Displaying the most recent of 90425 posts written by

Ruth King

Austria: Top Court Overturns Headscarf Ban by Soeren Kern

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16873/austria-court-headscarf-ban

The case highlights the constitutional restraints that European governments face in regulating political Islam and promoting integration.

“A regulation that only affects a certain group of female students and that remains selective in order to ensure religious and ideological neutrality as well as gender equality misses its regulatory goal and is irrelevant. §43a SchUG therefore violates the principle of equality in connection with the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” — Austria’s Constitutional Court, December 11, 2020.

“The prohibition of the wearing of Islamic headscarves in elementary schools was never intended to be a restriction of religious freedom, but rather as a protective mechanism against sexualization and Islamic oppression of underage children…. Unfortunately, this judgment is a step backwards in terms of civilization.” — Leader of the Freedom Party in Upper Austria, Manfred Haimbuchner.

The Austrian Constitutional Court has ruled that Austria’s ban on the wearing of headscarves in public schools violates the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression and therefore is unconstitutional.

The case highlights the constitutional restraints that European governments face in regulating political Islam and promoting integration.

The headscarf ban, introduced in June 2019 by a governing coalition comprised of the center-right People’s Party (ÖVP) and the populist Freedom Party (FPÖ), was an extension of a groundbreaking October 2017 “Integration Law” that sought to improve the integration of Muslims into Austrian society.

The 2017 law banned face coverings — including burkas, niqabs or masks — in public spaces. The 2019 law extended that ban to preclude children under the age of ten from wearing headscarves in primary schools.

The 2019 law, which did not explicitly refer to Muslims or Islam, banned “any clothing that is ideological or religious and that involves covering the head.” The law defined head coverings as “any type of clothing that covers the entire head hair or large parts of it.” The text explained that the law was necessary to promote “the social integration of children according to local customs and traditions, the preservation of the basic constitutional values ​​and educational goals of the Federal Constitution, as well as the equality of men and women.”

Deep State Strike Force The obscure Senior Executive Service deploys in force against the people. Lloyd Billingsley

/https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/deep-state-strike-force-lloyd-billingsley/

The DOJ (Sessions, Rosenstein), FBI (Comey, Strzok), and CIA (Brennan) were all key players in the attempted coup against President Trump. As that unfolded, and long before, a more powerful agency was playing a bigger role, largely out of sight from the media and public.

The Senior Executive Service (SES) was established to “ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.” SES leaders “serve in the key positions just below the top Presidential appointees” as “the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal workforce. They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies,” including the State Department, the Army, Navy, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.

The SES launched during the Carter administration as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and a response to the “moral and management failures of Watergate and Great Society program implementation.” The response was to create another bureaucracy more powerful than the others, “a cadre of high-level managers in the government.”  In 1981, Karlyn Barker of the Washington Post reported that the SES wasn’t working as intended, and that raised an issue.

Back in 1978, Rep. Herb Harris, Virginia Democrat, warned that the SES “will open the door to politicization.” The government provides evidence that the SES was political from the start.

Suppressing Free Speech in the Name of Inclusion and Racial Equity at Princeton At Princeton, academic freedom is considered just another tool of white supremacy. Richard L. Cravatts

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/suppressing-free-speech-name-inclusion-and-racial-richard-l-cravatts/

The ubiquity of race obsession on campuses in the age of Black Lives Matter and George Floyd showed itself at Princeton University, too, so much so that in September its President, Christopher L. Eisgruber, published a self-flagellating open letter in which he bemoaned the fact that “[r]acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton” and that “racist assumptions” are “embedded in structures of the University itself.” At least one federal agency took Eisgruber at his word and Princeton subsequently received a letter from the Department of Education (DOE) questioning if the university was, in light of this self-professed racism, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Based on its admitted racism,” the letter read, the DOE “is concerned Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances . . . may have been false,” that “Princeton perhaps knew, or should have known, these assurances were false at the time they were made,” and “Princeton’s many nondiscrimination and equal opportunity claims to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates may have been false, misleading, and actionable substantial misrepresentations . . . .” 

