Category Archives: rights

A Referendum

Posted on by
Reply

Catalonia is trying to have one (had one as you read this) on whether the Autonomous Community should completely separate from Spain.  It’s turning violent as the Spanish military organization with police duties, the Guardia Civil, and the more civilian Policía Nacional, are using hammers and other such tools to break into locked buildings within which voting is occurring and truncheons and rubber bullets to try to block Catalans from entering and voting.

Nearly 850 civilian casualties had been inflicted by late Sunday, Dallas time.

This is counterproductive.  Like the Quebecois separation referenda, Madrid should let the Catalan referendum go forward without interference.  Most Catalans want the referendum, and most would vote to stay in Spain.

That vote would defuse the separation movement for a good long time.

The violent suppression is not going to work in the long run.

As Catalan President Carles Puigdemont is putting it,

The unjustified, unchecked, irresponsible violence by the Spanish state today didn’t just fail to stop Catalans’ will to peacefully and democratically vote….” It also made clear “what is at stake for us.”

It’s true enough that Puigdemont is playing politics with his characterization, but the characterization itself and its outcome isn’t far wrong.  Marc Quintana, a 34-year-old carpenter who was forcibly removed by police in Sant Julià before he could vote:

The only thing this will do is make those undecided people vote “yes” to independence[.]

It’s also true that the referendum is illegal under Spanish law.  However, if Madrid really thought it needed to arrest the referendum leaders, they could do that a lot more easily after a failed referendum.

On Catalonia’s Drive for Independence

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal argued against it Wednesday.  I disagree ( a surprise, I know).

Nor is such a referendum permitted by international law….

This is a domestic Spanish affair; dragging international law into the matter is just cynical.

…they [Catalonians] fail to acknowledge the price all Spain pays for the national defense and diplomacy that keep Catalonia secure.

This is a cost that Spain no longer would have to bear if Catalonia succeeds in secession. As the Spanish, Catalonians, and Tunku Varadarajan, who wrote the piece at the link, well know.

The separatists also do not mention that they would have to assume around 20% of Spain’s national debt were they ever to secede, and surmount a Spanish veto to be readmitted to the EU.

The one isn’t demonstrated; it’s only a claim by Spain. The other assumes they would want to join the EU; this is not a foregone conclusion, either.

Those who oppose Catalan independence are not going to show up to vote on Sunday.

That would be their choice in a democracy.

The only real argument against the referendum is its illegality under the Spanish constitution and a top Spanish court’s ruling. But, then, so was our own gunpoint revolution against the Crown illegal at the time.

Good for Her

Posted on by
Reply

Danish Immigration, Integration and Housing Minister Inger Stojberg has posted on her Facebook page a repeat of an image widely posted several years ago by the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten.  What occasioned her post is the timidity of the Skovgaard Museum in Viborg, Denmark.

The museum is running an exhibition about blasphemy since the Reformation, but it has chosen to omit a classic example of blasphemy: images of Islam’s prophet Muhammed.  As Stojberg noted, it’s the museum’s right to do this under Danish free speech law, but it’s excessively timid of the museum, and it’s the right of other Dames—including Stojberg—to decry the museum for its decision.

The image is this; the icons are present because this rendition is the wallpaper of her iPad.

The image also can be seen on her Facebook page here.

Due Process and Colleges/Universities

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Department of Education’s 2011 egregious and cynically biased Dear Colleague Letter and its attack on due process and equal protection under law.  Things are being restored to legitimacy under the  Betsy DeVos DoEd via interim guidance just issued.

Colleges can now apply a higher standard of proof when determining guilt in sexual misconduct cases and must offer equal opportunity for the accused and accuser to have legal advisers participate in their hearings, according to interim recommendations issued by the US Department of Education on Friday.

Because

The Education Department on Friday formally rescinded guidelines issued by the Obama administration in 2011 and 2014….

There is one item to be cleared up; hopefully it will be when formal, final guidance is issued by DoEd.

Schools now have the discretion to apply either the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, or the higher “clear and convincing evidence” standard….

The criminal standard, preponderance of the evidence, must be the only standard allowed.  And the accusation must be investigated by the police, not by ad hoc amateurish kangaroo courts and pseudo-investigators of school faculty or staff.  A victim of sexual misconduct is not helped in the slightest by a jumped up school tribunal bent on social justice rather than justice.

Discrimination

Posted on by
Reply

Now FEMA is doing it, and it’s religious discrimination.  Churches, bastions of succor in times of disaster—like Hurricanes Harvey and Irma—suffer their own damages in those disasters, as they did in Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.  However, unlike other charitable organizations in similar straits, churches are being denied FEMA assistance to recover.

Law on this is not clear because separation of church and state, New York University Law Professor Burt Neuborne is claiming.

The difficulty is that the Constitution has two provisions in it. It has a freedom of religion, but it also has kind of a freedom from religion which prevents government money from being used for religious purposes, worship purposes.

No, it doesn’t.  This is, at best, mistaken.  The two relevant 1st Amendment clauses are the Free Exercise Clause—Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]—and the Establishment Clause—Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  There’s nothing in there about freedom from religion; that’s just the distortionate drivel used by crowds like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the like.

The Federal government cannot favor one religion over another or favor religion over atheism; there’s nothing in there that prohibits the Feds from providing disaster recovery help to religious organizations along with the same sort of help for secular non-profit organizations.  In fact, refusing to do so violates the Establishment Clause by actively disfavoring religion rather than acting neutrally toward it—as the Clause requires.

Neuborne wasn’t finished.

The question is: can they get the money and rebuild their worship facilities? Because then the money would be going towards worship, not to help people from not getting skinned knees on the playground, or being able to get food at the food bank.

This is just disingenuous.  No, the money would not be going toward worship, it would be going toward restoring a building.  A building that comes in critically handy for sheltering those displaced by disasters, natural or otherwise.  Regardless of the religions (or lack) of the sheltered or the shelter.

The attacks on religion from continues.