Beijing will use law and public opinion to handle Hong Kong independence issue, not guns, insists prominent lawyer


Beijing will use only law and public opinion but not force to handle the pro-independence drive in Hong Kong, says Basic Law Committee member Maria Tam Wai-chu.

The development came a day after Basic Law Committee vice-chairman Zhang Rongshun was quoted by pro-Beijing barrister Lawrence Ma Yan-kwok as saying that the Chinese government would be able to handle the issue with “guns and cannons” if activists gathered enough strength to make Hong Kong an independent state.

Pan-democrats said Zhang’s reported remarks had swept away the relatively relaxed atmosphere deliberately created by National People’s Congress chairman Zhang Dejiang during his visit to the city last week.

In a bid to cool the outcry, Tam, who attended the same closed-door meeting with Zhang Rongshun in Beijing alongside Ma, tried to clarify the legal expert’s stance.

She said Zhang’s remarks were mixed up and emphasised that his conclusion was that only law and public opinion would be used to handle the independence issue.

“He has ruled out using swords, guns and force … so the public do not have to worry about the problem of ‘guns and cannons’,” Tam told RTHK’s City Forum on Sunday.

Tam, a Hong Kong delegate to the national legislature, also said the city should handle the independence issue itself despite its controversial nature. Neither Hongkongers nor Beijing wanted to see the central government take the lead, she said.

Labour Party lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan, also the convenor of 23 pan-democratic lawmakers, demanded a clarification from Ma as two versions of the story had now emerged.

Meanwhile, Chan Ho-tin, convenor of the fledgling Hong Kong National Party, which advocates Hong Kong breaking away from China, remained defiant despite the threat of military action.

“Hong Kong is too important to China. I don’t believe the Chinese would destroy it,” said Chan, adding: “Hong Kong people would not be afraid of fighting to the end if their land is invaded.”

His party launched its debut public campaign on Sunday. The one-day event saw members set up booths in six locations across the territory to distribute leaflets to promote the party, formed in March.

Chan said he was pleased with the public response.

Meanwhile at Sunday’s City Forum, the pro-democracy camp remained split over whether it was appropriate for four pan-democrat lawmakers to meet Zhang Dejiang last Wednesday.

Nathan Law Kwun-chung, the chairman of the newly-formed group Demosisto, said dialogue with Beijing officials should be built on the dignity of Hongkongers.

Ho, one of the four pan-democrats who met the state official, said the camp had wanted to raise their dissatisfaction with Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to Zhang directly, adding that restarting the political reform process was the only way for the city to end the current impasse.

Barbara Ellen at U.K Guardian: Married Female Teacher Traumatized 17-Year-Old Male Teen With Festive Holiday Sex Romp


Barbara Ellen: “do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don’t”


This week’s female English teacher busted for having a festive holiday sex romp with a 17-year-old male teenager is Katie Wilmott.

Wilmott, 29, teaches at Oologah-Talala High School in Oologah, Okla. (pop: 1,146) — about 30 miles from Tulsa.

A grand jury indicted Wilmott on Thursday on a charge of second-degree rape, reports Tulsa ABC affiliate KTUL.

The indictment charges that Wilmott and the unidentified student had their whirlwind romance at some point between Dec. 24 and Jan. 8. It’s not clear how much sex occurred, but the indictment indicates that the locale for the fling was a home in Owasso, a town down the road.

Read more:

B’nai Brith Preparing Measures to Counteract BDS in Canada

In the aftermath of Thursday’s rejection by the Ontario Legislature of a proposed bill that would have prohibited the Government from doing business with companies who support the BDS movement, B’nai Brith Canada is determined to continue the fight.

“We are preparing further measures to counteract the movement at this time,” Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada, said in an interview Friday. “This is a very serious issue. We have been working with students across Canada on this and we will continue to combat this movement because it is so deeply offensive to the Jewish community.”

Mostyn would not elaborate on what is being planned at B’nai Brith headquarters “because it’s just a bit too premature at this moment,” but he added: “Everyone will know what we are planning in the near future. Our plans will have teeth and get positive results. We can’t just sit back and allow this movement to continue. Boycott and Sanctions is a toxic movement that has been recognized by politicians across the political spectrum as antisemitic in nature.”

