Toronto Sun | 'Fake spin' with Liberal government: Brown Toronto Sun That's according to Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown, who during a speech to the Toronto Region Board of Trade, evoked the Trump-ian term to describe Premier Kathleen Wynne's Liberals. Brown slammed the government during on a ... Tory Leader Patrick Brown says Liberals hydro plan falls short Liberal hydro plan 'fairer' - Thibeault |
Link:
The travel ban 2.0 is headed back to court.
Significant revisions that President Donald Trump made to his original national security executive order did nothing to mollify critics. Washington State, which won a restraining order blocking the Jan. 27 order, asked a judge Thursday to extendthat ruling to cover the new executive order.
But the core constitutional problems remain the same The intent behind the executive order targeting those Muslim countries still remains, and that is unconstitutional.
Yes, the revised one is more narrow thats a success, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson told National Public Radio. But the core constitutional problems remain the same The intent behind the executive order targeting those Muslim countries still remains, and that is unconstitutional.
In addition, Hawaii filed a separate federal lawsuit this week. Oregon, New York State, Minnesota, and Massachusetts have joined that litigation. A federal judge in Hawaii has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, a day before the restrictions are supposed to take effect.
Given that the new Executive Order began life as a Muslim ban, its implementation also means that the State will be forced to tolerate a policy that disfavors one religion and violates the Establishment Clauses of both the federal and state constitutions, Hawaii lawyers wrote in the civil complaint.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer expressed confidence that the new order would pass legal muster.
I think we feel very comfortable that the executive order that was crafted is consistent and were gonna go forward on this, but by all means, I dont want to we feel very confident with how that was crafted and that input was given, he told reporters at his daily briefing.
The new order drops Iraq from a list of seven terrorism-compromised countries that would be subject to restrictions pending a review of procedures designed to keep dangerous people out of the country. And it explicitly excludes lawful permanent residents, as well as people who have valid visas on the date the order takes effect.
In addition, the new order eliminates an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees and includes them in a 120-day pause that applies to refugees from other countries. Preference to religious minorities also has been deleted.
Hawaii argues those steps are insufficient. Ismail Elshikh, a state resident who is a co-plaintiff in the case, argues that the restrictions would prevent him from receiving visits from relatives in Syria who do not currently have travel visas. What's more, the state maintains that the University of Hawaii has 27 graduate students, 10 permanent faculty members, and 30 visiting faculty members from the seven originally designated countries.
The ban would hurt Hawaii's ability to recruit new students and professors from those countries, according to the suit.
Conservative legal scholars argued that Trump is well within his rights to take steps to safeguard the country. Christopher Hajek, director of litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, said Hawaii is on particularly weak ground in arguing that the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits Trump from treating citizens of some countries differently from others.
"They have a very low probability of success on those arguments," he told LifeZette, adding that those provisions of the statute do not apply to foreigners who want to obtain visas but have no connection to the United States.
Hajek said Hawaii's argument would suggest that the United States could not block residents even from countries that were to explicitly and publicly advocate terrorist acts against America.
"That is totally unjustified under the statute or the Constitution," he said. "It's just a suicidal view."
John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, said the revised order should be on much firmer legal ground both at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals during an inevitable appeal and later at the Supreme Court.
He said the new order addresses the court's biggest concern that it was too broad. The revised order is narrower in scope and take pains to link it to terrorism prosecution and attempted terrorist attacks in the United States by people from the designated counties.
Malcolm argued it is improper for courts to consider evidence such as campaign statements by Trump or his surrogates, as Hawaii and Washington both have insisted.
"The executive order is the executive order," he said. "The executive order is what should be considered."
Malcolm said the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president vast powers to exclude individuals and classes of foreigners he deems detrimental to the county. He said the courts traditionally have and should give deference to the president when it comes to matters of national authority.
"But I never underestimate the resiliency or the ingenuity of groups on the Left," he said.
See the original post:
Liberal States Want Court to Halt Revised Travel Ban - LifeZette
Emmanuella Lambropoulos told reporters she was "really shocked" after winning the Liberal nomination. I didnt give up. Door to door. As soon as I knew I wanted this I worked really hard. ( Graham Hughes / THE CANADIAN PRESS )
By Giuseppe ValianteThe Canadian Press
Thu., March 9, 2017
MONTREALA 26-year-old high school teacher who was a virtual political unknown defeated a former provincial cabinet minister Wednesday to win the Liberal nomination for a federal byelection in a Montreal riding.
Emmanuella Lambropoulos and her team couldnt hold back their surprise at beating the woman considered to be the Liberal party favourite, Yolande James.
Im really shocked, Lambropoulos told reporters after her win in Saint-Laurent. I didnt give up. Door to door. As soon as I knew I wanted this I worked really hard.
The Liberals said 1,353 party members voted, with Lambropoulos capturing just more than 600 votes to defeat Marwah Rizqy.
The winners supporters credited the fact she lives in the Saint-Laurent borough and wasnt parachuted in by the Liberal party as the main reason she came away with the victory.
We came from the bottom up, said Petro Vouloukos, 22, who helped Lambropoulos secure her win. We were the grassroots. Not from the top up like Mrs. James.
Read more:Five byelections wont be a test of Trudeau but do mark end of an era: Hbert
James, a former immigration minister in Jean Charests Quebec cabinet between 2007 and 2010, had recently left her position as a political commentator for Radio-Canada to seek the nomination.
Former foreign affairs minister Stephane Dion held the riding since 1996 and it has been Liberal for decades.
Former foreign affairs minister Stphane Dion held the riding since 1996 and it has been Liberal for decades.
The riding is considered safe for the party and Lambropoulos is likely to become its MP after the April 3 byelection.
James, who was considered the heavy favourite, skipped out of a reception hall after learning she came in last out of three candidates.
Lambropoulos win is not without controversy as the man considered to be one of the strongest candidates, if not the strongest, was not allowed to run for the nomination.
Alan DeSousa, the well-known mayor of Saint-Laurent for the past 15 years, was not told why he was rejected as a candidate.
Many Liberal party members who voted Wednesday told The Canadian Press they were disappointed DeSousa wasnt on the ballot and said they would have voted for him.
Many people were upset, Vouloukos said about DeSousa not being allowed to run and the party seemingly favouring James. I think people being upset had an effect on the outcome but the most important thing is that she was able to mobilize the grassroots.
Lambropoulos was the only of the three candidates to live in the riding.
Her father, Athanasios, said her campaign started out with just him and her.
Our goal was to hit the road and get memberships, he said. We werent seen by the press; we were invisible.
Her mom, Matina, said Our headquarters was Grandmas living room.
The NDP has selected Mathieu Auclair to carry its banner in the Saint-Laurent riding, while the Tories have picked Jimmy Yu, who came in second place in the 2015 election behind Dion with 20 per cent of the vote.
The Bloc Qubcois has chosen Wiliam Fayad.
Four other byelections two in Ontario and two in Alberta will also be held the same day. Both Ontario seats are also considered safe for the Liberals, while the Conservatives are expected to retain the two ridings in Alberta.
The Liberals currently have 180 seats in the 338-seat Commons. The Conservatives hold 97, the NDP has 44, there are 10 Bloc Qubcois members, one Green party member and one Independent.
Dion quit politics recently and was later named ambassador to the European Union and Germany.
Note to readers: This is a corrected version. A previous story said the winning candidate captured 1,353 votes. That actually was the total number of ballots cast.
The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.
View original post here:
26-year-old teacher stuns Liberals to win nomination to replace Stphane Dion - Toronto Star
Hoping to convert liberals despair at President Trump into action, progressive groups are beginning to host resistance training seminars, saying the anger the presidents opponents feel can be channeled into a concrete movement.
Spurred by the massive showing at Januarys womens marches in Washington and around the country, the groups say theyre looking to arm activists to go beyond demonstrations and to be prepared to defend those snared by Mr. Trumps immigration plans, affected by the travel ban or in danger of losing health coverage under his Obamacare agenda.
Wednesdays Day Without a Woman protest was the latest example, with feminist organizers hoping to demonstrate the political and economic power of women opposed to Mr. Trump.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union is hosting its first resistance training on Saturday in Miami, with webcasts across the country to enlist activists desperate for some direction.
Right after the election the ACLU started receiving tons of money and email addresses from people who were asking us how they could get involved. What can I do? How can I do it with others? Faiz Shakir, national political director of the ACLU, told The Washington Times. The public has engaged in a game of Tag, youre it, and it has told us, the ACLU, that you are the leader of the resistance.
He said the ACLU, which has already taken to the courts to try to stop some Trump moves, figured it needed to go broader to say See you in the streets.
While its a new role for the venerable organization, its ground well trod by other liberal groups that are also ramping up their resistance efforts.
Progressive groups including MoveOn.org, Indivisible, the Working Families Party and the Center for Popular Democracy have held five Ready to Resist emergency telephone calls giving activists a chance to share stories of their anti-Trump protests and offer training tips on how to organize, recruit and gain the interest of media outlets.
Victoria Kaplan, the organizing director for MoveOn, set the tone in the first call, telling the thousands that listened in that the purpose of this emergency call is to prepare to stop Trump by stiffening Democrats spines and weakening pro-Trump Republican resolve.
In another call, Jennifer Epps-Addison, president of the Center for Popular Democracy, said the resistance was making an impact and highlighted how former House Speaker John A. Boehner predicted GOP lawmakers will probably not repeal Obamacare.
