Category Archives: Freedom

Craig Carter: ‘Freedom is funny and messy’ | Opinion | argusobserver.com – Ontario Argus Observer

Posted: November 7, 2021 at 12:15 pm

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read the original:

Craig Carter: 'Freedom is funny and messy' | Opinion | argusobserver.com - Ontario Argus Observer

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off

Press freedom is no joke in the Philippines – East Asia Forum

Posted: at 12:15 pm

Author: Danilo Araa Arao, University of the Philippines Diliman

By awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to journalists Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov on 8 October 2021, the Norwegian Nobel Committee put the spotlight on the state of press freedom in the Philippines and Russia and rightly so.

The Philippines is ranked 130th and Russia 152nd in the Reporters Without Borders 2021 World Press Freedom Index. The Philippines and Russia also ranked 7th and 10th, respectively, in the Committee to Protect Journalists 2021 Global Impunity Index.

While the media situations in both countries deserve scrutiny, the Philippines is a peculiarly interesting case. The Philippine press is commonly perceived to be among the freest in Asia, but it remains one of the most dangerous places in the world to practice journalism. Press freedom and human rights defenders continue to denounce the prevailing culture of impunity that the government claims ended under the administration of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.

The cases filed against leading online media organisation Rappler and its CEO Maria Ressa made global headlines. Duterte criticised Rappler for being peddler of fake news and its license was revoked in 2018 ironic given Ressas investigative work exposing disinformation on social media. In June 2020, Ressa and former Rappler journalist Reynaldo Santos, Jr. were convicted of cyber libel.

Like the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos who ordered broadcast network ABSCBNs closure in 1972, Duterte said in 2019 that ABSCBN would be out when its franchise expired in 2020. In a House of Representatives vote in July 2020, the broadcast network was shut down.

Under the Duterte administration, news media organisations and journalists have been red-tagged or accused of being communist sympathisers, and at least two journalists have been arrested and detained. There have also been cyberattacks launched at the websites of news media organisations in an attempt to prevent them from doing their work. While the distributed denial-of-service attacks which overwhelm servers with too many data requests to shut it down have been happening since 2018, the most recent attack on two news media organisations was carried out by the Philippine Army.

At least 190 journalists have been killed since 1986, 21 of them under the Duterte administration. The prevailing climate of media repression sends a chilling message to journalists and media workers in the country that they should toe the administration line.

National and local elections in the Philippines will be held in May 2022. It is uncertain to what extent the state of press freedom will be raised as an election issue.

Candidates are expected to mouth the usual rhetoric about preserving democracy, including the importance of a vibrant press. As might be expected, Duterte and his supporters have denied media repression. They claimed that ABSCBNs shutdown and Rapplers legal woes are isolated cases that do not affect other news media organisations in the country.

As certain government officials continue to engage in red-tagging journalists and news media organisations, government agencies argue that their officials are merely expressing their personal opinions and not official policy. The Philippine National Police denies the existence of a culture of impunity that violates the rights of journalists and other sectors of society.

Journalists, media workers and other concerned groups need to push for press freedom to be an election issue. Candidates in the 2022 polls should explain clearly where they stand, beyond the usual rhetoric of defending democracy and basic freedoms.

For a president who is known for joking about serious matters, Duterte now finds it awkward to congratulate Ressa. His spokesperson belatedly acknowledged Ressa for being the first Filipino Nobel Peace Prize awardee while trying to downplay notions that the award was a slap in the governments face. Its not credible for Duterte sincerely to congratulate Ressa, whose journalistic achievement is borne out of fighting the repression he perpetuates.

In the Philippines, threats to press freedom are real. It should not be reduced to a mere joke, especially for those who claim to be defending it while engaging in repression.

Danilo Araa Arao is Associate Professor at the Department of Journalism, the University of the Philippines Diliman, Special Lecturer at the Department of Journalism, the Polytechnic University of the Philippines Santa Mesa, Associate Editor at Bulatlat Multimedia and Editor at Media Asia.

Continue reading here:

Press freedom is no joke in the Philippines - East Asia Forum

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off

Guest Column: When it comes to vaccination, freedom has its limits – The Bulletin

Posted: at 12:14 pm

Country

Visit link:

Guest Column: When it comes to vaccination, freedom has its limits - The Bulletin

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off

Freedom’s Journal: Racists voted in Tuesday’s election and won! – The Philadelphia Tribune

Posted: at 12:14 pm

The entire political platform of Glenn Youngkin, the Republican who won Virginias gubernatorial election on Tuesday, is made clear in just one (despicably pandering) quote by him: Critical Race Theory has moved into our school system and we have to remove it.

