The Crown has asked that Ismaël Habib receive an overall prison sentence of nine years for his attempt to leave Canada to join ISIL.
“He wasn’t going to go there to put bandages on people,” federal prosecutor Lyne Décarie told Quebec Court Judge Serge Délisle on Thursday during Habib’s sentence hearing. “He wanted to participate.”
Habib had made several attempts to get to Syria after he was asked to turn over his Canadian passport following a trip to Syria in 2013. The RCMP decided to create a scenario in which he was tricked into believing he was being recruited into a criminal organization that smuggles people in and out of Canada. Habib, 29, ended up confessing his intentions to the man he believed was the leader of the organization and admitted, while being secretly recorded on videotape, that he wanted to fight with ISIL, the militant jihadist group known for kidnapping people and decapitating them.
Protests at Google offices across the country have been postponed due to what organizers claim are threats posed by unspecified “left-wing terrorists.”
The rallies were announced by a conspiracy-theory promoter after a Google employee was fired for penning a highly controversial internal memo about gender differences, sparking uproar in the tech industry.
James Damore’s memo, which claims biological factors contribute to gender inequality in the tech sector, sparked a quick reaction from Google after it circulated widely online.
The “Peaceful March on Google” was billed as an “event for First Amendment supporters from across the country, from all backgrounds, ethnicity and walks of life,” according to a code of conduct listed on the march’s blog.
That should probably read “Threats by Google staff”
Islamic State terrorist Khaled Sharrouf and his two sons have been killed in Syria, media reports say.
The ABC and the Australian reported government officials as confirming Sharrouf – who fled Australia in 2013 to join extremist forces – and his sons Abdullah and Zarqawi were killed in a coalition air strike while driving near Raqqa on 11 August.
Photos of Sharrouf’s dead body and the bodies of his sons had been seen by members of Australia’s extremist community, the ABC reported.
To nice, nerdy James Damore’s surprise, Google does not want to engage in a discussion of how their hiring discrimination against white and Asian males can be justified. Google’s corporate culture has been exposed as an Orwellian pig farm, where social justice warriors (SJWs) send daily missives on the correct way to think. Those who express contrary opinions are bullied, sent to HR for reprogramming, fired and – not punished enough – put on Silicon Valley blacklists to ruin their careers.
Major corporations are increasingly expected to play a societal role beyond just providing goods or services: more and more often, they’re expected to weigh in on issues of public morality.
In the most instance, the CEOs of Merck and UnderArmor stepped down from the White House manufacturing council following Trump’s initial response to the Charlottesville violence that was widely panned in the media as insufficiently tough on white nationalists. Both CEOs’ decisions to step down received applause from public figures, including in the media. “I’m going out to buy Under Armour,” declared MSNBC host Joe Scarborough.
Google’s fascist witch-burning of an honest engineer for refusing to bow down at the altar of politically correct lies was the final straw, an unequivocal warning to conservatives that there’s a new set of rules, and that we need to play by them. First they came for the tech geeks; we’re next. That means Republicans at both the federal and the state level need to rein in the skinny-jeaned fascist social justice warriors who control Silicon Valley – and, to a growing extent, our society – through the kind of crushing regulation of these private business that we conservatives used to oppose.
“Yesterday, after reading the news, my daughter asked me a question. “Mom, is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?”
That question, whether it’s been asked outright, whispered quietly, or simply lingered in the back of someone’s mind, has weighed heavily on me throughout my career in technology. Though I’ve been lucky to work at a company where I’ve received a lot of support—from leaders like Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, and Jonathan Rosenberg to mentors like Bill Campbell—my experience in the tech industry has shown me just how pervasive that question is.”
As a teacher, I am increasingly struck by a difference between my conservative and progressive students. Contrary to the stereotype, the conservatives are far more likely to connect their engagements to a set of political ideas and principles. Young people on the left are much more inclined to say that they are engaged in politics as an X, concerned about other Xs and those issues touching on X-ness. And they are less and less comfortable with debate.
Over the past decade a new, and very revealing, locution has drifted from our universities into the media mainstream: Speaking as an X…This is not an anodyne phrase. It sets up a wall against any questions that come from a non-X perspective. Classroom conversations that once might have begun, I think A, and here is my argument, now take the form, Speaking as an X, I am offended that you claim B. What replaces argument, then, are taboos against unfamiliar ideas and contrary opinions.
The Damore debacle at Google is a perfect example of what Lilla disdains in his book. Google engineer James Damore wrote an impolitic memo criticizing the way diversity is handled at Google. He said there are scientific reasons why Google’s diversity initiatives aren’t working to change Google’s male-female employee ratio. He said clearly that he favors diversity, but thinks that science shows there are more effective ways to achieve it. And he criticized Google for being the kind of place where people who disagree with cultural progressivism cannot speak out.
This got him fired. It also energized the mob of left-wing witch hunters, who piled onto Damore for his alleged sexist bigotry. Much of the hysteria had nothing to do with Damore’s actual arguments. It bashed him on identity politics grounds. Never mind that Damore said in the memo that he favors diversity, and that he thinks racism and sexism are real problems. Never mind that he simply complained that the way Google pursues diversity is unfair to men. And never mind that Google provided the internal forum precisely so that its workers can discuss workplace issues. More.
Reality check: Lilla is self-deluded if he thinks that the junior jackboots of We’ll Fix U are in any sense liberal. They’ll just freeze him out now. Why should they think when they can riot? Why should they persuade when they can enforce?
When CNN’s Brooke Baldwin framed Damore’s thesis as, “he’s essentially saying well I don’t really like women anywhere near a computer,” Mary Katharine Ham’s facial expression says it all. It’s a truly ridiculous claim that bears no resemblance to the actual memo. To her credit, liberal commentator and free speech advocate Kirsten Powers slapped back at the media’s atrocious coverage of the storyMore.
Reality check: Traditional media would love to control what we are allowed to know about the world around us. They can only dream of what Google could do if permitted. See ‘Dangerous’: Milo Yiannopoulos delights to provoke: The book by the gay conservative provocateur is not nearly as Dangerous as the social media world he exposes. See also: It’s not just Google
Not since Jerry Maguire circulated his mission statement at Sports Management International has an internal memo so backfired on its author as James Damore’s written thoughts on the tech world’s groupthink did.
The Google engineer wrote that “when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies.”
Google quickly terminated Damore (Maybe Brendan Eich is hiring).
Liberals see the recent effort by Asian-American groups to shine a light on Harvard’s admission policies as another reactionary push to roll back affirmative action—and question the motives of the Justice Department in taking such initiatives seriously. They characterize the effort as the latest in a long line of resentful plaintiffs dating back to Allan Bakke and other whites who sought to end “reverse discrimination” at the University of California and the University of Texas dating to the 1970s. Liberals dig in against such efforts, whether on grounds that diversity is a vital good in itself—and worth compromising other principles for—or that America’s past history of legal racism means, in effect, that there can be no such thing as reverse discrimination.
Yet, an important truth goes unstated on both sides of the argument: affirmative action does no good for African-Americans themselves. If progressives and advocates for black advancement were honest, they would admit that racial preferences have been a disaster for their alleged beneficiaries.
I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company’s code of conduct and “cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”
My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company’s “ideological echo chamber.” My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument?
We all have moral preferences and beliefs about how the world is and should be. Having these views challenged can be painful, so we tend to avoid people with differing values and to associate with those who share our values. This self-segregation has become much more potent in recent decades. We are more mobile and can sort ourselves into different communities; we wait longer to find and choose just the right mate; and we spend much of our time in a digital world personalized to fit our views.