Category Archives: Liberal

The hotly contested Montana congressional race heated up last night, when GOP candidate Greg Gianforte body-slammed Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs and broke his glasses on the eve of the election.

The incident first reported by Jacobs on Twitter happened the night before Montanas election, and was disputed by Gianfortes campaign, in a statement on the incident, claiming Jacobs aggressively shoved a recorder in Gregs face and began asking badgering questions.

After asking Jacobs to leave, the statement claims that liberal journalist Jacobs grabbed Gregs wrist, forcing both to the ground.

But the aggressive behavior described in Gianfortes statement is contradicted by Jacobs, audio recording of the incident, and multiple witness accounts.

In a recording released by the Guardian, Gianforte is not heard asking Jacobs to leave, nor is Jacobs heard acting aggressively.

Gianforte asks Jacobs to refer a question to a spokesman, before the crash of the body-slam is heard. Then, Gianforte shouts at Jacobs: Im sick and tired of you guys! and Get the hell out of here! as Jacobs tells the candidate he had broken his glasses.

There were also witnesses: a Fox News crew, including reporter Alicia Acuna, who described the incident in a story:

Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the reporter. As Gianforte moved on top of Jacobs, he began yelling something to the effect of, Im sick and tired of this!

Following the incident, Jacobs was treated at a local hospital and filed a police report. Gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault, and will have to appear in court before June 7.

The election, between Gianforte and Democrat Rob Quist, will be held on Thursday aka TODAY!

[image via screengrab]

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

View post:

Greg Gianforte Blames 'Liberal Journalist' Reporter He Body-Slammed For 'Aggressive Behavior' - Mediaite

A major liberal group is targeting advertisers for Sean Hannity's Fox News show as they look to push back against his promotion of a conspiracy theory surrounding a killed Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer.

Media watchdog group Media Matters For America on Tuesday published a list of Hannity's advertisers a long list that includes major companies such as Allstate, Angie's List, Bayer, Capitol One, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Mercedes-Benz and Publishers Clearing House.

While the list was published with little context and no call to action, it comes as Media Matters continues to blast Hannity for claiming, without evidence, that Seth Rich leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks and suggesting that Democratic campaigns or groups were behind his killing.

The accusations about Rich's death have been part of Hannity's show and Twitter feed for days. On Twitter, he's accused Democrats of scrambling to cover up proof and promoted a number of people siding with his theory.

Hannity has drawn more recent scrutiny for promoting Kim Dotcom, a disgraced internet entrepreneur in New Zealand facing extradition to the U.S. on a slew of financial charges. Dotcom claims he can prove Rich's ties to WikiLeaks.

Critics have bristled at Hannity's decision to double down on the theory without any hard evidence, and Rich's brother asked Fox to cancel the interview in a letter obtained by CNN.

"Nobody wants to solve Seth's murder more than we do. However, providing a platform to spread potentially false, damaging information will cause us additional pain, suffering and sorrow," Aaron Rich wrote.

The conspiracy theory has swirled on the right for months, but a recent story by a Washington Fox affiliate fanned the flames, claiming an investigator hired by the family found evidence connecting Rich to WikiLeaks.

The story was immediately debunked. The investigator recanted his comments, various media outlets have raised questions about its assertions and Fox News's national website retracted its coverage of the story, saying it "was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require."

Link:

Liberal group targets Hannity advertisers over conspiracy theory - The Hill

Dear Indian liberals,

The photograph of a blood-soaked father of three urgently negotiating for his life minutes before he was beaten to death in a Jharkhand town, has horrified you. It reveals the impunity a mob enjoys when violence goes unpunished. Is the rule of law becoming only weak liberal wishful thinking in times of cow hooligans and enraged mobs enforcing street retribution?

The entire liberal project, youre being told, is apparently dead. This is supposed to be the era of macho patriotism in which those arguing for a dialogue with Kashmiri stakeholders or talks with Pakistan or those who question religious nationalism, are shouted down as anti-nationals and jihadists. Driven into silence by an anti-minority nationalistic fervour, the idealistic middle class, once the great bedrock of Indias freedom movement, is missing in action. The potential loss of idealism among the middle class can become a tragedy of monumental proportions. But its not too late to recover it if liberals speak up strongly.