But hes not the only one who supports that ignorant and racist platform. Its also the 1.7 million Virginians who voted for him.

And its not just those voters who enthusiastically supported that ignorant and racist platform. Its also elected and/or appointed Republican officials in at least 36 state and local governmental bodies who have passed, introduced, or are considering anti-Critical Race Theory (CRT) laws, ordinances, rules and policies.

Eight states (Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) have passed anti-CRT legislation. Such legislative initiatives ban any discussions about conscious and unconscious bias, privilege, discrimination, and oppression . State actors in Montana and South Dakota have denounced teaching concepts associated with CRT. The state school boards in Florida, Georgia, Utah, and Oklahoma introduced new guidelines barring CRT-related discussions. Local boards in Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Virginia also criticize CRT. Nearly 20 additional states have introduced or plan to introduce similar legislation.

This avalanche of blatant anti-Blackness, euphemistically called anti-CRT, is based solely on ignorance and racism. An excellent example of such woeful ignorance and underlying racism is evidenced by a white voter who was interviewed by a reporter in Virginia shortly before the election. Heres the actual conversation:

Q: Whats the most important issue in the governors race ?

A: Getting back to the basics of teaching children. Not teaching them Critical Race Theory.

Q: And what is Critical Race Theory?

A: Well, Im not gonna get into the specifics of it because I dont understand it that much . What little bit that I know I dont care for.

Q: And what have you heard that you dont like?

A: ... I dont, uh, [long pause] I dont have that much knowledge on it, but its something that I dont care for.

For the record, CRT is not what ignorant white racist voters, ignorant white racist officials, and ignorant white racist candidates claim it is. And it is not taught and was never designed to be taught in pre-schools, elementary schools, middle schools, junior high schools or high schools.

CRT is a law school concept that grew out of Critical Legal Studies. As defined in the Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, CRT examines legal issues as they pertain to race and racism. Furthermore, as explained in Race, Ethnicity, and Education, CRT examines how so-called colorblind laws promote structural racism.

The American Bar Association (ABA) notes that CRT is a practice of interrogating the role of race and racism in society [and CRT] emerged in the legal academy.... Moreover, the ABA reports that CRT ... critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers. ... CRT recognizes that racism is not a bygone relic of the past. Instead, it acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation.

And CRT wasnt created in the past several months election cycle. The then-unnamed concept was set forth about 50 years ago by Harvard Law School professor Derrick Bell in his 1978 book entitled Race, Racism and American Law.

His groundbreaking Critical Legal Studies scholarship on the issue of past and present structural/institutional racism within the American legal system was subsequently expanded upon by professors at the University of Alabama Law School, SUNY-Buffalo Law School, UCLA Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, University of Hawaii Law School, University of Wisconsin Law School, and Columbia University Law School. In fact, it was Columbia University Law School professor Kimberle Crenshaw who refined Critical Legal Studies by later coining the phrase Critical Race Theory.

The fact that ignorant racists have fraudulently transformed CRT into a monster that can carry racist candidates to victory on Election Day is outrageous. But its America. Thats exactly why, the day after the election, I posted the following on my Twitter and Instagram accounts: Dont be surprised when white racist Americans in white racist America vote as a majority for white racist American candidates with a white racist American political platform. Be surprised when they dont.

Racism is America and America is racism. Remember that 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 enslaved Black men, women and children.

Remember that 13 of the first 18 U.S. presidents enslaved Black men, women, boys and girls.

Remember that the U.S. Constitution in 1789 defined enslaved Blacks as subhuman by counting them as a mere three-fifths of a human being. It established the racist Electoral College. It continued the importation of Africans into American slavery for at least two more decades. And it tightened the grip of slavery by requiring free states to return escapees to slave states.

Remember that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the notorious 1857 Dred Scott case, ruled that Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect and remember that that ruling has never I repeat never been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Remember that Congress in 1865 didnt completely abolish slavery by ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment but instead actually created the prison industrial complex and mass incarceration by stating that people can legally be held in slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been convicted....

Remember that KKK-endorsed, Nazi-loving Donald Drumpf won in 2016 with 63 million Americans voting for him and, even in his 2020 defeat, got 74 million Americans to vote for him.