Mostyn said he felt fortunate to be a delegate on Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario Business Mission to Israel this week. “Premier Wynne demonstrated great leadership by strengthening bilateral cooperation between Israel and Ontario to their mutual benefit, and she has ensured the toxic BDS agenda will be recognized as the extremist dogma it is,” the CEO said. “We thank the Premier, Tim Hudak and Mike Colle for their longstanding commitment to fighting antisemitism in Ontario in whatever form it assumes.”

Hudak, former leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, and Colle, Liberal MPP for Eglinton-Lawrence in Toronto, worked together with the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies to introduce the aforementioned bill, which was quickly and decisively defeated in the Ontario Legislature on Thursday.

“The Boycott and Sanctions movements meet the 3-D test of antisemitism of Natan Sharansky as it seeks to delegitimize, demonize and it creates double standards when it comes to Israel,” Mostyn said. “This test is meant to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and actions and non-legitimate criticism that is antisemitic in nature.”

It was at B’nai Brith’s 2011 international policy conference in Uruguay where Hannah Rosenthal, representing the U.S. Government as its Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, confirmed that the U.S. State Department uses Sharansky’s 3-D test to identify when criticism of policies pertaining to Israel cross the line into antisemitism.

“Students on university campuses feel targeted by this movement, and no student should feel they’re targeted for discrimination,” Mostyn said. “B’nai Brith will never stand idly by and we will continue our strong, proactive advocacy on the issue.”

Apartments, Islamic museum to be built on site of failed Ground Zero Mosque


The developer of the failed Ground Zero Mosque has nailed down “Sharia-compliant financing” for a new, luxury condominium tower and Islamic cultural museum on the same site, he and his banking partners said Wednesday.

The $174 million dollar project features a three-story Islamic cultural museum at 51 Park Place and 48 high-end residential condos in a 43-story tower at 45 Park Place in the Financial District.


The “Sharia-compliant” financing means the deal complies with complex Islamic laws that govern lending and borrowing, including a prohibition against accepting interest or fees for loans.

Manhattan developer Sharif El-Gamal’s 2010 plan for a 15-story Islamic cultural center sparked protests from opponents who dubbed it the “Ground Zero Mosque,” although it was four blocks away.

He abandoned that plan in 2011 and there has been little apparent opposition to the smaller museum or the development itself.

The project now includes two multi-story penthouses on the top four floors along with a pool, gym and kids’ playroom.

The deal, finalized Tuesday, was funded by the London branch of Malayan Banking Berhad.

The project was designed by Michel Abboud of SOMA Architects, along with Ismael Leyva Architects, and will include a 2,821 square-foot public plaza, green space and a retail shop.

Canada: Syrian refugee women coming forward with domestic violence allegations, group says

Canada importing wife beaters.

Every week, one Syrian woman comes forward to say she’s a victim of domestic abuse, a Toronto non-profit group says.

More than 25,000 refugees from Syria have fled the civil war in that country and settled in Canada, with many arriving during the winter months. Now, representatives from the Arab Community Centre of Toronto say many are speaking up to say they are living in abusive relationships.

Lubna Shaban, a settlement counsellor at the centre, said many of the women are scared to come forward, especially because their language skills are limited and they’re unsure of the potential repercussions — including a concern that they may be deported.

“Many try to stay silent, as in many cultures,” Shaban told CBC News.

“Even in Canadian society many stay in abusive relationships before deciding to disclose.”

Shaban and others working at the centre hope the federal government, which has set aside nearly $1 billion in funding to help settle the refugees, will allow some of that money to be spent on social issues like helping families deal with and prevent abuse.

In some cases, Shaban said, the main issue is education as the men need to learn that they don’t control every aspect of their wife’s life, such as when they’re allowed to leave the house.

The issue of domestic violence isn’t limited to Syrians. In Canada, one in five women experience some form of abuse in their intimate relationship, figures from the Battered Women’s Support Services group show.

Zena Al Hamdan, a manager at the Arab Community Centre of Toronto, said she believes many women are coming forward now that they’re not in “survival mode” anymore and finally feel safe enough to get help.

Al Hamdan said often, women say the violence begins when their partner gets upset.

“That’s a signal for the counsellor to ask questions,” Al Hamdan said.