Illustration: Ajit Ninan

Indian liberals, youre told that you belong to a small westernised elitist club and have colonised mindsets. This is not true. Numerous liberal protestors who down the decades have fought for progressive values have hardly been disconnected and exclusive. Those who stood by Tamil author Perumal Murugan after he was slapped with criminal complaints, rationalists like Kalburgi, Pansare and Dabholkar, those who fought for womens empowerment like Ela Bhatt, for farmers rights like Sharad Joshi, to deepen democracy at the grassroots like Sandeep Pandey and Aruna Roy, none of them were or are westernised elitists. The rooted salt-of-the-earth liberal is found in every Indian small town and city.

Indian liberals, your quest is individual freedom. Your ancestors are Gandhi, Tagore, Ambedkar, Nehru (who was a social liberal if not an economic one) even a C Rajagopalachari, all of whom believed in the individual over dominant state power. You would like to see citizens freedom enhanced responsibly and lawfully. You have always chafed at controls, both economic and social. You dont like theocracies or morality cops.

The nationalist Right-wing (like the ideological Left) believes in a gargantuan state machinery, in unbounded state power and in the states superior rights over the individual, as reflected in the attorney generals recent comment that You may want to be forgotten but the State doesnt want to forget you. The AG of a Hindu nationalist government sounded a bit like a Soviet commissar!

Indian liberals instead have always stood against rampaging state power and for individual rights. Those who protested against the Emergency, against the Anti-Defamation Bill, against bans on books and movies and those who campaigned for citizens rights, they have all held firm against brute state authority.

Liberals are called anti-national. But the greatest patriot of all, Mahatma Gandhi was Indias original liberal. Gandhi was always deeply apprehensive of state power and did not believe in enforcing his personal ideology through government agencies. A devout Hindu, he never wanted a law banning cow slaughter. For Gandhi individual rights of others were greater than his own beliefs. In fact, he had unlimited faith in the power and goodness of individuals, which is why he saw the freedom struggle as a lift off into personal as well as political regeneration.

To Gandhi, the means were always much more important than the ends. He called off the 1921-22 non-cooperation campaign because it descended into violence and failed to be the just means to a cause. For the liberal, means are always just as important as ends: because once the ends are achieved, the means shape the nature of the victory.

Indian liberals, dont let anyone tell you that you dont represent a mighty tradition. You represent the tradition of liberalism in the Upanishads, in the Bhakti movement and the one embodied by Gandhi and the Constitution. Its a heavy duty legacy that is neither confined to a small minority, nor elitist, nor westernised nor simply restricted to any political party. But with such a strong tradition why then are liberals losing out to the votaries of majoritarianism?

Thats because the liberal language has become mired in, as newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron pointed out, negativity and fear. Its become too focussed on denigrating and demonising opponents. Instead, the Indian liberal language should draw upon Gandhi and propose something positive, open and persuasive, a language that stimulates goodness and a sense of justice in every citizen and encourages every citizen to be her best not her worst self. It should encourage private enterprise, not crush or over-protect it and seek ways out of poverty for globalisations victims. Above all, it should recognise the freedom of every citizen to pursue his or her goals without harming others.

Liberal Indians, why should you be fearful? Above your heads floats the spirit of the founders of constitutional India, a spirit that has always opposed those who insist on dress codes, behaviour codes, romance codes, bans on free speech and restrictions on religious, intellectual, dietary and sexual freedom. Confronted with a control-freak state, once again its up to you to speak up against those who seek control of what you eat, study, watch, wear, speak or worship, in the name of their version of nationalism.

This is not the time to shy away or secede or retreat from the debate. This is the time to speak boldly and constantly on every current issue, and emphasise your version of patriotism, grounded in law and respect for all faiths. Its time to proudly say yes I am a patriotic Indian and I am a liberal.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Read more:

A charter for liberal Indians: Liberals, it's time to boldly and constantly assert your vision of patriotism - Times of India (blog)

British Columbias Opposition New Democrats have increased their narrow lead in a riding that could deny the Liberals a fifth-consecutive majority government, but about half the absentee ballots in Courtenay-Comox have yet to be counted.