Remember that here in 2021, Congress, which is elected by American voters, continues to refuse to pass the Emmet Till Anti-Lynching bill that is designed to simply and finally specify lynching as a hate crime, just as it refuses to pass the 1918 Dyer Anti-Lynching bill, the 2018 Justice for Victims of Lynching bill, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the For the People Act, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

By the way, as of February this year, Republican state lawmakers have carried over, pre-filed, or introduced 253 bills with provisions that restrict voting access i.e., Black, Brown and Red voting access in 43 states.

In 2016, I wrote an article here in the Tribune pointing out that Time magazine had cited a YouGov/Economist exit poll in which the supporters of Drumpf were asked if they approved or disapproved of emancipation for Blacks. Nearly half a whopping 47% disapproved, had some reservations, or werent sure.

Therefore, its no surprise that, in 2021, America is filled with racists who vote. And win.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Then register and vote. And outnumber the racists so we can defeat the racists. By doing so, we will finally change America.

Michael Coard, Esq. can be followed on Twitter, Instagram, and his YouTube channel as well as at AvengingTheAncestors.com. His Radio Courtroom show can be heard on WURD 96.1 FM or 900 AM. And his TV Courtroom show can be seen on PhillyCAM/Verizon Fios/Comcast. The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Philadelphia Tribune.

Visit link:

Freedom's Journal: Racists voted in Tuesday's election and won! - The Philadelphia Tribune

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off

In our constitutional republic, freedom demands sticking to your guns – SCOTUSblog

Posted: at 12:14 pm

Symposium ByMark Brnovich on Nov 2, 2021 at 1:51 pm

This article is part of a symposium on the upcoming argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. A preview of the case is here.

Mark Brnovich is the attorney general of Arizona.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Any noble government that believes its law-abiding citizens must be restrained from owning or responsibly carrying firearms does not understand the difference between citizens and subjects. Our Founders clearly grasped the importance of We the People to defend ourselves against any threat that might arise from personal confrontation to political tyranny. Citizens of a free society must take on certain responsibilities, or their helplessness would be unsustainable. The Second Amendment is our countrys clear, concise, and lawful acknowledgement of a God-given right of self-defense that in our land of the free and home of the brave is truly self-evident.

For this reason, any state statutes containing widespread prohibitions or overly burdensome regulations on the concealed carry of firearms must be immediately questioned. Law-abiding citizens should not require the consent of faceless bureaucrats to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, and no local politicians can override the Second Amendment or the natural right of self-preservation.

Im proud to be leading a coalition of 26 state attorneys general who believe New Yorks subjectiveissue concealed-carry permit lawsharm public safety and are contrary to the original meaning of the Second Amendment. The state of New York requires citizens to demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm outside their home. Practically speaking, New Yorkers must prove that they have already been a victim of violent crimes before they may protect themselves from potentially becoming victims of more violent crime.

Our coalition believes that the original public meaning of the Second Amendment is a clear recognition of the right ofcitizens to bear arms for self-defense outside of their homes. Citing District of Columbia v. Heller, we argue, InHeller, following the text and history of the Second Amendment, this Court held that the federal constitution guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Further, Heller clarified that any prohibition that makes it impossible for citizens to engage in self-defense violates the Second Amendment.

Forty-two states, including Arizona, have objective-issue systems where a permit is provided to an individual who meets a certain set of basic criteria, including a background check, mental health records check, fingerprinting, knowledge of applicable laws, firearms training, or other requirements.

In fact, our coalition demonstrates with empirical evidence that citizens who are concealed-carry holders are significantly less likely than the general public to commit a crime. We also argue that objective-issue permitting and concealed-carry permits decrease crime in general and allow citizens to defend themselves outside their homes. A 2013 review by the National Research Council reveals that victims of crime who resist with a gun are less likely to suffer serious injury than those who either resist in other ways or offer no resistance at all.

With such empirical evidence, and similar results across a wide range of jurisdictions in our country, why is the Second Amendment so often under attack?

The first reason is that, like in other areas of our lives, ignorance breeds contempt. With other tools such as automobiles or computers, its the people that have a sound knowledge of their importance and safe operation that seem to be the strongest advocates. Americans deserve more public information and education on our Second Amendment, as the essential part of the Bill of Rights that it is.

The second reason is more nefarious. There are special interest groups who do understand the importance of free people being armed, and they consciously seek to undermine that pillar of individual and collective American strength, perhaps as part of their radical agenda for reinventing our country.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said following the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, we have a republic, if we can keep it.

Preserving all of our fundamental rights, including the ability to keep and bear arms, is essential to maintaining our constitutional republic. Government officials who do not understand this must be challenged and enlightened. If the day ever comes when our country cannot, or will not, uphold the Bill of Rights, we will no longer be a free and independent people.