Al Hamdan said she believes the stress of settling in a new country — and associated issues like finding work and a place to live — could be triggering some of the spousal violence. In many cases, she said, the family’s power dynamic is also upended by the move to a new country.

The violence that results, however, “is not a Syrian refugee problem … it’s a worldwide problem.”

The centre offers several options to the women, from helping them leave the relationship to providing mediation, but Al Hamdan said the final choice is always left up to the woman.

‘It can make you feel a lot of shame’

Zahra Dhanani, a lawyer and activist, said this problem can be compounded when women are dependent on the men in their lives to get information.

“They don’t know the legal realities,” Dhanani said, adding many are also unaware of the social supports available in Canada.

Dhanani, who has worked in the anti-violence against women field for years, said while it’s hard for any woman to exit an abusive relationship, it’s extremely difficult for refugees.

“It’s almost impossible,” she said, listing the many risks Syrian woman face — from partners who threaten deportation if they divorce to contemplating living in a brand new country without money.

“With those kinds of odds it’s not likely you’re going to leave … it can make you feel a lot of shame,” Dhanani said.

‘Feminist Motherhood’ and the ‘Transgender Kindergartner’


David and Hannah Edwards are raising their 5-year-old son as a girl.

“From a very young age, Hannah said, her son always identified with the female characters in stories. This translated into dressing up as the girl character during playtime and requesting princess costumes to wear not just for Halloween, but for everyday attire.”, Feb. 2

“The Edwardses filed a complaint with the St. Paul Human Rights Department on March 24, claiming their child was bullied at [a charter school] after starting kindergarten as a boy and switching that identification to a girl midway through the year.”
Minneapolis Star-Tribune, April 13

When I saw the headline on a Think Progress tweet — “It takes a village to bully a transgender kindergartner” — my left eyebrow arched. This is anautonomic reflex, I think, although academic experts might theorize that arching an eyebrow in profound skepticism is socially constructed along with the gender binary and the heterosexual matrix. Professors get paid to overthink everything, and after two years of researching radical feminism, I’ve come to realize how this hyper-intellectual tendency makes it impossible for some people to live a happy, normal existence. When you need a theory to explain everything, especially if you are the kind of “progressive” who sees oppression all around you, the ordinary tasks of daily life become unnecessarily complicated. Parenting, for example:

When Dave and Hannah Edwards were lucky enough to win the lottery to enroll their child at Nova Classical Academy in St. Paul, Minnesota, they were excited about the charter school’s small classrooms, the kind teacher they’d met, and the special attention their kid would receive. What they didn’t anticipate was an entire community rising up against their family as they became the latest victims of an anti-transgender backlash sweeping the country.
Over the course of the school year, the kindergartner would transition from a gender non-conforming boy to a transgender girl. . . .
At the beginning of her Kindergarten year, the Edwards’ daughter still identified as a boy. She still wore the boys’ uniform and identified with male pronouns. But they already knew she was gender non-conforming from the many girly things she liked. Plus, Hannah told ThinkProgress, “She would say things like, ‘In my heart, I’m a girl,’ or ‘In my heart, I think I might be half and half.’”
This proved problematic at school. Classmates would make fun of her for her shoes, backpack, or other preferences that were more associated with girls than with boys. The Edwards, both teachers themselves, approached Nova to discuss ways to minimize that bullying. “We came from a place of both being educators and really believing in children having the educational tools and language to talk about things and how that might make a difference.” Hannah explained. “Kids, when they’re given the opportunity, can really learn and grow and they want to be good people.”
Their first impression was that the school was on the same page. In fact, administrators agreed to incorporate the book My Princess Boy into an anti-bullying lesson about gender diversity. But when they emailed the school community on October 14th to inform them of this lesson, the backlash began. “Once parents knew, things changed completely,” Dave said.

You can read the whole thing, but the fact that the parents of this boy/girl are both teachers should give you pause. What sort of theory of “gender” did Dave and Hannah Edwards learn in college, and how are these theories being implemented in public school policies and curricula? Furthermore, if the Edwards’ son is so profoundly confused, why?

