Category Archives: morality

“Sanctions”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what US, Canada, Britain, and European Union politicians are claiming they’ll impose on the People’s Republic of China in response to PRC genocide efforts against the Uyghurs in the PRC’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.

The sanctions are expected to vary in type, and will include Global Magnitsky economic sanctions on individuals alleged to be involved with the mistreatment of the Muslims in the Xinjiang region of China.

Among those sanctions are these which the US, Canada, the UK, and the EU already imposed last Monday to four (count ’em) PRC officials:

  • Zhu Hailun, former deputy Communist Party head in Xinjiang
  • Wang Junzheng, party secretary of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps
  • Wang Mingshan, member of the Xinjiang’s Communist Party standing committee
  • Chen Mingguo, director of the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau (PSB)
  • Xinjiang Public Security Bureau itself

Politico noted, interestingly, that the EU explicitly omitted to sanction the top Communist Party boss in Xinjiang, Chen Quanguo.

That’ll show them. We’re wagging our fingers very firmly at the PRC, and shortly we’ll be wagging our fingers even more vigorously.

Right.

What’s truly needful here is—at the minimum—a ban on import or even purchase of goods manufactured, including constituent parts, or assembled in Xinjiang or any business anywhere in the PRC with any sort of tie back to Xinjiang, and a parallel ban on doing any sort of business with a Xinjiang-associated enterprise.

Better would be to expand that list to include an ever broadening set of imports from or exports to the PRC until that nation provides publicly available and publicly verifiable proof that the PRC has put an end to its assault on the Uyghurs.

Fat chance, though, as the politicians of the four nations have shown themselves too timid to do more

There are Boycotts

Posted on by
Reply

…and there are boycotts.

There are calls to boycott the upcoming Olympics scheduled for the People’s Republic of China or to move those Olympics to another, more honest venue, over the PRC’s various land and sea seizures and especially over the PRC’s genocide in progress in its Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

Sadly, there’s no stomach in the IOC, anyone associated with it, or the nations with competing athletes actually to make such a move.

Now Japan is instituting a boycott against its own Olympics scheduled for later this year.

Spectators from overseas will be barred from attending the Summer Olympics in Tokyo, organizers of the event said, a move to reduce the possibility of spreading of the coronavirus at the Games and boost tepid support for the event among Japanese.

Despite the foolishness or paranoia of the Japanese rationale, there’s no stomach in the IOC, anyone associated with it, or the nations with competing athletes for pushing back on such a move.

To which I say, a pox on the IOC and the Olympic games themselves. And shame on the those associated with the IOC or the Olympics generally, and on the nations.

“Pope Struggles to Contain Conservative-Liberal Tensions in Catholic Church”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline on a Wall Street Journal article about the purported struggles of Pope Francis to manage the church of which he’s the nominal [sic] head.

For me, though, as a personally religious man who’s neither a Catholic nor enamored of institutional religion in general, I’m confused by this struggle.

How can there be any struggle? Why are the tensions accepted as something to be taken seriously?

The Church’s tenets are inviolate; morals are universal and inviolate.

All that might vary over time or across cultures is the way in which those tenets, morals generally, are upheld, defended, and enforced.

The Pope needs to consider putting his foot down and enforcing—in no uncertain terms—the Church’s fundamental tenets.

That might cause a schism? Possibly. Likely, even. But there’s a major so what here. Sure, the schism itself would be painful and badly inconvenient. However, the Church has grown stronger after every schism. Christianity has grown stronger since the Catholicism-Protestantism schism.

At worst, after any schism from Francis’ putting his foot down, the Church would be rid of those who can’t support Catholic tenets and would have a clearer path forward. And those who can’t support those fundamental Catholic holdings would be free to create and support their own church with their own clearer path.

Sort of like the Church of England, for all the shabby reason for its origin.

An Interesting Court Fight

Posted on by
Reply

…may be in the offing.

Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) signed into law a bill that bans all abortions save when the mother’s life is at risk. Even pregnancies resulting from rape or incest are banned from abortion.

The governor also acknowledged the ban is in contradiction of binding precedents of the US Supreme Court, but it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law.”

Indeed. Especially since the primary precedent is Roe v Wade, which is, at bottom, a technologically oriented precedent. The Court ruled that States could govern the availability of abortions after the third trimester began—because that was the point at which the fetus became viable outside the womb under the then-extant medical technology.

Today’s medical technology has advanced by orders of magnitude; accordingly, at worst, the Arkansas law provides the Supreme Court the opportunity to adjust its precedent in accordance with modern medical capability, if not to rescind Roe altogether.

Additionally, the ACLU is being its usual cynical self.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas attacked the bill calling it “cruel and unusual[.]”

No, what’s cruel, but sadly entirely too usual, is murdering babies before they’re born.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

A collection of Letters in Monday’s Wall Street Journal centered on the Kancel Kulture’s penchant for censorship.

A couple of points regarding that penchant. One letter writer asks,

Why do the canceling elite feel they must protect us from anything that might possibly be upsetting?

The answer is because they assume, since they are so terrified of anything remotely or just potentially a little bit upsetting, and they need desperately to be protected from such, that everyone else must be terrified and so need protection, also.

Another letter writer notes, with reference to censoring Seuss, that

To learn to read is to learn to expand one’s mind and enable critical thinking.

As part of that, those depictions of an earlier age also could be used to illustrate how far we’ve come as a nation. The elitists, the Progressive-Democrats, and the Left generally, however, can’t stand for us to see that progress. It would undermine their narrative.