Category Archives: Freedom

In a case testing free speech restrictions, the state Court of Appeals recently reversed the convictions of a man accused of trying to intimidate two city of Oak Harbor employees in 2017.

The ruling was filed Dec. 30 as a published opinion, which means it established precedent and can be cited in the future.

A jury in Island County Superior Court found Jeremy Dawley guilty of two counts of intimidating a public servant, but the appeals court ruled the statute is constitutionally overbroad because it restricts a substantial amount of free speech. The justices noted that a law that restricts free speech is subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests of the government.

No matter the motive behind an individuals attempt to influence a public servants vote, opinion, decision or other official action as a public servant, the opinion states, such pure political speech is at the core of the First Amendment and necessarily subject to heightened protection.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington filed an amicus brief in support of Dawley, arguing that the statute for intimidating a public servant criminalizes political speech.

Criticism of public officials is a fundamental exercise of political speech rights protected by the First Amendment and by the Washington Constitution, the brief states.

Dawley, who had been discharged from the Navy after suffering a brain injury, had a history of being antagonistic toward police officers and acting strangely. He was preoccupied with traffic complaints, making 144 calls to the emergency dispatch center in a three-week period, and became upset when officers practiced discretion in enforcement.

In rambling conversations with police officers and the city attorney, Dawley made comments about using Green Beret tactics and owning a sniper rifle. He told the police chief he would give out the Oak Harbor city attorneys personal information to rapists and violent offenders.

Dawley was then arrested after he made public records requests for information about sexual and violent offenders, then went to the city attorneys office.

In arguments at the appeals court, Chief Criminal Deputy Eric Ohme with the Island County Prosecutors Office conceded that Dawley did not make a true threat, which is one of the few categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment. State law has 10 definitions for what constitutes a threat, but a true threat is about violence; its a statement meant to frighten or intimidate someone into believing they will be seriously harmed.

Ohme argued that the statute was constitutional because it doesnt criminalize pure speech, but that it contains two requirements that must be met for convictions, namely a threat and the intent to influence a government employees action.

In addition, he argued that the phone calls made to city staff should be considered private speech, which is subject to less constitutional scrutiny than speech in the public domain, that the law affects only a narrow class of people and the government has a compelling interest in limiting speech meant to intimidate public employees.

In the opinion, the justices found that the intimidating a public servant statute can be saved with a jury instruction that limits it to true threats alone.

The appeals court decision means Dawleys conviction is overturned, though he has already served a jail sentence and moved to Eastern Washington. Court records indicate that he has been arrested this year in two felony cases. In one case, he faces charges that include second-degree assault, assault of a law enforcement officer and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle; the other involves malicious mischief charges.

A judge ordered that Dawley receive a competency evaluation from a mental health provider, court documents indicate.

Read the original here:

Appeals Court reverses conviction in freedom of speech case - Whidbey News-Times

There is a blindingly obvious strategy behind Boris Johnsons approach to Brexit since becoming prime minister rally Leave voters to back his plans no matter what or risk democracy falling apart at the seams.

This was achieved in two ways. Firstly, having failed to obtain parliamentary approval for his reheated version of Theresa Mays withdrawal agreement, he (successfully) pitted people against parliament by asserting that the House of Commons was effectively thwarting the will of the people. Johnsons catchy if wholly misleading election slogan, Get Brexit done, resonated with swathes of a weary population and returned him to Number 10 with a majority and an unshackled negotiating hand.

Johnson revealed the latest gambit in his game plan during his New Years message. In exhorting Leavers and Remainers to shed the past, come together behind Brexit and be friends, he was knowingly asking for the impossible, conveniently positioning himself as the enthusiastic peacemaker in the face of implacable, uncompromising Remain fanatics. His followers will undoubtedly lap this up but the reality is this: Remainers are unable to rally behind the prime minister and his pet project because frankly, they have been offered nothing in return.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

The 2016 referendum was unusual in many ways, but one outcome stands out as particularly pernicious, especially from the perspective of Remainers. As things stand, UK citizens are set to lose their right to free movement the ability to live, work, study and retire across the European Union and wider EEA.

Many will bristle at the memory of several high-profile Brexiteers reassuring the public prior to June 2016 that the UKs place in the single market (and therefore freedom of movement) was not in question. Even more will seethe at the fact that in the years since, the government has needlessly and recklessly pursued a harder version of Brexit on the basis of a knife-edge referendum result, the legitimacy of which remains questionable in the eyes of many.

