Long overdue straight talk about Europe addressed TO Europe

Farage's speech to the European Parliament is Churchillian in its pin-point accuracy and clarity. 

Interesting that this superb performance by Nigel Farage of UKIP in Brussels wasn't reported in the French or German media - and it's wonderful seeing the shots of Merkel's and Hollande's faces as they listened to it! In clear RP English with French subtitles:








Australian army chaplains to remove ‘conquer’ from 102-year-old motto because it is offensive to Muslims




Has anybody noticed that conquering is what armies are about? And how ironical that Muslims might be offended by the idea of conquest. They believe in conquest and the only people attempting conquest in the world today are Muslims: ISIS

THE Australian Army is removing the motto “In this sign conquer” from the 102-year-old hat badges of army chaplains because it is offensive to Muslims.

The move comes after an imam approved by the Grand Mufti was appointed to join the ­Religious Advisory Committee to the Services in June.

Australian Army chaplains have had the motto on their hat badges since 1913.

A Defence spokeswoman last night denied the motto was being changed because it was associated with the Crusades, when Christian armies fought Muslims in the Holy Land during the Middle Ages.

“The motto of the Australian Army Chaplains is being changed to better reflect the diversity of religion throughout the Australian Army,” she said. “The new wording on the Australian Army Chaplaincy badge is under consideration and no decision has been made at this time.”

Former army major Bernard Gaynor, whose commission was terminated last year due to his outspoken views, said: “This is political correctness destroying our military heritage.”

Mr Gaynor, who is standing as the Australian Liberty Alliance senate candidate for Queensland, said political correctness in the military was highlighted by the appointment of an imam.

“The government must stop the political correctness. It must dismiss the Defence Imam for his views. And it must put Australia first,” he said.

Military historian Professor Peter Stanley from UNSW Canberra said: “The motto was acceptable 100 years ago but today has crusader connotations.”

Despite the perceived crusader links, he said the motto actually comes from Emperor Constantine’s vision before he won the battle of Milviian Bridge in 312AD and converted to Christianity: “Jewish chaplains already have a separate badge with a Star of David, so Muslim chaplains would not be expected to wear the current badge. They would have one with a crescent.”

Army chaplains are understood to have pushed for the change. Former principal chaplain to the army Monsignor Greg Flynn said: “We have been aware of this coming down the track and most chaplains would agree with the change. It is a reality.”

Professor Tom Frane, former Bishop to the Defence Force, said: “It seems like a crusading motto — triumphal. It is not the first time it has been misinterpreted. If times have changed it is worth another look.”

The army imam, Sheik Mohamadu Nawas Saleem, has previously called for sharia law to be introduced into Australia. He signed a petition supporting radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has argued in favour of honour killings and said Muslim students should not be forced to honour Anzac Day.

Sheik Saleem works about 40 days a year for the Army and is paid $717 for each one: almost $30,000 a year. The sheik did not respond to requests for comment.

Sheik Saleem was supported for the role by Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, who this week sparked controversy by failing to come straight out and condemn the Paris terror attacks.

The Defence spokeswoman said: “There are 102 ADF permanent members who self-identify as Muslim. In addition there are 40 Active Reservists who have declared as Muslim.’’

SOURCE






Paris is tragic proof that Enoch Powell was right about threats to Britain

Where the toxin of hatred exists ... it needs to be treated as incitement and punished accordingly

Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted is an inevitable consequence of democratic politics. François Hollande’s presidency was already terminal before the November 13 assault on Paris; his reaction to that atrocity has consisted of trying, and it appears failing, to convince a sceptical public that he is acting to protect them.

One wonders, therefore, why the scores of raids last week hadn’t happened before the massacre, when they might even have prevented it. France knew it had an enemy within: for reasons that may or may not emerge after an inquiry, it chose not to take adequate steps to stop them launching their war.

Although police and ministers now warn us daily of the dire threat from terrorists, Britain is in the fortunate position of not – yet – having suffered in this new wave of violence. Many will recall the platitudes and rhetoric aired after the attacks on London in July 2005 about how they must never happen again. Perhaps they were more than platitudes and rhetoric. There have been outrages – such as the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby – but no more wholesale slaughter.

