Intimidation of government critics raises concerns about freedom of speech

first_imgScholars and activists have raised concern about the freedom of speech in Indonesia following alleged acts of intimidation against critics of the government’s policy to restrict mobility to stem the COVID-19 pandemic.Bivitri Susanti, a constitutional law expert from the Jakarta-based Jentera School of Law, said people opposed to any criticism of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s administration had been “wild” lately.The alleged intimidation took various forms, ranging from social media account hacks to death threats. She said that, based on her own experience, she had often been verbally attacked after she had criticized the government, whatever the issue was.“Who does this? Who threatens us? If I look closer, besides the buzzers, my own circle [scholars] are doing that, too. What’s going on?” she said in a virtual panel discussion on the freedom of speech with other experts on Monday.Read also: AJI condemns lawsuit against senior journalist for criticizing minister’s policy onlineSome of the recent threats followed online discussions about the constitutional mechanism for removing a president from office. Students and a professor of Yogyakarta’s Gadjah Mada University (UGM) on Friday received threats in various forms including text messages, phone calls and the hacking of their accounts after a poster of the planned discussion and an opinion article denouncing it as an act of treason went viral.Constitutional law professor of the Indonesian Islamic University (UII) Nimatul Huda, who was a speaker at the discussion, also reportedly received threats.On Sunday, Tempo newspaper editor in chief Budi Setyarso also reported that his Instagram and Facebook accounts had been “hacked” while he was moderating an online discussion with the UGM discussion’s committee head, UGM’s Faculty of Law dean.The panel also included Ravio Patra, an independent researcher who was detained by Police following the hacking of his phone in April.Bivitri went on to say that the government should investigate and solve the cases.”This is terrible, especially for academic freedom. The government must investigate the actors. The government has all the power to do this, it has SIM-card holders’ data, and we also have the police. We need proof if the government says that those threats were not from them,” she said.Read also: Govt COVID-19 response poses risks to human rights: ExpertsIn Indonesia, threats against government critics started in April with Ravio Patra’s case. He was detained and accused of inciting riots through a WhatsApp message broadcast. A coalition of human rights groups has suggested that his arrest was a warning to critics, as he was innocent and a victim of identity theft.The coalition, which includes the Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFEnet), the Foundation of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute (YLBHI), the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), Amnesty International Indonesia and the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (IJCR), demanded that police arrest the person who allegedly hacked Ravio’s phone to spread the fake news.Former Judicial Commission chairman Aidul Fitriciada Azhari said a pandemic should not be an excuse for the government to restrict free speech. He said that, no matter how bad the government was, a president could not be impeached just because of his policies.”The government should not be afraid of the critics. Our presidential system is very protective of the president. There is no need to limit people’s freedom. In this pandemic, all that we have is freedom of speech,” he said.“An idea should only be attacked with another idea, not with criminal sentences, intimidation or repression.”Islamic scholar Din Syamsuddin deplored the intimidation, saying the pandemic appeared to be a cover for the government’s authoritarian instinct. He cited the controversial Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 1/2020 on the COVID-19 pandemic response, which protects officials who order spending for programs related to the pandemic management from any legal charges.“People have the right to criticize the government when it goes to the wrong direction. The current state of our democracy is worrying,” said the former chairman of Muhammadiyah, the second-largest Islamic group in the country.Topics :last_img read more

How to bid at auction

first_imgAuction of one of Townsville’s most iconic homes. Australasian auctioneer of the year Justin Nickerson. Picture: Zak SimmondsBUYERS are often intimidated by the auction process despite an increasing number of properties being sold under the hammer – but with a little advice, bidding at auction can be a stress-free experience. Australasian Auctioneer of the Year Justin Nickerson, who last year was the auctioneer for Townsville’s most expensive house in 2017, said prospective buyers should do plenty of research before auction day.“They should try and go and watch as many auctions as they can and get experience as a spectator before they go to an auction as a participant,” he said.More from news01:21Buyer demand explodes in Townsville’s 2019 flood-affected suburbs12 Sep 202001:21‘Giant surge’ in new home sales lifts Townsville property market10 Sep 2020“You can also use technology to watch auctions that are streamed online.“They should also do as much research on the property as they can. There is no reason why you can’t do a building or pest inspection prior to the auction.”Mr Nickerson said come auction day, buyers shouldn’t be scared to bid or hold back from bidding. “You get people who show a lot of interest and do research beforehand but then turn up on the day and either through fear or strategy hang back and don’t bid,” he said. “If the property is what you want then have a go.”Buyers should also have three prices in mind before auction day. The price they would love to pay, the price they think the property is worth and would pay, and the emergency price which is all the money they can financially afford to buy the property for.last_img read more