On election night, the New Democrats led in the riding with nine votes, a margin that see-sawed this week after a recount and with the addition of previously uncounted ballots. On Tuesday, Elections BC continued counting the almost 180,000 absentee ballots 2,077 of them in Courtenay-Comox. By the end of the day, the NDP had a 101-vote lead in the riding.

But another 1,000 absentee ballots must be counted on Wednesday.

At the end of the day on Tuesday, with the results still not complete, the Liberals remained ahead in 43 ridings one short of a majority while the NDP held 41 and the Greens three. If those numbers hold, the future of the government will depend on whether the third-place Greens decide to prop up the Liberals or throw their support to the New Democrats. The last ballots are expected to be counted in 14 ridings on Wednesday. If the margin of victory in Courtenay-Comox is less than about 58 votes, it would go to a judicial recount.

Amid the uncertainty of whether Premier Christy Clarks BC Liberal government will stand, a coalition of activists assembled in front of the B.C. Legislature buildings on Tuesday to urge the Greens and the NDP to make peace, and together end 16 years of Liberal rule.

Environmental organizations, opponents of the Site C dam, advocates for child care and for public health care, and a senior First Nations leader are hoping the final count will deny a majority to Ms. Clark.

With the final election results still unclear, the calls for co-operation remain speculative but a reminder to both the Greens and the NDP that many of their supporters see them as natural allies.

If no party has a strong majority after the final ballots are counted, the NDP and the Greens have a historic opportunity to make good on the important policies they both campaigned on but only if they work together, said Lyndsay Poaps, executive director of Leadnow, the umbrella organization that delivered a petition with 25,000 names calling for an alliance between the two parties.

At the end of the day on Tuesday, with the results still not complete, the Liberals remained ahead in 43 ridings one short of a majority while the NDP held 41 and the Greens three. If those numbers hold, the future of the government will depend on whether the third-place Greens decide to prop up the Liberals or throw their support to the New Democrats.

The last ballots are expected to be counted in 15 ridings on Wednesday, and if Courtenay-Comox remains close, it will go to a judicial recount.

While the outcome remains unclear, the Greens have been negotiating with the NDP, and also with the BC Liberals, to determine where they will deliver their support when the Legislature is recalled.

The expectations of the different groups who joined the rally at the Legislature calling for a Green-NDP alliance are broad.

Terry Dance-Bennink, from the Rolling Justice Bus, said she wants construction on the partly built Site C dam halted. Jen Kuhl, spokesperson for the BC Health Coalition, wants a stronger public health care system and a plan to combat child poverty. Katie Harrison, managing director of Force of Nature, said she expects a Green-NDP alliance to put B.C. on a path for a low carbon future. Sharon Gregson, spokesperson for $10 a Day Child Care Campaign, said the two parties can together resolve a crisis in child-care affordability.

Stewart Phillip, Grand Chief of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, said the opportunity for a change in government is tantalizingly close: As the final ballots are tallied, I pray that we will all be... celebrating the change that we have all worked so hard for over the last 16 years. I think we are on the brink of some pretty wonderful things here in the province of British Columbia.

Sven Biggs, a climate campaigner for Stand.earth, said only the Greens and the NDP together could stop Kinder Morgan from completing its oil pipeline expansion. Were hoping both parties will put aside their partisanship, any personal grudges they may hold over from the election, and come together and do whats right for British Columbians by finally protecting our coast.

Carole James, who is on the NDPs negotiating team, and newly elected MLA Sonia Furstenau, who is part of the Greens bargaining team, accepted the petitions for their parties. But as they stood side-by-side on the steps of the legislature, both declined to discuss whether an accord is possible.

The message that was given to us was that the people of British Columbia have spoken, they are looking for positive change, Ms. James said. But she would not say if the NDP would agree to the Greens demands for electoral reform without a referendum. We are in discussions.

Ms. Furstenau acknowledged the boxes of petitions contained a message from voters, but said: We are waiting for the outcome of the election before we really get into those kinds of specifics, and we are all anxiously waiting for those final ballots.

No ridings flipped between parties, but two tight races in Metro Vancouver were called early on Tuesday evening.

Former Global TV reporter and LNG lobbyist Jas Johal held on against NDP candidate Aman Singh, a civil rights lawyer, to win Richmond-Queensborough for the Liberals by 134 votes. That is about half the margin of 263 he tallied in the new riding on election night.

