Displaying posts published in

December 2020

The EU Needs to Stand Up for the Human Rights It Proclaims by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16871/eu-human-rights-china

One year later, the EU now has a Magnitsky-system. No sanctions, however, have been suggested, whether by member states or by [High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy] Borrell himself.

“Sanctions are triggered when a Member State puts forward a proposal,” Borrell answered, without acknowledging that he himself has the authority to put forward such a proposal. “For the time being, no one has done it…. Let us see in the future; for the time being my concrete answer is clear”.

Crucially, the EU does not want to jeopardize the finalization of the EU-China Comprehensive Investment Agreement, which the EU and China have sought to realize for seven years now.

The US has sanctioned at least 28 Chinese officials over their actions in Xinjiang.

More proof that China is committing grave human rights abuses against Uighurs in Xinjiang has emerged. New evidence suggests that Uighurs, in addition to being detained in reeducation camps and coerced into working in textile manufacturing factories, are also forced to pick cotton.

Twenty percent of the world’s cotton is sourced in Xinjiang, in addition to 85% of China’s cotton being produced there. China is the world’s largest producer and exporter of yarn, and the largest producer and exporter of textiles and apparel.

In addition, China has been discovered to use technology that arbitrarily selects Uighurs for detention through a data program that collects data about them and flags to officials those it deems potentially threatening for possible detention.

Austria: Top Court Overturns Headscarf Ban by Soeren Kern

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16873/austria-court-headscarf-ban

The case highlights the constitutional restraints that European governments face in regulating political Islam and promoting integration.

“A regulation that only affects a certain group of female students and that remains selective in order to ensure religious and ideological neutrality as well as gender equality misses its regulatory goal and is irrelevant. §43a SchUG therefore violates the principle of equality in connection with the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” — Austria’s Constitutional Court, December 11, 2020.

“The prohibition of the wearing of Islamic headscarves in elementary schools was never intended to be a restriction of religious freedom, but rather as a protective mechanism against sexualization and Islamic oppression of underage children…. Unfortunately, this judgment is a step backwards in terms of civilization.” — Leader of the Freedom Party in Upper Austria, Manfred Haimbuchner.

The Austrian Constitutional Court has ruled that Austria’s ban on the wearing of headscarves in public schools violates the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression and therefore is unconstitutional.

The case highlights the constitutional restraints that European governments face in regulating political Islam and promoting integration.

The headscarf ban, introduced in June 2019 by a governing coalition comprised of the center-right People’s Party (ÖVP) and the populist Freedom Party (FPÖ), was an extension of a groundbreaking October 2017 “Integration Law” that sought to improve the integration of Muslims into Austrian society.

The 2017 law banned face coverings — including burkas, niqabs or masks — in public spaces. The 2019 law extended that ban to preclude children under the age of ten from wearing headscarves in primary schools.

The 2019 law, which did not explicitly refer to Muslims or Islam, banned “any clothing that is ideological or religious and that involves covering the head.” The law defined head coverings as “any type of clothing that covers the entire head hair or large parts of it.” The text explained that the law was necessary to promote “the social integration of children according to local customs and traditions, the preservation of the basic constitutional values ​​and educational goals of the Federal Constitution, as well as the equality of men and women.”

Deep State Strike Force The obscure Senior Executive Service deploys in force against the people. Lloyd Billingsley

/https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/deep-state-strike-force-lloyd-billingsley/

The DOJ (Sessions, Rosenstein), FBI (Comey, Strzok), and CIA (Brennan) were all key players in the attempted coup against President Trump. As that unfolded, and long before, a more powerful agency was playing a bigger role, largely out of sight from the media and public.

The Senior Executive Service (SES) was established to “ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.” SES leaders “serve in the key positions just below the top Presidential appointees” as “the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal workforce. They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies,” including the State Department, the Army, Navy, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.

The SES launched during the Carter administration as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and a response to the “moral and management failures of Watergate and Great Society program implementation.” The response was to create another bureaucracy more powerful than the others, “a cadre of high-level managers in the government.”  In 1981, Karlyn Barker of the Washington Post reported that the SES wasn’t working as intended, and that raised an issue.

Back in 1978, Rep. Herb Harris, Virginia Democrat, warned that the SES “will open the door to politicization.” The government provides evidence that the SES was political from the start.

Suppressing Free Speech in the Name of Inclusion and Racial Equity at Princeton At Princeton, academic freedom is considered just another tool of white supremacy. Richard L. Cravatts

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/suppressing-free-speech-name-inclusion-and-racial-richard-l-cravatts/

The ubiquity of race obsession on campuses in the age of Black Lives Matter and George Floyd showed itself at Princeton University, too, so much so that in September its President, Christopher L. Eisgruber, published a self-flagellating open letter in which he bemoaned the fact that “[r]acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton” and that “racist assumptions” are “embedded in structures of the University itself.” At least one federal agency took Eisgruber at his word and Princeton subsequently received a letter from the Department of Education (DOE) questioning if the university was, in light of this self-professed racism, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Based on its admitted racism,” the letter read, the DOE “is concerned Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances . . . may have been false,” that “Princeton perhaps knew, or should have known, these assurances were false at the time they were made,” and “Princeton’s many nondiscrimination and equal opportunity claims to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates may have been false, misleading, and actionable substantial misrepresentations . . . .” 

