Conservative Students have a big fight

Everywhere, assaults on freedom and free speech are going full blast. Violent True Believers are on the march as others, even if less overtly barbaric, provide cover, an excuse.

For example, the State University of New York at Binghamton has cooperated with left-wing thugs to suppress conservatives.

The mob stole or destroyed posters and the table students were using to promote an appearance by Arthur Laffer, the noted supply-side economist. The same mob also disrupted the lecture itself. A lawsuit brought by the victimized students accuses officials of failing “to take action to defend College Republicans’ constitutional rights” and supporting the “physically abusive actions of the College Progressives.”

Another student under attack is Austin Tong. Recently, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has been going to bat for Tong, a Fordham University student suspended for social media posts.

One is a picture of Tong holding (not pointing) a legally owned rifle, intended to draw attention to the Tiananmen Square massacre. The other shows black police captain David Dorn, who was murdered by looters. Its caption chastises members of the Black Lives Matter movement for apparent indifference to Dorn’s fate.

Before suspending him for “bias” and “threats,” university personnel showed up at Tong’s house to interrogate him about the posts.

Tong is unapologetic, and FIRE says that Fordham has “acted more like the Chinese government than an American university, placing severe sanctions on a student solely because of off-campus political speech.”

SOURCE 

Kamala Harris’s Former Press Secretary Is the Face of Twitter Censorship

When CNN hired Sarah Isgur, a former Jeff Sessions spokeswoman and now staff writer at The Dispatch, last year to be a political editor at its Washington bureau, left-wing media types put on a full-court press to smear her professionalism. The CNN newsroom — which, last I looked, included former Obama official Jim Sciutto — was reportedly “demoralized” by her very presence.

Conservatives, and it’s probably fair to say that Isgur is a pretty moderate one, aren’t welcome in mainstream journalism. We don’t need to go through all the numbers and polls to stress this point. Journalists have long jumped back and forth between Democratic Party politics and media gigs. The job is the same. The venue is different.

I bring this up because, as my former colleague Sean Davis points out, Nick Pacilio, Kamala Harris’s former press secretary, is now in charge of deciding/announcing what the president of the United States can and can’t say on Twitter to his 85 million followers. Twitter has already removed debatable contentions by the president — or, contentions no more misleading than any number of Joe Biden allegations. The point of removing tweets, I assume, has more to do with being able to call  Trump a liar than worrying about his spreading misleading information.

But the optics are remarkably terrible for Twitter. It’s almost certainly true that whoever holds the job of senior communication manager at the social-media giant will be ideologically progressive like the company’s CEO. But could you imagine what the nightly reaction on CNN and MSNBC would be if Mike Pence’s former spokesperson was seen censoring Joe Biden’s tweets during a presidential election? I have no doubt Democrats would be calling for congressional hearings.

SOURCE 

CENSORSHIP: Viral Shadowgate Documentary Deleted by Facebook and YouTube After Film Maker’s Arrest

The Shadowgate documentary, which went viral after one of its producers was arrested on Friday, has now been removed by both YouTube and Facebook.

Journalist Millie Weaver was charged with alleged “robbery, tampering with evidence, obstruction justice, and domestic violence” after police officers apparently from a local SWAT team showed up at her Ohio home Friday morning and took her to the Portage County Jail in Ravenna.

The Portage County Sheriff’s Office later confirmed that there was a “secret indictment” against Weaver but refused to give further details.

A woman claiming to be Weaver’s mother later commented that there had been a family dispute over a $50 cellphone on April 25, but that she had almost immediately dropped all charges against Weaver and expressed shock that her daughter had been arrested.

The arrest occurred on the eve of Weaver releasing Shadowgate, a documentary that purports to expose the “operational role the shadow government played behind the scenes carrying out the coup against President Trump.”

After the documentary received millions of views following its upload to Facebook and YouTube, both websites censored the film, with YouTube claiming the movie violated its rules against “hate speech.”

Weaver is expected to appear in front of a “tentative bond meeting” later today.

There is also a live protest against her arrest taking place in Ohio right now.

SOURCE 

Watch Out for the New Censors

Until the Trump era, there was a pretty broad consensus in America around free speech. If you didn’t like something someone said, you could debate them and prove their point was not worthy. The solution to bad arguments was to use our free speech rights to win an argument.

The notion of censoring political debate does not have deep roots in our system. The Trump era changed all that. The left views President Donald Trump as an existential threat. Quaint notions such as free speech are no longer in vogue when compared to the broader moral calling to drive him from office.

Running a news company in this environment is, to say the least, challenging. The newest challenge we are facing at my company, The Daily Caller, is an attack on our fact-check site, CheckYourFact.com.

The Daily Caller has millions of readers, many of whom do not trust the traditional corporate media. Supplying these readers with reliable, accurate information to counter some of the bogus information on the web is a service we were excited to perform. Our goal on fact checks was simple: Tell the truth, no matter where it leads.

This means calling out politicians or other influencers when they get things wrong. We knew going in that addressing these misstatements with a fair, thorough, and nonpartisan approach was key to our success. It’s the only way we can develop a trusted relationship with our readers.

And that trusted relationship, the faith people have in your desire and ability to call it straight, is the only real asset of any news organization.

To do our job well, we committed to:

No. 1: Transparency in our fact checks so readers could see as much of the information we rely on as possible.

No. 2: A strong corrections policy so we can correct mistakes when we make them.

No. 3: Obtaining a commitment of fairness from each author, including an agreement to refrain from partisan political activity.

No. 4: Posting our methodology with details on our selection, writing, and research process.

With all this in place, we applied and were accepted to the International Fact-Checking Network operated by the Poynter Institute, the world’s leading organization for ethics in journalism.

Upon launching Check Your Fact, I fully expected to engage in debates about our work. Interestingly, though, our work has been nearly free of controversy. Nobody wants to debate us about our fact checks. That’s probably because they are consistently fair, thorough, and completely nonpartisan.

Instead, we have seen something much more insidious. Many on the political left are outraged by our mere existence, and they are trying to shut us down.

Their newest attack is that The Daily Caller can’t do fact checks because it has “taken tens of thousands of dollars to help Republican campaigns raise money.” As the site’s publisher, this came as a shock to me. We have never taken a single contribution from the Republican Party.

Then I realized they were talking about the advertising we sell. Almost every news company sells advertising. And, especially during election years, almost all news companies sell advertising to political candidates and committees.

It’s important to be very transparent when you do sell political advertising, so the ads we have been attacked for running all say “a message from our sponsor” right at the top.

When was the last time near any election that you watched a local or national news program and didn’t see a political ad? By the logic of the attacks against us, mindlessly parroted by numerous left-wing commentators, any news company that takes a political ad—meaning virtually every news company—is somehow disqualified.

This is, of course, preposterous. Running properly labeled political advertising has been a staple of the news business for decades.

So, why the controversy?

First, the Trump campaign is one of the advertisers in question. To many on the hard left, running ads for that campaign is akin to working with the devil. They want us to tip the scales and refuse to take ads from the Trump campaign.

There are two candidates for president. We are happy to run ads for either one; we have offered to do so for each and think it’s eminently reasonable for each to do so, considering our audience is politically engaged and covers a broad cross section of political America, from liberals to conservatives.

Ironically, if we refused to sell ads to one side, we would be tipping the scales in a partisan direction.

The second goal of the critics is to silence us altogether. To many on the left, the fact that The Daily Caller is running fact checks is just offensive. We have no right, in their minds.

In reality, if this group would bother to read the content they hope to censor, they should be celebrating our Check Your Fact operation and thanking us for the work we are doing.

Our site is popular with conservatives and Trump voters. Yet we regularly publish fact checks that point out misstatements by the president, correct some of the crazier right-wing disinformation on the web, and defend Democrats from unfair attacks.

With the trust our readers place in us, we are the perfect outlet to correct some of this information that conservatives otherwise may rely upon. In a rational world, this would be celebrated. In the real world, the partisans on the left who are coming after us have never even read our work.

They just want to censor us based on their preconceived notions. It’s not going to work.

SOURCE 

Newsweek Caves to the Rage Mob After Publishing an OpEd About Harris

Newsweek decided to publish an opinion piece by Dr. John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institution. In his OpEd, Eastman makes the argument that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is ineligible to be vice president because she's not a "natural born citizen."

"Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Harris' birth in 1964. That, according to these commentators, makes her not a 'natural born citizen'—and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president," Eastman wrote.

