The first installment of this drama appeared here three years ago. It raised a lot of eyebrows, but I never heard that anything much had come of it. That’s distressing, as the subjects over which I brushed were significant and threatening. Still, I’m a minor voice in the Internet Commentariat, which makes the likelihood of anything I write fomenting perceptible action rather low.
Today I have a few more “thinks” for you. We’ll see how this helping tastes.
1. So You Think They’re Not Really Trying To Silence Us?
Police in Brussels have stormed a right-wing conference attended by Nigel Farage and Suella Braverman after orders for the event to be shut down.
Local authorities ordered the controversial National Conservatism (NatCon) Conference to be closed to “guarantee public safety”.
Ms Braverman, the former home secretary, and Mr Farage, the former Ukip leader, were among the political names advertised to speak at the event on Tuesday alongside right-wing Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orban.
Officers arrived after the event began at Claridge’s, a venue in central Brussels, to tell organisers it would be shut down. According to a report on social media, police arrived while Mr Farage was addressing the event, giving attendees 15 minutes to leave the venue. However, officers did not appear to force the event to shut down and speeches continued.
Police have now said they will not let anyone else into the venue and people can leave and not re-enter.
The conference has already had to move location twice after mayors within the Brussels region refused the meeting’s chosen venues.
“Controversial!” Closed to “guarantee public safety!” My word. What were those conservative speakers expected to say? Apparently, that they’re conservatives was enough for the mayor of Brussels:
Emir Kir, mayor of the area where the conference was held, said: “I issued an order from the mayor to ban the National Conservatism Conference event to guarantee public safety.
“In Etterbeek, Brussels City and Saint-Josse, the far right is not welcome.”
‘Nuff said.
2. So You Think You Can Criticize Blacks?
Apparently not, if you work for the ACLU:
Kate Oh, a former lawyer at the ACLU, finds herself at the center of a contentious legal battle after being terminated for allegedly using racially coded language in complaints against her Black supervisors. The ACLU argues that Oh’s expressions, such as stating she was “afraid” to speak with a Black superior and calling another meeting “chastising,” contributed to a pattern of “willful anti-Black animus.” These claims have raised substantial questions about the boundaries of acceptable speech in the workplace, especially within an organization renowned for defending free speech.
The complexity of the case is underscored by the ACLU’s own defense strategies, which hinge on a broad interpretation of what constitutes racially harmful speech. This stance seems at odds with the ACLU’s historical advocacy for expansive free speech rights, sparking criticisms of hypocrisy and overreach. Sean Vitka, a policy director, described the situation as “absolutely bonkers,” highlighting the paradox of an employee being fired under accusations that calling out perceived abuse is itself abusive and racist.
Time was, the ACLU could be depended on to defend freedom of speech regardless of its content. The Skokie incident appears to have shorn it of the required courage…and a lot of donors, which probably outweighs any other considerations in our time. Still, I must speculate: had Miss Oh produced recordings of the incidents that evoked her criticism of those black supervisors, would matters have gone at all differently? What do you think, Gentle Reader?
3. So You Think Whistleblowers Can Safely Blow The Whistle?
Maybe not, if the whistle hurts the ears of higher-ups at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting:
Longtime NPR editor Uri Berliner, who was suspended after blowing the whistle on liberal bias at the organization, announced Wednesday he has resigned.
“I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years. I don’t support calls to defund NPR. I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism. But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cited in my Free Press essay,” Berliner wrote in a statement published on X.
Berliner was referring to Katherine Maher, who took over last month as President and CEO and has gone viral for past social media posts showing far-left personal views.
For completeness, here’s the whistle that got Berliner suspended:
Veteran NPR editor Uri Berliner detailed his employer’s “absence of viewpoint diversity” last week in a stunning rebuke of the news organization, and a former high-level NPR executive feels a “real problem” was identified in the scathing piece.
“I’m not surprised because he’s a very thoughtful and forthright guy,” a former high-level NPR executive who worked with Berliner told Fox News Digital on the condition of anonymity.
Berliner penned a bombshell piece in the Free Press that criticized NPR’s coverage of Russiagate, the COVID lab leak theory, Hunter Biden’s scandalous laptop, embrace of the theory of systemic racism and accused the organization of downplaying antisemitism following Oct. 7.
He also wrote that registration records in 2021 showed an astonishing disparity between Democrats and Republicans in the NPR newsroom and said staffers didn’t want to help former President Trump, among other things, to indicate an “open-minded spirit no longer exists” at NPR.
The media are remarkably unified around left-wing views. Unless Berliner can get a job in conservative talk radio, he’s likely to have to leave the field.
4. So You Think Protestors Are Trying To Change Minds?
Well, they don’t think so:
Regarding the obstruction by activists of the Golden Gate Bridge, a not unfair observation:
My toddler’s new thing when I tell him to stop doing something is to respond, “I’m just <literally the thing I’m telling him to stop doing>, so I’ll be like, “get down off that chair” and he’ll say, “I just wanted to be on the chair.” These people are literally toddlers. https://t.co/JrJMgoQ1ZI
— wanye (@wanyeburkett) April 15, 2024
Reminder: these people arrive at thought-terminating cliches because their views are extraordinarily stupid and cannot be defended on their own terms. “I should get to shut down the economy any time I’m mad enough about something” sounds so retarded that they have no choice but…
— wanye (@wanyeburkett) April 15, 2024
David Thompson continues:
A protest, then, is not meant to persuade the general public, or to get them on-side, or to make others sympathetic with whatever this week’s cause may be. But simply to be disruptive. To gratuitously frustrate, and aggravate, large numbers of law-abiding people. To exert power. By doing random harm. That’s “the whole point.” A vision doubtless attractive to those with antisocial inclinations.
And those inclinations aren’t being indulged and given rein reluctantly or under duress. The screwing-over of others is sought out and chosen, over and over again. This is recreational sociopathy.
Please read David’s whole piece. I love his phrase “recreational sociopathy.” Applause to longtime reader Daniel Day, who directed my attention to this piece.
Disrupting the lives of others for no reason other than to demonstrate that you can is sadism. Must we permit sadists to determine when we can go about our ordinary business? From what principle of natural or statute law is such a right derived? Is there any alternative to water cannons – and if they don’t work, rubber bullets?
That’s all for the nonce, Gentle Reader. I have a long agenda for today. God willing, if I can persuade myself to get out of this BLEEP!ing chair, I might even get some of it done. Have a nice day.
2 comments
Before we go to bullets made of lead we could insert a small force of assault skunks into their ‘protest’.
Author
Whoa! “Assault skunks.” I like it!