That investigation by the DOE may be of concern for Princeton officials, but the frenzy over racism from inside the campus community is proving to be a thornier problem as the campus has reacted vocally to some recent instances of alleged racism by faculty and students—even questioning whether academic freedom should be restricted to make sure no one’s feelings are hurt by racist expression.

‘Dr. Jill’ and the Dangers of Scientism Jill Biden thinks an ed-school advanced degree makes her more important. Does it? Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/dr-jill-and-dangers-scientism-bruce-thornton/

Essayist Joseph Epstein stirred up the “woke” commissars with an essay jovially advising Jill Biden from insisting on being called “Dr” because she has a doctorate in education. As Epstein pointed out, usually the demand to be called “Doctor” when one is not an M.D. suggests insecurity or unseemly vanity. After all, according to her husband, she sought out the degree because she was “so sick of the mail coming to Sen. and Mrs. Biden.” No matter. To Epstein’s critics, the “entitled” old white guy was “sexist” and “misogynist,” demeaning Mrs. Biden’s accomplishments in order to keep her in her “handmaiden” place.

Such “woke” dudgeon is so common that it is a dog-bites-man story, reported on only to provide progressives with opportunities for virtue-signaling, attacking their enemies, and feeling superior to the unenlightened. What’s more serious about this spat is the foundational flaw that runs through it–– our failure to separate real science from activities that reflect scientism: Dressing up ideological beliefs or even fads in the quantitative data and forbidding jargon of real sciences like physics or engineering.

Of course, the criticisms were all preposterous: slighting the EdD is an equal opportunity custom long embedded in Academe, where the “narcissism of small differences” is epidemic, especially for the American professoriate, which doesn’t enjoy the wider social esteem that European academics enjoy. Also, doctorates in education exist mainly as a way to boost a school-teacher’s salary, or qualify him to serve as an administrator. For snooty professors in traditional disciplines, the stink of the marketplace clings to the EdD.

But the deeper question is, why does a discipline like education even exist? Does anybody really believe that there are scientific truths from which this discipline derives? The reliance of educational theory on psychology and sociology should set off warning bells. While empirical information shows up in these fields, they are not “scientific,” but comprise philosophical theories dressed up in the numerical data and polysyllabic jargon that characterize real science. Disciplines whose topic is human behavior, interactions, motivations, or consciousness are particularly dubious, because few of these aspects of our humanity can be understood with the rigor and predictability of hard science.

Will Republicans Kill Democracy? By Daniel Gelernter

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/20/will-republicans-kill-democracy/

Whether it takes a year or 10 years or 100 years for the wheel of history to turn, the Republicans who chose “stability” over democracy will not be remembered kindly, if they are remembered at all.

Republicans are in the process of betraying the United States. Republicans who urge their colleagues not to object when counting the electoral votes, who parrot Joe Biden’s calls for unity, who urge the nation to accept and to move on: these Republicans have decided that nothing is worse than a constitutional crisis. Nothing is worse than turmoil—not even the end of freedom. They are choosing to support an unelected government rather than risk the chaos of leftists rioting in the streets. 

Perhaps, above all, they are choosing a world in which they can continue to rub shoulders at fancy social events in Washington, D.C.. Whether or not the people actually voted to send them there is unimportant. What is important is that they are important. 

The status quo, the thing which President Trump has threatened more than any politician in living memory, is the breath of life even to those politicians who would, all things being equal, prefer free elections and limited government. But all things are not equal. Most politicians, ironically, would choose prominence in a corrupt system over anonymity anywhere else.