I think we have to make sure, and I know you all are, that our message to Democrats is that we cannot give an inch, Ms. Epps-Addison said. We have to resist this agenda at every place and point we can.
Others, meanwhile, have held educational forums in churches on the rights on immigrants, and groups like Showing up for Racial Justice have training sessions for White folks on showing up with accountability and commitment to actions organized and led by people of color, with a focus on immigrant-led actions.
Indivisible, which was launched by former Capitol Hill staffers, held a phone call Tuesday night urging members to rise up against the GOPs efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, which includes the defunding of Planned Parenthood. The group said the fight will help set the tone for the Trump administration, offering the chance to take some wind out of its sails early on.
The group also authored a guide for resisting the Trump agenda that says progressives disagree with the principles and positions of the tea party, but that there are lessons to be taken from its focus on grass-roots advocacy and refusing to give any wiggle room when it came to pressuring members of Congress to block the Obama agenda.
If a small minority in the Tea Party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump, the guide says.
But Taylor Budowich, executive director of Tea Party Express, said progressives and the media have misread the success of the tea party movement.
They think it has to be about the tactics the tea party used because they think we couldnt have won on the issues, Mr. Budowich said, arguing the movements message of fiscal responsibility, limited government and economic growth appeared to a broad swath of voters. It shows how out of touch they are.
He said the tea party was more than an opposition force and rallied around candidates that shared its vision. I struggle to understand what this [resistance] movement stands for other than not liking this president. But that is a hashtag not a movement, Mr. Budowich said.
Mark J. Rozell, dean of the School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, said progressive groups believe they are building a sustainable political movement that will keep activists engaged and help avoid another election cycle of Republican gains.
But the question is whether hounding Republican lawmakers in public will translate into broader support and more votes for progressive causes and candidates, or will it fuel a stronger countermobilization of Trump supporters and others who dont like these tactics. Its politically very risky and could backfire ultimately, he said.
As an early success, groups pointed to the airport rallies that occurred in late January in the hours after Mr. Trumps initial extreme vetting executive order left hundreds of immigrants and visitors struggling to gain admission to the U.S.
Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly has said the rallies were more disruptive to the airports than the travel ban itself.
Activists have also disrupted Republican lawmakers town halls, drawing intense coverage from the press, which ran some of the confrontational clips on repeat loops last month.
Ms. Epps-Addison said one of her personal favorites came out of Arkansas when a 7-year-old boy challenged Sen. Tom Cotton on why President Trump wanted to slash funding for PBS and erect a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
You are onto something when even a child knows that you should not try to cut PBS to try to build a xenophobic and hateful wall, she said.
On the resistance calls, activists have touted the importance of interfaith marches and urged participation in cacerolazo protests in which people make noise banging pots and pans.
Julia Gallagher, of Michigans Peoples Campaign, got a glowing review for the creativity her group has shown. Activists were threatened with trespassing after a group including someone sporting a chicken suit showed up at Rep. David A. Trotts local office to demand a meeting.
But we got it on video, posted it on Facebook, and it has gone viral, Ms. Gallagher said.
In an upcoming call, Mark Anthony Johnson, director of Health and Wellness at Dignity and Power Now in Los Angeles, is slated to lead a virtual workshop in strategies and actions to build our personal and collective resilience for the resistance.
Read more:
Liberal groups sponsor 'resistance training' against Donald Trump ... - Washington Times
March 8, 2017 In November I had a conservative friend tell me about being berated by a co-worker who thought she voted for Donald Trump. She didnt actually say whether she had or had not voted for President Trump, but her co-worker blamed her for the election of Trump nonetheless.
In progressive areas like San Francisco and my hometown Berkeley, conservatives tend to keep a low profile. It grieves me that so many people feel that revealing their political leanings would be dangerous and that their fears are reasonable.
As the cofounder ofMoveon.org, I am steeped in the progressive culture. I often hear the argument that we must win by overwhelming the conservatives with greater numbers. I admit that Id be much more comfortable in a world where the voices of my progressive friends blaze our path forward, solving our shared challenges with or without the support of Trump voters.
However, true progress requires stretching myself beyond comfort. There is anotherapproach that I ask my progressive friends and everyone to consider "love thy neighbor."
Last week Nicholas Kristof wrote a New York Times op-ed about why we shouldnt otherize Trump voters.
Go ahead and denounce Trumps lies and bigotry. Stand firm against his disastrous policies. But please dont practice his trick of otherizing people into stick-figure caricatures, slurring vast groups as hopeless bigots. Were all complicated, and stereotypes are not helpful including when theyre of Trump supporters.
Mr. Kristof described the political cost of dismissing 63 million Americans, but there is a deeper cost. When we fail to recognize our common humanity we lose valued relationships. We also make our lives smaller, divide our communities, and fail to benefit from everyone's best ideas.
As the founding partner ofLivingRoomConversations.org, I have intentionally sought out friends with very different political beliefs. WithAllSides for Schools, I work to bring this practice to the next generation. I strive to better understand the political opportunities and challenges we face together. Despite the discomfort of challenging the progressive ideas that I hold close to my heart, I have found treasured friends who might seem like my polar opposite.
By connecting around our shared human experience we are discovering that there are opportunities to improve citizen representation in government that satisfy conservative and progressive values. Left and right efforts on criminal justice work has already begun to reduced prison populations.
Even in the area of climate change, meaningful opportunities are multiplying. Efficiency, energy independence through renewable energy, clean tax cuts all show promise for moving us toward shared goals.
When we care about each other and want to meet each others basic needs, much becomes possible. Even though I have not persuaded my good friend Jacob that climate is a critical concern, he cares more now in part because he cares about me. Also because I did not insist that he accept my view of climate science.
Instead I noted that I dont need proof that climate change is happening. Even if there is only a 10 percent chance that we are destroying the planets capacity to support future generations, I find that unconscionable. I dont allow my children to play Russian roulette.
This gave Jacob the space to consider the possibility that climate change is an unacceptable risk rather than react to a demand. And Jacob has caused me to see that climate change is the progressive end times story.
This is not a one-way exchange. I care about Jacobs concern that as religious conservatives he and his community are becoming marginalized. We have remarkably different beliefs, but we are learning to hold the tension of our differences and listen to each other with humility.
More and more of us are working to spark a movement of respect, using simple listening practices that open our hearts. I hope that honoring each others humanity will lead to more compassionate political discourse and elected leaders that we can all respect, even if they werent our first choice.
Go here to see the original:
Why I've left my liberal comfort zone and found conservative friends - Christian Science Monitor
One Nation candidate Margaret Dodd says she will boycott the party?s how-to-vote directive for the WA election because she has been lied to by Pauline Hanson. CREDIT: ABC/7:30 Report
One Nation candidate Margaret Doddsays party leader Pauline Hanson lied to her. Picture: Colin Murty The Australian
ONE Nations Margaret Dodd will boycott the partys how-to-vote directive for the WA election after slamming Pauline Hanson a liberal puppet and a dictator.
Ms Dodd made the comments on ABCs 730 on Thursday night.
She said when she joined the party four weeks ago, she could decide her own preference.
IM SORRY: Is Hansons apology enough?
One Nation candidate Margaret Doddsays party leader Pauline Hanson lied to her. Picture: Colin Murty The AustralianSource:News Corp Australia
Ms Dodd has launched her own how-to-vote directive, telling voters to put the Liberals last.
Pauline, you are supposed to be listening to the people. If you cant listen to your own candidates, what chance have the people got? she told the program.
Dont be so dishonest, dont pretend that you are about something and then go and do deals with the Liberals unless you are going to be upfront and tell your candidates before they join that you are just a Liberal puppet.
Pauline Hanson is facing a revolt in WA. Picture: Colin Murty The AustralianSource:News Corp Australia
It makes me feel as though I have been lied to.
Ms Dodd said if One Nation leader Senator Hanson wasnt being honest with her own party, how could voters trust her.
It makes me feel that the party I have joined is dishonest and their only answer to any criticism is, you are disendorsed, suck it up or leave and you are not working as team.
Its very hard to work as a team when you are working in a dictatorship.
In a response to the ABC, Senator Hanson said Ms Dodds could leave the party.
There is still time for Ms Dodd to resign as a One Nation candidate and run as an independent, she said.
I certainly wouldnt stand in the way of her leaving the party, in fact, Id welcome it.
One Nation?s Western Australian candidates are a colourful bunch, to say the least, and the surge of populist politics among Australian voters may see some of them elected. In a talk show-style run-down from Labor Senator Sam Dastyari, six of Pauline Hanson?s candidates were mocked for being some combination of racist, homophobic, conspiracy theorist, or religious zealotry. Despite the far-right party?s poll numbers taking a dive compared to federal trends, the party was projected to win three seats and possibly the balance of power. Credit: Sam Dastyari via Storyful
See the article here:
Jean-Denis Frechette, parliamentary budget officer, is pictured in Ottawa on Sept. 20, 2013. (Dave Chan For The Globe and Mail) Jean-Denis Frechette, parliamentary budget officer, is pictured in Ottawa on Sept. 20, 2013. (Dave Chan For The Globe and Mail)
OTTAWAThe Canadian Press
Published Thursday, Mar. 09, 2017 10:00AM EST
Last updated Thursday, Mar. 09, 2017 10:29AM EST
The parliamentary budget watchdog says it cant find billions in new infrastructure spending that is supposed to be in key federal spending projections released earlier this month.