Continue reading here:

In our constitutional republic, freedom demands sticking to your guns - SCOTUSblog

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off

Letter to the editor: Freedom to Vote Act would curtail power of Big Pharma – Huntington Herald Dispatch

Posted: at 12:14 pm

Country

Letter to the editor: Freedom to Vote Act would curtail power of Big Pharma - Huntington Herald Dispatch

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off

T20 World Cup: Scotland urged to play with ‘enjoyment and freedom’ against Pakistan – BBC News

Posted: at 12:14 pm

Scotland have suffered a couple of bruising defeats in the Super 12s stage of the tournament

Kyle Coetzer has urged Scotland to bid farewell to the T20 World Cup in style as they prepare to end their campaign against Pakistan on Sunday.

The Scots have lost all four of their Group 2 fixtures and were demolished by both India and Afghanistan.

Unbeaten Pakistan are already assured of their place in the semi-finals.

"We have to make the most of every game that we get - and what better game and what better team to play against than Pakistan?" said captain Coetzer.

"We've got one last show, one last crack of the whip while we're out here. We're not going to play together for a long period of time. We're not going to play together until April probably.

"Pakistan are at the top of their game at the moment. That's just an ultimate test and to challenge yourself against them.

"We'll go in there with as much enjoyment and freedom as we possibly can. We have some skills we haven't yet shown in the Super 12s, so this is the last chance we get to show them."

Scotland made it through to the Super 12s with victories over Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea and Oman, but, as well as losing heavily to Afghanistan and India, they suffered disappointment against fellow Associate nation Namibia.

Coetzer's men did put up a decent fight against New Zealand but again fell short.

Referring to Friday's chastening eight-wicket defeat at the hands of India, Coetzer said: "I firmly believe we had to go through that and go through some of these performances to realise how much further the T20 format has developed, even since the last time we played in it, which was 2016.

"We didn't manage to get through the group stages then, but we did this time around, so we're sure our development is there. But the development of the game is moving at an amazing rate."

Visit link:

T20 World Cup: Scotland urged to play with 'enjoyment and freedom' against Pakistan - BBC News

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off

In visit to Brown, Salman Rushdie discusses freedom of speech, literary influences and more – Brown University

Posted: November 5, 2021 at 9:49 pm

PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] In a discussion at Brown University, renowned novelist Salman Rushdie encouraged an audience of hundreds to do all they can to protect freedom of speech, even at a time when countries across the globe are struggling to preserve fundamental tenets of democracy.

Speaking to Brown students, faculty and staff and community members from the Providence area, who participated both in-person and online, Rushdie made the case for defending freedom of all expression, even that which most deem racist or fascist.

Now we live in a country in which people seem to be forgetting the value of the First Amendment, Rushdie said. In particular, young people seem in increasing numbers to be willing to accept that certain kinds of ideas should not be given permission to exist. And I worry about that... Ideas dont disappear because you suppress them. Sometimes they increase in force. So its better to know where the enemy is so you can argue with them and defeat them.

The panel discussion and Q&A, hosted by the Center for Contemporary South Asia at Browns Watson Institute for International Affairs on Friday, Nov. 5, centered the subjects of politics, religion and literature, part of a year-long series of events recognizing 75 years of independence in India and Pakistan. Panelists included Ashutosh Varshney, director of the center and a Brown professor of international studies and political science; Shahzad Bashir, a professor of Islamic studies and history at Brown; and Gauri Viswanathan, a professor of humanities and director of the South Asia Institute at Columbia University.

For more than 40 years, the India-born Rushdies novels, short stories, essays and plays have captured the imaginations of millions. He is best known for his profound insights on migration between the Indian subcontinent and the Western world, his deft navigation through decades of complex tensions between India and Pakistan, and his creative use of magical realism to draw historical, religious and literary parallels. Among his countless accolades are a knighthood bestowed by Queen Elizabeth II, fellowships at the Royal Society of Literature in the United Kingdom and at lOrdre des Arts et des Lettres in France, and the Best of the Booker prize for his novel Midnights Children.

In the discussion, Rushdie who has lived in the United States since 2000 likened the sacred space of free speech to a piazza where all citizens are welcome to pass through and discuss anything they like an idea he riffed on in a New Yorker story in 2020.

Its that place where you can go to say anything and be argued with, he said. The importance is not that somebody wins the argument, its that [the argument] can happen, and it can go on happening. People can change their minds, or... be hardened in their convictions. But the place of discourse exists. That space... should be preserved.