UK financial regulator cuts back to deal with Brexit

first_imgThe UK’s withdrawal from the European Union will cost the country’s financial services regulator £30m (€34.4m), according to its 2018-19 business plan.The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it had already made “difficult and challenging decisions” about its priorities that had helped to partially fund its work on Brexit, but warned it still had to find £16m.UK-based regulated firms would pay for roughly £5m of this through annual fees, the regulator said, with a further £5m coming from its reserves.For the remaining £6m, the FCA said it would recover costs from “specific firms” in areas particularly affected by Brexit “once we know the final costs and number of firms affected”. “A significant proportion of our resources are already focused on the forthcoming exit, including arrangements to implement the change,” the regulator said.“To fulfil our regulatory objectives and provide technical support to the government in the run up to withdrawal, we have increased the level of resource dedicated to co-ordinating and managing this work.”The regulator’s annual funding requirement increased by 3.2% on last year to £543.9m. However, investment management firms could see their fees fall by nearly 6% according to a proposed levy model published today alongside the business plan.The FCA said it intended to charge “managers and depositaries of investment funds, and operators of collective investment schemes or pension schemes” £11.6m in total for 2018-19, compared to £12.3m in the 2017-18 financial year.Aside from Brexit, the FCA said it would focus on monitoring and improving the culture of financial services companies.“Firms should be able to show the effectiveness of their governance arrangements in identifying, managing and mitigating the risk of harm,” the regulator said.It also highlighted cybersecurity as an important area of focus, promising to monitor closely the companies deemed to be at high risk of security breaches.last_img read more