The main spending estimates for the next 12 months were supposed to include $8 billion in new infrastructure spending, but a report this morning from parliamentary budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette says the documents only show $5.5 billion in infrastructure allocations.
The report lists multiple reasons for the missing $2.5 billion, including that the Liberals may defer some intended spending to future years.
For subscribers: To paint a rosy portrait of the Liberals federal budget, Morneau will have to get crafty
Another reason cited in the report is that the spending estimates are presented in such a complicated way that Frechettes office couldnt find the money.
The report is the latest in a series of studies from the PBO that have raised critical questions about the infrastructure program that is supposed to be a pillar of the governments economic growth strategy.
The report predicts that the Liberals will only be able to spend half of their planned federal infrastructure money this fiscal year.
March 22 federal budget will focus on job growth: Morneau (The Canadian Press)
Discover content from The Globe and Mail that you might otherwise not have come across. Here well provide you with fresh suggestions where we will continue to make even better ones as we get to know you better.
You can let us know if a suggestion is not to your liking by hitting the close button to the right of the headline.
Read the original post:
Liberal spending estimates short $2.5-billion on infrastructure: PBO - The Globe and Mail
Liberal backbench MPs joined forces with opposition partiesWednesday evening to reject attempts by the government to gut agenetic discrimination bill, overwhelmingly passing the legislation and defying the wishes of cabinet.
Recently retired Liberal senator Jim Cowan watched from the viewing gallery as 222 MPs voted in favour of his legislation, something he has long fought for through successive parliamentary sessions.
All cabinet ministers and most parliamentary secretaries in attendance voted against the bill. Only four Liberal backbenchers sided with the government, a rare displayof disunity within the Grit ranks.
Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybouldwas opposed to the bill andsaid she believes the legislation is unconstitutional as it could infringe on the provinces' right to regulate the insurance industry.
Bill S-201 will add genetic characteristics as a protected ground under the Canadian Human Rights Act, introducepenalties for discrimination, and forbid employers from subjecting job applicants to a genetic test.
The legislation will also allow people to refuse to disclose the results of a genetic test to anybody. Medical experts have said the legislation is necessary to counter the fears associated with potentially life-saving genetic testing, which could produce resultsthat would help doctors better tailor health treatments.
A breach of the law could result in a fine of up to $1 million, or five years behind bars.
Aspreviously reported by CBC NewsTuesday, AnnaGainey, president of thefederal Liberals, penned a letter during the last election promising protections against genetic discrimination if elected.
Some have suggested the Liberal flip-flop was the result ofaggressivelobbying tactics by the insurance industry.
Theindustryhas not hidden its opposition to Cowan's private member'sbill, a piece of legislation that easily passed the Senate last April and the House of Commons justice committee inDecember.
"The life and health insurance industry is extremely disappointed that Bill S-201 was passed today in the House of Commons without significant amendment.
"The industry agrees with the federal government's position as expressed by the prime minister and the minister of justice, as well as a number of provinces, that an important element of the bill is unconstitutional," Wendy Hope, a spokesperson for theCanadian Life and Health Insurance Association, said in an emailed statement to CBC News after the vote.
The federal government has to consider multiple factors when making decisions, Trudeau said Wednesday ahead of the vote, noting it needs to ensure it is defending the rights of Canadians and upholding their freedom from discrimination.
It also has to defend the Constitution and the balance between federal and provincial jurisdictions, he added.
"The government has taken a position that one of the elements in the proposed bill is unconstitutional," Trudeau told a news conference.
"That is the recommendation we had and the government position is to vote against that particular ... element in the bill."
The Liberal government hadproposed stripping the bill of everything except the power to make genetic characteristics a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but those amendments were rejected Wednesday evening.
The bill has now cleared both the House of Commons and the Senate but will only become law when it receives royal assent, which could take place in the next few days.
Original post:
Liberal backbenchers defy cabinet wishes and vote to enact genetic discrimination law - CBC.ca
Three Liberal MPs have reportedly received anonymous death threats through their personal addresses.
WA Liberal MP and member for the North Metropolitan region Peter Katsambanis received one of the letters when checking the mailbox of his Hillarys home on Thursday morning.
The letter was typed on a slip of paper, and read:
"this is a warning to both you and your family, you stuffed up my life and my businessthrough your partys behaviour. so now everytime you hear a bang or you think someone is watching you, it will be us. women children we will get them [sic]."
The threat reportedly 'visibly rattled' the MP, who has three young children.
Mr Katsambanis said he didn't know how the author of the note obtained his address, but he would not let the note distract from his campaign.
"Obviously whoever sent it knew it would arrive the week of the election, so it's clear they are trying to distract me and my campaign from working hard in the final days to win the seat of Hillarys back for the Liberal Party," he said.
"Nothing will distract me and my committed local team from winning this important campaign."
A Liberal Party spokesman said two other candidates in both the upper and lower houses had also received the letters.
He said he expected more candidates would find letters when they returned home, and said nothing of such a threatening nature had happened in previous campaigns.
The letters have been reported to the police dignitary protection unit, and WA Police are investigating.
See the article here:
Liberal candidates receive bizarre death threat posted to home addresses - WAtoday
The online platform Bring It to The Table facilitates candid conversations with a broad range of people on highly charged issues. In this video, participants discuss if equal opportunity exists. (Video: Talking Eyes Media)
Thewake-up call she needed came from her 17-year-old son.
It was the middle of the Obama administration, and Julie Winokur, a self-described liberal, was so frustrated withwhat she saw as Republican obstructionism that she would immediately dismiss any argument from the right. Then one day, her own child flipped her narrative. He told her she wasthe most politically intolerant person he knew.
If the other side had a good idea, you wouldnt know because youre not listening,she said he told her. I realized in that moment that I was as responsible as the people I was pointing fingers at. You have to take ownership of your own contribution to the negativity.
That was 2012, at the height of the tea party movement and in the midstof that years presidential election,when itfelt like the partisanship and rancor couldnt get worse. Her sons criticisminspired her to stop lamenting it andinstead try to fix it.
[He dramatically changed his views on gay marriage. Heres how he says the nation can come together.]
So Winokur, a documentary filmmaker in New Jersey, set out on a cross-country journey to meetpeople of different ideologies to discuss divisiveissues. Carting a square folding table and a navy tablecloth with patriotic stars, she endeavored to take her sons advice and really listen to others viewpoints. She wantedto get beyond talking points and regurgitated soundbites to discoverwhy people who see things so differently from her believe what they do.
She couldnt have known then how novel that concept would seem by the next presidential election.
She took her table to towns big and small, gathering a diverse cross section of Americans to interview. Sheeven set it up outside the Democratic and Republican national conventions that summer.
The online platform Bring It to The Table facilitates candid conversations with a broad range of people on highly charged issues. In this video, participants discuss their views on immigration. (Video: Talking Eyes Media)
I always saw this as the citizens antidote to politicians. Its taboo to ask people about their politics, but after being on the road and having many, many people who want to share, they are much more rationale and reasonable than we assume them to be, Winokur said.When you preface something as an opportunity to have a sober conversation where people can share what they believe, its amazing how many people are empowered to help other people with what theyve experienced.
In that spirit,during last years presidential election, she took her finished film project, Bring it to the Table, to college campuses around the country to spread her message about civil discourse. Since shed embarked onher own self-discovery to understand the other side, the national political dialogue had further deteriorated.
In her presentations, Winokur teaches students how to frame questions and engage political others without being confrontational. She tells them to never flatly tell a person their ideas are wrong. Instead, she advises theyask the personwhat experiences theyve had that shaped their opinions on a particular issue. If there wasnt a personal experience that led them to their opinion, she said a follow-up could be asking what they might have read or heard that led them to their conclusion.
Then shell take out her table and invite students to try it themselves. Sometimes she steps in to facilitate the dialogue, while other times she has the students engage with each other.
The goal isnt to change someones mind, but rather to get people thinking more deeply about where their beliefs come from and, in turn, give the questioner a more well-rounded perspective of opposing views.
We regurgitate things, we have a lazy way of analyzing information, we jump on the bandwagon of simplistic language, she said. The primary breakdown is the lack of shared information; theres a huge breakdown because were gettingtotally different information. When you dont share presumed facts, the conversation isnt even. Youre in different rooms pretending youre in the same room talking the same language when youre not.
She had hoped to take a break after the election, but almost immediately after Donald Trumps victory there was suddenly high demand for getting Democrats and Republicans talking to each other. And with the rise of hate crime incidents on college campuses, shes been called in by university administrators scrambling to bridge divides they hadnt previously acknowledged, she said.
She has personally learned through this process how to separate an individualfrom the candidate they voted for; to see them as American citizens rather than political adversaries. Healing the countrys deep political divide wont happen overnight, but she believes that having these conversations is the only way forward.
You cant solve a problem unless you bring it out in the open, she said. I thought it was so bad five years ago, and then it got worse. And were in a moment where it could get even worse. I think its a long game. This is an ugly moment that will get uglier, but you cant remedy something unless you air it, unless youre honest about it.
Read more Inspired Life:
Americans are seriously stressed out about the future of the country, survey finds
A white Trump voter explains why he left a black waitress a $450 tip with an uplifting note
This election has divided the country. Getting Clinton and Trump voters talking is one way to heal.