And whenever someone else suffers, as our French friends have, the Prime Minister is swift to tell us how our security services have constantly foiled attacks. Perhaps we have already had the equivalent of France’s scores of raids: I hope so. If Mr Cameron is half the politician he thinks he is, he will leave nothing undone, so that in the event of an attack here he can truthfully claim that the state could not have done more.

That, however, will be difficult. He is but the latest prime minister to have paid lip-service to the warped ideal of multiculturalism, and all that entails. In case one is unsure what it does entail, let us run through the card. It is an idea that the cultures and values of new, minority communities are the equivalent of the majority ones.

It means the majority culture may not expect those from minority cultures to abide by majority ways. It carries with it an expectation to tolerate attitudes that the majority reject, such as towards women and those professing other faiths. And it abjures interference in those minority cultures, for fears of accusations of racism. That last fetish has paralysed sensible response to multiculturalism for decades, and continues to stop any senior politician giving the right lead today.

You can raid all the houses, mosques and madrassas you like: but far better to eliminate radicalisation before the state has to contemplate a mass round-up, helping avoid an attack – and inevitable promises of a retaliation we are ill-equipped to execute.

That means presenting a common culture through our education system, our employment regulations, our welfare state and through the enforcement of our laws. This is not to punish people from minorities: it is to ensure they can participate completely in our society, are equal under the law and are, above all, completely integrated into our way of life.

Today, too many are either on the margins or not communicating members of our society at all. Letting this happen, to coin a phrase, is “like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre”.

That phrase was Enoch Powell’s, whose so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech in April 1968 warned us of the dangers of “communalism”, and specifically of those caused by mass immigration. He feared that the concentration of immigrants and their descendants in large communities killed the prospects of integration. Powell was reviled for his remarks, though mainly for those in which he quoted constituents. He was not a man to think, let alone utter, bigoted thoughts himself.

The toxic situation created by the response to his speech – a mixture of Leftist grandstanding and self-righteous smugness by many Tories who thought it politic to denounce him – provided an excuse to politicians for years afterwards not to question the imposition of multiculturalism on Britain.

I recall one former cabinet minister – a Tory – whose cowardice was typical of dozens like him, saying to me 20 years ago that although he and his colleagues knew mass immigration was causing problems, “Enoch” had made it impossible to discuss them.

That is one of the great lies of recent politics. It was not Powell who made this discussion impossible: it was the fear of generations of politicians since him to state the bleeding obvious, that there was a group within Britain’s community of predominantly decent, law-abiding and highly civilised Muslims who were determined to impose a primitivism and savagery first on their co-religionists and then, if they could, on the rest of society.

To refuse to tolerate that was not racism, it was common sense and an appeal for reason and decency; to use what Powell had said as an excuse for doing nothing was simply the expression of a desire for a quiet life.

The issue has ended up like that of the gas bill put behind the clock on the mantelpiece. One might forget about it from time to time, but it is still there, and one day it will have to be paid.

I should have declared my interest about Powell: he was a close friend, one of only two genuinely great men I have ever known, and he asked me to write his biography. I discussed these matters with him for years. He knew what was coming. His fault was that he sought to explain it in a way that required close attention and sophistication to understand.

The stupid, and the ruthlessly manipulative and opportunist, simply dismissed him as a bigot, and too many of the rest of our people stood in fear of their censure. Mr Cameron even had a parliamentary candidate sacked for expressing sympathy with Powell, which was ludicrous.

If you seek the monument of Powell’s critics, look about you. We are a prosperous, decent country that normally embraces many faiths and outlooks within a strong common culture. Yet we have this malignancy eating away at a part of us: and our political class still fears to take the lead necessary to deal with it. The fault starts in our schools, and they need to be made to teach mainstream British values, not least of tolerance and peace.

Where the toxin of hatred exists in mosques or on university campuses, it needs to be treated as incitement and punished accordingly. Monitoring is not enough: we have to stop extremism. We are all equal under the law, and the law must be applied equally: any British citizen who encourages criminality should be punished, irrespective of his or her faith or ethnic origin, and any Briton trying to destroy the British state should be tried for treason.

We cannot allow our citizens to dine à la carte from the menu of our laws and customs. We welcome those from other cultures here: all we ask is that they live by our rules.

