RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/07

Can successful and thriving communities and societies be built by letting people keep more of their own money, while granting them the freedoms they need to pursue their own destiny? Radical socialists and cultural marxists would think otherwise- surely a society left to its own devices would only degenerate into a stratified one where wealth is hoarded and culture is tainted by commercial motives rather than one where the pie is grown for everyone, and unique cultural identities are upheld. Yet historical episodes, from Ottoman-era Bulgaria to modern Hong Kong demonstrate otherwise.

Lower taxes offer the opportunity for the accumulation of enormous wealth for individuals, and society at large. Encouraging aspiration comes with the understanding that presumably, the empowered individual is best placed to resolve his or her own issues while spending their own money expediently. Rather than government cronies serving cultural and economic edicts to society and the individuals who comprise it, the intersection of open markets and civil society instead offer a more compelling alternative that doesn’t require centralised power or dipping into people’s pockets.

Hong Kong is a beacon of economic freedom is a region of the world that has long been under threat of Communist totalitarianism. Hong Kong is ranked number one on the Heritage Foundation’s 2019 Economic Freedom Index, a position it has held since the index’s inception in 1995. The city’s rule of law, government size, regulatory efficiency, and open markets, all contribute to this rating.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14516/united-nations-free-speech

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”

Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/can-anyone-beat-boris/

The question looms large over the future of the Tory party, British politics, and Brexit.

‘Can Boris Beat Boris?” the Remainer classes have been wondering since Boris Johnson and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt emerged two weeks ago from the scrum of Tory leadership hopefuls to take their campaigns to the party grassroots, which will finally choose between them. It’s not so much a question as a heartfelt plea from leading figures in the May Cabinet, including Theresa May herself and chancellor Philip Hammond, many Tory placeholders (thirty is the latest figure) lower down, their sympathizers in the media, the establishment, and the metropolitan chattering classes.

With less than two weeks to go before by the 22nd of July, when the votes will be counted, it’s starting to look like Boris may try to beat himself, but he won’t come near to succeeding.

That’s because Boris is the firm — no, undislodgeable — favorite of most Tory activists. And that in turn is not only because they have long liked his deceptively Bertie Wooster-ish public persona, but because he has become a progressively firmer Brexiteer in the three years since he declared for Leave in the 2016 referendum. And, finally, achieving Brexit is what the Tory leadership election is all about.