How Americans, and others, can fight the looming specter of totalitarianism while preserving that sacred piazza, Rushdie acknowledged, is the great question of our time one he felt incapable of answering definitively. But one starting point, he proposed, could lie in revisiting the history of the Nazi Partys ascension to power in Germany.

Because Germany tolerated the Nazi Party to run in an election, that party then abolished the electoral system which brought it to power, he said. And so theres a thought there: Maybe the limiting point of freedom is... to deny it to people who would deny freedom to others if they came to power.

Visit link:

In visit to Brown, Salman Rushdie discusses freedom of speech, literary influences and more - Brown University

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off

The Politics of Freedom – City Journal

Posted: at 9:49 pm

The Soul of Politics: Harry V. Jaffa and the Fight for America, by Glenn Ellmers (Encounter Books, 394 pp., $31.99)

For those who remain faithful to the spirit of American republicanism, there is no doubt that the American political order is in the midst of a profound crisis. Americas founding principles have come under systematic assault in the worlds of journalism, the academy, social media, and in large and growing parts of the political class. The worlds most successful experiment in republican self-government, Abraham Lincolns almost chosen nation and last best hope on earth, is regularly denigrated as a hateful cauldron of racism, exploitation, and inequality. The new woke racism, as John McWhorter calls it, divides humanity into privileged oppressorsby definition beyond redemptionand innocent victims, who lack moral agency and are encouraged to blame others for their fate and to accept blindly the dictates of a tutelary bureaucratic state. In elite circles, traditional patriotism is held in contempt and legitimate national self-criticism has degenerated into pathological self-loathing. The disparities inherent in a vibrant, dynamic society and the diverse factions and divisions coextensive with the system of natural liberty, as Adam Smith called it, are now identified with systematic racism and discrimination. Doctrinaire egalitarianism, dogmatic relativism, and angry moralism coexist in a toxic mix. What are defenders of the old verities and decencies to do? Perhaps whats most needed at this precarious moment is to gain clarity on our situation by returning to a principled understanding of the moral foundations of liberty, equality, and human dignity, in both a broadly human and specifically American context.

In a lively, gracefully written book that is at once learned, accessible, and challenging, Glenn Ellmers sets out to do precisely that. He turns to the life and writings of the late political theorist Harry V. Jaffa (19182015) for illumination about both the soul of politics and the fight for America. His is a welcome recommendationbut why Jaffa, at this particular moment? Lets begin closer to the beginning.

One of the most gifted thinkers of his generation, Jaffa was an early student of the German-Jewish emigr political philosopher Leo Strauss at the New School for Social Research in New York City, before Strauss left for the University of Chicago in 1949. At Chicago, Strauss would help shape a generation of political theorists and students of American political thought who would come to challenge both the historicist assumption that all thought is explained (or explained away) by the context in which a given author lived and the relativist assumption that the primordial distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong, and noble and the base are essentially arbitrary and have no foundation in the natural order of thingsthey are merely values, asserted without rational justification. For Strauss, and later Jaffa, the arbitrary severing of facts and values fundamentally distorted the meaning of the human world.

By recovering the classical political philosophy of Plato and Aristotle in a strikingly undogmatic way, Strauss made possible a reaffirmation of philosophy as a way of life that gives thinking men and women access to permanent questions and truths. In his writing and teaching, Strauss also emphasized an enduring tension between the questioning that informs philosophical inquiry and the bedrock truths at the heart of a well-constituted city or political regime. But he also reminded his readers (in Ellmerss words) that Socrates was also a defender of prephilosophical morality and piety against the Sophists, who insisted that all politics is merely rhetoric and that all justice is artificial or conventional. Jaffa, perhaps more than any other of Strausss many students, refused to sever philosophical inquiry from the reasonable affirmation of natural right or natural justice. In this, he was ultimately more Aristotelian than Platonic, insisting that Socratic philosophizing and statesmanlike prudence are two complementary and essential aspects of political philosophy, rightly understood.

Some of Strausss students saw only dualities (and this might be true to some extent of Strauss too), and emphasized the radical differences between philosophy and politics, reason and revelation, the ancients and the moderns, and even philosophy and morality. In contrast, Jaffa would come to emphasize commonalities among them, in the fight to save both Western civilization and American republicanism from its internal enemies, among them a debilitating relativism and nihilism, and its external enemies, particularly Nazi and Communist totalitarianism during the twentieth century. To be sure, Jaffa joined Plato, Aristotle, and Strauss in affirming that contemplative reflection was the highest activity available to human beings, and the one most in accord with human nature. But the Claremont professor also saw dignity in a life of noble action informed by thought, and deep truth and ethical coherence in biblical religion.