Powell anticipated “the chorus of execration” that would greet his 1968 speech. He knew people would ask why he said such things. Taking seriously the job of representing his constituents, he asked in return by what right he could remain silent.

Our politicians, whose actions in tackling the evil effects of multiculturalism come nowhere near their words, fail to understand that still.

SOURCE






The politicized RSPCA again. No longer just an animal charity

A judge has thrown out an attempt by the RSPCA to prosecute fox hunters using fierce laws designed to stop dog fights.

The ruling is a blow to the charity, which has routinely brought cases against country sports enthusiasts under the Animal Welfare Act because this carries stiffer penalties than the Hunting Act – including imprisonment.

But a landmark decision by District Judge Kevin Gray last week saw a case collapse against six men and a woman because the prosecution was using the wrong law.

Following an undercover investigation by the RSPCA, the six were accused of hunting foxes, badgers and deer using lurchers.

But after almost four weeks of evidence and legal argument at Newton Abbot Magistrates’ Court in Devon, Judge Gray ruled there was no case to answer.

He concluded that taking a dog into the countryside ‘does not constitute fighting as defined in the Animal Welfare Act’ even if the intention is to kill another animal.

Jamie Foster, a pro-hunting solicitor, said it highlighted the way the RSPCA was ‘breaching not just the spirit but the letter of the law’.

The charity has already come under attack from critics who say it pursues needless prosecutions against huntsmen and pet owners.

Clive Rees, one of the lawyers defending two of the six accused, said: ‘The RSPCA routinely charges hunting folk with animal fighting under the Animal Welfare Act.

‘Judge Gray has now ruled, as we argued, that was wrong. ‘The decision was that Section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act was confined to animal fighting and was not – as the RSPCA suggested – any fight between a lurcher and a fox in the context of a hunt. The proper way to charge hunting offences was under the Hunting Act 2004. If the charge could not be brought within that legislation it could not succeed.

‘Offences against the Hunting Act cannot result in a prison sentence or a ban against keeping dogs – while the Animal Welfare Act can.’

The Mail on Sunday understands that the charity will be lodging an appeal with the High Court this week in an attempt to have Judge Gray’s decision overturned. His ruling upheld an earlier understanding of the law. The Protection of Animals Act 1911, which the Animal Welfare Act replaced, stated clearly that only captive animals could be subjected to fighting.

A Countryside Alliance spokesman said: ‘There is no excuse for wildlife crime, but prosecuting people for the wrong offences simply means they will not be convicted or punished. Unfortunately the RSPCA has a long history of trying to extend laws by campaigning in the courts. ‘It would be far better handing over prosecutions to the Crown Prosecution Service.’

An RSPCA spokesman said the charity intended to seek further clarification of the law. He said: ‘We always act fairly, impartially and with integrity as a prosecutor following the guidance laid down in the CPS code for Crown Prosecutors.

‘Last year, the RSPCA published a comprehensive review of its prosecution activity which showed claims made by the Countryside Alliance that we target the hunting community were completely unfounded.’

Two months ago, MPs launched a probe into whether it was appropriate for a charity to bring legal action, which could see the RSPCA stripped of its powers to prosecute.

SOURCE






Toys R Us ditches 'girls' and 'boys' categories online as retailers selling to children come under increasing pressure to go gender neutral

Retail giant Toys R Us has stopped categorising products as 'boys' or 'girls' toys on its website after coming under pressure from campaigners.

The move occurs two years after a meeting with campaign group Let Toys Be Toys, and now shoppers will search products by age group, brand or type of toy rather than by gender.

It makes the company entirely gender neutral, both in stores and online, following complaints that categorising toys puts girls off playing with science and construction sets, and makes boys feel they can't take an interest in dolls.

In 2013, Toys R Us agreed to make their marketing more inclusive and stop categorising products as 'boys' or 'girls' toys in their branches. Now let Toys Be Toys have praised the retailer's latest step.

A representative of the group announced the news on Twitter this morning, saying: 'Great news. Two years after our meeting @toysrusuk has finally agreed to #lettoysbetoys & ditch the online label.'

The pressure group which represents thousands of shoppers concerned with sexism in the toy industry and its impact on children, regularly post examples of sexist marketing of toys and products to children.