Is it possible that the parenting methods of Dave and Hannah Edwards were influenced by what they learned as part of their own education? Isn’t it true that feminist influence in academia promotes hostility toward “gender” distinctions? Aren’t feminists against normal manifestations of sexual differences — men being masculine and women being feminine — because they believe these traits are “socially constructed”?

“Humanity has begun to transcend Nature: we can no longer justify the maintenance of a discriminatory sex class system on grounds of its origin in nature. . . .
“And just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be . . . not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sexdistinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. . . . The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.”
Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970)

“We want to destroy sexism, that is, polar role definitions of male and female, man and woman. We want to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family; in its most hideous form, the nation-state. We want to destroy the structure of culture as we know it, its art, its churches, its laws . . .
“The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society. One learns what one must know: the roles, rituals, and behaviors appropriate to male-female polarity and the internalized mechanisms of sexual repression. . . .
“We must refuse to submit to all forms of behavior and relationship which reinforce male-female polarity . . . “
Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating (1974)

“Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“Gender, as radical feminists have always understood it, is a term which describes the systematic oppression of women, as a subordinate group, for the advantage of the dominant group, men.”
Joan Scanlon, 2010

For more than 40 years, radical feminists have advocated androgyny — the abolition of gender — as the means of achieving “equality.” Radical feminism “sees gender not as an identity or personal choice but as a caste system designed for the perpetuation of male supremacy.” This is distinct from the so-called “Third Wave” feminist theory of Judith Butler, et al., but neither the radicals nor the postmodern disciples of Professor Butler are in favor of what most people would consider normal behavior.

Tobias “Tobi” Hill-Meyer, the boy who was raised by a lesbian feminist couple and grew up to become a transgender pornographer, is the tip of a large iceberg of evidence about what “feminist motherhood” produces.

Feminism condemns normal human behavior as “male privilege” and “tyranny” (Firestone), “patriarchal power” and “sexual repression” (Dworkin), “male sexual dominance” (MacKinnon), and “the systematic oppression of women” (Scanlon). Because of feminism’s hegemonic influence in academia, these ideas have become widely accepted on university campuses, and inevitably have begun influencing policy and curricula in public schools. Feminist ideas about “gender” are also influential in the entertainment industry and the news media, so that we see Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner featured on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine and celebrated as Glamour magazine’s “Woman of the Year.”

The liberal media employ a rhetoric of “diversity” surrounding these issues, and activists exploit children to create a dishonest narrative about “victims of an anti-transgender backlash,” to deceive the public and distract parents from the bizarre agenda being promoted. Many people are understandably shocked by efforts to normalize “transgender” identity for children — parents like David and Hannah Edwards calling their son “her” — but what is in some ways even more radical is the obverse effect, i.e., stigmatizing normal behaviors. Expressions of ordinary beliefs that boys should act like boys are condemned as “bullying,” and the celebration of “gender non-conforming” children implies that parents who raise their sons and daughters normally areoppressing their children by forcing them to conform to an artificial “social construction.”

“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference, something we are born like or gradually develop into, but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination, in particular through the way it channels women into marriage and motherhood.”
— Diane Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” inRethinking Sexuality (2000)

“If we accept that gender is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to sex, then the distinction between sex and gender comes to seem increasingly unstable. In that case, gender is radically independent of sex, ‘a free-floating artifice’ as [Professor Judith] Butler puts it, raising the question as to whether ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps sex was always already gender, so that the sex/gender distinction is not actually a distinction at all. Butler dispenses with the idea that either gender or sex is an ‘abiding substance’ by arguing that a heterosexual, heterosexist culture establishes the coherence of these categories in order to perpetuate and maintain what the feminist poet and critic Adrienne Rich has called ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ — the dominant order in which men and women are required or even forced to be heterosexual.”
Sara Salih, Judith Butler (2002)

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women. . . .
“This tenet of patriarchy is thus deeply connected to acts of sexual violence, which have been theorized as a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power by men over women.”
Sara Carrigan Wooten, The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response (2015)