In Shakespeare, Jaffa found the philosophic poet par excellence, a thinker-artist who dramatized the reality that human beings live in a moral universe and that therefore the choice for tyranny strikes not only at decent political life but at the human soul. (On this, see Jaffas insightful treatment of Macbeth that appeared in the Claremont Review of Books.) One of the great merits of Ellmerss book is the way it illumines Jaffas rich engagement with Shakespeare as the supreme moral-political teacher of the Anglo-American world. Shakespeare, in Jaffas reading, rejected both the theocratic temptation within Christianity and the Machiavellian alternative to it that sacrificed both natural right and the Christian inheritance, in order to make politics safe from both pious cruelty and an excessive meekness that might also flow from Christian categories and assumptions. Unlike Machiavelli, however, Jaffa did not wish to bury Christianity (he came to deeply admire Thomas Aquinas) or biblical wisdom more broadly.

Jaffa also highlighted the multiple ways in which the encounter with Shakespeare helped mold Abraham Lincolns soul, fortifying his determination to defend natural justice and American republicanism against the modern defenders of chattel slavery and of might makes right. Where some paleoconservatives saw in Lincoln a modern messianic type, a gnostic fanatic, Jaffa saw a statesman-theorist informed by the humane but tough-minded moderation of Shakespeare, Aristotle, Cicero, and the American Founders. Drawing on these sources, Lincoln summoned the strength of soul to defend the union and liberty, both grounded in the great truth that all men are created equal. This is a truth which is not to be confused, insisted Jaffa against certain conservatives, with a levelling egalitarianism that can lead only to tyranny.

In two truly impressive books on the thought and statesmanship of Lincoln, Crisis of the House Divided (1959) and A New Birth of Freedom (2000), Jaffa emphasized Lincolns crucial role in elevating equal liberty away from more narrowly utilitarian concerns to a deep concern with transcendental justice, and how Lincoln was inspired by the American Founders defense of civil and religious liberty. In his later years, Jaffa came to see the American regime as the best practicable regime, to cite Aristotles formulation, as long as it remained faithful to the wisdom of Lincoln and the Founders, standing firmly for natural right, religious and civil liberty, moral self-restraint, and high political prudence. For this reason, Jaffa fiercely attacked paleoconservative critics of Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence for distorting and undermining our ancient faith. Where some saw gnostic messianism, Jaffa saw the true, solid, and inspiring ground of a non-utopian political order that allowed wisdom and moderation to coexist. He thus reconciled many American conservatives to the dignity and nobility of the American proposition, along with the need to avoid Confederate nostalgia and sympathies. In that regard, he had particular influence on William F. Buckley, Jr. and National Review, the longtime flagship of intellectual and political conservatism in the United States.

As Ellmers observes, Jaffa loathed every appeal to historical determinism and those reductive modern doctrines that denied the soul as the true ground of human freedom. He believed in what the classics and Christians called reflective choice practical reason and free will. He shared Strausss admiration for Winston Churchill, whom both men saw as the firmest foe of tyranny in the twentieth century and the embodiment of magnanimous statesmanship. Echoing and amplifying Strausss Churchillian speech, given on the day of the great mans death in 1965, Jaffa renewed the study of statesmanship as the necessary correlative to politically responsible political philosophizing. Where some Straussians appealed to a rather strained pure reason, primarily doing textual analysis and thus philosophizing above the fray, so to speak, Jaffa saw contemplative reflection at work in the minds and souls of Lincoln and Churchill. These great men of action were also thinkers of note and importance, defenders of the soul against the ideological defense by demi-intellectuals of both human servitude and ideological despotism of the Communist or Nazi kind. Jaffa adds perceptively in one of the numerous missives he penned that it should not be assumed that they [Lincoln and Churchill, first and foremost] would have been more contemplative had they not followed paths of action. Action may have stimulated them to think more deeply than they might otherwise have done. Wise words, indeed. Jaffa thus begins with a Platonic-Straussian dualitythe superiority of the contemplative philosopher to the acting statesmanbut then moves to what Thomas Jefferson called harmonizing sentiments. His is not the only possible interpretation and application of Strausss project. But it is a legitimate and genuinely admirable one.

