Hijab Hypocrisy: “Not Just a Piece of Cloth”

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2019/04/hijab-hypocrisy-not-just-piece-of-cloth.html

In the wake of the Christchurch atrocity, New Zealand’s female (and feminist!) prime minister, along with the female mayor of Christchurch, covered their heads with hijabs out of “respect” for their Muslim fellow-citizens, and numerous of their non-Muslim countrywomen followed their example, including a policewoman and several news anchors.

Aussie columnist and Sky News host Rita Panahi, American-born of Iranian parentage, knows a thing or two about the oppression of women that the hijab represents,

Women celebrating World Hijab Day is like a slave celebrating their chains: PanahiSky News host Rita Panahi says World Hijab Day, celebrated on February 1, is a betrayal of the most oppressed women in the world. Ms Panahi says a woman celebrating modesty culture like the hijab, ‘is like a slave celebrating their chains’ and it shows how regressive modern feminism has become. She says celebrating the hijab and burqa ‘is utterly perverse and has no place in a civilised society that values equality’.

Women donning the hijab after Christchurch attack were ‘well-intended, but ignorant’Sky News host Rita Panahi says New Zealand women who donned the hijab following the Christchurch massacre were ‘well-intended, but ill-considered and ignorant’. Fifty people were killed when an Australian-born gunman opened fire at two Christchurch mosques on March 15, prompting a slew of high-profile women to veil themselves in the hijab in solidarity with Muslim victims and their families. Ms Panahi says women in some Muslim nations are being beaten and locked up for fighting against the hijab.

‘Ecocide’ Would Criminalize Resource Development By Wesley J. Smith

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ecocide-would-criminalize-resource-

I have written often here of the threat posed by the “nature rights” movement, designed by radical environmentalists to thwart large scale development and extraction of natural resources by allowing anyone to sue to uphold nature’s “rights” to “exist and persist.” The movement has been gaining ground for the last several years, most recently with voters in Toledo granting “rights” to Lake Erie.

Think of “nature rights” as a metaphorical shield against human thriving from the bounties of the earth. But radical environmentalists also have a spear — the “ecocide” movement. Ecocide activists are striving to enact international laws that would punish those who make large-scale uses of nature as criminals, equivalently odious as perpetrators of genocide and ethnic cleansing. In other words, oil-industry executives and the like could find themselves in the dock at the Hague facing years in prison.

Ecocide, like “nature rights,” was once fringe within environmentalism. But like its “nature rights” cousin, that is no longer true. Over the last several years the movement’s primary spokeswoman, Polly Higgins, traveled the world proselytizing to much fanfare and increasing acceptance. She even presented at the UN.

The Truth about China’s Persecution of Falun Gong By Ethan Gutmann

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-truth-about-chinas-persecution-of-falun-gong/

Over a million Uyghurs were incarcerated over the last year, blood-and-DNA-tested, ready for organ-tissue matching.

There is a certain transgressive thrill in pulling the tail of a sacred cow. In that sense, Ms. Tolentino’s piece “Stepping Into the Uncanny, Unsettling World of Shen Yun” (March 19, 2019) is a compliment, a flare in the New York sky that Falun Gong, as a victim group, has finally achieved sacred-cow status. But even tail-pulling has an unwritten etiquette: If I wanted to write a critique of, say, traditional Jewish Passover food, I would stick to things such as the texture of gefilte fish rather than condemning the Seder or questioning the existence of the Holocaust. And I suspect Ms. Tolentino would agree with me.

Ms. Tolentino was essentially writing a critical dance review of Shen Yun Performing Arts while sprinkling a little snark on — in her view — the cornball conventions of Chinese theater and Falun Gong’s suspicious refusal to adopt Western, politically correct norms. Yet her argument suddenly took a weird detour, delivering a skeptical judgement on the charges of Chinese State organ harvesting of Falun Gong (“many experts dispute this”).

Why did she do this? Two reasons: A moment of transgressive pleasure is followed by guilt, and guilt must be answered by justification — perhaps the victim group is not really a sacred cow after all? Or they have brought their suffering upon themselves? (You know, through hypocrisy or not answering her emails or something). The second reason is that even a cursory glance at the credible claims surrounding Chinese organ harvesting will establish that this is not the Holocaust.