Of course, the cancel culture mob went after Newsweek editors, claiming that this was pushing the "birther" movement. Editors responded by defending Eastman's piece, saying it had nothing to do with the birther movement:

"Some of our readers have reacted strongly to the op-ed we published by Dr. John Eastman, assuming it to be an attempt to ignite a racist conspiracy theory around Kamala Harris' candidacy. Dr. Eastman was focusing on a long-standing, somewhat arcane legal debate about the precise meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. His essay has no connection whatsoever to so-called "birther-ism," the racist 2008 conspiracy theory aimed at delegitimizing then-candidate Barack Obama by claiming, baselessly, that he was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. We share our readers' revulsion at those vile lies:

The 14th Amendment is one of the most-studied areas of constitutional law, and questions were raised by the Constitution's Article II, Section 1 "natural born Citizen" requirement for presidential eligibility about both John McCain and Ted Cruz, at the time of their respective runs. The meaning of "natural born Citizen," and the relation of that Article II textual requirement to the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, are issues of legal interpretation about which scholars and commentators can, and will, robustly disagree.

Debating the meaning of these constitutional provisions and, in the particular case of Dr. Eastman's piece, the meaning of the 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is not an attempt to deny facts or to make false claims. No one is questioning Harris' place of birth or the legitimacy of an obviously valid birth certificate.

After President Trump referenced the OpEd in his press conference on Friday, politicos took to Twitter to slam the so-called "birth strategy.

Newsweek ended up issuing an editor's note at the top of Eastman's OpEd, saying the piece was never meant "to spark or to take part in the racist lie of Birtherism."

It's ridiculous that Newsweek had to issue any kind of editor's note at all. Why can't we discuss the merits of someone's eligibility for office without it automatically being considered racist or xenophobic? Eastman laid out the scholarly debate surrounding the 14th Amendment. He brought up questions about Harris' eligibility for the office. The same questions have come up when John McCain and Ted Cruz both ran for president.

We need to get back to having intellectually honest conversations surrounding the Constitution. Not every question is risen with malice. For some people, like law professors and scholarly experts, are focused on the Constitutional aspect of things.

SOURCE 

A defeat for the cancel culture

Trader Joe's pushes back against a gratuitous accusation of racism.

by Jeff Jacoby

IN THE ethnic food aisles at Trader Joe's last week, the cancel culture hit a speed bump.

The popular grocery chain, famous for its organic, gourmet, and imported foods, came in for some unwelcome notice recently when the New York Times, CNN, and other news outlets called attention to a petition condemning Trader Joe's for its "racist branding and packaging." The petition, launched on Change.org by a California high school student, declared that the company "perpetuates harmful stereotypes" by labeling some of its international foods with international names, such as Trader José's for its Mexican beer, Trader Jacques' for its ham-and-cheese croissants, Arabian Joe's for its Middle Eastern flatbread, and Trader Ming's for its Kung Pao chicken. The use of these familiar ethnic names amounts to racism, scolded 17-year-old Briones Bedell, "because they exoticize other cultures."

In reality, they do just the opposite: They familiarize other cultures. They present international foods as accessible and appealing. Far from portraying foreign peoples and their foods as weirdly exotic, the lighthearted branding helps make them as welcome and appetizing as traditional "American" foods. Trader Joe's ethnic packaging exemplifies the melting pot at its most engaging, lowering the barriers between consumers of different backgrounds and encouraging Americans to explore the variety and joys of other cuisines.

On social media, where Bedell tried to promote her petition (she tweeted that Trader Joe's "romanticizes imperialism, fetishizes native cultures, and casually misappropriates"), the reaction was overwhelmingly negative. The gusher of media attention she attracted didn't translate into many signatures — fewer than 6,000 as of Tuesday. And a counter-petition — "¡Salvemos a Trader José! / Let's save Trader José" — was started by another Californian, Mexican-American writer Carlos Allende.

The company's initial response to reports of the petition was to surrender without a protest. A spokesman said Trader Joe's was "in the process of updating older labels." It allowed as how its ethnic brand names may have had the "opposite effect" from the lighthearted inclusiveness they were designed to convey.

Then something splendid happened: Trader Joe's got an earful from its customers — and reversed course.

"We want to be clear: we disagree that any of these labels are racist," the company announced on its website. "We do not make decisions based on petitions." Trader Joe's shoppers, it turned out, liked the playful "Trader José" and "Arabian Joe" names, and were unwilling to see them gratuitously smeared as racist or rushed down the memory hole because of one teenager's complaint.

"Recently we have heard from many customers reaffirming that these name variations are largely viewed in exactly the way they were intended­—as an attempt to have fun with our product marketing," Trader Joe's noted. "Those products that resonate with our customers and sell well will remain on our shelves."

The cancel culture has been on a roll, toppling brand names and logos (to say nothing of statues and people) on the grounds of racial or social unacceptability. Some of the vanished trademarks, like the Aunt Jemima "mammy" emblem and the name of the Washington Redskins, were plainly overdue for retirement. But other names and products — like the Dixie Chicks, "Paw Patrol," and even the Coco Pops cereal emblem — have been assailed for no good reason at all.

"Trader Jose's" and other ethnic branding at Trader Joe's exemplifies the melting pot at its most engaging, encouraging Americans to explore the variety and joys of other cuisines.

These name-and-shame campaigns haven't encountered much corporate resistance lately. Businesses focused on their bottom lines may figure it's best to minimize any controversy and move on as quickly as possible. But there are dangers in letting groundswells of outrage proceed unimpeded, or in going along with the pretense that a random online petition is a legitimate news story because a reporter decides to play it up.

It is probably too much to hope that the unsuccessful assault on "Trader José's" and "Trader Ming's" represents some kind of turning point. There will be further examples of "woke" intolerance, and more efforts to denounce bigotry where none exists. All the same, Trader Joe's and its customers have provided a welcome reminder that the cancel crowd can be resisted, and common sense can prevail in the face of ludicrous demands. Here's hoping that the power of that good example resonates widely, and that unwarranted charges of racism stop getting attention they don't deserve.

SOURCE 

N-word row ripping the BBC apart: Bitter battle rages between the old guard and the new 19 days after it was uttered

They are two men called David – but the contrast between them could hardly be more stark.

A BBC ‘lifer’ of more than 30 years, David Jordan is the Corporation’s chief trouble-shooter tasked with upholding its editorial standards and investigating when Auntie gets it wrong.

Meanwhile, Jamaican-born David Whitely – better known as Sideman – is the razor-sharp comedian and presenter who landed a BBC radio show on the back of his huge popularity as a social media ‘influencer’.

Their two very different worlds collided last week when Mr Whitely resigned from BBC 1Xtra in protest at the decision by Mr Jordan’s department to defend the use, in full, of the N-word in a news report.

As the BBC desperately struggles to woo a younger, more ethnically diverse audience, the episode has shone a light on a cultural and generational clash at the heart of the Corporation.

Insiders say Mr Jordan – who is paid £177,000 a year – is attempting to protect the independence of reporters and editors by not bowing to noisy campaign groups and Britain’s mounting ‘cancel culture’.

Others argue that the Corporation’s mainly white, middle-age managers remain impervious to change and are undermining their £100 million drive to produce ‘diverse and inclusive content’.

Last Sunday, BBC director-general Tony Hall overruled Mr Jordan and apologised for the use of the racist slur.

His intervention is understood to have been prompted by fears of further resignations by black and ethnic minority presenters. However, it has failed to end the row.

This weekend, a group of 100 black professional women said that Lord Hall’s apology – which came 12 days after the word was first broadcast – was ‘not enough’ and called for a 24-hour boycott of the BBC, starting at 9am on Wednesday.

Members of the InfluencHers campaign are also calling for the dismissal of Mr Jordan and the BBC’s director of news, Fran Unsworth, who is paid £340,000 a year. ‘The BBC’s gratuitous use of the N-word could constitute a race-hate crime,’ the group said.

BBC sources say that the Corporation remains gripped by confusion over whether or not there is now a blanket ban on the full use of the N-word.

Lord Hall accepted its use in a report about an attack on an NHS worker caused ‘distress’ and admitted the BBC ‘should have taken a different approach’.

Yet this newspaper has found eight examples of the word being used in full across five articles on the BBC News website. One, posted in 2016 about a BBC2 series called Black Is The New Black, used the word four times in just three paragraphs.

Another, posted in 2014 about a councillor using a racial slur live on BBC radio, contained the full N-word in its opening paragraph.

The latest controversy erupted after BBC social affairs correspondent Fiona Lamdin used the full N-word when reporting on a suspected race-hate attack against a musician known as K-Dogg.

The 21-year-old was left with a broken leg, nose and cheekbone after being hit by a car as he walked home from his job at Southmead Hospital in Bristol on July 22.