As Ellmers shows, Jaffa knew that the United States, and the West more broadly, were entering into a grave crisis, marked by an immense loss of (reasoned) confidence in classical prudence, philosophical wisdom, biblical truths about God and the soul, and what Strauss called the commonsense wisdom inherent in the pretheoretical experiences that give rise to the conviction that we live in a moral universe. Such a universe is not inhospitable to moral and intellectual virtue. For this reason, Jaffa could write in an article from 1990 that classical political philosophy, biblical wisdom, and the politics of freedom stand or fall together: the threat to one of these is also a threat to all.

Jaffas ancient faith (the phrase is Lincolns) was capacious enough to make room for Jerusalem, Athens, London, Philadelphia, and Lincolns Peoria. Some of his respectful critics, Robert Kraynak and Michael Zuckert among them, thought this was ultimately too good to be true. The assumption is that Jaffa more or less forgot the original theoretical tensions or dualities that Strauss had done so much to recover. But there is little evidence to support this judgment. In my view, despite all his harmonizing, Jaffa appreciated both the tensions and harmonies at work in the heart of Western civilization. He was no mere moralist and acknowledged the dark shadows that sometimes accompanied even decent political life.

Ellmers succeeds in convincing the fair-minded reader of Jaffas impressive and still highly relevant achievement. At the same time, he could have done more to highlight real or possible weaknesses in Jaffas intellectual case. Among them are his tendency to confuse the medieval mixed regime with despotism, his exaggeration of the real influence of the doctrine of the divine right of kings in the Christian centuries (a doctrine, in truth, more rejected or honored in the breach than affirmed), and his seeming inability to do justice to Alexis de Tocquevilles pertinent distinction between the truth of democratic justice and a pernicious passion for equality that aims to level everything great and noble. I, for one, have never understood the insistence of some of Jaffas more spirited students that one must choose between the wisdom of Tocqueville and the wisdom of Lincoln.

Then there is the matter of Jaffas often splenetic polemics, as (Jaffa admirer) Charles Kesler has called them, seeing nihilism at work in the constitutional reflections of Judge Bork and Justice Scalia, for example, and bad faith in more traditionalist currents of conservatism which surely had their share of truth. His strident treatment of old friends, fellow students of Strauss, often struck a false note.

Warts and all, Harry Jaffa nonetheless exemplifies the scholarship of the politics of freedom. His mix of Aristotle, Aquinas, the Bible, Shakespeare, the Founders, and Lincoln may appear eclectic, and even somewhat incoherentbut that is a superficial assessment. Today, Jaffas vision is best articulated in the Claremont Review of Books, which under Keslers judicious editorship, has opened so-called West Coast Straussianism to a respectful dialogue with other serious currents of conservatism. In it, and in Jaffas best writings, too, one can discover rich resources for the revitalization of the city and the soul, for finding republican remedies to our present discontents, as Ellmers puts it, echoing Publius and the Federalist papers. Following Jaffas example, Ellmers suggests one path to the renewal of the morally and civically serious natural aristoi, who might save us yet. Indeed, Ellmerss book is an appeal to the noble and spirited among us, including the young, to fight for what is worth preserving in our civic and civilizational inheritance. For that alone, its appearance is most welcome.

Daniel J. Mahoney is Senior Fellow at the Real Clear Foundation and Professor Emeritus at Assumption University. His latest book, The Statesman as Thinker: Portraits of Greatness, Courage, and Moderation, will be published by Encounter Books in May 2022.

Photo by Jeff Mallet/MediaNews Group/Inland Valley Daily Bulletin via Getty Images

Original post:

The Politics of Freedom - City Journal

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off

Coons and Carper, see that the Freedom to Vote Act passes | Opinion – The News Journal

Posted: at 9:49 pm

Charlotte King and Clara S. Licata| Special to the USA TODAY Network

What is the big deal about expanding voter rights? You wouldnt think that legislation making it easier for people to vote would be a problem. Shouldnt every state want its citizens to have a polling place nearby with convenient hours, or the option to vote by mail? The Freedom to Vote Act would guarantee that and more, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the Freedom to Vote Act is a solution in need of a problem.

Is it?According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 19 states have enacted 33 laws limiting, not expanding, voting rights.This is the actual problem. This state legislation reduces the number and hours of in person polling places, limits or eliminates the option to vote by mail or severely limits the number and locations of boxes to return vote by mail ballots, transfers election responsibility from neutral, non-partisan state, county or local officials, to partisan appointees, institutes severe criminal penalties for innocuous election mistakes by local officials, and cements partisan gerrymandering.

These states claim this type of legislation is necessary to prevent fraud.

