped boost the premium.

Then, he had an idea. He asked the insurer what his costs would be if he were a woman. He was told his annual bill would sink to roughly $3,400 — a $1,100 difference.

"I was pretty angry about that. And I didn't feel like getting screwed over any more," he said.

"So I asked them to change my gender on my auto policy, and she's like, we can't do that."

Young men generally pay more

According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, men under 25 are generally at higher risk of collision than women of the same age, which means their premiums are often higher.

David, who was 23 at the time, says he learned he first had to change his gender on hi s birth certificate and driver's licence before he could have it reflected on his insurance policy, to get the cheaper rate.

After doing some research, he realized he needed a doctor's note to show the government he identifies as a woman, even though he doesn't.

"It was pretty simple," he said. "I just basically asked for it and told them that I identify as a woman, or I'd like to identify as a woman, and he wrote me the letter I wanted."

Under the rules in place at the time, Albertans needed to produce a doctor's note to switch th e gender marker on their personal documents. In June, the government scrapped the doctor's note requirement for adults, allowing them to declare their marker as M, F or X, for those who don't fit into a strictly male or female binary. 

'I felt like I won'

David shipped the note and other paperwork off to the provincial government. And, a few weeks later, he received a new birth certificate in the mail indicating he was a woman.

"I was quite shocked, but I was also relieved," he said. "I felt like I beat the system. I felt like I won."

With the new birth certificate in hand, he changed his driver's licence and insurance policy.

All to save about $91 a month.

"I'm a man, 100 per cent. Legally, I'm a woman," he said.

"I did it for cheaper car insurance."

David says he's aware the methods he used to become a woman on paper are designed for Albertans who need to correct the gender marker on their identification to reflect who they really are. But he says his target was the insurance industry, not the gender diverse community.

"I didn't do it to point out how easy it is to change genders," he said. "I didn't do it to criticize or ridicule transgender or LGBT rights."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saudi Arabia allows women to travel independently

A woman in Saudi Arabia drivingImage copyright EPA Image caption The move now puts women on an equal footing to men with regard to travel rights

Women in Saudi Arabia can now travel abroad without a male guardian's permission, royal decrees say.

Under the new rule announced on Friday, women over the age of 21 can apply for a passport without authorisation from a male guardian.

All adults can now apply for a passport and travel, putting women on an equal footing to men.

The royal decrees also grant women the right to register child birth, marriage or divorce.

They also cover employment regulations that expands work opportunities for women. Under the rule, all citizens have the right to work without facing any discrimination based on gender, disability or age.


Until now, Saudi women have had to seek permission from a male guardian - a husband, father or other male relative to obtain a passport or travel abroad.

Saudi Arabia's ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has eased restrictions in the country such as a ban on women driving as part of a big push to open up the country.

In 2016, he unveiled a plan to transform the economy by 2030, with the aim of increasing women's participation in the workforce to 30% from 22%.However there have been several high profile cases of women seeking asylum in countries such as Canada, citing claims of gender oppression.


Two Saudis who sought asylum in the UK explain why they risked everything.Media captionTwo Saudis who sought asylum in the UK explain why they risked everything.

In January, Canada granted asylum to 18-year-old Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun. She fled Saudi Arabia and tried to escape to Australia. She ended up in a stand-off in an airport hotel room in the Thai capital Bangkok, where she appealed for international help.

International rights groups have often claimed that women are treated as second class citizens in the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadas legal system becoming the biggest joke in the world.

Just plain wrong. Every single parent should be worried.


Lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ( which has applied to intervene before the BC Court of Appeal in the case of AB v. CD and EF.

The case of AB v. CD and EF is now before the British Columbia Court of Appeal. 

A court order prohibits the publication of the names of the born-female child (“AB”), the child’s father (“CD”), the child’s mother (“EF”) and the medical professionals involved in this case. 

The court’s order also prohibits using biologically accurate pronouns to refer to this born-female child.

The story of AB

The father and mother divorced about four years ago. Since that time, their female-born child was frequently in trouble in school, seeing school counsellors on a regular basis.

With the support and affirmation of school counsellors, the female-born child began to transition to a male identity, including taking on a male name. 


This was kept a secret from the father, even though custody is legally shared between him and his ex-wife, and despite his legal right to know all significant happenings and developments pertaining to his own child. 

The father only found out after seeing his child in a school yearbook, dressed up as a boy with a new male name below the picture.

