President apologizes for misspelling ‘Thailand’

President Tsai Ing-wen on Monday apologized for misspelling Thailand when she paid homage to the country’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who passed away on Oct. 13.

At a makeshift memorial at the Thailand Trade and Economic Office in Taipei, Tsai expressed her condolences on the king’s death in writing in English in a book of condolences, but left out the letter “h” from the country’s name.

“On behalf of the people of the Republic of China (Taiwan), I hereby extend my most profound condolences to the Royal family and the people of Tailand for their loss of a great leader, His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej,” she wrote.

Tsai apologized to Thailand’s office for the misspelling, and the Thai side expressed its understanding and again thanked President Tsai and Taiwan for their concern for the Thai people, the Presidential Office said.

It also denied media reports that Tsai will lead a delegation to Thailand to attend the memorial service for the king.

“Such a report does not conform to the truth. We have made no such plans,” the Presidential office said in a statement.

Foreign Minister David Lee said, meanwhile, that Tsai’s misspelling was by no means intentional.

When Lee was first asked about Tsai’s misstep while attending a forum, he seemed surprised and said “that can’t be right.” Once he realized what happened, he tried to defend Tsai by saying, “I think people are asking too much (of her).”

He said he has made similar mistakes, and they were not intentional.

He also dismissed reports that Tsai had originally wanted to travel to Thailand to pay her respects to the late king but scrapped the plan because Taiwan and Thailand do not have diplomatic ties.

“In fact, we didn’t have such a plan,” Lee said.

Wynne government targets ‘mother’ and ‘father’

“Mother” may soon be replaced in Ontario law by the term “birth parent.”

That’s what’s incorporated in amendments contained in the Liberal government’s proposed Bill 28 which is designed to change the “Children’s Law Reform Act, the Vital Statistics Act and various other acts respecting parentage.”

Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government says a new All Families Are Equal Act will modernize the definition of families.

“People in Ontario value diversity and equality — that’s why all parents and their kids need to be treated equally under the law,” said Wynne spokesperson Clare Graham.

But opponents complain Wynne is re-defining the Ontario family.

“The communists had their one-child policy; Ontario has Wynne’s four-parent policy. Being a father or mother has been trivialized,” said Queenie Yu, who’s also a vocal critic of Ontario’s sex-ed curriculum.

She plans to be loud again.

Many religious and ethnic groups — also upset about “age inappropriate” introduction of sexual and gender identity teachings — are preparing for battle, too.

“The premier is re-engineering the family,” said Charles McVety, of Canada Christian College. “She removes ‘mother’ 17 times. Removes ‘father’ 23 times. The Act is amended by striking out the ‘mother’ and substituting it with ‘birth parent’ and ‘father’ with the word ‘parent.’”

However Graham countered “there is no one way to start and raise a family” and offered assurances that the terms “mother and father” will remain on a child’s birth certificate.

“We’re proposing to update Ontario’s parentage laws so that parents who have a baby with the help of a doctor don’t need to spend their money on a lawyer and go to court just so they can be their own kid’s parents,” said Graham. “The best thing for a kid is that there is no uncertainty about who their parents are. At the end of the day, this is about ensuring that all kids are treated equally by recognizing the legal status of their parents no matter if their parents are LGBTQ2+ or straight, and no matter if they were conceived with the help of a doctor.”

Progressive Conservative MPP Randy Hillier last week argued there needs to be more time for study, insisting the bill was introduced with too much haste.

And McVety agreed the government is rushing the bill through, calling it a “war on mothers” which could lead to the breakdown of the traditional family.

“Mothers are the bedrock of society and their love gives life,” said McVety. “A mother can take the place of all others but no one else can take the place of a mother.”

Yu added everything is moving so fast that the bill hasn’t been translated into Chinese languages, excluding some from the democratic process.

“The government is trying to erase all trace of biological parents from these children for an ideological motive,” she said. “It’s just unnatural.”

Meanwhile, with focus on the Blue Jays games, will public hearings at Queen’s Park Monday and Tuesday be noticed?

McVety will speak to the committee at 5:40 p.m Monday. Yu is slated to speak at 5:40 p.m. Tuesday. There are 20 others on the agenda.

Interesting debate. My feeling is modern family realities need to be accepted in law but it’s insulting to eliminate the words “mother and father.” They need to restore that.

But Wynne spokesperson Graham said the bill merely updates legal wording to comply with today’s norms.

“The reality is, family structures are diverse, and there are many people who need a doctor’s help to have a baby,” said Graham. “The definition of who is a parent in Ontario law hasn’t been updated since 1978 — a lot has changed since then. Right now, that definition is too narrow and excludes parents of modern families.”

Ironically, soon it could also exclude the words “mother” and “father.”

Canada: Mosque demands neighboring brewery’s liquor license be revoked

Imposing the sharia on non-Muslims.