Federal election infrastructure officials, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council, and the National Secretaries of State issued a joint statement on Nov. 12, 2020 describing the 2020 election as one of the most secure in our countrys history.Despite claims of fraud, more than 60 state and federal judges have found there was no such evidence.The Department of Justice, and FBI cybersecurity teams in place during the last administration found no evidence of fraud. he third Maricopa County Arizona election audit performed by Cyber Ninjas not only found no evidence of fraud, but that President Joe Biden won in that county by more votes than previously counted.

More: No barrier not even the filibuster must stop our obligation to our democracy | Tom Carper

In light of this evidence, isnt the repressive voting legislation being enacted across the country the solution in search of a problem?

Yet, the Freedom to Vote Act was filibustered in the Senate, just like the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. The Freedom to Vote Act contains compromises negotiated by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, that were claimed to have enough support to override a filibuster. When the Act came before the Senate, all Democrats voted in favor of it and all Republicans voted against it. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer changed his vote to a no, a procedural move that will allow the Act to be reconsidered. The 10 votes Manchin claimed to have to override the filibuster never materialized.

The Freedom to Vote Act is the national solution to the problem of the repressive voter legislation being enacted across the country.It will ensure that states do not have to fight this battle individually again and again.

You wouldnt think it should be such a problem to pass a law making it easier for everyone to vote.But it is and the filibuster is the reason.

The filibuster is a relic of the Jim Crow era.According to the Brennan Center, It was used in the 19th century by pro-slavery senators toprotect the interestsof Southern white landowners who depended on slave labor.Filibusters blocked measures such as anti-lynching bills proposed in1922and1935; the Civil Rights Act of 1957; and legislation that would have prohibited poll taxes and outlawed discrimination in employment, housing, and voting.

It is now being used to block expansive voting legislation that would increase access to the polls for black people and people of color, who demographically are now becoming the majority population in this country. But it also will limit white voters access to the polls. As Heather McGee has noted in The Sum of Us, so often practices intended to discriminate against black people and people of color hurt everyone. To make her point she included the words of a white American she interviewed who said, I believe if you dont have your fundamental right of voting, what do you have? You dont have nothin.

During the past four years, our citizens have worked very hard to elect representatives that will expand voting and civil rights, health care and social welfare programs, womens rights and reproductive justice, and programs to protect the environment.Our citizens have canvassed, marched, rallied, sent postcards, letters, emails, and texts, and made phone calls.In 2020, representatives were elected to both houses of the legislative branch and to the executive branch who support these programs.But we still cant get them through Congress because of the filibuster.

If we cant at a minimum ensure voting rights for our citizens, many folks, especially the crucial young voters, are going to be disillusioned.They are going to think, if I have worked this hard and succeeded in winning a majority in the executive and legislative branches, and we couldnt get it done, why bother?The filibuster is only a Senate rule. It is not in the Constitution and it is not a statute.Senate rules can be changed and changing this rule only requires a majority vote, not a vote of 60.The rule must be changed so that Schumer can bring the Act back to the Senate for another vote.

The Southern Delaware Alliance for Racial Justice urges Sen. Tom Carper and Sen. Chris Coons to do everything in their power to ensure that the Freedom to Vote Act passes in the Senate. If that means changing the filibuster, then that is what must be done.

If we lose the right to vote, we lose everything. The future of our country is at stake.

Charlotte King is chair and founder of theSouthern Delaware Alliance for Racial Justice

Clara S. Licata is co-chair of theSouthern Delaware Alliance for Racial Justice's Legislative-Advocacy Committee.

See the rest here:

Coons and Carper, see that the Freedom to Vote Act passes | Opinion - The News Journal

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off

Page 89«..10 20..888990 91..100 110..»

Category Archives: Freedom

Craig Carter: ‘Freedom is funny and messy’ | Opinion | argusobserver.com – Ontario Argus Observer

Press freedom is no joke in the Philippines – East Asia Forum

Guest Column: When it comes to vaccination, freedom has its limits – The Bulletin

Freedom’s Journal: Racists voted in Tuesday’s election and won! – The Philadelphia Tribune

In our constitutional republic, freedom demands sticking to your guns – SCOTUSblog

Letter to the editor: Freedom to Vote Act would curtail power of Big Pharma – Huntington Herald Dispatch

T20 World Cup: Scotland urged to play with ‘enjoyment and freedom’ against Pakistan – BBC News

In visit to Brown, Salman Rushdie discusses freedom of speech, literary influences and more – Brown University

The Politics of Freedom – City Journal

Coons and Carper, see that the Freedom to Vote Act passes | Opinion – The News Journal

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution