#and I was thus compelled to defend my adopted nation | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

woman-loving · 4 years ago

Text

For the record, and I apologize if people are already tired of this topic, I want to bring up other possible ‘sources’ of tension among lesbians and bi women, not because I want to go to bat for lesbian feminism or separatism, but because I genuinely think there are multiple factors in these conflicts. I think that because lesbian feminism and separatism are very unpopular (among non-lesbian feminists), it’s easy to reach for them as explanations for actions we want to condemn, but I think this can leave some of these other factors unexposed and unexamined.

I also do think there are more prominent legacies of lesbian feminism than, say, thinking bi women can’t use butch/femme (which wasn’t specifically on the lesbian feminist agenda), that might be easier to identify if we actually look at what lesbian feminists said. It’s A Myth that lesbian feminists precipitated a sudden, universal changeover between an understanding of “lesbian” that included bi women to one that didn’t. However, lesbian feminists did create a definition of lesbian as not only feminist, but as the vanguard of feminism. This is a revision to what I was arguing yesterday (again, my thoughts aren’t fully formed), but I think the addition of that understanding of lesbianism to the mix is more of an ongoing legacy of lesbian feminism that continues to influence tensions among lesbians and bi women. This is something that continues to be picked up and passed on among lesbians and bi women, sometimes without even connecting it with “lesbian feminism” specifically and while combining it with other positions that contradict lesbian feminism (such as innate divisions between sexual orientations, or lesbianism as defined primarily by sexual attraction).

This book I’m reading (Separatism and Women’s Communities, Dana R. Shugar, 1995) has a chapter that looks at the 1970 article “The Woman Identified Woman” by the Radicalesbians, and talks about how it basically flipped the script on how lesbianism was assessed within the predominantly white radical feminist movement at the time, and how its ideas were taken up by other lesbian feminists:

Yet radical-feminist uneasiness over issues of sexuality in general (Echols’s study details the avoidance of or even refusal in radical-feminist theory to approach constructively most issues of sexuality) made even these groups less than hospitable for many lesbians. Further, radical-feminist discourse on the topic of lesbianism produced a surprising number of articles that seemed bent more on the preservation of the status quo than they were on the promotion of a ‘radical’ understanding. For example, though she left NOW [National Organization for Women] in disagreement with its conservative governmental practices, Ti-Grace Atkinson approached NOW’s position on lesbians in her early radical-feminist essays. In a 1970 speech entitled ‘Lesbianism and Feminism,’ Atkinson claimed:

“... lesbianism is totally dependent, as a concept as well as an activity, on male supremacy. This face, alone, should make a feminist nervous. ... lesbianism is based ideologically on the very premise of male oppression: the dynamic of sexual intercourse. ... Because lesbianism involves role-playing and, more important, because it is based on the primary assumption of male oppression, that is, sex, lesbianism reinforces the sex class system. ... The price of self-respect for oppressed people is to adopt the role of the Oppressor, and, thus, ultimately, toward oneself. Lesbians, in that one paradoxical sense, become their own Oppressors.” (Amazon Odyssey 85-88)

The comparison of lesbianism to male supremacy was, of course, nothing new to lesbians, though perhaps early lesbian feminists were dismayed to hear it from women who insisted on the primacy of women’s commitments to one another. In essence, Atkinson’s portray attempted to write lesbianism out of the women’s movement: lesbians were, by her description, men rather than women--if not in actuality then certainly in behavior, mind-set, and social outlook. And as ‘men,’ lesbians were less than welcome in a ‘woman’s’ movement.

[...]

In May 1970, a newly formed lesbian-feminist group, the Lavender Menace, chose the Second Congress to Unite Women as the place to confront the women’s movement on its own homophobia. As soon as the entertainment portion of the evening ended, the lights in the auditorium went out. When they were relit, nearly twenty women stood at the front, ‘Lavender Menace’ stenciled on their T-shirts. They preempted the rest of the evening’s activities and proceeded to facilitate a speak-out and discussion on homophobia in feminism. Though they had placed women sympathetic to their action in the audience, these ‘plants’ were unnecessary; when the Menace opened the microphone and asked women to come froward to speak, dozens thronged to the stage. It was at this action that then little-known author Kate Millett declared her alliance with lesbians and spoke of her own bisexuality. At the same time, unknown to members of Lavender Menace, three lesbian groups from California held panels at the Second Congress meetings. Lesbians thus began to demand the recognition of their presence and work within women’s liberation (Abbot and Love 113-16).

Lavender Menace’s impact reached far beyond the congress, however. In preparation for the congress and during its aftermath, the Menace-later renamed Radicalesbians--wrote and widely distributed ‘Woman Identified Woman,’ their position paper on lesbianism. The essay contained five basic sections: a definition of homosexuality, an analysis of society’s derogatory views of lesbianism, the place of lesbianism within feminism, an analysis of women’s dependency upon men, and a call to all women to begin the creation of a new sense of what it meant to be a woman.[5]

As the title ‘Woman Identified Woman’ suggests, this discursive representation of lesbianism was in part an attempt to push the social definition of lesbianism away from sexuality and toward a constructed identity that had far more to do with a sociopolitical critique than it did with what one did in bed. Thus a lesbian was a woman who ‘acts in accordance with her inner compulsion to be a more complete and freer human being than her society ... cares to allow her. ... She is forced to evolve her own life pattern, often living much of her life alone, learning usually much earlier than her ‘straight’ ... sisters about the essential aloneness of life (which the myth of marriage obscures) and about the reality of illusions’ (Radicalesbians 240-41). This redefinition of lesbianism resonated on several levels within the early radical-feminist movement, in part because it effectively utilized characterizations of women’s experiences put forth by radical feminist groups themselves. When Radicalesbians described the typical lesbian as a woman who struggled to create herself outside social conventions of the feminine, they granted her the journey that most heterosexual feminists desired to undertake. Thus, lesbians were posited as not some outside evil force that tried to break up the feminist party but rather as women who, like everyone else, struggled for autonomy from patriarchal definitions of womanhood. The difference--if there was one--come in the implicit claims that lesbians were almost automatically compelled to start the process heterosexual women could begin only after a political or social awakening. In short, lesbians were rewritten as the pioneers of the feminist community.

The concept of lesbians as the pioneers of the feminist revolution was quickly adopted by many lesbian feminists in their analyses of gender and society. In the process, lesbian feminists often linked their critique of female socialization to the theory of sexism as the primary contradiction, a combination that had the rhetorical effect of positioning woman-identification as the crucial step in the eradication of all oppression. [...]

In part, Radicalesbians’ definition attempted to counter incessant emphasis by many feminists on lesbianism as solely sexual and therefore--like all sexuality--oppressive to women. And in this way lesbian feminism was to take an antagonistic stance to any overly sexualized portrayals of lesbianism, including those of butch-femme identification prior to the 1960s. But this willingness to mute sexuality in the hopes of appealing to heterosexual feminists also began a line of thought that was to become central to radical feminism: the view of the lesbian as the quintessential feminist.[7] Radicalesbians’ statement was thus an effective rhetorical strategy, for it placed the ‘well-adjusted’ lesbian as one who had successfully completed a journey to a freely chosen womanhood. And intentional or not, the wide acceptance of this definition opened the boundaries between heterosexual and lesbian women: if lesbianism was more than sex; was more, in fact, a method of liberation than it was a sexual orientation, then all women potentially could (and perhaps even should) become lesbians.

By the early 1970s, then, the burden of sexual proof placed on lesbians by works such as Atkinson’s ‘Lesbianism and Feminism’ was clearly turned back from lesbians onto heterosexual feminists themselves. Caught somewhat unprepared, heterosexual feminists found it necessary to defend their sexuality and found themselves vulnerable to the charge of collaboration with the oppressor if they attempted (or refused) to do so. That there was no immediate, organized rebuttal of this redefinition of heterosexuality was perhaps not surprising, even though the lack thereof made lesbian-feminist analyses seem generally correct. And any defense of heterosexual relationships without an effective challenge to lesbian feminists’ redefinitions--a challenge that was not forthcoming--could quickly be labeled both antifeminist and homophobic. Thus the overall response by heterosexual feminists usually fell along the lines of Ti-Grace Atkinson’s: shortly after Lavender Menace’s action and publication of ‘Woman Identified Woman,’ Atkinson reversed her earlier position on lesbianism and stated that ‘lesbianism has been a kind of code word for female resistance’ and that women who are ‘married to men ... are collaborators’ (Atkinson 131-32).[8]

#lesbian feminism #lgbtq history #woman identified woman #radicalesbians #us history #separatism and women's communities #dana r shugar

17 notes · View notes

warsofasoiaf · 5 years ago

Text

Geopolitics for Writers and Worldbuilders Part 2: My Friend to the End

Once you have the strategic objectives for the nations determined, it is much easier to determine where they align and where they conflict. These will be the foundations for building the geopolitical relationships within your world. As circumstances arise in your writing, examine them and how they might cause a reassessment of national objectives. A country that acquires territory, for example, might devote resources to securing and integrating the territory into its lands, while neighboring countries might devote more effort to their defenses in an attempt to secure themselves against this expansion, or attempt an invasion while armies are in the new territories, taking advantage of the situation for their own gain.

International relationships don’t have to be antagonistic, and neither do nations have to be in conflict to generate a fascinating story. Alliances shape much of geopolitics, and so writing out a believable, well-considered alliance can be a great boon to worldbuilding. The formation of an alliance can be its own story, and the dissolution of an alliance can be the focal point of a great tragedy, but even as a background element an alliance should be sensible and well-considered, to give depth to the world.

Why Go Separate When We Can Go Together? The Dimensions of Alliances

A military alliance is at its base an arrangement of the national securities of two or more nations where there is no clearly defined crisis or war when it is enacted. This does not mean that there is no clearly defined enemy, but rather that the structure of a military conflict is not identified in advance. This is the main difference between a military alliance and a military coalition, where the conflict and the belligerent parties are clearly identified with the pact entered into with the understanding that it will not persist past the current strategic mission.

When it comes to a military alliance, working out the expected gains from the national perspective is critical to making the alliance believable. Alliances often are established with a specific goal in mind, such as a military alliance to conquer a territory and split it between the alliance partners, this was a secret provision of the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Defensive alliances might arise against a specific threat such as the anti-Napoleonic Grand Alliance of 1814, or a lingering mission against a threat such as the NATO military alliance tasked with a defensive mission of Western Europe against Soviet aggression. The contributions to these alliances and the terms required to invoke them are often specific and outlined by treaty to avoid being entangled in a matter that isn’t strategically advisable, or having one alliance partner utilize the alliance for singular benefit. In practice, one of the key features to help constrain this is to limit help to defensive wars: the defensive pact. A defensive pact states that when one member is attacked, the other members will enter into the war automatically on the side of the defender. The Triple Alliance of 1882, for example, between the Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, and Italy, stipulated in its provisions that in the event of a French attack on Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary would enter into the war as allies of Italy, and Italy would do the same for a French attack on the German Empire. With the outbreak of World War I, the Triple Alliance was still in force, but as the German Empire was the aggressor, the automatic entry clause did not apply. Similarly, the pact stipulated that Austria-Hungary and Italy were to discuss any expansionism into the Balkans, which was not done. The terms not complied with, Italy was not compelled to join the Central Powers in their war against the Triple Entente, and ultimately joined the Allies in spring 1915. In writing terms, the benefits and constraints of an alliance can form a dramatic chapter for a nation when deciding whether or not to fulfill it or break it, weighing the costs and benefits of each decision, permitting the writer to naturally communicate the strategic objectives to the reader in the voice of the character.

Alliances throughout history have attempted to use broader contexts to create long-lasting alliances along cultural or political commonalities. The Holy Alliance of 1815 attempted to use European heritage and Christianity as foundational guidelines for the preservation of European peace, though this ultimately failed. The 20th century saw alliances founded based on systems of government, such as the Sino-Soviet alliance which was united in their models of a centralized revolutionary vanguard party-directed Communism under a single dictator, which lasted until the Sino-Soviet split that began with the ascension of Khruschev and doctrinal disputes with Mao. In practice, the strategic objectives of the various parties usually differ so substantially enough that most of the alliances either have no effective power or fall apart quickly. Even NATO, a long-enduring military alliance consisting primarily of alliances in North America and Europe, faced difficulties when senior alliance partner France under Charles de Gaulle left the integrated military command structure in 1966 over issues of military independence and questions of France’s influence relative to the United States’s and the United Kingdom’s; de Gaulle’s perception of France as third fiddle to both of these powers would shape a great deal of French foreign policy during his tenure as President of the French Fifth Republic. Today, NATO struggles with political tensions amid the expansion of the alliance as well as Internal struggles between alliance members. For writers, the idea of building a broad-based alliance could be an entire novel in itself for idealistic characters or nations, with efforts and setbacks forming the basis for the dramatic beats of the story, or the breaking of an alliance can form the background for a world of conflict that could provide a worldbuilder a setting where conflict could come from unexpected angles when former friends turn into enemies.

The symmetry of a military alliance typically gives great operational latitude to each individual partner. Symmetry, in the context of an alliance, suggests a relatively equal contribution and benefit among the component members. Strictly speaking, contribution does not necessarily have to be perfectly equivalent, as nations will differ in their capacity to contribute, but the benefit typically consist of joint military aid, intelligence sharing, and other methods to improve the military power of the component nations. The deterrent effect of attacking an alliance is theoretically greater than attacking a single nation, so smaller nations can exhibit a deterrent effect far larger than they can provide on their own. From a worldbuilding perspective, the different aspects that each alliance partner brings to an alliance can demonstrate different aspects of the world and its culture, the example being the different species in the Mass Effect series and their contributions to warfare. These differences can even form points of contention and thus, a good writer can pull out points of conflict to create drama and tension between ostensible allies in a story, to set up a conflict for politically or diplomatically-minded protagonists to show their strengths.

Huge Tracts of Land - Dynastic Alliances and Feudal Overlordship

In a world where dynastic succession determines government, marriage and adoption are used as tools of alliance. If the bloodline is what rules a nation, entering into a bloodline is a political statement, hence why marriages in monarchies were designed not for personal affection, but for strategic matters of state. Marrying into the royal family of a neighboring kingdom can secure a border, two powerful duchies could marry to establish a powerful domestic power bloc within a kingdom, or two kingdoms can unite against a common foe, sealing the alliance with a marriage. From a writing perspective, this is a natural place for writers to explore the depths of an alliance, as the relationship between the respective dynasties can inform the interplay between the two nations, and character writing can be more comfortable than writing for an impersonal nation. Good relationships could translate into a domestic golden age, or an age of expansionism as the secure alliance allows military resources to be driven elsewhere.

However, there is a risk in marriages, the progeny of this new marriage may become a new rival for power for one or both of the thrones. Any member of a dynasty can eventually inherit a throne in a dynastic succession; this could open any monarch or heir up to a political threat from an ambitious family member looking to inherit the throne and the power that comes with it. Mixing two dynasties and two monarchies offers an even more tempting prize, bringing both monarchies under the control of one dynasty, or even more tempting, under one single monarch, is a very tempting prize: the personal union of two monarchies. A monarch in control of two countries in a personal union has tremendous ability to set the domestic and foreign policy of both. However, personal unions often deal with sectarian and partisan conflict between their member nations if they feel ruled by a foreign power, ethnic and cultural conflict was very common throughout human history. Personal unions are not equitable alliances typically, one monarchy is the senior partner and the monarchy joined becomes the junior. A junior partner in a personal union might feel ruled by a foreign power, not capable of influencing their own foreign policy, and agitate against such rule the same any conquered power might act against a foreign overlord. From a writing perspective, this is a natural conflict point, where different factions could be arrayed against each other for the writer to use as potential problems for the protagonists to handle.

Juniors in a personal union aren’t the only inherently asymmetrical alliance, plenty of foreign policy partnerships place one party in a significant position of power over the other. In a medieval setting, the relationship between a feudal overlord and a vassal is inherently unequal, with the vassal providing a term of military service in exchange for military protection from a feudal overlord. Other states may establish a relationship of suzerainty, where the overlord controls the foreign policy of the weaker state while permitting autonomy over internal policy, usually with obligations in the form of regular tribute payments. Usually, the overlord had so much more relative power than the vassal that vassalization was considered preferable to subjugation via aggressive expansion; a threatened province may decide the loss of autonomy is inevitable and worth settling on its terms rather than at the point of a sword. This was certainly the case with the European great power struggles from the establishment of Roman client-states to Ottoman suzerainty in the Balkans. In this sense, the conflict is natural, the loss of independence against the threat of invasion and annihilation, with variances in power possibly changing the strategic situation or provoking unrest and rebellion. A writer can tie this onto another conflict, where a large nation facing a difficult structure must either deal with opportunistic rebels, or weigh the options of granting more autonomy and other privileges in exchange for support to crush a greater threat.

The More Things Change...

Even in the modern times, inherently unequal political alliances can be used to safeguard the interest of the larger nation. For example, during the Cold War, the asymmetrical shape of the United States’s alliances with South Korea and Taiwan were far different than the symmetrical alliance of NATO. The United States feared that Kai-Shek or Syngman Rhee, both hardline anti-communists, would engage in an aggressive war against Mao Zedong that would have brought the Soviet Union into the conflict and precipitated a general nuclear war. To prevent this, the United States instituted bilateral relations with each nation instead of a multilateral alliance network. This theory, dubbed powerplay, offers an alternate system of alliances for writers than the classic institutional model. For writers, exploring and illustrating power dynamics can offer enough substance to establish the plot of an entire novel, and for worldbuilders this can easily form a cornerstone of core objectives for characters and factions.

This isn’t to say that all asymmetrical political arrangements between large and small nations are inherently exploitative. Larger nations can offer tremendous boons to smaller nations in the military sphere, providing equipment, facilities, and training that the smaller nation simply cannot achieve on its own with its limited resources. It is entirely likely that larger nations often serve their own benefit by partnering with smaller nations to build up themselves. Friendly smaller nations can often act as regional partners as well as provide lucrative trade arrangements or hedge out other large nations from establishing themselves in the same region.

There is a drawback to establishing these types of arrangements, aside from the normal cost of implementing them; a key problem in international relations as it pertains to security and military is the security dilemma. The security dilemma, or spiral model, is the idea that actions taken by a state that increase its defense also contribute to tension as the same actions can be taken as offense. These actions taken, other states perform similar actions to increase their own defense, creating a spiral effect that constantly escalates in a spiral, hence the name. Without the ability to know another state’s objectives, nations feel the need to continually ensure the state’s defense, potentially leading to a war no participant wants, all out of a desire to ensure that the nation is well-defended and secure, which as stated, is the natural, rational desire of any nation as it exists.

Arms control agreement have often formed a cornerstone of defensive arrangements between powers who are unfriendly or hostile. While the modern conception of arms control typically relates to nuclear technology and proliferation, examples including the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty and the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, arms control agreements have a long history even before the concept of modern nation-states; the ultimate goal is a restriction on the use of military force, typically by restricting the conduct in warfare, restricting the territory where war can be waged such as establishing demilitarized zones or forbidding certain targets, or restricting the technology used in warfare. There are two primary goals with arms control arrangements of any type: to make a war less devastating and thus easier to recover from, and to solve the security dilemma by producing methods of trust and communication that signal actions of a defensive nature, avoiding the escalation spiral that could potentially lead to pre-emptive strikes, or causing a regional conflict to escalate far beyond that which the original participants originally intended.

Arms control, however, has its own dilemma, in enforcing the provisions of the contract. Nations might be inclined to cheat the provisions of the deal, allowing them the benefits of compliance without the drawbacks. The strategic decision-making that usually factors into this depend primarily on the strength of the restriction and enforcement clauses, with loose enforcement and easy methods to co-opt the process, either through bribery or self-enforcement. These dimensions apply to most if not all matters within the regulatory sphere.

Conclusion

Alliances are a complicated and meddlesome beast; but a well-crafted, multi-faceted alliance can offer a rich and engaging multiplicity of stories. Writers can explore different facets of a story with an alliance that offer conflicts that can’t be resolved with a contest of wills and a brawl, and a worldbuilder can build out a rich and engaging world for others to play in, whether that be tabletop gamers, other writers, or other creative excursions. As with all things, practice will hone the skills of worldbuilding to a razor’s edge, and a well-crafted world will be the result.

#writing #worldbuilding #alliance #essays on writing and worldbuilding

69 notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 6 years ago

Link

In the heart of the US Capitol there’s a small men’s room with an uplifting Franklin Delano Roosevelt quotation above the door. Making use of the facilities there after lunch in the nearby House dining room about a year ago, I found myself standing next to Trent Lott. Once a mighty power in the building as Senate Republican leader, he had been forced to resign his post following some imprudently affectionate references to his fellow Republican senator, arch-segregationist Strom Thurmond. Now he was visiting the Capitol as a lucratively employed lobbyist.

The bathroom in which we stood, Lott remarked affably, once served a higher purpose. History had been made there. “When I first came to Washington as a junior staffer in 1968,” he explained, “this was the private hideaway office of Bill Colmer, chairman of the House Rules Committee.” Colmer, a long-serving Mississippi Democrat and Lott’s boss, was an influential figure. The committee he ruled controlled whether bills lived or died, the latter being the customary fate of proposed civil-rights legislation that reached his desk. “On Thursday nights,” Lott continued, “he and members of the leadership from both sides of the House would meet here to smoke cigars, drink cheap bourbon, play gin rummy, and discuss business. There was a chemistry, they understood each other. It was a magical thing.” He sighed wistfully at the memory of a more harmonious age, in which our elders and betters could arrange the nation’s affairs behind closed doors.

I don’t know that Joe Biden, currently leading the polls for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, ever frequented that particular restroom, in either its bygone or contemporary manifestation, but it could serve as a fitting shrine to all that he stands for. Biden has long served as high priest of the doctrine that our legislative problems derive merely from superficial disagreements, rather than fundamental differences over matters of principle. “I believe that we have to end the divisive partisan politics that is ripping this country apart,” he declared in the Rose Garden in 2015, renouncing a much-anticipated White House run. “It’s mean-spirited. It’s petty. And it’s gone on for much too long. I don’t believe, like some do, that it’s naïve to talk to Republicans. I don’t think we should look on Republicans as our enemies.”

Given his success in early polling, it would seem that this message resonates with many voters, at least when they are talking to pollsters. After all, according to orthodox wisdom, there is no more commendable virtue in American political custom and practice than bipartisanship. Politicians on the stump fervently assure voters that they will strive with every sinew to “work across the aisle” to deliver “commonsense solutions,” and those who express the sentiment eloquently can expect widespread approval. Barack Obama famously launched himself toward the White House with his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention proclaiming that there is “not a liberal America and a conservative America,” only a “United States of America.”

By tapping into these popular tropes—“The system is broken,” “Why can’t Congress just get along?”—the practitioners of bipartisanship conveniently gloss over the more evident reality: that the system is under sustained assault by an ideology bent on destroying the remnants of the New Deal to the benefit of a greed-driven oligarchy. It was bipartisan accord, after all, that brought us the permanent war economy, the war on drugs, the mass incarceration of black people, 1990s welfare “reform,” Wall Street deregulation and the consequent $16 trillion in bank bailouts, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, and other atrocities too numerous to mention. If the system is indeed broken, it is because interested parties are doing their best to break it.

Rather than admit this, Biden has long found it more profitable to assert that political divisions can be settled by men endowed with statesmanlike vision and goodwill—in other words, men such as himself. His frequent eulogies for public figures have tended to play heavily on this theme. Thus his memorial speech for Republican standard-bearer John McCain dwelled predictably on the cross-party nature of their relationship, beginning with his opening: “My name is Joe Biden. I’m a Democrat, and I loved John McCain.” Continuing in that vein, he related how he and McCain had once been chided by their respective party leaderships for spending so much time in each other’s company on the Senate floor, and referred fondly to the days when senators Teddy Kennedy and James Eastland, the latter a die-hard racist and ruthless suppressor of civil-rights bills, would “fight like hell on civil rights and then go have lunch together, down in the Senate dining room.”

Clearly, there is merit in the ability to craft compromise between opposing viewpoints in order to produce an effective result. John Ritch, formerly a US ambassador and top aide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, worked closely with Biden for two decades, and has nothing but praise for his negotiating skills. “I’ve never seen anyone better at presiding over a group of politicians who represent conflicting egos and interests and using a combination of conciliation, humor, and muscle to cajole them into an agreed way forward,” Ritch told me recently. “Joe Biden has learned the skills to get things done in Washington. And I’ve seen him apply it equally with foreign leaders.”

The value of compromise, however, depends on what result is produced, and who benefits thereby. McCain’s record had at least a few commendable features, such as his opposition to torture (though never, of course, war). But it is hard to find much admirable in the character of a tireless defender of institutional racism like Strom Thurmond. Hence, Trent Lott’s words of praise—regretting that the old racist had lost when he ran as a Dixiecrat in the 1948 presidential election—had been deemed terminally unacceptable.

It fell to Biden to highlight some redeeming qualities when called on, inevitably, to deliver Thurmond’s eulogy following the latter’s death in 2003 at the age of one hundred. Biden reminisced with affection about the unlikely friendship between the deceased and himself. Despite having arrived at the Senate at age twenty-nine “emboldened, angered, and outraged about the treatment of African Americans in this country,” he said, he nevertheless found common cause on important issues with the late senator from South Carolina, who had been wont to describe civil-rights activists as “red pawns and publicity seekers.”

One such issue, as Branko Marcetic has pitilessly chronicled in Jacobin, was a shared opposition to federally mandated busing in the effort to integrate schools, an opposition Biden predicted would be ultimately adopted by liberal holdouts. “The black community justifiably is jittery,” Biden admitted to the Washington Post in 1975 with regard to his position. “I’ve made it—if not respectable—I’ve made it reasonable for longstanding liberals to begin to raise the questions I’ve been the first to raise in the liberal community here on the [Senate] floor.”

Biden was responding to criticism of legislation he had introduced that effectively barred the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from compelling communities to bus pupils using federal funds. This amendment was meant to be an alternative to a more extreme proposal put forward by a friend of Biden’s, hall-of-fame racist Jesse Helms (Biden had initially supported Helms’s version). Nevertheless, the Washington Post described Biden’s amendment as “denying the possibility for equal educational opportunities to minority youngsters trapped in ill-equipped inner-city schools.” Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, then the sole African-American senator, called Biden’s measure “the greatest symbolic defeat for civil rights since 1964.”

By the 1980s, Biden had begun to see political gold in the harsh antidrug legislation that had been pioneered by drug warriors such as Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon, and would ultimately lead to the age of mass incarceration for black Americans. One of his Senate staffers at the time recalls him remarking, “Whenever people hear the words ‘drugs’ and ‘crime,’ I want them to think ‘Joe Biden.’” Insisting on anonymity, this former staffer recollected how Biden’s team “had to think up excuses for new hearings on drugs and crime every week—any connection, no matter how remote. He wanted cops at every public meeting—you’d have thought he was running for chief of police.”

The ensuing legislation might also have brought to voters’ minds the name of the venerable Thurmond, Biden’s partner in this effort. Together, the pair sponsored the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which, among other repressive measures, abolished parole for federal prisoners and cut the amount of time by which sentences could be reduced for good behavior. The bipartisan duo also joined hands to cheerlead the passage of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act and its 1988 follow-on, which cumulatively introduced mandatory sentences for drug possession. Biden later took pride in reminding audiences that “through the leadership of Senator Thurmond, and myself, and others,” Congress had passed a law mandating a five-year sentence, with no parole, for anyone caught with a piece of crack cocaine “no bigger than [a] quarter.” That is, they created the infamous disparity in penalties between those caught with powder cocaine (white people) and those carrying crack (black people). Biden also unblushingly cited his and Thurmond’s leading role in enacting laws allowing for the execution of drug dealers convicted of homicide, and expanding the practice of civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement’s plunder of property belonging to people suspected of crimes, even if they are neither charged nor convicted.

Despite pleas from the NAACP and the ACLU, the 1990s brought no relief from Biden’s crime crusade. He vied with the first Bush Administration to introduce ever more draconian laws, including one proposing to expand the number of offenses for which the death penalty would be permitted to fifty-one. Bill Clinton quickly became a reliable ally upon his 1992 election, and Biden encouraged him to “maintain crime as a Democratic initiative” with suitably tough legislation. The ensuing 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, passed with enthusiastic administration pressure, would consign millions of black Americans to a life behind bars.

In subsequent years, as his crime legislation, particularly on mandatory sentences, attracted efforts at reform, Biden began expressing a certain remorse. “I am part of the problem that I have been trying to solve since then, because I think the disparity [between crack and powder cocaine sentences] is way out of line,” he declared at a Senate hearing in 2008. However, there is little indication that his words were matched by actions, especially after he moved to the vice presidency the following year. The executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, Eric Sterling, who worked on the original legislation in the House as a congressional counsel, told me, “During the eight years he was vice president, I never saw him take a leadership role in the area of drug policy, never saw him get out in front on the issue like he did on same-sex marriage, for example. Biden could have taken a stronger line [with Obama] privately or publicly, and he did not.”

While many black Americans will neither forgive nor forget how they, along with relatives and friends, were accorded the lifetime stigma of a felony conviction, many other Americans are only now beginning to count the costs of these viciously repressive initiatives. As a result, criminal justice reform has emerged as a popular issue across the political spectrum, including among conservatives eager to burnish otherwise illiberal credentials. Ironically, this has led, in theory, to a modest unraveling of a portion of Biden’s bipartisan crime-fighting legacy.

Last December, as Donald Trump’s erratic regime was falling into increasing disarray, the political-media class briefly united in celebration of an exercise in bipartisanship: the First Step Act. Billed as a long overdue overhaul of the criminal justice system, the legislation received rapturous reviews for its display of cross-party cooperation, headlined by Jared Kushner’s partnership with liberal talk-show host Van Jones. In truth, this was a very modest first step. It offered the possibility of release to some 2,600 federal inmates, whose relief from excessive sentences would require the goodwill of both prosecutors and police, as well as forbidding some especially barbaric practices in federal prisons, such as the shackling of pregnant inmates. Overall, it amounted to little more than a textbook exercise in aisle bridging, a triumph of form over substance.

In the near term, it’s unlikely that there will be further bipartisan attempts to chip away at Biden’s legislative legacy, a legacy that includes an inconsistent (to put it mildly) record on abortion rights. Roe v. Wade “went too far,” he told an interviewer in 1974. “I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.” For some years his votes were consistent with that view. He supported the notorious Hyde Amendment prohibiting any and all federal funding for abortions, and fathered the “Biden Amendment” that banned the use of US foreign aid for abortion research.

As the 1980s wore on, however, and Biden’s presidential ambitions started to swell, he began to cast fewer antiabortion votes (with some exceptions), and led the potent opposition to Judge Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then came Clarence Thomas. Even before Anita Hill reluctantly surfaced with her convincing recollections of unpleasant encounters with the porn-obsessed judge, Biden was fumbling his momentous responsibility of directing the hearings. As Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson report in Strange Justice, their book about the Thomas nomination battle, Biden’s questions were “sometimes so long and convoluted that Thomas would forget what the question was.” Biden prided himself on his legal scholarship, Mayer and Abramson suggest, and thus his questions were often designed “to show off [his] legal acumen rather than to elicit answers.”

More damningly, Biden not only allowed fellow committee members to mount a sustained barrage of vicious attacks on Hill: he wrapped up the hearings without calling at least two potential witnesses who could have convincingly corroborated Hill’s testimony and, by extension, indicated that the nominee had perjured himself on a sustained basis throughout the hearings. As Mayer and Abramson write, “Hill’s reputation was not foremost among the committee’s worries. The Democrats in general, and Biden in particular, appear to have been far more concerned with their own reputations,” and feared a Republican-stoked public backlash if they aired more details of Thomas’s sexual proclivities. Hill was therefore thrown to the wolves, and America was saddled with a Supreme Court justice of limited legal qualifications and extreme right-wing views (which he had taken pains to deny while under oath).

Fifteen years later, Biden would repeat this exercise in hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, yet another grim product of the Republican judicial-selection machinery. True to form, in his opening round of questions, Biden droned on for the better part of half an hour, allowing Alito barely five minutes to explain his views. As the torrent of verbiage washed over the hearing room, fellow Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy could only glower at Biden in impotent frustration.

Biden’s record on race and women did him little damage with the voters of Delaware, who regularly returned him to the Senate with comfortable margins. On race, at least, Biden affected to believe that Delawareans’ views might be closer to those of his old buddy Thurmond than those of the “Northeast liberal” he sometimes claimed to be. “You don’t know my state,” he told Fox as he geared up for his first attempt on the White House in 2006. “My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is anything [but] a Northeast liberal state.” Months later, in front of a largely Republican audience in South Carolina, he joked that the only reason Delaware had fought with the North in the Civil War was “because we couldn’t figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.”

Whether or not most Delawareans are proud of their slaveholding history, there are some causes that they, or at least the dominant power brokers in the state, hold especially dear. Foremost among them is Delaware’s status as a freewheeling tax haven. State laws have made Delaware the domicile of choice for corporations, especially banks, and it competes for business with more notorious entrepôts such as the Cayman Islands. Over half of all US public companies are legally headquartered there.

“It’s a corporate whore state, of course,” the anonymous former Biden staffer remarked to me offhandedly in a recent conversation. He stressed that in “a small state with thirty-five thousand bank employees, apart from all the lawyers and others from the financial industry,” Biden was never going to stray too far from the industry’s priorities. We were discussing bankruptcy, an issue that has highlighted Biden’s fealty to the banks. Unsurprisingly, Biden was long a willing foot soldier in the campaign to emasculate laws allowing debtors relief from loans they cannot repay. As far back as 1978, he helped negotiate a deal rolling back bankruptcy protections for graduates with federal student loans, and in 1984 worked to do the same for borrowers with loans for vocational schools. Even when the ostensible objective lay elsewhere, such as drug-related crime, Biden did not forget his banker friends. Thus the 1990 Crime Control Act, with Biden as chief sponsor, further limited debtors’ ability to take advantage of bankruptcy protections.

These initiatives, however, were only precursors to the finance lobby’s magnum opus: the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. This carefully crafted flail of the poor made it almost impossible for borrowers to get traditional “clean slate” Chapter 7 bankruptcy, under which debt forgiveness enables people to rebuild their lives and businesses. Instead, the law subjected them to the far harsher provisions of Chapter 13, effectively turning borrowers into indentured servants of institutions like the credit card companies headquartered in Delaware. It made its way onto the statute books after a lopsided 74–25 vote (bipartisanship!), with Biden, naturally, voting in favor.

It was, in fact, the second version of the bill. An earlier iteration had passed Congress in 2000 with Biden’s support, but President Clinton refused to sign it at the urging of the first lady, who had been briefed on its iniquities by Elizabeth Warren. A Harvard Law School professor at the time, Warren witheringly summarized Biden’s advocacy of the earlier bill in a 2002 paper:

His energetic work on behalf of the credit card companies has earned him the affection of the banking industry and protected him from any well-funded challengers for his Senate seat.

Furthermore, she added tartly, “This important part of Senator Biden’s legislative work also appears to be missing from his Web site and publicity releases.” No doubt coincidentally, the credit card giant MBNA was Biden’s largest contributor for much of his Senate career, while also employing his son Hunter as an executive and, later, as a well-remunerated consultant.

It should go without saying, then, that Biden was among the ninety senators on one of the fatal (to the rest of us) legislative gifts presented to Wall Street back in the Clinton era: the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999. The act repealed the hallowed Depression-era Glass–Steagall legislation that severed investment banking from commercial banking, thereby permitting the combined operations to gamble with depositors’ money, and ultimately ushering in the 2008 crash. “The worst vote I ever cast in my entire time in the United States Senate,” admitted Biden in December 2016, as he prepared to leave office. Seventeen years too late, he explained that the act had “allowed banks with deposits to take on risky investments, putting the whole system at risk.”

In the meantime, of course, he had been vice president of the United States for eight years, and thus in a position to address the consequences of his (and his fellow senators’) actions by using his power to press for criminal investigations. His longtime faithful aide, Ted Kaufman, in fact, had taken over his Senate seat and was urging such probes. Yet there is not the slightest sign that Biden used his influence to encourage pursuit of the financial fraudsters. As he opined in a 2018 talk at the Brookings Institution, “I don’t think five hundred billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble. The folks at the top aren’t bad guys.” Characteristically, he described gross inequalities in wealth mainly as a threat to bipartisanship: “This gap is yawning, and it’s having the effect of pulling us apart. You see the politics of it.”

Biden’s rightward bipartisan inclinations are not the only source of his alleged appeal. In an imitation of Hillary Clinton’s tactics in the lead-up to the 2016 election, Biden has advertised himself as the candidate of “experience.” Indeed, in his self-estimation he is the “most qualified person in the country to be president.” It’s a claim mainly rooted in foreign policy, a field where, theoretically, partisan politics are deposited at the water’s edge and Biden’s negotiating talents and expertise are seen to their best advantage.

He boasts the same potent acquaintances with world leaders that helped earn Clinton a similar “most qualified” label on her failed presidential job application and, like her, has been a reliable hawk, not least when occupying the high-profile chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. An ardent proponent of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, an ill-conceived initiative that has served as an enduring provocation of Russian hostility toward the West, Biden voted enthusiastically to authorize Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, was a major proponent of Clinton’s war in Kosovo, and pushed for military intervention in Sudan.

Presumably in deference to this record, Obama entrusted his vice president with a number of foreign policy tasks over the years, beginning with “quarterbacking,” as Biden put it, US relations with Iraq. “Joe will do Iraq,” the president told his foreign policy team a few weeks after being sworn in. “He knows it, he knows the players.” It proved to be an unfortunate choice, at least for Iraqis. In 2006, the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had selected Nouri al-Maliki, a relatively obscure Shiite politician, to be the country’s prime minister. “Are you serious?” exclaimed a startled Maliki when Khalilzad informed him of the decision. But Maliki proved to be a determinedly sectarian ruler, persecuting the Sunni tribes that had switched sides to aid US forces during the so-called surge of 2007–08. In addition, he sparked widespread allegations of corruption. According to the Iraqi Commission of Integrity set up after his departure, as much as $500 billion was siphoned off from government coffers during Maliki’s eight years in power.

In the 2010 parliamentary elections, one of Maliki’s rivals, boasting a nonsectarian base of support, won the most seats, though not a majority. According to present and former Iraqi officials, Biden’s emissaries pressed hard to assemble a coalition that would reinstall Maliki as prime minister. “It was clear they were not interested in anyone else,” one Iraqi diplomat told me. “Biden himself was very scrappy—he wouldn’t listen to argument.” The consequences were, in the official’s words, “disastrous.” In keeping with the general corruption of his regime, Maliki allowed the country’s security forces to deteriorate. Command of an army division could be purchased for $2 million, whereupon the buyer might recoup his investment with exactions from the civilian population. Therefore, when the Islamic State erupted out of Syria and moved against major Iraqi cities, there were no effective defenses. With Islamic State fighters an hour’s drive from Baghdad, the United States belatedly rushed to push Maliki aside and install a more competent leader, the Shiite politician and former government minister Haider al-Abadi. (Biden’s camp disputed the Iraqi official’s assertion that the United States pressed for Maliki in 2010. “We had no brief for any individual,” said Tony Blinken, who served as Biden’s national security adviser at the time.)

Biden devotes considerable space to this episode in Promise Me, Dad, his political and personal memoir documenting the year in which his son Beau slowly succumbed to cancer. But although we learn much about Biden’s relationship with Abadi, and the key role he played in getting vital help to the beleaguered Iraqi regime, there is little indication of his past with Maliki aside from a glancing reference to “stubbornly sectarian policies.”

Promise Me, Dad also covers Biden’s involvement in the other countries allotted to him by President Obama: Ukraine, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Anyone seeking insight from the book into the recent history of these regions, or of actual US policy and actions there, should look elsewhere. He has little to say, for example, about the well-chronicled involvement of US officials in the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government in 2014, still less on whether he himself was involved. He records his strenuous efforts to funnel IMF loans to the country following anti-corruption measures introduced by the government without noting that much of the IMF money was almost immediately stolen and spirited out of Ukraine by an oligarch close to the government. Nor, for that matter, do we learn anything about his son Hunter’s involvement in that nation’s business affairs via his position on the board of Burisma, a natural gas company owned by a former Ukrainian ecology minister accused by the UK government of stealing at least $23 million of Ukrainian taxpayers’ money.

Biden’s recollections of his involvement in Central American affairs are no more forthright, and no more insightful. There is no mention of the 2009 coup in Honduras, endorsed and supported by the United States, that displaced the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, nor of that country’s subsequent descent into the rule of a corrupt oligarchy accused of ties to drug traffickers. He has nothing but warm words for Juan Orlando Hernández, the current president, who financed his 2013 election campaign with $90 million stolen from the Honduran health service and more recently defied his country’s constitution by running for a second term. Instead, we read much about Biden’s shepherding of the Hernández regime, along with its Central American neighbors El Salvador and Guatemala, into the Alliance for Prosperity, an agreement in which the signatories pledged to improve education, health care, women’s rights, justice systems, etc., in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid. In the words of Professor Dana Frank of UC Santa Cruz, the alliance “supports the very economic sectors that are actively destroying the Honduran economy and environment, like mega-dams, mining, tourism, and African palms,” reducing most of the population to poverty and spurring them to seek something better north of the border. The net result has been a tide of refugees fleeing north, most famously exemplified by the “caravan” used by Donald Trump to galvanize support prior to November’s congressional elections.

Biden’s claims of experience on the world stage, therefore, cannot be denied. True, the experience has been routinely disastrous for those on the receiving end, but on the other hand, that is a common fate for those subjected, under any administration, to the operations of our foreign policy apparatus.

Given Biden’s all too evident shortcomings in the fields of domestic and foreign policy, defenders inevitably retreat to the “electability” argument, which contends that he is the only Democrat on the horizon capable of beating Trump—a view that Biden, naturally, endorses. Specifically, this notion rests on the belief that Biden has unequaled appeal among the white working-class voters that many Democrats are eager to court.

To be fair, Biden has earned high ratings from the AFL-CIO thanks to his support for matters such as union organizing rights and a higher minimum wage. On the other hand, he also supported NAFTA in 1994 and permanent normal trade relations with China in 2000, two votes that sounded the death knell for America’s manufacturing economy. Regardless of how justified his pro-labor reputation may be, however, it’s far from clear that the working class holds Biden in any special regard—his two presidential races imploded before any blue-collar workers had a chance to vote for him.

It is this fact that makes the electability argument so puzzling. Biden’s initial bid for the prize in 1988 famously blew up when rivals unkindly publicized his plagiarism of a stump speech given by Neil Kinnock, a British Labour Party politician. (In Britain, Kinnock was known as “the Welsh Windbag,” which may have encouraged the logorrheic Biden to feel a kinship.) Biden partisans pointed out that he had cited Kinnock on previous occasions, though he didn’t always remember to do so. Either way, it was a bizarre snafu. It also emerged that Biden had been incorporating chunks of speeches from both Bobby and Jack Kennedy along with Hubert Humphrey in his remarks without attribution (although reportedly some of this was the work of speechwriter Pat Caddell).

Another gaffe helped upend Biden’s second White House bid, in 2007, when he referred to Barack Obama in patronizing terms as “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” The campaign cratered at the very first hurdle, the Iowa caucuses, where Biden came in fifth, with less than 1 percent of the votes. “It was humiliating,” recalled the ex-staffer. (The “gaffes” seem to take physical form on occasion. “He has a bit of a Me Too problem,” a leading female Democratic activist and fund-raiser told me, referring to his overly tactile approach to interacting with women. “We never had a talk when he wasn’t stroking my back.” He has already faced heckling on the topic, and videos of this behavior during the course of public events and photo ops have been widely circulated.)

Further to the issue of Biden’s assurances that he is the man to beat Trump is the awkward fact that, as the former staffer told me, “he lacks the discipline to build the nuts and bolts of a modern presidential campaign.” Biden “hated having to take orders from [David] Axelrod and the other Obama people as a vice-presidential candidate in 2008. Campaign aides used to say to him, ‘I’ve got three words for you: Air Force Two.’” My informant stressed that Biden “sucks at fund-raising. He never had to try very hard in Delaware. Staff would do it for him.” Certainly, Biden’s current campaign funds would appear to confirm this contention. His PAC, American Possibilities, had raised only two and a half million dollars by the end of 2018, a surprisingly insignificant amount for a veteran senator and two-term vice president. Furthermore, although the PAC’s stated purpose is to “support candidates who believe in American possibilities,” less than a quarter of the money had found its way to Democratic candidates in time for the November midterms, encouraging speculation that Biden is not really that serious about the essential brass tacks of a presidential campaign—which would include building a strong base of support among Democratic officeholders.

Other organizations in the Biden universe behave similarly, expending much of their income on staff salaries and little on their ostensible function. According to an exhaustive New York Times investigation, salaries accounted for 45 percent of spending by the Beau Biden Foundation for the Protection of Children in 2016 and 2017. Similarly, three quarters of the money the Biden Cancer Initiative spent in 2017 went toward salaries and other compensation, including over half a million dollars for its president, Greg Simon, formerly the executive director of Biden’s Cancer Moonshot Task Force during the Obama Administration. Outside the inner circle of senior aides, there does not appear to be an extended Biden network among political professionals standing ready to raise money and perform other tasks necessary to a White House bid, in the way that Hillary Clinton had a network across the political world composed of people who had worked for her and her husband. “Biden doesn’t have that,” his former staffer told me, “because he’s indifferent to staff.” It’s a sentiment that’s been expressed to me by many in the election industry, including a veteran Democratic campaign strategist. “Everyone else is getting everything set up to go once the trigger is pulled,” this individual told me recently. “I myself have firm offers from the [Kamala] Harris and [Cory] Booker campaigns. The Biden people talked to me too, but they could only say, ‘If we run, we’d love to bring you into the fold.’”

At the start of the new year, Biden must have been living in the best of all possible worlds. As he engaged in well-publicized ruminations on whether or not to run, he was enjoying a high profile, with commensurate benefits of sizable book sales and hundred-thousand-dollar speaking engagements. Even more importantly, Biden found himself relevant again. “You’re either on the way up,” he likes to say, “or you’re on the way down,” which is why the temptation to reject the lessons of his two hopelessly bungled White House campaigns has been so overwhelming. Regardless of the current election cycle’s endgame, though, it’s safe to assume that his undimmed ego will never permit any reflection on whether voters who have been eagerly voting for change will ever really settle for Uncle Joe, champion of yesterday’s sordid compromises.

#paywall so it all goes in

47 notes · View notes

beauvvrv203 · 3 years ago

Text

Mini International Flags, Nation Flags For Youths

Before the Court are a number of motions arising out of this Brobdingnagian copyright infringement litigation. The defendants have additionally requested this Court to enter summary judgment on their behalf. This preliminary injunction shall remain in pressure till such time as the problem is resolved on its merits. For the reasons set forth in detail above, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's prayer for preliminary injunctive reduction. As of the date of the hearing before this Court, June 19, 1989, defendants are ordered to cease selling the eight banner designs detailed herein. Said ban on gross sales extends to all business settings, including however not restricted to craft fairs, outlets and mail order.

Which country have most beautiful flag?

Below is the list of 12 most beautiful national flags around the world in 2021.Kiribati.

European Union.

Portugal.

Brazil.

Malaysia.

Mexico.

Australia.

Spain.

See Concrete Machinery Co., 843 F.second at 611 (defendant may attempt to show that allegedly infringing statuary was created independently from a non-infringing source). Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2961 (1973 & Supp.1989). Finally, the Court has before it plaintiff's movement for an expedited order compelling discovery. In essence, the plaintiff argues that the defendants have failed to provide a whole class of materials, and in any other case acted in an obstreperous and delaying manner. Once once more, this motion is hotly disputed by the defendants. In turn, the plaintiff, aggrieved by the defendants' litigatory stance, asks this Court to impose Rule 11 sanctions against the defendants and their counsel for bringing what the plaintiff considers to be unwarranted and groundless motions.

Flying Game Cards

I was inspired to write down this blog as I’ve seen my justifiable share of flags around the globe in my journey and have all the time been fascinated within the history for his or her particular person designs. For those of you who are fans of the Big Bang Theory TV present, you may snort at the topic material of this text, but I promise you this text is so much less tacky than Sheldon’s YouTube videos. The colors on the German flag are harking again to the medieval banner of the Holy Roman Empire. The banner had a two-headed black eagle with red claws and beak on a golden field.

This means main distributors assist or have committed to supporting these flags.

“There’s no purpose why different international locations can’t do this; it’d be good for branding,” says Guenter.

FP was the recipient of a 2003 National Magazine Award for General Excellence, and publishes editions in Arabic, Greek, Italian, Spanish, and Turkish. [newline]While Texans have been proud to have the shuttle fly over our state, we have been disappointed to see the Texas flag flown upside down.

Many different banners were raised in revolt towards Mexico, largely flags of particular person navy units.

On this page there are the flags of all sovereign nations of Europe.

The Flag is all the time connected on the spearhead end of the staff, and the heading must be made of fabric strong enough to guard the Colors. U.S. flag either to the observer’s extreme left or the best point within the grouping of flags adopted by the flag or flags of different nations in alphabetical order. Show satisfaction in your country with our customizable nation flag stickers. You can personalize your sticker or flag decals by adding textual content or your personal clip art and selecting a most well-liked size – in distinction to many sticker or decal websites, you can order customized dimension decals and stickers. Our stickers are made with top quality, premium vinyl that can final for years without fading or turning into damaged – even in brutal weather situations. These hyperlinks, and subsequent links found on these net pages, describe the efforts of the us federal authorities within the space of export control through Project Shield America.

As will turn out to be obvious later on this opinion, the defendants do not really challenge the Court's view of the regulation, but rather the Court's software of the legislation to the defendants' works. Having reviewed each Concrete Machinery and its own earlier opinion, the Court is satisfied that its analysis was and is substantially right. The Court begins with a evaluation of the law of copyright in the First Circuit, consisting primarily of the choice by the Court of Appeals in Concrete Machinery Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments Inc., 843 F.2d 600 (1st Cir.1988). This slightly expanded reappraisal initially discusses the First Circuit's test used to discover out if copying occurred, after which turns to the possible protection of impartial creation. The burden of proof that circumstances have modified sufficiently to help a motion to dissolve an injunction is on the movant. 897 (D.Ala.1979), citing United States v. Harrison County, Miss., 463 F.second 1328, 1330 (5th Cir.1972).

Small Plastic Flags Of All Nations Flags

Accordingly, this Court is bound to consider its ruling on the likelihood of success in balance of harms between the events. In this particular case, the Court has little difficulty concluding that the stability of harms cascades in the plaintiff's favor. First, in gentle of the restricted number of designs challenged by the plaintiff presently, the defendants' complete business just isn't wiped out. Second, as the plaintiff demonstrated via the expert testimony of different banner makers, it is attainable to use fabric currently slated for one design in other merchandise . Third, the plaintiff additionally convincingly demonstrated, via introduction of the designs of Debbie Rickless, that it's potential for a banner maker to take the identical idea as Stewart and give it a totally totally different, non-infringing expression. Many international locations have variations to their national flag which have been authorized for particular use.

While the crescent and star symbols signify the country’s dominant faith, Islam, the colour yellow is the nation's traditional royal shade. The blue rectangle, originally adopted from the Union Flag since erstwhile Malaya was a British colony, now means unity of the folks of the nation. The colors and symbols featured in the flags of all nations propagate a particular philosophical, historic or some other specific that means that holds greater value for the nation. Thus, one should be utmost cautious while raising and reducing down the nationwide flag as a end result of it is thought of to be a fantastic disrespect to the nation. At Countryflags.com you'll find all nation flags displayed clearly.

In Ireland, a pink and yellow flag signifies that it is safe to swim; a purple flag that it's unsafe; and no flag indicates that there aren't any lifeguards on responsibility. Blue flags may also be used away from the yellow-red lifesaver area to designate a zone for surfboarding and different small, non-motorized watercraft. In addition, fans of just about all sports wave flags in the stands to point their help for the individuals. Many sports groups have their very own flags, and, within the case of worldwide games just like the Olympics, fans will indicate their help for a participant by waving the flag of his or her house country. Large variations of the warfare flag flown on the warships of nations' navies are known as battle ensigns.

The blue represents the negative cosmic forces, and the red, optimistic cosmic forces. The four black trigrams collectively characterize motion and harmony. Each trigram symbolises one of many four classical elements, heaven, solar, moon, and earth. Known as the “tiranga,” which means “tricolor,” the Indian flag initially was meant to characterize the two major religious teams of the nation — the saffron denoting the Hindus, and the green denoting the Muslims. The white stripe was to indicate the peace desired between the 2 communities. The saffron now signifies braveness and sacrifice, the white represents truth and purity, and the green symbolizes faith, fertility and chivalry.

youtube

0 notes

khalilhumam · 4 years ago

Text

Internet artist behind satirical Australia war crimes image hailed as a hero on Chinese social media

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/internet-artist-behind-satirical-australia-war-crimes-image-hailed-as-a-hero-on-chinese-social-media/

Internet artist behind satirical Australia war crimes image hailed as a hero on Chinese social media

The image triggered a row between China and Australia; Chinese patriots cheered it on

Screen Shot of Lijian Zhao tweet- SBS News video 30 Nov 2020

Chinese online patriots have a new hero: Fu Yu（付昱), also known as Wuhe Qilin (乌合麒麟), the internet artist whose satirical image of an Australian soldier slitting the throat of an Afghan child was shared by China’s Foreign Ministry's spokesman Zhao Lijian in late November. The tweet caused a row between China and Australia as the latter's prime minister demanded the post's deletion and a public apology from China. The image was a reference to a recent investigation conducted by Australia's own military that found that the country's soldiers may have committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Wuhe Qilin responded to Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s request to an apology with another illustration released the following day (via @NavinaHeyden)：

Satire CG works by young Chinese artist 乌合麒麟. He immediately created another image within a day, as counterattack to Mr. Morrison’ accusation. What a stark contrast in intellegence, compentence, upstandingness and confidence! pic.twitter.com/R40j7vG95W — Navina Heyden (@NavinaHeyden) December 1, 2020

The image depicts Morrison covering up a dead body with what looks to be Australia's national flag while a young boy captures the attention of photographers. On Chinese social media, online patriots have cheered Wuhe Qilin “wolf-warrior” spirit. Chinese businessman Huo Lei, for example, said on Weibo:

西方国家还是很讲文明的，前提是实力对等。如果另一方处于弱势，在中世纪是以“上帝的名义”施行侵略，现在则以“民主的名义”。过去两百年的血泪史让我们明白人权也好尊重也罢都要靠我们自己争取，而不是寻求对��的怜悯或施舍。我们的一位画家也能让对方总理感觉到疼，我为祖国的强大自豪。力挺！

Western countries are only civilized when there is power balance. During the middle century, when the other side was weak, they invaded others in the name of god and now they will do so in the name of democracy. The 200-year history of blood and tears teach us that we have to earn our own respect rather than seek sympathy from others. Now that a single artist managed to hurt their prime minister, I am very proud of the strength of my motherland. Strong support!

Leo Johnson, another Weibo user, said:

新时代的中国太需要有乌合麒麟这样的优秀年轻艺术家来做价值捍卫和输出了！

We are in great need of excellent artists like Wuhe Qilin in China’s new era who will defend and export our values!

And in another viral article on Weibo, the writer slammed Chinese state media for being absent in the Twitter spat and depicted the incident as a Chinese victory:

我们所能看到的是，外交部带领一帮子自干五在战斗，而主要的战斗员那些央媒等宣传机器却缺席了！[…]画师@乌合麒麟，是一名90后年轻人，一个爱国者，一个文艺青年，一个有思想的战士，一个战斗力爆棚的战士。近日，他用一幅画作就改变了中国在国际舆论场的地位，堪称一个里程碑事件！他第一次让来自中国的声音成为全球关注的热点，并成功将真相告诉世界。更神奇的是，他的画作还让西方那些主流媒体不得已的为他开足马力宣传，还让如新西兰、法国、美国等这些西方国家愚蠢的为澳大利亚军人残害平民、儿童的反人类罪行站台，让真相扩散的更有深度与广度，向世界揭穿了西方国家所谓“人权”的虚伪而凶残的真相。

What we can see is that China’s Foreign Ministry was leading a group of online patriots in the fight while the state media and propaganda machine were absent […] Illustrator @WuheQilin is from the post-90 generation, a patriot, a cultured young man, an ideology fighter, a powerful warrior. Recently, he single-handedly changed China’s position in the international stage with an illustration. This is such a milestone. For the first time, he makes Chinese voices heard and tells the truth to the world. What’s more amazing is that Western media outlets are compelled to report on the incident and stupid Western countries such as New Zealand, France, and the U.S continue to stand by Australian soldiers who committed war crimes such as killing civilians, including children. He spreads the truth and exposes the hypocrisy of the Western countries that call themselves human right defenders.

Another post on WeChat draws the same conclusion:

乌合麒麟靠着两幅画，《和平之师》和《致莫里森》，在国际舆论战中一战成名，这两幅画，直接揭露了澳大利亚军队的残忍、媒体的双标、政客的无耻，一拿出来就激得整个西方世界…麒麟一支画笔，胜过百万“理智、中立、客观”的媒体人。

Wuhe Qilin built its reputation in the international community with his two illustrations which expose the cruelty of Australian soldiers, the double standard of western media and the shamelessness of politicians and hit the nerve of western world… Qilin’s pen has beat down tens of thousands “rational, impartial and objective” media workers.

Many Chinese cartoonists have expressed support to Wuhe Qilin by posting art with a similar message. Below are some of them, shared on Twitter:

More Chinese artist have join the fray abt Australia PM Scott Morrison complaining that Chinese artist 乌合麒麟 Wuheqilin depicted real Australian war crimes in Afghanistan

pic.twitter.com/daDIaAaBvg — Carl Zha (@CarlZha) December 2, 2020

The Emperor's New Clothes #AustraliaChina #AustralianArmy #Afghanistan #wuheqilin #乌合麒麟 @SpokespersonCHN pic.twitter.com/xIqOKRkAB2 — Miaow (@miaowcomics) December 2, 2020

‘Wolf-warrior’ illustrator

With over 600,000 followers on Weibo, Wuhe Qilin was born in the 1990s and became known on Chinese social media earlier this year after he published illustrations about the Hong Kong protests which align with Beijing's view of the island's pro-democracy movement. Those illustrations have been widely shared by state-affiliated media outlets, such as Global Times. Below are some of them (via Twitter user @Lazybean):

More work by 乌合麒麟: 1,2: On HK “protestors” 3: On the passing of HK National Security Law 4: On Fang Fang Disclaimer: These are artworks by THE artist 乌合麒麟, not photos

. pic.twitter.com/PklIbCubup — Lazybean

(@gracebean284) December 1, 2020

In an interview with nationalist Chinese website Guancha in June 2020, Wuhe Qilin explained how he began illustrating:

是从去年香港系列事件的时候开始的，最初的动机是因为看了一些相关新闻而感到愤怒，然后有一天看到香港某漫画家的一系列宣传暴力美化动乱的漫画作品，于是我也想用类似的方式回击，就有了第一张作品——《伪神》。

[I began drawing political illustrations] because of what happened in Hong Kong. At first I was feeling very frustrated after reading the news and one day I saw a series of cartoons drawn by a Hong Kong cartoonist which glorified the riot. I wanted to respond in the same manner, so I drew the first illustration, called “You believe in a pretender god,” and it became a series.

Wuhe Qilin calls himself “wolf warrior,” a popular way to describe — and mock — the aggressive diplomatic style adopted by Chinese diplomats in recent years (“Wolf Warrior” is in fact the title of a 2015 Chinese patriot movie). In the same Guancha interview, which was distributed by the Communist Youth League of China through its official social media channels, Wuhe Qilin talks about the “duty of artists,” an idea that resonates with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s calls for “ideological struggle”:

但我认为传递和输出意识形态其实恰恰是艺术作品和艺术家的责任之一。所以我这么做了，而且是抱着抛砖引玉的态度，希望有更多的文艺工作者能善用自身技能去为祖国和人民做一些事情。特别是现在这个在西方利用话语权步步紧逼的特殊时期，我认为我们是需要更多传递我们国家和人民意志的文艺作品的。

I believe that the distribution and exportation of ideology is the duty of artists and their artworks. That’s why I did it and it's my attempt to stimulate similar acts. I wish more artists used their talents and skills to work for their people and country. In particular in this special period when narratives coming from the West are cornering [China]. Thus I believe we need more art that reflect the will of our country and our people.

After the Twitter spat with the Australian PM, Wuhe Qilin posted a video message on YouTube further elaborating on his world view. His words are partly transcribed here by @wangbo08492215:

乌合麒麟 say： It is hoped that the Australian Prime Minister will face up to the reality, pay attention to domestic affairs, and restrain the behavior of Australian troops stationed abroad, so as to prevent such tragedy from happening again.@zlj517 pic.twitter.com/tLuozmKDJu — 夢 (@wangbo08492215) November 30, 2020

< p class='gv-rss-footer'>Written by Oiwan Lam

0 notes

asktheredreaper · 7 years ago

Text

Remarks about my writing Grell as Jewish

Firstly, I am not Jewish.

I’m not Christian either, and in fact am Muslim. So I understand the feeling of belonging to a marginalized faith, and underrepresented or misrepresented faith, a demonized faith, probably a lot better than most Western Christians would, and so I come with that background. I also know many people of the Jewish faith, religious and non-religious.

But I am not Jewish. Nor do I claim to understand at all the Jewish experience.

So why would I dare headcanon a London serial killer as Jewish? Let me explain--

Firstly, I not only warn you, but ask for forgiveness, in making my decision solely based upon analytical patterns and tropes of Jewish characters throughout history, without at all considering the ramifications of enforcing stereotypes, of demonizing a people. I ask for forgiveness for originally using the faith as a plaything for dress-up for my little shitty fanfiction, entirely forgetting that Judaism is not only a very real and very deep faith, but that antisemitism is still alive and well.

So here goes my original decision making process--

I had been reading up a lot on Jack the Ripper’s history, mainly because I wished to start my own project involving the subject matter, and had found some interesting bouts of historical antisemitism throughout. Forgive my naivety, but they don’t really teach this sorta shit in American schools, the fact that antisemitism originated and existed before the Holocaust. I was dimly aware, having toured many European nations and recalling remarks that tour guides made about certain architectural choices due to historical antisemitism, and having read one book by accident that was a series of monologues from documented middle-ages life stories, several of the monologues dealing with historical antisemitism. But somehow it never all came together than in 19th century London, anti-Jewish attitudes were a thing, until I researched, and I became fascinated by this strange stereotype--that Jack the Ripper must have been Jewish because only Jews could be capable of such savagery. It was weird to me, never having considered Jewish persons to be anything outside of heavily involved in musical theater, and it reminded me of the stereotypes facing my own people, Muslims, of us being bombers and rapists capable of savagery.

And knowing that the name “Grell” was a German name, it got me wondering--a German Jew?

It was a smaller headcanon of mine, where I somehow kept going “ah yay, representation!” in my head without understanding the ramifications of negative representation.

But it only ran deeper when I was introduced to Judaism in Shakespeare and other English literature. I learned of Shakespeare’s Shylock, of Dickens’s Fagin, their wickedness in English society. Thieving, maniacal, malevolent, melodramatic, and--Jewish?

I couldn’t help but be brought back to cartoons I had seen of my own people, with big white turbans and big, thick beards, holding guns with dumb looks on their faces as they held goats in their arms and addressed them as “wives”. I thought of Ahmed the Dead Terrorist, of The Dictator, of Tintin and the Land of Black Gold, of Homeland, of American Sniper, of Raiders of the Lost Ark, of Call of Duty, and couldn’t help but wonder if Grell had been handled by a Victorian English author, would he have been coded as Jewish?

What really was the kicker was this article, this article, and this article, that made me adopt wholeheartedly the idea that Grell, in a Victorian-English context, would have been coded and Jewish, as there have been depictions or written remarks throughout all of history of Judas, David, and Esau having red hair. Due to this, in literature throughout history, red hair has been an identifier of malevolence, of hot-headedness, and of Jewishness. Both Shylock and Fagin were often depicted with red hair, after all, Grell only doubly so.

So my conclusion, in the end, is that a case can be made for coding Grell as Jewish--

Unfortunately, that is not the conclusion of this post...

Recall my earlier apology?

In my research and soul-searching of Jewish stereotypes, relating them to the Muslim stereotypes I know so well--I had forgotten about how much those stereotypes hurt. Perhaps it is the Muslims who are now being depicted as big-nosed and hairy, rather than the Jews, but it wasn’t too long ago that the Jews were where my people are today. Not only was it not that long ago, but even the slaughter of my people is under the guise that these are “Islamic terrorists”-- “terrorist” being the keyword that defends Islamophobes, making the rape of the Muslim world seem justified. Jews weren’t even afforded this title of “terrorist” or anything of the like, the word “Jew” alone being bad enough as far as I am aware.

So now I must finish my apology--I am sorry for neglecting the fact that writing a serial killer known for his savagery and brutality as Jewish, especially a serial killer from a time period where such traits were ascribed the Jews, is highly offensive and misrepresentative of the Jewish community. It’s as bad as the stereotype of the brown, grinning, sooty-eyed, fang-toothed Arab Muslim sheikh, leering over young maidens as he puffs on a thick cigar bought with blood money. It’s as bad as the black as night, absurdly strong savage warrior, who dons a loincloth of leopard print and prowls the land as some half-human, half-animal hybrid. It’s as bad as the thick-lensed, creepy, mathematically inclined Asian who speaks in a high, effeminate stutter and masturbates to animated women.

But I am not taking down the headcanon--and here is why.

I wish instead to make Judaism less a cause of his savagery and cunning, and more a simple trait. Grell Sutcliff is the savage Jack the Ripper, but is also the brilliant engineer, the talented singer, the queer, and the born and raised Jew.

I choose instead of reinforcing Jewish stereotypes, to research and respects customs and cultural traditions, and to use faith as moments of the split from savage animal to a ponderous human, who recalls the hymns his mother sang to him--Hine Ma Tov and Oseh Shalom--in moments when he almost reaches humanity. For psychopathy is not raised in a vacuum, and religion is not taught only to the righteous. Grell will never be excused of his actions nor his perverse worldview, but a human being, even a psychopath is not simply made up of their perversions. There are multiple facets to each human being.

I know it’s hard to swallow, that serial killers are indeed human, even if their actions and perversions are not deserving of such a distinction. There is no humanity in their actions, as they are unimaginably cruel, but they were born from a mother and father, sometimes even raised by said mother and father or other guardians, they had a childhood and a life, perhaps even a faith. And that is what I wish to explore with Grell...

That is what compelled me to Grell’s story in the first place--that he is an awful, terrible, cruel person, but is (or was) certainly a person--a person who does not confine to the social norms of the da. Grell may be a horrendous person, but Grell is also written as a marginalized person. The following information is canon after all:

Grell is a person of the LGBT community, a community that was shamed, disgraced, and even killed by the law itself, as it had maimed and killed notable English minds such as Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing.

Grell suffered mental health illnesses (conditions that were not only overlooked in the era but even cause for brutal, violent force and abuse), that led him to suicide.

Grell’s actions are inexcusable, but Grell himself is complicated, full of such richness (that Yana Toboso unfortunately did not exploit thus far) and story that is so often ignored in Victorian English history. Thus I wish to write him for another seldom talked about group, the English Jews and Jewish immigrants, as I have evidence to back up my claim. And I feel that I can wholeheartedly relate to the feeling of being a demonized minority in a majority nation as an American, immigrant Muslim.

****NOTE: The precocious among you may remark that the name “Sutcliff” is not a Jewish name, hence why I must remark here that I also headcanon him as biracial, having a Jewish mother and an English father. Unfortunately, it did not come up in the post, but the remark still stands.

#tw: judaism #tw: religion #tw: goyim #tw: gentiles #tw: antisemitism #tw: holocaust #tw: long post #please read to the end before arguing with me #it's nebulous and meandering but trust me on this

5 notes · View notes

ruminativerabbi · 8 years ago

Text

Breaching the Wall Between Church and State

A case currently before the Supreme Court is one that Jewish citizens should take very seriously…despite the fact that it appears to have nothing to do with Jews at all.

The case has to do with Lutherans, and specifically with a church in Missouri, the Trinity Lutheran Church in the town of Columbia. At first blush, the whole issue seems wholly unremarkable. The church operates a daycare center and a preschool on its premises, and maintains a playground in which the children can play outdoors. But the playground has a surface that could be dangerous if a child falls, and so the church had the idea of replacing the hard surface with a rubber one. That sounded like a sensible plan forward and so, upon hearing that the State of Missouri was actually offering grants to playground operators to make that specific improvement using the rubber salvaged from recycled tires, the church applied for one…only to be turned down cold because the state’s constitution specifically prohibits the state from spending any public funds “directly or indirectly in the aid of any church.”

This understandably irritated the church leadership and prompted them to sue the State of Missouri on the grounds that the state’s prohibition was in violation both of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. To a non-lawyer like myself, neither argument feels too compelling. The First Amendment forbids Congress from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion, but that feels like quite the stretch here: the State of Missouri is not forbidding the church from having a rubberized surface in its playground, just declining to pay for it. Nor is it obvious in what sense having one or another sort of playground could be described as the “exercise of religion” in the first place. Moving along, the Equal Protection Clause argument prohibits any state from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” which means that the law must always be enforced evenly and fairly, and specifically that the rights and freedoms enshrined in our laws cannot be imagined to apply to some citizens but not to others. But bringing the Fourteenth Amendment to bear in this context too feels a bit tenuous: to say that the State of Missouri is denying equal protection under the law to the members of the Trinity Lutheran Church by declining to buy them something sounds like weak argument to me! And then, just to muddy the waters a bit more, the Governor of Missouri, Eric Greitens, announced last week that Missouri will no longer discriminate against religious organizations in the evaluation of grant applications, including applications for improvements like the resurfacing of outdoor playgrounds. That sounds as though it obviates the need for a court decision, since the change in policy has in effect decided the matter in the church’s favor. But neither side apparently wishes for the Supreme Court not to reach a ruling, the one side fearing a change back to the earlier policy under some future administration, and the other side—in effect defending a state policy that no longer exists—feeling themselves nobly fighting to maintain the traditional separation between church and state. This, is, however, hardly a question just for Missourians to worry over.

To understand the larger picture here, it’s necessary to know something about the so-called Blaine Amendment. This goes back a long ways. In 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant called for a constitutional amendment that would formally prohibit the federal government from using public money to fund “sectarian schools,” by which expression he meant non-public schools run by religious organizations. Shortly after that, Congressman James G. Blaine, a Republican from Maine, proposed just such an amendment. It was, to say the least, contentious. Congress, in fact, was split: the bill passed in the House of Representatives by a whopping 173 votes, but failed to clear the two-thirds majority in the Senate necessary for a proposed amendment to be sent to the states for ratification. There is, therefore, no specific constitutional amendment that prohibits the use of public money to fund religious schools.

But on the state level, things were and are different. In the wake of the failure of the Blaine Amendment on the federal level, all but ten of the states approved similar amendments to their own state constitutions. (For the record, the ten are Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia.) And most of those amendments remain in effect to this day. An effort to get rid of the “Blaine” amendment in Florida in 2012, for example, failed, as have similar efforts over the years in New York, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Massachusetts. Only one state, Louisiana, had such an amendment once but doesn’t now, but that didn’t come about as the result of a successful effort to repeal the law but rather by the adoption in 1974 of an entirely new state constitution. As far as the Missouri playground goes, then, it is in a state that has a “Blaine” amendment in its constitution and that theoretically prohibits the state from approving the expenditure of public funds for improvements to religious institutions, including schools.

Judging the matter from where I personally sit and look out at the world is complicated.

On the one hand, the children who attend the preschool in the Trinity Lutheran Church are citizens of Missouri whose parents pay the taxes that fund the government’s initiatives on behalf of the state’s citizenry, including its children. So, you could argue, why shouldn’t they benefit from a program designed neither to foster religion in general nor to promote any specific kind of religious observance, but merely to make some of Missouri’s children a bit safer when they play outdoors? When put that way, it sounds more than reasonable for the church to get its grant! On the other hand, though, the arguments against using public money to redo the surface of that playground also sound cogent to me: by not extending grant money to churches even when they operate in a way that does not specifically promote religion, Missouri is—or, rather, was—guaranteeing that none of its citizens would end up indirectly breaching the traditional war between church and state by being forced to see their tax money funneled to religious institutions that are traditionally supposed in our country not to rely on public funds. It’s also interesting to me that none of the authors of any of the essays and articles I’ve read in the last week about this topic appears to know much about preschools…or at least not enough to wonder out loud if it is conceivable that a preschool or a daycare run by a church does not teach religion to the children enrolled there. We have a preschool at Shelter Rock and we certainly do our best to teach the boys and girls about our festivals, our rituals, and the basic tenets of our faith as part of the educational program we offer. Are we supposed to imagine that the programming at the church’s preschool does not teach, thus promote, Christianity at all? Not a single Bible story? Not a tiny Christmas tree? I don’t think so!

Related to all of this—and not even in a particularly subtle way—is the whole question of parochial school vouchers.

For all the years Joan and I lived in British Columbia, we found it natural for the province—the Canadian equivalent of the state—to pay for the secular education of children in Jewish day schools and other parochial settings, thus leaving their parents’ tuition payments to cover the costs connected with the specifically religious instruction also offered by the school. This arrangement is not at all contentious: British Columbians are all used to the idea that it only makes sense that the children of all citizens who pay their taxes receive the benefit of a free secular education, not just those who send their kids to schools run by the province and not by religious societies. (Why this only applies in some provinces is one of the mysteries of Canadian life, one with roots in the original efforts of the nation’s founders to bring Quebec into the original confederation in 1867. Perhaps I’ll write about that some other time.) And it’s not a bad arrangement at all: all children are served, all taxpayers receive some bang for their buck, and the province plays no role in the religious education of the children in parochial schools.

Here, on the other hand, the wall between church and state is supposed to be impenetrable and fully opaque. The siren call of tuition vouchers—in effect, the imposition of the Canadian system on the American one—is more than seductive…surely, we would all like nothing more than for day school education to cost less, ideally dramatically less, and thus become accessible to larger numbers of children! Could it be possible for the government to underwrite the cost of children’s secular education without breaching the wall between church and state? That, and not whether there should be such a wall in the first place, is the right question for our Jewish community to be asking.

I know from first-hand experience that such an arrangement can and does work in B.C. But it is also true that, at least in my opinion, no good can ever come to the Jewish community from any effort to breach the wall meant by our Founders to keep the spiritual and religious lives of Americans completely away from government control. We have all made our peace with the petty chinks in that wall that characterize American life at its least inclusive: a calendar of federal holidays that specifically includes Christian festivals, the almost universal presence of Christian symbols in post offices and other governmental venues in the weeks leading up to Christmas, the apparently annual White House seder (I’ll write about my strongly negative feelings in that regard on some other occasion), federal postage stamps celebrating the religious holidays of some faiths (including our own) but not others, and the use of Bibles as part of the oath-taking ceremony in court and in public investiture ceremonies, including the presidential inauguration. (To be fair, not every president has taken the oath of office with his hand resting on a Bible. But only John Quincy Adams, Franklin Pierce, and Theodore Roosevelt chose not to do so.) We can and do live with all of that. But diverting public funds to underwrite church-run schools, daycare centers, youth groups, senior centers, etc., is in a different category entirely and is not something to which we should quietly acquiesce.

The Canadian system may well be something we could and should consider. But, in the end, the question is whether that could be done without weakening the wall our founders erected between church and state, which consequence will never be in our best interests. We are a tiny people who constitute less than 2% of the population in these United States. There are ten times as many American Catholics, and almost twenty-five times as many American Protestants, as there are American Jews. It’s true that we occupy a much larger place in the American psyche than our numbers would appear to justify. But, in the end, we are a small minority that flourishes precisely because the government keeps out of religious affairs and leaves us to chart our own course forward as we see fit. It will always be in our best interests to maintain that specific aspect of the status quo. The Supreme Court should not work at cross-purposes with our founders’ clear vision of not only a division between church and state, but an ironclad wall between the two.

1 note · View note

nationalistparty · 4 years ago

Text

Manuel Luis Quezon, The Jones Philippine Bill, 1914

Page 9: My friend from Minnesota read to us some newspaper accounts of that meeting, as well as some comments referring to this bill as affecting or surely to affect the future of the political party to which I am proud to belong. Among these comments I particularly noticed the prediction that the absence from the bill of a fixed date for the granting of independent will bring about the death sentence of the Nationalist Party — my party.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Minnesota [Mr. Miller] for the courteous expression of his hope that that prediction might not prove true. I want to tell the gentleman, however — and this comes from the very bottom of my heart — that if the enactment of this bill, meaning as it will the authoritative recognition of the inherent right of the Filipino people to be independent and the solemn declaration that they shall be granted that independence; that thereafter the Filipino people shall have the power, as it is their right, to say what must and what must not be done in their country; that the happy end of a foreign oligarchical government in the Philippines shall arrive; that the Filipinos shall no longer be considered the least and the last factor in the counsels of the government of the Philippine Islands, nor ignored by those who are but their guests; if, I say, the enactment of this bill and its conversion into law, with all and more than all the wealth of significance, shall prove to be the death sentence of the Nationalist Party — much as I love my party, to which I have belonged ever since it was founded; much as I care for the political fortune of my comrades, many of whom are the dearest friends I have; much as I value my own interests, which would go down into oblivion together with both my party and my comrades — I emphatically say, let that death come when it will, I welcome it. For, over and above my party, over and above my comrades, over and above myself, I love my people, their welfare, and their rights. [Applause on the Democratic side.] …… Mr. Chairman, the work wherein I am engaged, together with the membership of my party, is not a political affair. To the rank and file of my party, to its leaders — and in speaking of these leaders I cannot refrain from mentioning by name the foremost of them all, the patriotic, the industrious, the brilliant man to whom more than to anyone else the Nationalist Party owes its success. Speaker Osmeña of the assembly — to them and to me this work is not a political enterprise, in the common sense of that term. It is a patriotic undertaking, that affects our national honor, our nation rights — indeed, our very national life. It is the question of all questions. It is a cause — a great, holy cause. [Applause.] Page 10: Mr. Chairman, must we go down to defeat? Must we go out of office? If we must, so as to secure at this time more governmental powers and more liberty for our people than they now enjoy, then we shall willingly go down to defeat, we shall gladly go out of office. Must the party which along stood by the people through thick and thin, in the hours of trial, of tribulation, of danger, be rent asunder? If it must be, so that we may obtain a solemn promise that the ideal for which that party is fighting — the independence of the Philippines — shall be realized, then let that party be destroyed. After all, when this bill shall have been passed, the Filipino people can well afford to dispense with the services of the Nationalist Party, because while independent will not yet have been granted, its consummation will nevertheless have been assured. It would be only a matter of time and dependent solely upon the Filipino people themselves. After this bill shall have been passed, it would be an easy, perhaps a profitable, effort to bring about the actual declaration of Philippine independence. Thereafter, men of proven patriotism, who could be induced neither by fear nor cupidity to betray the legacy of our martyrs, will not be needed. Others who in easy and comfortable times respond to the call of their country may then serve the public need as well.

Mr. Chairman, the allurements of public office are not so strong as to be irresistible. men can live without being listed on a payroll. In fact, it often happens that those who have some capacity and some desire to work would be better off, both economically and otherwise, if engaged in private pursuits.

The Nationalist Party does not care for power or for offices, as is evidenced by the fact that many of its members would not take, in the beginning of the American occupation, portions offered to them by the American Government. The Nationalist Party has entered the political arena for a purpose nobler and higher than that of gaining power and drawing salaries for its members. It is in the political arena because at one time — in days that tried men’s souls — there was offered to the world the sad but not unprecedented spectacle of a handful of Filipinos filing the Government positions to the Islands who joined our adversaries in the claim that independence was neither wanted by the Filipino people nor should be granted them, because they were incapable of governing themselves. Squarely and fearlessly to face this untrue and unjust proposition, the Nationalist Party came into existence. It went before the people with the cause of immediate independence as its standard, so that the Filipino electorate might at the polls choose whether the lives of those who died that their country might live should have been wasted. It sought for its members the elective offices of the Philippine Government so that it might show through them the capacity of the people for self-government. Thus to secure these offices was for that party a necessary means to a noble end. The Filipino people in every popular election spoke their mind and their felling. Theirs was the ideal of the Nationalist Party. This question decided, the party labored for the realization of that ideal. Its members when in office gave eloquent testimony of the capacity of the Filipino people. Page 11: In the municipal and provincial governments they proved to be equal to their tasks. In the Philippine Assembly first, and later in the Philippine Commission, they demonstrated by their wisdom, by their devotion to duty, by their unselfishness, that the Filipino people actually are capable of governing themselves; and while this demonstration was thus being made, the party, through its own memorials, through assembly resolutions adopted by the vote of Nationalist members, and through the personal representations of the Nationalist Resident Commissioner, urged the Congress of the United States to grant the Philippine Islands immediate independence.

The Nationalist Party has kept faith with the people; It has done its duty and its best to promote their cause. And it is now discharging that duty and doing its best to promote that cause by endorsing this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I wish I could have been spared the necessity of singling out any one political party in the Philippine Islands upon the floor of this House. I am here, though a Nationalist, as the representative of all the Filipino people. It has been my honor to receive the unanimous vote of the members of the Philippine Assembly regardless of their political affiliations, and in return for that honor I have invariably represented the interests of my people at large, and never, since I have been Resident Commissioner, have I ever done or said anything in this country for the advancement of the interests of my party. The remarks of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Miller], however, have compelled me to defend my comrades and associates, as it was my obvious duty to do so, because they have been very loyal to their constituency. Sir, without fear of successful contradiction, I say here that the Nationalist Party in the Philippine Islands has been the faithful guardian of the ideals of our people, and the loyal advocate of their rights. Page 13: The truth, however, is that the immense majority of the Filipino people are for this bill. They have taken the sensible and patriotic view that, since the former Jones bill could not now be enacted, it would have been the height of folly, it would be a useless, stupid kind of political suicide, to defeat this bill. So they have instructed me to support it and to do all I can to have it passed. Two hundred and forty-seven municipal councils, four assemblies of municipal presidents, eight provincial boards, seventy mass meetings, and the executive national committee of the Nationalist Party, which is the majority party in the Philippines, have all endorsed this bill, while only the meeting in Manila and two or three municipal councils are against it. In compliance with these instructions, therefore, quite as truly as in accord with my own conviction, I am for this bill.

0 notes

marymosley · 4 years ago

Text

The Case Against Bill Barr: A Response To Professor Turley From Ralph Nader, Lou Fisher, and Bruce Fein

I recently received a letter contesting my statements concerning Attorney General Bill Barr in columns (here and here and here and here) and congressional testimony (here and here). The letter is from Ralph Nader, Lou Fisher, and Bruce Fein. I have known all three signatories for many years and I have the utmost respect for them. They offer detailed and thoughtful disagreements with my past statements and the record of Attorney General Bill Barr. I asked them if they would allow me to share their arguments with the blog and they have agreed to do so. As with the prior posting of Professor Morrison, I strongly encourage you to consider the analysis from three of the most influential minds in Washington.

These are figures who require little introduction. They are well known throughout the world for their contributions to the law and public policy. Ralph Nader is as legendary figure who has fought his entire life for consumer protection, environmental protection and good government. He has run for president repeatedly (indeed I voted for him) and is widely viewed as one of the most influential figures in the world on public policy. Lou Fisher spent four decades at the Congressional Research Service and is widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in the shaping of congressional legislation and policies. He is widely regarded as one of the foremost experts on constitutional and congressional issues. Bruce Fein was a high ranking Justice Department figure in the Reagan Administration and has been one of the most influential conservative voices in print and television for decades. He is known for his independent and principled analysis of legal and constitutional issues.

As I stated in Attorney General Barr’s confirmation, he comes to this position with long-established and robust views of executive privilege and powers. While I have long disagreed with him on many of these issues, I view many of the current controversies to reflect policy and interpretative differences, not ethical or criminal or impeachable misconduct. I do not agree with presumptions made about his improper motivations or designs in carrying out his duties, for a second time, as Attorney General of the United States. Despite my many friends on the other side, my view has not changed. Nevertheless, people of good-faith can disagree and that is precisely what is offered by Messrs. Nader, Fisher, and Fein (sounds like a great law firm!)

Here is their letter for your consideration:

Dear Professor Turley,

We highly respect your intellect, productivity, and integrity over the years.

We are convinced, however, that the crabbed views of bribery elaborated in your July 12, 2020 internet posting, “When ‘Awfully Close’ Is Just Awful: Nadler Raises Invalid Bribery Theory In Call For Barr Investigation,” are misplaced. You focused narrowly on the definition of bribery under the federal criminal code as expounded the United States Supreme Court and subordinate tribunals.

But “bribery” as an impeachable offense in Article II, section 4 is not so circumscribed. It does not require proof of a crime. Indeed, when the Constitution was adopted and ratified, there was no federal criminal code. And the Constitution did not create common law crimes. United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812). Thus, bribery in the context of impeachment could not have been anchored to a federal crime. In contrast to treason, the Constitution refrains from any definition of bribery. Accordingly, Congress might rationally conclude that Attorney General Barr’s offering a promotion to Geoffrey Berman exchange for his non-noisy resignation as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York constituted impeachable bribery even if not a violation of the federal criminal code. The reasonably suspected ulterior motive was the hope that Berman’s successor, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, clueless about criminal justice, and interim Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District, Craig Carpenito, United States Attorney for New Jersey, would be less aggressive in investigating targets tied to President Trump. As you know, an investigation running on twenty cylinders as opposed to one cylinder is the difference between night and day, even if both are equally uncompromised. Simply because Mr. Barr’s hope was thwarted and Berman’s professional deputy became Acting U.S. Attorney does not make the solicitation of Berman’s quiet resignation in exchange for a promotion any less impeachable as non-criminal bribery under Article II, section 4.

Ask yourself, Professor Turley, if you were in Mr. Barr’s place, would you have done what he did with his motives? If not, isn’t that a cogent clue that the Attorney General did something wrong in soliciting Mr. Berman’s quiet resignation in exchange for a promotion?

We submit that in your multiple writings, testimonies, or articles a much wider lens might have been employed in evaluating Attorney General Barr: namely, serial violations of his constitutional duty to faithfully and evenhandedly execute the laws to inspire public trust in the administration of justice. The abuse or violation of a public trust, Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, is an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.

Mr. Barr has shattered public trust in a non-partisan, uncompromised administration of justice by implementing or condoning President Donald Trump’s partisan, chronically lawless political agenda. The following enumeration is inexhaustive:

Seeking to void former national security adviser’s Michael Flynn’s guilty pleas in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for reasons never afforded any other criminal defendant.

Second-guessing the sentencing recommendations of the Department’s schooled lawyers for President Trump’s personal and political confidant Roger Stone, found guilty of lying to Congress and witness tampering.

Condoning President Trump’s commutation of Stone’s sentence, which will encourage congressional witnesses during Trump’s tenure to lie in expectation of a presidential sanctuary. James Madison instructed at the Virginia Ratification Convention: “There is one security in this case [a misuse of the pardon power by the president] to which gentlemen may not have adverted: if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty…”

Gratuitously casting aspersion on the Mueller Report by unilaterally proclaiming in the manner of a papal encyclical that President Trump was innocent of obstruction of justice. The Report chronicled multiple instances of evidence of obstruction but refrained from opining on whether they met the threshold for criminal prosecution. Mr. Mueller inexplicably balked at seeking to depose Mr. Trump or even compel him to answer written questions about his conduct as President.

Making deceitful redactions in the public release of the Mueller report that provoked United States District Judge Reginald Walton in FOIA litigation to write that Barr may have “made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary.”

Condoned unconstitutional defiance of scores of congressional subpoenas or requests for information by executive officials that handcuffed the congressional power of oversight and investigation. In 1974, without judicial blessing, the House Judiciary Committee voted an article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon for flouting a single committee subpoena. Congress does not need judicial permission to find that disobedience to a congressional subpoena is an impeachable offense.

Condoned or supported President Trump’s June 4, 2020, Executive Order 13927 declaring a special economic national emergency based on COVID-19 as a pretext to waive environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, to accelerate federal approval of new mines, highways, pipelines, and other federal projects as reported in The Washington Post (“Trump signs order to waive environmental reviews for key projects,” by Juliet Eilperin and Jeff Stein, June 4, 2020). Notwithstanding the alleged national emergency, President Trump has refrained from promulgating a national blueprint to fight COVID-19, and proclaimed we are witnessing “the greatest [economic] comeback in history.”

Condoned or supported President Trump’s Executive Order 13294 instructing federal government agencies to rescind, modify, or cease enforcing regulations temporarily or permanently if they “may inhibit economic recovery” as reported in The Washington Post (“Citing an economic emergency, Trump directs agencies across government to waive federal regulations,” by Steven Mufson, Julie Eilperin, Jeff Stein, and Renae Merle, June 26, 2020). Compare the English Bill of Rights of 1689 condemning King James II for“assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament.” Standing alone, such industrial scale derelictions in failing faithfully to execute the laws justifies the impeachment of Mr. Barr.

Condoned Mr. Trump’s criminal violations of the Hatch Act by directing federal employees to place his name on checks to CARES beneficiaries and to send White House letters to direct deposit CARES beneficiaries to advance his 2020 presidential campaign. Mr. Barr has refused to respond to our letter pointing out the substantial credible evidence of violations and urging the appointment of a special counsel under Department of Justice regulations.

We take guidance from your splendid January 13, 2012 article in The Washington Post entitled, “10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free.” Attorney General Barr has championed or endorsed every one of those 10 violations and more.

He has championed President Trump’s authority to play prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to kill any American citizen deemed a past or future threat to national security based on secret, unsubstantiated suspicion without accountability to Congress, the courts, or the American people. President Trump has weakened internal inhibitions on assassinations that he inherited from President Obama. They also violate Executive Order 12333, section 2.11

He has endorsed indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects not charged with crimes at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere.

He has endorsed presidential power to decide between military or civilian justice. French Premier Georges Clemenceau quipped that “Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.”

He supports the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve arbitrary targeting of organizations and American citizens for non-criminal justice purposes for political advantage. He supports the national security letters issued by the FBI with no judicial vetting which have chronically abused according to the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General and others.

He has endorsed secret evidence and secret law to justify detentions and dismissals of civil suits for government assassinations, torture, or kidnappings. The secrecy invites government deceit, as confirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) enabling a false Air Force affidavit to scuttle a wrongful death suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

He has endorsed blocking war crimes investigations of the American military by the International Criminal Court, including in Afghanistan, and issued asset freezes and denied visas to ICC investigators as punishment. (Although the United States is not an ICC signatory, Afghanistan is. Under the Rome Statute of the ICC, it has jurisdiction over war crimes perpetrated by the American military in a signatory nation).

He has endorsed limitless use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to target any person within the rearview mirror of an alleged suspected terrorist.

He has endorsed judicial immunity for companies complicit with the government in warrantless surveillance of citizens; and, sought to enlist the judiciary under the All Writs Act of 1789 to compel companies like Apple to become arms of the FBI in breaking privacy codes on cell phones.

He endorsed the warrantless use of surveillance drones to monitor American citizens, including protestors demonstrating over George Floyd’s homicide.

In the past before the practice was abandoned by President Obama, he endorsed extraordinary rendition to send U.S. detainees to countries notorious for torture or murder, for example, innocent Mahar Arar dispatched to Syria for torture. Extraordinary rendition is a lesser presidential power than the limitless presidential power to assassinate that Mr. Barr champions.

In addition to the ten violations referenced above, the Attorney General supports unbridled presidential power to initiate and continue war (including use of WMD) on his say-so alone in flagrant violation of the Declare War Clause. As you know, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson on behalf of every participant in the making and ratification of the Constitution: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts. demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl…”

Thus, Mr. Barr supports our ongoing, never-ending unconstitutional presidential wars never declared or initiated by Congress: Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Many wrongly believe the war against Iraq is constitutional under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. It is not because Congress abdicated its responsibility for war to the President, an abdication prohibited by the Declare War Clause. Only Congress can take the nation from peace to war, and it did not make that decision in the 2002 AUMF. It handed off that decision to the President, who waited more than five months to attack.

Neither by treaty nor by statute may the Senate or Congress surrender the war power to the President. The League of Nations was defeated in the Senate over that issue. And the United Nations Charter, learning from history, requires a congressional declaration of war before the President may employ the military to enforce a Security Council resolution under Chapter 7. Congress is prohibited from delegating certain legislative authorities to the President to preserve separation of powers, which is a structural bill of rights to protect the people from tyranny. Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).

You appreciate the enormity of the constitutional violations of presidential wars because you represented Members of Congress in a 2011 lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional war in Libya, which continues to this very day with Mr. Barr as Attorney General.

The gravity of the Attorney General’s constitutional derelictions cannot be overstated. Do you not think his taking a wrecking ball to our constitutional order warrants impeachment and removal from office?

We look forward to a thoughtful response.

Very truly yours,

Ralph Nader Lou Fisher Bruce Fein

The Case Against Bill Barr: A Response To Professor Turley From Ralph Nader, Lou Fisher, and Bruce Fein published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

mastcomm · 4 years ago

Text

10 Nigerian celebrities accused of rape ( Half 1)

For Illustration: Rape

By Michael Adeshina

Rape – The point out of it brings out an ungainly response from each affordable being.

However as unreasonable because it feels and must be, it has develop into a commodity on the corners of many streets, in communities, in church buildings and the society at massive.

It’s all the time a fragile challenge. Each of its path is slippery, for the accusers, the accused, together with commentators. The victims carry the burden for years. Identical because the accused in saner climes.

Many of the accused are already condemned within the court docket of commentators.

A breeze of such accusation has despatched plenty of spectacular careers into darkness.

Nonetheless, some Nigerian celebrities have discovered themselves within the waters of such accusations.

For some, it was the tip, whereas some managed to swim to the opposite facet of justice or let the accusation fade out.

Beneath are some high personalities in Nigeria accused of rape:

Obesere

1. Abass Akande.

The information of the arrest of in style Fuji musician, Abass Akande, in March 2014, took Nigerians by storm.

He was arrested after a girl recognized as Miss Olanike Olaiya accused him of rape.

The woman stated the act came about in Akande’s Okota residence, Lagos.

For Akande, it was consensual however Olanike insisted it was rape.

She stated she visited the musician for assist and was raped within the course of.

Nonetheless, in April 2015, Lagos Police declared Abass Akande harmless.

Ngozi Braide, Lagos Police PRO in 2015, described Nike as a blackmailer and an extortionist.

Ngozi stated Olanike fabricated the report.

Nonetheless, the case was dropped as Nike was nowhere to be discovered.

2: Godwin Okpara:

Godwin Okpara.

The previous Nigerian defender’s case was tough to take. He was discovered responsible of sleeping together with his personal adopted daughter.

He was a part of the Nigeria squads that participated within the 1998 FIFA World Cup, 2000 Africa Cup of Nations, and the 2000 Summer season Olympics.

Okpara was excellent on the 1989 U-17 World Championship.

In response to BBC, the adopted daughter had arrived in France as a younger lady in 2000 after Opara moved to the nation to play for RC Strasbourg and Paris Saint-Germain.

Okpara admitted to having intercourse with the adopted daughter, then 13, on one event in 2005. However he stated it was at her instigation.

The daughter testified in court docket that it was after discovering the pair collectively that Linda Okpara, 42, started mistreating her – torturing her and subjecting her to merciless sexual acts.

Nonetheless, he was arrested in August 2005, discovered responsible in 2007 and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

Okpara’s spouse, Linda Okpara, was sentenced to 15 years in jail for the torture of the identical lady.

3. African China:

African China.

In response to a report by Pulse Ng, the Nigerian artiste, generally known as African China was accused of rape when he was in London for a present.

For African China, the accusation got here from a white girl.

He solely agreed they slept in the identical room and claimed the woman was drunk and couldn’t go residence to keep away from her mother’s wrath.

He stated the woman left with thanks just for her mates to report a rape case to the police.

4. Timaya:

Timaya

“Everyone calls him Timaya” and he was undoubtedly “getting larger” as certainly one of his songs said, however issues virtually took a lethal flip when Sheila B got here out in 2015 to accuse him of rape.

Sheila, an upcoming artist based mostly in Atlanta, America, actually got here arduous on Timaya.

She opened a social media account the place she detailed so much on what had transpired between them.

Nonetheless, Timaya got here out together with his personal narrative. It was “consensual Intercourse” based on the Port Harcourt man.

The saga raised a number of eyebrows however he pulled by way of.

5. Pastor Fatoyinbo:

Fatoyinbo

The accusation in opposition to the “Gucci Pastor” will probably be remembered for years.

At this level, it was a case of well-known personalities in opposition to themselves. Lots of people needed to take sides.

Some went for the spouse of in style soul musician Timi Dakolo generally known as Busola whereas some queue behind the “swagger man”

Previous to Busola’s accusation, a girl had alleged she had ‘consensual intercourse’ with Fatoyinbo. So, When Busola got here out in June 2019, for some, it was a case of “Gucci Pastor, You once more?”

In response to Busola, the flamboyant Abuja pastor dedicated the crime in 2002. Nonetheless, Busola was not the tip. Different women additionally got here out to shout rape accusations however the Lagos-based photographer’s accusation gathered extra consideration.

Nonetheless, the case took one other dimension in November 2019. The accuser grew to become the accused.

A Federal Excessive Courtroom in Abuja dismissed the rape go well with in opposition to the Senior Pastor of the Commonwealth of Zion Meeting (COZA).

The court docket dominated that the case lacked substance. In truth, the court docket awarded a value of N1,000,000 in opposition to the plaintiff.

6. Pastor T.B Joshua:

Prophet T.B. Joshua

The identify T.B Joshua comes with a great deal of optimistic and controversial information however none was rape until a selected lady confirmed up in July 2019.

T.B Joshua was accused of rape by a lady recognized as Bisola Johnson.

She additionally alleged that the favored cleric held her captive for 14 years.

She made the declare on June 30 when she took half in a protest in opposition to Fatoyinbo who had been accused of rape by Busola Dakolo.

Nonetheless, T.B Joshua’s representatives claimed the girl has been unstable for a few years. Additionally they urged the general public to ignore her claims saying it lacks credibility.

7. MC Galaxy:

MC Galaxy

This is likely one of the instances that hold one questioning the place some individuals emanated from.

Upcoming actress and singer, Simbee Davis, accused MC Galaxy of rape throughout the warmth of Busola Dakolo’s revelation in opposition to Fatoyinbo.

She claimed MC Galaxy raped her in 2010 however later got here out to debunk her personal declare. She stated it was a joke.

In response to her, she wanted a rape accusation to “blow”(develop into identified).

8.Perruzi:

Daffy Blanco and Peruzzi

Sure, Davido’s boy, Perruzi can be within the combine.

He was accused by a UK-based singer, Daffy Blanc.

She took to her social media to relate a horrible night time she allegedly had with the singer the place he tried to rape her.

Daffy Blanc additionally shared what she described as proof however deleted later.

Nonetheless, that was the final heard in regards to the allegation.

9. Brymo:

Brymo

For music lovers, the identify Brymo means “good music” however there may be nothing good coming from his camp recently when it comes to controversies.

A number of weeks in the past, a Twitter consumer accused the “Yellow” artist of being a rapist.

The Twitter consumer shared conservations with an alleged sufferer of Brymo.

In response to the tweet, a feminine fan paid him a go to within the firm of one other pal at his residence when he raped her.

After the Twitter consumer made the claims, a number of different women took to Twitter accusing him of sexual assault.

Nonetheless, Brymo lastly responded days later. He stated the allegations in opposition to him had been false.

He boastfully known as his accusers to come back ahead.

In response to him, the Lagos State authorities is in contact together with his administration and a full-scale investigation has been launched. 10: Bollylomo:

Brymo and Bollylomo

Nollywood actor Gbolahan Olatunde higher generally known as Bollylomo was additionally compelled to react in Might 2020.

He was accused of rape alongside Brymo.

After accusing Byrymo, a Twitter consumer additionally shared a number of messages she obtained in her DM saying Bollylomo too had raped a number of women and his victims will communicate up when they’re prepared.

Bollylomo, nonetheless, described the accusations as false.

His assertion reads partially; “Pricey Women and Gents,

A Twitter consumer yesterday, got here out to falsely accuse me of sexual assault/rape and has proceeded to make a number of false, derogatory and defamatory statements in opposition to my particular person.

This isn’t an allegation I take calmly and as such, I’ve contacted my legal professionals and given them a full temporary on the problem, therefore the rationale for my delayed response in addressing these false allegations.

Whereas I don’t want to additional gasoline this flagrant falsehood, as this isn’t the primary time these sorts of allegations of rape/sexual assault have been leveled in opposition to my particular person which I didn’t deal with because it was an unsubstantiated try to smear my identify.

Contemplating the severity of those allegations, I deem it pertinent to state that I, Gbolahan Olatunde aka “Bollylomo”, categorically deny these allegations and state that I’ve by no means raped any particular person.

I wish to indulge the accusers to come back ahead, make formal experiences by way of the suitable channels. Any additional try to the smarmy particular person with these allegations will probably be met with the complete weight of the regulation.

To everybody else, I thanks to your steady assist as all the time.”

Hmmm. Thus far, it’s curtains down on the allegation in opposition to Bollylomo.

Make your options on coping with Rape

With all that has been said, how ought to authorities checkmate rape and false accusations?

Don’t hold quiet!

Associated

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com.ng/news/10-nigerian-celebrities-accused-of-rape-half-1/

#News

0 notes

itsfinancethings · 5 years ago

Link

October 29, 2019 at 12:00AM

A White House national security official who listened to President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is prepared to tell Congressional investigators he was so concerned after the exchange that he notified his organization’s attorney.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert at the National Security Council, plans to tell investigators that he twice reported objections to Trump’s Ukraine policy, according to a copy of his opening remarks obtained by TIME.

Vindman will be the first White House official who listened to the July 25 call to testify when he appears before the three House committees conducting the impeachment inquiry Tuesday.

According to his draft statement, Vindman will tell investigators and lawmakers that he brought concerns about Trump’s interactions with Ukraine to the National Security Council’s attorney, John Eisenberg. The first time Vindman says he reported his concerns was after a debriefing following a meeting with Ukrainian official Oleksandr Danylyuk, when E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland stressed the need for Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, Burisma—the gas company where Joe Biden’s son Hunter previously sat on the board—and the 2016 election. He felt compelled to report concerns again after Trump’s phone call with Zelensky.

“I am a patriot,” Vindman’s statement says, “and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country, irrespective of party or politics.”

The first instance in which Vindman notified the National Security Council’s attorney will raise questions about Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony. Sondland told the committees earlier this month that when he brought up Ukraine with Trump, the President urged him to talk to his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Sondland said Giuliani mentioned extracting a commitment from Ukraine to investigate Burisma and the 2016 election. But Sondland added that he did not piece together that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma and that the request could be construed as intervening in the 2020 election. Vindman’s testimony contradicts that statement. According to Vindman’s opening remarks, at a debriefing following the Danylyuk meeting in July, Sondland “specifically emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma.”

An attorney for Sondland did not immediately respond to request for comment.

While Vindman listened to the July 25 call, he emphasized in his opening remarks that he never had any direct contact with the President and he is not the whistleblower who revealed Trump’s Ukraine campaign. Vindman’s remarks will likely provide investigators with a fuller picture of the way policy toward Ukraine was continually wrested away from career diplomats and given to political appointees.

Vindman’s statement were first reported by the New York Times. Read the full remarks here:

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committees concerning the activities relating to Ukraine and my role in the events under investigation.

I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America. For more than two decades, it has been my honor to serve as an officer in the United States Army. As an infantry officer, I served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and a deployment to Iraq for combat operations. In Iraq, I was wounded in an IED attack and awarded a Purple Heart.

Background

Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area Officer specializing in Eurasia. In this role, I have served in the United States’ embassies in Kiev, Ukraine and Moscow, Russia. In Washington, D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs where I authored the principle strategy for managing competition with Russia. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at the National Security Council. The privilege of serving my country is not only rooted in my military service, but also in my personal history. I sit here, as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, an immigrant. My family fled the Soviet Union when I was three and a half years old. Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning English at night. He stressed to us the importance of fully integrating into our adopted country. For many years, life was quite difficult. In spite of our challenging beginnings, my family worked to build its own American dream. I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics. For over twenty years as an active duty United States military officer and diplomat, I have served this country in a nonpartisan manner, and have done so with the utmost respect and professionalism for both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Introduction

Before recounting my recollection of various events under investigation, I want to clarify a few issues. I am appearing today voluntarily pursuant to a subpoena and will answer all questions to the best of my recollection. I want the Committees to know I am not the whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the Committees’ attention. I do not know who the whistleblower is and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the whistleblower. Also, as I will detail herein, I did convey certain concerns internally to National Security officials in accordance with my decades of experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to operate within the chain of command. As an active duty military officer, the command structure is extremely important to me. On many occasions I have been told I should express my views and share my concerns with my chain of command and proper authorities. I believe that any good military officer should and would do the same, thus providing his or her best advice to leadership. Furthermore, in performing my coordination role as a Director on the National Security Council, I provided readouts of relevant meetings and communications to a very small group of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relevant need-to-know.

My Service on the National Security Council

When I joined the White House’s National Security Council (“NSC”), I reported to Dr. Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to John Bolton, the National Security Advisor. My role at the NSC includes developing, coordinating, and executing plans and policies to manage the full range of diplomatic, informational, military, and 3 economic national security issues for the countries in my portfolio, which includes Ukraine. In my position, I coordinate with a superb cohort of inter-agency partners. I regularly prepare internal memoranda, talking points, and other materials for the National Security Advisor and senior staff. Most of my interactions relate to national security issues and are therefore especially sensitive. I would urge the Committees to carefully balance the need for information against the impact that disclosure would have on our foreign policy and national security.

I have never had direct contact or communications with the President.

The Geopolitical Importance of Ukraine

Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to U.S. national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression. In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major steps towards integrating with the West. The U.S. government policy community’s view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine’s Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity. Given this perspective and my commitment to advancing our government’s strategic interests, I will now recount several events that occurred.

Relevent events

When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.

April 21, 2019: President Trump Calls Ukraine President Zelensky

On April 21, 2019, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected President of Ukraine in a landslide victory. President Zelenskyy was seen as a unifying figure within the country. He was the first candidate to win a majority in every region of the country, breaking the claims that Ukraine would be subject to a perpetual divide between the Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking populations. President Zelenskyy ran on a platform of unity, reform, and anti-corruption, which resonated with the entire country. In support of U.S. policy objectives to support Ukrainian sovereignty, President Trump called President Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019. I was one of several staff and officers who listened to the call. The call was positive, and President Trump expressed his desire to work with President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.

May 21, 2019: Inauguration Delegation Goes to Ukraine

On May 21, 2019, I was directed by Ambassador Bolton and Dr. Hill to join the delegation attending President Zelenkskyy’s inauguration. When the delegation returned, they provided a debriefing to President Trump and explained their positive assessment of President Zelenskyy and his team. I did not participate in the debriefing.

Oleksandr Danylyuk Visit – July 10, 2019

Oleksandr Danylyuk, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton. Ambassadors Volker and Sondland also attended, along with Energy Secretary Rick Perry. The meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two presidents. The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support of their most important international partner. Amb. Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short. Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate. Following the debriefing meeting, I reported my concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel. Dr. Hill also reported the incident to the NSC’s lead counsel.

Election Call – July 25, 2019

On July 21, 2019, President Zelenskyy’s party won Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said. I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for 6 the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.

Conclusion

The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community. Our partnership is rooted in the idea that free citizens should be able to exercise their democratic rights, choose their own destiny, and live in peace. It has been a great honor to serve the American people and a privilege to work in the White House and on the National Security Council. I hope to continue to serve and advance America’s national security interests. Thank you again for your consideration, and now I would be happy to answer your questions.

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

newstechreviews · 5 years ago

Link

Vindman will be the first White House official who listened to the July 25 call to testify when he appears before the three House committees conducting the impeachment inquiry Tuesday.

“I am a patriot,” Vindman’s statement says, “and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country, irrespective of party or politics.”

An attorney for Sondland did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Vindman’s statement were first reported by the New York Times. Read the full remarks here:

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committees concerning the activities relating to Ukraine and my role in the events under investigation.

Background

Introduction

My Service on the National Security Council

I have never had direct contact or communications with the President.

The Geopolitical Importance of Ukraine

Relevent events

April 21, 2019: President Trump Calls Ukraine President Zelensky

May 21, 2019: Inauguration Delegation Goes to Ukraine

Oleksandr Danylyuk Visit – July 10, 2019

Election Call – July 25, 2019

Conclusion

#Blogger

0 notes

benrleeusa · 6 years ago

Text

[Eugene Volokh] "The American Legion Briefing: Four Characters in Search of an Establishment Clause Standard"

An analysis of the amicus briefs in the Establishment Clause / cross monument case, from Eric Rassbach at the Becket Fund.

I've been backlogged on various projects recently, so I haven't blogged as much as I'd have liked about many things, including the Court's latest Establishment Clause case. But I thought that I'd pass along this analysis of the briefs in the case from Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund; unsurprisingly, it track some of the analysis in the Becket Fund's own brief, but I still found to be an interesting, if opinionated, guide.

My own view is that both the Lemon v. Kurtzman test and the endorsement test have ultimately failed to deliver workable legal rules; and I think they have exacerbated religious tensions in American life, even though they have often been advocated as means of supposedly reducing such tensions. I'm also generally inclined towards Becket's history-based approach; though it can yield its own uncertainties, I think it's likely to be better than the current mess. (I have no firm views on the standing argument that Becket makes in Part II of its brief.) In any event, though, here's Eric's analysis; I'd also be glad to post other interesting perspectives from people who have been closely following the case, if anyone wants to pass them along.

The American Legion Briefing: Four Characters in Search of an Establishment Clause Standard [by Eric Rassbach]

The Maryland Peace Cross case, American Legion v. American Humanist Association, will be argued on February 27. The briefs are now in, and the arguments are shaping up much as my colleague Luke Goodrich predicted they would: some people still want the Supreme Court to save the notorious Lemon test from a well-deserved death, some want the Court to punt, some want the Court to adopt a coercion standard, and some want the Court to focus on the historical elements of an establishment of religion. There are thus four main groups of characters searching for an Establishment Clause standard:

The Diehards

First, the plaintiffs American Humanist Association and some of their amici want to save the Lemon test, arguing at times fantastically that Lemon "has brought clarity and consistency to religious-display cases." But there is an air of defeat surrounding this position; it feels like a last stand. Typical in this regard is the amicus brief of Professor Douglas Laycock, which dwells at length (pp. 31-37) on how the Court might uphold the Peace Cross without changing much else in Establishment Clause doctrine. Professors Walter Dellinger and Marty Lederman even filed in support of neither party, saying that this particular Peace Cross ought not be a problem, but other ones they can imagine probably would be. If they think an Establishment Clause case is a loser, it's a loser.

More fundamentally, the Diehards' position is doctrinally adrift. Because Lemon doesn't provide a coherent rule, but the Diehards can't let Lemon go, their briefing often devolves into "here's a bunch of facts about why we should win." These repeat church-state litigants would be better served by renouncing Lemon and starting anew with a more intellectually coherent foundation for their position. In any case, they haven't offered one to the Court here.

The Punters

Another possible outcome for American Legion is a punt. That is, the Court could again avoid dealing with Lemon and apply a totality-of-the-circumstances test. As with previous decisions in this genre (e.g., Van Orden, Buono), such a decision would be valid for one journey only, and would provide no meaningful guidance to the lower courts.

Nevertheless, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission defendants ask the Court to do just that—arguing that "the Court should not revisit [its] precedents here," but should instead uphold the cross "under existing law," which "would provide substantial clarity for lower courts" and would avoid "generat[ing] deep religious divisions."

Whatever the motive behind this position, it is willfully blind to the reality of Establishment Clause litigation nationwide. As multiple Justices and lower court judges have lamented, the Court's precedents already "generate deep religious divisions." And far from providing "clarity," using existing law (read: Lemon) to decide American Legion would keep lower courts and local governments in the state of Establishment Clause purgatory they've been lamenting for decades.

The Abstract Expressionists

By contrast, the American Legion defendant-intervenors offer a rule, but it is still not quite right. They say that history—and specifically Town of Greece's "historical practices and understandings"—ought to be the Court's guiding principle. So far, so good. But then they take a second step, attempting to reduce all of that history to a single principle: no coercion. There are three problems with this approach.

The first is that as a matter of history it simply isn't true. Professor McConnell's scholarship identifies six characteristics of a religious establishment during the founding era, and in their opening brief the American Legion defendants dwelled at length on those characteristics and Professor McConnell's scholarship. But not every one of the six characteristics of historical establishments is in fact rooted in coercion.

For example, a formal government proclamation of an official state church, with nothing more, is not coercive, though it would certainly have been a problem for the founding generation. The American Legion defendants say in their reply brief that such actions, though "arguably non-coercive," should nevertheless be treated as coercive. But relying on "arguably non-coercive" actions to be deemed coercion simply demonstrates the standard's unworkability. Similarly, government funding—particularly from non-tax revenue streams like park fees or rental income—is not always coercive, even though from a historical perspective the source of the funding would be largely irrelevant.

Second, even where coercion could be alleged, a coercion test does not provide a clear rule of decision. For example, all taxes can in some sense be viewed as coercive, but not all tax-supported funding of religious organizations is unconstitutional. Some funding is problematic—like when the government gives aid exclusively to religious groups for religious purposes. But other funding is permissible—like when government broadly funds both religious and nonreligious groups. The "coercion" test can't distinguish among these types of funding.

Third, like abstract art, abstract legal terms like "coercion" can mean different things to different people. That makes them poor rules of judicial decision. Take the idea of government "endorsement"—the Jackson Pollock of legal ideas. Different courts have taken radically different views about whether a particular government practice "endorses" religious belief or practice. To a certain degree, endorsement is in the eye of the beholder, which is why the endorsement test vexes lower courts and local governments alike.

But the American Legion defendants would replace one Rorschach test with another, because "coercion" is almost as abstract an idea as "endorsement." It is not too hard to imagine scenarios where almost any challenged practice—the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God We Trust" on the currency, or Moses in the courtroom frieze—would be seen as coercive by some (very sincere) litigants. Indeed, in this very case the plaintiffs argue that the Peace Cross is coercive. The upshot is that adopting a coercion standard would put the Court back into the "heaven of legal concepts" it is trying to escape.

The Historians

A simpler rule is the one we offered in our amicus brief: a government practice violates the Establishment Clause only if it shares the characteristics of a historical establishment—as determined by objectively known "historical practices and understandings" at the time of the Founding. And as Professor McConnell has demonstrated, history discloses six main characteristics of a historical establishment: (1) government control over doctrine and personnel of the established church; (2) mandatory attendance in the established church; (3) government financial support of the established church; (4) restrictions on worship in dissenting churches; (5) restrictions on political participation by dissenters; and (6) use of the established church to carry out civil functions.

The historical approach gets the balance between church and state correct. It forbids the state from controlling religious doctrine, compelling religious observance, or providing exclusive funding for religious institutions. But it also avoids needlessly hostility toward religion in the public square.

Several of the briefs criticize our proposed approach. The American Legion defendants say their "general coercion standard" is superior to a historical test for three reasons: (1) "because coercion is the common denominator underlying" the six hallmarks of a religious establishment; (2) because a general coercion test "would likely be more manageable to apply, and (3) because a general coercion test "has already been adopted in this Court's cases[.]" None of these distinctions has merit.

First, as noted above, coercion is not a common denominator of the six characteristics of a historical establishment. Coercion offers no basis for distinguishing between permissible and impermissible types of government funding of religion. It also fails to address non-coercive actions like the use of non-tax government revenues or a government proclamation that "Zeus is Lord of America." Since coercion and history are not coextensive, and the coercion principle is based on history, coercion cannot be a common denominator because it is underinclusive.

Similarly, in practice coercion will also be overinclusive, because the abstract nature of the coercion inquiry will mean that many practices—including passive displays like the Peace Cross—will, for some judges in some locations, be considered coercive. In short, the American Legion defendants are incorrect when they state that "either formulation will lead to the same results."

Second, for the reasons stated above, a coercion test will not be more manageable because its abstract nature would divorce the judicial inquiry from concrete historical fact.

Third, a historical approach has been used by the Supreme Court both in deciding cases like Everson and more recently in cases like Town of Greece. The problem is not that the test has never been used—it is that it has been used inconsistently.

There a few other criticisms of the historical approach. At one point, Doug Laycock claims it is an "anything goes" standard. But this is also not true. As we have pointed out, the historical approach aligns with the outcomes in this Court's Establishment Clause cases since 1947.

Similarly, one of the amicus briefs decries the idea that "eighteenth century apples" can be compared to "twenty-first century oranges". But this is a silly attack on the judicial use of history altogether and belies the general trend in Bill of Rights jurisprudence towards a historical approach, not to mention Town of Greece. If one cannot look at eighteenth century apples, then much of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in many other areas of the law must go.

In short, there are good reasons to adopt the historical approach, and no plausible reason not to adopt it.

The End, or A Beginning?

As the briefing shows, there are four main paths the Court can follow with respect to the governing Establishment Clause standard. Those paths lead in very different directions. Lemon is a dead end. Punting would leave the courts stuck in the Lemon dead end. A reductio ad coercion would mean decades of wandering in a different wilderness of abstraction.

Only the historical approach offers a method of deciding Establishment Clause cases that can be built out over the long term. Future cases can investigate how the founders thought about funding, or government proclamations, or displays on coinage, and the like. But for now it is enough to undertake a new beginning for Establishment Clause jurisprudence by grounding it in history.

0 notes

duaneodavila · 7 years ago

Text

What Will Lawyers In Arizona Have To Say About It?

The American Bar Association knew what it wanted to accomplish when it passed model rule 8.4(g), but were the arguments against it exaggerated, hysterical, too extreme? The question is up for debate in Arizona, which is considering amending its rules to include the new model rule.

Eugene Volokh put in his two cents. So did Lambda Legal, which included an example* of the conduct they contend must be subject to discipline.

In 2017, Lambda Legal assisted a transgender woman with addressing discriminatory treatment she experienced when in a Georgia municipal court regarding a traffic ticket. The prosecuting attorney in the case repeatedly referred to her as “he” and “him” when addressing or speaking about her. Prior to the hearing, he took her aside in a small room with four other people who were not identified to her to discuss the case. He then asked her whether she’d “had the full surgery,” an inquiry about genital surgery. This experience was humiliating and dangerous for her.

Violence directed at LGBTQ people has seen an increase in recent years. In 2016, among LGBTQ hate-motivated homicide victims, transgender women of color made up the majority of victims in the U.S. The attorney in this case purposefully disclosed the woman’s transgender status to everyone within earshot and refused to acknowledge a core aspect of her identity. The judge presiding over this case did not take steps to address the misgendering and disrespectful treatment. Lambda Legal brought this matter directly to the attention of the judge, who responded with an acknowledgment of her responsibilities and assurances that any future misgendering or other disrespectful treatment directed to transgender people in her courtroom would be promptly and appropriately addressed.

The degree of awfulness reflected by this conduct will be in inverse proportion to your wokeness, but few people find being prosecuted an unhumiliating and dangerous experience. It’s ironic that a prosecutor couldn’t be punished for playing hide the Brady or put on a lying witness, but could be disbarred for using the wrong pronoun, but two wrongs don’t make a right. The accommodation of calling the defendant “she” is so petty that, even if you believe it silly, the prosecutor wouldn’t sprain anything by doing so.

But the question isn’t about politeness or wokeness, but attorney discipline.

Now if the rule were only aimed at restricting lawyer speech—especially government lawyer speech—in the courtroom, then it would certainly be constitutional as part of the court system’s power to control speech in the courtroom (which is necessarily constrained by all sorts of rules, whether of evidence or of professional responsibility). The same might extend to speech in the pretrial litigation process. (How the legal system should reconcile some people’s desire to be referred to using particular pronouns with some lawyers’ desire not to be compelled to say things that they think are factually false is a complicated question, but I think courts would rightly have considerable discretion in setting the rules there.)

But the rule is deliberately not limited to speech that is part of the legal process; indeed, many states have such rules that ban discrimination and harassment within that process, and the ABA expressly went beyond that. The rule expressly covers speech engaged in while “participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law,” and would thus cover Continuing Legal Education panels, political discussions over dinner at bar functions, and so on.

Don’t Schlossberg me, bro. Judge McConnell told a lawyer in Rhode Island not to use the word “hysterical” because it was sexist. The judge in the Lambda Legal example says she’ll be more woke going forward, presumably to admonish any prosecutor who uses the wrong pronoun. What would happen if he doesn’t is unclear. What could happen if the prosecutor, or any lawyer, responded that he disputes her sensibilities and plans to call any defendant with a penis “he,” and no one, ever, “xi,” is a mystery.

But what will happen when the woke infiltrate the Federalist Society shindig, secret recorder in their lapel, to ferret out the words and phrases that fail to comport with the rule? Can they express disagreement with gender fluidity if they use the plural pronoun for the singular?

Now I think that the ethical question of what pronouns to use for people who don’t fit within the usual clearly-male-“he” / clearly-female-“she” mold is a complicated one. My tentative personal inclination is to go along with people’s preferences as to “he” or “she,” but to balk at “they” and at more innovative pronouns; but I’m not sure about the right answer, and I think it’s worth discussing what it should be. As I said, the preferences of those who are being referred to surely count for something. But so do the preferences of those who are deciding which words to say, especially if they think certain words represent what they view as falsehoods (e.g., using “he” to refer to someone who the speaker thinks is not really male, under the speaker’s understanding of the meaning of “male”).

It’s understandable that Lambda Legal wants to have this tool at its disposal to go after lawyers who utter words that offend their sensibilities. That’s their mission and position, especially after the goal of gay marriage has been achieved. Now they’re into micromanaging word choice, and through it, wrongthink. Of course, it’s entirely possible to be tolerant of LGBTQ+ without adopting the linguistic indulgences as well, but for the “words are violence” crowd, they can’t shake it off.

But I don’t think this is something that the law, or the legally enforceable rules of a profession, should force on people, at least outside the courtroom and related aspects of the legal process. It certainly isn’t something that should be expressly extended to “social” activities, even those “in connection with the practice of law,” or to bar association panels or debates. Yet the logic of Lambda Legal’s comments suggests that, if 8.4 is adopted, that is exactly what could end up happening.

Eugene is fairly sanguine about what can be uttered in a courtroom. Me, less so, having spent hours trying to redact some pretty nasty language out of wiretaps. Even if your sensibilities tell you that what the prosecutor did in the Lambda Legal example is so very wrong that it justifies discipline, and if it had happened at the National Association of District Attorneys soiree, it should as well (because your sensibilities are right and pure and everyone else is wrong), the example just scratches the surface of where this can go.

Once scratched, there may be no limits of language, and the thoughts beneath the words, that can’t be prohibited. Tell that to your client when you’re trying to argue your way out of the taint of a wiretap where Xe says “faggot” and “nigga” a few thousand times. You know what’s more humiliating than a prosecutor using the wrong pronoun? Being sentenced.

*Paragraph break added for readability.

Copyright © 2007-2018 Simple Justice NY, LLC This feed is for personal, non-commercial and Newstex use only. The use of this feed anywhere else violates copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it means the page you are viewing infringes copyright. (Digital Fingerprint: 51981395c77d7762065ca2c084b63e47) What Will Lawyers In Arizona Have To Say About It? republished via Simple Justice

0 notes