They recently urged Boots to change the way they sell toothbrushes after a follower shared an image of pink Barbie brushes for girls, while the boys' version was emblazoned with Spiderman. 'Could you change this please,' they wrote. 'Boys and girls have the same teeth.'

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.

***************************




Has anybody noticed that conquering is what armies are about?  And how ironical that Muslims might be offended by the idea of conquest.  They believe in conquest and the only people attempting conquest in the world today are Muslims:  ISIS

THE Australian Army is removing the motto “In this sign conquer” from the 102-year-old hat badges of army chaplains because it is offensive to Muslims.

The move comes after an imam approved by the Grand Mufti was appointed to join the ­Religious Advisory Committee to the Services in June.

Australian Army chaplains have had the motto on their hat badges since 1913.

A Defence spokeswoman last night denied the motto was being changed because it was associated with the Crusades, when Christian armies fought Muslims in the Holy Land during the Middle Ages.

“The motto of the Australian Army Chaplains is being changed to better reflect the diversity of religion throughout the Australian Army,” she said.  “The new wording on the Australian Army Chaplaincy badge is under consideration and no decision has been made at this time.”

Former army major Bernard Gaynor, whose commission was terminated last year due to his outspoken views, said: “This is political correctness destroying our military heritage.”

Mr Gaynor, who is standing as the Australian Liberty Alliance senate candidate for Queensland, said political correctness in the military was highlighted by the appointment of an imam.

“The government must stop the political correctness. It must dismiss the Defence Imam for his views. And it must put Australia first,” he said.

Military historian Professor Peter Stanley from UNSW Canberra said: “The motto was acceptable 100 years ago but today has crusader connotations.”

Despite the perceived crusader links, he said the motto actually comes from Emperor Constantine’s vision before he won the battle of Milviian Bridge in 312AD and converted to Christianity: “Jewish chaplains already have a separate badge with a Star of David, so Muslim chaplains would not be expected to wear the current badge. They would have one with a crescent.”

Army chaplains are understood to have pushed for the change. Former principal chaplain to the army Monsignor Greg Flynn said: “We have been aware of this coming down the track and most chaplains would agree with the change. It is a reality.”

Professor Tom Frane, former Bishop to the Defence Force, said: “It seems like a crusading motto — triumphal. It is not the first time it has been misinterpreted. If times have changed it is worth another look.”

The army imam, Sheik Mohamadu Nawas Saleem, has previously called for sharia law to be introduced into Australia. He signed a petition supporting radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has argued in favour of honour killings and said Muslim students should not be forced to honour Anzac Day.

Sheik Saleem works about 40 days a year for the Army and is paid $717 for each one: almost $30,000 a year.  The sheik did not respond to requests for comment.

Sheik Saleem was supported for the role by Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, who this week sparked controversy by failing to come straight out and condemn the Paris terror attacks.

The Defence spokeswoman said: “There are 102 ADF permanent members who self-identify as Muslim. In addition there are 40 Active Reservists who have declared as Muslim.’’

SOURCE






Paris is tragic proof that Enoch Powell was right about threats to Britain

Where the toxin of hatred exists ... it needs to be treated as incitement and punished accordingly

Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted is an inevitable consequence of democratic politics. François Hollande’s presidency was already terminal before the November 13 assault on Paris; his reaction to that atrocity has consisted of trying, and it appears failing, to convince a sceptical public that he is acting to protect them.

One wonders, therefore, why the scores of raids last week hadn’t happened before the massacre, when they might even have prevented it. France knew it had an enemy within: for reasons that may or may not emerge after an inquiry, it chose not to take adequate steps to stop them launching their war.

Although police and ministers now warn us daily of the dire threat from terrorists, Britain is in the fortunate position of not – yet – having suffered in this new wave of violence. Many will recall the platitudes and rhetoric aired after the attacks on London in July 2005 about how they must never happen again. Perhaps they were more than platitudes and rhetoric. There have been outrages – such as the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby – but no more wholesale slaughter.

And whenever someone else suffers, as our French friends have, the Prime Minister is swift to tell us how our security services have constantly foiled attacks. Perhaps we have already had the equivalent of France’s scores of raids: I hope so. If Mr Cameron is half the politician he thinks he is, he will leave nothing undone, so that in the event of an attack here he can truthfully claim that the state could not have done more.