And in Coquitlam-Burke Mountain, Liberal candidate Joan Isaacs defeated NDP incumbent Jodie Wickens by 87 votes.

Two other Metro Vancouver races remain undecided with margins of less than 600 votes each: Maple Ridge-Mission (NDP lead by 369) and Vancouver-False Creek (Liberals lead by 406).

Follow us on Twitter: Mike Hager @MikePHager, Justine Hunter @justine_hunter

Read the original:

BC Liberals maintain minority government in recount, with ballots still to count - The Globe and Mail

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Yet Democrats are thrilled by his testimony, because he said there were contacts between Russian officialsand someU.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign, and hence an FBI investigation was warranted.

Note that there is nothing new in what Brennan said. TheNew York Times reported on January 19 in a story timed to appear on Inauguration Day that the intelligence services had intercepted communications between several Trump associates and Russian officials. (The same story said there was no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing.) And last week, Reuters reported that there were 18 such contacts over seven months, less than three per month.

All that Brennan presented was his opinion. And it is not clear what prompted his opinion. He said he convened a group, including the FBI and NSA, toinvestigate possibleRussian attempts to affect the election in late July 2016.

What else happened in late July?

In late July, Donald Trump held a press conference at which he was pesteredabout Russia. After several minutes, he joked: Its just a total deflection, this whole thing with Russia By the way, they hacked they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. Russia, if youre listening, I hope youre able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.

Trump was joking, but the media inflated his remarks into a serious attempt to invite foreign intervention in the election. Some Democrats even accused him of treason.

It is not unreasonable to wonder whether Brennan followed the liberalmedia down a Russian rabbit-hole, where the absence of evidence would not end his suspicions.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the most influential people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author ofHow Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Read this article:

Did Brennan Start Russia Investigation Because of Liberal Media Bias? - Breitbart News

Attorney General Maura Healey should consider taking over the prosecution of Bampumim Teixeira, the alleged cutthroat killer of those two unfortunate South Boston doctors.

Otherwise he will be prosecuted by the same people who are responsible for allowing the convicted bank robber to walk the streets of Boston when he should have been deported.

That would be Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, who, in a plea-bargain deal, enabled Teixeira to resume his life on the streets and wreak havoc on the lives of two innocent people.

That deal was approved by Boston Municipal Court Judge Lisa Anne Grant, a soft-hearted liberal appointed by former Gov. Deval Patrick.

Grant reduced two unarmed bank robbery charges to larceny. She then sentenced Teixeira to nine months in jail, considering time served. The sentence was actually 364 days, one day short of one year, which could have triggered action to deport Teixeira.

One could argue that your average two-time American bank robber would have been sentenced to nine years, not nine months. It is another example of liberals bending the judicial system to bail out criminal immigrants, legal or otherwise. It's called immigrant privilege.

Teixeira was in the country since 2010 as a green-card holder which allowed him to live and work in the United States. There is no sign that he did much work, outside of an occasional security guard job, even at the secure 148-unit Macallen Building in South Boston.

That is where victims Richard Field, 49, and Lina Bolanos, 38, both doctors who were soon to be married, lived in a $1.9 million penthouse condo on the top floor of the building.

They were found May 5 with their hands tied and their throats slit. A message in their blood was scrawled on the wall. When the Boston cops arrived they confronted Teixeira, who they thought was armed, and shot and wounded him. A backpack with Bolanos' jewelry was found. Teixeira, who is thought to have had a master key to the condo, was charged with their murders. He was arraigned from his hospital bed.

The bottom line is that had Teixeira been deported to Guinea-Bassau, where he was born, or to Cape Verde, where he lived, two vibrant and well-loved people, Richard Field and Lina Bolanos, would be alive today.

Instead, in a deeply wrenching ceremony at Gate of Heaven Church in South Boston, friends carried out the couple's cremated remains in a pair of wooden boxes amid a crowd of sobbing and sorrowing relatives and friends.

It was a crime that did not have to happen, but did happen because of Conley and Grant.

And where do the relatives and friends of the two victims go for solace, recourse or accountability for the deaths of their loved ones? The answer is nowhere. There is no recourse.

