First, find out what isn't true…

October 19, 2009

Watching the hypocrisy where “the voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard”


The CifWatch banner proudly extols
“the voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard”

Unfortunately at hypocrisy central, the silencing of Talknic takes precedence. Nary a sign of the posts I’ve offered. Are they that pi$$ weak?

As for their ‘badge of honor’. What is ‘honorable’ about being booted off a tawk bored for being a bunch of ghastly, lying, toilet humorist, bigots?

CLASSIC FIB from the lil’ CiFWatchers

October 18, 2009 at 3:54 am
The Anti Discriminator

This fresh in from CIF
RecurringDisaster.

##Berchmans, deleted HUNDREDS OF TIMES because of anti-Semitic posts marked as such by even The Guardian moderators:##

Who are they trying to kid? CiF give no reasons for deleting posts.

Advertisements

October 17, 2009

Watching AKUS make a fool of himself on CiFWatch. Another idiot for Israel


Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-fS

This is a guest post by AKUS

“This is not a critique of the fatally flawed Goldstone report itself, which has been ably carried out by many more competent experts than me and which could be continued pointlessly ad infinitum. Even the announcement advertising the discussion of the report this week and the terms of reference for the “fact-finding mission” reveal the bizarre world which the UNHRC inhabits which makes such discussions essentially meaningless and certainly fruitless:

The holding of the Special Session comes at the request of Palestine.

There is no such country as “Palestine”. In the Draft Resolution the word “Palestine” is given an asterisk, and a footnote explains that it is a “Non-Member State of the Human Rights Council”. In fact, it is a non-state, non-member of the Human Rights Council.

A) AKUS is an expert now? WOW!!!
B) United Nations Charter Article 35

l. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.

2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.

C) The LoN Mandate for Palestine refers to the LoN Charter article 22, under which Palestine held the status of a Provisional State. This status has never legally altered. A Provisional State that has been hacked away by the formation of Jordan and Israel. What remains of the Provisional State of Palestine is still Palestine. It has not been renamed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When you eat half an apple what’s left? Apple or does it magically change into something else, perhaps AKUS’s ziocaine induced Hasbara bullsh*te?

Some expert AKUS turns out to be.

There is, in fact, no need to read the report in order to anticipate its methods and conclusions. It is more interesting to look at how it has been received, and what actions will be taken as a result.

Uh huh. ‘in fact’? ‘In fact’, IT’S JUST YOUR OPINION! (I guess he just ‘listens’ to the moaning of the losing team in order to ‘watch’ a football match)

D) Furthermore, under the UN Charter Chapt XI, Israel, as the Occupying Power, has a duty towards the Palestinians. To protect them, their property and their territory and to assist them in achieving effective independent statehood.

October 10, 2009

Watching AKUS put it’s shoes on backwards at CifWatch….again


The busy little beaver AKUS at CiFWatch sure knows how to put things through the Ziofier.

The headline on CiF….Circumcision – above the law? In anything other than a religious context, male circumcision would be regarded as a crime.
……is surely warning enough that what follows is a dialogue looking at the situation whereby, under the law, a male sexual organ may be mutilated on religious grounds.

However, the Ziofied headline on CiFWatch blares out FGM Represented on CiF as a ‘Freedom’ and ‘Equal Rights’ Issue .

In order to reach this startling confusion (sic), there’s a number of mandatory steps that must be taken from the Ziofier handbook. 1st ignore the bulk of the article. 2nd concentrate on a couple of sentences. 3rd Mis-construe ’em.

AKUS missed “the most cogent argument against circumcision – the fact that it is fundamentally at odds with English law.”

Missed “The term “genital mutilation” sounds far less civilised that the commonly used term “circumcision”. Yet the former is only ever used in relation to the removal of parts of female reproductive organs, and the latter, generally, for the removal of the foreskin from a male’s penis. Make no mistake, a circumcision is the mutilation of genitals regardless of the terminology.”

Missed ALL of this “Male children from the Jewish and Muslim faiths have their foreskins removed at a young age under as part of religious practice. This is an irreversible procedure that would otherwise be classed as grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The fact that it is performed with parental consent has been deemed sufficient in allowing this procedure to be performed under English law.

The argument that parental consent suffices to override the law falls flat when compared with the act of tattooing. The Tattooing of Minors Act prohibits the tattooing of any person under 18, regardless of whether a parent consents on their behalf. A tattoo is arguably less permanent than a circumcision. If a person must reach the age of 18 before being deemed able to understand and consent to the permanence of a tattoo, then why should this not apply to a male child being circumcised?”

Missed this “Furthermore, if circumcision of males is allowed on religious grounds, then the ruling in the case of Adesanya must have been erroneous. The court here decided that a Nigerian woman could be prosecuted for cutting her teenaged sons’ faces according to her cultural norms. It seems that freedom to commit GBH only extends to males, and only then of particular faiths or cultural backgrounds.”

Missed all but two sentences “Why then is male circumcision allowed at any age, and female circumcision proscribed even after a woman turns 18? Surely religious freedom cannot be given solely to males.”

Which is of course, a dig at the law, rather than advocating FGM. The law is an ass. If you’re Jewish/Muslim and a male, we can have some non-medical practitioner mutilate your penis, with impunity.

You’ve done it again CiFWatch, congratulations.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.