In her report – broadcast on local news programme BBC Points West on July 28 before being repeated on the BBC News Channel the next morning – Ms Lamdin said: ‘As the men ran away they hurled racial abuse, calling him a n*****.’

The BBC was soon under fire from viewers and the report was pulled.

SOURCE 

Australia: Queensland government backflips on plans to gag journalists reporting on corruption allegations against candidates in upcoming election

The Queensland government has backflipped on plans to prevent the publication of corruption allegations against candidates ahead of elections following a furious public backlash.

Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath introduced the amendments to parliament on Thursday, citing a report tabled by the Crime and Corruption Commission early in July.

Under the proposed changes, complaints about electoral candidates to the CCC would be kept under wraps until investigations became official, or three months had lapsed since the watchdog had been notified.

Breaching the law could land a person in jail for up to six months, or face thousands of dollars in fines.

The changes would have also allowed a candidate or the watchdog to seek an injunction to prevent further publication of allegations during the lead-up to elections.

However, in a brief statement on Friday the Queensland government dropped the proposal, citing time constraints.

'Given the limited time for the parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee to consider the law changes the CCC seeks... the bill introduced yesterday in state parliament is withdrawn,' Ms D'Ath said.

The backflip comes after criticism from unions and the Liberal National opposition, who accused the government of trying to silence whistleblowers before the October state election.

SOURCE  

Uber and Lyft Say They Will Likely Suspend Service in California Because of Suffocating Labor Order

Global rideshare giant Uber has said they will most likely have to suspend their service throughout California now that the state has ordered them to hire all of their drivers, rather than allow them to drive as independent contractors.

The order comes after the state has been engulfed in controversy following the enactment of Assembly Bill 5 in January, legislation that completely upended employment laws in California. The bill totally redefined the parameters of independent contract work, which specifically skewered the gig economy and freelance work.

Under AB5, gig workers such as rideshare drivers, delivery drivers, and other on-demand service workers for an industry that has surged in the past few years, contract work is limited severely. The law requires that the company hires the workers rather than allow them to work their own hours at their own pace, a restriction that completely undermines the business model for the gig economy.

Democratic lawmakers helmed by California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez introduced the bill to ostensibly help workers in the state receive state-mandated employer benefits that they would be eligible for if they were forced onto the staff.

In practice, however, AB5 has cost thousands of Californians work as freelancers and gig workers are no longer legally allowed to earn money unless they are a normal member of staff. Freelance writers, for example, must be taken on as full-time staff if they produce more than 35 pieces of writing per publication per year. In the digital age, that threshold has been crippling for writers who have depended on being able to contribute to multiple outlets simultaneously.

Both Presumed Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden and his VP pick Sen. Kamala Harris fully support AB5, despite the fact that even far-left Californians have spoken out against its stranglehold on earning potential in the state.

They also support the PRO Act, a federal measure that would apply the same job-killing laws to the entire nation. The Democratic-led House of Representatives passed the measure earlier this year. It is not expected to come up for a vote in the Republican-held Senate, but will likely resurface in another form should Democrats gain more control in Congress after November. 

The business model for Uber works for riders because of the low overhead made possible by the independent contracting relationship with the drivers. The corporation works for drivers who often contract with multiple companies and get to pick their own hours. As full-time employees of just one company with mandatory set schedules and costly benefits, the ride rates would be exorbitant and the employment freedom for the drivers would evaporate.

The fate of rideshare driving and business in the state has been held up in litigation for months as Uber, Lyft, and Postmates have taken California to court over the devastating impact of AB5 on their business. Now, out of options, Uber has said they will probably not be able to continue service in the nation's most populous state.

A San Francisco court ordered this week that Uber and Lyft would not be exempt from the restrictions of AB5 and would be required to classify their drivers as employees, not independent contractors, an order they had resisted until now.

A ballot measure for Californians in November, Proposition 22, would exempt app-based on-demand ride and delivery services from the draconian demands of AB5. That measure was largely funded by the companies to the tune of $30 million.

Lyft President John Zimmer encouraged voters to take the matter seriously when they head to the polls this fall.

"If our efforts here are not successful it would force us to suspend operations in California," Zimmer said. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi echoed Zimmer's sentiment.

"If the court doesn’t reconsider, then in California, it’s hard to believe we’ll be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly," Khosrowshahi told MSNBC. Both companies intend to appeal the court ruling, which has given them 10 days to do so. Should they fail, Uber and Lyft both stated they will be required to suspend service pending the results of the election and success of Prop. 22.

SOURCE 






Poland and the tyranny of human-rights law

Ignore the outrage – Poland has good reasons to leave the Istanbul Convention on Violence against Women.

Poland, the bad boy of Europe, recently got another big black mark. The trouble this time had to do with an institution you might be forgiven for not having heard of, the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention on Violence against Women. Under pressure, Poland ratified this convention in 2015. Now, however, following Andrzej Duda’s election victory a few weeks ago – with Duda having run on an unashamedly traditionalist and Catholic ticket – Poland has announced that it intends to give the required six months’ notice to pull out of it.

The outrage has been predictable. Women in Poland have been demonstrating clad in Handmaid’s Tale costumes. The Council of Europe and a number of MEPs have slated the decision as ‘alarming’ and ‘disgraceful’. Guy Verhofstadt, not to be outdone, has called the affair ‘scandalous’. He went on to tell us, didactically as ever, that ‘violence is not a traditional value. The EU and all of its members signed because Europe stands for human rights, equality and decency.’

This whole debacle is worth a closer look. One reason is that it is both novel and very significant for the future of Europe.The other is that Poland is right.

To see why, you have to look carefully at the convention text. True, its headline purpose is to require that any state party to it outlaw violence against women (including such matters as forced abortion and FGM), prosecute it effectively and provide remedies for the victims of it. But this hardly necessitates a treaty at all. All European states already do this anyway, Poland included. Whatever the Euro-establishment might try to insinuate, no one is looking to turn Poland into some kind of male supremacist, wife-beating theocratic dystopia.

What is making the Poles unhappy (and ought to give pause to any liberal administration) is the small print elsewhere in the convention. Take Article 12, for instance. Since 2015, this has required the Polish state to:

‘Take the necessary measures to promote changes in the social and cultural patterns of behaviour of women and men with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority of women or on stereotyped roles for women and men.’

Read that carefully again. What it amounts to is a demand for the state suppression of wrongthink: an insistence that whatever the electorate might think, the state must take administrative measures to eradicate its existing customs, traditions and practices in so far as they do not conform to an official left-liberal ideology.

And there is more. By Article 14, the Polish government stands committed to major intervention in education and the media. So at all levels from kindergarten to university, it must impose, whatever parents might want, ‘teaching material on issues such as equality between women and men, non-stereotyped gender roles, mutual respect, non-violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships [and] gender-based violence against women’. Nor does such compulsory ideological direction end with education: all these matters must also be promoted by the government in, among other places, the media. It is deliciously ironic that the same Euro-elite that increasingly castigates Poland for its restricted press freedom also demands that the country continue to be signed up to a treaty that not only allows but requires intervention in the media.

But by all accounts, the final straw was the Istanbul line on gender. The treaty requires far more than teaching children that gender roles are bad. More importantly, Article 3 states baldly, without room for argument, that gender means ‘the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men’. In other words, whatever opinions Poles might have on the gender debate, their government is committed in international law to dictating to them what the correct line is to take.

In view of all this, it is not all that surprising that Poland has made up its mind that it has had enough and wishes to cut and run. Whatever you may think of the values contained in this authoritarian instrument, surely the decision to adopt them must rest with the people of Poland, whose will must prevail over that of a cadre of international quangocrats who are largely insulated from public opinion.

But these developments in Poland may also have a bigger destabilising potential. Disquiet over the Istanbul convention are more widespread than might appear. Turkey, for example, is also mulling withdrawal for much the same reasons as Poland, and the Polish move must strengthen the hand of those promoting a Turkish exit.

Since the convention was signed in Istanbul and Turkey was an early ratifier (in 2012), the political fallout from such an event would be big. There could also be effects closer to home. The UK government is under severe pressure to ratify (indeed, an act of parliament quietly slipped through in 2017 requires annual reports on progress towards ratification). But those behind the pressure may well find their job a good deal harder once it becomes public knowledge that there is so much to dislike about the treaty they are pushing.

More generally, Poland’s announcement also threatens a major upset to the comfortable liberal balance in Europe on the subject of human rights. The Istanbul Convention, which looks like motherhood-and-apple-pie on the surface but underneath is actually rather sinister, is in no way unique. On the contrary: it is part of a suite of fairly similar agreements which have been ratified by all, or virtually all, European countries.