Chairman Nadler’s Cynical Argument By Jim Geraghty

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chairman-jerrold-nadlers-cynical-argument/

Today in the New York Times, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler writes an op-ed demanding the full release of the entire Mueller report by tomorrow. He never quite gets around to mentioning what’s holding up the release of the Mueller report, which is the need to remove information related to grand jury deliberations or other ongoing investigations that have been referred to other offices.

As noted in one of last week’s Morning Jolts, there are good reasons why prosecutors generally don’t release grand jury information. In his letter to Congress, Attorney General William Barr specifically cited Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which provides that government attorneys and the jurors themselves, among others, “must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.” Barr didn’t make this rule up, it’s not obscure or optional, and Nadler knows darn well about its importance. Barr stated in a letter to Nadler and the judiciary committee that the special counsel’s office is assisting in identifying portions that are grand-jury testimony or relate to ongoing investigations or prosecutions.

But because the Democrats prefer a narrative of a sinister cover-up, Nadler just averts his eyes and pretends the rules on grand jury testimony don’t exist.

Replacing Obamacare Is Still a Republican Duty By The Editors

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/obamacare-replacement-republican-party/

President Trump has tasked three Republican senators with coming up with a replacement for Obamacare if courts strike it down. It’s a prudent contingency plan. Republicans should, for that matter, advance their own health-care plan even if the lawsuit fails — as it is highly likely to do, in part because it lacks legal merit.

Republican senators are not notably eager to take up this assignment; their leader Mitch McConnell has suggested that the Senate will wait for the White House and the Democrats to reach a deal before it tackles health care. Republican strategists say the senators are right: Why put forward a plan and open Republicans to attack over it, when the party can concentrate instead on making the case against Democratic proposals to kick Americans off their health insurance and move toward a government monopoly? Why should Republicans reprise the experience of 2017–18, when they bled public support while trying to pass a health-care bill, spent the next election on the defensive on the issue, and then lost dozens of House seats?

A flaw in this cynical calculation is that Republicans cannot prevent Democrats from attacking them over health care by abandoning the issue; if that strategy worked, the 2018 elections would have gone very differently. Most of the Republicans who will be running for office in 2020 have already gone on record wanting to replace Obamacare. The Republican administration is urging its abolition in court. Democrats already have enough warrant to accuse Republicans of seeking to eliminate a health law on which many millions of Americans rely. Republicans can choose whether to respond to that attack by pointing to their own plan, or by letting Democrats devise a caricatured conservative plan to tie to them.

It is true that especially in the event the lawsuit fails, no conservative health-care plan has a chance of passage through a Democratic House. There is not much chance even that a conservative plan can serve as the basis for a bipartisan compromise. Note, however, that it was considerations much like these that kept Republicans from settling on a health-care plan during the Obama administration: They did not want to take responsibility for legislation they had no way to enact. The consequence was that when they had the power to enact legislation, they were unready to do it. They had built no consensus among Republican politicians or voters.

Hamas’ Jihad and Jew-Hatred Are Islam’s Jihad and Jew-Hatred By Andrew G. Bostom

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/hamas-jihad-and-jew-hatred-are-islams-jihad-and-jew-hatred/

Brandishing a handgun, Hamas official Rafiq Abu Hani addressed a crowd of Palestinian Muslims on March 17, 2019, and this exchange with his audience was recorded on Hamas/Gaza Al Aqsa TV:Rafiq Abu Hani:   Our goal is Jihad for the sake of Allah! What is your goal?Crowd: Jihad!Rafiq Abu Hani: What is your goal?Crowd: Jihad!Rafiq Abu Hani: What is your goal?Crowd: Jihad!Rafiq Abu Hani: We all agree that our weapons – in which lie our honor and strength – will be put down only in the Al-Aqsa compound.

Oh you despicable traitors, do you think that we would ever sell out this [gun], which we paid for with the livelihoods of our children? By Allah, we say to Mohammed Deif, to the Al-Qassam Brigades, and to the heroes of the resistance in the West Bank and in Gaza: Take our livelihoods from us and buy more of these [guns]! Take our salaries and buy more of these!The subsequent two weeks have been punctuated by another round of missile attacks on Israeli cities emanating from Gaza, including a long-range firing which struck a house in moshav Mishmeret in the Sharon region. Massive, violent demonstrations at Gaza’s border with Israel have accompanied these missile attacks the latest even “featuring” Hamas “Prime Minister” Ismail Haniyeh, and a cameo appearance by jihad terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar.