That, however, will be difficult. He is but the latest prime minister to have paid lip-service to the warped ideal of multiculturalism, and all that entails. In case one is unsure what it does entail, let us run through the card. It is an idea that the cultures and values of new, minority communities are the equivalent of the majority ones.

It means the majority culture may not expect those from minority cultures to abide by majority ways. It carries with it an expectation to tolerate attitudes that the majority reject, such as towards women and those professing other faiths. And it abjures interference in those minority cultures, for fears of accusations of racism. That last fetish has paralysed sensible response to multiculturalism for decades, and continues to stop any senior politician giving the right lead today.

You can raid all the houses, mosques and madrassas you like: but far better to eliminate radicalisation before the state has to contemplate a mass round-up, helping avoid an attack – and inevitable promises of a retaliation we are ill-equipped to execute.

That means presenting a common culture through our education system, our employment regulations, our welfare state and through the enforcement of our laws. This is not to punish people from minorities: it is to ensure they can participate completely in our society, are equal under the law and are, above all, completely integrated into our way of life.

Today, too many are either on the margins or not communicating members of our society at all. Letting this happen, to coin a phrase, is “like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre”.

That phrase was Enoch Powell’s, whose so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech in April 1968 warned us of the dangers of “communalism”, and specifically of those caused by mass immigration. He feared that the concentration of immigrants and their descendants in large communities killed the prospects of integration. Powell was reviled for his remarks, though mainly for those in which he quoted constituents. He was not a man to think, let alone utter, bigoted thoughts himself.

The toxic situation created by the response to his speech – a mixture of Leftist grandstanding and self-righteous smugness by many Tories who thought it politic to denounce him – provided an excuse to politicians for years afterwards not to question the imposition of multiculturalism on Britain.

I recall one former cabinet minister – a Tory – whose cowardice was typical of dozens like him, saying to me 20 years ago that although he and his colleagues knew mass immigration was causing problems, “Enoch” had made it impossible to discuss them.

That is one of the great lies of recent politics. It was not Powell who made this discussion impossible: it was the fear of generations of politicians since him to state the bleeding obvious, that there was a group within Britain’s community of predominantly decent, law-abiding and highly civilised Muslims who were determined to impose a primitivism and savagery first on their co-religionists and then, if they could, on the rest of society.

To refuse to tolerate that was not racism, it was common sense and an appeal for reason and decency; to use what Powell had said as an excuse for doing nothing was simply the expression of a desire for a quiet life.

The issue has ended up like that of the gas bill put behind the clock on the mantelpiece. One might forget about it from time to time, but it is still there, and one day it will have to be paid.

I should have declared my interest about Powell: he was a close friend, one of only two genuinely great men I have ever known, and he asked me to write his biography. I discussed these matters with him for years. He knew what was coming. His fault was that he sought to explain it in a way that required close attention and sophistication to understand.

The stupid, and the ruthlessly manipulative and opportunist, simply dismissed him as a bigot, and too many of the rest of our people stood in fear of their censure. Mr Cameron even had a parliamentary candidate sacked for expressing sympathy with Powell, which was ludicrous.

If you seek the monument of Powell’s critics, look about you. We are a prosperous, decent country that normally embraces many faiths and outlooks within a strong common culture. Yet we have this malignancy eating away at a part of us: and our political class still fears to take the lead necessary to deal with it. The fault starts in our schools, and they need to be made to teach mainstream British values, not least of tolerance and peace.

Where the toxin of hatred exists in mosques or on university campuses, it needs to be treated as incitement and punished accordingly. Monitoring is not enough: we have to stop extremism. We are all equal under the law, and the law must be applied equally: any British citizen who encourages criminality should be punished, irrespective of his or her faith or ethnic origin, and any Briton trying to destroy the British state should be tried for treason.

We cannot allow our citizens to dine à la carte from the menu of our laws and customs. We welcome those from other cultures here: all we ask is that they live by our rules.

Powell anticipated “the chorus of execration” that would greet his 1968 speech. He knew people would ask why he said such things. Taking seriously the job of representing his constituents, he asked in return by what right he could remain silent.

Our politicians, whose actions in tackling the evil effects of multiculturalism come nowhere near their words, fail to understand that still.