Rate cut just months away: Expert

first_imgReserve Bank of Australia Governor Philip Lowe has noted tightening credit across multiple types of borrowers. Picture: AAP Image/Mick Tsikas.The comments come as Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Philip Lowe on Tuesday announced the official cash rate would remain at the record 1.5 per cent in February — given low rates were “continuing to support” the economy.He acknowledged that “credit conditions for some borrowers are tighter than they have been. At the same time, the demand for credit by investors in the housing market has slowed noticeably as the dynamics of the housing market have changed. Growth in credit extended to owner-occupiers has eased to an annualised pace of 5.5 per cent.”CoreLogic head of research Tim Lawless and research analyst Cameron Kusher believe the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry recommendations offered some good news for borrowers — particularly by it not ruling out Household Expenditure Measure “as a valid benchmark for assessing borrower expenses”.That means “credit availability is not likely to worsen any further” now, a report by the pair said.“Potentially we are in the early stages of a ‘new normal’ for home lending where borrowers should expect a lot more scrutiny on their expenses and servicing capacity.“Our macro view is that home values will continue to trend lower through 2019 and into 2020. As housing affordability gradually improves and owner occupiers continue to benefit from lower mortgage rates relative to investors, we are likely to see an organic shift towards owner occupiers comprising a larger share of the market.” Video Player is loading.Play VideoPlayNext playlist itemMuteCurrent Time 0:00/Duration 0:58Loaded: 0%Stream Type LIVESeek to live, currently playing liveLIVERemaining Time -0:58 Playback Rate1xChaptersChaptersDescriptionsdescriptions off, selectedCaptionscaptions settings, opens captions settings dialogcaptions off, selectedQuality Levels720p720pHD432p432p216p216p180p180pAutoA, selectedAudio Tracken (Main), selectedFullscreenThis is a modal window.Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.TextColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparentWindowColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaqueFont Size50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%Text Edge StyleNoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadowFont FamilyProportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall CapsReset restore all settings to the default valuesDoneClose Modal DialogEnd of dialog window.This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.Close Modal DialogThis is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.PlayMuteCurrent Time 0:00/Duration 0:00Loaded: 0%Stream Type LIVESeek to live, currently playing liveLIVERemaining Time -0:00 Playback Rate1xFullscreenHow much do I need to retire?00:58 MORE: Jessica Rudd is doing it her way Amy Shark sinks millions into home town Finsure Group’s John Kolenda has a pessimistic view, expecting a rate cut by the third quarter off slowing economic circumstances. Picture: Alex Wisser“This is increasing pressure on the RBA to lower rates, particularly when you weigh up all the negative factors which includes the coming federal election, the response to the final report of the Hayne Royal Commission, the falling property market and external matters such as the US-China trade war and Brexit. There are just too many headwinds at the moment.”More from newsParks and wildlife the new lust-haves post coronavirus14 hours agoNoosa’s best beachfront penthouse is about to hit the market14 hours agoHe said banks were already increasing rates independently of the RBA because of funding pressures and consumer confidence was also “lagging”.“I don’t think they would cut rates during an election campaign, If it does happen it would most likely be in the third quarter, unless there is a material change in the overall economy.”Rates have not fallen since hitting a record low 1.5 per cent in August 2016. “A 6.3 per cent drop in Sydney would see average house prices dip a further $58,000, while a 6.6 per cent drop in Melbourne this time would mean a fall of more than $49,000,” Mr Cooke said. “Remarkably, should these price drops eventuate as forecast, this would make Sydney and Melbourne property the cheapest it has been in four years.”Mortgage industry expert John Kolenda of Finsure Group was pessimistic about rates, warning pressure was mounting towards a cut — which would be great for borrowers, though a bad sign for the state of the economy. The fastest growing place in QLD Refinancing levels have dropped with many borrowers scared off by higher serviceability requirements.There was some other good news off the release of the Royal Commission’s 76 recommendations, with analysis firm Moody’s noting it removed some negative pressure from the housing market — specifically off its decision “not to tighten lending criteria”.It warned “housing credit growth continues to fall from the high levels experienced during 2013-2017, with the value of total new lending falling 8.2 per cent in the 12-months to November 2018. This reflects both macro-prudential measures and the highly leveraged nature of households”.Ratecity.com.au research director Sally Tindall said “the serviceability clampdown will have scared some people out of refinancing” already.Refinancing of home loans was down 3.2 per cent year-on-year in latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data for November — even though the average borrower could save $77,340 over the life of their loan if they switched to a lower rate, Ms Tindall said. Experts in the Finder RBA Cash Rate Survey expect the median house price in Brisbane to fall -1 per cent this year. Picture: AAP Image/Glenn Hunt.A rate cut to a new record low is just months away, experts predict, with median house prices expected to fall across five major cities.Fresh predictions in the latest Finder RBA Cash Rate Survey, out Tuesday, were that median house prices would fall in five major capital cities by the end of 2019 — with Sydney and Melbourne to hit their cheapest levels in four years.Experts in the survey believed falls of 6 percentage points were yet to come this year for the two biggest capitals — Sydney and Melbourne — on top of the already 11.1 per cent fall Sydney has seen since July 2017 and 7.2 per cent drop Melbourne has had since November 2017.Brisbane prices was expected to fare best of the five, retreating -1 per cent (-$5,600 to $554,400) by year end, followed by Darwin -1.3 per cent (-$6,370 to $483,630) and Perth -2.9 per cent (-$14,935 to $500,065), according to finder.com.au’s insights manager Grahame Cooke. Adelaide and Hobart meanwhile were expected to continue to see growth. FOLLOW SOPHIE FOSTER ON FACEBOOK Experts believe the median house price in Sydney will drop -6.3 per cent this year.last_img read more