Joint 5th

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 5th

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 5th

iStock

Joint 5th

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 4th

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 4th

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 4th

Getty Images

Joint 3rd

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 3rd

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 3rd

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 2nd

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 2nd

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 2nd

Getty

Joint 1st

Getty Images

Joint 1st

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 5th

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 5th

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 5th

iStock

Joint 5th

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 4th

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 4th

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 4th

Getty Images

Joint 3rd

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 3rd

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 3rd

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 2nd

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 2nd

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Joint 2nd

Getty

Joint 1st

Getty Images

Joint 1st

Getty Images/iStockphoto

This is precisely why, with the Final Say vote campaigneffectively deadheaded by the outcome of Decembers general election, it is absolutely vital that the frontline of the battle moves to the fight to retain freedom of movement a right many Brits have known since birth. A potential conduit to this would be associate EU citizenship, a concept mooted early in the negotiations by Guy Verhofstadt. This mechanism would allow Brits to opt-in to a form of EU citizenship, presumably at a price.

There is precedent for such a proposition. In the run-up to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, no voters were reassured that in the event of a yes victory, their status as British citizens would ideally be safeguarded. There was a recognition that identity is innate and cannot, should not and must not be relinquished at the behest of others who may feel differently. The notion of inherent identity also lies at the heart of the arrangements in place in Northern Ireland, where inhabitants can obtain both a British and Irish passport, depending on their personal inclinations.

With almost one million Brits having applied for Irish passports since the referendum and millions of others desperately looking for potential avenues to retain their precious EU citizenship, the UK is poised to become host to a two-tier system. In this structure, those with one Irish grandparent, for example, will continue to reap the rewards of free movement, while those without are left wanting, regardless of how they voted in 2016 or their level of affinity with our neighbours. The status quo on this matter is unjust and unsustainable.

This fundamental facet of the whole Brexit debate has been largely drowned out by demands for a Final Say vote. With 11 months to go before Johnsons arbitrary deadline for the end of the transition period, the inequality and injustice of the situation we face must be highlighted ad nauseam and preferably tested in law.

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

Remainers have thus far been presented with little to dissuade them of the conviction that Brexit is both undesirable and unnecessary. Despite this, the reality is that a combination of Brexit fatigue and an indefatigably Euro sceptic media landscape make our exit from the EU top table certain. The context has changed and so must the focus of Remainers. They must now regather and re-energise for a relentless campaign of lobbying and awareness raising if they are to stand a chance of preserving what they hold most dear.

If Boris Johnson is sincere in his stated wish to try to heal wounds and end the division that has become so deep-rooted, he should look to associate EU citizenship as the olive branch he needs to extend to those of us for whom Brexit transcends economic or political debate.

Visit link:

Freedom of movement is now the most important fight in the Brexit battleground - The Independent

Our final port stop on this cruise brings us to Bonaire, which is my second time visiting this island. On my first visit, I lamented not having a plan on shore, so this time we had a shore excursion lined up.

We dropped our kids off at Adventure Ocean, and then walked off the ship around 8:30am to start our trip.

Prior to the cruise, I booked an ATV throughquadprojectbonaire.com to use for half the day. Many others in our group reserved golf carts to rent, but these sold out before I could book one. The ATV is significantly faster, brand new and also way cooler looking!

As we walked off the ship, Eddie was waiting with a sign to take us to pick up the ATV. He is just getting started in the business, and took us in his truck to his home to pick up the vehicle.

The rental ran from 9am to 1pm, and cost $90 for a a two-seater Can Am Maverick 800 ATV.

The ATV was complete with storage space, a cooler, bluetooth speaker, automatic transmission and plenty of lighting. It drove very well and was so much fun to drive.

We started off driving down and around the southern portion of Bonaire.

We visited a variety of spots along the way, stopping along the road when something looked interesting.

There was plenty of naturally beautiful spots, as well as historical monuments to Bonaire's past.

At one point, we ran across the Sorobon Beach Resort. We stopped to grab a drink, but I kind of wish we had spent more of our day here, because the beach was beautiful.

We completed the southern loop earlier than expected, so we drove back through town to the north end of the island to see the 1000 steps.

This is a popular dive site that featureslimestone stairs you have to descendto get to the water.Though the name might sound a bit intimidating, the stairs only exists of about 67 steps.

The ATV rental was a home run, and I loved it. The vehicle was fun to drive, and the perfect way to get around Bonaire. I was glad I bought that sim card in Curacao, because having Google Maps was very helpful.

After returning the ATV, Eddie drove us back to town and we had lunch at an Italian restaurant, where I ate a terrific chicken parmigiana.

We rounded out our day in Bonaire by having a few beers a small brewery downtown, the Bonaire Blonde Brewery.

We got back onboard the ship to get cleaned up for dinner.

Dinner tonight was in Chops Grille. It felt sort of odd having such a wide gap in specialty dinners with our dining package.

Meal was great, and service was fantastic.

After dinner, many of us in the group started off hanging out in the pub, but migrated to the On Air Club. A good time was had by all.

Tomorrow is a sea day, and our last day onboard.