Feminism Is Queer, as Eastern Washington University Professor Mimi Marinucci has explained, requiring what Professor Butler calls “the subversion of identity.” Feminist gender theory aims not only to eliminate normal adult roles associated with marriage and family (men as husband/father, women as wife/mother) but also to eliminate the traits and behaviors associated with those roles — the masculinity of men, the femininity of women, and heterosexuality, per se. Framing their arguments in a rhetoric of “social justice,” Third Wave feminists depict males and heterosexuals as “privileged” (bad) while women and homosexuals are “oppressed” (and therefore good). We see this attitude displayed by Everyday Feminism editor Melissa Fabello, who constantly voices her contempt for heterosexual males while working for a website that celebrates “LGBTQIA” sexuality:

How to Respectfully Love a
Trans Woman: Navigating Transmisogyny
in Your Romantic Relationship

— Kaylee Jakubowski, Jan. 19, 2015

5 Ways to Stand Up to Toxic Messages
and Accept Yourself as a Bisexual Person

— Erin Tatum, Jan. 25, 2015

Your Top 10 Questions About
Being Genderqueer Answered

— Kris Nelson, July 17, 2015

What Is Heteronormativity — And How Does
It Apply to Your Feminism? Here Are 4 Examples

— Kris Nelson, July 24, 2015

Ever Been Told You’re
‘Too Pretty to Be a Lesbian?’
Here Are 3 Ways to Respond

— Maddie McClouskey, Nov. 2, 2015

Yes, I Chose to Be Queer —
I Was Not Born This Way,
And Here’s Why That’s Okay

— Hari Ziyad, Nov. 5, 2015

3 Things ‘We’re Not All Lesbians’ Is
Really Saying (And Why It’s Anti-Feminist)

— Carmen Rios, Dec. 13, 2015

Why Freezing My Sperm Matters
to Me as a Trans Woman

— Rhiannon Catherwood, Dec. 25, 2015

3 Ways Gender and Sexuality Are
More Fluid Than We Think

— Alex-Quan Pham, Feb. 4, 2016

6 Ways Transphobia Directly Contributes to
High Rates of Suicide in Trans Communities

— Brynn Tannehill, March 19, 2016

I’m Gender Non-Conforming — And I Need
People to Stop Pressuring Me to ‘Pass’

— Alex-Quan Pham, April 10, 2016

7 Ways Parents Can Be More
Body Positive Toward Their Queer
and Transgender Kids

— Meg Zulch, April 26, 2016

This sampling of headlines from Everyday Feminism indicates the extent to which a bias against normal sexuality and normal “gender identity” has become characteristic of the feminist movement in the 21st century.

Feminist mothers actively seek to undermine their sons’ masculinity from an early age. A typical example from a 2014 column by Rosita Gonzalez:

When I first learned I would have a son, my first thought was, “Well, I don’t know what to do with a son!” I had come from a family of girls. I had babysat only girls. And I was a feminist. . . .
So, when my son was young, I began teaching him to be compassionate. I stressed the importance of his feelings and the feelings of others. . . .
In my feminist frenzy, I bought him dolls and dressed him in neutral-colored clothing. I endured comments like, “What a sweet, cute girl! How old is she?”

Fiona Joy Green, a professor of Women and Gender Studies at Canada’s University of Winnipeg, wrote in 2001, “Since the birth of my son . . . I have been raising him with the conscious understanding that the mother-son relationship as proscribed by patriarchy is limited, damaging, and dangerous.” Professor Green wrote of “the struggles of feminist mothers to raise sons in ways that challenge the status quo.” Natalie Wilson, who teaches Women’s Studies at Cal State University-San Marcos, wrote inMs. magazine in 2011 that she “dreaded” giving birth to a son:

I wanted a daughter — a girl that would grow into a woman with whom I could fight the feminist good fight, a girl whom I could give the feminist upbringing I never had, a girl who I could let know from Day One was as strong, smart and capable as any penis-privileged human. Looking back, this dread of having a son embarrasses me. I see now that it is just as important to raise feminist sons as it is to raise feminist daughters. . . .
As a card-carrying member of the ‘gender is socially constructed club,’ I thus believed I could raise my son to love justice more than football, peace more than toy guns and hot pink more than camouflage.

Football and toy guns are bad, because masculinity is bad, according to feminist theory, and the project of raising “feminist sons” therefore requires mothers to find ways to “challenge the status quo.”

Encouraging boys to identify with girl characters in stories and wear “princess costumes” during playtime? That’s feminist motherhood.