California Bill Would Charge Any Parent Who Doesn’t Affirm Transgenderism With ‘Child Abuse’

Is this where the lunatic followers of LGBTQ want to take us! It is becoming more and more authoritarian if not totalitarian (Orwellian)! 

Sounds more like an attempt of parent abuse by government to me!

Hope and pray the LGBTQ mania has reached its peak!

"A recently amended California bill would add “affirming” the sexual transition of a child to the state’s standard for parental responsibility and child welfare—making any parent who doesn’t affirm transgenderism for their child guilty of abuse under California state law.

AB 957 passed California’s State Assembly on May 3, but a co-sponsor amended it after hours in California’s State Senate on June 6. 

Assembly Member Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City, wrote the bill and introduced it on Feb. 14. State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, co-sponsored it. Wilson’s child identifies as transgender.

Originally, AB 957 required courts to consider whether a child’s parents were “gender-affirming” in custody cases. Wiener’s amendment completely rewrites California’s standard of child care. ..."

California Bill Would Classify 'Not Affirming Child's Gender' as Child Abuse

UCLA introduces steps to create a more inclusive environment for Black Bruins

If this is not systemic and institutionalized racism committed by a prestigious U.S. university, what is?

This university sets out to continue to perpetuate a distinction by skin color and to provide preferential treatment based on skin color! Terrible!



This is not "racial justice", but Orwellian speak! It is exactly the opposite, injustice!



"Chancellor Gene Block and Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Emily Carter sent the following message to the UCLA campus community today.

The ongoing principled protests around the nation — and around the world — calling for racial justice have been inspiring and humbling. In this moment we rightfully have been moved to ask what more we can do to make UCLA a community where all will know that Black lives, Black intellects, Black aspirations and Black experiences matter. ..."

What a moron this highly paid woman is!



UCLA introduces steps to create a more inclusive environment for Black Bruins | UCLA Plans include a Black Student Resource Center, new faculty positions, fellowships, fundraising and research support

How Google Deepmind Exercises Politically Correct Censorship

Correction (2/17/2020): Mea Culpa! It was Google Deepmind not Microsoft as stated in my original post!

Google recently released a huge text dataset for computational linguistics/machine learning called PG19. It contains the content of almost 29,000 books published before 1919 (I suppose to avoid copyright issues).

Google decided to cleanse the content of those old books by "mapping of offensive discriminatory words as specified by Ofcom [4] to placeholder tokens."

I think, this is a very dubious practice to censor such old books of offensive words/phrases, which were common a 100 years or more ago!

It is probably also very hard to defend this particular censorship practice as these words are irrelevant for current language modeling. Why then choose books that were published 100 years ago or longer! This books probably contain lots of outdated language!

By the way, Ofcom refers to "Attitudes to potentially offensive language and gestures on TV and radio Quick Reference Guide". "Ofcom is the regulator for the communications services that we use and rely on each day." Ofcom could very well be an Orwellian speak agency!

GitHub - deepmind/pg19: Contribute to deepmind/pg19 development by creating an account on GitHub.

Orwellian ISO 26000 Guidance On Social Responsibility

To Standardize Social Responsibility Worldwide?

Since when is the International Standards Organization into such politically loaded standardization? This has decidedly an Orwellian taste. What kind of brainwashing is this? What are they trying to dictate?

Here is an excerpt from the official Abstract of this ISO 26000 standard released in November 2010 (emphasis added):

“ISO 26000:2010 provides guidance to all types of organizations, regardless of their size or location, on:

 • concepts, terms and definitions related to social responsibility;

 • the background, trends and characteristics of social responsibility;

 • principles and practices relating to social responsibility;

 • the core subjects and issues of social responsibility;

 • integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible behaviour throughout the organization and, through its policies and practices, within its sphere of influence;”

To read this ISO 26000 standard you have to pay CHF 196.00 (Swiss francs).

Social Responsibility Equals Sustainable Development?

What are they smoking at the ISO?

According to the Abstract of this ISO 26000 standard it “… is intended to assist organizations in contributing to sustainable development. It is intended to encourage them to go beyond legal compliance, recognizing that compliance with law is a fundamental duty of any organization and an essential part of their social responsibility.” (emphasis added).

To stress the harmlessness of this ISO 26000 standard, the Abstract goes on to say “ISO 26000:2010 is not a management system standard. It is not intended or appropriate for certification purposes or regulatory or contractual use.” So what is this standard all about?

I have in a separate blog written a scathing critique of this “Flawed Ideology Of Sustainable Development”.

Further Reading

I have to give credit to Jon Entine who in a well-written article dated 7/11/2012 for the AEI (American Enterprise Institute) alerted me to this Orwellian ISO 26000 standard. The article is titled “ISO 26000: Sustainability as standard?”

Some excerpts from his article (emphasis added):

·         “… Various aspects are providing blueprints for left-leaning European countries, empowering advocacy groups and inspiring activist judicial systems to embrace these “universally agreed upon” principles when conflicts involving corporations come to a head. …”

·         “… The United States and India, which supported early drafts of ISO 26000, ultimately voted, along with three other countries, against the final version. Critics believe it contains problematic proclamations about contested notions of environmental impacts and employee and consumer rights, but no endorsement of shareholder rights. …”

·         “… Much of the concern revolves around ISO 26000’s embrace of the “precautionary principle” to resolve environmental conflicts. Although that conforms to EU practices, it’s rejected by the US, Japan and other countries, …”

·         “…Many industry leaders, particularly in the US, believe these kind of standards encourage protectionism ahead of innovation, ..”

One is not surprised to learn that the so called precautionary principle was a bone of contention. Further, it is no surprise to find this principle jointly with social responsibility and sustainable development.

In a separate blog I have critiqued the precautionary principle in “The Precautionary Principle” as a modern superstition and a handy tool for ever power hungry politicians.