New study on homosexual parents tops all previous research

first_imgNEW STUDY ON HOMOSEXUAL PARENTS TOPS ALL PREVIOUS RESEARCHChildren of Homosexuals Fare Worse on Most OutcomesBy Peter Sprigg – Family Research Council June 2012In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups–with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated “suboptimal” (Regnerus’ word) in almost every category.The Debate Over Homosexual ParentsIn the larger cultural, political, and legal debates over homosexuality, one significant smaller debate has been over homosexual parents. Do children who are raised by homosexual parents or caregivers suffer disadvantages in comparison to children raised in other family structures–particularly children raised by a married mother and father? This question is essential to political and ethical debates over adoption, foster care, and artificial reproductive technology, and it is highly relevant to the raging debate over same-sex “marriage.” The argument that “children need a mom and a dad” is central to the defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.Here is how the debate over the optimal family structure for children and the impact of homosexual parents has usually gone:Pro-family organizations (like Family Research Council) assert, “Social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a life-long marriage.” This statement is true, and rests on a large and robust collection of studies.Pro-homosexual activists respond, “Ah, but most of those studies compared children raised by a married couple with those raised by divorced or single parents–not with homosexual parents.” (This is also true–in large part because the homosexual population, and especially the population of homosexuals raising children, is so small that it is difficult to obtain a representative sample.)The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, “Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents.”Pro-family groups respond with a number of critiques of such studies on homosexual parents. For example, such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents–rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.In fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA’s claim that “[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA’s own standards by “provid[ing] evidence of statistical power.” As Marks so carefully documents, “[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.”To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father–but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children–but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.The New Family Structures Study–Restoring the “Gold Standard”This logjam of dueling studies has been broken by the work that Regnerus has undertaken. Unlike the many large studies previously undertaken on family structure, Regnerus has included specific comparisons with children raised by homosexual parents. Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his “New Family Structures Study” (NFSS) deserves to be considered the “gold standard” in this field.Another improvement Regnerus has made is in his method of collecting data and measuring outcomes for children in various family structures. Some previous studies collected data while the subjects were still children living at home with their parent or parents–making it impossible to know what the effects of the home environment might be once they reach adulthood. Some such studies even relied, in some cases exclusively, on the self-report of the parent. This raised a serious question of “self-presentation bias”–the tendency of the parent to give answers that will make herself and her child look good.Regnerus, on the other hand, has surveyed young adults, ages 18 to 39, and asked them about their experiences growing up (and their life circumstances in the present). While these reports are not entirely objective, they are likely to be more reliable than parental self-reports, and allow evaluation of long-term impacts. The study collected information from its subjects on forty different outcomes. They fall into three groups:Some are essentially yes-or-no questions: are you currently married, are you currently unemployed, have you thought recently about suicide?Other questions asked respondents to place themselves on a scale–for example, of educational attainment, happiness or depression, and household income.Finally, “event-count” outcomes involve reporting the frequency of certain experiences–e.g., smoking marijuana or being arrested–and the number of sex partners.Nearly 15,000 people were “screened” for potential participation in the study; in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. These are numbers just large enough to make some statistically robust conclusions in comparing different family structures.What the Study FoundThe study looked at 40 different outcomes, but reported data for children with “lesbian mothers” and those with “gay fathers” separately. Therefore, there actually were 80 outcome measures that could be said to compare children with “homosexual parents” to those from other family structures. When compared with outcomes for children raised by an “intact biological family” (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. (The only exceptions: children of “gay fathers” were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less frequently; and children of “gay fathers” used alcohol at the same rate as those in intact biological families).Of course, anyone who has had a college course in statistics knows that when a survey shows there are differences between two groups, it is important to test whether that finding is “statistically significant.” This is because it is always possible, by chance, that a sample may not accurately reflect the overall population on a particular point. However, through statistical analysis researchers can calculate the likelihood of this, and when they have a high level of confidence that a difference identified in the survey represents an actual difference in the national population, we say that finding is “statistically significant.” (This does not mean the other findings are unimportant–just that we cannot have as high a level of confidence in them.)Regnerus has analyzed his findings, and their statistical significance, in two ways–first by a simple and direct comparison between what is