Similar in conception are the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR). Each of these also contains prescriptive clauses on matters of social policy which could well impinge on democratic decision-making (think corporal punishment against children, which the UNCRC might be read as banning, or the rewriting of school textbooks, which on one reading the CEDAW actually demands).

So far there has been an unspoken assumption that human-rights treaties of this type operate on a ratchet principle: countries can be heavily leant on to ratify convention after convention, and once they have ratified, it is not the done thing ever to withdraw, even if a treaty technically allows it. But Poland has now dared to do the unthinkable, and as Turkey shows, where it has gone others may well follow.

There is also one other thing to put in the balance. As far as European countries are concerned, the apex of the entire human-rights consensus is formed by the European Convention on Human Rights itself. But this, too, has serious shortcomings which people are increasingly willing to publicise. And this too, it is all too easy to forget, has a provision for withdrawal (all a country has to do is give six months’ notice). No wonder, perhaps, that the international liberal human-rights establishment is suddenly beginning to look uncomfortably over its shoulder, in case the whole edifice it has painstakingly built up since 1950 starts to come crashing down about its ears.

SOURCE 






Why Blockading Would Have Been Better than Bombing Japan

On the 75th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs—“Little Boy” and “Fat Man”—on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, a debate still rages about whether the United States should have used the weapons. That’s because the 129,000 to 226,000 dead were overwhelmingly civilians.

International law clearly denotes the disproportionate killing of civilians as a war crime. Yet, the winners of war write history, so American school history books usually either blandly report the bombings or put them in the broader context of battling the evil Japanese Empire, along with its Nazi German and Italian fascist allies, in the most gargantuan clash of good and evil in human history—the great World War II.

And while it is true that by their aggression and their own war crimes, the Japanese, Germans, and Italians killed millions more noncombatants than the United States and its Western allies, some troubling questions linger about the allied use of the intentional bombing of cities. From even a morally superior position in a democracy on the winning side, we can (and should) critique our own government’s actions without being attacked as “unpatriotic.”

After all, defending debate and dissent in a free society, against the forces of genuine evil, is what we were fighting for in this war. And we should have had higher standards than those evil enemies, right?

Although the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were historically significant because they ushered in the nuclear age, which eventually brought forth the much more powerful thermonuclear H-bombs and a balance of nuclear terror, these first atomic weapons made the targeting of enemy cities more efficient. Instead of incinerating civilians with bombing runs of hundreds of planes—as was done in the firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and other Axis cities—the same mass destruction could be had with only two aircraft, one each over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In both Germany and Japan, such mass killing of civilians were done in 1945 as both enemies were on their last legs. War crimes are more often committed when combatants are exhausted and frustrated with the length or intensity of a conflict or the tenacity of enemy resistance.

In the Pacific theater of World War II, the Japanese resistance was fierce, the dropping of the atomic bombs was justified on the basis that an invasion of Japan’s home islands would have cost an estimated one million allied casualties.

When I was in junior high school in the early 1970s, I came home from school and told my father we had debated whether the bombs should have been dropped. He quickly confounded me with the argument that I might not have been in the world if the bombs hadn’t been dropped, because he was slated to be part of the U.S. forces that would have invaded Japan if the Japanese hadn’t surrendered.

As I grew older, I realized that there were several problems with this argument. First, did the atomic bombings of August 6 and 9 in 1945 trigger the Japanese surrender on August 15? Some analysts believe that the triggering event was actually the Soviet Union’s entrance into the war on August 9. Second, although Japanese resistance had been fierce, were the huge casualty estimates for an invasion plausible? In fact, the estimates were extremely soft. More troubling was the willingness to kill civilians to reduce combatant casualties based on those hazy estimates.

Third, the allies at the Potsdam Conference on July 26th, before the bombs were dropped, demanded “unconditional surrender” from Japan or that nation would face “prompt and utter destruction.” To Japan, this meant giving up their sacred emperor, which they would not do; they ignored the ultimatum. In most wars, a settlement with conditions are negotiated between the winners and losers. Unconditional surrender usually makes the enemy–fearing subjugation and humiliation–fight harder. In this case, the United States did not make unconditional surrender stick, because the Japanese eventually got to keep their emperor, even after the atomic bombings. Finally, and most important, dropping the A-bombs were not the only alternative to an all-out invasion of Japan.

Japan is an island, and by August 1945, the U.S. Navy had overwhelmingly crushed its Japanese counterpart. The U.S. Navy could have imposed a tight blockade around Japan’s home islands, allowed a minimum of food, medicine, etc. in for humanitarian purposes, and simply waited for Japan to capitulate. This option would have saved hundreds of thousands of civilian lives and allowed the United States to have avoided stooping to the low regard for civilian life that its enemies exhibited on so many occasions.

However, a naval blockade of Japan would not have fulfilled perhaps the real purpose of the atomic bombs: demonstrating the power of the new weapon to a then ally and likely future enemy—the Soviet Union. President Harry Truman delayed testing of the atomic bomb until the Potsdam Conference with Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, and comments were made at the conference that Truman wore the bomb ostentatiously on his hip to intimidate Stalin. However, it was morally questionable to drop powerful bombs on Japanese civilians, killing hundreds of thousands, merely to impress a possible future enemy with U.S. technology and power.

Ironically, Stalin already knew the power of the bomb because his spies had thoroughly penetrated the Manhattan Project. In short, a slightly porous U.S. naval blockade of Japan would have been far superior to the atomic mass killing of civilians, which has remained a stain on the otherwise defensible allied defeat of the Axis powers; the only use of atomic weapons heretofore in history is still used in propaganda by U.S. nuclear adversaries and wannabes, such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Iran.

SOURCE 






National Democrats Endorsed Congressional Candidate Who Referred to Women as 'Breeders'

A most unpleasant person

A Democratic congressional candidate in a nationally-watched race is facing scrutiny for a host of now-deleted blog posts in which he voiced creepy sexual fantasies about children and degrading comments toward women. A current state legislator in Michigan, Jon Hoadley earned the Democratic party’s nomination in Michigan’s 6th congressional district, and will take on GOP Rep. Fred Upton in November.

Hoadley’s now-deleted blog, “Rambling Politics,” featured posts where he bragged about “learning about crystal meth,” described various sexual partners as “victims,” and made reference to four-year-old children wearing thongs. Hoadley, an openly-gay man, went on to deem women as “breeders,” referring to reproductive ability.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) threw their support behind Hoadley leading up to the primary election. A handful of other national Democrats also endorsed Hoadley’s bid, including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Gary Peters (D-MI), and Reps. Pramila Jayapa (D-WA) and Haley Stevens (D-MI).

Since the deleted blog posts surfaced, national Democrats including the DCCC have yet to comment on Hoadley’s gross behavior. In a statement to New York Post, Hoadley’s campaign likened the posts to “bad college poetry.” Hoadley’s primary opponent did not offer her endorsement after he clinched the nomination, citing his misogyny, use of meth and sexual exploitation of children.

If Hoadley was a Republican seeking a seat in Congress, the GOP would be rightfully forced to denounce this creepy behavior.

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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 
`
************************************

Kamala Harris’ Deep History Of Letting Facebook Off The Hook

Vice president candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has gone easy on Facebook and tech giants for years, and in her 2020 presidential bid she was rewarded with many maxed-out contributions from Silicon Valley executives.

Senator Kamala Harris was heralded as a possible president from the day she arrived in Washington. The pundits and consultants of the Democratic establishment loved her youth, clear intelligence, and charisma. She was a prosecutor, and she wanted you to know it.

HuffPost’s Zach Carter revealed on Friday that Harris had a close relationship with Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Cheryl Sandberg as California attorney general. Harris participated in the marketing campaign for Sandberg’s paen to capitalistic feminism Lean In, even though at the time Harris was California’s law enforcement official most principally responsible for overseeing Facebook.

When Harris cracked down on revenge porn—an extremely admirable signature issue—she focused her legal cases on publishers of this painful material, but never the platforms without which it cannot spread. This meant that Facebook and other big platforms never faced consequences, or even any incentives to take the issue seriously. When the platforms’ role became simply too clear to ignore any longer, according to Carter, Harris held one meeting with company representatives at her office, then appeared next to Sandberg at a Facebook-sponsored lecture six days later.

SOURCE 





13 August, 2020

Australia: Public mural sparks Shire censorship debate



It would certainly make me ill if I had to walk past it every day

It is the public mural that has divided opinion in Sydney's Sutherland Shire provoking two petitions, a social media debate and even a critique from the local mayor.

Critics have launched a campaign to remove the large mural, which is painted on a wall outside a retail shop in Miranda, claiming it is inappropriate and offensive. But the owner of the building says the mural was commissioned to prevent just that kind of content, and had succeeded in deterring graffiti and vandalism.

Painted outside Ferrari Formalwear, on the corner of an intersection near Miranda train station and Westfield shopping centre, the mural depicts three figures in different poses, including one smoking and another holding a glass.

Shire resident Yvette Graf has been campaigning to have the artwork removed for almost a year. Her cause gained renewed traction at the end of July when another resident posted a photo of the mural to the Sutherland Shire Council's Facebook page and started an online petition, which in turn sparked debate and a counter-petition.

Ms Graf said the mural was inappropriate because it normalised drunkenness and promoted "degrading imagery of women".

"My gut instinct is it's not respectful to stereotype women with dog collars. The three women have either bloodshot eyes or dilated pupils, indicating they've been drinking or taking drugs. We don't need that as role-models for our children," Ms Graf said. "I'd like to see an image celebrating the Dharawal people - something that makes you inspired and makes you feel good."

By Tuesday afternoon, the petition to remove the mural had 452 signatures and the counter-petition in support of it had 585 signatures. The original Facebook post attracted nearly 500 comments.

The counter-petition claims the artwork adds "both culture and flavour to our streets" and should be protected to ensure "freedom of expression and or free speech".

Sutherland Shire Council mayor Carmelo Pesce said he understood both supporters and detractors of the mural.

"It's probably not the best piece of art you could put up, but people interpret art differently," Cr Pesce said. "I've had a couple of the older councillors think it promotes abuse. I don't see that. I interpret three women who have gone out and had a big night."

Cr Pesce said he wished the building owner had consulted the community before commissioning the mural but council was ultimately powerless to censor artwork on private property.

"If that art there was in Newtown would we be having this discussion? Look at the demographics of who's complaining. The youth aren't really complaining," Cr Pesce said.

The building owner, who also asked to remain anonymous due to the heated nature of the debate, said the mural was a "special commission" that had succeeded in deterring graffiti.

SOURCE  

Facebook bans news outlets which are 'connected to political entities' from its News tab and forces them to undergo 'authorization process' to publish ads about social issues or the election

This could be OK if enforced impartially.  I am betting that it will not be

Facebook is banning US news outlets, with ‘direct meaningful ties’ to political groups, from claiming news exemption when advertising.

These publishers are now required to undergo an authorization process and have a 'Paid for by' disclaimer when running ads about social issues, elections or politics.

Such organizations retain the privilege to register as a news organization and advertising, but will no longer be listed in Facebook’s News tab.

The move is to, according to the firm, ensure these outlets are held to the same standard as political groups.

‘As we head into election season in the U.S., we recognize that there are a growing number of news publications that are connected with different types of political entities, including political parties, PACs, politicians, and other organizations that can primarily engage in the influence of public policy or election,’ Facebook shared in the announcement.

The policy also eliminates these outlets’ access to news messaging on Facebook’s Messenger Business Platform and the WhatsApp business API.

Since the 2016 presidential election, more than 1,200 instances in which political groups masqueraded as a news site to push their views on Americans who believed it was straight news, according to AXIOS which first broke the news on the policy.

Now, without the ability to claim ‘news exemption’ these politically affiliated organizations will be labeled as such – allowing the public to see they are ingesting content paid for by a third-party.

Facebook notes identifying politically connected publishers is a new process for the firm, but has laid out what it feels meets the criteria. This includes being owned by a political group or individual, along with a political person who sits in an executive position at a company and state-controlled media.

However, news publishers can be completely banned from advertising if they repeatedly share misinformation.

Facebook follows after Twitter banned all political advertising earlier this year.

The Jack Dorsey owned firm recently added labels marking the tweets and accounts of 'state-backed media' as well as official government entities, in a move it says will 'increase transparency and accountability.'

The new steps to prevent the spread of content from state-affiliated media used to advance a government's political agenda -- a move affecting key outlets from Russia and China.

Official government accounts, such as the White House, and key government officials tasked with communicating foreign policy abroad will also receive the labels.

SOURCE 

Australia: Public mural sparks Shire censorship debate



It would certainly make me ill if I had to walk past it every day

It is the public mural that has divided opinion in Sydney's Sutherland Shire provoking two petitions, a social media debate and even a critique from the local mayor.

Critics have launched a campaign to remove the large mural, which is painted on a wall outside a retail shop in Miranda, claiming it is inappropriate and offensive. But the owner of the building says the mural was commissioned to prevent just that kind of content, and had succeeded in deterring graffiti and vandalism.

Painted outside Ferrari Formalwear, on the corner of an intersection near Miranda train station and Westfield shopping centre, the mural depicts three figures in different poses, including one smoking and another holding a glass.

Shire resident Yvette Graf has been campaigning to have the artwork removed for almost a year. Her cause gained renewed traction at the end of July when another resident posted a photo of the mural to the Sutherland Shire Council's Facebook page and started an online petition, which in turn sparked debate and a counter-petition.

Ms Graf said the mural was inappropriate because it normalised drunkenness and promoted "degrading imagery of women".

"My gut instinct is it's not respectful to stereotype women with dog collars. The three women have either bloodshot eyes or dilated pupils, indicating they've been drinking or taking drugs. We don't need that as role-models for our children," Ms Graf said. "I'd like to see an image celebrating the Dharawal people - something that makes you inspired and makes you feel good."

By Tuesday afternoon, the petition to remove the mural had 452 signatures and the counter-petition in support of it had 585 signatures. The original Facebook post attracted nearly 500 comments.

The counter-petition claims the artwork adds "both culture and flavour to our streets" and should be protected to ensure "freedom of expression and or free speech".

Sutherland Shire Council mayor Carmelo Pesce said he understood both supporters and detractors of the mural.

"It's probably not the best piece of art you could put up, but people interpret art differently," Cr Pesce said. "I've had a couple of the older councillors think it promotes abuse. I don't see that. I interpret three women who have gone out and had a big night."

Cr Pesce said he wished the building owner had consulted the community before commissioning the mural but council was ultimately powerless to censor artwork on private property.

"If that art there was in Newtown would we be having this discussion? Look at the demographics of who's complaining. The youth aren't really complaining," Cr Pesce said.

The building owner, who also asked to remain anonymous due to the heated nature of the debate, said the mural was a "special commission" that had succeeded in deterring graffiti.

SOURCE  

‘Philadelphia Statement’ Defends Free Speech From Cancel Culture

Asserting that cancel culture has put freedom of expression in crisis, a statement initially signed by 45 prominent individuals from universities, think tanks, and other organizations asserts that expressing “ideas we find offensive is not an act of ‘violence.’”

Called the Philadelphia Statement, the 845-word document says in part:

If we seek to change our country’s trajectory; if we desire unity rather than division; if we want a political life that is productive and inspiring; if we aspire to be a society that is pluralistic and free, one in which we can forge our own paths and live according to our own consciences, then we must renounce ideological blacklisting and recommit ourselves to steadfastly defending freedom of speech and passionately promoting robust civil discourse.

The statement’s top signatories include Alan Sears, former president of Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid group, and Adam J. White, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. 

Organizers are inviting Americans to sign the document.

They named the statement after Philadelphia, where men of strongly differing viewpoints came together in 1776 to declare America’s independence from England.

The Philadelphia Statement underlines the freedom of Americans to openly disagree while respecting the viewpoints of others:

Our liberty and our happiness depend upon the maintenance of a public culture in which freedom and civility coexist—where people can disagree robustly, even fiercely, yet treat each other as human beings—and, indeed, as fellow citizens—not mortal enemies.

The Philadelphia Statement comes less than three weeks after a Cato Institute/YouGov poll found that 62% of Americans say they fear expressing their political opinions in the current political climate, up from 58% in 2017.

The same poll found that about one-third of liberals, moderates, and conservatives say that publicly stating their political views could get them fired or harm their career.

A poll by Politico also found that a plurality of Americans say that cancel culture goes too far.

Although the press, houses of worship, and academia are areas where the First Amendment traditionally has been expected to thrive, high-profile cases recently have surfaced of retaliation against a college professor, college students, and a church for expressing dissenting views. Opposition to other points of view also has arisen in newsrooms.

“As Americans, we desire a flourishing, open marketplace of ideas, knowing that it is the fairest and most effective way to separate falsehood from truth,” the Philadelphia Statement says. “Accordingly, dissenting and unpopular voices—be they of the Left or the Right—must be afforded the opportunity to be heard.”                        