View original post here:

Freedom of the Seas Live Blog - Day 6 - Bonaire - Royal Caribbean Blog

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

RICHMOND, Va. -- A group of about 15 people left the Virginia War Memorial Friday morning to embark on a roughly 105-mile walk to Arlington National Cemetery in honor of service men and women.

Seven years ago Vic Wise began this walk (now known as Freedom Ruck) all on his own. But Friday, Wise wasn't alone. He left around 9 a.m. with a group of people marching north on State Route One -- where a police escort and other walkers planned to meet him on the way.

The ruck raises money for the Navy SEAL Foundation. Wise said the primary goal is to spark patriotism.

"Its a friendly reminder that we appreciate those that serve the country, and it's not a political affiliation. Its simply a 'thank you,'" said Wise. "My brother served, my dad served, and I never served -- but I felt the need to give back to the community."

Wise added that they carry rucks on their backs just as service men and women often do.

"Thats where ruck started," said Wise. "Freedom ruck -- to appreciate our freedom, and ruck is supposed to signify the load that they carry."

This year -- and for the past three years -- former deputy and coastguard servicewoman, Jennifer Wayne, joined Wise in the ruck.

"Just thinking about why we're doing it kind of keeps you awake a little bit," said Wayne. "I think that as someone whose been in the military and in law enforcement, it's much needed. Especially in this day and age that we know that people are out there supporting us."

Wayne said she hasn't made it all the way to Arlington with the group yet, but it it's a goal of hers.

"As you approach Washington D.C., you can kind of feel that sense of pride, and that sense of who we are as a nation," said Wise.

Wise added that he hopes that feeling is contagious.

"I want them to fly their flags, say 'thank you,' buy a drink for men and women in uniform or give back with your time," said Wise. "Try to give back to those in the community because they give so much to us."

Excerpt from:

Freedom Ruck from Richmond is 105-mile trek to honor service men and women - WTVR CBS 6 News

Our next port stop is Aruba, and it is a full day of fun, with the ship departing at 9pm.

We got ourselves up and ready early, and relied on the complimentary room service that staying in a suite provides to eat while getting prepared.

We walked off the ship at 9am and took a taxi to the Eagle Aruba Resort & Casino. I searched for day passes and things to do in Aruba, and found that it was economical to book a hotel room even though we knew we would be checking in and checking out the same day. Given the fact we were in port late, it made sense.

After a short taxi ride (perhaps 5 minutes, we arrived at the hotel.

The appeal of booking this hotel was it featured two pools (including a water slide), beach access at Eagle Beach and a room to utilize.

Prior to booking the hotel, I verified we could arrive early in the morning and use the resort facilities.

There are two large pools, one with a large water slide and one with a waterfall grotto.

There was plenty of seating, complimentary Wi-Fi access and shade for those that wanted it.

We spent our morning by the pool and my kids probably climbed that water slide at least a dozen times.

The resort also offers complimentary beach palapas and beach chairs at Eagle Beach. You simply walk across the street and through the next resort to access the beach.

The weather was fantastic, and we had our best day yet outdoors. A consistent breeze kept the warm temperatures tolerable.

Around 1pm, our room was ready, and it was larger than I expected. King size bed, sofa with pull out sofa, full kitchen and private balcony. My only regret is we did not have more time to spend to enjoy the room.

As the afternoon wore on, we had to head back to the ship for our other adventure for the day.

One of the staples of a RoyalCaribbeanBlog group cruise is enjoying a group excursion together. On this cruise, we organized a private catamaran sunset cruise through Royal Caribbean.

The tour departed from across from the ship and it was a two-hour sailing off the coast of Aruba to enjoy an unencumbered view of the sun setting.

The weather was perfect, with a great breeze and warm temperatures all round.

The sailing even included an open bar of drinks, and a few light bites to eat.

Not only did we see a fantastic sunset, but we got to spend a couple hours with friends. It was a ton of fun.

Back on the ship, we ate a late dinner in the Windjammer and then kicked back with a few drinks at the pub.

Tomorrow, we will be in Bonaire.

See the article here:

Freedom of the Seas Live Blog - Day 5 - Aruba - Royal Caribbean Blog

It is time to begin the "ABC" part of our itinerary with a visit to Curacao.

Being New Years Day, you might imagine it was a little slow going that morning. We had no excursion booked, so we all slept in and did not get off the ship until almost noon time.

The plan for the day was to walk downtown and shop/eat, then go to a beach later in the day.

The walk is fairly short from where the ships dock, with the highlight being walking across the pontoon bridge.

It was a hot day, but luckily there was a nice breeze that kept it comfortable.

With it being New Years Day, it was a government holiday and that meant many more stores were closed than I thought would be considering there were a few cruise ships in town.

We ate lunch at an outdoor cafe that was right on the river, simple called Dock.

It was light fare, and featured some Dutch specialties, including a Gouda sandwich.

We did a bit more shopping after lunch, and then went to Mambo Beach for the afternoon.

Mambo Beach is a short taxi ride away (five minutes or so), and it features a lot of restaurants and bars. It reminded me of an entertainment district back home, but with a large beach scene.

The plan was to enjoy some time at the beach, with a view of the sunset at the end of the day. Unfortunately, everyone else seemed to have the same plan, because the beach was quite crowded and never got uncrowded.

We took in the beginning of the sunset, and then decided to head back to the ship. Freedom of the Seas was docked today until 8pm, so it was nice having more of an evening to enjoy.

Back onboard the ship, the kids were tired and we fed them in the Windjammer and put them to bed a little earlier than usual.

I rounded out my day catching up with friends in the Pub.

Tomorrow, we will be in Aruba.

The ship formerly known as Monarch of the Seas was in port with us today.

Read more:

Freedom of the Seas Live Blog - Day 4 - Curacao - Royal Caribbean Blog

|

Posted: Jan 06, 2020 12:02 PM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Political leadership and mainstream media rhetoric have led many to question the need for religious freedom in America, saying that it is a tool for discrimination and bigotry. The country has strayed far from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787which declared that "religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

In order to determine if religious freedom is an excuse for bigotry or discrimination, one must determine if it permits a man to enjoy individual liberty or is coercive to a certain lifestyle or set of ideals. If not coercive, then the exercise of faith is founded upon a sincere belief that a higher power exists and that abiding by its instruction will lead one to live a meaningful life. Thus, religion is the foundation upon which people of faith must build their philosophic view of life and be freely exercised.

Pew Research has found that a majority of Americans now believe it unnecessary to believe in God to be moral. "No Religion" is now leading Americans' religious identity. This should be of great concern; religion and public morality are intimately intertwined. Religion holds a unique and central role in civil society as it encourages mankind to cast and follow a vision for a better world. The complete ideological separation of religion and morality exhibits a misunderstanding of the foundational Judeo-Christian principles that the American Republic and Western Tradition are built upon, and if stripped away would lead to its demise.

Only in a society where men sincerely believed in a higher law could the Declaration of Independence have been written, the Constitution adopted, and the American Republic founded. If the values derived from religious beliefs were not accepted as part of the public morality, the basic and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be recognized.

The purpose of pursuing a distinction between church and state was done to build civil and religious liberty, asserting that all of mankind had equal natural rights, but it was never intended to completely separate religion or the exercise of faith from politics. While it is true that the Founders opposed the establishment of a national church, making sure that church doctrine would not determine the law, and that law would not determine church doctrine, they did not separate religion from the founding documents that enshrined the principles the American Republic was founded upon.

Even President George Washington affirmed that religion and morality were intimately intertwined and indispensable to civil society, stating in his Farewell Address, of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness--these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens.

Religion is necessary for morality to be understood, and moral society is necessary for republican government, as a republican government cannot ethically serve its people in immorality. Therefore, religious freedom is not only necessary in order for a society to live by just laws, but the complete lack of religious practice in society would result in an eventual loss of liberty and individual freedom. As stated by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America, liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.

Therefore, religious belief and practice should and must be accepted as part of the public morality.

It is wrong for religious teachings to be forced upon others, for such reason the American Republic was established with the purpose of securing, not granting, divinely endowed rights that protect humanity from tyrannical oppression and define the purpose of public authority.

One might argue that a religious inclination in the public sphere permits for coercive policies that force those who are unreligious to live religious lifestyles. This, however, is not the case, as religion and reason are not mutually exclusive but are mutually beneficial. Acknowledging the detrimental effects of tobacco and proposing a restriction on tobacco products would not force a person to engage in LDS faith which abides by the Word of Wisdom.

The structure and content of religious freedom in America encourage the exercise of faith in creating just law and must be upheld. While it does not permit the establishment of a national religion, nor governmental action that favors one religion over another, it encourages basic religious beliefs that create a moral society.

Its true today as it was in 1922, America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

Excerpt from:

Americas Fate Rests on Its Protection of Religious Freedom - Townhall

Malin Ekman interviews Ian Buruma

In September 2018, Ian Buruma was forced out as editor of The New York Review of Books, following an outcry over the magazines publication of a controversial essay about #MeToo. A year later, in a conversation with Svenska Dagbladet United States correspondent Malin Ekman, he reflects on lost assignments, literature, cancel culture, threats to freedom of speech, and the state of liberal democracy.

Malin Ekman: In September 2018, you left The New York Review of Books (NYRB) just 12 months after becoming its editor.You had published an edition on The Fall of Men that included an essay by Jian Ghomeshi. Under the headline Reflections from a Hashtag, the Canadian media personality recounted his journey from fame to infamy.

The essay and the decision to publish it drew immediate criticism. More than 20 women had previously accused Ghomeshi of sexual assault and harassment, but neither the scope nor the nature of those accusations was discussed in detail in the text. Women had testified in court that Ghomeshi beat, choked, and taunted them during sex. Ghomeshi had been acquitted, but, as part of a civil settlement, apologised to a colleague for the sexual abuse of which he had been accused.

In a September 2018 interview with Slate, you explained that the point of including the essay was to give voice to a man who had been pilloried, and to consider #MeToo from the accuseds point of view for a change. Critics, however, claimed that you neglected the accusations against Ghomeshi and displayed your own insensitivity to the current mood.

Ian Buruma: There is not much you can do about what people think. My reason for publishing the piece was not to defend what Ghomeshi did, but to examine the nature of social sanctions.

ME: In Europe, youre known as a liberal voice in culture, an intellectual praised for your books on Asia and essays on right-wing extremism and radical Islam. It seems ironic that you would become the symbol of a generation of (mainly) men who were seen as not understanding contemporary perceptions of power and oppression.

IB: It is remarkable. Ten years ago, it wouldnt have happened; and in another ten years, it might not happen. It was a very feverish atmosphere, and I think the NYRBs owner panicked. I have no other explanation. The owner thought that the way to deal with the panicked response from advertisers including university presses worried about reactions on campuses was to let me go. I was very surprised. It wasnt my choice. The owner had supported me until the very last minute. Until the day before I left. I think he was intimidated.

ME: Rea S. Hederman, the owner, says the magazine is not sustained by university press advertising, and that the Review has high editing standards that were not followed with this essay.

IB: The publishing process did not fail. Two other editors were involved from the beginning, and two additional editors reviewed the essay before it was published. There was even a meeting about it with all the magazines editors present, and Hederman himself read the essay prior to publication.

That said, the issue did split the editorial office into different camps. The conflict began with the critic Laura Kipniss review of TV host Gretchen Carlsons book Be Fierce: Stop Harassment and Take Your Power Back, in which Carlson accuses the late Fox News executive Roger Ailes of sexual exploitation. In the review, Kipnis took the view that men obviously have to change their behavior and way of thinking; but women have a responsibility, too. She was rather sardonic about Carlsons overwrought account. Some editors thought such critical sentiments should be taken out, especially when they were humorously expressed.

ME: So, the Ghomeshi essay was part of a larger argument about which voices were to be represented in the magazine.

IB: Not so much about which voices, but about the opinions expressed, and the tone of the writing. I sometimes had to defend writers against editors, who were over eager to intervene in the texts. There was never a serious row; there wasnt any yelling. The differences were very generational. The people over, lets say, 40, had a different attitude than did those under 40.

ME: In what way?

IB: Well, as you know, in America, any issue related to race and gender very quickly causes problems. These are sensitive issues. Sometimes people are over-sensitive. There was an objection, for example, to a headline on an article about North Korea diplomacy that read: Better Jaw Jaw than War War. This was held to be offensive to Asians. In fact, Churchill had said it, in the US, meaning that negotiation with the Soviet Union was better than military conflict.

On another occasion, one of the young editors held me to task, rather rudely, for wanting nuance, as thought that were a bad thing. Younger people were more inclined to censor a piece on the grounds of language and opinions that they disagreed with, whereas my attitude was that you need different opinions that you dont necessarily have to agree with.

ME: Which could be considered a classic intellectual position and approach.

IB: Yes. But its an approach that is widely challenged now. My generation, those who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, actually admired things that were a little bit provocative, a bit scandalous even. The younger generation is more interested in fighting for social justice, equality, and so on, and anything that doesnt fit that way of thinking has to be censored. This can become a form of puritanism.

ME: If you could turn back the clock, would you still publish the Ghomeshi essay?

IB: I might have presented it differently, and I might have asked the writer to consider certain aspects of his own past. I might have edited it in a slightly different way, but I certainly would have published it.

One of the criticisms was that it wasnt entirely clear from the article exactly what he had been accused of. In retrospect, I probably would have made that clearer. But that is a question of nuance, not a question of whether to publish the piece.

ME: Your arrival as editor was an opportunity to reshape the NYRB. Your predecessor, the magazines founder, Robert B. Silvers, ran it as he pleased from 1963 until he passed away in 2017. As you have said, it was, The old school way where editors are dictators.

IB: When I became editor, I thought we should be more democratic. We had office meetings where we discussed pieces. The younger editors had much more input than they ever had before. Even the interns were encouraged to express their opinions.

ME: Silvers was the NYRBs editor for 54 years. That makes your single year in the job look like a parenthesis by comparison, but also like a break with tradition.

IB: That is the way things often are. Alexis de Tocqueville said that revolutions come from rising expectations. They dont come when everyone is oppressed. They come when oppression eases and people think: now its going to get better, but things dont improve fast enough. Then you get a revolution.

ME: In a similar fashion, #MeToo came about at a time of relative equality between men and women. Many women elsewhere had been claiming the kind of freedom and influence that previously was the preserve of male privilege. In newsrooms, governments, banks, and companies around the world, gender equality was finally becoming a priority. The task that remained was to tell the world about the hidden costs of female success: the sexual harassment that ambitious women encounter, and the norms and quiet agreements that had kept women from speaking out.

IB: It is absolutely necessary that men and women be treated equally. But #MeToo is also a youth rebellion against people who are associated with the older generation, especially men. Such movements are not only about principles; they are also about power. There is a strong political element to it.

ME: Still, the NYRB is known as a publication where male writers have long outnumbered their female counterparts. And you yourself were criticised for not doing enough to correct that imbalance.

IB: It wasnt so easy to change things that quickly. I was keen to recruit more women writers, and was partly successful. But the best women writers tend to be very much in demand. They often have less time, so they say no, whereas there are plenty of men who may not be the very best, but are in ample supply.

ME: The #MeToo movement has certainly put the news media to a test. Journalists and editors must strike a balance between the demands of a largely progressive audience and living up to the ideal of objectivity. Complicating matters are the social-media activists who want newspapers to publish the names of well-known men who have been accused of abuses, in order not to protect the perpetrator. In Sweden, several news outlets have failed to proceed with caution when revealing identities, inviting reprimands from the Swedish Press Council. But there seems to be less self-reflection in the United States. Following your ouster from the NYRB, would you say that youve lost work as a writer?

IB: Yes. And I may have lost one or two friends, but not more than that. What is sad is that some magazines have young editors who are asserting their authority against an older generation. I can no longer work for those, even though Ive written for them for many years. In some ways, this idea that you are persona non grata that was more shocking to me than losing my job.

ME: But you are still an internationally renowned writer, and youre 67 years old, so you dont have to rebuild your career from scratch.

IB: I am worried about younger editors being forced to compromise their independence in order to secure their careers. Editors have to be able to take risks. They have to be able to publish something that might offend people or challenge them. Ive heard them saying that there are certain things they wouldnt publish anymore because they would be afraid of trouble.

As for writers, the main motivation should never be to please the masses. The same goes for magazines. An intellectual magazine should not simply be about advocating certain political views. Those overseeing an intellectual magazine want to make their readers think. That means including points of view they might reject. As long as those arguments are interesting and make you think, they serve a greater good.

I dont think it is interesting for a magazine to have a very clear political position on every major question, and then simply advocate for it. When you do that, you are behaving as an activist. You should not be an activist, but an intellectual. That means thinking in ways that are not always comfortable. It can even be an important exercise to challenge your own principles. Editing an intellectual magazine is not about simply conforming to what most readers already think.

ME: Did conservative newspapers and magazines approach you after the NYRB forced you out?

IB: Yes, when I lost my job, I was immediately asked by right-wing publications, like The Spectator in England, to write for them. I refused. When you do that, you are then in a particular camp, where you can write only what the readers agree with already. If I am to challenge readers, I wont succeed by just confirming well-established positions.

ME: Lets pivot to a related topic: Peter Handke, the 2019 Nobel laureate in literature. The choice has proved controversial. Handke is suspicious of how the media portrayed the war in Yugoslavia, and says that he wants to paint a more nuanced image of evil Serbs. His critics claim he has relativised the genocide in Srebrenica, not least by questioning whether it can even be called a genocide.

In Europe, the debate over this controversy has focused on whether an authors presumed sympathies should influence the decision to award the prize. One side argues that literature should be assessed independently of its author; the other points out that such an assessment is inherently political. Which camp do you fall into?

IB: The Nobel Prize is a political prize. It has to be awarded on literary merit and furthering the ideals of mankind or something like that. But it was never only about literature. I think people who say that are mistaken.

ME: Alfred Nobels will states that the prize for literature should be awarded to a writer who has produced the most outstanding work in an ideal direction.

IB: I certainly think that Handke is an important writer, but I was very surprised that they gave it to him. He certainly would not fit that category. Somebody who has defended a leader (Serbian leader Slobodan Miloevi) who is certainly guilty of mass murder seems to be an odd person to give the Nobel Prize to, even if he is a good writer. I do find it surprising.

ME: Handke claims that he attended and spoke at Miloevis funeral in order to bury Yugoslavia symbolically, and he argues that not a single word of what I have written about Yugoslavia can be condemned. The Swedish Academy has echoed this line of defense. Handke may have uttered politically provocative things, but they dont see any proof that he has ever praised bloodshed.

IB: I dont think that is defensible. It is beyond any doubt that Handke has defended Miloevi, not least by speaking at his funeral.

ME: So why do you think they gave the prize to him?

IB: I dont know. It could be because they were always accused of being politically correct and they wanted to show that they are not. On the other hand, after having their own rape scandal, to go on and do this? I dont know. Why do you think?

ME: I think they wanted to show integrity and independence. And I think they thought they had balanced it up by awarding the Polish novelist Olga Tokarczuk the prize for 2018.

IB: But they had already proved that integrity when they gave it to Mario Vargas Llosa in 2010 and to V.S. Naipaul in 2001.

ME: Do you think that the reputation of the prize itself has been undermined?

IB: Yes, I would say so. I think it has lost a lot of its prestige already. I dont think it is taken as seriously as it was 20 years ago. If their intention was to regain credibility after the scandal in 2018, I dont think they have succeeded. I think that they probably made it worse.

A friend of mine recently pointed out that it is a strange time were living in. People are denounced for their opinions about women and race, but one can get the Nobel Prize after defending a bloody tyrant. I lost my job as the editor of a liberal magazine for publishing an article by a man who was accused of sexual abuse, but a writer gets the Nobel Prize after speaking at the funeral of a mass murderer. There is something a bit odd about that.

ME: Youre hardly the only victim of cancel culture, the phenomenon particularly in the US in which people are stripped of their influence because of their actions or opinions. One is reminded of Ronald S. Sullivan, who was forced to step down as the first black faculty dean at Harvard Law School after it was revealed that he had joined Harvey Weinsteins legal defense team. In a commentary for The New York Times, Sullivan recalls being confronted with the message Down with Sullivan spray-painted across a campus wall when he took his nine-year-old son to school. He told his son that defending controversial clients is an important principle in a state governed by law.

IB: The university leadership should have said the same thing to the students. They should have explained that in a country governed by the rule of law, even a suspect charged with the gravest crimes has the right to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial in a court of law. You cant condemn a lawyer for deciding to defend somebody. Without defense lawyers, there can be no guarantee of due process. I thought the university behaved foolishly.

ME: Youre a participant in a broader intellectual debate about why liberal democracies have ended up in ideological cul-de-sacs. And youre currently writing a book on the Anglo-American order from its founding after World War II up to the era of Trump and Brexit.

IB: It is about the liberal world order, led by the US, that I idealized when I was young, and about how it is now coming to an end.

ME: How did that happen?

IB: After defeating Nazi Germany and Japan, the US saw itself as the defender of liberty all over the world. In the name of fighting for freedom, it got involved in a lot of very foolish wars, like Vietnam and Iraq. And Britain, for its part, never played the role in Europe that it should have. The British won the war and thought they were better than other European countries, and should stick to their special relationship with the US. In some ways, both Britain and the US are victims of their own success.

ME: Recently, French President Emmanuel Macron told The Economist that Europe is on the edge of a precipice. America can no longer be relied on to defend its NATO allies. If Europe doesnt think of itself as a major geopolitical player, will it lose control over its own destiny?

IB: The biggest danger, not only in America but in Europe, too, is that liberal democracy is going to emerge from the current historical moment very badly damaged that the institutions underpinning liberal democracy are already quite fragile. Once people lose confidence in their own democratic institutions, the door is open for authoritarian politics. That is my greatest fear.

You cant have a democracy without a strong press. You cant have a liberal democracy when presidents and prime ministers call independent institutions enemies of the people and traitors.

This interview is published in cooperation with Svenska Dagbladet.

Ian Buruma is the author, most recently, of A Tokyo Romance: A Memoir. Malin Ekman is a US correspondent for Svenska Dagbladet. Project Syndicate 19952020

Read the rest here:

Cancel culture, threats to freedom of speech, and the state of liberal democracy - Mail and Guardian

Addict-turned-equine therapist Tash Curtis shares her remarkable story of recovery and self-discovery at the Healing Wings Centre.

Recovering addict Natasha Curtis is almost four years sober and has now dedicated her life to helping others liberate themselves from addiction.

Fondly known as Tash, she runs the equine programme at the Healing Wings Rehabilitation Treatment Centre located on the outskirts of Nelspruit in Mpumalanga.

The programme uses equine therapy (also referred to as horse therapy) to help others overcome addiction.

In 2016, Tash arrived at the centre in desperate need of help for herself. She battled with alcohol and drug abuse as well as an eating disorder.

Tash remembers how her addiction tore her family apart as her parents tried unsuccessfully to "fix her".

She retells her story, which includes a suicide attempt and relapsing after being admitting to a 21-day clinic.

I started to see that I'm a whole lot confident when I'm intoxicated.

It became easier to "be myself" but it was actually not me. It became an alter ego and didn't come naturally when I was sober.

I destroyed the family for along time. I was so blinded by it. I was in denial. I didn't see it.

She says she found herself and freedom at Healing Wings after years of struggling with her self-esteem and anxiety.

I started to see the wood for the trees and realised that life is a rollercoaster. When you're in a dip, it's not the end of the world. It's how you climb out of it. Your people around you. Your community.

Tash also met her fiance, David Lacey, at centre after she first became a volunteer.

David is counsellor and coordinator at Healing Wings and works with the young boys at the facility.

He escaped 13 years of addiction in Singapore and began his healing at the rehab centre, where he later moved up to become a staff member.

The centre runs an adult treatment facility as well as a youth centre (for ages 12 to 19).

It's made up of both external, professional experts and people who've walked the addiction and recovery path.

Visit the Healing Wings website for more information about the help they offer.

Listen to the moving discussion On The Yellow Couch with Pippa Hudson:

Thumbnail image: Healing Wings website.

Excerpt from:

'How I overcame my addiction and found my freedom at the Healing Wings Centre' - CapeTalk

SCOTT HAMMOND/STUFF

German campers Johannes Michel, left, Dominic Moirano, Janne Bahmann, Laura Kahl and Josephine Krause at the Wairau Diversion reserve. The group met mostly through their travels in Australia and in the North Island.

Freedom campersare enjoying the best of Marlborough's outdoors, and saymost don't abuse the privilege.

Caitlin James and Grant Kilton were at a freedom camping site in Anakiwa on Thursday.

They came to New Zealand with the intention of doing more freedom camping after hiring a "certified self contained" vehicle.

But the pair quickly realised the vehicle was not quite what they had envisioned, so had spent a lot of time in campsites instead.

READ MORE:*Two new rangers in Marlborough as freedom camping season kicks into full gear*Freedom camping study and toilets get tourism funding in Marlborough*Freedom camping bylaw to be reviewed for fourth time in Marlborough

They had planned to go to the Abel Tasman after arriving in Picton from Wellington, but after stopping at a winery someone told them to check out Anakiwa.

BRYA INGRAM/STUFF

Jean-Luc Carre, left, 7, Jamie Kidd and Hugo Carre , both 6, with dog Jet at Anakiwa.

They knew freedom campers had a reputation - in Marlborough the freedom camping bylaw is due to be reviewed for the fourth time.

"I think part of the problem is that self contained, doesn't actually mean self contained, the quality of vehicles is misleading," James said.

BRYA INGRAM/STUFF

Caitlin James from Australia and Grant Kirton from Britain in Anakiwa.

"But it's just about being responsible, it's always that one person that ruins it for everyone. Butideally, we'd have a better car, so we're spending more time in backpackers instead."

Blenheim residentJamie Kidd said he liked that freedom camping sites allowed him to see his own region.

BRYA INGRAM/STUFF

Hugo Carre, 6, has been camping in Anakiwa for a week, spending his days biking and swimming.

Although he had not met other Marlburianswhile camping, he said everyone had been responsible.

"It's been glorious, everyone we've come across have been friendly and well behaved," Kidd said.

He was camping with family friends, who had children that had been spendingtheir day biking, swimming and exploring the Sounds.

Earlier this year the Marlborough District Council received $183,610 in government funding for additional rangers to help staff manage the influx of freedom campers during the busy tourist season.

SCOTT HAMMOND/STUFF

Antoine Debost in Rarangi after coming off the Picton ferry.

Between 2016 and 2018 statistics show the number of freedom camping visitors to Marlborough's 13 sites increased by 5000 visitors, from 7000 to 12,000 campers.

Kidd said he had seen the rangersout and about and thought it was good there was some regulation of camp grounds.

A group of tourists from Germany were at Wairau Diversion Reserve just outside of Blenheim - which had about a dozen vans parked up on Friday.

Theyhad met in Australia and in the North Island and were still deciding which parts of the South Island to travel.

BRYA INGRAM/STUFF

Josh Fraser, from Vancouver Canada has freedom camped all around the world - but chose not to in New Zealand because backpacking is affordable.

They had mainly spent their month in New Zealand hiking and checking out different beaches.

Similarly, Antoine Debostfrom Belguim who was solo travelling said he did not have any set plans but was keen to check out some surf spots in the region.

He said he usually checks apps such as CamperMateto see where he could camp.

Josh Fraser, from Vancouver in Canada had freedom camped in other parts of the world - but said he had chosen not to in New Zealand.

"The backpackers are cheap enough as it is, so I decided to go that route instead," Fraser said.

BRYA INGRAM/STUFF

The Marlborough District Council had employed two new rangers for the season to regulate the region's freedom camping sites.

Read more here:

Beach views and being responsible in mix for freedom campers - Stuff.co.nz