Read the original post:
Outside contributors' opinions and analysis of the most important issues in politics, science, and culture.
Iowa state Sen. Mark Chelgren wants to tweak the dossier that candidates submit when they apply to teaching jobs at the states universities. In addition to a CV, sample syllabuses, and some writing samples, hed like one other thing: their party registration.
Im under the understanding that right now they can hire people because of diversity, he told the Des Moines Register. And where are university faculty less diverse than party registration? Thats the theory behind the proposed bill Chelgren has filed, which would institute a hiring freeze at state universities until the number of registered Republicans on faculty comes within 10 percent of the number of registered Democrats.
Bills proposed in state legislatures are easy fodder for outrage some wacky proposals get introduced every year. But Chelgren who, it should be noticed, claimed to hold a degree in business that turned out to be a certificate from a Sizzler steakhouse is not an outlier. In North Carolina, a similar proposal was introduced and then tabled earlier this month. And at CPAC, the conclave for conservatives held in Washington last month, newly appointed Education Secretary Betsy DeVos zeroed in on college faculty. She warned college students in the crowd to be wary of attempts to indoctrinate them: The faculty, from adjunct professors to deans, tell you what to do, what to say, and more ominously, what to think.
Fear of a liberal university faculty has been a feature of modern conservatism for decades, woven into the very foundations of the modern conservative movement although the attacks on universities have not always taken the form of legislation or calls for ideological diversity. The adoption of the language of diversity and pluralism serves mainly as a new way to skewer the left using its own vocabulary.
But no matter how often conservatives call attention to the ideological imbalance in the professorate, they fail to affect the makeup of college faculties. Indeed, faculties are markedly more liberal today than they were when the fight began. But persuading sociology departments to hire more Republicans is not really the point. Instead, these attacks have turned into a tool for undermining higher education, part of a far more serious and far less conservative project of dismantling American universities altogether.
It began with the communists. (Almost everything about modern conservatism begins with the communists.) At the dawn of the cold war, the Red Scare snaked its way through American universities, targeting left-leaning professors who found that not even tenure could save them from political persecution. The scare turned conservatives and liberals alike into happy red-hunters, as administrators and professors entered a contest of patriotic one-upmanship: loyalty oaths, hearings, purges.
Ray Ginger, a historian at Harvard Business School, was forced to resign in 1954 when he refused to take the loyalty oath Harvard demanded of him and his wife. They had to leave their home; his wife, nine months pregnant at the time, was forced to give birth as a charity patient. The marriage soon fell apart, and alcoholism claimed Gingers life at age 50. Rutgers fired two professors and allowed a third to resign after they refused to testify before the Senate red-hunt committee. No US university would hire them, and two were forced out of academia altogether.
The university scare more closely resembled the Red Scare in Hollywood than the one within the federal government. With the government, the fear was straightforward espionage: spies and blackmail and treason. With entertainment and education, it was the more nebulous fear of brainwashing, a worry that there was a softness in the American mind that could be exploited by nefarious filmmakers and professors.
For conservatives, anxieties about communist professors co-existed with anxieties about liberal ones. Indeed, a significant part of the conservative theory of politics was that the slippery slope toward communism began with New Deal-style liberalism. In his 1951 book God and Man at Yale, written in the midst of the university scare, William F. Buckley Jr. had little to say about communists. He instead made the case that Yale University had become infested with liberal professors who, in promoting secularism and Keynesian economics, had torn the school from its traditionally Christian and capitalist roots.
As McCarthyism waned, Buckleys argument became more prevalent on the right. Thanks to growing affluence and the GI Bill, millions more students were entering Americas colleges and universities. They were unlikely to become communists, but Keynesians? That was far easier to imagine.
In a 1963 piece for his Ivory Tower column in National Review (a regular feature on higher education underscoring just how much the state of Americas colleges worried the right), Russell Kirk dismissed concerns with communist professors. People who think that the Academy is honeycombed with crypto-Communists are wide of the mark, he wrote. At most, never more than 5 per cent of American college teachers were Communists. The real threat, Kirk maintained, came from liberal groupthink.
And how had the academy become so biased toward liberalism? Because administrators promoted liberals and demoted conservatives. That was the common conservative critique, anyway. William Rusher, publisher of National Review, laid out the plight of these conservative scholars: They face many tribulations. Advancement comes hard. They are victimized by their departments. Passed over for funds to support their research, Rusher argued, these conservative professors became a neglected generation of scholars.
The arguments that folks like Buckley and Kirk and Rusher were advancing in the 1950s and 1960s are nearly indistinguishable from those conservatives make today. But while the arguments have remained the same, something crucial has changed: the case for what to do about it.
Conservatives are certainly correct in their central claim: In the professoriate at large, and particularly in the humanities, the number of liberals and leftists far outstrip the number of conservative. This varies by field (you will find conservatives in in economics departments, business schools, and some sciences) and by school (Hillsdale College and Bob Jones University are hardly hotbeds of liberalism). But in general, the ivory tower indisputably tilts left. Whether this constitutes a problem that needs solving is open to debate, but even among those who feel it is a problem, solutions are hard to come by.
In God and Man at Yale, Buckley held that left-leaning faculty should be replaced by ones more in line with the universitys more conservative traditions. The best guardians of those traditions, he argued, were not faculty or administrators but alumni, who should be given the power to determine the colleges curriculum. They would do this through the power of the purse: withholding donations until the university administration became so desperate that they restructured the curriculum and changed up the faculty to meet alumni demands.
Whats important here is not the mechanism for change Buckleys alumni model was unworkable (it assumed Yale alumni all agreed with his goals and had more financial leverage than they did) but the theory behind it. Buckley was opposed to Yales liberal orthodoxies not because they were orthodoxies, but because they were liberal. He believed the university should be indoctrinating students; he just preferred they be indoctrinated in free-market capitalism and Christianity.
Over time, conservative efforts shifted from changing the liberal makeup of the university to building alternative institutions and safeguarding conservative students. Organizations like Young Americans for Freedom and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute became gathering spaces for young right-wingers, while a swath of new think tanks were erected for the purpose of getting conservative research and ideas into circulation. By the 1980s, anti-liberal student magazines like the Dartmouth Review served as feeders for Buckleys National Review and other conservative publications.
But what of the professors? They came under fire again in the 1990s and 2000s. Books like Allan Blooms Closing of the American Mind and Dinesh DSouzas Illiberal Education popularized the idea that professors infected their students with relativism, liberalism, and leftism, laying the intellectual groundwork for a new effort to limit the influence of liberal scholars.
But when those attacks came, they came wrapped in an entirely new logic and language: ideological diversity.
Lets pause here for a second, because this is important. In the 1990s, there was a real shift in American culture and politics, centered on multiculturalism and the postmodernism. Multiculturalism held that diversity was a positive value, because people from different backgrounds brought with them different perspectives, and a wide range of perspectives was good for intellectual debate. Postmodernism, a more academic idea, held at least in some of its guises that truth was inaccessible, perhaps nonexistent, that everything might be relative, everything might be perspective.
Conservatives didnt like either one of these shifts. Social conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Bill Bennett saw multiculturalism as a thinly veiled attack on the West (read: white European culture). Likewise, the rejection of knowable truths was an affront to believers in a fixed moral universe based on shared values. Multiculturalism, postmodernism these were anathema to their conservatism.
Except multiculturalism was also incredibly useful. If diversity of perspectives was good, and if universities valued that diversity enough for it be a factor in hiring, then surely the paucity of conservative professors was a wrong to be remedied?
Enter the pro-diversity conservatives, who have taken the arguments of the left and turned them into tools to expand conservatives presence in university faculty. The most visible early proponent of this approach was a former leftist, David Horowitz, who in 2003 founded the Campaign for Fairness and Inclusion in Higher Education (later renamed Students for Academic Freedom). The very name of the campaign suggested that Horowitz was committed to a pluralistic model of higher education dedicated to equity and balance.
The central project of Students for Academic Freedom was the Academic Bill of Rights. In its definition of academic freedom, the Academic Bill of Rights homed in immediately on intellectual diversity. It never mentioned conservatism, but rather advocated protecting students from the imposition of political, ideological, or religious orthodoxy. Given that Horowitz had widely criticized the one-party classroom and the liberal atmosphere of the academy, this equation of academic freedom with intellectual diversity amounted to a call to protect conservative professors and students.
That same framework could also be found in the 2009 book The Politically Correct University, published by the American Enterprise Institute. It included a chapter laying out the route to academic pluralism and another that claimed the academys definition and practice of diversity is too narrow and limited, arguing instead for a more inclusive definition of diversity that encompasses intellectual diversity.
In some rare cases, conservatives borrowed the language not just of diversity but of postmodernism. Horowitz asserted that the reason there needs to be more ideological diversity on campus is that there are no correct answers to controversial issues. This is a long way indeed from conservatives traditional rejection of relativism. Indeed, one could fairly wonder whether there was anything conservative about it at all.
So conservatives found a new argument for hiring more conservative professors. What they had not found was a way to convince universities to actually hire them. And this is the perennial problem with conservative critiques of higher education, the reason they scurried away into think tanks or places like Hillsdale college: There doesnt appear to be any mechanism to make universities hire more conservative faculty members.
This is in sharp contrast to the rights power to shape precollege education. Through school boards and state legislatures, conservatives have had real impact on public school curricula around the nation. They have won wars over textbooks, standards, even Advanced Placement guidelines. But that power smacks into a wall when it comes to higher education, where traditions of academic freedom and shared governance between faculty and administrators create real limits to external meddling.