SOURCE






The politicized RSPCA again.  No longer just an animal charity

A judge has thrown out an attempt by the RSPCA to prosecute fox hunters using fierce laws designed to stop dog fights.

The ruling is a blow to the charity, which has routinely brought cases against country sports enthusiasts under the Animal Welfare Act because this carries stiffer penalties than the Hunting Act – including imprisonment.

But a landmark decision by District Judge Kevin Gray last week saw a case collapse against six men and a woman because the prosecution was using the wrong law.

Following an undercover investigation by the RSPCA, the six were accused of hunting foxes, badgers and deer using lurchers.

But after almost four weeks of evidence and legal argument at Newton Abbot Magistrates’ Court in Devon, Judge Gray ruled there was no case to answer.

He concluded that taking a dog into the countryside ‘does not constitute fighting as defined in the Animal Welfare Act’ even if the intention is to kill another animal.

Jamie Foster, a pro-hunting solicitor, said it highlighted the way the RSPCA was ‘breaching not just the spirit but the letter of the law’.

The charity has already come under attack from critics who say it pursues needless prosecutions against huntsmen and pet owners.

Clive Rees, one of the lawyers defending two of the six accused, said: ‘The RSPCA routinely charges hunting folk with animal fighting under the Animal Welfare Act.

‘Judge Gray has now ruled, as we argued, that was wrong. ‘The decision was that Section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act was confined to animal fighting and was not – as the RSPCA suggested – any fight between a lurcher and a fox in the context of a hunt. The proper way to charge hunting offences was under the Hunting Act 2004. If the charge could not be brought within that legislation it could not succeed.

‘Offences against the Hunting Act cannot result in a prison sentence or a ban against keeping dogs – while the Animal Welfare Act can.’

The Mail on Sunday understands that the charity will be lodging an appeal with the High Court this week in an attempt to have Judge Gray’s decision overturned. His ruling upheld an earlier understanding of the law. The Protection of Animals Act 1911, which the Animal Welfare Act replaced, stated clearly that only captive animals could be subjected to fighting.

A Countryside Alliance spokesman said: ‘There is no excuse for wildlife crime, but prosecuting people for the wrong offences simply means they will not be convicted or punished. Unfortunately the RSPCA has a long history of trying to extend laws by campaigning in the courts. ‘It would be far better handing over prosecutions to the Crown Prosecution Service.’

An RSPCA spokesman said the charity intended to seek further clarification of the law. He said: ‘We always act fairly, impartially and with integrity as a prosecutor following the guidance laid down in the CPS code for Crown Prosecutors.

‘Last year, the RSPCA published a comprehensive review of its prosecution activity which showed claims made by the Countryside Alliance that we target the hunting community were completely unfounded.’

Two months ago, MPs launched a probe into whether it was appropriate for a charity to bring legal action, which could see the RSPCA stripped of its powers to prosecute.

SOURCE






Toys R Us ditches 'girls' and 'boys' categories online as retailers selling to children come under increasing pressure to go gender neutral

Retail giant Toys R Us has stopped categorising products as 'boys' or 'girls' toys on its website after coming under pressure from campaigners.

The move occurs two years after a meeting with campaign group Let Toys Be Toys, and now shoppers will search products by age group, brand or type of toy rather than by gender.

It makes the company entirely gender neutral, both in stores and online, following complaints that categorising toys puts girls off playing with science and construction sets, and makes boys feel they can't take an interest in dolls.

In 2013, Toys R Us agreed to make their marketing more inclusive and stop categorising products as 'boys' or 'girls' toys in their branches. Now let Toys Be Toys have praised the retailer's latest step.

A representative of the group announced the news on Twitter this morning, saying: 'Great news. Two years after our meeting @toysrusuk has finally agreed to #lettoysbetoys & ditch the online label.'

The pressure group which represents thousands of shoppers concerned with sexism in the toy industry and its impact on children, regularly post examples of sexist marketing of toys and products to children.

They recently urged Boots to change the way they sell toothbrushes after a follower shared an image of pink Barbie brushes for girls, while the boys' version was emblazoned with Spiderman. 'Could you change this please,' they wrote. 'Boys and girls have the same teeth.'

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************