Sure, the families can sue the building owners or the security company that employed Teixeira. And sure, Teixeira this time will get what is coming to him, although I would not count on it. But nothing will bring back Field and Bolani.

What about the judicial system? There, nobody is held accountable or responsible for the actions that protected Teixeira from deportation.

Liberals would have you believe that it was not their fault but the fault of the "system."

The Boston Globe even ran an editorial blaming the "system" for the murders. The headline read, "The failed system that cost the two doctors their lives," thus absolving Judge Grant and Conley of any responsibility for setting Teixeira free.

It was not the fault of the system. The system is fine. It was the fault of people in the system who manipulated the law to help Teixeira.

There is more to this story, but no one is talking.

A generation ago when police reporters worked out of the smoke-filled press room at Boston Police headquarters, questions surrounding this case would have been answered. But police reporters have gone the way of cigar smoke.

There is a public-service opening for Healey to take over the case and provide some accountability. It would restore people's dwindling confidence in the judicial system.

She has the legal authority to intervene, but she won't. It would upset the Globe and her liberal base. Healey may bill herself as the state's "chief law officer," or the state's "chief law enforcement officer," but you will never catch her at a crime scene.

Judge Grant, meanwhile, shrugs and says, "Next case."

luke1825@aol.com

The rest is here:

PETER LUCAS: Liberal justice is no justice for murdered doctors ... - Lowell Sun

Outside contributors' opinions and analysis of the most important issues in politics, science, and culture.

For liberals, one of most disturbing things about the 2016 election was that it seemed to indicate a massive lurch to the right in a country they thought was getting more, not less, liberal. Many contemplated with varying degrees of seriousness whether they should simply leave a country which had suddenly become hostile territory.

That was a suspect view even at the time of Trumps election Clinton did, after all, get almost 3 million more votes than Donald Trump. But its even more suspect now, as public opinion polls have shown over and over since last November.

What these polls have revealed is, despite fears of surging right-wing populism, we are seeing surging liberalism instead. Consider the ultra-hot button issue of immigration. In April, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked the public whether immigration helps the United States more than it hurts it, or immigration hurts the United States more than it helps it? The response: 60 percent said it helps more than it hurts, and just 32 percent said hurts more than it helps. That is the strongest positive evaluation this poll has ever gotten on this question.

In fact, as the chart below indicates, positive feelings about immigration have generally been rising since early 2016, including through Trumps election and beyond. And if you go back to 2005, when the question was first asked by NBC/WSJ, positive feelings today are way higher than they were back then. (In 2005, only 37 percent thought immigration helped more than it hurt.)

If populism means resentment of immigrants who are taking the jobs of native-born Americans, it is not to be found in these numbers. So lets look elsewhere. No proposal is more symbolic of Trumps pledge to combat illegal immigration, and generally place America first, than his pledge to build that famous wall along the Mexican border. Right after Trump got elected, the Quinnipiac University poll pegged support for building the wall at 42 percent. Since then it has dropped steadily, and is down to about 33 percent. (Sixty-four percent of respondents, meanwhile, were opposed.)

Nor are Americans rising up in their millions against trade with the rest of the world another signature populist Trump issue. On the contrary, support for trade has never been higher. Since 1993, Gallup has asked the public whether foreign trade is more of an economic opportunity or economic threat. A stunning 72 percent now say its more of an opportunity. As the chart show, this is far, far higher than that sentiment has ever been before.

Despite Trumps grandstanding on immigration and trade, he seems to be singularly ineffective in getting Americans to turn their backs on the rest of the world. Instead, we are seeing more openness than ever. Perhaps by putting things so extremely, Trump has simply reminded many Americans that engagement with the global economy is, on balance, a good thing and that trying to shut it down is a silly, pointless endeavor.

Nor has Trump convinced Americans that getting rid of the Affordable Care Act is a great idea. On that issue, Trump wasnt blazing a new populist path but rather signing onto a long-held Republican goal. But here again, hes only succeeded in making Americans more supportive of the legislation.

In the aftermath of Trumps election and the GOPs shambolic attempts to get rid of the ACA, this landmark piece of liberal legislation has finally achieved what it never had before: a net positive image in the eyes of the public. As for the proposed alternative, the Republican bill that passed the House, the American Health Care Act, has a stunningly low approval rating of 21 percent in the latest Quinnipiac poll. Nor does Trumps supposed base, white noncollege voters, embrace it: They approve it at the dismal rate of 25 percent.

Trump fails to understand, and liberals should always remember, one of the most enduring features of American public opinion. The dominant ideology in the United States is one that combines symbolic conservatism (honoring tradition, distrusting novelty, embracing the conservative label) with operational liberalism (wanting government to take more action in a wide variety of areas). As Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, two leading academic analysts of American ideology, note: Most Americans like most government programs. Most of the time, on average, we want government to do more and spend more. It is no accident that we have created the programs of the welfare state. They were created and are sustained by massive public support.

Thats why, now that the ACA has delivered concrete benefits for many people, it is so very hard to get rid of. Indeed, Trump greatest accomplishment so far may be in unleashing Americans inner operational liberal. In the NBC/WSJ poll, more people than ever 57 percent say they want a government that does more to solve problems and meet peoples needs; only 39 percent say that government does too many things best left to businesses and individuals. As the chart shows, that is the strongest pro-government response since this questions was first asked in 1995.

Were seeing this operational liberalism emerge in wide variety of areas. The phenomenon is nicely captured by a new Pew poll that asked the public whether they would like to see spending in the federal budget increased, decreased, or kept the same in 14 different areas. Compared to 2013, as the chart below shows, support for government spending is up in every area, with substantial increases in big-ticket areas like education, infrastructure, health care, and scientific research. This, of course, is pretty much the opposite of what Trumps vague but draconian budget proposal has called for.

How about the environment and climate change? Has Trump succeeded in pushing do-gooder enviros to the side, or in making the world safe again for coal? Not quite. The NBC/WSJ poll has the largest share of the American public ever saying that climate change is real and action needs to be taken: 67 percent. Since Trumps election, support has fallen to just 28 percent in the Quinnipiac poll on the question of whether Trump should remove specific regulations intended to combat climate change (a meager 33 percent even among white noncollege voters).

Taxes? Americans never like the idea of lowering taxes on the wealthy. Since Trumps election, they hate it even more. Now its down to just 18 percent in favor in the Quinnipiac poll, with a massive 77 percent opposed.

And theres more. Gallup reports that Americans views about the moral acceptability of a wide range of practices are now more liberal than theyve ever been. This includes birth control, divorce, premarital sex, and the death penalty. Same-sex marriage has become so uncontroversial that pollsters hardly bother to ask about it anymore.

None of this is to sugarcoat the current facts on the ground Trump in the White House and the Republicans in control of Congress and most states. But that owes much more to the peculiar nature of the Electoral College, gerrymandering, structural GOP advantages in Congress, and poor Democratic strategy than to the actual views of the American public.

I hate to break it to Americas liberals, but as Ive argued before there are considerable grounds for optimism about the American public and, by extension, the fate of the country. Now you may return to your regularly scheduled panic.

Ruy Teixeiras new book is The Optimistic Leftist: Why the 21st Century Will Be Better Than You Think. He is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

The Big Idea is Voxs home for smart discussion of the most important issues and ideas in politics, science, and culture typically by outside contributors. If you have an idea for a piece, pitch us at thebigidea@vox.com.

Go here to read the rest:

What right-wing populism? Polls reveal that it's liberalism that's surging. - Vox

NewsBusters (blog)

'Supergirl' Uses Superpowers to Further Liberal Agenda in Finale NewsBusters (blog) The finale to The CW's Supergirl was thankfully focused more on action than politics despite what its title "Nevertheless, She Persisted" would have us believe. However, the final episode of the politically-charged second season still could not avoid a ... and more »

Read more:

'Supergirl' Uses Superpowers to Further Liberal Agenda in Finale - NewsBusters (blog)

NewsBusters (blog)

Liberal Pushing Identity Politics Slammed by FBN Host, GOP Guest NewsBusters (blog) During Friday's edition of The Intelligence Report on the Fox Business Network, host Trish Regan and conservative guest Ned Ryun thoroughly schooled liberal panelist Pablo Manriquez regarding the use of identity politics when dealing with financial ...

View post:

Liberal Pushing Identity Politics Slammed by FBN Host, GOP Guest - NewsBusters (blog)

Chi Chia-wei holds a rainbow flag during an anti-homophobia exhibition in Taipei. Photograph: David Chang/EPA

Chi Chia-wei will find out on Wednesday if his decades long fight to make Taiwan the first country in Asia to legalise same-sex marriage has been a success.

Chi, 59, a pioneering Taiwanese gay rights activist, is the celebrated face behind one of the most controversial legal cases the island democracy has seen in recent years, where 14 judges must rule if the civil code, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.

The constitutional courts landmark ruling will not only determine the success or failure of draft new parliamentary laws to introduce marriage equality, but could cement Taiwans reputation as a beacon of liberalism in a region where the LGBT community faces increasing persecution.

Chi, an equal rights campaigner since he first came out as a gay teenager in 1975, remains pragmatic about making civil rights history. If it doesnt work out this time, Ill keep on fighting for the people, and for human rights, he said in an interview with The Guardian.

But he is determined that one day, the fight will be won.

Somebody has to do it. I dont want to see any more people commit suicide because they dont have marriage equality, he said.

Last October the suspected suicide of French professor, Jacques Picoux, who was unable to marry his Taiwanese partner of 35 years, Tseng Ching-chao, became a rallying call for Chi and other LGBT activists.

His struggle is also personal. Chis lawsuit, launched two years ago and supported by the municipal government in the capital, Taipei, is the latest of several attempts to get legal recognition for his 30 year relationship with his partner, who wishes to remain anonymous.

In 1986, when the nation was still under martial law, Chi was imprisoned for five months after submitting his first petition asking for gay marriage to be recognised.

As a flag bearer for equality, he hopes to inspire other LGBT activists fighting a crackdown across Asia.

On the eve of Taiwans court ruling, two gay men face a public caning in Indonesia. In South Korea, the military has been accused of carrying out a witch-hunt against gay recruits. In Bangladesh, 27 men were arrested last week on suspicion of being gay, a criminal offence.

Back in Taiwan, the political stakes of Wednesdays decision are also high.

When President Tsai Ing-wens ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) passed the first draft of a bill to legalise same-sex marriage in December, it prompted a fierce conservative backlash.

The issue has split Taiwanese society and vocal protests from a coalition of religious and right-wing family groups have caused many legislators to have second thoughts.

The fate of the legislation, soon to face a second reading, now lies in the hands of the court, believes Yu Mei-nu, the DPP parliamentarian who drafted it.

If the court ruled clearly in support of same-sex marriage and President Tsai offered her unequivocal support, it would embolden wavering legislators to vote in favour of the new laws, she argued.

If the grand justices make a decision that is not very clear, and it depends on a legislative yuan [parliament] vote, then it will be difficult. I think most legislators will abstain, she said.

We want her (Tsai) to be braver. If she can come out and say yes I support it then it will be passed.

Ahead of her election last year, Tsai voiced her support for marriage equality in a Facebook video. In the face of love, everyone is equal, she said.

But as she marked the first anniversary of her inauguration this weekend with low public approval ratings, Tsai faced criticism from all sides over her handling of gay marriage.

Its a little bit depressing for us. Before the election, she was really pro-gay rights. But now she has kind of disappeared, said student Vic Chiang, 23, at a Taipei rally last week on the International Day Against Homophobia.

Meanwhile, Robin Chen, a spokesman for the Coalition For Happiness of Our Next Generation, which links support for gay marriage with increased HIV infections, criticised the government for rushing the laws through.

The majority of the population does not know whats happening, he said. We need to discuss things on different levels because family is the foundation of society.

His fears were shared by Father Otfried Chan, secretary-general of the Chinese Regional Bishops Conference, who believes the court will likely back gay marriage. There is no debate, he said. Its a one-sided game.

Nerves are frayed ahead of the ruling, with both sides intending to demonstrate outside the court.

But for

Chi, the choice is simple.

To legalise marriage would mean that Taiwans civil code and constitution will say that gay people are people, he said. If the law can be changed, Taiwans gay community will have human rights.

Read the original:

Taiwan's same-sex marriage ruling could cement its place as Asia's liberal beacon - The Guardian