reported by the children of homosexual parents and the children of “intact biological families” (“IBFs”), and second by “controlling” for a variety of other characteristics. “Controlling for income,” for example, would mean showing that “IBF” children do not do better just because their married parents have higher incomes, but that they do better even when the incomes of their households and the households of homosexual parents are the same. Again, Regnerus has done these comparisons for “LMs” (children of “lesbian mothers”) and “GFs” (children of gay fathers) separately.There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and “gay” fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones–virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)Have lower educational attainmentReport less safety and security in their family of originReport more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of originAre more likely to suffer from depressionHave been arrested more oftenIf they are female, have had more sexual partners–both male and femaleThe high mathematical standard of “statistical significance” was more difficult to reach for the children of “gay fathers” in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:Are more likely to be currently cohabitingAre almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistanceAre less likely to be currently employed full-timeAre more than 3 times more likely to be unemployedAre nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexualAre 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabitingAre an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their willAre more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on othersUse marijuana more frequentlySmoke more frequentlyWatch TV for long periods more frequentlyHave more often pled guilty to a non-minor offenseDifferences in SexualityWhen comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents, the differences in sexuality–experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children themselves–were among the most striking. While not all of the findings mentioned below have the same level of “statistical significance” as those mentioned above, they remain important.At one time, defenders of homosexual parents not only argued that their children do fine on psychological and developmental measures, but they also said that children of homosexuals “are no more likely to be gay” than children of heterosexuals. That claim will be impossible to maintain in light of this study. It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have “ever been physically forced” to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).These data require more detailed exploration and explanation. A number of researchers have pointed out that self-identified homosexual adults (both men and women) are more likely to report having been victims of child sexual abuse. However, Family Research Council and other pro-family organizations have been criticized for also pointing to evidence suggesting that homosexual men are more likely to commit acts of child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men. And experts in child sexual abuse in general say that men are most often the perpetrators, regardless of the sex of the victim. Therefore, the finding that children of lesbian mothers are significantly more likely to have been victims of sexual touching by “a parent or adult caregiver” than even the children of homosexual fathers is counter-intuitive.However, it is important to note what we do not know about such experiences from the data that have been published. The fact that a child of a lesbian mother was touched by “a parent or adult caregiver” does not mean that the lesbian mother was herself the parent or caregiver who did the “touching.” An alternative scenario mentioned by Regnerus, for example–hypothetical, but plausible–is one in which a child is molested by her biological father; her mother divorces her father; and the mother later enters into a lesbian relationship.Limitations of the StudyWhile the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding “causality.” In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes–other factors could be at work.This is true in a strict scientific sense–but because Regnerus carefully controlled for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of “homosexual parenting.”The definition of what it means to have a homosexual parent is also a loose one in this study–by necessity, in order to maximize the sample size of homosexual parents. Not all of those who reported that a parent was in a same-sex relationship even lived with that parent during the relationship; many who did, did not live with the partner as well. Only 23% of those with a lesbian mother, and only 2% of those with a homosexual father, had spent as long as three years living in a household with the homosexual parent and the parent’s partner at the same time. Details like this involving the actual timeline of these children’s lives can reportedly be found in Regnerus’ dataset, which is to be made available to other researchers later this year.Figures like these suggest a need for more research, to distinguish, for example, the effects of living with a homosexual parent from having a non-custodial one, or the effects of living with a homosexual single parent vs. a homosexual couple. But they also point out something of note for public policy debates on “gay families”–the stereotype put forward by pro-homosexual activists, of a same-sex couple jointly parenting a child from birth (following either adoption or the use of artificial reproductive technology), represents a scenario that is extraordinarily rare in real life. Most “homosexual parents” have their own biological children who were conceived in the context of a previous heterosexual relationship or marriage, which then ended before the person entered into homosexual relationships.ConclusionThe articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, “gay families,” and same-sex “marriage.” The myths that children of homosexual parents are “no different” from other children and suffer “no harm” from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research——————————————————————————-[1] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610[2] Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580last_img read more