Which is why conservatives are so often left lobbing rhetorical bombs at universities, and why bills like those in Iowa and North Carolina usually wind up quietly tabled. There is no legislative fix for ideological imbalance in the classroom, nor any general agreement that it is a problem that should be fixed.
The most interesting work being done on the topic on liberal academic groupthink is at Heterodox Academy, directed by the NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. The organization brings together scholars from across the country who are committed to promoting greater viewpoint diversity on campuses. But look through the list of solutions Haidt and his colleagues provide, and you wont find a single piece of legislation among them. Indeed, what youll find reading lists, student government resolutions, college heterodoxy ratings is aimed almost entirely at students, not at hiring committees.
The right is still intent on undercutting what they see as the liberal political power of the university. But theyre taking a different tack, pursuing their goals in more structural ways: weakening tenure, slashing budgets, upping teaching loads. It would be easy to dismiss this as simply a result of austerity programs, which have cut public services to the bone in states across America. But in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, however, the cuts have been accompanied by rhetoric that makes the true goal clear: attacking curriculums and professors who seem too liberal, and weakening the overall power of the university.
Take North Carolina. Since Republicans took over the state government in the Tea Party wave of 2010, the states universities have been under constant attack. Centers on the environment, voter engagement, and poverty studies have all been shuttered by the Board of Governors, which is appointed by the state legislature.
No sooner had Pat McCrory come into the governors office in 2013 than he began making broadsides against the university, using stark economic measures to target liberal arts programs, like gender studies, with which he disagreed. His stated view was that university programs should be funded based on how many of their graduates get jobs.
Notably, the McCrory campaign was bankrolled by Art Pope, founder of the Pope Center for Higher Education (now the Martin Center), an organization dedicated to increasing the diversity of ideas taught on campus. As its policy director, Jay Schalin, explained in 2015, the crisis at the university stems from the ideas that are being discussed and promoted: multiculturalism, collectivism, left-wing post-modernism. He wants less Michel Foucault on campus, more Ayn Rand.
But bills calling for the banning of works by leftist historian Howard Zinn or hiring professors based on party registration havent yet made it out of the proposal stage. What has? Steep funding cuts that have led to higher tuition, smaller faculties, and reduced access to higher education for low-income students.
That is the real threat to the professorate, and to the university more broadly. And as with the strategic conservative embrace of postmodernism, it also represents an erosion of a worldview that once understood the value of an advanced education beyond mere job preparation or vocational training. Unable to reverse the ivory towers tilt, many on the right are willing to smash it altogether, another sign of the nihilism infecting the conservative project more broadly.
Nicole Hemmer, a Vox columnist, is the author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics. She is an assistant professor at the University of Virginias Miller Center and co-host of the Past Present podcast.
The Big Idea is Voxs home for smart, often scholarly excursions into the most important issues and ideas in politics, science, and culture typically written by outside contributors. If you have an idea for a piece, pitch us at thebigidea@vox.com.
More here:
Eternally frustrated by "liberal" universities, conservatives now want ... - Vox
A federal tax-reform plan will not be concluded in time for Finance Minister Bill Morneaus 2017 budget as the Liberal government waits to see how promised tax changes in the United States will affect Canada.
During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals pledged to raise $3-billion in new revenue by eliminating tax breaks that primarily benefit wealthy Canadians or are ineffective.
March 22 federal budget will focus on job growth: Morneau (The Canadian Press)
Mr. Morneau had intended the budget to reflect the final results of a review of all tax credits, but sources say the process will extend beyond that date. The budget, to be delivered on March 22, is likely to eliminate some tax credits and will also focus on skills training in response to rapid changes in the work force.
Read more: To paint a portrait of the Liberals federal budget, Morneau will have to get crafty
Our budget will be very much about trying to increase jobs in this country, to create opportunities for people today, for their children and for their grandchildren, Mr. Morneau said. It will be about how we can help Canadians get the skills that they need in a dynamic and changing economy. Mr. Morneau has little room for new spending, so his budget is not expected to include a major change in direction. It will provide new detail on existing government plans for infrastructure spending, innovation and research in addition to the review of tax credits. Business groups had argued that the more complex aspects of the tax reforms would need more debate and consultation beyond the budget date.
Tax credits are worth more than $100-billion a year in forgone federal revenue. They cover everything from tax breaks for apprentice vehicle mechanics buying tools to deductions related to investments such as stock options or the sale of a primary residence.
Extending the tax review would allow the government time to see how U.S. President Donald Trump implements his pledges of major tax reform and factor that in to its own plans. Business groups say Canada could be at a disadvantage when it comes to retaining companies and highly skilled workers if the United States sharply reduces personal and business tax rates.
Sources say the budgets focus on skills will be part of a longer-term approach to the economy as the ratio of working-age Canadians to retirees shrinks. Measures to encourage specific groups including aboriginals, low-income people and women with young children to boost their participation in the work force will be a central theme.
Well be thinking about not only how we can grow the economy, but how we can ensure that Canadians are prepared for the exciting and good opportunities that will come out not only for this generation, but for the next generation as well, Mr. Morneau told reporters after announcing the budget date in the House of Commons.
Conservative finance critic Grard Deltell said he hopes the government shelves the tax credit review in light of the changes in the United States.
If the Trump administration tables some new direction to have less fees and less tax for business, well, we must address it because its very serious, Mr. Deltell said. America, as you know, is our most important partner, but also our most important competitor.
The Conservatives also want a more ambitious timeline for erasing the deficit. A finance department report recently said the budget will not be balanced until the 2050s.
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said the Liberals should follow through on closing tax loopholes for the rich and deliver on their promises to Indigenous people.
Mr. Morneaus advisory council on economic growth which worked directly with the Finance Minister and his team over the past year called for an increased focus on skills training in a February report.
The Liberal government was elected on a central plank of running deficits to boost economic growth through infrastructure spending, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer and a Senate committee say the money has been slow to get out the door.
The 2017 budget is expected to provide more detailed breakdowns of the long-term spending plan for infrastructure. The numbers are not likely to change much from what Mr. Morneau outlined in his Nov. 1 fiscal update, which increased the total to $186.7-billion over 12 years.
While some new projects are expected to be highlighted in the budget as examples of what is to come, funding announcements on big projects will have to wait. Ottawa has not formally launched its second phase of funding for large projects, which means provinces have not submitted wish lists.
Mr. Morneaus Nov. 1 update added trade and transportation as well as rural and northern communities to the three categories public transit, green infrastructure and social infrastructure on which the Liberals have promised to focus.
One senior government official said the budget will have more to say on federal efforts to promote trade infrastructure.
John Gamble, president and CEO of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies Canada, said his members are not seeing evidence of increased construction in spite of promises from the Liberals and the Conservatives before them to hike infrastructure spending.
Were very excited and very supportive of the fact that weve seen three successive budgets, from two governments, and each one of them has legitimately claimed to be the largest infrastructure investment in Canadian history, he said. However, in practical terms, we have just not seen the corresponding level of design activity so far. We know there are a lot of reasons. Were just trying to convey a sense of urgency.
With a report from Robert Fife
Follow Bill Curry on Twitter: @curryb
Link:
Treasury costings of WA Liberal promises have shown the party's estimates are reasonable.
The Liberals have made more than $2.8 billion in promises, including the controversial Perth Freight Link project.
"The estimates have been based on a sound information set and methodologies," WA's Under-Treasurer Michael Barnes said on Wednesday.
Premier Colin Barnett said earlier on Wednesday he was confident the pledges would be roughly on the money.
"We have taken great care in 70 different policy areas to indicate what we believe the cost of each will be ... totally contingent on Western Power being sold," Mr Barnett told reporters.
"That is in sharp, sharp contrast to the Labor party."
Mr Barnett earlier lashed Labor for not subjecting $5 billion worth of promises, including $2.5 billion for its flagship Metronet rail project, to the same scrutiny.
Rather than hand Treasury its costings details, Labor has enlisted two former senior public servants, including former Public Sector Commissioner Mike Wood, to run the ruler over its numbers.
Labor has questioned the independence of Treasury, accusing the Liberals of planting a stooge in its briefing with the government department ahead of the 2013 state election.
Mr Barnett recently claimed Mr Wood had a close connection to former Labor premier Brian Burke, who was jailed for rorting travel expenses.
WA Labor leader Mark McGowan said he was confident the release of the party's costings on Thursday would rebut Barnett government suggestions they "don't add up".
- AAP
Excerpt from:
Liberal costings for $2.8 billion worth of projects reasonable, says Treasury - WAtoday
An attempt by the Liberal governmentto gut the genetic discriminationbill was defeated by a coalition of MPs from across party lines Tuesday evening, despite constitutional concerns raised by Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.
Alberta Liberal MPRandyBoissonnaulthadintroduced a motion in the House to remove key sections of the legislation, including those relating topenalties for genetic discriminationand languageforbidding employers from subjecting job applicants to a genetic test. His efforts to dramatically reduce the bill'sscope weredefeated in a voice vote.
A number of Liberal backbenchers, including Toronto-areaMPs Jennifer O'ConnellandPam Damoff, spoke in favour of Bill S-201 An Act to Prohibit and Prevent Genetic Discrimination as originally drafted by recently retired Liberal senator Jim Cowan.