That investigation by the DOE may be of concern for Princeton officials, but the frenzy over racism from inside the campus community is proving to be a thornier problem as the campus has reacted vocally to some recent instances of alleged racism by faculty and students—even questioning whether academic freedom should be restricted to make sure no one’s feelings are hurt by racist expression.

‘Dr. Jill’ and the Dangers of Scientism Jill Biden thinks an ed-school advanced degree makes her more important. Does it? Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/dr-jill-and-dangers-scientism-bruce-thornton/

Essayist Joseph Epstein stirred up the “woke” commissars with an essay jovially advising Jill Biden from insisting on being called “Dr” because she has a doctorate in education. As Epstein pointed out, usually the demand to be called “Doctor” when one is not an M.D. suggests insecurity or unseemly vanity. After all, according to her husband, she sought out the degree because she was “so sick of the mail coming to Sen. and Mrs. Biden.” No matter. To Epstein’s critics, the “entitled” old white guy was “sexist” and “misogynist,” demeaning Mrs. Biden’s accomplishments in order to keep her in her “handmaiden” place.

Such “woke” dudgeon is so common that it is a dog-bites-man story, reported on only to provide progressives with opportunities for virtue-signaling, attacking their enemies, and feeling superior to the unenlightened. What’s more serious about this spat is the foundational flaw that runs through it–– our failure to separate real science from activities that reflect scientism: Dressing up ideological beliefs or even fads in the quantitative data and forbidding jargon of real sciences like physics or engineering.

Of course, the criticisms were all preposterous: slighting the EdD is an equal opportunity custom long embedded in Academe, where the “narcissism of small differences” is epidemic, especially for the American professoriate, which doesn’t enjoy the wider social esteem that European academics enjoy. Also, doctorates in education exist mainly as a way to boost a school-teacher’s salary, or qualify him to serve as an administrator. For snooty professors in traditional disciplines, the stink of the marketplace clings to the EdD.

But the deeper question is, why does a discipline like education even exist? Does anybody really believe that there are scientific truths from which this discipline derives? The reliance of educational theory on psychology and sociology should set off warning bells. While empirical information shows up in these fields, they are not “scientific,” but comprise philosophical theories dressed up in the numerical data and polysyllabic jargon that characterize real science. Disciplines whose topic is human behavior, interactions, motivations, or consciousness are particularly dubious, because few of these aspects of our humanity can be understood with the rigor and predictability of hard science.

Will Republicans Kill Democracy? By Daniel Gelernter

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/20/will-republicans-kill-democracy/

Whether it takes a year or 10 years or 100 years for the wheel of history to turn, the Republicans who chose “stability” over democracy will not be remembered kindly, if they are remembered at all.

Republicans are in the process of betraying the United States. Republicans who urge their colleagues not to object when counting the electoral votes, who parrot Joe Biden’s calls for unity, who urge the nation to accept and to move on: these Republicans have decided that nothing is worse than a constitutional crisis. Nothing is worse than turmoil—not even the end of freedom. They are choosing to support an unelected government rather than risk the chaos of leftists rioting in the streets. 

Perhaps, above all, they are choosing a world in which they can continue to rub shoulders at fancy social events in Washington, D.C.. Whether or not the people actually voted to send them there is unimportant. What is important is that they are important. 

The status quo, the thing which President Trump has threatened more than any politician in living memory, is the breath of life even to those politicians who would, all things being equal, prefer free elections and limited government. But all things are not equal. Most politicians, ironically, would choose prominence in a corrupt system over anonymity anywhere else.

Churchill recounted his exchanges with Admiral François Darlan, who was chief of the French Navy at the outbreak of World War II, and who wanted above all to rise to the top political post, Minister of Marine. Darlan repeatedly assured Churchill that, come what may, the French Fleet would never fall into German hands. As France was collapsing under the Nazi invasion in June 1940, Darlan was prepared to order his ships to sail to American and British ports. But, in the last gasp of the Third Republic, Darlan finally achieved his much hoped-for political elevation. He never gave the order to sail, and, when General Georges asked him why, he replied “I am now Minister of Marine.” He wished to remain Minister of Marine in a new government, even under German control. He got his wish.

COVID, Woke Science—and Death Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/20/covid-woke-science-and-death/

In this brave new world of ours, will we be pruning back the elderly altogether by credentialed “ethicists,” whether because of their longevity or race?

Since March, the Left has proclaimed itself the guardian of science in dealing with the COVID-19 epidemic. Its champions are the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Dr. Fauci. All in the past have rendered valuable service to the public, and often life-saving aid.

Yet the mixture of COVID-19, the first national quarantine, and Trump Derangement Syndrome have combined to give us reason to question their judgment. These authorities variously have issued conflicting recommendations to wear, then not to wear, and finally to wear masks. Or they have both criticized and then advised travel bans. 

They variously have expressed skepticism about lockdowns, then strongly urged lockdowns, and then again questioned lockdowns. When states and nations that are tightly locked down sometimes suffer commensurate rates of infection with those that are relatively open, we do not always receive scientifically based explanations. 

More ominously, we still have no idea whether far more have died due to the lockdowns than to the virus itself—given the quarantines have caused greater familial, spousal, and substance abuse, suicides, impoverishment, missed surgeries and medical procedures, educational deprivation, and long-term psychological damage. Amid this void of knowledge, state and local officials have often claimed expertise and implemented Draconian measures that may well have made things far worse.

The reasons for our experts’ ambiguity?