Visa cancellation? Sen. Bato says no word yet from US

first_img According to Sotto, the US government’s action, if confirmed, showed it believes unverified information about supposed extrajudicial killings. “Hindi maganda kung totoo ‘yun kasi ‘di pa naman nila alam kung totoo ang EJK (Extra judicial killing). Pag-aralan muna nila,” he said./PN Based on a report by Politiko website, Dela Rosa’s US visa was cancelled since May 2019 with Asia Reassurance Initiative Act as basis for the cancellation due to his alleged involvement in the supposed extrajudicial killings of drug suspects. The former Philippine National Police chief said that he has not visited the United States in a while for fear of being denied entry. “What is 11,000 compared to the whole Filipino nation na matagal ng sinamantalahan ng isang kumpanya,” says Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa. ABS-CBN NEWS “Naniwala sila agad sa kuwentong kutsero. Pagbibintangan nila si Bato, eh ang ibang pagpatay nangyari umpisa pa lang ng campaign. Sila-sila nagpapatayan,” he said.center_img Meanwhile, Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III slammed the US for cancelling Dela Rosa’s US visa for believing in “fake news” that the latter was involved in extra judicial killings. Sotto, in a radio interview on Saturday, challenged the US government to show proof that the drug suspects who died during the Duterte administration were victims of extrajudicial killings. MANILA – Amid reports his visa gotcanceled, neophyte Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa said he has yet to receive anofficial communication from the United States government. “Hindi ko na lang tinry manood ng last Pacman fight kasi baka hindi nga ako papasukin at mapahiya lang ako. May tsismis na akong naririnig noon pa prior to the fight,” Dela Rosa said during an interview with CNN Philippines. last_img read more

Tri-State reschedules Kegger, IMCA Modifieds chase $1,500 top check

first_imgPOCOLA, Okla. (March 27) – IMCA Modifieds race for $1,500 to win this weekend, at Tri-State Speedway’s rescheduled Cecil Harlan Memorial Kegger.Practice is from 6-9 p.m. on Thursday, March 30. Qualifying begins Friday, March 31 with last-chance races and the feature on Saturday, April 1.The 2017 Fast Shafts All-Star Invitational ballot qualifier pays a minimum of $200 to start.IMCA Speedway Motors Weekly Racing National, Jet Racing Central Region and Allstar State points, but no local track points, will be awarded. Menasco Racing Enterprises gives a $500 bonus to the driver making the long tow. Entry fee is $100.Pit gates open at 4 p.m., the grandstand opens at 5 p.m. and racing follows 6:30 p.m. hot laps both days. Adult grandstand admission is $10 on Friday and $12 on Saturday; kids ages 6-12 get in for $5 each night. Pit passes are $30 on Friday and $35 on Saturday.Pit passes are $20 and grandstand admission is free for the Thursday practice.The Kegger was rescheduled from last weekend because of rain. More information about the 38th annual event is posted on the www.tri-statespeedway.com website and on Facebook.last_img read more

$3,500 is top check when IMCA Hawkeye Dirt Tour travels to Hancock County for Salute to Veterans show