The child continued to meet with school counsellors who supported AB presenting to others as a male. They referred the child to a psychologist (“Dr. IJ”) who advocates for transgenderism, who then referred the child to “Dr. GH” at the B.C. Children’s Hospital. 

In December of 2018, Dr. GH sent the father a letter stating that the Children’s Hospital would begin giving the child testosterone within two weeks, without the father’s consent.

Father worried about long term consequences

For the next several months, Children’s Hospital staff pressured the father to consent to the treatment. The father had grave concerns about the so-called treatment, and with good reason. He was also concerned about starting the treatment prior to proper consideration being given to treating AB for depression.


According to a 2011 Swedish study, people who receive affirmation therapy, cross-sex hormone therapy and surgical manipulation of their bodies, experience life-long psychological trauma and a suicide rate 19 times higher than the general population. 

Further, cross-sex hormones result in irreparable changes such as increased risk of cancers, heart disease, osteoporosis and permanent infertility. Other changes include permanent voice changes, facial hair, and lower bone density.

In 2018, Brown University published Lisa Littman’s findings from a case study with 256 parents evidencing the rapid onset of gender dysphoria in adolescent girls. The study evidences a correlation between social media use and peer influence as twin factors contributing to the phenomenon.

Gender dysphoria is often linked with mental health problems and childhood trauma.  It may be triggered by peer pressure, or by their social environment, but gender confusion typically desists following puberty. 

The psychologist who was treating AB, Dr. IJ, has publicly stated that only 2% to 20% of transgender kids stay transgender.  The vast majority grow out of it.  Dr. IJ’s claim is consistent with medical research, which shows that more than 80% of gender-confused children accept their biological gender by the time they are 18, absent “affirmation therapy” and cross-sex hormones.

However, if gender-confused children receive pubertal suppressant drugs and opposite-sex hormones, most will continue with the gender transition process past the age of 18.


The full and long-term results of gender transition treatments received by minors are unknown at this time, due to lack of medical information and lack of comprehensive, long-term studies on the treatment’s impact on children.

The court ruling under appeal

On February 27, 2019, Justice Bowden of the Supreme Court of British Columbia declared that it was in the best interests of the child to receive the controversial cross-sex hormone treatments and/or pubertal suppressant drugs, and/or whatever other treatment may be recommended by the BC Children’s Hospital, including surgeries such as mastectomy.

Justice Bowden further ordered that the female-born child be acknowledged and referred to as male, and be referred to only by the child’s new male name, both in the legal proceedings and generally.

This order applies to AB’s father, and everyone else, effectively requiring people to re-align their conscience, beliefs, opinions and expressions accordingly.

Further, Justice Bowden also specifically forbade the father from attempting to persuade AB to abandon this experimental treatment that carries life-altering, permanent consequences. 

Calling the female-born child by the name assigned at birth, or referring to the child using biologically correct pronouns, or trying to persuade the child not to proceed with irreversible treatments, would constitute “family violence” under BC’s Family Law Act, according to this judge.

Compelled speech violates Charter freedom of expression rights

The Justice Centre is applying to intervene in this case to address the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms, namely the rights of children and parents as protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: the right to “life, liberty and security of the person.”

In addition to the rights of children to be protected by those who love them the most and know them the best (the parents), this case also raises the important issue of compelled speech. 

The court, which is an arm of government, has told the father what he must call his own child, in conversations with the child and even in conversations with third parties.

Compelled speech violates free expression as protected by section 2(b) of the Charter, and has been described by the Supreme Court of Canada as “totalitarian, and as such alien to the tradition of free nations like Canada.” 

In addition to protecting every person’s freedom to speak, hear and listen, the Charter also protects the right not to be compelled by the government (including the courts) to utter words which are not one’s own.

The Charter is violated when the courts, or any apparatus of the state, demands that citizens refer to any individual with words that are not freely chosen by them, especially when uttering such words commits the speaker to a belief they do not adhere to. 

A mockery is made of free expression, not to mention liberal democracy itself, if citizens are ordered by the courts to speak against their will that which they regard as wrong or false. 

Protecting children by protecting parents

The Charter protects the liberty and security interests of parents in the raising and caring for their own children, including a right to make decisions for them in fundamental matters such as participating in elective irreversible medical interventions. Further, a child’s section 7 Charter rights include the right to have the protection of parents, and the right to have parents make decisions for the well-being of the child.

Human minds are not fully developed until sometime around the age of 25.  Prior to reaching the age of 18, children cannot buy alcohol, tobacco or marijuana. Children can’t vote, run for office, or join the military. 