Conservative and NDP MPs also offered their support and chided the cabinet for accepting the "scaremongering" rhetoricof the insurance industry.
Now, at the request of the government, there will be a recorded vote (also referred to as a standing vote) on Boissonault's amendmentsWednesday evening.
Cowan said in an interview with CBC News Tuesday that the Trudeau cabinet's opposition to the bill is "curious" given the party's vocal embrace ofsuch legislation during the last election campaign and raisedthe possibility that aggressive lobbying efforts by the insurance industrysoured support.
Anna Gainey, the president of the federal Liberals, wroteto the Canadian Coalition for Genetic Fairness in October 2015 promising a Liberal government would "introduce measures, including possible legislative change, to prevent this [genetic] discrimination."
"Today, even people without symptoms can be denied life, mortgage and disability insurance and even rejected for employment based on genetic testing that shows risk of future illness. Many other countries have passed legislation on this problem. Canada is an outlier," she said in the letter addressed to the chair of the coalition, Bev Heim-Myers, and obtained by the CBC News.
Public lobbying records show there have been a number of meetings between the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Associationand ManulifeFinancialand senior members of Wilson-Raybould's office over thelast year where Bill S-201was the subject of conversation.
Liberal P.E.I. MP Sean Casey,who was, until recently,the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, was also lobbied by the insurance associationsix times in the last year.
Cowan, who introduced the legislation in the Red Chamber more than a year ago, pointed to the lobbying efforts as a potential explanation for the cabinet's skittishness.
"All I can say is look at the number of lobbyists from the insurance industry; they have been very, very active at the federal and provincial levels, and they've been lobbying [the government] very heavily, and lobbying MPs and senators. Now, is that the reason [the cabinet] is opposed to this bill? Some would say yes. But, as they say, I couldn't possibly comment."
After a strong commitment for the bill from the party in the last election, "it makes no sense to me," said Cowan.
Records are vague as to what was discussed during these lobbyist meetings, but the industry has not hidden its opposition to Cowan's private member'sbill, a piece of legislation easily passed the Senate last April, and the House of Commons justice committee inDecember.
Bill S-201, introduced by Cowanin December 2015, would add genetic characteristics as a protected ground under the Canadian Human Rights Act, introducepenalties for discrimination, and forbid employers from subjecting job applicants to a genetic test.
Recently retired Liberal senator James Cowan says aggressive lobbying by the insurance industry could be the reason the Trudeau cabinet is now opposed to his genetic discrimination bill. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
The bill would also allow people to refuse to disclose the results of a genetic test to anybody. Medical experts have said the legislation is necessary to counter the fears associated with potentially lifesaving genetic testing, which could produce resultsthat would help doctors better tailor health treatments.
The insurance industry recently committed to never asking an applicant to undergo a genetic test, but said it will ask for and retain the right to potentially use genetic testing information for life insurance applications for coverage over$250,000.
"The $250,000 limit helps ensure that individuals with knowledge of significant health risks through genetic testing information, cannot apply for unusually large life insurance policies without disclosing this information. Otherwise, the cost of insurance would increase for everyone and fewer Canadians would be able to afford coverage," the group said in a statement.
Cowan said there is no proof of widespread fraud in any other jurisdiction that has protections against genetic discrimination, including in the U.S., Great Britain, France and Israel.
"Their initial point was this will ruin the insurance industry as we know it. What's happened in all other countries that have protections like this? As far aswe know the insurance industry is doing just fine," he said.
Wilson-Raybould has said she is opposed to the legislationbecause she believesit treads on provincial jurisdiction over the insurance industry. (The bill does not specifically mention the insurance industry by name.)
She recently wrote a letter to the Council of the Federation, the group that represents the provinces and territories, asking for its opinion on the legislation.Three provinces, B.C., Manitoba, and Quebec,have raised some issues with the bill as written.
NDP MP Don Davies said during the House debate on Tuesday that the government'sclaims of constitutional problems are "a smokescreen and no more."
Cowanadded constitutional experts have been widely consulted on the bill, and have testified beforethe Senate and House committees that Parliament is well within its rights tolegislate in this area.
He said hewrote letters to the provinces when drafting this legislation and not one responded to his inquiries with any concerns about the bill.
CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content
See the original post:
MPs reject Liberal government's attempt to gut genetic discrimination bill - CBC.ca
If you like Modi so much, why dont you go, sleep with Modi? The first time someone asked me this question was in 2013 when I had just started writing on Facebook about my political beliefs. I was engaged in a fierce debate about Narendra Modi with a few people when this question landed in my comment box.
Thirteen words that changed my world view forever!
I was shocked not so much by the viciousness and venom of the question, but by the identity of the person who asked it. He was a mild-looking 65-year-old man with a flowing white beard. Almost Tagore-like in his looks, he was a self-professed Marxist who claimed to publish a dubious rag called Civil Society! Apparently, his idea of civil society allowed him to throw sexual slurs at a woman he did not even know personally.
It was my first brush with the intolerance of the liberals! Since then, I have been abused, threatened and ridiculed by people who call themselves liberals thousands of times. There are parody pages dedicated to me. Fake profiles are created in my name, and my photographs are morphed and circulated as Facebook and Twitter memes.
All in the name of liberalism, feminism and freedom of expression.
Once I had written about the feminist ploy of generalisation, of demonising all Indian men each time there is an incident of crime against women in India. I was told by someone who called herself a feminist to go back into the kitchen and stay there. Women like you dont deserve the right to speak, she announced rather grandly. This was not the first time I had faced ridicule from self-professed feminists. A supposedly liberal writer had once condescendingly called me a mediocre housewife turned columnist when he couldnt argue cogently about something that I had written.
Apparently, irony as a concept is unfamiliar to some Facebook feminists!
I refuse to label myself as a feminist, only because, at least in India these days, the term is being thrown about very casually. It has come to mean a rabid, blinding hatred of men. But that does not mean I condone gender discrimination.
I am appalled when I see rape threats and sexual slurs being bandied about by some people to silence the voice of women, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they choose to be on. As a woman who has been viciously attacked both in virtual as well as real life for daring to speak up, I can never be on the side of sexism and gender discrimination.
As a child raised by a freedom-fighter and a strong mother, I was always encouraged to speak up, to voice my opinions, to say what I think is right, rather than parrot a narrative that is 'au courant'. I grew up with a deep love for India ingrained in me. I had heard many stories about that tumultuous decade in my fathers life when he was an armed revolutionary fighting for Goas freedom from the Portuguese.
At 21, my father was declared the Most Wanted Rebel by the Portuguese regime for daring to lead a successful raid on a Portuguese armoury. I had seen the scars on my grand-uncles back, mementoes of the time when he was arrested, beaten and tortured by the Portuguese police because they wanted him to reveal information about my father. I had heard first hand, stories about how my father and his colleagues were chased for over eight hours by a Portuguese armoured van mounted with an automatic gun and how they walked 30 km on foot on an empty stomach through the night in a daring escape.
I inherited my love for India and my respect for the armed forces from my father. It was only when I joined the mass communication department of Pune University, to pursue my master's degree, that I realised that patriotism was a bad word in the liberal dictionary. Whenever I spoke in class about India and nationalism, there were voices dismissing it as rubbish sentimentalism.
Humanities students were not supposed to be such bigoted chest-thumping rabid hyper-nationalists, they said. When we were shown Anand Patwardhans movie Ram ke Naam in class, we were supposed to display the requisite feelings of revulsion and horror at the conduct of Hindu nationalists. When some of us felt that the movie was a poorly researched, very biased, one-sided narrative, we were not allowed to voice that thought.
In the brave new world of journalism, patriotism was pass!
After graduating from the University, I started my career in entertainment television, moved on to editing websites, writing freelance for newspapers on varied subjects like culture, travel, education and leisure. I steered clear of politics, for what I saw, sickened me. The convenient one-sided narrative that was being peddled by mainstream media as the only truth led me to question the credibility of mainstream media.
And then, something wonderful happened. The remarkable phenomenon called 'social media'. For the first time, people like me had found a medium to voice our opinions, without any filters, censorship or editorial interference. The average Indian citizen was no longer a passive consumer of news as defined by mainstream media, but she could be an active contributor.
I started writing political blogs from my Facebook page. The first post that went viral was written in January 2013, when Rahul Gandhi was elevated to the vice president of the Congress party. Suddenly, my opinion had gone mainstream without needing the crutches of conventional media, and there were a lot of people out there who agreed with my point of view.
Since then, it has been quite a journey. It has been incredibly rewarding to have complete strangers reach out to tell me that they too are sick of mainstream media demonising the concepts of nationalism, patriotism and love for India. I have had readers approach me in places as far flung as Darjeeling, Sikkim, Kinnaur or Kanchi to tell me that I am voicing their opinion. Luckily, I have an extremely supportive husband and extended family that has helped me remain strong in the face of abuse and personal threats.
I think it was Martin Luther King Jr. who had said, Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
I am glad I chose to live!
See original here:
How I Learnt That Liberals In India Are Not Really Liberal - Swarajya
Is there any party less aptly named than the Liberal Democrats? A truly liberal party would embrace the chance to shape Britains future as a self-governing nation outside the EU, free to trade with the world. And a democratic one would respect what the people voted for in one of the biggest exercises of democracy in modern times. Instead, the Lib Dems want to stop Brexit.