Churchill recounted his exchanges with Admiral François Darlan, who was chief of the French Navy at the outbreak of World War II, and who wanted above all to rise to the top political post, Minister of Marine. Darlan repeatedly assured Churchill that, come what may, the French Fleet would never fall into German hands. As France was collapsing under the Nazi invasion in June 1940, Darlan was prepared to order his ships to sail to American and British ports. But, in the last gasp of the Third Republic, Darlan finally achieved his much hoped-for political elevation. He never gave the order to sail, and, when General Georges asked him why, he replied “I am now Minister of Marine.” He wished to remain Minister of Marine in a new government, even under German control. He got his wish.

COVID, Woke Science—and Death Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/20/covid-woke-science-and-death/

In this brave new world of ours, will we be pruning back the elderly altogether by credentialed “ethicists,” whether because of their longevity or race?

Since March, the Left has proclaimed itself the guardian of science in dealing with the COVID-19 epidemic. Its champions are the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Dr. Fauci. All in the past have rendered valuable service to the public, and often life-saving aid.

Yet the mixture of COVID-19, the first national quarantine, and Trump Derangement Syndrome have combined to give us reason to question their judgment. These authorities variously have issued conflicting recommendations to wear, then not to wear, and finally to wear masks. Or they have both criticized and then advised travel bans. 

They variously have expressed skepticism about lockdowns, then strongly urged lockdowns, and then again questioned lockdowns. When states and nations that are tightly locked down sometimes suffer commensurate rates of infection with those that are relatively open, we do not always receive scientifically based explanations. 

More ominously, we still have no idea whether far more have died due to the lockdowns than to the virus itself—given the quarantines have caused greater familial, spousal, and substance abuse, suicides, impoverishment, missed surgeries and medical procedures, educational deprivation, and long-term psychological damage. Amid this void of knowledge, state and local officials have often claimed expertise and implemented Draconian measures that may well have made things far worse.

The reasons for our experts’ ambiguity? 

The American Left Has Now Fully Embraced Racism By David Marcus

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/19/the-american-left-has-now-fully-embraced-racism/

For decades, the American left has helped spread various insidious forms of Marxism. Now, it’s openly embracing abject racism.

A Rubicon has been crossed in American political discourse. Long purveyors of Marxism, the nation’s leftists have now come to fully embrace something else; racism. Just in the last week in the areas of medicine, education, and journalism, well-intentioned institutional racists have insisted — as is increasingly their habit — that skin color is and must be the defining element of our public policies.

There is no issue more important to the future and soul of our nation right now than the leftist bigotry threatening the very concept of what it means to be an American.

On the medical side, Dr. Harald Schmidt, a supposed expert on ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times that essential workers, not the elderly, should be the first to receive COVID-19 vaccines. His reason? “Older populations are whiter,” he told the publication. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

To be clear, the term “level the playing field” here means allowing people to die because of the color of their skin.

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’ Remember when dissent was patriotic? David Catron

https://spectator.org/election-resistance-sedition/

It was inevitable that the Democrats would overreact to legal challenges by President Trump and other Republicans to corrupt election practices in swing states, but some responses have been unhinged even by their standards. One recurring refrain is particularly disturbing — that lawyers, members of Congress, and state attorneys general who supported post-election litigation are guilty of sedition. At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”

This dangerous view of dissent has a long, sordid history among progressives. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, for example, was the driving force behind the notorious Sedition Act of 1918, passed by his fellow Democrats at a time when they controlled both houses of Congress. This anti-democratic outrage made it a felony crime to criticize the government and, by extension, Wilson himself. A violation of the Sedition Act was punishable by a fine of as much as $10,000 and imprisonment for as long as 20 years. More than 2,000 American citizens were arrested and prosecuted pursuant to the Sedition Act. This crime against democracy was at length repealed by the Republicans after the GOP won majorities in both houses of Congress in the 1918 midterm elections.

A Betrayal of American Freedom It is a mournful, and usually sanguinary, alternative that awaits those who barter freedom for the simulacrum of normality. By Roger Kimball

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/19/a-betrayal-of-american-freedom/

At the moment, the world seems to be divided into two camps. 

One camp belongs to those who believe that Joe Biden, notwithstanding some possible election “irregularities,” won the 2020 presidential election fair and square. A corollary of this belief is the conviction that Donald Trump, by refusing to concede and go graciously into the good night of political defeat, is behaving badly (one venue even describes his behavior as a “disgrace”).

The second camp, which is where I reside, holds that the 2020 election was inherently fraudulent, that the fraud was perpetrated in ways large and small over many months, and that it appears to have cost Donald Trump the election. I say “appears” because the reality, I believe, is that Donald Trump won by a significant margin but that voter fraud obscures that reality. 

The first camp seems to be the larger of the two and its membership is growing quickly as more and more erstwhile supporters of the president fold their tents and make their peace with “President-elect Biden.” Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, was a recent high-profile defector from President Trump’s side.

Or maybe he is only a realist who sees the writing on the wall, not to mention the headlines in the papers and on CNN. 

Over the last few weeks, I have written about the election so many times that my fingers feel hoarse. 

I don’t know that those promising a sudden, awe-inspiring revelation are right. The much anticipated “Krakens” so far have looked more like crayfish than mighty monsters. But that does not gainsay the massive statistical anomalies that attended the voting in key battleground states. Nor does it put to bed other concerns: eye-popping voter turnout in just a few critical cities, worrisome irregularities with the tsunami of absentee ballots—nearly 60 percent of the vote, apparently—and hundreds of sworn affidavits attesting to mishandling of ballots, obstruction of GOP observers, and various forms of outright voter fraud. There are also the charges of the vote being manipulated by Dominion voting machines. I have read many stories about that, some affirming it, some rejecting it. To me, it smells fishy, but I have no privileged knowledge one way or the other. 

President Trump has not fared well with his legal battles, but that has not dimmed his determination to fight on, much to the dismay, indeed, the fury, of his critics in both parties (actually, I think it is basically one big party, but that is an issue for another day). 

Congratulations, National Review! You Got Your Wish! It was all worth it, these principled conservatives will tell you, because conservatism had to be destroyed in order to save it from Trump. By George S. Bardmesser

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/19/congratulations-national-review-you-got-your-wish/

“The incoming “president” is a caricature, his running mate has a voting record to the left of Bernie Sanders, his staff is determined to turn America into a Venezuela-of-the-North, but, you know, character. It was all worth it, these principled conservatives will tell you, because conservatism had to be destroyed in order to save it from Trump.”

The biological entity known as Joseph R. Biden will be inaugurated on January 20. Success has a thousand fathers—and one of them is a conservative publication where many principled conservatives spend their days tearing down the most conservative president in generations.

I therefore would like to congratulate National Review and its principled conservers of conservatism on a job well done. At long last, your efforts to undermine Donald Trump and make yourselves irrelevant have borne fruit. For National Review this has always been less about policy and more about “personal and moral character.” With Joe Biden, National Review can finally have a man of real character in the Oval Office. Mission accomplished, guys.

In the run-up to November 3, the leading lights who conserve conservatism at that magazine thundered against Trump. The theme was always the same: character. Trump’s—unlike his opponent’s—was so lacking, so threadbare, so inadequate to the task, that nothing Trump ever did or would do could make up for the deficit.

Take Kevin Williamson. Williamson, who was booted from the Atlantic a few years ago because his pro-life views were said to be incompatible with “journalism,” reserves special contempt for President Trump. In case anyone doubted where Williamson stands, he wrote a piece shortly before the election, dripping with sarcasm and denigrating Trump’s accomplishments. That Trump was able to achieve anything at all in the face of four years of non-stop sabotage of his presidency is itself remarkable—but Trump’s lack of character trumped all.

So I want to congratulate Kevin Williamson on the election of Joe Biden. There are many reasons for the hardcore Left and the harder-core Left to celebrate, but for those National Review conservatives conserving conservatism, certainly character is first and foremost. Take abortion—Biden has been lying about his “opposition” to abortion for decades. For that matter, he’s been lying about his religion for decades—he is no more a Catholic than I am a Rastafarian.