first_imgBRITT, Iowa (June 23) – The Hawkeye Dirt Tour returns to Britt and five IMCA divisions see on-track action at Hancock County Speedway’s Salute To Veterans special on Tuesday, June 28.Touring Xtreme Motor Sports IMCA Modifieds race for $3,500 to win their Fast Shafts All-Star Invitational ballot qualifier while the runner-up earns $1,600. Fourteen hundred dollars will be paid for third, $1,200 for fourth and $1,000 for fifth.Hancock County is the only track to have hosted an HDT event every year since the series started in 2010. Next Tuesday’s show will be the seventh tour event held at Britt.IMCA Sunoco Stock Cars race for $2,000 to win, Karl Chevrolet Northern SportMods and IMCA Sunoco Hobby Stocks both for $1,500 and Mach-1 Sport Compacts for $200.Winners in all divisions receive six-foot-tall trophies and those with perfect attendance this season at Britt get $500 bonuses as well.Second in the Stock Car main pays $1,200 with $1,000 for third. SportMod and Hobby Stock runners-up get $800, with $600 paid for third. All divisions will be draw/redraw and all applicable points, including local track points, will be awarded.Spectator admission is $15 for adults and $5 for kids ages 6-12. Family passes are $40 and pit passes are $30. All veterans and their spouses receive free admission to the grandstand that evening.Pit gates open at 5 p.m. The draw closes at 6:30 p.m. and hot laps start at 7 p.m. with racing to follow.More information is available by calling 515 320-0066 or 641-843-9080 on race day, and at the www.hcspeedway.com website. Parts, tires and fuel will be available at the track or by calling 515 341-2232.A fireworks display follows the race program. The event is sponsored by Bayer Crop Science and Mike and Barb Schroeder, Lone Rock & L.G. Seeds.Grundy Center’s Joel Rust won the first two Hawkeye Dirt Tour features of the season before Brian Irvine of Oelwein and Chris Abelson of Sioux City followed with victories of their own. Abelson took over the series point lead with his checkered flag run at West Liberty Raceway on June 14.Hawkeye Dirt Tour top 20 point standings – 1. Chris Abelson, Sioux City, 144; 2. Joel Rust, Grundy Center, 140; 3. Corey Dripps, Reinbeck, 121; 4. Brian Irvine, Oelwein, and Kyle Brown, State Center, both 118; 6. Kelly Shryock, Fertile, 112; 7. Richie Gustin, Gilman, 105; 8. Mark Elliott, Webster City, 103; 9. David Brown, Kellogg, 96; 10. Jacob Murray, Hartford, 76; 11. Tom Berry Jr., Boone, 74; 12. Tim Ward, Harcourt, 69; 13. Kurt Kile, Nichols, 64; 14. Ryan Maitland, Waterloo, 61; 15. Mike Van Genderen, Newton, 60; 16. Nick Roberts, LaCrosse, Wis., Joe Docekal, Dysart, and Troy Cordes, Dunkerton, each 58; 19. Shane DeMey, Denison, 51; 20. Dakota Hayden, Wilton, and Ronn Lauritzen, Jesup, both 48.last_img read more

Evans spitting was ‘disgusting’

first_img Cisse accepted the charge and a seven-match ban – one extra because of a previous offence this season – but Evans insisted he had not intended to spit at the striker and contested it. The three members of the regulatory commission accepted 27-year-old Evans was the only person who could know his intent, but stated: “I t is clear that Mr Evans is looking directly and indeed aggressively at Mr Cisse. His lips are ‘pursed’ and he is close to Mr Cisse. “If he was, as alleged to be the case, a person who ‘habitually spits’, then the c ommission were concerned as to why he did not turn his head away from Mr Cisse when so spitting. “If that had been a family member or indeed another team member or his manager in front and below him would he still have carried out the same manoeuvre? “Mr Evans had (and has) a duty of care, if spitting for whatever reason, not to direct the same in the general direction of an opponent, or indeed anyone else. The video clips clearly show that he failed in his duty of care. “There may, in some quarters, be substantial sympathy for Mr Evans, but the video evidence shows that he did what he did, and the ordinary man in the street will find his action to be simply disgusting and should not be allowed in any walk of life, let alone on any football field.” The written report also reveals Manchester United questioned the length of the suspension but the commission did not consider there were any “truly exceptional” circumstances to reduce it from the standard six matches. Press Association Jonny Evans’ actions in spitting at Papiss Cisse were “simply disgusting”, a Football Association regulatory commission ruled.center_img The written reasons for Evans’ six-match ban were released by the FA on Thursday. The Manchester United defender and Newcastle striker Cisse were both charged after spitting at each other during the Red Devils’ 1-0 victory on March 4 in an incident missed by referee Anthony Taylor. last_img read more

Florida man arrested after hitting neighbor in the face with a hammer

first_imgA Florida Keys man has been arrested after he reportedly hit his neighbor in the face with a hammer.The incident happened on Saturday in Tavernier.The Monroe County Sheriff’s Office says they were called to Jo Jean Way where they found witness rending aid to the 26-year-old victim at his home.The witnesses told officers that 33-year-old 33-year-old Timothy Lee Burton came speeding down the roadway where the victim and several witnesses waved at him to slow down. That’s when Burton jumped out of his vehicle with a hammer and began arguing with the victim. At some point during the arguement, Burton then struck the victim in the face and then continued on to his residence a few houses down.The victim was airlifted to Jackson South Medical Center in Miami-Dade County with severe injuries to his face.Authorities then found Burton at his home and arrested him.He has since been charged with aggravated battery.last_img read more