Among the other signers is the Rev. Dean Nelson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation. Douglass, a former slave-turned-abolitionist who became a civil rights leader after the Civil War, is twice quoted in the statement.

Douglass once observed: “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.” He also said that freedom of speech is the “great moral renovator of society and government.”

Signers of the statement from academica include Robert P. George, the McCormick professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University; Carol M. Swain, retired professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University; Pete Peterson, a senior fellow at the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine University; Peter Boghossian, assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University; and Melissa Moschella, assistant professor of philosophy at Catholic University of America, who also is a visiting scholar at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin J. Feulner Institute.

Signers from the public policy arena include Michael P. Farris, president of Alliance Defending Freedom; Michael B. Poliakoff, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni; Mike Gonzalez, a former journalist with The Wall Street Journal who is a senior fellow for foreign policy at The Heritage Foundation; Lisa B. Nelson, CEO of the American Legislative Exchange Council; Roger Ream, president of the Fund for American Studies; Thomas F. Farr, president of the Religious Freedom Institute; and Victor Riches, president of the Goldwater Institute.

The Philadelphia Statement affirms that signatories don’t support absolutist free speech that includes defamation, threats, and inciting violence.

It also warns advocates of cancel culture that such a system will not always be on their side:

What self-appointed speech arbiters, whether in the majority or in the minority, fail to grasp is that they will likely eventually become the targets. The winds inevitably shift, sometimes rapidly. The question is whether civility norms and free speech safeguards will remain in place to protect them, or whether they will become victims of the dangerous precedents they themselves have established and advanced.

SOURCE 

The children's author CANCELLED by her publisher after backing J.K. Rowling

By GILLIAN PHILIP

The first sign of trouble was the unusually high number of new Twitter notifications that had pinged overnight on my mobile phone.

As a successful author with an established social media profile, I’m used to a steady stream of messages, but this ran to hundreds. And the tone of them was different – horribly so.

Instead of chat from book-lovers, there was an onslaught of abusive tweets – anonymous, of course – that contained among them threats of death and sexual violence.

In case that was too subtle, several contributors decorated their messages with images of guns. ‘I’m going to punch u in the throat’ declared one of those that are printable.

It was far from a pleasant start to my day but, if I’m honest, I had been expecting at least some negative reaction.

The reason? I had dared to offer support on Twitter for J.K. Rowling’s stand against allowing transgender people to self-identify as male or female.

What did surprise – and devastate – me was the cataclysmic fallout over the next 24 hours of posting the simple hashtag ‘#IStandWithJKRowling’. I couldn’t have dared to imagine the damage that it was possible for a faceless mob of trolls to inflict.

But much more of a shock was the spineless way that my publishers capitulated in the face of this foam-flecked online protest.

They summarily sacked me and, in doing so, destroyed my livelihood without making any attempt to hear my side of the story.

I’m not remotely transphobic, but the idea that a man can simply declare himself to be a woman, fully intact, without surgery or hormones, and be allowed into women’s prisons or hospital wards is a crazy situation that I sometimes want to shout about.

SOURCE 

White House Weighs Bill in Response to Big Tech on Free Speech

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows says the Trump administration is contemplating some type of regulation for social media companies as part of the COVID-19 relief legislation being negotiated with Congress.

“As much as I’m a guy that says that the social media companies should be able to have their own—what I would call a wild, wild West way of doing things … I’m over it,” Meadows said Friday in a livestream interview with American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp.

“This censorship has gotten to the point where if they are going to censor, then I’m going to make sure they are regulated,” Meadows said, reflecting President Donald Trump’s thinking.

During the week, Twitter removed a post by Trump that correctly stated children are less likely to get COVID-19 than adults. In May, Twitter issued a questionable “fact check” on one of Trump’s tweets on problems with mail-in voting.

In addition to Trump, there have been other cases of technology companies’ censorship of conservatives, including YouTube’s blocking of The Heritage Foundation and Prager University.

Trump issued an executive order in April that lifted some of the protection the social media platforms enjoyed under the Communications Decency Act. However, an executive order lacks the power of legislation.

Meadows, who represented North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District from 2013 until becoming Trump’s chief of staff last March, wasn’t clear on the specifics of what any proposed legislation might involve. 

SOURCE 

Election Interference: Google Purges Breitbart from Search Results

A few days after the 2016 election, at an internal meeting later leaked to Breitbart News, top Google executives, including Sundar Pichai, Sergey Brin, and Kent Walker, lamented President Trump’s victory, comparing Trump voters to “extremists” and discussing their desire to make Trump’s election and the populist movement a “blip” in history.

True to their word, four years later, Google is deliberately working to interfere with the reelection of Trump in 2020.

There are several ways in which Google is interfering in the 2020 election, but this article will focus primarily on one of them: political search bias.

Google Has Been Purging Breitbart Content from Search Results Since the 2016 Election

Search visibility is a key industry measure of how findable a publisher’s content is in Google search. New data shows that Google has suppressed Breitbart’s search visibility by 99.7 percent since 2016.

On April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top ten search positions (i.e., on the first page of Google search results) for 355 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top ten search positions for only one search term. And, on April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top 100 search positions for 16,820 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top 100 search positions for only 55 search terms.

Moreover, organic Google search traffic to Breitbart (measured by unique visitors) is down 63 percent when comparing the first half of 2016 with the first half of 2020.

The following chart shows the visibility of Breitbart content in the Google search engine since 2011. It shows that Google has nearly eliminated Breitbart content from its search results.

SOURCE 

Idaho teacher loses job after ‘racist, sexist’ comment about Boise mayor

A US music teacher is out of work after posting a sexual comment about the local mayor on social media.

Rita Soltesz, who was employed at Idaho Fine Arts Academy and Eagle Middle School, came under fire after parents and school officials spotted her July 18 Facebook post.

It referenced Mayor Lauren McLean’s recent criticism of white supremacists who attended a Black Lives Matter protest in the state capital Boise and attacked some attendees.

“Her white supremacist hater a** needs to get laid! … by BLM members,” Ms Soltesz’s post read. “Should be a group activity … and make it go viral! … I’m still deciding if they should wear masks during the activity,” Ms Soltesz wrote.

Her comments were in response to an article about the incident and a petition to recall the mayor over her comments.

Shocked social media users took screenshots of the post which were then shared on the school’s public Facebook page.

West Ada district spokesman Eric Exline said in a statement that Ms Soltesz was no longer employed at the school following a special meeting of the Board of Trustees on July 24.

SOURCE 

Incorrect sleep

It gets more ludicrous with every passing day – and more sinister. Take the case of Professor Patricia Simon, from Marymount Manhattan College in New York, who made the mistake of failing to be sufficiently enthusiastic in the course of a Zoom meeting.

Accused of daring to nod off during discussion of an 'anti-racist framework' – a social-media picture seemed to support the claim that she fell asleep – Prof Simon faced nearly 2,000 demands that her contract of employment be terminated and she lose her livelihood.

'I was not asleep as is implied at any point during the meeting,' she said in her defence. 'The photo was taken without permission when I was looking down or briefly resting my Zoom-weary eyes. I listened with my ears and heard the entire meeting.'

It's a response worthy of 1960s China and the grovelling apologies forced upon the victims of Mao's Cultural Revolution. But that would be appropriate, because a cultural revolution is exactly what is taking place in today's America, where the woke mob has surrounded the citadels of democracy – newspapers, magazines, television stations and, of course, universities.

Dissenters live in fear. Serious debate is all but silenced.

A recent survey published by the respected Cato Institute reveals that 62 per cent of Americans say today's political climate prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find their views offensive.

SOURCE 

NASA to Reexamine Nicknames for Cosmic Objects

Distant cosmic objects such as planets, galaxies, and nebulae are sometimes referred to by the scientific community with unofficial nicknames. As the scientific community works to identify and address systemic discrimination and inequality in all aspects of the field, it has become clear that certain cosmic nicknames are not only insensitive, but can be actively harmful. NASA is examining its use of unofficial terminology for cosmic objects as part of its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

As an initial step, NASA will no longer refer to planetary nebula NGC 2392, the glowing remains of a Sun-like star that is blowing off its outer layers at the end of its life, as the “Eskimo Nebula.” “Eskimo” is widely viewed as a colonial term with a racist history, imposed on the indigenous people of Arctic regions. Most official documents have moved away from its use. NASA will also no longer use the term “Siamese Twins Galaxy” to refer to NGC 4567 and NGC 4568, a pair of spiral galaxies found in the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. Moving forward, NASA will use only the official, International Astronomical Union designations in cases where nicknames are inappropriate.

“I support our ongoing reevaluation of the names by which we refer to astronomical objects,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate at Headquarters, Washington. “Our goal is that all names are aligned with our values of diversity and inclusion, and we’ll proactively work with the scientific community to help ensure that. Science is for everyone, and every facet of our work needs to reflect that value.”

Nicknames are often more approachable and public-friendly than official names for cosmic objects, such as Barnard 33, whose nickname "the Horsehead Nebula" invokes its appearance. But often seemingly innocuous nicknames can be harmful and detract from the science.

The Agency will be working with diversity, inclusion, and equity experts in the astronomical and physical sciences to provide guidance and recommendations for other nicknames and terms for review.

"These nicknames and terms may have historical or culture connotations that are objectionable or unwelcoming, and NASA is strongly committed to addressing them," said Stephen T. Shih, Associate Administrator for Diversity and Equal Opportunity at NASA Headquarters. "Science depends on diverse contributions, and benefits everyone, so this means we must make it inclusive.”

SOURCE 

Facebook bans pro-Trump super PAC from advertising on its platform

Blatant political censorship

Facebook announced Thursday that it will ban pro-Trump super PAC, The Committee to Defend The President, from buying ads on its platform.

“As a result of the Committee to Defend the President’s repeated sharing of content determined by third-party fact-checkers to be false, they will not be permitted to advertise for a period of time on our platform,” Facebook Policy communications director Andy Stone told FOX Business in a statement.

The page will lose advertising privileges for a minimum of 90 days. The advertising ban will take effect on August 10, and would end around November 1.

Committee chairman Ted Harvey told FOX Business in a statement that Facebook is "determined to restrict free speech and attack those who dare to support President Trump."

The move comes a day after the platform removed a video of President Trump which it said "includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19 which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation."

In the removed video, the president told Fox & Friends that schools should remain open.

"My view is that schools should be open," Trump said. “If you look at children, children are almost — and I would almost say definitely — but almost immune from this disease.”

SOURCE 

Black Alabama high school cheerleader quits squad after white members pose with 'racist' Confederate flag T-shirt that says 'I love Redneck Boys'

Not allowed to like people similar to yourselves

A group of Alabama cheerleaders have come under fire for posing with a T-shirt bearing the image of the Confederate flag that said 'I love Redneck Boys'.

The white members of the squad were slammed by Reagan Coleman, a black cheerleader on the team who has since quit.

The controversial photo shows six white girls, four of whom are Daphne High School cheerleaders.

It was posted on July 4 and was met with outrage over the symbol, which is associated with racism and oppression. 'I immediately see hate,' Reagan said to WKRG.

The photo was posted by one of the cheerleaders on Instagram but it was immediately taken down following backlash in the comments section.

Latitah said she spoke with school officials about the photo – but claims there has been no punishment for the photo.

Two weeks later everyone showed up for the first day of cheerleading practice as if nothing happened, prompting Reagan to quit the team.

A petition demanded the girls be removed from the team has racked up over 1,500 signatures as of Wednesday afternoon.

SOURCE 

Google CEO Dodges Question On Blacklisting Of Conservative Websites

Google CEO Sundar Pichai brushed off questions Wednesday before the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust related to the tech giant’s apparent blacklisting of conservative groups last week when about a dozen major websites were temporarily de-platformed.

“I will have to look into it,” Pichai said in response to a question from Republican Congressman Gregory Steube over the episode, going on to claim there are “more conservative voices than ever before” on the platform.

“Can I expect a response from you, say in the next two weeks, as to why that occurred?” Steube pushed.

“Congressman, we’ll do our best to follow up and I’ll engage with your office,” Pichai said.

The websites targeted in last week’s blacklisting, according to NewsBusters which itself was temporarily de-platformed last week, included the Washington Free Beacon, The Blaze, Townhall, The Daily Wire, PragerU, LifeNews, Project Veritas, Judicial Watch, The Resurgent, Breitbart, the Media Research Center, and CNSNews among others.

Chuck Ross, a journalist with the Daily Caller News Foundation, observed that his employer’s website was also included in the blackout when searches for stories related to Stefan Halper, an FBI informant who spied on the Trump campaign in Crossfire Hurricane was unmasked by his reporting came up blank.

NewsBusters reported that the websites impacted by the Google blackout were still organically available on Bing, Yahoo, and DuckDuckGo.

In a statement to The Federalist last week, Google claimed the recent blacklisting of conservative websites were a simple technical error, and not a deliberate attempt to censor certain content or sites. It is not possible to independently confirm whether Google’s offered explanation is accurate.

SOURCE 

COVID-19 kills Australia's sense of humour: Lottery ad is pulled for 'mocking social distancing guidelines' after complaints were made to watchdog

A lottery advert has been pulled from TV after a complaint made to the industry watchdog said it mocked social distancing guidelines.

The advertisement for a $25million jackpot first aired in November 2019 and showed a man exiting a bathroom stall after winning the lotto before he hugs a stranger without washing his hands.

A new version of the advert aired between July 5 and 7 and featured a re-done voiceover that said: 'There's Frank. Little does he know he's about to be hugged by a stranger in the toilet.

'There he is, enter stranger. He's won Oz Lotto. Forget the elbow taps, he's gone all in. Oz Lotto. Tuesday.'

A complaint made to Ad Standards said the advert mocked social distancing and hygiene regulations.

The watchdog found it to be in breach of the AANA's Code of Ethics which forced Lotterywest to pull it down.

SOURCE 

Is this a joke?

Wormageddon! Scientist provokes ire of Twitter users and is accused of sexism, racism and privilege after saying roundworms are 'overhyped'

The editor of science journal eLife has enraged fellow scientists on Twitter by saying that the roundworm was 'overhyped'.

In a debate designed to spark friendly banter, podcast host Ellen Weatherford tweeted on July 18 to her 3,500 followers from @JustTheZooOfUs: 'What is the most overhyped animal?'

Michael Eisen, the editor of eLife and an expert in fruit flies, replied a day later that the roundworm was, in his opinion, overhyped.

'They wiggle forward. They wiggle backwards. And occasionally they f*** themselves. That's it,' he tweeted.

Social media then erupted with outrage at his slight of the roundworms, with the criticism escalating into accusations of racism, sexism and white privilege.

SOURCE 

Facebook Bans Rabbi for ‘Misinformation’ in Coronavirus-Themed Torah Message

Chabad is very religious

Last month, Uriel Vigler, the rabbi at Chabad Israel Center of the Upper East Side in Manhattan, posted a video on Facebook entitled, “The cure for COVID-19 is to be found in this week’s Torah portion.” In the video, he argues that the ultimate cure for all diseases, including the coronavirus pandemic, is the unconditional love that will usher in G-d’s messiah. Facebook suspended Vigler’s account for 24 hours, claiming he had violated the company’s Community Standards.

Facebook and other social media platforms have cracked down on what they claim to be coronavirus misinformation, arguing that misinformation about the pandemic is dangerous. Yet Rabbi Vigler was not arguing against taking social distancing precautions or suggesting a miracle-cure drug — he was making a theological and spiritual point.

“The ultimate cure for COVID-19 and all ailments and all diseases is for the Temple to be rebuilt and the coming of Messiah,” Vigler told PJ Media, explaining the point of his video. “When this happens all diseases will be cured and there will be world peace. How do we make this happen? By loving one another — unconditional love.”

“This is not misinformation at all — it’s one of the basic beliefs of our holy Torah — and so Facebook was absolutely wrong to ban me even for a minute,” Vigler insisted.

After Vigler posted the video to the synagogue’s Facebook page, Facebook removed it, giving this message: “Your post goes against our Community Standards.”

After 24 hours, Facebook lifted the restrictions, warning him “not to do anything like this again” for a full week.

SOURCE 

Australia: Indigenous activist who forced Coon cheese from the shelves now wants Pauls to scrap 'Smarter White' milk brand - because it's offensive to Aborigines



An indigenous rights activist who succeeded in having the Coon cheese brand scrapped will now campaign for Pauls to rename its 'Smarter White' milk.

In July, Dr Stephen Hagan convinced Canadian dairy giant Saputo to axe an 85-year-old moniker, named after American cheese ripening pioneer Edward William Coon, because of its racist connotations.

The former diplomat and academic, who now works as a social justice consultant, has now called on Pauls's French parent company Lactalis to replace the 'Smarter White' label, which has been used to sell low-fat milk since 2002.

'Aboriginal people are saying that there's an inference that it's for smart, white people, not for smart, black people,' Dr Hagan told Daily Mail Australia.

'There's a lot of Aboriginal people who take offence, who don't drink that milk because of the interference that it's 'smarter white'.'

Dr Hagan said 'these enlightened times' of the Black Lives Matter movement meant a name change was 'worthy of consideration'.

The soy milk drinker said lots of Aboriginal people had raised the matter with him. 'I recall having conversations with people who don't buy that because of the connotation 'white people are smart',' he said.

Indigenous Alice Springs town councillor Jacinta Price described the call to rename Smarter White milk as 'utter nonsense'.

'I don't know a single Indigenous Australian who is offended at all by milk being called 'Smarter White',' she told Daily Mail Australia.

'Indigenous Australian have far greater issues to be concerned with than the name of a brand of cheese named after its founder or what's written on a carton of milk.'

Ms Price, who ran as a Country Liberal Party candidate at last year's federal election, said affluent activists 'whose lives are easy' were inventing issues to feel like victims instead of addressing family violence and sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities.

SOURCE  

UK: Academic freedom under threat as pro-Brexit professors face discrimination

Pro-Brexit and right-wing professors face discrimination and are self censoring, a think tank has warned, amid fears that academic freedom is under threat.

The Policy Exchange think tank has released a report claiming that higher education institutions and the Government must do much more to ensure that all lawful speech is protected on university campuses across the country.

The paper, entitled Academic freedom in the UK, suggests there is a "structural discriminatory effect" against the minority of academics at British universities who identify as being on the right.

Researchers warned that: "Hostile or just uncomfortable attitudes signal to those subject to such discrimination that they should conceal their views and narrow their research questions to conform to prevailing norms, if they wish to progress and enjoy a positive workplace experience," it warns.

SOURCE 

Silenced Frontline Doctors Hold another Capitol Hill Press Conference to Challenge Big Tech

The Frontline Doctors that were Deleted by Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are back to respond their being silenced. Be sure to stay till the end to see the full show

Australia: UNSW under fire for deleting social media posts critical of China over Hong Kong

The University of New South Wales is facing criticism over the deletion of social media posts seen to be critical of Beijing, after an online backlash and coverage by Chinese state media.

The official UNSW account on Friday tweeted an article that quoted Human Rights Watch's Australia director and adjunct law lecturer Elaine Pearson as saying: "Now is a pivotal moment to bring attention to the rapidly deteriorating situation in Hong Kong".

Several hours later, a further tweet was posted by UNSW reading: "The opinions expressed by our academics do not always represent the views of UNSW."

"We have a long & valued relationship with Greater China going back 60 years. "UNSW provides a welcome & inclusive environment & is proud to welcome students from over 100 countries."

Both tweets were later deleted.

The article posted to the UNSW Law website, entitled China needs international pressure to end Hong Kong wrongs, extensively quoted Ms Pearson.

Ms Pearson told the ABC the article was removed from the UNSW website on Saturday, but is now able to be accessed.

Chinese students reportedly wrote to the Chinese embassy calling for it to pressure the university into deleting the article and associated posts.

Ms Pearson said she was seeking clarification from UNSW about what happened.

"I did not write the article … I have my views on recent developments in Hong Kong and what the international community should do," Ms Pearson said.

"Clearly that hit a nerve for some pro-Chinese Communist Party supporters who aggressively and collectively pressured the university to remove the story."

University of Sydney sociologist Salvatore Babones has estimated that UNSW derives 22 per cent of revenue from Chinese international students' course fees.

SOURCE  

It takes little to provoke the woke mob leading America's cultural revolution

You might never have come across Bon Appetit, a glossy monthly magazine which serves up a cosy mix of gourmet recipes, wine reviews and lifestyle tips to its 1.5 million readers.

It is hard to imagine a less controversial publication, or one that's more quintessentially American with its aspirational blend of self-improvement and conspicuous consumption – and it has been attracting record digital subscriptions thanks to lockdown tips for banana bread and avocado toast.

But popularity counted for nothing when a picture appeared online showing its editor of ten years, Adam Rapoport, dressed as a Puerto Rican at a Halloween fancy dress party. At a stroke he was out, branded a racist.

Then, in a grovelling mea culpa, he confessed: 'From an extremely ill-conceived Halloween costume 16 years ago to my blind spots as an editor, I've not championed an inclusive vision.' He added he was stepping down 'to reflect on the work that I need to do as a human being and to allow Bon Appetit to get to a better place.'

Never mind his successful record as an editor. Or that the picture was taken in 2004, a full six years before he joined the magazine. Or that Mr Rapoport denies applying make-up. Or that he is actually married to the Puerto Rican woman pictured alongside him in the photograph.

SOURCE 

Doctors asked not to be 'judgemental' or 'threatening' if treating obese patients

Doctors have been urged to avoid using 'judgemental', 'threatening' or non-medical terms such as 'chunky' when treating obese patients. 

A new language guide from the charity Obesity UK says the way clinicians talk to obese or overweight patients can have a profound impact, leading to stigma and discrimination.

In the report, one patient describes their humiliating experience of a doctor grabbing their belly fat and 'jiggling' it during an appointment. 

The patient, who was at the doctor’s to discuss suspected endometriosis, was being examined on the table and was stripped naked from the waist down.

They recalled how, 'the doctor grabbed a handful of my belly fat, jiggled it about and announced to the nurse, "she needs to get rid of THIS first".'    

Another patient who went to the doctor with chest pains was told to ‘go home and look in the mirror as that was what was wrong with [them]’ - instead of being treated.

Later that night, they were rushed to hospital as they couldn't breathe and were diagnosed with bronchitis.

The charity, Obesity UK, says they hear on a daily basis how badly people living with obesity are spoken to and treated.

Their guide, Language Matters: Obesity, is aimed at doctors to help them use more appropriate and helpful language when interacting with patients with obesity.

It outlines examples to doctors of what to avoid saying, and what to try instead.  

The guidance says doctors should avoid using 'threatening' phrases such as telling patients: 'If you don't lose weight you will end up with your leg chopped off, or just plain dead.'

SOURCE 

Michigan B&B Owners Forced to Take Down Norwegian Flag That Looks Like (?) Confederate Flag

Greg and Kjersten Offenbecker are proud owners of The Nordic Pineapple B&B, a small inn in St. Johns, Michigan. The Offenbeckers are also proud of their Norwegian heritage and made a point of flying the Norwegian flag in front of their establishment.

Unfortunately for them, some local residents thought the Norwegian flag looked like the Stars and Bars — the famous/infamous Confederate battle flag. Or, at least, those in the mob who are color blind and were dropped on their heads as babies thought that.

“We hang the Norwegian flag because I am a 4th generation Norwegian-American,” Kjersten told the Daily Caller. “I am very proud of that heritage and wanted to share a piece of it with the people who come to visit our bed and breakfast.”

“The Norwegians are a peaceful people who love family and that is what our inn really is all about,” she said. “We just want people to come stay with us and experience a wonderful getaway.”

And doesn’t she know that white people cannot be “proud of their heritage”? That’s disgustingly racist! Surely there were at least one or two Norwegians who owned slaves. And don’t forget all those whales murdered by Norwegian whalers.

What the hell does she have to be “proud” about?

Kjersten said that it was a difficult decision to take down the flag. The couple had received around “2 dozen hateful emails” from people who thought she was flying the Confederate flag, but they had gotten more hateful recently. “We have 4-5 really nasty ones that are much more hurtful,” she said.

Greg Offenbecker served in the Navy during Desert Storm, and the couple has 2 adopted black children.

This isn’t a case of mistaken identity. The Norwegian flag looks absolutely nothing like the Confederate battle flag. But it proves that if you try hard enough, and are radical enough, you can cow people into submission just by the threat of branding them a “racist.”

SOURCE 

ER Doctor Fired For Speaking At DC ‘White Coat Summit’

Dr. Simone Gold, who joined doctors from across the US at a “White Coat Summit” on Monday in Washington DC to dispel the misinformation and myths surrounding the coronavirus has now been fired by her hospital employer.

The doctors are very concerned with the disinformation campaign being played out in the biased American media today.

From their website: “If Americans continue to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions, the great American experiment of a Constitutional Republic with Representative Democracy, will cease.”

Dr. Simone Gold, a board certified emergency physician, spoke this week at the White Coat Summit. After over 18 million views of their conference on Monday Google, YouTube and Facebook removed their videos.

On Thursday night Dr. Gold told Tucker Carlson that she was fired from her position after 20 years as an emergency room physician because she appeared at the White Coat Summit this week.

SOURCE