With only nine MPs, the Lib Dems can do little harm in the House of Commons, but there are over 100 of them in the House of Lords, many rashly given peerages by David Cameron to placate his Coalition allies. Those peers are seeking to force the Government to hold a second referendum on the final Brexit deal; they say they will vote against the Bill that will authorise Theresa May to trigger Article 50 unless their scheme for another public vote is written into law.
Continued here:
Liberal activists are increasingly upset at what they see as too little opposition to President Trumps Supreme Court nominee and are even threatening to run primary challengers against Democrats in the Senate who end up supporting Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Nearly a dozen influential liberal groups fired off a letter this week calling Judge Gorsuch an ultra-conservative and demanding a more unified opposition.
We need you to do better, the groups said in the letter, which was organized by NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Several news outlets reported that the groups may even back primary opponents against Democrats who dont show enough opposition.
On Capitol Hill, liberal senators are looking for lines of attack against Judge Gorsuch, who until now has received glowing reviews from many of the senators including Democrats with whom he has met.
Three Democrats held a press conference Tuesday to question Judge Gorsuchs rulings on workers rights, saying some of his decisions as an appellate judge contradict Mr. Trumps promises to empower American workers.
Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, said Judge Gorsuch has a distinctly anti-worker record.
She pointed to a ruling against a woman who lost her job after a leukemia diagnosis, against a female employees discrimination case and against a truck driver who was fired for leaving his post because of health concerns.
Im very concerned that should he end up on the court, he would side with conservative justices in continuing to undermine worker protections, safety and ability to organize, Ms. Murray said.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said Ms. Murray and her colleagues were cherry-picking cases to distort the judges record.
She said Judge Gorsuch, as a lawyer, won a major antitrust case against U.S. Tobacco Co. and, as a judge, wrote a ruling that restored multimillion-dollar penalties against Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell International.
Early efforts to undermine Judge Gorsuch have fallen flat, leaving ardent Democrats looking for new angles of attack.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, requested documents from the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, two conservative organizations that helped shape Mr. Trumps list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
The wholesale outsourcing of nominee selection to interest groups is without known precedent, especially for a position as important as associate justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Blumenthal said.
Ms. Murray said liberal groups frustration should be aimed at Mr. Trump.
With all the chaos surrounding this new administration, I want to make it clear I have really serious concerns about moving forward with the nominee at this time, she said.
I think there is a lot going on that makes it very hard to look at anything that they are doing. The hide the ball campaign is real, and this is a serious nomination that should take serious consideration, Ms. Murray said.
Despite the liberal uprising, Judge Gorsuch made rounds Tuesday on Capitol Hill and met with four Senate Democrats.
Sen. Al Franken, Minnesota Democrat, told reporters that he wasnt satisfied with some of Judge Gorsuchs answers to his questions and thought he got into judgespeak.
Hes met with 70 senators, so I think hes probably gotten pretty good at speaking around some things, Mr. Franken said.
Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he doesnt expect Democrats to put aside politics because they are furious that the voters would dare vote for a Republican president and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.
I have no doubt the Democrats will use whatever procedural tools they have to delay that confirmation, Mr. Cruz said.
See more here:
Liberals threaten Democrats over support for Gorsuch - Washington Times
Russian hackers are targeting U.S. progressive groups in a new wave of attacks, scouring the organizations emails for embarrassing details and attempting to extract hush money, according to two people familiar with probes being conducted by the FBI and private security firms.
At least a dozen groups have faced extortion attempts since the U.S. presidential election, said the people, who provided broad outlines of the campaign. The ransom demands are accompanied by samples of sensitive data in the hackers possession.
In one case, a non-profit group and a prominent liberal donor discussed how to use grant money to cover some costs for anti-Trump protesters. The identities were not disclosed, and its unclear if the protesters were paid.
At least some groups have paid the ransoms even though there is little guarantee the documents wont be made public anyway. Demands have ranged from about $30,000 to $150,000, payable in untraceable bitcoins, according to one of the people familiar with the probe.
Attribution is notoriously difficult in a computer attack. The hackers have used some of the techniques that security experts consider hallmarks of Cozy Bear, one of the Russian government groups identified as behind last years attack on the Democratic National Committee during the presidential election and which is under continuing investigation. Cozy Bear has not been accused of using extortion in the past, though separating government and criminal actors in Russia can be murky as security experts say some people have a foot in both worlds.
Here's What We Know About Russian Hackers
The Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank with strong links to both the Clinton and Obama administrations, and Arabella Advisors, which guides liberal donors who want to invest in progressive causes, have been asked to pay ransoms, according to people familiar with the probes.
The Center for American Progress declined a pre-publication request for comment. "CAP has no evidence we have been hacked, no knowledge of it and no reason to believe it to be true. CAP has never been subject to ransom, Allison Preiss, a spokeswoman for the center, said in a statement Monday morning.
Its unclear whether Arabella is part of the same campaign as the other dozen groups, according to one of the people familiar with the probes, but the tactics and approach are similar.
If the Arabella attack came from a different group, multiple criminals could be lifting a page from Russias hacking of the 2016 campaign, attempting to leverage the reputational damage that could be inflicted on political organizations by exposing their secrets.
Arabella Advisors was affected by cyber crime, said Steve Sampson, a spokesman for the firm, which lists 150 employees operating in four offices. "All facts indicate this was financially motivated.
QuickTake U.S. Probe of Russia Hacking
During the election Russian hackers heavily targeted the personal email accounts of staffers associated with the Clinton campaign. One of the people who described the current campaign said that in some cases, web-based email accounts are also being targeted because of their heavy use among non-profits.
Along with emails, the hackers are stealing documents frompopular web-based applications like SharePoint, which lets people in different locations work on Microsoft Office files, one of the people said.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation declined to comment when asked about the latest hacks. It is continuing to investigate Russias attempts to influence the election and any possible connections to Trump campaign aides. Russian officials have repeatedly denied any attempt to influence the election or any role in related computer break-ins.
I would be cautious concluding that this has any sort of Russian government backing, said John Hultquist, director of cyber espionage analysis at FireEye Inc., after the outline of the attacks was described to him. Russian government hackers have aggressively targeted think tanks, and even masqueraded as ransomware operations, but its always possible it is just another shakedown.
NSA Has Moderate Confidence in Russia Hacking Report
The hackers targeting of left-leaning groups -- and the sifting of emails for sensitive or discrediting information -- has set off alarms that the attacks could constitute a fresh wave of Russian government meddling in the U.S. political system. The attacks could be designed to look like a criminal caper or they could have the tacit support of Russian intelligence agencies, the people said.
Russias intelligence agencies maintain close relationships with criminal hackers in the country, according to several U.S. government investigations.
None of the possible explanations for the attacks are particularly comforting to the victimized groups, few of which are household names but are part of the foundation of liberal politics in the U.S.
Some of the groups are associated with causes now under attack by the Trump administration. Arabellas founder, Eric Kessler, and its senior managing director, Bruce Boyd, worked for national environmental groups early in their careers. Arabella declined to make Kessler or Boyd available for comment.
The Center for American Progress is a fierce critic of the Trump administration and its policies, and has called for a deeper investigation into contacts by Trumps inner circle with Russian officials.
Its unclear if Trump or his top aides have been briefed on the investigation.
The President has accused liberal groups of sending protesters to congressional town halls, mocking his opponents in a tweet on Feb. 21. The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!, Trump tweeted from his personal account.
Regardless of who is behind the latest round of hacks and ransom requests, there is also indication that state-sponsored hackers continue a broader targeting of liberal groups in the U.S.
The most important business stories of the day.
Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.
The day after the election, the FSB, Russias main intelligence agency, targeted the personal emails of hundreds of people, including national security experts, military officers and former White House officials, according to data provided by cyber security researchers who are tracking the spying and who asked not to be identified because of the risks of retaliation. The list was weighted toward people who have worked in Democratic administrations or who are linked with liberal causes.
Among those targets was Kate Albright-Hanna. She worked for Barack Obama in his first presidential campaign in 2008 and then briefly in the White House Office of Health Care Reform.
That was eight years ago. Since then she has worked on a documentary about corruption in New York and developed a network of investigative journalists and activists, not the most obvious target for Russian espionage.
I have no idea why I would be targeted, said Albright-Hanna, who now lives in New York. Its super weird.
Excerpt from:
Russian Hackers Said to Seek Hush Money From Liberal Groups ... - Bloomberg
MEDFORD One hundred years ago this month, US President Woodrow Wilson was agonizing over whether to enter World War I. Just a few months earlier, Wilson had won re-election partly by campaigning on a policy of neutrality, which he was now preparing to abandon, along with the slogan America first. But now, for the first time in more than 80 years, a US president has taken it up again, to promote a foreign-policy stance that directly controverts the doctrine Wilson embraced.
It was not until 1919, after the war was over, that Wilson defined his foreign-policy vision of liberal internationalism: support for collective security and promotion of open markets among democracies, regulated by a system of multinational institutions ultimately dependent on the United States. Though the US Senate initially rejected Wilsons vision, particularly his support for joining the League of Nations, Franklin D. Roosevelt revived liberal internationalism after 1933. It has helped to shape the foreign policies of most US presidents ever since until Trump.
The America first approach that Trump advocates comprises disdain for NATO, contempt for the European Union, and mockery of Germanys leadership role in Europe. It also includes rejection of economic openness, reflected in Trumps withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and call to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Trump has also pledged to back out of the Paris climate agreement.