They can’t even get a tattoo without the permission of both parents. 

By law, they must have parental guidance for a great host of activities. At the age of 12 or even 15, children cannot possibly understand the full and long-term implications of cross-sex hormone treatment, resulting in lower bone density, permanent changes to voice and facial hair, and irreversible infertility.

Parents across Canada, regardless of creed, race or political view, have a deeply personal and abiding interest in their children’s health and long-term happiness. 

The Charter, like the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child, recognizes that parents are typically in a far better position than the state to raise children and to make decisions regarding their care. 

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Charter gives parents rights generally to make decisions for the good of their children. The law recognizes that nobody is more invested in protecting children than their parents.

Section 7 of the Charter thus protects a parent’s right to withhold consent for an elective, experimental and largely irreversible treatment such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, pending a child reaching a certain age and becoming what is legally described as a “mature minor.”

The government, which includes the courts, is precluded—except in the rarest of circumstances not present in this case—from interfering with the parent’s rights to raise his child in accordance with what he reasonably believes is best for the child, and to protect the child from the irreversible consequences of unnecessary and risky medical interventions with irreversible consequences, such as gender transition treatment.

What makes for a “mature minor” in law?

Part of what qualifies a minor to be recognized as legally “mature” (able to make adult decisions independently from her parents and from the government) is her ability to think through difficult issues and deal maturely with opposing viewpoints. 

In cases involving teenage Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse life-saving blood transfusions, one of the things considered by courts, when assessing whether the minor is legally “mature” and able to make this decision on her own, is her capacity to hear and consider differing viewpoints. 

If a child is already dealing with significant emotional and mental stress that impedes her ability to rationalize and consider competing medical opinions, she will not be able to handle differing advice (for example, doctors urging her to accept a blood transfusion while religious leaders urge her to refuse this) and cannot therefore be deemed  legally “mature.”

Justice Bowden’s Order prohibits the father from trying to persuade his female-born child to refrain from experimental and irreversible testosterone treatments. This assumes that the child is not sufficiently mature to handle differing opinions and to think through the pros and cons of different options. 

If true, this means the child is not a mature minor. 

If the child is not a mature minor, the child cannot decide on serious and irreversible medical treatments; it’s up to the parents. Yet the lower court views the child as mature enough to decide on experimental medical treatments, but not mature enough to deal with the father’s objections.

There should be no irreversible medical treatment until the parents agree, or the child reaches the age and acquires the maturity of a “mature minor.”  Neither the government nor the courts will pick up the pieces of this child’s life if they are wrong regarding these treatments. 

It will be the parents.



Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason this never seems to be a problem in isolated African villages.

It makes me wonder if we can collectively prevail over complicated problems like mass migration, climate change or social dilemmas like gun violence. I would feel better about our chances if people had the ability to check between their legs and make the appropriate bathroom selection based on what they observed.

Now read this....

The toxic insanity of the far left and the unwillingness of reasonable Democrats to cut the crazies adrift has progressed to PNR. Following the primaries, I simply can't see how they can walk themselves back to a point where reasonable people would ever trust them. 

They can't seem to help themselves and don't even realize how dangerous and hateful they are:

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jaydee said:


If she used the self checkout which has 10 stations, she would have been displacing 9 (worker plus the helper) .   So net gain for technology but a def. job loss.  Also of course most self checkouts (grocery stores) only take credit or debit cards which encourages the use of credit vs real money in one's pocket or purse.  I find at retail outlets that have self checkout, there are fewer cahier positions and the self checkout lanes are clogged with (Darwin candidates) who can not figure out how   the system works or wait until they have finished to start bagging their purchases.

and let us not forget the idiot who is in the fast lane (12 item max) who can not count and has many more items thus holding up the line. The poor clerk in that lane is not allowed to refuse them and so mr / miss most important gets away with their act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real tragedy here is the lack of enforcement. I'm now at 6 full transits through Ontario (two more to go this year) and have yet to see a single traffic stop... not one. Average speed seems to be 20+ KPH over the posted limit with people camping in the left lane resulting in Snowbird line astern tailgating. I no longer signal lane changes... when the indicator comes on people speed up to block you. If there is no credible likelihood of being caught, laws don't matter.... a bit like street checks in that regard I think. Are these the same people demanding action on climate change?  This should be the easy part...

IMO, the worst place to drive a motorcycle in Canada/USA.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.