Papadopoulos Hints Conversation That Launched Trump-Russia Probe Was FBI Setup These new revelations raise fresh concerns that, with the approval of the FBI, foreign governments were meddling in the 2016 election.Margot Cleveland

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/01/papadopoulos-hints-conversation-launched-trump-russia-probe-fbi-setup/

The recently released transcript of George Papadopoulos’s congressional testimony reveals a significant fact: Papadopoulos’s introduction to Joseph Mifsud—the source of the “Russia has Hillary’s emails” tip that purportedly prompted the FBI to launch an investigation into the Trump campaign—was arranged mere days after Papadopoulos announced he was joining the Trump campaign.

Saturday evening, Papadopoulos rocked Twitter with claims that “a woman in London, who was the FBI’s legal attaché in the U.K.” encouraged him “to meet Joseph Mifsud in Rome in March 2016.” These new revelations raise fresh concerns that, with the approval of the FBI, foreign governments were meddling in the 2016 election.

Yale Law School Yanks Stipends From Students Who Work For Christian Firms Yale has found a roundabout way to blacklist legal and nonprofit organizations that don’t adhere to Yale’s understanding of gender identity.By Aaron Haviland

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/01/yale-law-school-yanks-stipends-students-work-christian-firms/

Several weeks ago, I wrote about the challenges of being a Christian and a conservative at Yale Law School. A few days ago, the law school decided to double down and prove my point.

After the Yale Federalist Society invited an attorney from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a prominent Christian legal group, to speak about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, conservative students faced backlash. Outlaws, the law school’s LGBTQ group, demanded that Yale Law School “clarify” its admissions policies for students who support ADF’s positions. Additionally, Outlaws insisted that students who work for religious or conservative public interest organizations such as ADF during their summers should not receive financial support from the law school.

On March 25, one month after the controversy, Yale Law School announced via email that it was extending its nondiscrimination policy to summer public interest fellowships, postgraduate public interest fellowships, and loan forgiveness for public interest careers. The school will no longer provide financial support for students and graduates who work at organizations that discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.”

Gaza Rebellion as the Arab Spring Shoshana Bryen

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/the_gaza_rebellion_as_the_arab_spring.html

For the past year, Hamas has led Palestinians to demonstrate and riot on Fridays along the Gaza-Israel fence. The civilians, of which there are many, provide cover for rocket and incendiary device-wielding terrorists and those who would cross the fence into Israel. This Saturday, Hamas is calling for increased numbers at the fence building up to a massive demonstration on Friday 15 May.

Look past it.

This is a diversion from the active Palestinian revolt against Hamas. The people are complaining about dire living conditions, the brutal nature of Hamas rule, and the high living of Hamas officials. One brave woman told a journalist, “Hamas officials’ children drive in luxurious cars, but I have four unemployed sons. All of Gaza are unemployed because of [leaders] Haniyeh & Sinwar. These officials care nothing about the poor people’s necessities.”

Some people have cried, “We want to live!” Others said, “I have nothing to live for.”

Several reporters were arrested and brutally beaten (three were hospitalized) for covering the demonstrations, and the Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that masked Hamas police were raiding homes and arresting hundreds of people. There is video of the brutal nature of the Hamas crackdown and the firing of live ammunition.

Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee written by Pamela Paresky

https://quillette.com/2019/04/01/free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee/

Many people who genuinely believe that they support freedom of speech exhibit a double standard: One person’s “hate speech” is another person’s belief, opinion or even (as they see it) fact. And opinions about whether there’s a “free speech crisis” on university campuses tend to vary according to these subjective determinations.

While I’m not a fan of such “crisis” language, there’s definitely a real decline in support for freedom of expression among young people. In a 2016 Knight Foundation survey, 91% of high school respondents said they supported the “freedom to express unpopular opinions.” But when pressed, only 45% said that people should have the right to publicly express ideas that others find “offensive.”

The Knight Foundation’s numbers on college students’ attitudes are similar. In 2016, 78% of college respondents agreed that colleges should expose students to all types of speech and viewpoints. Yet, more than two-thirds said that colleges should be able to enact policies against language that is “intentionally offensive to certain groups,” and more than a quarter said that colleges should even be able to restrict the expression of potentially offensive political views. (More than half reported that the climate on campus “prevents some people from saying what they believe because others might find it offensive.” A year later, that number rose to 61%.)