Unlike Wilson, Trump seems to see no value in maintaining and deepening ties with other democracies. Instead, he seems drawn to authoritarian leaders in particular, Russian President Vladimir Putin and often leaves democratic leaders watching from the wings.
To be sure, if Wilson were alive today, he might agree with Trump on some issues, though his proposed solutions would be very different. For example, Wilson would probably concur with Trump that the level of openness in global markets today is excessive. It is indeed problematic that US banks and businesses can export capital, technology, and jobs as they please, with little or no regard for the domestic costs.
But Wilsons solution would likely focus on developing and implementing improved regulations through a multilateral process dominated by democracies. Likewise, he would probably advocate a fiscal policy aimed at advancing the common good, with higher taxes on the wealthiest companies and households funding, say, infrastructure development, quality education, and universal health care.
In short, Wilson would endorse a program more like that of Democratic US Senator Elizabeth Warren or Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, featuring an advanced social-welfare system that enables broad-based prosperity. By contrast, Trump advocates lower taxes for the wealthy, and seems willing to embrace some form of state capitalism if not crony capitalism via protectionist policies and special incentives for companies to manufacture in the US.
Wilson might agree with Trump on another point: we cannot assume that democracy is a universal value with universal appeal. Like Trump, Wilson would probably eschew the idealistic nation- and state-building formulas that animated US foreign policy under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
But here, too, the differences overwhelm the similarities. Trump has decided that the US simply shouldnt bother with the rest of the world, unless it gets something concrete in return. Wilson, by contrast, wanted to spread democracy for the sake of world peace, but in an indirect manner, working through the League of Nations. He believed that international institutions, the rule of law, common values, and an elite possessed of a democratic vision could ensure collective security and peaceful conflict resolution. What would begin as Pax Americana, he believed, would ultimately become a Pax Democratica.
This vision lies at the root of American exceptionalism. The claim is not simply that the US is, as Bill Clinton put it, the indispensable nation, whose global power makes it a party to all major international issues. It is also that the US can expect deference from other states, because it looks beyond its narrow self-interest to sustain an international order that supports peace, cooperation, and prosperity, particularly among the worlds democracies.
Not every US president has followed Wilsons lead. The promise of liberal internationalism was snuffed out for three presidential administrations, from the election of Warren G. Harding in 1920 until FDR took office in 1933. With Trump, it is being snuffed out again. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land, Trump declared at his inauguration. From this day forward, its going to be only America first.
But Wilsons vision may not prove so easy to quash. Back in the twentieth century, the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War impelled US policymakers to embrace liberal internationalism. Today, too, a tumultuous world is likely to vindicate its deep and enduring appeal.
Original post:
Is Liberal Internationalism Dead? by Tony Smith - Project Syndicate - Project Syndicate
Its doubtful that many of those jumping on the hood of his car and chasing him off the campus had, you know, read the book they were so angry about.
When a mob of left-wing students Thursday prevented author Charles Murray from speaking at Middlebury College in Vermont, forcing him into a closed room where he live-streamed his presentation, it was a familiar moment for those of us who were politically active in the late 60s and 70s. We experienced the rising view on the left that those they labeled and opposed as reactionary or fascist had no right to free speech, the thesis propagated by the late and then popular Marxist philosopher, Herbert Marcuse, in his once famous 1965 essay, Repressive Tolerance, first published in The Critique of Pure Tolerance.
As Murray and Allison Stanger, a professor who had engaged in a dialogue with him, made their way to a car after the event, masked students and protestorssome from outside the college and few of whom Id wager had read Marcuse even as they brought his argument to lifeattacked them. Stangers hair was pulled, and she had to go to the hospital for a neck brace. Once they were in the car, protesters banged on its doors and windows and jumped on its hood, with the pair only able to leave after the Middlebury Police Department arrived and cleared a path for them.What transpired instead felt like a scene from Homeland, Prof. Stanger later wrote on Facebook, rather than an evening at an institution of higher learning,
Murray, most recently the author of Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, had been invited to speak at the college on the book. The students who invited him felt, accurately, that his views on the topic might provide them with insight into the current political situation as many of the people Murray had written about had supported and voted for Donald Trump.
The protesters, though, turned their ire on his highly controversial 1994 best seller, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, in which Murray and co-author Richard Herrnstein argued that there is a significant correlation between an individuals IQ, and their success or failure in life. Using current research and statistics, and many charts, they went even further in the nature vs. nurture debate, by claiming that IQ itself was mainly, though not wholly, based on genetics. In their bell curve, Asians scored slightly higher than whites and blacks were significantly lower than whites. As Malcolm W. Browne wrote in a very critical review, according to the authors, if this divide is not addressed America may soon be permanently split between an isolated caste of ruling meritocrats on one hand and a vast, powerless Lumpenproletariat on the other.
The book was not, as some of the student protestors argued, a Nazi-like defense of eugenics. As Browne noted, Nowhere do they [Murray and other authors discussed] advocate the measures championed by the eugenicists of the 1920s and 1930s, whose ideas were appropriated and perverted by the Nazis as the rationale for the Holocaust. Indeed, the authors of The Bell Curve say that the granting to any government or social institution of the power to decide who may breed and who may not is fraught with such obvious dangers as to be unacceptable. Browne ended his essay by agreeing with the authors that the time has come to rehabilitate rational discourse on the subject [of intelligence.] It is hard to imagine a democratic society doing otherwise.
Certainly, Murrays book came under fire and elicited numerous critiques. The way it should be handled was exemplified by the New Republic, when it was still a serious journal of opinion. The magazine excerpted the book, and many readers, including a good number of the magazines own editors, objected strenuously to its thesis. The editors did what any respectable journal would have done: They followed the excerpt with dissenting responses. The dissents were specific and scathing. Intelligent readers could assess the Murray-Herrnstein case for themselves, and after reading the responses, decide whether their argument had any merit.
It is doubtful that many of Middleburys student protesters had read the book. I was genuinely surprised and troubled to learn that some of my faculty colleagues had rendered judgement on Dr. Murrays work and character, Prof. Stanger wrote in an open letter to the Middlebury community, while openly admitting that they had not read anything he had written.
Nevertheless, they were certain that Murray was a racist, a eugenicist, and a conservativein other words, the right-wing enemy. While Middleburys president, Laurie Patton, said that she was deeply disappointed by the protest, and apologized to those who came and wanted in good faith to participate in a serious discussion, and to Murray and Stanger for the way they were treated during the event, the faculty was conspicuously silent.
Some of those professors have surely read Marcuse, who argued now that capitalism had exhausted itself, the old paradigm of tolerance was no longer relevant. Instead, being tolerant serves the need of the oppressors who use it to hold onto and protect their power. It was thus the duty of the left to deny the free speech of the right, since the only truth lay with those who were oppressed. The masses, he said, had to be freed from the indoctrination imposed on them by the unjust established society by preventing those propagating the values of the capitalist system from speaking and having influence.
Consequently, he calls for the withdrawal of toleration or speech and assembly from groups or movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race or religion. In the end, Marcuse called for intolerance to be directed at the self-styled conservatives, [and] to the political Right.
Todays protesting students at Middlebury probably never heard of Marcuse, but many of their professors and older alumni certainly did, or if not they were influenced by his thinking. That is why it is hardly a surprise to find that 450 Middlebury alumni wrote an open letter titled Charles Murray at Middlebury: Unacceptable and Unethical. Their letter is a model example of how Marcuses tortured ideology is now being expressed on college campuses. First, they establish that Murray is a white nationalist by quoting the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center, a sometimes admirable but not always reliable authority thats been the subject of debunking on both the left and the right.
Having accepted the SPLCs verdict on Murray, the alumni write that their call to keep him off the campus is not an issue of free speech. Of course, they claim that Middlebury students must hear a diverse range of perspectives, including those in which our beliefs were questioned and our assumptions challenged but in Murrays case, the principle does not apply. That is because they believe that Murray argues for the biological and intellectual superiority of white men and does so pretending to have academic authority. Then they falsely accuse him of promoting eugenics, and of genocidal white supremacist ideologies. Somehow, I dont think any of these alumni signers would have protested an appearance by noted eugenicist and birth control advocate Margaret Sanger, if she was still with us.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason
They assert that Murray shows in all his books the same disregard for basic standards of research and peer review. In fact, many academics thought The Bell Curve raised substantive issues that needed discussing. Wouldnt students have learned a better lesson had they been allowed to hear Murrays talk, and then heard the discussion when he was challenged during the Q and A? Using the phrase recently uttered by Kellyanne Conway, they proclaim his books are composed of alternative facts. So rather than have academic debate, they call the invitation to hear Murray a threat.
As events showed, it was a threatone that did not come from Charles Murray, but from the student mob of self-righteous uninformed leftists who prevented him from speaking, and who threatened Murrays First Amendment rights. (In a tweet, Murray quipped that I dont think physical assault is covered by lst amendment either. But Im not a constitutional scholar.)
Echoing the old Marcuse argument, whoever wrote the alumni letter said there was no other side to debate, only deceptive statistics masking unfounded bigotry. In other words, only those who take the right (as in left)position have the right to be heard, and those who dont have to be stopped from speaking.
The late professor Marcuse must be looking down at Middlebury College with great pleasure.
Read this article:
Liberal Intolerance Revives as Charles Murray Is Chased From Middlebury College - Daily Beast