Source: Islamic centre calls for end to Good Robot Brewery’s liquor licence | The Chronicle Herald

A north-end Halifax Islamic centre is calling for the immediate cancellation of their next-door neighbour’s liquor licence for what they call a “frontal attack to our way of life.”

The Centre for Islamic Development and the Ishan Academy issued a formal complaint against their Robie Street neighbours, the Good Robot Brewing Company, to the Nova Scotia Alcohol, Gaming, Fuel, Tobacco Division on Sept. 28.

The facility is calling for Good Robot’s licence to be revoked under section 29 of the Liquor Licensing Regulations which allows for someone to ask in writing to have a liquor licence cancelled or limited based on the establishment “interfering with the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring properties.”

John MacDonald, executive director of the Nova Scotia Alcohol, Gaming, Fuel, Tobacco Division of Access Nova Scotia, referred the matter to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board on Oct. 12. The board has not yet issued directions on the matter.

Among the many complaints, the centre says it has faced increased cleaning, insurance and security costs, loud music, a marijuana smell and loitering.

“They installed tables against the side of our neighbouring window to them and the party began, much to our dismay,” Juan Carlos Canales-Leyton, a member of the Islamic centre, wrote in the document.

The religious group purchased the property in 2001 with the hope of turning it into a community centre, a place of worship and a temporary home for Muslims in difficult situations.

In 2014, the group had completed a multi-million-dollar renovation to their aging facility. The centre is now a fully-functioning Mosque, school and community centre.

“Generally speaking, we have had no disruptions or distractions worth mentioning until the Good Robot Brewing Company came to the neighbourhood,” Canales-Leyton wrote.

According to Canales-Leyton, the centre has been forced “to operate with closed windows, even in the hottest of days, to reduce the (vulgar) noise that invades us.

“The granting of a Liquor License to a neighbouring property has resulted in our loss of enjoyment of the property we built for religious and educational purposes.”

Good Robot opened in May 2015 with the mission to “take beer, but not ourselves, seriously.” A call and email to the company were not returned.

MacDonald wrote in his response to the complaint that Good Robot received their liquor licence because Service Nova Scotia followed the proper procedure for application and without any objections.

Muslim occupiers in Tennessee tried to do the same but Sharia was slowed in Tennessee, spirits to flow against mosque demands.

High-Priced Humiliation

“Masculinity can be extremely toxic to our mental health, both to the people who are pressured to perform it and the people who are inevitably influenced by it. . . . Relevant to this discussion is how masculinity can harm our relationships with people and one’s ability to cope when relationships are difficult or end.”

Claremont College, Oct. 3, 2016

Annual tuition at Claremont College is $50,945 and room and board cost $15,740, and the question is why any parent would pay $66,685 a year to send their son to such an avowedly anti-male institution. If masculinity — the normal behavior of normal males — is inherently “toxic” and harmful in its influence, why shouldn’t Claremont ban males from campus altogether? Well, the school’s football team is currently 4-0, so apparently masculinity has its uses in academia, and as long as parents don’t mind their sons being insulted by the administration of this elite private college, the cognitive dissonance will continue.

In a statement to the Claremont Independent, Sabine Scott, a leader of the “Masculinity + Mental Health” event, said it was “a productive conversation” which “empowered both the men and women.”

Exactly how it is empowering to men to insult them as “toxic,” Ms. Scott did not explain, but no one expects college girls to make sense nowadays. Daddy spends $66,685 a year to send his precious princess to one of the most expensive schools on the West Coast, where she learns to spew a lot of trendy jargon and nothing else is required of her.

If nothing else, this administration-approved insult to male students  — and the failure of anyone on campus to object to it — probably answers my question, “Why Does Claremont Need a ‘Queer Resource Center’?

UPDATE: Oh, I guess there was at least one complaint:

“If masculinity is described as something negative — a mental illness — then this is sexism against men,” stated Will Gu [a freshman] in an email to the Independent. “Safe spaces . . . are supposed to make everyone feel comfortable. Criticizing masculinity makes males who adhere to traditional gender norms uncomfortable.”

Whining about “sexism against men” is weak sauce, Will. Male students at Claremont are being insulted by Sabine Scott and her feminist allies, and this insult — anti-male hate propaganda — is tacitly endorsed by the official authority of the college administration. Claremont collects $66,685 a year per student, thus requiring parents of male students topay for these insults against their sons. Indeed, the anti-male agenda promoted by Sabine Scott is a regular part of the Claremont curriculum, thanks to the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program.

Do not whine about being insulted, Mr. Gu — do something.

If there is still any male student at Claremont who has any shred of self-respect, he ought to withdraw from the college, and publicly announce this in a letter to the student newspaper explaining that the reason for his departure is the vicious hostility toward males on campus fomented by hate-filled feminist fanatics like Sabine Scott. It would be better for a young man to attend a community college or a second-tier state university than to be expected to tolerate insults for $66,685 a year at a posh playground for Special Snowflakes™ like Claremont.

Hell, boy, I’d rather drive a forklift than to put up with that nonsense.